Greens accuse BBC of bias over Debate Night Glasgow special
Lord Haughey, is a prominent Scottish businessman and philanthropist, and has been a major donor to the party.
READ MORE
Scots Reform chair Zia Yusuf quits Farage's party after burka ban question
Rows with press, claims of racism and misinformation - a by-election that turned ugly
The word of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election: scunnered
The Glasgow branch of the Scottish Green Party hit out at the broadcaster, describing the line up as a "farce." They have now filed a formal complaint.
Councillor Anthony Carroll, the group's democracy spokesperson, said: 'It is clear that the BBC are still keeping the mentality of wanting to balance only between the parties of the past.
'For the Conservatives to have a representative while they can barely hold on to any deposits in Glasgow any more — while the Greens, who surged to third place across the city, are ignored once again — shows just how out of touch they are with the electorate.
'I urge the BBC to address this in any future political broadcasts and avoid another farce.'
The BBC has been approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
11 minutes ago
- The National
Chancellor urged to tackle child poverty as 'priority' by Scots charities
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will set out the UK Government's first spending review since she announced £5 billion of cuts to disability benefits in the September 2024 Budget. Earlier this week the UK Government U-turned on its proposed cuts to winter fuel payments for pensioners, sparking calls for ministers to go further and end the two-child benefit cap. We previously told how research, commissioned by the SNP, found that almost two million families in the UK would be lifted out of poverty if Westminster followed Scotland's lead. This would mean abolishing the two-child benefit cap, scrapping the bedroom tax and raising the child element of Universal Credit to match the Scottish child payment. READ MORE: UK must do 'far more' than sanctions and stop all arms sales to Israel The Scottish Government has also previously called on the Chancellor to rethink the cuts and to fully fund the National Insurance employer increase for Scotland's public services. The spending review comes amid warnings the number of children in the UK living in poverty is expected to rise to a record 4.6 million by 2029-30. Satwat Rehman, chief executive of One Parent Families Scotland, told The National: 'We are deeply concerned that the government is pressing ahead with damaging welfare reforms - including proposed cuts to disability benefits and delays to the long-promised child poverty strategy. 'In the midst of a worsening cost-of-living crisis, these decisions risk pushing already struggling single-parent families into even deeper hardship. 'The growing uncertainty is compounding anxiety for single parents, who face immense financial strain and will be disproportionately impacted as sole carers and providers for their children. (Image: .) 'We urge the UK Government to take decisive action to reduce child poverty in tomorrow's Spending Review and to protect vulnerable families from further harm.' Over the past decade, the number of children living in poverty has risen from 3.7m (27%) in 2013/14 to 4.5m (31%) in 2023/24. John Dickie, director of Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, also urged the UK Government to rethink its swingeing benefit cus. 'If the UK Government is serious about bringing forward a credible child poverty strategy the Chancellor must commit to allocating the resources needed to scrap the two-child limit,' he told The National. 'It's the single biggest driver of rising child poverty across the UK - pushing 109 more children into poverty every single day that passes. READ MORE: Independent Scotland would break ties with Israel, says Stephen Flynn 'And with families affected by disability at even higher risk of poverty, a major rethink is also needed on planned cuts to disability and sickness benefits. 'The spending review offers an opportunity to weigh up not just the moral costs of child poverty but the economic costs. Leaving so many of our children to grow up in poverty is a drag on the economy and a massive fiscal burden on the public services left to pick up the pieces. 'Investing to end child poverty must be the priority.' It comes as UK health, defence, and education departments are set to see a funding boost in the announcement, with £113bn going to capital funding for infrastructure projects. The Acorn carbon capture hub in Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, is reportedly set to receive funding. (Image: NQ) Local MP Seamus Logan, SNP, said he 'cautiously welcomed' the announcement but added there must be guarantees and sufficient funding put in place for the project. Meanwhile, climate campaigners criticised the funding being given to a 'greenwashing' project. Reeves is set to tell the Commons: 'The priorities in this spending review are the priorities of working people. 'To invest in our country's security, health and economy so working people all over our country are better off.' The Chancellor has also already announced some £15.6 billion of spending on public transport in England's city regions, and £16.7 billion for nuclear power projects, the bulk of which will fund the new Sizewell C plant in Suffolk. Wes Streeting's health department is set to be one of the biggest winners for funding, ahead of the publication of the NHS 10-year plan, due to be released shortly after the spending review. The full implications for Scotland, and what funding will be made available for ministers, will not be clear until after the full statement.
