Do not take risk of importing divisive politics, Swinney tells Hamilton voters
Voters are due to go to the polls in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse on Thursday, with the SNP, Labour and Reform vying to send an MSP to Holyrood.
The tone in the campaign has regularly turned nasty as the two leading parties try to fend off the threat of Reform, with the Nigel Farage-led party being accused of racism following an attack ad on Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar.
Speaking in Aberdeen on Monday, the Reform leader doubled down on the attacks, claiming a speech the Labour leader made encouraging more people of south Asian background to enter politics was 'sectarian'.
Speaking to journalists during a visit to a children's soft play charity in Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, the First Minister was asked what he would say to people who were fed up with politics and politicians to the point where Reform becomes a viable option.
First Minister John Swinney and SNP candidate Katy Loudon with Grace Ure, aged two, during a visit to Juniors Charity in Hamilton (Jane Barlow/PA)
'I'd say to those people, first of all, I understand how they're feeling, because standards of living have not improved in the way that people would have had reasonable expectations,' he said.
'Why is that the case? It's because of Brexit – and Nigel Farage is the author of Brexit.
'I would say to those people, don't go to the guy for a solution who gave you the problem in the first place.'
He added: 'I would also say, don't take the risk of importing divisive politics into our country, because it's far too important for all of us to stick together.'
The First Minister also stressed the importance of the by-election to his own party, who at last year's general election haemorrhaged MPs, dropping from 48 to just nine just weeks after Mr Swinney took over as leader.
'It's very important, I view it as critical,' he said.
'I've been here a lot and we've fought a big campaign here.'
He said the party has fought so hard in the constituency in honour of former minister Christina McKelvie, whose death sparked the contest, as well as it being a 'big political test for us'.
'A year ago, we suffered a huge defeat in the Westminster general election,' he said.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during a visit to BAE Systems in Govan, Glasgow (Andy Buchanan/PA)
'We've learned lessons from that, we've gathered ourselves, we've addressed different priorities, we've focused very much on the concerns of the public.
'I set out, when I became First Minister a year ago, that I had to rebuild the relationship between the public and the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Government, and that's what I'll do.'
Meanwhile, Mr Farage is due to visit Hamilton on Monday during a visit to Scotland after addressing the media in Aberdeen.
Asked about the attack ad against Mr Sarwar, the Reform leader said: 'I think that speech he gave was sectarian in its very nature – we are the south Asian community, we are going to take over the country and take over the world.
'We believe what he said was a form of sectarian politics and we don't like it one little bit.'
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is also in Scotland, announcing the outcome of the UK Government's strategic defence review, but he is not expected to campaign in the seat.
Speaking at a shipyard in the Govan area of Glasgow, the Prime Minister said on Monday morning: 'I can't imagine anybody who seriously wants to be prime minister of this country coming to Scotland and saying that the first priority is not the safety and security of Scotland, consider the consequences of somebody as prime minister saying that.
'And remind ourselves that at this time of renewed threat and instability across Europe the SNP's position is to get rid of our nuclear deterrent, the single most important part of our capability that has kept Scotland and the United Kingdom safe for many, many years.'
Reform, he said, 'want to spend tens of billions of pounds but won't say where the money is coming from, completely unfunded, uncosted – that is what Liz Truss did, that's what blew up the economy'.
Asked why he was not campaigning on the doorstep in the by-election contest, he said: 'My firm belief is only Labour can beat the SNP in Hamilton.
