Contrast the quality of reporting on Gaza and Scotland from Sky News
Of course when international journalists are prevented by the IDF from reporting in Gaza and local journalists are also murdered, it is evident to all who do not support this fanatical right-wing Israeli government that the IDF are intent on cynically denying the world the truth of the blatant slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent women and children.
READ MORE: Israel kills at least 25 people across Gaza, including in refugee camp
This assessment in no way excuses the barbaric attack by Hamas on October 7 (which has been condemned by all reasonable commentators) but hopefully the Sky 'revelation' will encourage more balanced reporting across the UK mainstream media and also encourage the UK Government to finally end its support of the IDF and the carnage inflicted on Gaza and now the West Bank.
In the meantime, back in Scotland it would be constructive if Sky TV and the rest of the UK mainstream media showed equivalent rigour and were encouraged to provide more balanced reporting across the UK. Although on a scale of international significance that would be correctly considered 'trivial' by comparison, recent Sky TV news reports have made incorrect statements regarding Scotland's ferries while seeming to stir up gang feuds in Scotland through exaggerated reporting which would have viewers elsewhere thinking there is all-out war between our two largest cities.
This shallow, headline-seeking journalism is not helpful and the absence of any mention of England's 'county lines' gangs fuelling drugs rivalries sadly betrays a persistent lack of objectivity and balance when it comes to Sky TV's reporting of news events in Scotland.
The Gaza investigation demonstrates that Sky TV journalists can do much better.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
IN your report on the so-called UK Supreme Court (UKSC) judgment the other day you had the UKSC 'Coat of Arms' on your front page.
This made me think about the real nature of this institution. It claims to be the UK supreme court, which is rather interesting, because there are no other UK courts for it to be 'supreme' over. Indeed, there is no UK legal system.
READ MORE: Scottish Government delivers statement after Supreme Court sex ruling
The UK functioned for more than 300 years without the need for a 'Supreme Court', so why was it set up in 2009, given a feudal-style 'coat of arms' and made to adopt out-of-date fancy wigs, which make it appear old and established? Could it be that all this flannel is to deceive people into accepting this institution as a long-established part of the legal system in Scotland?
Scotland has a separate legal system from England and has had a separate legal system since before the Union, which is confirmed in the Treaty of Union, so what was the purpose of this new 'Supreme Court'?
Well, it interprets statute law from Westminster, and common law, but not criminal law in Scotland, so it is not a supreme count in Scotland in a full legal sense. But before it existed statutory law was interpreted in Scots and English law, with appeals going to the House of Lords. This appears to have been quite satisfactory for 300 years, so why the sudden change?
READ MORE: Green MSP 'breached law with attack on Supreme Court gender ruling'
It seems to me that there is an underlying political reason for the creation of this court. In 2007 the SNP, against all the predictions, and against the electoral system which was specifically designed to prevent any party winning an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, managed to become the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, and looked like it had the potential to win a majority of seats.
That was a big shock for the Unionists, and they looked at what they might be able to do to restrain the nationalists in future. The so-called UKSC was one of their answers to this problem. This new court would give them better control of the interpretation of Westminster statues, and statutes from the 'devolved' Scottish Parliament, including the right of the Scottish Parliament to consider 'reserved' matters. I don't think the Scottish people should be fooled by this flannel: this is a political institution, not a legal one.
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan
THE Supreme Court – an institution for which I do not usually have much time, regarding it as more of an Anglo-centric body – has spoken loud and clear. It has told us what most of us with more than air between our ears have known: what males and females are. I understand that a few people are not happy about their gender; they are what they are and will just have to live with it. There is absolutely no reason why the rest of us should be bothered with their foibles.
Returning to the SNP, which in the past has given far too much attention to woke matters; woke, in my view, is not a great vote catcher. A lot more independence and a lot less woke would be welcome from our government.