The National
11 minutes ago
- The National
Anas Sarwar's joy quickly sours as reality of UK Labour's record bites
Claiming as Anas Sarwar tried in the immediate aftermath that the result was 'the first stone on the path to a Labour government next year' is less of a stretch and more heroic projection. But given what the story would have been if his party had failed, after a torrid few months you can hardly blame him for trying to put as much hot air in his balloon as he could manage. By Sunday, though, Sarwar's mood had clearly soured. His outing on The Sunday Show was little more than an angry rant, spending much of his airtime not so much failing to answer questions as failing to even allow them to be asked, talking over the presenter with a stream of vitriol about everyone from the SNP in general and John Swinney in particular, to the media itself. READ MORE: Controversial Loch Lomond Flamingo Land plans recalled by Scottish ministers Ironically, he seemed to have far more to say about the SNP warning about the dangers of Reform than he did about the dangers of the Reform party itself. For someone who wants and indeed needs the country to believe that he might still be in with a shout of being our next first minister, let's just say it wasn't very, well, first ministerial. The cause of all this anger? It was hard to tell. But you'd have to say Sarwar really doesn't like being asked to defend his party's dismal record in the UK Government. And he really, really didn't like having it pointed out to him that despite narrowly emerging with the most votes last Thursday, his party has seen a dramatic drop-off in support since last year's Westminster election. Now the smoke has cleared, the reality is this – as disappointing as it was from an SNP perspective not to win, the result was, give or take, in line with national Scotland-wide polling. (Image: Andrew Milligan/ PA Wire) While the SNP were well down on a high point of Holyrood 2021, Labour were also down on what was their 2021 low point. And when compared with the Westminster results last year, it's clear Labour support is down massively while the SNP are posting a modest revival. So, while Labour are not out of it yet, they are still well off the pace. For the SNP, it's a reminder if any were needed that while it was necessary for the party to 'steady the ship', this is insufficient in and of itself to bring the electoral success necessary to advance independence politically. For the Greens, it shows that even though they have no chance of winning first-past-the-post seats, if enough independence supporters favour them in an electoral contest they can take enough support to let a Unionist party slip through to victory. And as for the LibDems, it's clear that vast areas of Scotland are still complete no-go areas for them. In all the noise about Reform, however, one story seems to be being largely missed and that is how they are eating the Scottish Tories alive, to the point where if it continues, the Tories could end up duking it out for fourth, fifth or even sixth place in Holyrood next year between the Greens and the LibDems. It would be quite the fall from grace for the party that managed to take official opposition status at Holyrood under Ruth Davidson's brand. But as the brand tarnished in the slipstream of Boris Johnson, the aftermath of Brexit and the general vacuity of her eponymous project, so the politics and the rhetoric became ever more extreme. There's a distinction to be drawn between Reform the party and people voting Reform. The party seems to be attracting a motley mix of cranks, obsessives and opportunists as candidates, all of whom just about manage to agree with each other on who and what they dislike, and that, for now at least, 'in Nigel we trust'. But no matter what you can say about their public representatives and the hash they are making of the responsibilities they have been given, it's worth reflecting that not all of those who chose to favour them with their votes right now are necessarily signed up to the full-fat Reform agenda, scant on detail as that is. It's quite obvious large numbers of voters are scunnered right now. The cost of living crisis might be spoken of less but is no less present. If you have a frustration about the political system and the outcomes it has delivered; are disinclined to vote for independence as a route to something better; if you see a party which seems to be annoying all the right people as you see it; and if you feel the stakes are low enough, then 'why not?', you might feel. But back to the SNP. It should be clear by now there is no shortcut back to previous levels of popularity, and even if there is an 'independence button' out there to be pushed, it will only be to provide a temporary dopamine hit for the already convinced. If the SNP want to win back independence supporters – and crucially, those who are not yet independence supporters but who could be persuaded – the only route to that is through good government in the present; a clear vision for the future; and putting front and centre our arguments about why those who live in Scotland should be deciding what happens in Scotland.
