Stephen Flynn steps down from Scottish Affairs committee
The SNP Westminster leader and MP for Aberdeen South was eventually offered a place on the committee in October, after an initial release from the UK Parliament suggested the SNP would not have a seat.
Both the LibDems and the Tories were automatically given places, despite having less MPs in Scotland than the SNP.
READ MORE: Kemi Badenoch questions Reform UK and Labour 'belief in the Union'
The committee is made up of six Labour MPs, two Tories, two LibDems and one SNP, and is headed up by Scottish Labour MP for Glasgow West Patricia Ferguson.
Flynn is set to be replaced by Dave Doogan, SNP MP for Angus and the Perthshire Glens, the Daily Record reports.
Commenting, Flynn said: "I've enjoyed working cross-party with various stakeholders and, with his previous experience on the Defence Select Committee, Dave is perfectly placed to continue with the work that is underway."
Flynn is set to stand in the 2026 Holyrood election in Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine, where current MSP Audrey Nicoll is stepping down.
If elected, he will have to stand down from his Westminister seat, which will trigger a by-election.
SNP MP Stephen Gethins has also been announced as a candidate for the Holyrood election, alongside a raft of former MPs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
35 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist?
Before dismissing this prospect out of hand, consider the point that political parties are manufactured, not innate. They are coalitions of the more or less willing, designed to provide a vaguely coherent offer to the electorate in order to secure power and effect change. Consequently, they have no guaranteed right to exist. Anyone remember the squadrone volante? In the old, pre-Union Scots Parliament, they steered a cautious middle way between the Court and Country parties, before eventually sinking into oblivion. OK, so that is an obscure recollection. Consider this instead. In the 19th century, the Liberals were utterly dominant in Scottish politics. Their role was largely usurped by the Labour Party. The Tories battled on. They secured, in 1955, the only popular majority ever achieved by any party in Scotland since universal suffrage. But that was a Unionist vote. As times changed, and the SNP rose, the Tories struggled again, eventually losing every Scottish Westminster seat in 1997. They were only rescued as a party by the advent of devolution and by proportional representation. Two developments they had steadfastly opposed. And more recently? They flourished to a degree under Ruth Davidson's leadership. She contrived to corral pro-Union votes to her side by depicting her party as the most reliable bulwark for that Union. And now? Two points. Indyref2 seems relatively distant, meaning that the political focus is elsewhere. The Davidson bulwark has less clout. Read more from Brian Taylor: Secondly, there is an alternative on the Right, in the shape of Reform, explicitly promising to supplant the Tories before going for the other parties. The Tories have endured defections. To Reform. And MSP Jamie Greene who switched to the Liberal Democrats. His verdict on his erstwhile party? He reckons folk are 'completely scunnered' with the Scots Tories. Nodding towards the Tories' Westminster leader, he summons up a vision of 'Kemi-geddon.' Not, I would suggest, the most felicitous phrase. But you take his point. Ms Badenoch has scarcely inspired confidence since taking over. Her own view, delivered this week during exchanges with the Prime Minister, was that she gets better every week, while Keir Starmer gets worse. Again, less than uplifting. Trying hard. Getting better. It is all a bit like a school report delivered to a struggling pupil by a kind and supportive teacher. However, is it entirely her fault? I would suggest not. She might well get better. Except she is burdened by voter memories of her predecessors. Rishi Sunak might be exculpated somewhat. But not Boris Johnson and certainly not Liz Truss. Lest there is any danger of the voters forgetting, Labour constantly summons up the spectre of the unfunded Truss budget which so spooked the markets that she had to quit. Only this week, the Chancellor referred repeatedly to Ms Truss, as she set out her own spending plans. The Prime Minister taunted Kemi Badenoch, saying reflections of Liz Truss would continue to haunt the Tories. Yes, Kemi Badenoch has had a troubled start to her leadership. But, as one close observer noted to me, Winston Churchill would struggle to lead the Conservatives right now, given the degree of entrenched voter anger at governance past. While noting that, I would add that Tory problems are exacerbated by the presence of an alternative offer on the Right. The Tories previously dismissed UKIP. Reform appears more challenging. Is Russell Findlay happy in his role as Scottish Conservative leader? (Image: PA) And what of Holyrood? I noted recently that Russell Findlay does not seem entirely content in his role. Perhaps, one suggested to me, he was happier in his previous job as an inquisitive, investigative journalist. However, a senior insider dismisses that prospect. I was told that Mr Findlay is determined to set out a clear direction for the Scottish Tories – by