We cannot claim to be untainted by austerity after benefits cuts
A Labour MP has said the party cannot claim it is not bringing back austerity after the benefit reforms announced last week.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced plans to reform disability benefits that would save £5 billion, a move which has been criticised by charities and the Scottish Government.
Dissent has also been voiced within Labour, with Alloa and Grangemouth MP Brian Leishman saying the decision will 'impoverish' the most vulnerable and 'shows a basic lack of humanity'.
Speaking to Holyrood Magazine, the MP, who has been critical of the UK Government response to the impending closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery, said: 'There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these cuts are going to impoverish already vulnerable, disadvantaged people living in our society today.
'These are the people that we should be throwing our arms around and helping.
'It's a measurement of any society how the government treats those who are in need, and by cutting that much from the welfare budget there is no doubt in my mind that we cannot claim there is no austerity under Labour if we are going to cut that much money from welfare.'
During a televised debate ahead of last year's election, which saw Labour sweep to power, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said: 'Read my lips: no austerity under Labour.'
The quote has repeatedly been used to attack Mr Sarwar following a number of decisions taken by the UK Government in its first months in office, but the Scottish Labour leader has stressed in recent days that the policies do not amount to austerity.
Speaking to journalists in Glasgow on Friday, Mr Sarwar said: 'You're asking about austerity. Austerity means that public spending goes down.
'Public spending is going up – the very opposite of austerity.'
While a party spokeswoman insisted people who can't work 'will always be supported to live with dignity under Labour', but that the party will 'work to provide opportunities to those who can' and urging the Scottish Government to support employability services and 'fix the chaos in our NHS'.
Mr Leishman has been outspoken in his criticism of the party's handling of the closure of the refinery at Grangemouth, which will see about 400 workers lose their jobs when the facility closes in the second quarter of this year.
The decision was announced by owners Petroineos last year, citing financial pressures at the facility, and was met with criticism across the political spectrum.
But since then, both the Scottish and UK Governments have been unable to force the decision's reversal.
Before the election, multiple Scottish and UK Labour politicians said they would work to save jobs at the yard, including Mr Sarwar, but Mr Leishman said the party has not done enough for workers at the site.
The MP suggested using the redevelopment of Manchester United's Old Trafford stadium as a bargaining chip.
The club is owned by billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who is charman and chief executive of the site's part-owners, Ineos.
Plans for the new stadium were announced earlier this year, but the club is looking for Government support to regenerate the surrounding area. The money for which, Mr Leishman says, should be withheld if the refinery closes.
'When we look at the regeneration needed around Old Trafford, why would we not say you can have that money, but you need to keep Grangemouth open? That's just negotiation in my opinion,' he told the magazine.
'I have asked those questions of why we haven't done this, and the answers have been underwhelming.'
A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We took immediate action following Petroineos' confirmation on the closure of Grangemouth, and have committed to leaving no stone unturned in supporting an industrial future at the site.
'Project Willow has recently identified credible long-term industrial options for Grangemouth, while our £200 million investment will support jobs and drive growth.
'We will build on Grangemouth's expertise and industrial heritage to attract investors, secure its clean energy future, and deliver on our Plan for Change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
22 minutes 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.
