Labour MSP Rhoda Grant announces decision to stand down to 'make way for others'
Long-standing Labour MSP Rhoda Grant has announced that she has made the 'difficult decision' not to seek re-election at the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections.
Grant announced her decision to step down from representing the Highlands and Islands on Thursday.
The MSP was elected to Holyrood in the first Scottish Parliament election in 1999, and has gone on to serve in five of the six parliamentary terms since then.
Grant has served on a number of cross-party groups, including the crofting group and co-convened groups on human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation.
Her members' bill on domestic abuse was adopted and became an act in April 2011, which made it an offence to engage in an abusive course of conduct against a current or ex-partner.
She is currently Labour's rural affairs spokesperson and has previously been the party's spokesperson for women's equalities and justice and finance.
'Unfortunately, after thinking long and hard about the demands of this role, I do not feel I can continue to give the time and commitment required to do it justice and therefore hand on the baton to others and will not stand at the next Scottish Parliament elections,' she said.
'I have loved representing my region alongside people, too many to mention, who have worked with me, challenged me and supported me.
'I do not think it is possible to entirely switch off from representing the region that I love, and I will continue to push for improvement to our services and opportunities whenever that opportunity arises.'
As she prepares to step back as MSP, Grant said the Scottish Labour Party has already selected a number of candidates in the region.
'It makes it easier for me to step back when I know there is such talent waiting in the wings,' she said.
Grant joins a growing list of approximately 30 other MSPs who have already announced that they won't seek re-election in 2026.
The list includes some of the biggest names in Scottish politics, including former first ministers Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf. Several Scottish Government Ministers are planning to step back next year as well.
Some MSPs are leaving due to age, including MSPs James Dornan and Bill Kidd, who are both in their 70s.
Others have said it's time to step back and prioritise other aspects of their lives.
Regardless of the various reasons, the resignations will pave the way for a new generation of Scottish politicians to rise through the ranks.
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
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Edinburgh Reporter
33 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Edinburgh Council refuses to ban arms testing in city parks
An Edinburgh councillor has spoken out after a city committee voted not to ban arms firms from testing military equipment in city parks. In December 2024, arms manufacturer Leonardo was given permission to test communications equipment in the Braid Hills. Green councillor Ben Parker said he was 'disappointed' that councillors chose to not back his motion, which would have seen the practice banned. He continued: 'Today, Councillors had a chance to stand up for peace and instead chose inaction. 'Despite community objections and a clear moral imperative, the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have voted to continue to allow arms manufacturers to test their equipment in our beautiful, publicly owned, green spaces. 'The Council has previously taken a strong stance on opposing advertising and sponsorship from arms manufacturers, and it is completely hypocritical to then allow these same companies to use our beautiful public space to test their equipment. 'At a time when we are witnessing the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, we should not be supporting companies who profit from arms sales to the Israeli Government in any way.' Cllr Parker had originally put the motion forward for discussion at May's full council meeting, but an amendment by the Liberal Democrat group sent it to the Culture and Communities Committee for discussion. In a deputation to the committee, he urged councillors to take a stand on the issue, drawing comparisons to the city's Labour council taking a stand against apartheid during the 1986 Commonwealth Games held in the city. That year's games were protested widely, and boycotted by 26 nations, due to the UK Government's relationship with the then white-minority government in South Africa. Liberal Democrat councillor Fiona Bennett said: 'I have been to Iraq twice, once in 2018 with an NGO I'm very closely involved with and again in 2019 with the UN supporting victims of ISIS. 'I saw first-hand devastation throughout northern Iraq and in particular in Mosul – images that will never leave me, and images that will haunt me, for the rest of my life. 'The events unfolding around the world right now are harrowing. And I know people on the ground in Gaza right now, I can't bear what they're telling me. 'This is incredibly difficult, we're being forced to confront balancing our ethical values and responsibilities with the very real fragility of our national security. 'This is the most fragile and uncertain political, global landscape in my lifetime, and I really worry about the future our daughters have in front of them. 'So when we talk about banning testing, are we saying there should be no such testing anywhere in the UK? 'And if so, are we inadvertently undermining our own ability to defend ourselves at a time when global threats are growing and becoming even more complex?' Councillors narrowly supported an amended version of the motion put forward by the Liberal Democrat group, which did not pursue a ban. Instead, it referenced the city's draft parks management plan, which empowers council officers to ban any activity which will or could 'endanger' any person or property. By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
The National
34 minutes ago
- The National
Don't believe the spin – Davy Russell suffered no 'classism'
