SNP in chaos as Ian Blackford is lined up for comeback in wake of Forbes exit
Ian Blackford said he has had calls from supporters urging him to stand in the Deputy First Minister's current constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch at next year's Holyrood elections. He said he will give it 'careful consideration'.
He previously opted not to put his name forward to be a candidate and last night said that standing in the election 'is not what I had in mind' prior to Ms Forbes' announcement that she would not seek re-election.
Any return could reignite tensions with current SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn, who successfully ousted him in a coup and is also now seeking to be elected to Holyrood.
It will also anger some in the party who were unhappy with his performance in the Commons, including his handling of controversies like the harassment complaint against his former chief whip Patrick Grady.
It comes as Ms Forbes refused to rule out making a return to politics in the future and condemned the lack of support for MSPs who are parents.
In response to rumours circulating in the Highlands that he is now set to replace her as candidate for the seat, Mr Blackford told the Mail: 'One or two people have approached me and I am grateful that people are thinking about me but I've not given any indication one way or another.
'In all honesty, I hadn't really thought about it, it wasn't what I was planning.
'It is not what I had in my mind, it really wasn't. I obviously purposefully didn't put myself forward for the Scottish Parliament a few months ago, so I don't know...'
He said he has had 'a number of phone calls' from people trying to encourage him to stand and admitted that he is 'really worried about the economy' across the UK and wants to look at ways to improve it.
Mr Blackford said it is 'not an easy call' to make and he 'will have to give it careful consideration'.
He previously faced criticism for the way he handled a harassment complaint about Mr Grady from a junior staff member while he was SNP Westminster leader.
His campaign team was also accused of hounding the late former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy ahead of the 2015 general election.
He stood down as MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber at last year's general election, with the SNP going on to lose the Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire seat which replaced it to Liberal Democrat Angus MacDonald.
Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said: 'We'd be delighted to have Ian Blackford as an opponent. He's been a controversial figure in the Highlands for many years and we'd relish making the case that the SNP have failed on access to health and the state of the local economy.
'It was poetic to see Charles Kennedy's - and Ian Blackford's - former seat return to the Lib Dems at last year's election but it would have been even sweeter to have defeated a former SNP Westminster leader.
'I have no doubt that the Lib Dems' Andrew Baxter could defeat Ian Blackford if the humble crofter chooses to throw his hat in the ring.'
A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: 'Any return of Ian Blackford to frontline politics would threaten to tear apart the SNP.
'Key figures would be fighting like Nats in a sack and old wounds would instantly be reopened.
'If John Swinney and Stephen Flynn had any hair left they'd be ripping it out at the prospect of their former Westminster leader looking to come back and settle some old scores.'
If he opted to put himself forward, Mr Blackford would need to secure agreement from party HQ and the local constituency as he is not currently an approved and vetted candidate.
He said: 'I suppose it depends on how people look at the change in circumstances (caused by Ms Forbes' resignation) if they would want to open things up, I don't know, I couldn't tell you that.'
Asked if he would be thinking about it in the coming days, he said: 'Yeah, we'll see. Over the last wee while I've commented on issues of defence, economy and so on, and I'm still a member of the Committee of Standards in Public Life.
'I have an interest in where we are and obviously happy to have an input into our political discourse. Whether this is what I need to do to do that I don't know, in all honesty.'
Mr Blackford praised the 'positive contribution' Ms Forbes had made as an MSP and minister and said it was 'sad she had taken the decision for her own reasons that she has to move on'.
Meanwhile, Ms Forbes yesterday suggested she could seek a return to politics in the future following her announcement that she would stand down at next year's election.
Asked by BBC Good Morning Scotland's presenter Gary Robertson if she could return to politics at some point in the future, she said: 'Maybe Gary, I don't know if you will still be around in 20 years time. We will maybe have a conversation at this point.'
She also called for a change in how parents in Holyrood are supported after she announced her decision to stand down because she didn't want to "miss any more of the precious early years of family life".
