Kate Forbes exit: Has Holyrood failed family friendly goal?
It's a statement that will resonate with all working parents (most often mothers as they usually have the responsibility as chief carer) across Scotland, many who will have regretted missing a school sports day or a school show or felt the panic of a meeting over-running as the clock approached nursery closing hours.
But it will particularly echo with a considerable number of MSPs.
Kate Forbes pictured with her daughter Naomi aged six months, in March 2023 during the SNP leadership race (Image: Colin Mearns) When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999 there was much emphasis that Holyrood would do things differently to Westminster including that it would be more family friendly.
For instance, the late night sittings, common place in the House of Commons, would be avoided in preference for more usual office hours and parliamentary sittings would align with school term times.
But despite Holyrood mostly keeping to the standard working hours for its debates and committee hearings and sitting during school term times, MSPs and ministers have duties that take them well beyond the daily nine to five.
For many MSPs the job is a 24 hour round the clock role - so perhaps political parties should do more to help promote a better work life balance among their parliamentarians.
READ MORE:
Ahead of the last [[Holyrood]] election in 2021, [[Kate Forbes]]' SNP colleague and fellow Highland MSP Gail Ross spoke about how it was to be an MSP, especially for a large constituency a long way from Edinburgh with the huge amount of weekly travel that involves, and being a mother who was there for her children.
If there are difficulties for a backbencher, as Ms Ross was, in finding a decent balance between working and caring duties, these challenges intensify for someone in government, who in addition to all their responsibilities as an MSP, also has the huge demands of being a minister or a cabinet minister.
And of course the pressure rises still further for anyone in the role of Deputy First Minister or First Minister.
I was struck by a comment by John Swinney last week when he told Donald Trump that he likes to caddy for his son Matthew, who is 14.
My immediate thought was 'that's a really nice thing to do but how does the First Minister find time to caddy for his son?' Clearly the FM must do a lot of diary juggling to find time to spend this quality time with his teenager.
It reflects the situation that few of Scotland's First Ministers have been parents of young children while in office.
Donald Dewar's two children were adults when he was First Minister, as were his Labour successors' Henry McLeish's and Jack McConnell.
When it came to the [[SNP]], neither Alex Salmond nor Nicola Sturgeon had any children. The latter has spoken of her deep sadness of this situation and has also revealed she suffered a miscarriage in January 2011 while Deputy First Minister.
As an indication of the pressures under which senior politicians are under Ms Sturgeon told some years later that instead of dealing with her grief at home she attended the 40th anniversary of the Ibrox disaster, in which 66 Rangers football supporters were crushed to death.
Humza Yousaf was indeed the first First Minister to have young children while in office at Bute House.
Mr Yousaf used his time at the top of government to highlight that he also had an important role as a father.
The then First Minister and his wife Nadia El Nakla had one daughter Amal, three, together when he first became FM while Mr Yousaf was also stepfather to 14 year old daughter Maya.
He liked to describe himself as a "hands-on dad", was pictured reading bed time stories to Amal after becoming First Minister and spoke of the need to set boundaries between his family and working life.
Things didn't always go to plan and Mr Yousaf previously recounted one episode, just after he was elected SNP leader, when Amal burst into a Bute House meeting when he was deciding who would be in his Cabinet.
'I'm deciding who's going to be in my Cabinet, making last-minute tweaks to the ministerial team. It was about 9.30pm and in comes Amal, bare feet, unicorn pyjamas, saying 'Dad I have to go to bed, Mummy says'.
'And both Colin [McAllister] and Shona [Robison] were like 'that has never happened at Bute House before. I say to my kids and wife Nadia, as much as this is a workspace, it's also our residence and family home too.'
Given the challenges it was perhaps not surprising that Mr Yousaf paid tribute to his wife, children and family for their support in his tearful resignation statement.
"Politics can be a brutal business. It takes its toll on your physical and mental health; your family suffer alongside you. I am in debt to my wonderful wife, my beautiful children and wider family for putting up with me over the years, I am afraid you will be seeing a lot more of me now. You are truly everything to me," he said.
Shortly after returning to the backbenches the former First Minister was keen to highlight one of the silver linings of his loss of office was being able to attend events with Amal that he wouldn't have had the time to while in Bute House.
Kate Forbes's resignation announcement has been met with considerable dismay across Holyrood today.
No doubt her young daughter and her wider family will be delighted to see more of her.
