Jim Sillars: John Swinney should resign as SNP leader
The result prompted calls on Friday by SNP veteran Alex Neil for Mr Swinney's resignation as leader before the Scottish Parliament elections in 2026, when the SNP will have been in power for 19 years.
Speaking to The Herald Mr Sillars echoed Mr Neil's views that Mr Swinney should quit though added he did not think a change of leadership would be sufficient to put the SNP on the front foot in time for the election next May saying better delivery on public services and a review of policy priorities was needed.
"Look at yesterday's result," he said.
READ MORE:
SNP veteran calls for Swinney to quit after Labour shock by-election victory
Sarwar: Swinney ran a 'disgraceful' campaign and is running down the clock as FM
Rows with press, claims of racism and misinformation - a by-election that turned ugly
"The SNP went down to 29%. If that was repeated in 2026 the SNP will have a disaster on their hands, they would get nowhere near the seats they need to get and therefore not be in government.
"It is very difficult to see how they can reverse their position. They are also being judged by voters on the basis of their performance in government.
"They have spent more time in Holyrood arguing about the identity of women than they have about the 85,000 children living in abject poverty.
Former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars (Image: PA) "It is not just a leadership replacement they would have to rethink their whole policy priorities. They have lost the people."
He noted the difference in support for independence and for the SNP.
"When you get polling showing that support for independence is around 50% but the so-called party of independence is getting 29% of the vote in a critical by-election then there is a real problem," he added.
"I never thought John Swinney would make a good leader. I think he should go on the basis that he is a failure, though it doesn't mean that him going would really change things substantially."
Along with Mr Neil, Mr Sillars is a longstanding critic of Mr Swinney and former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Both were supportive of the late former First Minister Alex Salmond when he fell out with Ms Sturgeon.
Turning to the First Minister's message that the by-election was a straight contest between the SNP and Reform, Mr Sillars said: "He punted Reform instead of dealing with the real opposition which was Labour.
Scottish Labour's victory rally in Hamilton on Friday (Image: Colin Mearns) "It showed a man with a lack of judgment and someone who could not read the street."
Former SNP health secretary Mr Neil was the first senior party figure to call for a change of leadership following the SNP by-election defeat.
In a post on X on Friday Alex Neil, who held Cabinet roles in the administrations of both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, said it was time for a new leadership.
READ MORE:
Keir Starmer: John Swinney hasn't raised independence referendum with me
Swinney defends claims Labour 'out of it' in by-election
Not a shot that's been fired across SNP's bows, it's a cruise missile
"Poor by election result for the SNP despite having the best candidate," wrote the former Cabinet minister on X.
"It shows that the opinion polls appear wide of the mark. Most importantly it shows the current SNP leadership needs to be replaced urgently."
Mr Sarwar and his party celebrated in the early hours of Friday morning after Labour's Davy Russell was elected as the new MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, winning the seat from the SNP.
With the votes showing a swing of more than 7% from the SNP to Labour, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Friday the result showed people have "voted for change".
The by-election had been held following the death earlier this year of Scottish Government minister Christina McKelvie.
When the votes were counted, Mr Russell polled 8,559, SNP candidate Katy Loudon took 7,957 votes, while Reform's Ross Lambie secured 7,088.
And although Mr Russell was elected with fewer votes than Labour secured in the seat in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP's support fell from just over 46% of all ballots then to 29.35% in the by-election.
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice insisting they were "delighted" with coming third - despite speculation prior to the count that they could come in second or may even pull off a surprise victory.
Speaking at a media event in Hamilton on Friday morning, Mr Sarwar accused the SNP leader of running a "disgraceful" campaign" and insisted the by-election could "help lead the way" to him becoming Scotland's next First Minister.
Mr Swinney said the SNP was "clearly disappointed" with the result.
The First Minister and party leader said Labour had "won by an absolute landslide" in Rutherglen and Hamilton West - noting the SNP "came much closer" this time round.
But he added: "The people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have made clear that we still have work to do.
"Over the next few days, we will take time to consider the result fully."
The SNP was approached to seek comment on the interventions from Mr Sillars and Mr Neil.
Since coming into office in Spring last year Mr Swinney has attempted to refresh the SNP's policy agenda with a renewed focus on addressing child poverty and improving public services, in particular tackling waits for NHS treatment.
