Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2026

John Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 General Committees

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. At first blush, the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase in Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 is, as outlined by the Secretary of State—we are honoured to have him with us, and it is the second time I have seen him today, which is twice more than the First Minister has seen him since the First Minister was reappointed, which of course is the First Minister’s loss—a relatively modest uplift to the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers to reflect inflation. As respecters of the devolution settlement, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not object to the order.

Context, however, matters. It cannot be outwith the scope today to reflect that this change gives considerably more fiscal latitude to the governing party in Scotland, the Scottish National party, whose own finances and procedures are under intense scrutiny. Serious questions about its stewardship of public money and its tax compliance dangle unanswered.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

I find it hard to believe that the Conservative party is trying to conflate the uplift for the Scottish Government with internal party finances. The hon. Member is either trying to make a cheap political gag, or he is seriously conflating the borrowing powers of the Scottish Parliament with party finances. Is he accusing the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government of the danger of misappropriation of funds? He should be clear, because at the moment he is in danger of falling between two stools—making a silly political partisan gag and a rather serious accusation.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that we are just debating the increase in the borrowing limit.

[John Cooper]

Absolutely. I would like to clarify my point: it is not unreasonable in the context to look at this issue in the round. This is public money. The SNP wants to pretend that this is an internal matter for themselves, but question marks still hang over us about whether or not public money has been involved in what happened in Scotland. Also, there is the question of compliance with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

[Brendan O’Hara]

If the hon. Gentleman insists on going down this road, which I strongly advise him not to, I assume that his party will be supporting the amendment in the Scottish Parliament for an independent review into party political finances conducted by a parliamentary Committee, to look into every political party.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not quite within the scope of the legislation.

[John Cooper]

Thank you, Chair.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister is raising some interesting points, though I think they probably are slightly out of scope of what we are debating. I want to ask him about the use of the GDP deflator—when I saw that, I thought it was referring to previous Conservative Chancellors, but of course, it is actually about the way that the framework is set. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended moving to a new system to use the highest levels available to increase borrowing for the Scottish Parliament. Is that something that he would encourage, or would he be concerned about such a recommendation?

[John Cooper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a very important question. The GDP deflator is incredibly complex, as are all these matters. We talk about cross-Government working here, and I think there is a genuine attempt by this Government, as there was by the previous Government, to maximise the money available. The system is complex in how to measure inflation—there are many choices to be made. We are here with the GDP deflator, and that is as simple as that. We are not going to debate that today.

It is an oft-repeated canard in Scotland that the so-called Scottish Executive cannot borrow. This myth is a conspiracy theory as fake as the “Capricorn One” fanciful notion of faked moon landings, but it is sometimes perpetrated not only by internet trolls but by elected Members. This matters because it is corrosive to public trust in politics and inimical to the settled will of the Scottish people so clearly expressed in their rejection of separation in the 2014 independence referendum.

It would be welcome for the Secretary of State to indicate what steps this Government might take to puncture this no-borrowing fallacy, because for us to sit here silently, simply ticking off increased powers as part of a devolve-and-forget agenda, is dangerous. It gives succour to those who would break up the United Kingdom—something that would affect every one of our constituents in every part of Britain.

[Peter Fortune]

On devolution, we have to appreciate that the increase in the borrowing limit is underwritten by the whole of the UK economy. I wonder if my hon. Friend knows of any equivalent flexibilities that English local authorities, which are also under huge financial pressures, could use.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper]

This is a difficult question. Something like £1.25 of public money is spent in Scotland compared to £1 in England. There is tension there within that settlement. That money reflects the difficulties that Scotland faces. Delivering public services in Scotland is difficult because of geography and also because of demographics, so that settlement is designed to reflect that. On the matter of English councils, I am afraid I would defer to him on that. I am no expert in that field, I am afraid.

We would all be poorer were Britain to be shattered by people who could not, to use a fine old west of Scotland idiom, run a menodge.