differentiating them sharply from their main rivals. He will not, I was told, be 'knocked off course' by Reform. He believes that the SNP, in particular, talked up the challenge of Reform in the recent Hamilton by-election, only to witness a set-back for their own party as Labour won. The big Scottish Tory offer? Lower taxes in Scotland, including the removal of lower bands. Amounting, they say, to a substantial saving for every worker. In the past, the Scots Tories have been somewhat reluctant to pursue this route. They feared it would not be seen as credible, that they would be challenged on spending cuts. Ideologically, they fretted over departing from a UK fiscal pattern. No longer. They say they will fund tax cuts by civil service efficiency savings, an approach also backed by the Chancellor. And by cuts to Scotland's benefits bill. Read more: In response to which, John Swinney sharpens the knife he has already honed for UK Labour – and turns it upon the Scottish Conservatives, accusing both of seeking to gain electorally from enhancing poverty. Both his rivals demur. But there is more from Mr Findlay. In conference this weekend, he is projecting what he calls 'common sense' policies. Reflecting, as one insider noted to me, the 'real priorities of the Scottish people, stopping the nonsense of the political bubble.' So potholes, rather than gender reform. An end to the North Sea windfall tax. An understandable move, in keeping with Tory instincts. Except that John Swinney has already shifted ground to focus on fundamentals. And Labour's Anas Sarwar talks without ceasing about popular concerns such as the NHS. And Reform? Both UK and Scottish Tory leaders will hope to sideline them. That might prove difficult, especially given the options offered by list voting. Other factors. Reform themselves may be subject to closer scrutiny. As the Holyrood election approaches, people may turn their attention to big choices. Who forms the new devolved government which will set their taxes and control their public services? The Tories hope they can bring a distinctive perspective to that choice. They know they are down. They can only hope – and believe – they are not yet out. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
SNP accused of 'pulling wool over public's eyes' in Spending Review row
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Scottish Secretary has accused SNP ministers of 'pulling the wool over the eyes of the public' by claiming Scotland will be short-changed by more than a billion pounds as a result of the spending review. Ian Murray said the Scottish Government was manipulating the figures and 'miscalculating'. He said the UK government was giving Scotland an extra £9.1 billion over the next three years. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On Wednesday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said her spending review would deliver an average block grant for Scotland of £50.9bn. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray | PA But Shona Robison, the SNP Finance Secretary, said the spending review treated Scotland as an 'afterthought'. Speaking earlier this week, she said: 'Had our resource funding for day-to-day priorities grown in line with the UK government's overall spending, we would have £1.1bn more to spend on our priorities over the next three years. In effect, Scotland has been short-changed by more than a billion pounds.' Mr Murray dismissed this argument. Speaking to The Scotsman from the Filmhouse in Edinburgh, which is reopening with help from a £1.5 million UK government grant, Mr Murray said: "I firstly say, with all due respect, that I might send her a calculator because that is not the case. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "What she's doing is she's packaging up reserved department spend on things like defence and DESNZ [the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero] and including that in her calculations. "We're giving the Scottish Government £9.1bn more over this spending review, which is the biggest settlement in the history of the Scottish Parliament. And what she's doing is pulling the wool over the eyes of the public by miscalculating the spending review. "If she wants to calculate defence and reserved department spending as well in terms of the Scottish Government settlement, the MoD [Ministry of Defence] will spend a disproportionate amount of their 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence in Scotland, and that's not counted. But she's counting that in her figures to manipulate them, but she's completely and utterly wrong." Ms Robison said: 'The UK spending review document sets out in black and white that our funding for day-to-day spending is set to grow by only 0.8 per cent over the next three years, compared with 1.2 per cent average growth for UK government departments. This will short-change us by £1.1bn. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Glasgow sidelined by Labour Spending Review, says Aitken