R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Parents need to go on record before being written out of it
This last concern is especially important given the widespread issue of council attempts to mothball, close, or otherwise change nursery provision. There has been a rash of nursery closures and mothballing–temporary closure–in recent years, with councils seeing declining rolls at small settings as a quick way to reduce their deficits. Different councils have taken wildly different approaches: some have attempted to avoid talking of 'mothballing' entirely and, in doing so, avoid a statutory requirement to consult with parents; others have delegated the authority over mothballing to unelected council officers; and at least one council has tried (without success) to stand by a belief that local authorities have free reign over when, how, and why to mothball nursery settings. For its part, the Scottish Government has consistently stated that there is statutory guidance requiring councils to consult with parents about mothballing nurseries. In many cases, this, combined with media and community pressure, has convinced local authorities to take this official route. Most recently, this led to a major reversal in Aberdeenshire Council, where a set of nurseries were slated to be mothballed without consultation and based on the decision of unelected officers. After increased pressure from parents, the media and the Scottish Government raised questions about the policy, the council ultimately held a special meeting to abandon the current proposals and review local policies. However, decisions were finalised in other local authorities before the spotlight was shone on the council, and some parents are still wary that delays and partial victories might make it harder for communities to continue applying pressure. This is because, despite councils often claiming to engage with communities, parents repeatedly tell us that this does not mean a real opportunity to impact decision-making or guarantee a fair (if undesirable) outcome. The word "fair" is important. Parents often say they understand the pressures on councils and know that they cannot have a perfect solution. Instead, they want the feeling that democracy has run its course: a fair outcome does not mean everyone gets what they want, but it does mean an outcome that preserves trust in the system. Instead, parents raising complaints are easily painted as troublemakers; the longer they persist, the easier that becomes. During a recent consultation in the Scottish Borders over changes to nursery provision, a group of parents emailed the education director and key councillors with a list of concerns following a meeting. Parents asked for an explanation of why the meeting was not recorded, argued that the council's official minutes did not reflect the whole discussion, and asked for some form of written assessment of the new type of nursery model that was being proposed for their children. Before getting straight explanations, parents received another type of response. In an email seen by The Herald, one Scottish Borders councillor entered into this correspondence chain, asking for them to "dial down some of the rhetoric.' The email called out two parents by name and included dozens of councillors on its recipient list. Read more Numerous examples of this type of treatment have been reported across the country. It can discourage open disagreement and cut off dialogue, especially when many parents do not have the luxury of volunteering their time to cut through bureaucracy. The result is that parents keep quiet, or are kept quiet enough, so that when the official council papers come out reviewing a consultation and summarising its findings, there is barely a whiff of the discontent that dominated the conversation. Instead, any reporter, councillor, or government minister reviewing the record a few months down the line will see a neat timeline of how the council ticked all the right boxes, held all the right meetings, and reached a decision. The situations in Aberdeenshire and Scottish Borders are only two of the many examples of parents struggling to be heard. Aberdeenshire's nursery ordeal gives an example of what can happen when enough pressure–and perhaps critically, enough resources to bring in legal advice early–is applied. There have also been multiple recent examples in Dumfries & Galloway where parents were able to convince councillors to step in and stop mothballing decisions. In one case, the council had no relevant policy on the books, and in another, nurseries were slated for mothballing with no input from the community. Had these decisions gone through, they would have been extremely difficult to overturn, and official reports written in flat council-speak would not have fully captured parents' opposition. That is why what is happening in the Scottish Borders is important, and why parents want their version of events to have a place. Parents in the Borders have spoken out following their recent consultation to voice concerns about its challenges. There were regular IT issues, meetings were not recorded, and minutes lacked detail; weeks later, they were left with many of the same questions they had at the start. When presented with the parents' concerns, a council spokesperson said that 'the consultation process was indeed adequate.' 'Consultation commenced on Monday 12 May and concluded on Sunday 1 June. 