The National
11 minutes ago
- The National
Economic truths show how independent Scotland and Wales can succeed
Slowly but steadily, the size of our movements is coalescing. A recent poll reported a figure as high as 40% in support of Welsh independence (from 17% in 2014). Polls in Scotland still regularly suggest a figure around 50%. READ MORE: 'What is our vision?': Inside the quiet anger brewing within the SNP With the shared vision for a new society, there are many areas which individual supporters would highlight. Some would see a society that has more respect for our environment, that better understands its place in the world, or a greater role for the native language. Within the myriad differences that motivate independence supporters, we suggest that three areas stand out: independence is a cultural, democratic, and economic project. Independent nations tend to better value and invest greater resources in their unique culture and heritage. It would be hard to imagine that a cultural outpouring would not follow independence for Scotland and Wales. The very act of independence boosts democracy. With the end of devolved settlements, power would be returned closer to the people. But the case for the economy is quite different. Can we actually define our economy? Firstly, what do we mean by a better economy? How do we measure prosperity? Does fairness and justice define or simply influence the way we structure production, consumption and the disposal of resources? And the most important question for those both inside and outside of the independence movement: will we be better off as an independent nation or as part of the UK? One way to approach this question is to examine our current standard of living within the Union. In 2022, Welsh GDP per person was around 25% lower than the UK average, while Scotland's GDP per capita was closer to the UK average. This shows the starting positions of our economies as we consider independence. However, it says little about our daily lives or wellbeing. Reflecting on the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the case for a wealthier society through independence rested largely on hope. At the time, the UK economy was in a phase of fiscal austerity, later linked to as many as 300,000 premature deaths. Yet, despite the obvious pain, the broader UK economy still appeared relatively stable. How wrong we were. The economic story of the UK in the last forty years is one of decline. There are now close to five times as many working families below the poverty line as in the 1970s. Young people need to raise nine times their average earnings to afford a home when, in the mid-1990s, it was only four times. There is also a growing class divide. During a 'cost of living crisis', energy companies and banks have seen historic profits – Barclays Bank has made £2.7 billion profit so far this year. Homeowners pay only 18% of their income on their homes, while private renters pay 32%. We see boarded-up shops in even the wealthiest parts of our nations. From vast tracts of rural land to small urban community spaces, our land is used to hold products and services that are only consumed by the wealthiest in society. READ MORE: What will work – and what won't – if the SNP want to stop Reform Over the last decade, the UK economy and society have begun to buckle under the strain of increasing inequality. Both are structurally unsound due to the resources drained into London and the south east, primarily to support an extractive financial services sector. We lack economic resilience, relying as we do on a limited number of service sectors. We have an economy that relies on poverty wages (at best) and a precarious workforce. 'Bullshit jobs', as economic anthropologist David Greaber terms them, deplete our natural resources while adding little to our economic or personal wellbeing. Over-financialisation has created a society that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. To quote Greaber, we live in a society where 'the more one's work is seen as socially useful … the less one is likely to be paid for it." As with every society, the economic direction of the nation has been constructed by an establishment through its large and powerful institutions. In the United Kingdom, the City of London, much of the foreign-owned media, the Bank of England, 'elite' public schools and universities, the Treasury, UK-based multinationals and the UK Government have created these dire economic conditions. The UK is an anachronism, institutionally designed to suck wealth from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and much of the periphery of England. It is designed to reward the already wealthy by capturing our common wealth. It survives by using austerity – fiscal, industrial and monetary – to keep the majority in check. It undermines our social cohesion by othering minorities. There is now ample evidence that independence for Scotland and Wales would result in a stronger economy than remaining in the UK. The economics of independence Central to the economic success of both Scotland and Wales, underpinned