Good Morning Scotland is 'uneasy hybrid of serious news and phone-in'

The Herald Scotland

11-05-2025

Quirky factoids aside, Today's reputation as the apex predator in the BBC's news bestiary comes from its long tradition of polite but red-clawed questioning of politicians, and from its forensic and exacting scrutiny of their policies and motivations – so exacting that many in the Thatcher government accused the programme of bias. They weren't the last to play that card.
In Scotland from the early 1960s our radio morning news was served (though that's probably too kind a word) by an opt-out from Today called Today In Scotland – a news round-up of a mere 20 minutes. It was another decade before Good Morning Scotland was birthed, a programme based in part on the Today template but devoted more fully to Scottish news.
Read more
It launched on New Year's Eve 1973, and for the first fortnight its news items were interspersed with music. Cue howls of protest, many in the form of letters to this newspaper. The muzak was quickly ditched. BBC Radio Scotland became a separate entity in 1978 and Good Morning Scotland (or GMS as it's known) is now the longest running programme on the network.
Fast forward to 2025 and here's the wider point: social media may be immediate and reactive, television authoritative and incisive (at its best, anyway) but only the radio news can be all four at once. Which is why the morning radio news, the form we wake to and which literally informs our day, still matters greatly. But with both Good Morning Scotland and Today now well into middle-age, how is their relative health – and what are the challenges facing them?
In these days of DAB radio you can switch between the programmes at the press of a button. For three hours I do just that, a process which usefully demonstrates the ways in which they compare, differ – and occasionally fail.
First the differences. On GMS you'll hear travel news and regular call-outs to listeners to engage with stories via text or email. On Monday the burning question was whether people should have to swallow the 25 pence surcharge on hot take-away drinks proposed by the Scottish Government – the so-called 'latte levy'. And engage they did, chipping in with advice and opinions which were aired later in the show. Well, it's better than musical interludes but you'll find no such fripperies on Today, which is a blessing. The GMS approach makes for an uneasy hybrid of serious news show and not-quite-phone-in.
Amol Rajan of Today - his show can seem too tightly bound to the British establishment (Image: free) But Today can seem obsequious in ways GMS does not, or at least more tightly bound to the less edifying aspects of the BBC's role as state broadcaster.
An example: Monday's programme saw presenters Amol Rajan and Anna Foster parked on the Mall in London (Rajan) and somewhere in Coventry (Foster) for a show themed around VE Day celebrations which were to include a military procession and a fly past attended by the King. For GMS, this was a London story, so a headline news item but not too much else. More importance was given to consideration of the pros and cons of Galloway's impending National Park status and of the chances of Reform making inroads in Scotland. Good stuff. Better stuff.
Good Morning Scotland feels freer in other ways too. These next observations aren't based on hard evidence, rather on observation and regular listening, but GMS seems to cover Canada more, particularly since the Trump tariffs started to bite. A nod to Scotland's ties with the country? Also, over the 18 months of the war in Gaza it's my impression that the coverage by GMS – and by BBC Radio Scotland news in general – has been wider, more frequent, less hesitant and less circumspect than Today's.
Perhaps there's a reason for that too. Piqued at being challenged in a live interview on Today last August, an Israeli government spokesman made allegations about pro-Palestinian bias against presenter Mishal Husain.
The BBC defended the highly-regarded broadcaster for asking 'legitimate and important questions in a professional, fair and courteous manner'. But sensitivities south of the border may have been heightened by the exchange. Certainly some of Husain's fellow presenters have signally failed to push back in subsequent interviews in the way she did. But again, that's a subjective observation.
Read more
It is true to say Good Morning Scotland isn't as slick as Today. It often feels like there's less in it, the interviews aren't as snappy, the interviewees often aren't as polished (though that's not necessarily a bad thing) and its position on booking guests seems to be: 'Why bother with a heavy hitter when there's a journalist available?'
Which is why on Monday the task of commenting on Donald Trump's mooted tariff on foreign films fell not to a creator of such items or even an industry insider but to the US editor of The Times (though in fairness there was an industry voice in Tuesday's show).
That said, of the two programmes it's GMS which seems more sure of itself. It does what it has to do well enough, and in mainstay presenters Gary Robertson and Laura Maxwell, as well as stand-ins such as Laura Maciver and Graham Stewart, it has a cadre of talented journalists well able to ask the difficult questions.
What it does lack is Today's clout in terms of big name interviewees. Fair enough. Less forgivable, perhaps, is its willingness to tackle radical or high-concept ideas. Another example: Monday's Today programme featured an interview with superstar architect Norman Foster which was chewy as well as personal, followed by a chat with award-winning nature writer Robert Macfarlane. He was discussing the subject of his new book – rivers – and in particular a growing ecological movement which seeks to have them accorded rights under law. It's hard to see GMS giving that kind of subject serious airtime, which is a shame.
But even as audience figures rise it feels like it's Today more than GMS which has its issues. The churn in presenters doesn't help, nor do the presenting styles of the newbies. You don't have to be a reader of Private Eye to know that something is up in that regard, but if you are you'll be aware that the arrival of starry incomers Emma Barnett and Amol Rajan has not been met with enthusiasm in all quarters.
For example there is talk of a feud between Barnett and Nick Robinson, the BBC's former political editor and a Today presenter since 2015. Barnett joined in May 2024 but as of March this year, she and Robinson had only co-hosted on a handful of occasions.
Laura Maxwell of Good Morning Scotland - the show seems more sure of itself than Today (Image: free) Today also lost Husain after 11 years in the job. She is a journalist for whom the word brilliant is not too strong a superlative and far and away the best interviewer the programme had. Barnett's great strength lies in the attributes which made her a success at Woman's Hour, but nobody would describe her as a master of the political interview. Rajan co-hosts a political podcast with Robinson, but he's no replacement for Husain and he too has had his critics.
Husain herself may even be among them though she's too polite to say so explicitly. But in an interview with Vogue which made headlines, she talked in guarded terms about her decision to leave the BBC and appeared to dismiss journalism she termed 'bombastic' and 'personality-driven'. 'It has never been part of what I do,' she said. 'It doesn't have to be about the presenters centring themselves.'
Pushed for more by interviewer Nosheen Iqbal, she added: 'What was true to me was that I would very rarely use the word 'I' actually on air.'
Guarded, sure, but it was enough for the Daily Mail. 'Mishal's veiled swipe' ran its headline, followed by: 'Who COULD she mean! Former Today programme star Mishal Husain uses first interview since BBC exit to decry 'bombastic' personality journalism and presenters who talk about themselves.'
Then again, maybe more 'I' will be the thing which guarantees the futures of both Today and GMS and keeps them fit for purpose. The thing which tempers the criticisms that they're too boringly centrist and have no real character. The thing which ensures their efficacy as bulwarks against the upstart outlets and news channels which give politicians too easy a ride and don't ask the difficult questions.
If not, the submarine captains of the future may still be listening – but Prime Ministers to come may not.
Barry Didcock is an Edinburgh-based Herald writer and freelance journalist specialising in arts, culture and media. He can be found on X at @BarryDidcock