An SNP MP has called for answers after the Tory government was forced to admit that Scotland Office spending on advertising and spin doctors sky-rocketed in the run-up to the June snap election.
In response to a series of parliamentary questions from North and Leith MP Deidre Brock, Scottish Secretary David Mundell admitted that Scotland Office spending on social media advertising increased from less than £500 in January to more than £12,000 in March – while spending on spin doctors has increased six-fold since the Tories took power, rising from £108,439 in 2010/11 to £686,166.29 in 2016/17.
The huge increase in the Tories’ taxpayer-funded spin operation comes despite deep Tory cuts to public services and family budgets, and the increasing irrelevance of the Scotland Office following devolution.
Local MP Deidre Brock said: “It is utterly indefensible that while the Tories make deep cuts to vital public services, and squeezed family budgets, they are demanding taxpayers foot the bill for huge increases to their spin operation.
“The Tory government claims there is “no magic money tree” to fund the NHS but they have spent an extra half a million on an army of Scotland Office spin doctors, and more than £1billion for their dodgy backroom deal with the DUP.
“David Mundell must explain why the Scotland Office has increased spending on spin doctors six-fold since the Tories took power – and what possible benefit they provide for the people of Scotland.
“We also need clear answers on why the Scotland Office is spending a fortune on social media adverts, and why there was a strange and sudden increase in spending the month before the snap election was called – just as there was in the month before the Scottish Parliament election last year.
“What were these adverts for? Who were they targeted at? Why was spending ramped up so close to these elections? Without clear answers there will understandably be concerns that the Tories could be using taxpayer funds to support their political campaigns.
“David Mundell has got serious questions to answer. If he is unable or unwilling to provide convincing answers to these questions there should be an inquiry to find out what is going on here.”
23
0
20