But it is a sad state of affairs that we expect so much of a sacrifice from our politicians that they feel they cannot be both successful MSPs and even senior ministers and also contented and nurturing parents.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
32 minutes ago
- The National
Plans to deliver the SNP's 'Promise' are a muddle. They won't do
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Nick Kempe of the Common Weal Care Reform Group, who was previously head of commissioning of social care at Glasgow City Council. ON June 17, the Scottish Government introduced the horribly named Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament. This was almost nine years after Nicola Sturgeon first promised to improve the lives of children and young people with experience of the care system. The Independent Care Review was then set up to consider how to do it. In 2020, it produced its report, The Promise, which was followed in 2021 by The Plan. The purpose of the bill is to implement recommendations arising from The Promise and The Plan – for example, reforming the Children's Hearing system, which the Scottish Government believe requires changes in the law. Among them is also the recommendation that profit should have no place in the children's care system. READ MORE: SNP must do more to keep my flagship 'promise', Nicola Sturgeon says The policy memorandum accompanying the bill starts well, with this statement: 'The Promise is clear that there is no place for profiting in how Scotland cares for its children and that Scotland must avoid the monetisation of the care of children and prevent the marketisation of care by 2030.' Unfortunately, the proposals which follow represent a complete policy muddle and will not deliver what was promised. Residential care and for-profit problems Take the proposals for children's residential care. They will do nothing to prevent private companies extracting large profits. For residential children's services, the bill only gives Ministers the power to limit profit, not abolish it and that only after a period of collecting data about profit levels – a recipe for delay. In proposing this, the Scottish Government has decided to follow England but not Wales, who are in the process of abolishing private provision completely. The Scottish Government's justification for this stance is they believe profits are lower in Scotland (£28k a year per child) than England and the UK average of £44k a year. This is based on data from the Competition and Markets Authority. For context, £28k a year is four times the amount per child the bill proposes to spend extending aftercare services to children who leave care before 16 over their lifetimes! Every pound extracted in profit is a pound less for helping a child who needs it. (Image: Vitolda Klein on Unsplash) The latest Looked After Children Statistics report that 1324 children and young people were in residential care settings in 2024, and suggest that of these a minimum of 365 were in placements provided by the private sector. That is more than £10 million in private profit. The explanation for this retreat from The Promise appears to lie in the Financial Memorandum to the bill. This states that the Scottish Government is concerned that profit-making providers would walk away from service provision (with their buildings) if the profit extraction stopped. The answer to that risk is for the Scottish Government to pledge to use emergency powers to take over such services and, if their current powers are not sufficient to do this, to add new emergency powers to the bill. The bill contains no proposals to stop profit-making by private companies which operate services for care-experienced children in local communities rather than residential or foster care settings. Such services also monetise the care system. A step forward for foster care The proposals in foster care do, however, represent a step forward. Independent Fostering Agencies (IFAs) are the only type of care service in Scotland that are currently required to operate on a non-for-profit basis – but this has never been enforced by the regulator responsible, the Care Inspectorate (CI). As a result, as Common Weal showed in our The Crisis in Foster Care in Scotland report, profits continue to be siphoned out of some IFAs by profit-making parent companies. We are pleased that the Scottish Government has explicitly mentioned our report and acknowledged what is happening in the policy memorandum to the bill. To address these problems the Scottish Government is proposing that all IFAs should be required to register as charities with the Scottish Charity Regulator. It also correctly argues that if any of the current IFAs decide to withdraw from the foster care market as a result, the foster carers contracted to work for them can be taken on by other IFAs or local authorities. It predicts this will release £6-10m a year which can then be reinvested in foster care – less than will be taken in profit for residential children's services. Public services for private profit? All this does represent a significant step forward in government thinking – but begs the question as to how the not-for-profit requirements will be enforced? More specifically, how will profit-making parent companies be prevented from continuing to extract money from IFAs through internal charges for legal and administrative services, or borrowing large sums of money interest-free, as they do at present? The Scottish Government is proposing that the CI should be responsible for delivering this and that after setting up new systems the costs of doing so will be minimal. If it's so simple, the CI could have done this years ago. First Minister John Swinney's Government had published the proposals (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) We would like to see the bill go further and the Scottish Government use its legislative powers to break all links between IFAs and profit-making companies, the only sure way to ensure profit extraction stops. Common Weal's Care Reform Group will publish our full response to the Scottish Government's proposals in due course. The consultation and the bill itself, however, present an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to challenge the hold that profit-making companies now have over swathes of what are supposed to be public services. We must ensure that they are once again run for public benefit – and only ever in the interests of the children who need them.