by each country's sovereign currency, will be an increase in public expenditure. In his book Shattered Nation, economic geographer professor Danny Dorling highlights the state we are in: 'Overall, UK public spending as a percentage of GDP fell below that of Spain in the 1980s, and below that of Greece in the 1990s. By 2005, it was already lower than almost every other Western European nation.' READ MORE: Scottish independence 'already begun as UK political culture diverges', Danny Dorling says Scotland and Wales must redress this decline. Both nations are in desperate need of significant public expenditure, especially in transportation, telecommunications, housing stock and infrastructure to support electrification. Both governments will embark on their independent journey, looking out over a stock of public resources that need reshaping and reengineering. The call on the public purse will be significant without question, stretching beyond any similar deficit rules currently curtailing expenditure in the UK. Where does the money come from? For many who oppose independence, their argument stops right there. They claim that Scotland and Wales would lack the tax base to generate enough revenue to fund such large-scale spending. They would add that no financial institutions will lend them the money they require. However, an understanding of money, debt, the role of taxes, and borrowing that delves beneath the surface of most commentators' economic understanding paints a very different picture for small and medium-sized wealthy European nations, such as Scotland and Wales. Insights from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) can empower two progressive governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh. The Bank of England headquarters in central LondonThese new monetary sovereign governments, issuing their own currency on the day of independence, can utilise the power of the public purse to create an infrastructure for prosperity by engaging in deficit spending to offset decades of low public expenditure. Spending can be mission-led, focusing on eliminating poverty, achieving low emissions and material consumption, creating a care economy, or building local, regional and national resilience. Meaningful targets that challenge and define our society, instead of the artificial fiscal targets that stymie much-needed spending by the UK Government. After independence, both governments will regulate their own financial services sectors, which can be designed for public purpose rather than profit. Bonds do not fund government spending in a monetary sovereign state, and both nations will likely release their own debt to ensure that the private sector has safe investments in both Welsh and Scottish currencies. Their central banks can decide what rate of interest to reward their few commercial banks that hold central bank reserves or government bonds. READ MORE: Jonathon Shafi: The referendum didn't just spook the British establishment Taxes can fulfil their true purpose by reducing inequality, controlling production and consumption habits, creating space for public expenditure, and underpinning the value of the currency. For a monetary sovereign government, taxes do not fund government spending. Paradigm-shifting insights from MMT open up a progressive route for our two new states. The current 'austerity paradigm' that controls the UK will never support the progressive agenda that drives both independence movements. If our movements are to achieve a progressive destination, they must embrace a new economic framework. Armed with real-world knowledge, the answer to that all-important question: will we be better off than we are as part of the UK? It is simple to answer. Yes, we will. However, our economic journey is by no means a simple or painless one. The decades in which we grow up as independent nations will be among the most challenging for every single nation. The GDP of many nations will likely decline over those decades as the impact of centuries of economic and ecological mismanagement takes hold. It will take time to build nations that are self-sufficient and can withstand wide price swings in international commodity markets. It will take years to build our own energy, food and technological sovereignty. Both new nations will be bound to a moribund larger nation to Scotland's south and Wales's east, a nation that will likely find a progressive path harder to follow. The amount of debt held by the Scottish and Welsh private sectors in Sterling may slow our progress towards prosperity. With a desire to avoid fiscal austerity, our currencies may have to be devalued. Tough decisions lie ahead. However, with independence, it is sovereign Welsh and Scottish citizens who make those decisions. William Thomson is the founder of Scotonomics, Mark Hooper is a Plaid Cymru councillor, and Kairin van Sweeden is an SNP councillor. Supported by Yes Cymru, Scotonomics is running two events that will explain how monetary sovereignty must be at the centre of our economic visions for independence: Glasgow on July 11 and Cardiff on July 18.