The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
‘At least we're not those guys' is a strategy lacking in inspiration
Proud socialist and trans ally Christina McKelvie will be succeeded in Holyrood by a member of a right-wing and viciously transphobic Labour Party – and Reform UK came a close third with more than 7000 votes, solidifying proof that Nigel Farage's party will undoubtedly return a number of MSPs at next year's Holyrood election. Ultimately, though, the most depressing element of all was the utter lack of inspired campaigning from the two biggest parties. The SNP's campaign relied entirely on the premise of 'we're not Reform', while Labour's was all about 'we're not the SNP'. Successive front pages of the Daily Record featured messages from John Swinney telling voters that Labour can't win, so vote SNP to stop Reform, and Anas Sarwar telling voters that Reform can't win, so vote Labour to stop the SNP. READ MORE: Glasgow's new skyscraper guidelines sparks split over city's skyline future Swinney's proved to be far more embarrassing, in that it was ultimately exposed as completely untrue – Labour ended up taking the seat and Davy Russell is Holyrood's newest MSP. (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) But the messaging from both the SNP and Labour throughout this campaign was that of two parties devoid of hope or inspiration or any real meaningful ideas to actually improve people's lives. Both relied on telling voters 'at least we're not those guys'. And consequently both parties lost thousands of votes compared to 2021. Many both within and outwith the SNP have remarked in the days since the by-election that it was a mistake for John Swinney and his party to stake their campaign solely on being the anti-Reform party, and I think they're partially right. Regular readers of my column will know that I'm a strong advocate of parties on the left – particularly my own party, the Scottish Greens – tackling Reform UK head-on by offering a genuine alternative to the far-right bile and duplicitous snake oil being put out by Farage and his team. At next year's Scottish Parliament election, it'll be the Greens who are best placed to stop Reform from returning MSPs via the regional lists, and I believe we should be shouting this from the rooftops. Nonetheless, this strategy only works if the alternative on offer is one voters genuinely believe in. It only works if voters who are scunnered with mainstream parties selling them false promises election after election believe that the party they're voting for will materially improve their lives. It's not good enough to just say 'it's between us and Reform' – especially if that turns out to not even be true – you have to build an alternative to Reform that voters can be excited to get behind. It's also not good enough to just talk the talk – you have to walk the walk as well. That means being able to enact meaningful change in the Scottish Parliament (which, for smaller parties like the Greens, means co-operating with other parties and striking deals to implement our policies). But it also means living by your principles and refusing to vote for budgets and other motions which will hurt the people you're supposed to represent. It's a fine line to balance, but a crucially important one to ensure voters trust you to get things done, and that you'll also stand up for them when the going gets tough. Beyond just 'we're not Reform', the SNP had very little substance to offer in this by-election campaign. The party's billboards in the constituency celebrated the return of Winter Fuel Payments – a worthy and important policy after the payments were cut by the Labour Westminster government, but that's merely a return to what last year was just the status quo, it's not a way the Scottish Government is actually making things better for people. The SNP can't keep pointing to free prescriptions and tuition forever – voters in Scotland don't want to know how their lives are better than those of their neighbours south of the Border, they want to know how they are better today than they were five years ago. It's a genuine struggle to think of any policies the SNP has implemented in the current parliamentary term that have genuinely improved the lives of people across Scotland which didn't come from the Scottish Greens. So it's little wonder that, in a constituency crying out for change, the message of 'it's us versus Reform' failed to resonate. The fact is, Reform are on the rise whether we like it or not. We'll have Reform MSPs elected across Scotland this time next year, and the way things are going Farage will be prime minister come 2029. It's not good enough for us to just sit back and let that happen just so we can say 'we told you so' – we have to do everything we can to stop the rise of the far-right because it's no exaggeration to say that people's lives will depend on it. But the way we do that has to be by offering a genuine alternative. We need to use the full powers of Holyrood to tax the rich and redistribute wealth to fund our public services. We need to return our NHS – one of the greatest successes of socialism in the history of the UK – to its original purpose of free, publicly funded, accessible healthcare for all. We need to desperately reform the regressive council tax system to radically reduce the amount paid by ordinary people and increase that paid by land barons and millionaires. All of these are policies well within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, if only our politicians had the ambition to get on with it. Not only would they genuinely improve people's lives across Scotland, but by demonstrating competent government and a real alternative we could build a far more sturdy case for independence – the real key to unlocking the even more radical changes needed to transform our society.
The Herald Scotland
23 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Legal aid crisis: Solicitors boycott new Scottish Government scheme