She said children can only be in the parliament creche for three hours a day, and said: 'If you want a diverse representative parliament who can speak for all constituent parts of Scottish society then you want parents in there too.
'If the parents feel they have to leave because of that lack of support then it means that parents outside parliament are less represented.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Keir Starmer must let in sunlight to avoid further lobbying scandals
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton long ago predicted that lobbying would be 'the next big scandal' to hit politics, warning of the dangers of what happens behind closed doors. 'We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way,' he said in 2010. It was somewhat apt that despite introducing the first real oversight for lobbyists, the former prime minister was caught in just such a scandal after he departed from office. Despite a repeated cycle of scandals involving what Lord Cameron spoke of, lobbyists have continued to work in the shadows. As this newspaper has exposed, the Starmer government is facing serious questions over 'cash for access' after businesses were approached by a Labour group offering private meetings with 'an influential Labour figure'. The Labour Infrastructure Forum (LIF), which is run by lobbyists from Bradshaw Advisory along with an advisory council of senior party figures, has offered businesses the chance to meet 'key policymakers' to help 'shape the discussion'. The forum has offered sponsorship packages for potential clients, including breakfast meetings for almost £9,500. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has spoken at an LIF event. • Labour 'leaving public in the dark' about payments from lobbyists Although the LIF insists that the sponsorship money is used to cover costs, the group declined a request by The Times to disclose details of which companies had sponsored events at what cost until its next annual report. The Labour Party too has declined to say which senior figures had attended any LIF meetings. Yet undercover reporting has shown Gerry McFall, director of the forum alongside his leading role at Bradshaw Advisory, boasted of meetings between his clients and senior figures in government, including Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary. There is a clear problem here that must be addressed. The Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists, which was set up during Lord Cameron's premiership, governs lobbying and is supposed to ensure it is transparent and open. Businesses who regularly engage in lobbying, known as 'consultant lobbyists', are required to register their activities. Yet the LIF was not required to register as it did not fall under this category: in-house lobbyists who are employed directly by companies, think tanks or 'forums' are not required to register. This must be addressed: all lobbying activity should be recorded, along with the details of who exactly is meeting which ministers. That being said, ministers should show more common sense. Mr Jones should have done due diligence before speaking at an LIF event. The same goes for Mr Reynolds, the minister most exposed to the potential influence of businesses. The lack of records charting his meeting with a Bradshaw Advisory client at a Labour conference highlights another flaw in transparency rules, which does not require ministers to report meetings at such events not deemed to be in a ministerial capacity. Even if the party insists it was instead 'held in a political capacity', Mr Reynolds should have realised that he should strive for transparency. • How we exposed Labour's cosy links to lobbyists None of this is to say that all lobbying is inherently bad, or that onerous restrictions are required. It is essential to good policy making that ministers hear from businesses — particularly a government that has as little private sector experience as this one. But it must be done in an open and transparent manner, something lacking at present. According to an analysis by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, registered Westminster lobbyists account for just 0.5 per cent of registered lobbyists across a host of similar countries. If Sir Keir Starmer is to avoid further such scandals, he must strengthen the oversight. By letting in as much sunlight as possible, it will go some way to curtail any sense of wrongdoing, real or perceived.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Inner London to lose out in funding rebalance, says IFS report
Councils in inner London are set to become the biggest losers under a government plan to update council funding rules, a think tank Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found some London boroughs could see their funding levels drop up to 12% once inflation is taken into areas in outer London are set to gain from the changes, the researchers found, along with urban areas outside the capital including Nottingham, Wolverhampton and government argues the overhaul is necessary because councils' funding has become out of step with local demand for services. The new funding system, to be phased in over three years from 2026, will see changes to the formulas used by government to capture levels of demand for council-run services, along with the differing cost of delivering them.A greater share of funding will be redirected towards areas with a higher share of properties in lower council