
No great new ideas came out of anti-far right summit
Although it's to the credit of all those who participated, no great new ideas came out of the proceedings. Rather, it was a diagnosis of the problems that we can already see exist.
People are angry and disenchanted with politicians. Politics has become polarised and ill tempered – there is little tolerance for opposing views, and a widespread feeling that politicians are all the same and only in it for themselves. Too many people have become detached from the political process as they feel it doesn't make much of a meaningful difference to their lives.
Those who participated included Anas Sarwar for Scottish Labour, Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie from the Scottish Greens, Alex Cole-Hamilton for the Scottish LibDems and Alba's Ash Regan. It was to the credit of all of them that they were prepared to put their political differences to one side, at least for a day, in order to focus on a much bigger problem.
The Scottish Tories did not participate as they are far too busy chasing far-right votes and thus are part of the problem. The problem itself, in the shape of Reform UK, held a press conference outside the meeting during which they predictably complained that they're the real victims here and that their billionaire funded party with its millionaire private school educated leadership is challenging the 'elites'.
Unfortunately there were few concrete proposals on offer from the attendees, but it's probably unfair to have expected much.
The rise of the far-right is a global phenomenon, driven by tech media algorithms, the yawning and ever-widening chasm between rich and poor, the capture of political parties by corporate interests, a media which is itself ultimately owned by those same corporate interests and which is all too willing to act as a mouthpiece for far right figures and their talking points – and in the case of some social media platforms, actively promoting far-right propaganda and misinformation. Facebook and Twitter in particular are toxic stews of malice and ignorance.
All of these issues are bigger than the powers that the Scottish Parliament possesses and as such Holyrood has only a very limited ability to tackle them.
A case in point was the press questioning put to the summit's participants, questioning which was more focused on which toilet a trans person should use than on the inability of young people to find stable and rewarding jobs, secure housing, and their radicalisation by social media. You might think that our media would have more pressing concerns than how to check the genitals of people who just want to pee in peace.
Still, the summit was a start.
Actual fascists demonstrated outside the meeting, that perennial staple of far right Anglo-British nationalist extremism. Manky Shirt Man himself, the Holocaust denying Alistair McConnachie and a small gaggle of his racist pals – including former BNP organisers John Robertson and Max Dunbar – were there holding banners demanding mass deportations now.
Zonal energy pricing?
Talk of a zonal energy market has become popular recently. A zonal energy market would mean different areas of the UK would pay different rates for their electricity, based on local supply and demand.
The idea is especially popular in energy-rich Scotland, where it's claimed that a zonal UK energy market could result in Scots having some of the cheapest electricity bills in Europe, something which would encourage many to change their gas boilers for electric powered heat pumps and go a long way to reducing carbon emissions as well as promoting energy security.
Octopus Energy has claimed that with its massive wind powered electricity generating capacity Scotland could have the 'cheapest electricity in Europe' and could even have free power at times if zonal pricing was introduced in the UK energy market.
Unlike electricity generated by fossil fuels, renewable generated electricity – like that produced by the wind farms dotted all over the Scottish landscape and around our coasts – incurs no ongoing fuel costs, and no need to import fossil fuels whose price is subject to the vagaries of the international markets.
Once the capital costs of installing the necessary infrastructure have been covered, the sole cost is the relatively minimal price of maintenance and upkeep. Wind farms harvest free and infinite energy.
However, due to the current structure of the UK energy market Scots are paying higher energy bills in order to keep electricity prices lower in other parts of the UK. Energy policy is reserved to Westminster.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is reported to be considering the introduction of a zonal energy market but the plan is likely to meet stiff opposition as it would probably result in consumers in south east England paying more for their electricity as it would no longer be subsidised by consumers in the rest of the UK.
However, Miliband appeared to rule out the idea if it resulted in higher electricity prices in some parts of the UK, telling LBC Radio: 'I'm not going to take a decision that is going to raise prices in some parts of the country. That is not what I'm going to do.
'Honestly, this is about reforms to cut prices for people, that is my absolute bottom line here.'