The country's sheriff courts are expected to face extreme pressure and court backlogs are anticipated to mount up as a result. It was reported yesterday that solicitors staffing the Scottish Legal Aid Board's hotline could also be set to walk out after backing strike action over changes to their rota. The Herald has now been told by the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association (SSBA) that solicitors will withdraw from the new scheme which will lead to 'active disruption' nationwide from June 26th. The SCM — which has been piloted in five sheriff courts — covers non jury cases, typically involving offences such as domestic abuse, assault, drink or drug driving and breach of the peace. These are heard by a sheriff or justice of the peace and can result in prison sentences of up to 12 months and fines of up to £10,000. They can be time intensive and costly as often the accused will initially plead not guilty. The SCM aims to streamline the justice process by disclosing evidence to the defence earlier, encouraging early guilty pleas and reducing the number of trials and court appearances. However, the ability to deliver such a scheme has been dealt with a hammer blow as solicitors are expected to boycott it as emails seen by The Herald reveal the Scottish Government appeared to backtrack on updating legal aid pay rates for solicitors. In an email from a Scottish Government official to the SSBA dated May 22 addressing an update to legal aid rates, it stated: "I don't have authority to make a firm offer yet, hopefully we wont have too much longer to wait. "But, I don't think we will be far away from that when we are able to make a formal approach." Yet, since then, in written correspondence between the Scottish Government and the SSBA, Victims Minister Siobhian Brown said she was 'not in a position to make any formal offer' on the rate of pay in legal aid cases. READ MORE: Legal aid crisis sparks sheriff court boycott fears Scottish lawyers ramp up SCM boycott over legal aid crisis Beyond Breaking Point: Scotland's Legal Aid Crisis – all articles here The minister said this was because "due process' to seek approval for spend 'within our current challenging financial position' was not yet complete. Her response comes as the level of summary legal aid fees presently sits at nearly 5% below what they were in 1998/99. In a letter to the Sheriff Principle yesterday seen by The Herald, Paul Smith, the president of the Edinburgh Bar Association stated: 'Then, the average cost of a summary case was £820. In 2023/4 it was £780. That is unacceptable.' Last year, The Herald's series: Beyond Breaking Point explored the issue of legal aid in crisis. During the series, the paper highlighted that a key concern from the sector was the number of practitioners walking away from legal aid work with the rate of pay singled out as the main reason for this. The SSBA, the representative body for criminal solicitors, has been involved in negotiations with the Scottish Government over legal aid rates since their inception in 2021. Their president Simon Brown told The Herald 'enough is enough' when it comes to the Scottish Government's approach to legal aid. Mr Brown said: 'With rates virtually unchanged in real terms over more than 25 years, it is proving increasingly difficult to retain lawyers to work in the sector, with much better paid employment available elsewhere. 'In the last month alone, I am personally aware of four criminal solicitors who have left defence work. Two, who were both at a senior partner level, have gone to the Crown, and one girl astonishingly has left law entirely to start better paid work as cabin crew. 'The most heart-breaking was a young lawyer who left crime to move to personal injury. I met them recently and asked if they were enjoying the new job to be met with the response 'No, I hate every minute of it, but it pays 30% more than I could hope to get in crime' 'The number of lawyers providing criminal law cover at any meaningful level in the whole of Scotland is less than 500, and that is not a sustainable number.' The total legal aid budget for all forms of legal aid in 20223-24 was £151 million, with £85 million of that spent on criminal legal aid. In contrast, the budget for COPFS in 2023-24 was £200.8 million, projected to rise to £249 million by 2026. Addressing the difference in investment, Mr Brown said: "This is not equality of arms. "The government has tried direct alternatives with the implementation of the PDSO [Public Defence Solicitor's Office], which is now de facto the biggest criminal firm in the country, but according to latest figures it's running at a loss well into the hundreds of thousands each year. 'Solicitors care very much about our clients, quite frankly we couldn't do this job if we didn't, and we do not take lightly a decision to disrupt their cases, but enough is enough.' In a letter dated June 6, the Victims and Community Safety Minister Ms Brown told the SSBA: 'I am disappointed that you feel further disruptive action is necessary. 'As I explained in my letter of 30 May, we must follow due process in making decisions that will increase pressure on the public purse, and this is particularly necessary within the very constrained current financial position. 'This process is being followed as a matter of urgency and I will make a firm offer without delay when I am able to do so. I remain committed to resolving this position as soon as possible and my officials will maintain contact with you.' However, this has been met with frustration and anger from solicitors. In his letter to the Sheriff Principle, the president of the Edinburgh Bar Association, Mr Smith, pointed out that recruitment and retention of staff has been an issue in the profession 'for years' which he said has been 'exacerbated' by the salaries offered to newly qualified staff by COPFS, 'whose spending per case has increased by 235% between 2016/17 and 2023/24.' Mr Smith added: 'This demonstrates the SG has resources to fund the Justice System. It is choosing not to properly resource the defence.' In an open letter to the Justice Committee, the Edinburgh Bar Association said the minister is 'at best' being 'wilfully blind' to evidence that COPFS recruitment is affecting numbers of defence agents. In a letter to the Sheriff Principle yesterday, Mr Smith stated: 'On 27th May 2025 the SSBA received communication from the SG (Scottish Government) that led us to believe an offer was to be made on the level of the summary fixed fee. 'We engaged with SCM in good faith in the anticipation of an offer being made. No offer has been forthcoming. The last communication from the SG on 6th June makes it clear that no offer will be made.' Mr Smith added: 'Significantly more is expected of us for significantly less remuneration. 'The number of Solicitors registered to provide criminal legal assistance is at its lowest since registration was introduced. "The SG is aware of this and does nothing to act." The Scottish Government has been contacted for comment.