DAVY Russell came blinking into the sunlight, wiping soot from his sleeves on Friday morning. As he emerged from Lanarkshire's last remaining coal pit, the injuries of having suffered through 'classist' abuse during the Hamilton by-election campaign were nothing compared with the honour that awaited him above ground. He, Davy Russell, was to become a member of the Scottish Parliament. His heart quickened at the thought of Edinburgh's bright lights. Auld Reekie! Would the empty suits understand a bowls-playing, karaoke-crooning, shandy-sipping, authentic, real-deal guy such as he? I could go on. This is the story that Scottish Labour and some dewy-eyed commentators would have you believe. But Russell is no working-class hero. By all accounts, he is a pillar of the community in his new constituency of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. This does not make him Keir Hardie reincarnate, leading the charge against the condescension of the Holyrood elite. (Image: Craig Foy - SNS Group) Russell had a long career as a top bureaucrat in local government, becoming chums with the Glasgow Labour old boys during their time at the top in Scotland's biggest city. He used to run a business with former Rangers captain Barry Ferguson (above) and Asim Sarwar, brother of Anas. His style seems more wining and dining in the Ibrox directors' box than watching the dog racing before a few pints and a punch up down the local, or whatever similarly patronising image of 'working-class leisure pursuits' Anas Sarwar has in mind. Most pundits, myself included, had their arses handed to them on Friday morning after calling the Hamilton by-election badly wrong. READ MORE: How did Labour win the Hamilton by-election with an 'invisible man' candidate? But this was an SNP loss, with their vote halving, not a Labour victory, given they were down 3620 votes on their losing score in 2021. Russell's was a local campaign for local people, though the high drama of an unpredictable campaign – in Morgan McSweeney's back garden – set tongues wagging in Westminster, too. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray (below) and the Prime Minister both made election pitches on the floor of the House of Commons on Wednesday, each warning about the SNP's plans to downgrade the Wishaw neonatal unit. Labour's spin machine has it that it is this focus on local issues – apparently Russell spent the night before the vote addressing the Hamilton Accies Supporters Association – wot won it. If that's the case, then McSweeney's strategy which took Labour to victory on the tightest vote efficiency ever last year is very much still in play. It's less that Russell won people around to Labour; more that he managed to get most of the people who backed them last time around to do so again while SNP support collapsed. Scottish Labour are of course perfectly entitled to make the argument that voters rejected the SNP – they did – but not to try to silence their critics by accusing them of 'classism', as Sarwar did at the count in Hamilton. Criticism was levelled at Russell in the first instance because he ducked media scrutiny and because videos posted by Scottish Labour gave the impression he could barely say his own name without difficulty. It is not 'elitist' or 'classist' to point out that having some rhetorical skill may be an advantage to an aspiring politician. It is elitist to suggest that the reason someone comes across as thick is because they are from a working-class town in Scotland. And that's the argument that Hutchesons'-educated Sarwar went with. You can get the Worst of Westminster delivered straight to you email inbox every Friday at 6pm for FREE by clicking here.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
This result shows the time has arrived for make-or-break move for SNP
We didn't need Professor Curtice to highlight that SNP fortunes haven't improved since the General Election. It was readily apparent to anyone who followed this SNP leadership contesting Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse as a supposed party of 'independence' and yet not relying on it to garner support. At a time when national polling for independence is reckoned to hover around 54%, Swinney's SNP managed to garner just 12% support from Hamilton's electorate (only 29% of those who actually voted). Doesn't this prove beyond any doubt he and his party are getting it woefully wrong? At a time when the independence movement is straining at the leash for real campaigning political leadership, itching to get the campaign into full swing, hasn't the SNP's campaign chief, Jamie Hepburn, signalled indy being kicked down the road once again when in Laura Pollock's report (June 6) he states: 'Next year, we're going into a General Election for the Scottish Parliament ... the fundamental question will be who's forming the next government ... who's going to be the next first minister ... either John Swinney or Anas Sarwar.' READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely There we have it. This SNP's clear intention is to just play regional politics, presumably to secure their own positions, rather than fight the 2026 election as the de facto referendum the movement demands and the polls suggest the public desires. I suspect the new strategy SNP may be heading towards claiming that the de facto referendum should be at the next General Election and promising to make it so ... just as long as we elect them to Holyrood next year so they can 'deliver' it. Well, let's head that one off at the pass. If 2026 is ignored as the legitimate platform for Scots to determine their national status, or fail to force the referendum our democratic rights deserve, then who doubts the SNP will be soundly defeated and the independence movement will need to start from scratch to fight for independence without them; trust in the SNP decimated and Scotland's independence prospects truly parked for another generation – victory for the Unionists? If Keir Starmer, as seems likely, is about to scapegoat Rachel Reeves to secure his position, isn't it time for the SNP to scapegoat their current leader and his influencers in order to elect a leader in time for 2026 who has independence at heart, has the drive to deliver it and can persuade 54% and rising of Scots that they can do so? Hasn't the Hamilton election result shown the time has arrived for, if no serious independence leadership and drive for it, then no SNP? Jim Taylor Scotland THE loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making, a fiasco that reeks of complacency, strategic idiocy and the kind of centrist dithering that has come to define John Swinney's leadership. This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable sum – Swinney, that master of inertia, chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75% of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. One wonders if he imagines history's great emancipators –Washington, Bolívar, even the wretched Garibaldi – paused to consult focus groups before acting. When Starmer, that most unctuous of Westminster careerists, declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are Unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. Worse still, Swinney has perpetuated the worst excesses of the Sturgeon era: the cult of secrecy, the slavish deference to corporate interests (see: Flamingo Land's desecration of Loch Lomond) and the systematic sidelining of anyone with a spine. Sturgeon's legacy was to ensure that no competent successor could emerge – only loyalists and mediocrities, of which Swinney is the apotheosis. The truth is stark: the SNP have no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs Dundee