'My firm belief is that my job as Prime Minister is to deliver for the whole of Scotland, including Hamilton and everybody involved in that by-election.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
21 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Britain is Scottish: a truth from history that's still true today
A couple of examples. James Boswell's diaries for Sunday 21 November 1762 describe his meeting with a fellow Scot Walter Macfarlane who was 'keenly interested in the reigning contests between Scots & English'. Boswell says this of Macfarlane: 'He talked much against the Union. He said we were perfect underlings, that our riches were carried out of the country and that many others were hurt by it.' Switch the date from 1762 to 2025 and some of the language but not much of it, and this is very familiar stuff. Another example. There's been a bit of a fad of late for books about James VI, focusing mostly on what his sexuality might have been, but I quite enjoyed The Wisest Fool by Steven Veerapen and, as with Boswell, there are striking familiarities with now. In the bookstalls of London and Edinburgh in the early years of James's reign, there were pamphlets explaining why unionism was a wonderful idea and pamphlets explaining why unionism was a terrible idea. There were also Brexit-style arguments over what kind of union Scotland and England should have; was the best idea some kind of loose federation or should the countries go for a much closer, Wales-style deal instead? So ancient, so modern. On top of all that, there's now a new piece of work that suggests a more surprising historic take on the relationship between Scotland and Britain. It's by the Glasgow University Professor Dauvit Broun and it concludes that medieval Scottish historians and scholars regarded the Scottish kingdom as equivalent to Britain; Britain as fundamentally Scottish in fact. 'Scotland as Britain can be detected quite clearly in histories of the Scottish kingdom written in Latin and read by Scots between the 1380s and 1520s,' says the professor. Professor Broun says this idea of Britain as fundamentally Scottish will be provocative in today's polarised debates about national identity and I can see what he means. There are some Scots today who think one of the big problems in the debate about national identity is that there are English people who project their sense of nationhood on to Scotland, do not appear to respect the separate Scottish identity, or actually conflate England and Britain. I don't think this happens as much as we think, but when it does, it's irritating. Read more However, what makes the idea of the English projecting their sense of nationhood onto Scotland more interesting is Professor Broun's idea that it's happened the other way around as well and there are Scots who conflated Britain and Scotland. The professor quotes John Mair, sometimes called the father of Scottish unionism, and says Mair's vision was essentially of a Scottish kingdom expanded to include England. Mair assumed a Scottish king would come to rule Britain which is indeed what happened in the end. As we know, the king that did it, James VI and I, was certainly of the Better Together persuasion; 'this kingdom was divided into seven little kingdoms,' he said in an address to parliament, 'Is it not the stronger by their union?' But a Scottish king projecting his sense of self, and nation, and union, onto England wasn't the beginning or the end of it. Indeed, the extent of the Scottish projection or influence on England and the UK makes me wonder how surprising and provocative the idea of Britain as Scottish really is. It seems to me that it still underlines the way the United Kingdom works. Britain was Scottish and still is. Obviously, England remains the dominant partner constitutionally and politically, but even politically Britain has often been Scottish. One of the history books I've opened recently is The Wild Men by my former colleague David Torrance, which relates how Scottish the first Labour government was, but it's continued ever since with Scots often at the top of British government, and not always when it's Labour in power. The history books also tell us it was bigger than that: much of the British Empire is covered with Scottish fingerprints so not only is Britain Scottish, the British Empire is Scottish too. James VI and I (Image: Free) The signs of Scotland as Britain are more permanent as well; they're built in stone. I did a walk round Glasgow recently with Colin Drysdale, the author of Glasgow Uncovered, a book on the city's architecture, and many of the architects we talked about went way beyond Scotland and had a massive influence on England and Britain too. John James Burnet, for example, designed Glasgow's Charing Cross Mansions and lots of other fine buildings in the city. But he also worked on British icons like Selfridges and the British Museum. Visit London and look at the buildings and a lot of what you're looking at is Scottish. The projection of Scotland onto Britain is everywhere else as well, once you start to look for it. Business and trade (the vast majority of our exports are to England). Population: there are more Scots living in England than there are in any single Scottish city. And music, culture, the arts, food, drink, technology. And Lulu of course. All of it, as well as our influence on politics and government – and a Royal family that's arguably more Scottish than English – says to me that the idea of Britain as Scotland is not surprising at all. Professor Broun says it raises fundamental questions about the nature of British identity, so let me suggest an answer. The concept of Britain as Scottish isn't a distant idea in the minds of medieval scholars. It still exists, it's still real, and it's still proving how interconnected we are. And of course, it raises the eternal question, the one that bugged us then and bugs us now: how much would it cost to unravel it all?
