Douglas Ross panned for chairing Holyrood meeting from Caribbean
However, LibDem MSP Willie Rennie raised a point of order about Ross's involvement as convener from abroad.
READ MORE: These key economic truths show how independent Scotland and Wales can succeed
Rennie said: 'I'd like to raise a point of order. I raised this with the convener in the private pre-briefing.
'I don't think it's appropriate, convener, for you to be conducting this meeting from the Caribbean.
'I think it doesn't make you look good and it doesn't make this committee look good, and I would like you once again to reconsider whether this is appropriate.
'I would ask you to hand over the responsibilities to the vice-convener.'
The SNP's Karen Dunbar is vice-convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee.
In response to Rennie's request, Ross said he would be happy to take part as a lay-member and allow Dunbar to chair the meeting, at which Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth, Higher Education Minister Graeme Dey, and Minister for Children Natalie Don-Innes were due to give evidence.
READ MORE: Seamus Logan: Anas Sarwar's joy quickly sours as reality of UK Labour's record bites
Dunbar took advice from parliamentary clerks and said that there was nothing in the rules to prevent a meeting being chaired remotely.
'The rule makes no distinction between virtual or in-person attendance during committee meetings,' she said.
'It is the role of the convenor to chair the committee if they are present, whether in person or virtually.'
Dunbar therefore declined to convene the meeting and passed the responsibility back to Ross.
Previously, an SNP source briefed the Daily Record about the fact that the former Scottish Tory leader would attend the meeting from the Caribbean.
They said: "Throughout his time at Holyrood, Douglas Ross has treated his role as an MSP as a part-time gig to fit around his other jobs – including his various jaunts across Europe as an assistant referee.
"This has been a bit of an embarrassing week for Ross after he was removed from the Chamber for his poor behaviour on Thursday.
'After his tirade of unjustified claims about other members' parliamentary attendance it is now somewhat ironic that Mr Ross will be logging in from near the Caribbean."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Rachel Reeves's self-defeating attack on British racing
Few British traditions can claim as long a history as racing. The first races thought to have taken place in these islands were organised by Roman soldiers encamped in Yorkshire, pitting English horses against Arabian. By the 900s, King Athelstan was placing an export ban on English horses due to their superiority over their continental equivalents. The first recorded race meeting took place under Henry II in Smithfield as part of the annual Bartholomew Fair. Nearly 1,000 years later, racing remains the nation's second most popular spectator sport. Five million people attend more than 1,400 meets throughout the year. The industry is estimated to be worth more than £4 billion, contributing around £300 million to the Exchequer, and supports some 80,000 jobs. No activity better unites Benjamin Disraeli's 'two nations'. Royal Ascot, the Derby and the Grand National are cornerstones of the sporting calendar. Britain still produces many of the world's finest horses, jockeys and races. More than 600 million people across 140 countries tune in to the National each year; in this country alone, around 13 million people, a quarter of adults, bet on it. Britain's racing success is something to be proud of, which naturally means that Rachel Reeves has decided to go after it. The Treasury is proposing to increase the 15 per cent tax on bookmaker profits to 21 per cent – the same levy faced by online slot games and casinos. The British Horseracing Authority predicts the rate hike would cause a £330 million loss of revenue in its first five years, and put more than 2,500 jobs at risk in the first year alone. In response to the proposal, the BHA has called a strike for 10 September – the first in the industry's history. Rather than racing, jockeys, owners and trainers will decamp to Westminster to lobby MPs. The industrial action is expected to cost around £700,000. Many senior figures in the world of racing fear that increased costs for operators would mean less money available for promoting the sport. Worse odds would be offered to customers, making bookmakers less competitive compared with black market sites, which are now more easily accessible than ever thanks to the large increase in Virtual Private Network downloads by people trying to circumvent the Online Safety Act. Reduced turnover means reduced profits for bookmakers, 10 per cent of which are paid to a levy designed to support the sport through prize money, veterinary research and equine welfare. Even before the Treasury's planned hike, the recent introduction of more stringent affordability checks on online gambling means that turnover is down and fewer thoroughbreds are being bred. British racing is falling behind as owners, riders and horses decamp abroad to wealthier competitions. This leaves the long-term sustainability of British racing under threat. The Chancellor's latest attempt to find a few pennies down the back of the Treasury sofa would repeat the error of last year's inheritance tax raid on farmers and the imposition of VAT on private schools. It is a mean-spirited and self-defeating assault on a part of the country's history and way of life that the Labour party does not seek to understand. If racing unites the upper and lower classes, it is uniquely vulnerable to stigmatisation by the middle-class prudes found so dis-proportionately among our governing lanyard class. Of course, many Labour MPs are enthusiastic supporters of racing – 23 represent racecourse constituencies. But any attempt to squeeze the industry until the pips squeak is representative of a Treasury mentality that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Taxing bookmaking at the same rate as online gambling draws a false equivalence between the two that ignores their fundamental differences. A punter at a race might enjoy six or seven bets in a day at most; an enthusiastic online gambler could place that number in a minute. Betting on racing requires research and skill (incidentally, The Spectator's own racing tipster, Penworthy, has had an excellent year). In contrast, online casinos are the gambling equivalent of Pac-Man, colourful distractions designed to be played on a loop. That is why online gambling and gaming make up the overwhelming majority of gambling addiction cases. In its zeal for protecting the vulnerable, the Gambling Commission, supported by the Treasury, could strangle the life out of the industry it regulates. In her quest to make her sums add up, Reeves may embark on another experiment which costs more than it raises. Reeves and the Treasury should recognise that next month's strike is an extraordinary protest from an industry facing an existential threat. Rather than breaking with the tradition of treating bookmaking differently to online gambling, the government should extend the industry support, through direct grants or a reformed betting levy. Yet with each day bringing rumours of the Treasury eyeing potential targets, the odds of the Chancellor putting the turf's future before her spreadsheets seem slim. Who would be willing to bet on it?