Sorry Scots, it doesn't matter if your country is literally the powerhouse of the UK, pumping out vast quantities of cheap electricity, you're going to continue to pay some of the highest electricity bills in Europe in order to keep bills lower in London. It's one of those Union benefits they keep telling us about.
Speaking on BBC Scotland Debate Night, pro-independence activist and broadcaster Lesley Riddoch urged people to get angry about the energy crisis saying: 'What the Highlands have got is energy.
'Massive, massive amounts of renewable energy – the profits of which are going everywhere else but the Highlands.
'The Highlands should have no energy bills, they've got so much potential.
'There's so much potential here, but because of the pricing of energy in the United Kingdom, which is a Westminster responsibility, we end up having renewables priced at the expensive rate of gas.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
40 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Rachel Reeves spending review: What will be in the spending review and what does it mean for Scotland?
The Spending Review will be delivered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves on Wednesday. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Chancellor Rachel Reeves will deliver the Spending Review on Wednesday, in what is expected to lead to a significant amount of money for Scotland. While some areas with the greatest uptick in spending are devolved, the nature of the Barnett Formula means the Scottish Government will be allocated extra funds, in what The Scotsman understands will be a significant increase. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Reform UK has suggested the Barnett Formula and block funding grant from Westminster should go to be replaced with more tax powers for the Scottish Parliament The formula is used to work out the level of public spending for each of the devolved administrations. The Barnett Formula aims to be fair mechanism by giving each of the devolved administrations the same pounds-per-person change in funding. Here's what is expected to be in the spending review and what it means for Scotland. Winter fuel Scottish pensioners now face being worse off than those in England and Wales after the UK government confirmed its U-turn over the winter fuel payment. The Chancellor announced on Monday the payment, worth up to £300 for each recipient, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners who previously received it because anyone with an income of under £35,000 a year will now get the payment automatically. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, Scotland has already created a devolved benefit of £100 for all pensioner households, which is less generous than the UK government version, potentially leaving hundreds of thousands of Scots worse off than their English and Welsh counterparts. With Holyrood being sent more money through the Barnett Formula, Scottish Labour has urged the Government at Holyrood to increase its payments. Energy UK energy secretary Ed Miliband endured a battle with the Treasury over funding, but is now expecting several big announcements. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (centre), Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar (right) and Ed Miliband, Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary (left), during a visit to St Fergus Gas Terminal, a clean power facility in AberdeenshirePicture: Jeff J Mitchell/PA Wire Most notably, the UK government has announced a £14.2 billion investment to build the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk - a project that could boost energy in Scotland, despite being based elsewhere. For Scotland, it is also understood the government is set to commit to a multi-decade, multi-billion redevelopment of HMNB Clyde, with funding in the hundreds of millions for the next few years. There are also hopes the Chancellor could finally sign off on the Acorn project. Based near Peterhead, it has been in the pipeline for years and would allow fossil fuels to continue to be burnt without, in theory, releasing harmful carbon emissions. The project is seen as key to scaling up the low-carbon hydrogen sector in Scotland and future plans for Grangemouth, but the technology has not yet been demonstrated at commercial scale. One way or the other, a decision is expected during the spending review. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Health Wes Streeting's department is expected to get one of the biggest funding boosts, which will in turn lead to more money for Scotland through the Barnett Formula. Shortly after the statement from Ms Reeves, the UK government will publish groundwork for its NHS ten-year plan. This will give an idea of the financial boost to Scotland and also what Labour might try to do to NHS Scotland if they win the Holyrood election next year.