South Wales Argus
44 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Wealth tax will not work, says Scottish Secretary
Ian Murray told an audience at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe that the policy would not work. Speaking to comedian Matt Forde, the Labour minister said he 'wished' it worked but suggested wealthy people would leave the country. Some within Labour, including former leader Lord Neil Kinnock, Welsh First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan and former equality minister Anneliese Dodds, have backed the idea. It has also become popular among unions and other left-wing parties, including the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn's new, unnamed party. On Thursday, Mr Murray said there was 'no silver bullet' to the economic issues facing the country, saying 'if you pull one leaver you have to push another' in a reference to tax rises and public spending cuts. He said while some UK Government decisions have been 'unpalatable', 'things would have been even more unpalatable' if they did not make tough choices. Asked if a wealth tax could be a solution to the issue, the Scottish Secretary said: 'No, it doesn't work. The Laffer curve (a theory showing the relationship between taxation and a government's revenue) is there for everyone to see. 'So, yes, you can bring in a wealth tax, because it might make you feel principally better. 'You might bring in £200 million but the cost of doing that would be huge because there is just flight, whether we like that or not.' Mr Murray said the tax had failed in other countries which, he said, had since gone on to roll back their decisions. He said: 'Every single principal decision we have to make has got to be on the basis of does it raise more money? 'Is it fair? Is it equitable? And will it resolve the situation? 'If the answer to any of those questions is no, we should not do it. 'So the wealth tax, and honestly, the wealth tax has been spent about 500 times over already for every single issue – just doing well tax, it doesn't work. 'I wish it did, but it doesn't.' Mr Murray added that the 'only real palatable option' was to grow the economy.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Scottish Labour take £200k in private healthcare-linked donations
Welcome to this week's Branch Office Updates! Subscribe for free using the linked banner above. SCOTTISH Labour have been panned over research which finds its MPs have received nearly £200,000 from donors linked to private healthcare. The SNP have said that leader Anas Sarwar must 'come clean'. Earlier this year, EveryDoctor revealed that MPs had bagged more than £2.7m in donations from people with links to the private healthcare sector. READ MORE: Australian influencers 'damage' historic Jacobite site, as investigation launches Among those receiving the most donations was Health Secretary Wes Streeting who has pocketed a whopping £224,575. The organisation's research, however, also found that half of all Scottish Labour MPs – including Scottish Secretary Ian Murray (below) and Minister Kirsty McNeill – have received donations from companies or individuals linked directly or indirectly with private healthcare, worth a total of £192,071. The largest donor to Scottish MPs is the Labour Together Ltd think tank. It is primarily funded by Martin Taylor, who founded the hedge fund Crake Asset Management, as well as Trevor Chinn, a senior adviser to the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners. CVC has investments in dozens of private healthcare companies in the UK, Europe and Asia, whilst Taylor's firm has held millions worth of shares in firms including United Health and Elevance Health. Several Scottish Labour MPs – Gregor Poynton, Melanie Ward, and Martin McCluskey – have also benefited from donations from Danny Luhde-Thompson, who is an advisor to investment firm Quadrature Capital, which has had extensive shareholding in private healthcare firms. READ MORE: Ian Blackford to give shock return in Kate Forbes seat 'careful consideration' The donations have been declared in the proper manner and there is no suggestion of wrongdoing. But SNP MSP Clare Haughey has told The National that these figures are 'alarming to everyone who is serious about protecting the NHS". 'The volume and amount of donations involved show just how much influence these shadowy think tanks and hedge funds have within the Labour Party,' she added. 'Even before coming to power, Labour's Health Secretary Wes Streeting said that he would 'hold the door wide open' to private investment in the NHS. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see why when you discover who is bankrolling the Labour Party.' Haughey went on: 'Anas Sarwar previously tried to dismiss Labour Together Ltd as a group on the 'fringes' of the Labour Party. The fact that they have funded half of his MPs would suggest they are far from being on the fringes but are in fact at the very heart of Labour. 'Sarwar must come clean on Scottish Labour's position on private healthcare, and whether his prospective MSPs will be getting bankrolled by groups with links to private healthcare. 'Whilst Labour has many questions to answer, one thing is clear – only the SNP will protect the NHS and ensure that healthcare is provided based on medical need rather than the ability to pay." A Scottish Labour spokesperson said: "All donations are declared in line with Parliamentary and Ministerial rules. "While one in six Scots are abandoned by the SNP on NHS waiting lists, the Labour Party – who created the NHS – will always make sure it remains free at the point of need on our watch."