He has attempted to steer away from the public debate on gender politics which dominated the end of Ms Sturgeon's time in office.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
12 minutes ago
- STV News
Fishing leaders call for immediate halt to wind farm expansion ‘stampede'
Fishing leaders in Scotland have described wind farm expansion as a 'stampede' and a 'gamble' as they demanded an immediate stop to further offshore consents. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) said Scottish Government plans to install up to 40GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040 are 'far too high'. It said achieving the target will cause irreversible damage to the marine environment and displace fishing fleets from grounds they have worked for generations. The call is included in the SFF's official responses to two major Government consultations, the updated Offshore Wind Policy Statement and the draft Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy. The Government outlines that offshore wind could ensure Scotland meets its net zero target by 2030 and provide scores of green jobs as part of the just transition away from dependency on oil and gas. Last month, First Minister John Swinney visited Scotland's newest wind farm – Neart na Gaoithe (NnG) off the coast of Fife. During his visit he said offshore wind is 'one of Scotland's greatest modern success stories'. He said: 'Driving economic growth and tackling the climate emergency are two of my Government's priorities, and NnG is a shining example of how these priorities can work hand-in-hand to reshape Scotland's future for the better.' The UK Government has also expressed support for the expansion of Scotland's wind farms. It announced in March that the Port of Cromarty Firth in the Highlands will be a major hub for the UK's world-leading floating offshore wind industry, and it awarded more than £55 million for its expansion. Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the SFF – which is Scotland's biggest fishing industry body – said: 'This isn't a plan – it's a stampede. The Government is charging ahead without the faintest idea how to protect the people and places that will be trampled in the rush. 'We've been telling them for years these plans will seriously damage our industry, but they haven't listened. Now their own assessments show the harm that will be done to fishing, and the environment on which it depends. 'Until they can prove our industry and our seas will be safeguarded, the only responsible choice is to slam on the brakes.' The SFF said current mitigation measures are almost non-existent and there is no credible plan to compensate fishing businesses for the losses they will face. It also says the Government's updated Offshore Wind Policy Statement published in June made repeated references to economic benefits but failed to mention the climate crisis. Ms Macdonald added: 'Fishing is one of Scotland's original green industries. The Scottish fleet has been putting healthy, renewable and sustainable food on plates for generations. 'But we're being shoved aside for projects that feel like a last gamble for a Government to revive an ailing Scottish economy.' Fishing leaders say the cumulative impact of existing and emerging marine conservation policies, renewable energy projects alongside fishing being expected to offset environmental impacts of offshore wind developments, is leaving the industry at 'breaking point'. Ms Macdonald said: 'The Scottish Government's approach is picking winners and losers, and fishing seems to lose every time. 'We need ministers to step up and support our industry with positive action. 'Renewable food cannot be the price to be paid for renewable energy. Betting the house – and Scotland's fishing industry – on offshore wind that is far from 'clean' and where all the evidence points to both known and not yet fully known environmental damage is a very high-risk strategy.' The Scottish Government has been approached for comment. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Herald Scotland
12 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Within the UK, we get what we need and deserve - no more, no less
The GERS figures, which are published by the Scottish Government, were pretty dire. They measure the amount of public money spent in Scotland against the taxation that is raised here. The difference, this year, is £26.2 billion which is a remarkable 11.7 per cent of GDP. As part of the exercise, the GERS deficit is rapidly translated, without the help of AI, into the per capita variation between public expenditure in Scotland and England, which now runs at £2669, up by £358 in a year. That number is, understandably, trumpeted by those who favour the constitutional status quo. If there was ever another referendum, it would frighten all but the most dedicated horses. Read More: It is a pity however that the GERS figures have been reduced to political cudgels without greater understanding of what they represent. First, it needs to be understood that, within a United Kingdom, it makes perfectly good sense that Scotland enjoys these advantages, which were embedded long before devolution or independence became significant terms in the political vocabulary. Higher public expenditure in Scotland was based on two main factors – our heavily disproportionate geography vis-à-vis population and our levels of urban poverty, exacerbated by the decline of heavy industry in post-war years. In other words, the distribution was broadly founded on fairness and need rather than any political or constitutional fix. The Barnett formula brought order to that principle but certainly did not invent it. This point is reinforced by the pattern of public spending in England. The figure of £2669 is misleading since it is a comparison with a figure generic to the whole of England, within which there are actually large divergences. The poorer areas 'up north' are not far off Scottish levels of per capita spending while those in the effete south-east are significantly lower. In other words, the Scottish funding 'bonus' is based on needs rather than munificence and it is on these grounds it should be defended and argued for. If Scotland does well out of Barnett, which it does, it is because of our history and geography rather than a political decision either to buy us off or, as Nationalists would have it, sell us short. Within the UK, we get what we need and deserve. No more, no less. At that point, Nationalists resort to a hypothetical argument rather than the actual one. On the basis of no evidence, they assert that the need for this relative largesse – or simple fairness, as I would have it - would disappear if all the economic levers were in their hands. I do not believe that to be true and have no wish for my children or grand-children to be on the receiving end of finding out. But let's park that argument, as the SNP seems to have done, for another decade. Recall instead the grounds for the Barnett formula in the first place – scattered geography and the consequences of industrial history, leading to a higher level of poverty and need. Logically, within that context, these are the areas of Scottish life which should have been prioritised, in the interests of 'levelling up' before the term was fashionable. The 'differential' money should really be ringfenced for post-industrial communities that have never recovered from the loss of their raisons d'etre, and also for the Scottish periphery where per capita costs of delivery are inevitably greater. If that principle had been maintained, we would see very different outcomes today and the myth of the poor and the peripheral being subsidy supplicants rather than entitled priorities would evaporate. But where has Scotland's 'extra' money, via the Barnett formula, actually gone? Is it to the periphery, which continues to shed population at an alarming rate? Is it to the depressed industrial communities and opportunities for their new generations? Or, in fact, has the bonus enshrined in the Barnett formula simply become one big funding trough which serves disproportionately the interests of the better-off? At this point, I revert to the National Records of Scotland which reported on our shifting demographics. The headline figure is that the Scottish population has reached new heights of over 5.5 million, due to net immigration more than making up for the excess of deaths over births. In some parts of Scotland, however, the figures give very little sign of encouragement that anything is being levelled up. Where I live in the Western Isles, for example, the under-16 population is down by13 per cent in a decade and the working age population is down by 10 per cent. The implications of this are not difficult to discern. There are not enough people to do the jobs on which an ageing population depends. So more people leave and the trend continues. There is very little sign of population growth in old industrial areas either. North Ayrshire's young population, for example, is down by ten per cent and working age numbers by 5.7 per cent. And be warned- what the most peripheral and poorest parts of Scotland face today in terms of not having enough people to support the services on which an ageing population depends is coming for others which still regard themselves as secure from demographic trends. Money is not the answer to everything but it rarely does any harm. So let's not apologise or be excessively grateful for the 'extra' £2669 each of us gets a year through the Barnett formula. But let us not forget either why we get it – which is off the backs of places which represented the original case for that extra money but are still left behind when it comes to addressing poverty, disadvantage and population loss. Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003
New Statesman
24 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Would embracing Rejoin save Labour?
Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images Would a pledge to rejoin the EU rescue Labour at the polls? Don't be silly. Labour's low popularity is a consequence of the following: voters' looser loyalty to parties; the government's similarity to the one voters booted out with gusto last year; and little relief from a still-present crisis in the cost of living. Immigration dominates the discourse right now, but the signal is the high cost of living. Not only is this pulling Labour back, it's driving Reform ahead. There are suggestions, though the government has not announced anything, that the party could rejuvenate its base by promising to rejoin the European Union. But to think making such a pledge or even reopening the debate – and the wounds – would achieve this rings hollow. I get it. Such a pledge could, in theory, rally and unite the most Remain-minded. Labour is currently leaking almost one in ten supporters to the Liberal Democrats. And Remain voters did plump for Keir Starmer's party last year. And Rejoin is the plurality option right now. But Remain-minded voters are not single-minded in their politics. Ukip was the harbinger of the EU referendum, though Ukip primarily got its votes, not for bashing the Brussels Bureaucracy, but for anticipating the country on immigration and filling that 'sod the lot of 'em', anti-mainstream party vacancy left by the Lib Dems when they joined the coalition government. To Britain's Remain voters, it's not Rejoin or nothing. At best, a pledge would rouse some shifting to the Lib Dems, or lead to indifference. It would be a gain of a few hundred thousand votes – a few percentage points in the opinion polls. Also, a vow to rejoin can't be done in isolation. It won't come without consequences. It would incur a sacrifice in air-time on something else. And I don't just mean time on the TV. I mean time spent developing what limited impressions voters have of the Labour Party and its government. The promise, and its media coverage, would indicate Labour was shifting its priorities, was playing a tune that voters do not want to hear. There would be gross gains for Labour in putting Rejoin on the ballot. But there would be net losses at the ballot box. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Rejoin may be the preference of the median Briton. But it's not the priority of the median Briton. An effective campaign understands when to go in hard on its comfort issues. Rejoin is a comfort issue. This is no time for comfort issues. At a moment when the cost of living is the highest priority, Rejoin is not relevant to the needs of those who need Labour most. It is not yet totally associated with the cost of living – as seen above, in the data point that shows those 'just about managing' are most against returning to the EU. Because many Britons have moved on from the Leave/Remain divide, including Reform voters who do not rank defending Brexit highly as a motivating issue, the optics of the 'usual suspects' arguing for the 'usual solutions' suggests why voter cynicism is as great – if not greater – than in the immediate aftermath of the MPs' expenses scandal. July polling by BMG suggests that, when asked if they preferred to rejoin or stay out, most want in. That includes almost a fifth of Reform voters. And a quarter of Labour supporters who want to stay out. If Labour was to reopen the wounds of 2016 it would threaten the shaky, now hollowed, but nonetheless victorious coalition that gave it the benefit of the doubt in 2024. I was in Brussels in June, speaking about the future of UK-EU relations and public opinion, on both sides of the Channel. On the (delayed) flight over, I was having a muse. Do these Brussels bigwigs want to know whether the UK's voters are clamouring to Rejoin? I prepared some notes. But during the sessions nothing about it came up. I asked the thinkers in the room why Brussels isn't interested in whether Britons want to come back? The truth was this: in their eyes, it's not going to happen. Not for this generation of politicians or thinkers. Trading experts are resigned to the status quo. Academics in the know are resigned to it. They all know Rejoin is not on the agenda. Unravelling the new relationship after unravelling EU membership is not for one-term parties. Only when there is a cross-party consensus on the issue will the serious players take Rejoin seriously. We are nowhere near that. Putting Rejoin on the ballot is the stuff of unserious people. It's something for another decade. [See also: The Epping ruling deepens Labour's immigration nightmare] Related