In a letter seen by The Herald, the SNP councillor warned that Ms Reeves's review is a 'retrograde step' for regional devolution in Scotland, and risks 'disempowering' Glasgow. READ MORE: Although the Treasury confirmed a £160 million Investment Zone in the Glasgow City Region and £20 million for Trailblazer Communities, Councillor Aitken said this fell far short of the funding deals being rolled out to five English Mayoral Strategic Authorities. The Spending Review included detailed commitments to expand integrated settlements for English city regions. Rahcel Reeves delivering the spending review (Image: House of Commons/PA Wire) Instead of applying for individual grants through competitive bidding processes, these areas receive a single, flexible pot of long-term funding, allowing Mayors greater autonomy in making their own investment decisions. This integrated funding grants local control over budgets for areas such as housing, skills, and transport. Following the Spending Review, these settlements are being expanded to include London, the North East, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Liverpool City Region. These will join existing arrangements in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, meaning nearly 40% of England's population will now have local control over this unified funding for growth and public services. Glasgow will instead be forced to enter what one council source described as a 'beauty contest' and need to bid for cash — similar to the process under the last Tory government, which Labour criticised in opposition. Councillor Aitken told Mr Murray: 'It is clear from the Spending Review that the UK Government recognises the best way to support economic growth of English City Regions is through an integrated settlement, allowing places the ability to make their own investment decisions. 'And yet Glasgow City Region, which is larger in population, size of economy, opportunity and need than most of the Mayoral Combined Authorities, is reduced to simply administering programmes on behalf of UK Government as if it were a small local authority.' She added: 'The empowerment of our comparator city regions in England and the disempowerment of Glasgow City Region threatens all of the progress we have made. We have a shared priority of growing Scotland's economy and ensuring our people reap the benefits of that. 'We cannot grow Scotland's economy without growing Glasgow's economy — and yet yesterday's budget will not contribute to that growth and will cause us to fall behind our English counterparts.' Council insiders told The Herald the lack of progress had come as a surprise, particularly given the constructive tone of recent discussions with the UK Government. Cllr Aitken and Kevin Rush talking to Newsquest's Stewart Paterson in February (Image: Gordon Terris) In February, Councillor Aitken and Glasgow's head of regional economic growth, Kevin Rush, told The Herald the city was 'ready to go' on a bespoke devolution deal. The model would mirror Greater Manchester or the West Midlands — with a 'single pot' of funding and the ability to make investment decisions locally. They said the structures were already in place and that Glasgow was managing numerous major UK Government-backed programmes, including the City Deal, Innovation Accelerator, Investment Zone, Shared Prosperity Fund, 5G Region, and Clyde Mission. The Treasury did reaffirm its commitment to the Glasgow Investment Zone — which it says could unlock £1.7 billion in private investment and create up to 18,000 jobs — and praised the region's potential in advanced manufacturing. READ MORE: But Councillor Aitken said that without control over wider investment decisions, Glasgow's economic future would remain constrained by short-term funding rounds and top-down allocations. She told The Herald: 'If anyone thought locking Glasgow and other Scottish cities out of investment talks last year was a simple oversight, this Spending Review risks creating the impression that the UK Government has now decided it is prepared to let our city regions be left behind. 'That is incredibly frustrating, at a time when we have been working closely with the Secretary of State, Deputy First Minister and officials from governments in Edinburgh and London to develop a positive, deliverable proposition for a devolution deal that would allow us to build on our strong record for innovation, unlock investment opportunities and grow the Scottish economy. 'Despite all of that, it appears the voice of Scotland's cities has not been heard around the Cabinet table." 'We are not asking for anything difficult," she added, "just a level playing field." In her Spending Review, Ms Reeves confirmed that the Scottish Government is set to receive an average of £50.9 billion per year between 2026–27 and 2028–29, representing its largest settlement in real terms since devolution. A UK Government spokesperson said: "Glasgow City Region is at the heart of our Plan for Growth in Scotland. "We are delivering more than £663m funding for the region including an Investment Zone focussed on developing advanced manufacturing and a strategic partnership with the National Wealth Fund. "Further plans will be set out, including the city's important role in the Industrial Strategy. "Devolution within Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government but, building on the success of city and growth deals, we will work with them to help to ensure places like Glasgow City Region have the tools they need to deliver change and unlock the same levels of growth as their English counterparts like Greater Manchester."