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Nigel Farage is banking on a political sea change
Nigel Farage is adept at riding the currents of British politics. When he named Reform after the Canadian party in 2020, it was a statement of intent. Like Preston Manning in the 1990s, he aimed to displace this country's main centre-right party and refashion it in his image. But where Manning fell short, handing over the reins to Stephen Harper, Farage aims to go one better by becoming prime minister himself. A keen angler, Farage has spent his few moments of downtime this summer fishing. On one such trip, he took an assembled group of journalists to the English Channel to highlight the small boat crossings. Amid rising discontent, with protests outside asylum seeker hotels, Farage has netted a tidy haul of Tory defectors, including the Welsh MS Laura Ann Jones and London councillor Laila Cunningham. More are expected shortly. As well as new faces joining Reform, there are old ones too. Jack Duffin, a longtime loyalist, is the party's new director of campaigns. In a fortnight's time, Reform will head to Birmingham for its annual conference. 'The next step' is this year's slogan. Aside from the usual pyrotechnics, the event aims to show how much the party has grown in the past year. Reform are trying to form their own quasi–shadow cabinet, with key figures focusing on specific areas. Andrea Jenkyns and Lee Anderson will speak on a broader mix of themes and topics than last year. The party's long-awaited deportation strategy is expected to be unveiled next week. The party is currently bolstering its policy team but will adopt an à la carte approach to ideas taken from elsewhere. The influential Prosperity Institute, formerly Legatum, has extensive cross-party contacts and is credited by Farage with 'bringing fresh, young talent into current affairs'. The Cambridge academic James Orr, who helped to organise J.D. Vance's Cotswolds trip, sits on its advisory board alongside Lord Ridley and recently attended a Reform press conference. What Orr calls the 'politics of national preference' fits well with Farage's embrace of steel subsidies and water renationalisation. A handful of newer thinktanks are well placed to flourish, too. Some are run by onetime Farage allies. There is Fix Britain, led by Matthew Patten, a former Brexit party MEP, and the Centre for Migration Control, set up by former aide Rob Bates. The Centre for a Better Britain launches next month under the direction of Jonathan Brown, the party's previous COO. With Reform boasting a ten-point average polling lead, senior aides believe it's time for influential figures to start nailing their colours to the mast. 'The revolution will be kind to those that came early,' says one. 'But the clock is ticking for people to make up their minds.' Farage's 'Broken Britain' thesis fits well with the shifting tides on the broader right. Leading Tories such as Robert Jenrick and Nick Timothy are among those discovering a renewed interest in the writings of Charles de Gaulle and Roger Scruton, who dwelt on the theme of institutions that become corrupted or infiltrated. Conservative MPs increasingly express similar sentiments when they talk of the courts and the Church. 'To save the village we have to burn it,' says one MP of the post-Blair settlement. Kemi Badenoch has handed policy renewal to Neil O'Brien, a staunch critic of the ECHR. His journey from a sunnier form of Cameroon-style conservatism is seen by some colleagues as emblematic of many Tories' direction of travel. Incrementalism is out; radicalism is in. New groups which reflect the mounting public frustration at Britain's direction have formed to offer fresh ways to channel these objections. Toby Young's Free Speech Union has seen its membership jump from 14,000 to 32,000 in a year under Keir Starmer's government. 'Looking for Growth', founded by Dr Lawrence Newport, is trying to create a cross-party consensus to foster pro-growth policies. It has 19 chapters, and that is set to double to 39. At one meeting in Bristol, an attendee told the room: 'I am 25 years old. All I have ever known is decline.' Such comments reflect a broader sense of pessimism among the young. Ipsos polling suggests that Gen Z seem to be starting from a lower base of trust in their peers and institutions than previous generations. The government, meanwhile, is trying to ride out the storm. At the Design Museum last month, Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told digital innovators to 'forget chainsaws and wrecking balls, that's not what we are about'. He preferred to flag up 'the turnaround of the passport service' as a 'great example' of 'when the state has done really well'. Rather than kicking down the barn, Labour believes it can build on what is already there by modernising Whitehall. Plans will be set out this autumn to expand existing civil service access schemes for those joining from working–class backgrounds. In recent weeks, Labour has stepped up its attacks on Farage – a sign, Reform insiders say – of increasing desperation. Ministers have reportedly been authorised to accuse him of being on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile in opposing the Online Safety Act, while backbenchers are encouraged to direct their fire at him in parliament. Following an article in The Spectator last week about 'Labour's 'dark arts' strategy', lawyers for George Cottrell, a longtime unpaid adviser to Farage, have written to Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, and the Labour party to demand an explanation. Cottrell believes he is the victim of 'defamation at industrial scale'. After the article was published, a Substack dedicated to attacking Cottrell disappeared, along with its associated X account. A subject access request has been filed to Labour, requesting any data the party has on Cottrell. Downing Street sources categorically deny the existence of any new 'attack team' in No. 10 with the remit of challenging Reform. The going is sure to get tougher for Reform but Farage is prepared. It was Jim Callaghan who said: 'Perhaps once every 30 years, there is a sea change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of.' Much of the right is betting on such a sea change in 2029, with Farage – for now – most likely to be the captain at the helm.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