tax bands, whilst the portion of business rates income that councils have been allowed to keep since 2013 will be IFS predicts the proposed changes are set to redistribute around £2.1bn in annual government funding, with 186 authorities losing out and 161 will not be possible to say exactly what the changes will mean for each area until the plans are finalised later this the think tank said Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster would see their overall funding drop by 11–12%, even accounting for a proposed funding floor to limit areas are set to lose out under the government's proposed method to even out differences in council tax revenues, given they have low rates and many properties in higher bands, it added. Outside London, the East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber regions are set to see the biggest increases in funding, according to the with relatively high - but not the highest - population densities are also set to fare well, it estimates, including outer London boroughs and councils in Blackpool, Nottingham and added that the widest range of outcomes would be seen in shire district councils, where some councils where business rate income has grown most, such as Mid Suffolk and North West Leicestershire, would lose such districts in more urban areas, such as Harlow, Crawley and Norwich, are among the biggest share of funding going to the very poorest areas will be substantially larger, it added, than for the least deprived. 'Moving the pain' The shake-up will affect the share of central government funding distributed to councils in England, including income they are allowed to keep from business currently represents around half of their income, with councils raising the rest locally, subject to a 5% cap on yearly is allocated according to a complex mix of formulas taking into account factors like population and ministers argue the current rules, which have not been updated in over a decade, are failing to reflect higher demand for council services in poorer Liberal Democrats said the changes would "come as a shock to the system for many councils," branding the changes "robbing Peter to pay Paul"."The government is moving the pain of chronic council underfunding from one community to another instead of delivering the economic growth that would deliver the revenue to fund local services everywhere," added deputy leader Daisy Cooper. 'Decisive action' A spokesperson for the local government department said: "The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind."That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services". Although there is widespread agreement among councils that the current system is badly in need of updating, designing a new one poses a political headache for ministers ahead of a significant set of local elections due next local leaders have warned that current funding levels do not cover the rising cost of mandatory services such as adult social care and special educational needs, despite real-terms funding increases in more recent years. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
I push Keir Starmer to be more extroverted in Scotland
Mr Sarwar said he speaks to the Prime Minister every two or three weeks, often calling at weekends when they both have more free time. The Scottish Labour leader also said he will not engage in any 'back room stitch-ups' with other parties if he becomes first minister following the Scottish election next year. At an Edinburgh Fringe event in front of a live audience, Mr Sarwar was interviewed by Catherine Salmond, editor of The Herald. He was pressed on his relationship with the UK Labour leader and whether Sir Keir was comfortable coming north of the border. He said: 'We're different personalities… I am much more probably conversational, out there, a bit of an extrovert. 'I think it's safe to say he's a bit more introverted in that sense.' Mr Sarwar said Sir Keir had become more relaxed and confident in the five years since becoming Labour leader. He said Sir Keir was more relaxed in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, adding: 'I think we've built up a rapport, probably because I am pushing to be a bit more of extroverted than perhaps he is in other parts.' He said he spoke to the Prime Minister around 'two or three times a month'. However he said the early part of Labour's response to the war in Gaza had been 'challenging' for his party, referring to an interview the Prime Minister gave where he said Israel had the 'right' to withhold power and water from Gaza in response to the October 7 attacks. 'I think the early part was challenging, he himself accepts that what he said in the LBC interview wasn't right,' Mr Sarwar said. Discussing the Middle East further, he said: 'I think we have to be doing much more to hold the Israeli government to account. 'To provide evidence that there is not any components that are being used in a proactive way in Gaza.' Looking ahead to the 2026 Scottish election, Mr Sarwar said he was putting his 'heart, soul energy, time' into winning. He said it would be a 'very close election' likely to result in a 'parliament of minorities'. Rather than doing deals such as the SNP-Green powersharing agreement, he said he would 'work progressively with the parliament' if he became first minister. He said: 'We are looking to form a minority Scottish Labour government that does no kind of back room stich-up but instead moves to govern based on what we promised.'