North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'

The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Tell voters we will hold new indyref no matter what Westminster says
For Labour to win with a candidate they were so embarrassed by that they wouldn't let him speak in public is a low point in recent Scottish politics. But, more importantly, from an SNP perspective, it was another signal that we are not doing enough to enthuse our potential voters. The SNP have a record to be proud of in government. From free tuition to the Scottish Child Payment, we continually show that even with one hand tied behind our back we are the most progressive and efficient government in the UK. However, we have now been in power for 18 years and the public see things such as free prescriptions and the Winter Fuel Allowance as the norm and expect them to be there in perpetuity, not really understanding that if any of the Unionist parties take control of Holyrood these benefits will disappear like snow aff a dyke. READ MORE: Glasgow's new skyscraper guidelines sparks split over city's skyline future Where I believe we have failed as a government is in not making clear to the people of Scotland the real risk they run every time they vote for a Starmer/Sarwar Labour Party of seeing these things go. Have a look at the mess they've made of Wales's NHS or their continual attacks on the poorest, the elderly and the infirm in the UK. We have to get the message out loud and clear about how much money we spend mitigating the right-wing social policies of the previous Conservative government and, shamefully, of this Labour Government. There is no doubt that we are the best party to run Scotland. The alternatives simply do not bear thinking about. But, as I say, familiarity breeds contempt, and I think that's where we are in the minds of the Scottish people. The beauty is, though, that unlike the other political parties, we hold a trump card and that is, of course, the cause of independence. I have written this before and said it a million times: if we don't have independence front and centre then we simply become another party seeking power to do what it can for the people it represents under the constitutional settlement available to us. That in itself is a good thing but after 18 years in government we end up where we are. However, we know – the proof is there in our record in government – only with independence can we ensure we will be able to continue to take a different path from the rest of the UK and start to make things even better. So what now? Well for a start we have to make independence the centrepiece of every leaflet, every piece of campaign material and manifesto we deliver. We have to show the people of Scotland that independence is not just something we want for its own sake but because it's the route to a healthier, wealthier, happier Scotland – and we have to find a way to do this that bypasses the mainstream media. If last week showed us anything its that our two primary TV channels either don't understand the Scottish political make-up or they understand it only too well. How else can we explain why a Debate Night programme the night before the by-election can have three Labour representatives on it, along with a token Tory and one SNP politician? This is either rank idiocy/ignorance or a blatant attempt to assist one party out of what looked at the time like a political quagmire. You can make up your own minds which you think it is, but either way for us to expect to get a fair hearing on either of these two channels is naïve beyond belief. We must make this forthcoming Holyrood election the Independence Election. We must tell the people of Scotland that if there is an independence-supporting majority government, we will immediately inform the Westminster government that we are taking steps to hold an independence referendum. We should suggest that the best way to do this is with a Section 30 order but either way we will go ahead with one as that is what the people of Scotland have demanded. We should then go back to the Scottish Parliament, ask it to reconfirm the desire to hold the referendum and then set a date. As for the Unionist parties? Democracy is about making available the means for people to participate in the process. If they choose not to do so then they have still used their democratic right. WE then move forward based on the results of the referendum. We cannot continue with the same old, 'give us a mandate, then we'll ask for a Section 30, then we'll voice our disappointment when refused' and then wait for the next election to repeat the process. The last referendum was more than 10 years ago; even in the Unionist calendar that is a political generation. Disagree? Well, they don't. They wrote it into the Good Friday Agreement that seven years was the period between any potential referendums taking place regarding the unification of Ireland. The difference here? Fear of losing Scotland, colonial arrogance and rank hypocrisy. Regarding the indy movement, I think a couple of things have to happen. First of all,please stop pretending that the SNP don't care about independence – you have no idea how ridiculous and insulting that is. Secondly, we all need to put our differences aside and agree that the one thing that matters between now and 2026 is that we get an independence-supporting majority in the Scottish Parliament. The rest can be dealt with after that. Without independence we are not in a position to seriously change the things we want to change. And for SNP members, can we stop begging for a change of leader every time we don't get the result we want. John Swinney has been a member of the SNP and a fighter for independence for well over 30 years. He has constantly shown he knows how to win elections and is someone people tend to trust. Yet every time we lose a by-election or an opinion poll goes against us, we get a clamour for some other politician, usually an MP, who will never have run a department or chaired a parliamentary committee, to become the party leader because they are good in the media or with a witty quip at Prime Minister's Questions. It takes more than that to win a battle of this size. This is not an attack on any of my colleagues at Westminster. There are a number of very talented and able people there, Some of them have put themselves forward to stand in the Holyrood election and that is extremely welcome, but between now and the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election, every member of the SNP should be right behind John. All I ask is that you continue to pressure the leadership to ensure that independence is front and centre of all that we do. It's where it belongs. It's what we are all about.