When national flags are a warning sign
I don't quite see the point of flying Union flags in Tower Hamlets, or complaining about it when the council takes them down. This squalid little fiefdom run by the deeply corrupt Lutfur Rahman is not part of the UK: it is a suburb of Sylhet, with all that such a location might entail. This would include the mayor himself, who once rigged the votes and used imams to intimidate voters. Of course it is true that London is headed the same way as Tower Hamlets and will get there depressingly soon, an upheaval aided by the self-flagellating liberals who still choose to live in the capital and whose yearning for self-annihilation is close to absolute. The temptation is to write off our first city, and maybe others, too, come to that. Tower Hamlets is certainly by no conceivable stretch of the imagination particularly 'British'. It is, rather, a fly-blown satrapy where many of the locals at best are ignorant of our culture and at worst despise and loathe it. A significant minority of the population can barely speak English (6 per cent) and half of the population are foreign born. Now, if you believe in multiculturalism you will have no problem with that, I suppose – and would probably advance the argument that people from the same ethnic groups tend to band together, although that understanding of human nature would not, of course, extend to white British people. When they express a preference for living among their 'own kind', they are told that they are racist scumbags and had better get with the project, sharpish. I wonder if it has occurred to any members of our government to ask why this whole Operation Raise the Colours business has taken off and why quite so many people seem to be taking part in it. My suspicion is that while Sir Keir Starmer feigns an affection for the flag of our country and will even wave one about when the England team are playing football, especially if it is the chicks, he almost certainly thinks that people with too fond an affection for the Union Jack and the cross of St George are right-wing racists and entirely deplorable. Filed away in the back of his mind is the notion that it's probably just those football hoolies again, the ones who rioted last summer. What he is missing, then, is the importance of the current protests – the weight of numbers behind them, the fact that it is not just yer usual suspects, the depth of anger it conceals and the problems which thus lie in store in the future. The UK is quite quickly tipping towards serious civil disorder: in many parts of the country, whitey has had more than enough. A clever government would work out why this might be and do something about it. Unfortunately, we do not have one. Brits have never hitherto been disposed towards waving the flag about. It has always been my contention that any country where there are too many national flags on view is feeling very insecure about itself and is headed for trouble. This is broadly the position of the UK right now, perhaps for the first time. And it is not terribly difficult to see how we have been brought to this point. Yes, much of it is down to the sheer weight of numbers of immigrants coming into the country. But it is not just the weight of numbers. It is also partly the manner in which many of these incomers have behaved which grates a little. The way in which towns and cities have been overwhelmed, changing entirely the nature of once familiar neighbourhoods. The stoic refusal of many to embrace the culture of the country in which they have made their homes and in many cases the espousal of aggressive and hostile views rooted in an implacable creed which always takes precedence. But even this is not the main reason the tension has been simmering both last year and this. More than anything it is a blind fury at the way in which our elected representatives have allowed this to happen – and even welcomed it. And more even than this, the way in which the British seem at every turn to be having their noses rubbed in it. The Australian sociologist Karen Stenner, in her book The Authoritarian Dynamic, analysed what it was that made people cease displaying a peaceable nature when faced with large-scale immigration and become inflamed and angry (authoritarian, in her words). She found it was precisely this – when they have their noses rubbed in it. When they perceive that everything is tilted against them. When the entire established order insists that 'diversity' is bloody marvellous and we can't have enough of it and that Britain's history is steeped in wickedness. That nothing whatsoever beneficial came of colonialism. That black people and other minorities should be hugely over-represented in our films, dramas and adverts on the television and that the rest of us should suck it up without question. That white people are inherently, unavoidably racist and that we should be at the back of the queue for any job we might fancy. That if we start to question a possible connection between the religion of Islam and a certain predilection towards deranged homicidal violence we will be guilty of Islamophobia and prosecuted. That if we tweet our anger we will be prosecuted. You can get away with this stuff for just so long – and then even the mildest-mannered will start waving a flag saying, in effect: we're still here, just.
