SNP take control of Dumfries and Galloway council after Tory leader
Councillors attended a special full meeting of the council in Dumfries on Monday and were due to vote on the leadership of Tory councillor Gail Macgregor, who has led the council since 2023.
SNP members on the local authority had called the vote of no confidence on June 3 in a bid to remove the Tory leadership. They were supported by councillors from Scottish Labour, Democratic Alliance and one independent.
McGregor announced her intention to stand down in a note to officials on Monday morning ahead of the crunch vote.
READ MORE: UK must 'constrain Israel' after attacks on Iran, John Swinney says
The SNP's slate to take over the administration passed with 16 votes in favour of the motion.
A bid to install former Tory councillor, now independent, Ian Carruthers as leader with the SNP group leader Stephen Thompson as deputy, failed after only gathering 10 votes.
A total of 16 councillors abstained.
Writing on Facebook, Dumfries and Galloway SNP council group confirmed they had taken over the administration.
"Tories out: Following a special meeting, the SNP have successfully won a vote to run Dumfries and Galloway Council and deliver on our progressive SNP budget and priorities.
"We're committed to delivering for the people of our region."
SNP councillor Katie Hagmann served as interim chair during the meeting while the vote took place.
(Image: Dumfries and Galloway Council) The crunch vote was called after seven Tory councillors quit the party on June 2 over a row over the direction of the administration, which was left with only nine members. The SNP became the largest group with 11 councillors.
Councillors Andrew Giusti, Chrissie Hill, David Inglis and Richard Marsh formed a new group called Novantae.
Carruthers, Karen Carruthers and Andrew Wood formed a separate independent group.
In a note to council officials, Macgregor said with 'the heaviest of hearts' she had decided to quit.
'It has been an absolute privilege to serve the people of Dumfries and Galloway as Leader of the Council for the past 26 months,' she said.
'During this time I have always tried to lead with a collaborative approach, and I will always do so for the good of the people we serve and the services we provide.'
More to follow…
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
22 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
South Wales Guardian
37 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
Ditching a strikes law meant to curb the impact of walkouts on key services is 'recklessness', Tory critics have warned at Westminster. In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