'Parents/carers in all affected settings were invited to 2 meetings to discuss the proposed models, and there was an opportunity to provide written feedback through a Microsoft Form. A focus group was held mid-way through the consultation.' The council recently voted to approve its new model for some nurseries–combining some primary and early learning classes to maximise efficiency–and to create a working group to write a new early years policy. But parents have spoken out to have their concerns on record. Speaking on behalf of concerned parents from affected settings at Cockburnspath, Walkerburn and Ednam nurseries, Dr Alice Blackwell said that she and other parents 'take issue' with the council's depiction of the consultation. "There were significant issues with the structure and execution of this consultation which has made it impossible for SBC to take our views into meaningful account." Importantly, these concerns are less about the final proposals than about the Council's process. Although there was initially clear consensus among parents at all affected nurseries when they were first slated for mothballing, some have now opted to wait and see how the situation develops. Most parents, even those with ongoing concerns, are hopeful that the new model, combining nursery and primary classes, can work. The problem is that they feel this is based more on hope than evidence. The council says it has been done before, and it has, but multiple nurseries that have used composite classes are no longer in operation. Another reason parents want their concerns about the process to be recorded is that they remember how the process began. In March, council officers tabled recommendations to list multiple nurseries as 'inactive,' a process that would have seen them close for the upcoming year. Officials explicitly claimed that this was not the same as mothballing, which by extension meant that they did not need to consult with parents. In fact, many parents, nurseries and even local councillors only found out about the plans days before they were to be approved. Scottish Government officials made it clear to the council that they were misinterpreting the guidance, and by the time the meeting was held, the word 'inactive' was dropped in favour of mothballing. After voting the measure through a contentious meeting, the council called another snap meeting to undo the decision and instead pursue the 'alternative' strategy of combining some nursery and primary classes. Each step of the way, parents only felt they were getting a reprieve. One lingering question is: why was all of this necessary? The original reason for wanting to list the nurseries as 'inactive' was that too few children were enrolled; the same was true for the attempted mothballing. The council has been explicit about why it began investigating the current composition model. A spokesperson said: 'SBC did identify the primary reason to look at changes, which was to avoid mothballing.' If the primary reason was to avoid mothballing the nurseries, then why not leave them as they were? When pressed, the council gave a clear response. 'We believe that we have been as clear as we can be through the report presented to Exec committee on 6 June, and through the consultation process with local communities, that the benefit is to achieve a model which provides places for children in their rural communities while addressing the challenge of operating services with very small numbers of children, and will allow us to look at how this can provide a degree of sustainability.' As councils battle tightening budgets, questions about sustainability will constantly swirl around rural schools and nurseries. This is why many parents want their concerns noted, because these difficult decisions might be revisited in the future, and the written record will be a key witness.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Keir Starmer should lead diplomacy effort as tensions rise in Middle East
Keir Starmer is right that we need cool heads following Israeli air strikes on Iran. Israel launched widescale attacks on the Iranian regime, saying it was targeting nuclear and military sites. The move has caused fears of a full-scale conflict after Iran's Supreme Leader said there would be 'severe punishment' for the attack. The Prime Minister has now called for both sides to step back and reduce tensions. He has realised the only way to get Iran to give up nuclear weapons is through talking. This is the correct thing to do. More violence would help no one. It would impact people in the region but also across the world. President Trump has unfortunately risked escalating things even further by threatening Iran over the potential nuclear deal. This is no surprise as his two stints as US president have been chaotic in terms of foreign policy. It was ultimately his decision to pull out of Afghanistan, which led to the Taliban taking over again. And he has repeatedly peddled the lie Ukraine started the war against Russia, despite it being clear it was Russia which invaded its neighbour. Hopefully Trump can change the habit of a lifetime and actually help bring some stability to the Middle East. This would mean he would have to think before he makes wild statements on social media. Maybe he should look across the Pond at what international leadership should look like. The world would be a better place if he took a leaf out of Starmer's book. Prioritise jobs The announcement by Alexander Dennis of 400 job losses was another hammer blow for Scottish manufacturing. Shutting two factories in Camelon and Larbert and centralising operations in Yorkshire is simply unacceptable. It comes on the back of hundreds of jobs being lost through the closure of the oil refinery at Grangemouth. Little wonder the trade unions are so incensed about another move that sees its members thrown on the scrap heap. In a letter to John Swinney and Scotland Secretary Ian Murray, the GMB's Louise Gilmour said it is 'absurd' Scotland can't sustain its only bus manufacturer. Her solution is for a review of procurement rules and priority given to domestic manufacturing. She says both governments have a role to play and she is correct. Politicians have for years spoken about the importance of having an industrial strategy but they have consistently failed to deliver. Both governments must ditch the rhetoric and protect jobs.
