Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth pulls down website over accusations of pro-SNP bias
Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth has pulled down her taxpayer-funded website after she was accused of breaching Holyrood rules by promoting the SNP.
Complaints have been made to Holyrood about Gilruth and Finance Secretary Shona Robison using party political material on their MSP sites.
Gilruth's website was put "under maintenance" this afternoon after the Record contacted her party's press office.
Justice Secretary Angela Constance 's website was also pulled down this week after we revealed it was plastered with SNP propaganda.
Strict Holyrood rules say that taxpayer-funded MSP websites must not promote a political party, but instead focus on a member's work as a parliamentarian.
Party logos are also forbidden and live feeds showcasing an MSP 's social media platform cannot include 'party political' content.
But a post on Gilruth 's website hailed a recent SNP by-election win in Fife: 'The Glenrothes by-election result is a fantastic victory for the SNP, marking our 5th by-election win in a row.
'Undoubtedly, these results locally highlight a notable resurgence in support for the Scottish National Party.
'It was very clear to me from the doorsteps just how disappointed and angry people are with the Labour Party in Government, with many voters feeling a sense of disconnect and betrayal.'
The article was accompanied by a picture of party activists, including Gilruth, holding SNP placards.
Another post on the same by-election victory was a cut-and-paste of an SNP press release.
Robison's social media feed features on her MSP website and includes attacks on Labour and promotion of the SNP.
One retweet was of a post from the SNP's official X account: 'A report by Big Issue shows that, under the SNP, 21,000 fewer kids are living in poverty compared to 2017 - a 12% decrease.'
Her feed disappeared after we contacted the SNP.
Both websites make clear: 'The costs of this publication have been met from Parliamentary resources.'
A complaint about the MSPs allegedly breaching the rules was made to Holyrood on Tuesday evening.
Labour MP Gregor Poynton said: 'We're no longer talking about a one-off mistake, this is now a pattern of behaviour at the top of the SNP. First the Justice Secretary, now the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and the Education Secretary are all accused of using taxpayer-funded resources to push party political content online.
'These appear to be clear breaches of the rules and the public are right to be angry. These websites are paid for by the taxpayer to serve local constituents, not to act as propaganda platforms for the SNP.
'The Scottish Parliament must investigate each case in full, and if wrongdoing is confirmed, public money should be repaid. Anything less would send the message that the rules don't matter or worse, that they don't apply to SNP Ministers.
'Taking down a website doesn't wipe the slate clean. Voters expect accountability, not cover-ups and it's time senior SN P figures were held to the same standards as everyone else.'
The SNP and the Parliament have been contacted.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
16 minutes ago
- ITV News
Tulip Siddiq brands corruption trial in Bangladesh a ‘farce' as case opens
A former Government minister has labelled a trial into her alleged corruption a 'farce' as it got under way in Bangladesh. Tulip Siddiq, who resigned in January as Treasury minister, said the case being heard in Dhaka was 'built on fabricated accusations and driven by a clear political vendetta'. Ms Siddiq, the Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate, is the niece of the former Bangladeshi prime minister Sheika Hasina, who fled the country in August last year after ruling for 15 years. Ms Hasina had previously held the post for five years and she is the daughter of Bangladesh's founding president. She was ousted amid student-led protests that were met with violence by government forces, which saw nearly 300 people killed. She is now exiled in India. In April, it was reported that Bangladesh's Anti-Corruption Commission had sought an arrest warrant for Ms Siddiq over allegations the MP for Hampstead and Highgate illegally received a 7,200sq ft plot of land in the country's capital. Bangladeshi anti-corruption officials gave evidence in court on Wednesday, the Associated Press reports. Ms Siddiq has claimed she has not had any official communication about the trial. In a post on X on Wednesday as the case got under way, Ms Siddiq said: 'The so-called trial now under way in Dhaka is nothing more than a farce – built on fabricated accusations and driven by a clear political vendetta. 'Over the past year, the allegations against me have repeatedly shifted, yet I have never been contacted by the Bangladeshi authorities once. 'I have never received a court summons, no official communication, and no evidence. 'If this were a genuine legal process, the authorities would have engaged with me or my legal team, responded to our formal correspondence, and presented the evidence they claim to hold. 