The Herald Scotland
33 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
So now you know, SNP: indy is not what people care about
There may have been little talk of independence in the campaign but Katy Loudon, the SNP candidate, put out a Facebook video on the morning of the by-election which made clear it's all about separating us from the rest of the UK. The unionist parties' share of the vote at the by-election was just short of 66%. If that doesn't send a clear message to the SNP and the Greens that independence is not what is important at the moment, I don't know what will. Maybe if the SNP improved our NHS, our education system, housing, our infrastructure, managed to build ferries and dual our roads on time and improve our economy, it might get more support. That would be novel, would it not? Jane Lax, Aberlour. Nothing short of humiliation It wasn't only the kitchen sink that the SNP flung at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It threw the washing machine, tumble drier and dishwasher as well. Anyone who saw on social media the gangs of SNP enthusiasts roaming the constituency, saturating it with MSPs including ministers, as well as foot soldiers, with a massive intensity, for weeks and especially in the last two weeks, must have imagined that it was a seat they could not lose. I wondered, in the last days, whether the SNP was not engaging in overkill, that the good folk of the constituency might be saturated with SNP propaganda to the point of apathy. The turnout, at 44 per cent, suggested that as a partial possibility. In this by-election, it was possible to utilise all the party's resources, and it did. That would not be remotely a possibility in any one constituency in a General Election. The result was nothing short of humiliation for the SNP. It is also a personal humiliation for John Swinney, who spent much time in the last week campaigning in the constituency rather than attending to First Minister's business. Nothing much will change at Holyrood, of course, but Mr Swinney's insistence that Scotland does not welcome Reform UK looks a bit hollow after it scooped up 26 per cent of the vote. Perhaps we can have a break from his preaching about Scotland being allegedly more moral than England. Ah well, one can but hope. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. Read more letters For many, politics is not working It is alarming that, in Thursday's by-election, Reform UK came third with 7,088 votes, a mere 1,471 behind Labour. The victorious Labour candidate, Davy Russell, is quoted as saying that 'this community has [also] sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' I suspect Mr Russell was speaking from within the excitement of winning and did not realise the significance of Reform UK winning so many votes. The party of Nigel Farage, that enthusiastic Trump supporter, was understood to hold little attraction for the Scottish voter compared with his standing with the English electorate. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse voters have demonstrated otherwise. The UK political establishment, Labour in particular, has one important lesson to learn, that being that politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population. The vote for a disastrous Brexit was the first warning sign of a significant discontent with the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy. Uncontrolled neoliberalism has done untold damage to our social contract with our politicians accepting unquestionably the words of Mrs Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'. John Milne, Uddingston. Reform will be a Holyrood force The most interesting thing about the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood is not who won, Labour, nor the fact that the voting was a three-way split between it, the SNP and Reform UK, but where Reform's votes came from. Compared to its vote share in the constituency in the last Holyrood election four years ago, the SNP vote dropped by almost 17% of the votes cast and the Tory vote by 11.5%. Labour's vote share actually went down by 2% as well. This means that Reform UK's 26% of the vote came more from parties of the left than the Tories. Clearly Reform is not just a threat to the Conservatives. In the climate of dissatisfaction with the established parties, Reform is on track to be a force at Holyrood next year. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. • After all the ballyhoo, the result is in and the real winner is Reform UK. John Swinney talked Reform up too effectively. Labour's candidate was nearly invisible. The result speaks volumes. The SNP lost. Labour just limped home despite being helped a huge amount by the SNP's travails. Reform UK came from a near-zero base to gain over 7,000 votes and run both other parties close. This by-election was a real test of public opinion for the shape of Holyrood in 2026. Reform could still founder given frequent party in-fighting. Equally the Tories could re-assert their desired position as defenders of the Union. John Swinney has made another major SNP blunder and released the genie from the bottle. Is he going to be the architect of the SNP's downfall? Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Labour far from home and hosed While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar, I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat that Labour needs to win if Anas Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting that the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh. Now flesh out the policies All the pundits initially claimed the Hamilton by-election would go to Labour, given local circumstances. Now a Labour win is described as a 'shock' after even some in Labour were describing their own candidate as not up to the job. But Labour needs to up its game for the next election. Criticism is easy, but Labour needs more fleshed-out policies for government, beyond centralising health in Scotland. The SNP needs to drop all the 'student politics' stuff; it was embarrassing to see a squabble over £2 million when it should be asking why Scotland does so poorly on defence procurement and jobs. Formulate a proper industrial policy for Scotland, and back any project that would enhance jobs and prosperity for Scotland. Refuse nothing and put the onus on unionists to explain their plans in detail. Trident: are the unionist plans for keeping Trident in Scotland similar to those for Diego Garcia? Nuclear power: why do they think Scotland should have it, given its high-cost electricity and the extensive lags on construction? What of waste disposal and site security? The SNP should be in favour of local pricing for electricity as a draw to attract jobs, and for North Sea oil/gas production (until Scots are empowered to decide its future). A Labour/SNP coalition? It looks like the only feasible outcome. GR Weir, Ochiltree. • For all the fuss about the Hamilton by-election, it should be noted that almost 56% of the electorate really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. Russia claim is baseless Brian Wilson ("Yes, we should stand firm over Putin, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe", The Herald, June 5) tells us today that the rights of the former Soviet republics to seek security (membership of Nato) should have been balanced against Russian fears of encirclement. This raises two issues. Firstly, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia itself) and 14 others. Of these, only three (the Baltic states,which were independent between the wars) have joined Nato. I am unclear as to how this constitutes encirclement. Does Mr Wilson envisage the Central Asian former republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc) expressing a wish to join the alliance at some point, thus making encirclement a reality rather than a baseless claim? Secondly, does Mr Wilson not wonder why these small countries wished to be under the umbrella of the Nato alliance? To avoid the current fate of Ukraine perhaps? Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Brian Wilson expresses the hope that we should not categorise the Russian people as being inevitably in the enemy camp. He concluded his article by observing that narratives about Russia should have "due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence". Such narratives should certainly not fail to take account of the contribution made by Russian armed forces and the civilian population during the Second World War, which is estimated to have resulted in some 25 million Soviet deaths. It is clear that the Russian effort during that war was profoundly influential in assisting toward the eventual defeat of Germany. The Russian people at the time called upon impressive levels of love of country and perseverance in the fight toward victory over a formidable enemy. Once we were allies. While Russia remains in the firm grip of the dictatorial, ambitious and ruthless Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to see to what extent meaningful steps can be taken to pursue the "potential for peaceful co-existence". Ian W Thomson, Lenzie. A Pride rally in Glasgow (Image: PA) Pride needed now as much as ever Gregor McKenzie (Letters, June 6) suggests that LGBT Pride has had its day. In fact, since the end of the pandemic restrictions, more people have been going to more Pride events across Scotland than ever before. Why? I think it's in part because people see how, after several positive changes in the law for LGBT people in the past 25 years, things are now starting to get worse again. Mr McKenzie asks why we can't all just let people be, and I wish we could. But the increased restrictions being introduced on trans people in the UK are quite the opposite of that. Trans people just want to get on with their lives, but the new rules make that much more difficult. And trans people are constantly maligned currently by some parts of the media. So Pride events are needed as much now as ever. They are a celebration of how far we have come in the 30 years since the first Pride Scotland, and they are a protest against the regression we're seeing now. One day perhaps Pride will be solely a celebration, but that day still seems some way off. Meanwhile people join together in the streets to say "Not going back". Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
We shall not remain a free country if we continue to submit to radical Islamists
It shows in what strange times we live that it is the chairman of Reform, of all parties, who resigns over the question of banning the burka. Surely his party is the likeliest to favour a ban or – at least – to be able to contain internal disagreements on the subject. Probably Reform's chairman, Zia Yusuf, had other reasons to go. He is not the first person to find it challenging to work closely with Nigel Farage. In a spooky way, Reform tends to act as a mini-Maga, mirroring Trumpery in its highs and lows. Over there, Donald Trump and Elon Musk explode with a cosmic bang; over here, Farage and Yusuf then go off with a smaller pop. For this reason, I suspect that when Maga falters, as it eventually will, so will Reform. Nevertheless, Mr Yusuf is a Muslim. Partly for that reason, he was a recruitment coup for the supposedly 'Islamophobic' Reform. On Thursday, he said his party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had been 'dumb', at Prime Minister's Questions, to call for a burka ban; then he resigned. Let me take two other recent examples of where attitudes to Islam raise knotty problems. On Monday, Hamit Coskun, an atheist Turk, was found guilty of a 'religiously aggravated public order offence' and fined. He had burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. In an article in this week's Spectator, Mr Coskun says he was protesting about President Erdogan of Turkey changing his country from a firmly secular state to 'a base for radical Islamists