Powys County Times
4 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Israel bombarded by Iranian missiles after strikes on Tehran's nuclear bases
Iran bombarded Tel Aviv with hundreds of missiles overnight in retaliation for Israeli strikes on its nuclear bases. Calls from Sir Keir Starmer and other world leaders for calm amid the mounting conflict appeared to fall on deaf ears, as Tehran struck back against Israel's attacks. Air raid sirens sounded out across Israel and its citizens were ordered to move into bomb shelters, as the attack began. A plume of smoke could be seen rising from central Tel Aviv amid the barrage, after at least one Iranian missile appeared to bypass the iron dome missile defence system. The rocket attacks on the Tel Aviv area wounded 34 people, according to Israel's paramedic service, including one woman critically injured after being trapped under rubble. Operation Rising Lion – the offensive against Tehran – has mainly targeted nuclear sites, including destroying the above ground section of Iran's main Natanz nuclear base. Hossein Salami, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was among the senior Iranian figures reportedly killed in Israel's initial overnight strikes. Some 78 people were killed and more than 320 wounded in Iran, according to its ambassador to the UN. The attack is believed to be the most significant Iran has faced since its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said 'more is on the way' in a video message released on Friday night. امشب، میخواهم با شما، مردم محترم ایران، صحبت کنم. ما در میانه یکی از بزرگترین عملیاتهای نظامی در تاریخ، هستیم – عملیات طلوع شیران.رژیم اسلامی که تقریباً ۵۰ سال شما را سرکوب کرده، تهدید به نابودی کشور ما- اسرائیل میکند. هدف عملیات اسرائیل جلوگیری از تهدید هستهای و موشکی… — Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) June 13, 2025 Danny Dannon, Israel's UN ambassador, claimed the operation was launched because Iran was 'within days' of having the capability of building nuclear weapons. Tensions between Israel, the US and Iran have escalated in recent weeks, amid negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal, which is aimed at preventing the country from developing nuclear weapons. On Friday, Israel's western allies attempted a diplomatic blitz aimed at cooling temperatures in the Middle East. After convening a Cobra meeting of senior ministers and officials, Sir Keir spoke to Mr Netanyahu, urging him to de-escalate and work towards a 'diplomatic resolution'. The Prime Minister and US President Donald Trump agreed the burgeoning conflict needed to be resolved by 'diplomacy and dialogue'. And Sir Keir joined with France's Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Friedrich Merz in calling for restraint. David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, spoke to Iran's foreign minister and urged calm, later warning the Middle East is facing a 'moment of grave peril'. Mr Trump has also suggested that Iran now had a chance to agree a nuclear deal to bring an end to the fighting. On his Truth Social platform, the President wrote: 'Two months ago I gave Iran a 60 day ultimatum to 'make a deal'. They should have done it! 'Today is day 61. I told them what to do, but they just couldn't get there. Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!' Both the UK and the US have insisted they were not involved in the Israeli strikes and that Israel acted unilaterally. The first time Israel discussed the strikes with the UK was at midday on Friday, according to Tzipi Hotovely, the country's ambassador to the UK.