'Instead, they have peddled false and vexatious allegations that have been briefed to the media but never formally put to me by investigators. 'Even my offer to meet Bangladesh's Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus during his recent visit to London was refused. Such conduct is wholly incompatible with the principles of a fair trial that we uphold in the UK. 'I have been clear from the outset that I have done nothing wrong and will respond to any credible evidence that is presented to me. Continuing to smear my name to score political points is both baseless and damaging.' The MP had resigned in January after six months in Government after an investigation by the Prime Minister's ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus into her links to Ms Hasina's regime. Lammy refers himself to authorities after breaking law on Vance fishing trip She came under scrutiny over her use of properties in London linked to her aunt's allies. She stepped down and said she had become 'a distraction' from Labour's agenda. Campaigners from her aunt's party, the Awami League, had campaigned and canvassed for her during previous general elections. In an interview with the Guardian before the trial began, Ms Siddiq said she had been 'collateral damage' in the long-standing feud between Mr Yunus and Ms Hasina. She said: 'These are wider forces that I'm battling against… There's no doubt people have done wrong things in Bangladesh, and they should be punished for it. It's just I'm not one of them.' After an outcry over the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people demonstrating against what they said was an increasingly autocratic and cruel administration, Ms Hasina and Siddiq's mother, Sheikh Rehana, who was in the country at the time, fled the Bangladeshi capital in a military helicopter to India. It was, Ms Siddiq admits, a scary time. Ms Hasina's entire family, apart from her husband, children and sister, were murdered during the August 15 1975 Bangladeshi coup d'etat in which Ms Siddiq's grandfather, the first president of Bangladesh, was assassinated.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Top five howlers from Sturgeon's memoir
Oh dear. Nicola Sturgeon's memoir Frankly was always going to have its detractors, given how divisive a figure the SNP's former Dear Leader has become. A number of those people will not have read the former first minister's tome in full (for those who want to save themselves the time, Steerpike has compiled a handy list of lowlights here) and so some of the rather, er, fiery criticism may be based more on assertions about Sturgeon's character than the contents of her 450-page project. But it is the litany of factual errors dotted across the book – which appears to be written in American English – that provokes less sympathy from Mr S. Here are some of the worst… Women elected to Holyrood Claim: Sturgeon writes that: 'In fact, more women were elected to the Scottish parliament on 6 May 1999 than had been elected in total to the House of Commons since women had first been allowed to stand in 1918.' Fact check: False. Up until 1999, over 200 women had been elected to the House of Commons since women had been first allowed to stand at the start of the 20th century, compared to the total of 48 women who had been elected to The Scottish parliament on 6 May 1999. Even if the ex-FM had written instead that she meant the number of women sitting 'at any one time' she would have been incorrect, given 120 women were elected in 1997, helped in part by Labour's landslide victory. The youngest person in the Commons Claim: Sturgeon writes that: 'Amongst the newbies was Mhairi Black, precociously talented and, at just twenty years old, the youngest person ever elected to the Commons.' Fact check: False. Christopher Monck, the 2nd Duke of Albemarle, became the Member of Parliament for Devon in February 1667 at, er, just 13 years old. Getting the history right was never Nic's strong point though, eh? Wrong MP! Claim: Sturgeon reminisces on the day after the 2015 general election, where the SNP won 56 of Scotland's 59 Westminster seats. She writes: As I finally boarded the plane to London City, I thought I could at last relax a bit, but as soon as I appeared at the front of the aircraft, passengers started to clap. I found out only much later that one of the Labour MPs we had just defeated had been on the same plane that morning. For Tom Harris, until a few hours earlier the MP for Glasgow Cathcart, my presence must have made an already miserable morning feel even worse. Fact check: Well, luckily Tom Harris himself spotted the anecdote and took to Twitter to point out the inaccuracies. 'It's the only mention I get,' he notes. 