while trying to create a sharia regime'. The magistrate, however, decided otherwise. Mr Coskun had been 'motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the [Muslim] religion', he said, and so he was a criminal. My other example comes from events outside Parliament on Wednesday. A noisy mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked, insulted and intimidated MPs and peers trying to enter. The protesters proudly announced that they were drawing a red line round the premises, as if they had that right. A disabled peer I know who travels by wheelchair, found it frightening to get through the crowd, though he determinedly persisted. He complained to a police officer, and got the airy reply, 'It's free speech, isn't it?' It indicates the sense of vulnerability such situations arouse that the peer asks me not to print his name. Another peer, Lord Moynihan, was surrounded near the Tube station entrance by black-clad youths who subjected him to an involuntary interview, which they filmed, including the question: 'Do you condemn the massacres of Gazans?' 'I do indeed condemn the terrible shootings by Hamas of their own people,' he bravely answered. It was noticeable – and has happened before – that when there are Gaza marches the police and the parliamentary authorities are lax about ensuring legislators can enter freely and protesters are kept at a distance. They seem not to acknowledge the vital difference between free speech and threatening behaviour. Obviously, the greatest passion behind the Gaza marches comes from Muslims (though the secular hard-Left is also involved). Have the police made a covert bargain with the march organisers? The fear of being called 'Islamophobic ' seems to disable the police's judgment. They do not properly enforce public order or protect the right of MPs, peers or staff, to reach their place of work unimpeded. Nor do they protect the right of ordinary citizens to enter Parliament without fear. They act as if the 'right to protest' allows parliamentary democracy to be made subject to a picket line. Yesterday, with many other peers, I signed a letter to the Lord Speaker, organised by Lord Walney. One of our points was that, on top of normal public-order legislation, there are at least four other laws which specifically protect Parliament from such attacks. Why are these not enforced, we asked, and why do the parliamentary authorities not take a stronger line to insist that they should be? One of the attractions of Britain to immigrants is that we are a free country, treasuring free speech. In many cases, immigrants enhance our freedom. Now that immigration is on such a vast scale, however, we suffer because many immigrants do not come from freedom-loving cultures. To the extent that immigrants can be grouped by religion, the largest single group are Muslims. For complex political, economic and cultural reasons, Islam is in global ferment. In that ferment, freedom is often scorned, except the freedom to advance interpretations of Islam, often the most extreme ones. Such Islamists have punitive, sometimes violent attitudes to promoting their version of their faith. At worst, this takes the form of terrorism. The words 'Allahu Akbar!' ('God is great!') have become the war-cry of an imminent explosion or attack. Even without actual violence, Islamism often involves naked anti-Semitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. Militant Islam also tries to assert its power against the sort of freedoms which the rest of us (including, do not forget, many Muslims) cherish. Examples include forcing women and girls to cover their heads and even their faces, prohibitions on school swimming or singing, protests against being served by women in the public services and the banning of certain books and films. A leading Islamist demand is for a blasphemy law, although its supporters use other words to describe it. Most Muslims are highly sensitive to any perceived insult to their prophet, Mohammed, or to the Koran. Because they regard the Koran as 'the unmediated word of God', some take the view that disrespect to the physical object, the book of his word, is a direct attack on him, and therefore must be avenged. Belief in the sacredness of religious scriptures should be respected by non-believers, but it must not be defended by law, no matter how much transgressions may offend Muslims. It is unpleasant and foolish to burn the Koran in public, just as it was – which often happened in Britain until quite recently – to burn effigies of the Pope. But the only conceivable justification for banning would be in special incidents – burning a Koran in front of worshippers entering a mosque, for example – which would amount to an incitement to violence. The offence here should not be because the act was 'religiously aggravated'. A modern country should not adjudicate between the sincerity, truth or competing ardour of different religious claims. All it can judge is that some things in some places breach civil peace. In all the cases cited above, you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned. But there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices. Two concepts need to be faced down. The first is the idea of 'Islamophobia', to which this Government wants to give legal shape. The word 'phobia' suggests psychological abnormality, yet surely people are entitled to be frightened of any religion, especially of Christianity and Islam, which aims for conversion and claims universal truth. Such fears may be misplaced, but they are not criminal. The other concept embedded in public policy, thanks to the Equality Act, is that of 'protected characteristics' – one's religion, sex, sexuality, age, disability, race etc. These are intended to defend people against persecution, but in practice they drive us into warring categories. The only protected characteristic anyone should need is to be a British citizen. That unites. Everything else divides.