'The thing is, it isn't true.' It turns out Sturgeon got Harris mixed up with Jimmy Hood, the ex-MP for Hamilton East and Lanark, as the former Cathcart politician had decided to stay in Glasgow with his family. He adds: 'Apart from writing something based on inaccurate hearsay, what is the point of the anecdote in the first place, other than to crow – again, a decade later – about a defeated opponent?' Stay classy, Nic. With a little help from my friends… Claim: In the first few pages of her chapter on Govan, Sturgeon turns to the issue of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders – who had been pushed into liquidation after the Conservative government under Edward Heath had withdraw state subsidies from certain industries. But a rather unexpected hero came to the rescue: the Beatles' John Lennon. The ex-FM writes: 'The work-in [staged by the workers to complete orders, instead of going on strike] attracted global attention, including a £5,000 donation from John Lennon.' Fact check: Only it, er, wasn't £5,000 but a £1,000 sum, as reported by the Morning Star. Whatever happened to Sturgeon's fact-checkers?! Govan by-election Claim: Rather bizarrely, the former SNP leader writes in her memoir that her party's victory in the 1988 by-election saw Jim Sillars overturn a Labour majority of 13,000. Fact check: The Labour majority that was overturned was in fact even greater – at 19,500. A missed opportunity to boast there! It's quite the list from a former leader of Scotland, eh? Steerpike encourages readers to write in with more errors they spot…
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Labour can't hit ‘working people', so now they're after people who used to work
Labour has got itself into a cleft stick. Having come to power on a pledge of not raising taxes on 'working people,' in response to the opposition charge that it cares more about those who don't work, that raising money from the employed goes to help those who choose to be unemployed, Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are stuck. They are faced with a deficit of £50bn, give or take, for which they can no longer blame the Tories – that legacy was half. It's down to their failure to drive the economy, to achieve as they insist, 'faster and further' growth. It's just not happening, and, meanwhile, they have that hole to fill. They can't borrow extra because another reason that the chasm is so large is due to higher-than-expected borrowing costs. They dare not cut services because that would alienate their bedrock, and 'austerity' is what Tories do, not them. So, they cast around for tax targets. However, they can't alight on those who are putting in the hours and earning by aiming for income tax, employee national insurance, or VAT, because that would betray the election promise. So, they pick those who once worked. Inheritance tax, or IHT, or as it's popularly known, 'death duty,' is in their crosshairs. At present, inheritance tax is 40 per cent on estates above £325,000. But there is no limit on how much can be gifted to relatives tax-free if the giving is made seven years before someone dies. If it's within seven years, then a sliding scale or 'taper relief' applies. The rate drops each year, from 32 per cent to 8 per cent. Those who think they, or rather their inheritors, may be clobbered duly give it away in good time. The result is that inheritance tax is paid by only around four per cent of estates. In the eyes of Reeves and her advisors, that is too little. They know that people are sitting in homes that have soared in value and possess gold-plated pension pots, and they want some of it. They are looking at imposing a lifetime cap on how much can be gifted and/or changing the rules on taper relief. To ensure, in other words, that IHT is not so easily avoided and that the four per cent figure increases enormously. What's not to like? Politically, those affected are the better off, who are not natural Labour voters. It is not earned money, in the sense that property prices and pensions have risen since they ceased to work. It's fair game to grab it. Indeed, that is precisely what a source with knowledge of the work told the Guardian: 'It's hard to make sure these taxes don't end up with loopholes that undermine their purpose. But we are trying to work out what revenue might be raised and how to ensure it's a fair approach.' Labour has form for this. It's exactly what this government did to the farmers, except there it was farmers with land worth more than £3m. Reeves said this week she believed they 'should make a contribution.' These are weasel words. Reeves is ignoring the fact that they have already contributed, as presumably, she and her colleagues are doing so again, by claiming they are looking to be 'fair'. Apparently, one of the motivators is that they are not keen on a wealth tax as many of their supporters would like because that will serve to encourage the wealthy who can do so to leave the country, and there is evidence to suggest that is already happening, and would damage attempts to encourage greater investment to galvanise the economy. But how is this any different? It still sends the same signal that Labour sees the rich and not even that rich, as ripe for plundering. However it is dressed up and spun, the message is clear: you don't want to work and make some money under Labour, because they will get you. Ignoring the working and selecting those who worked may cleverly satisfy their political and fiscal ambitions, but it fools no one. Under Labour, it really does pay not to work.
