Latest news with #AngusRobertson
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Greens press SNP over secret Israeli ambassador meeting
It comes after an exclusive report by The Ferret for The National was published, where the secret minutes of a meeting between MSP Angus Robertson and ambassador Daniela Grudsky were revealed. It has come to light that the Scottish Government had called Israel a "critical friend", despite publicly denouncing the atrocities it has carried out amidst the genocide in Gaza. READ MORE: UK Government facing legal action over refusal of medical evacuations from Gaza In response, Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said to The National: 'Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, yet the SNP still think it's acceptable to be 'critical friends' with a regime that's blatantly committing war crimes against innocent civilians. 'This is beyond shameful. 'This meeting with the Israeli regime stands in stark contrast with the SNP's stated opposition to the occupation of Gaza and the ongoing genocide. 'They rightly criticise the UK Government's disgraceful complicity, but when it comes to taking action in Scotland, time and again they have failed to deliver.' The report follows a 10-month freedom of information (FoI) battle between the Government and The Ferret, where an unnamed Scottish official said: 'Transparency is obviously a good thing, but it takes up such a lot of our time.' READ MORE: Farage wrecked Britain and risks Aberdeen's future, Flynn warns The FoI requests were prompted after Grudsky shared an image on Twitter/X of her and Robertson, which left a 'schism' within the SNP. 'If the Scottish Government truly considers Israel's vicious government as any kind of friend, then why did they spend 10 months trying to keep these minutes from the public?', Harvie continued. 'We urgently need John Swinney and the Scottish Government to explain why their minister was cosying up to Netanyahu's representative in a secret meeting.'
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Doctors Under Attack: A film about Gaza you can't look away from
Waking in the morning to shocking reports, killings, drone attacks, forced migrations, innocent civilians targeted, icecaps melting. All the stupefying, ungraspable numbers. The feeling of helplessness, guilt even at not being able to do anything. And then trying to start your day. For the sake of 'balance', we're made to listen to apologists, explaining why these people had to die, or be driven from their homes, or left to starve. Or that none of it really happened at all. Government spokespeople justifying why there's nothing whatsoever they can do about it. READ MORE: When 'critical friends' fall out: Angus Robertson's Israel meeting details revealed So why should we watch the news? It's distressing. For some, it can lead to real mental problems. To doomscrolling, going down the rabbit hole of poisonous social media. The world's gone mad and there's nothing we can do about it. So we bury our heads in the sand. But we know full well it won't make reality go away. We've been numbed to the point of indifference, even cynicism. There's a psychological term for all this – Headline Anxiety. A current example is the documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack. The film the BBC commissioned but for – not to put too fine a point on it – incoherent reasons declined to broadcast. They were finally forced into allowing Channel 4 to show it. So long as there was no reference to the BBC. A film described as 'crucial … that the world needs to see'. I decided not to. Too upsetting. Then I heard there was a public screening in Glasgow. For reasons I still don't quite understand, that felt different. Perhaps I could watch it. Something to do with sharing the pain, the feeling of powerlessness. Clearly I wasn't the only one. The screening, in Glasgow University's 160-seater Andrew Stewart cinema, sold out in a couple of days. As one of the panel said on the night, it was easier to get tickets for the Oasis gig. Is there some comfort to be had in viewing difficult material collectively? A sense of not being alone in the face of horrors. I asked people when I got there what had made them come along. Naturally, there were activists among them, people already involved in one way or another. More, it seemed, were medical workers themselves, doctors, nurses, students. Concerned about colleagues under fire. The screening had been organised by the Scottish Palestine Health Partnership, practitioners trying to do whatever they can for their fellow professionals. It was hosted by the university's Thinking Culture programme which finds innovative and creative ways of, well, making us think. A young man sitting behind me was neither a medical worker nor an activist. He was simply confused and wanted to understand. Like me, he'd decided the documentary was too disturbing to watch at home. And he gave me a good example of his puzzlement … 'This thing about Hamas fighters using hospitals. I've no idea whether they do or not. But even if they did, well, if a gunman goes into a school and starts shooting, we don't solve the situation by blowing up the entire school and all the kids in it.' Throughout the film itself, there were audible gasps and shocked sighs. It was comforting – if that's the word – to hear that other people were as affected by the content as I was. A shared pain, not in any way lessened by being in the company of strangers, but still consoling. On the other hand, the experience was more intense than watching on TV. You couldn't pause it for a moment, get your breath back. Couldn't go and make a cuppa to gird yourself to continue watching. The documentary is extremely well made – it holds your attention from the start. It shows more explicit footage than we're used to in British broadcasting – there was no mistaking the violence and cruelty that was taking place. Now. Dead children. Mass graves. Torture victims. It made me think of watching horror movies on the big screen. But there's a huge, inescapable, difference. Not simply that one is fiction and the other is appallingly real. In a fictitious movie, we ~ enjoy the thrill, in a safe space, and usually see the baddies get their comeuppance. The whole point is that it's not real, it's escapism. Gaza: Doctors Under Attack is anything but escapist. There is no resolution reward. Ben de Pear, the documentary's producer, came to Glasgow for the screening. He said, before showing his film: 'I can't say I hope you enjoy it. You won't.' His documentary is dispassionate, serious journalism; its aim is not to entertain, but to assiduously follow the evidence. And that evidence is far more chilling than any fright flick. I use the phrase 'safe space'. Had this been a fiction then perhaps a cinema in Glasgow is a safe place to watch terrible, made-up, things. But one of the speakers had reminded us that a young health worker, Dima Alhaj, had been killed along with her baby, husband, and virtually her entire family in 2023. Dima had been an Erasmus student at Glasgow University, where we were sitting now. That brings the horror closer to home. Whether we like it or not, Palestine is not so very far from us. Nor is Sudan, or Myanmar, or Kharkiv, or Tehran. As another speaker, a doctor, said, what is happening in Gaza has changed us all. We can turn off the TV, but the bloodshed doesn't stop. Changing channels won't protect us. We are involved. The BBC's decision to try and wash its hands of Doctors Under Attack only drew attention to both the film and its own mismanagement of it. As if we have learned nothing from banning the Sex Pistols, or Frankie Goes To Hollywood. The Clockwork Orange, Lady Chatterley, Kneecap, Gaza: How To Survive a Warzone … official prohibition only increases public appetite. According to Ben de Pear, the BBC had obstructed the entire process almost from the moment they had commissioned it. From his journalistic perspective, the accusation of targeting civilian healthcare must surely merit investigation. Nothing like it has happened in modern history. But the corporation, he felt, was 'frightened'. Fear of political reprisal, as much as any bias, led them into disarray. (A predicament that won't surprise anyone who took an interest in the Scottish Independence referendum.) At the end of the screening, a woman said to me: 'I wish I hadn't seen it. But I'm glad I did.' And laughed nervously: 'Does that make any sense?' Yes, I think it does. It was clear from the medical people on the panel, and those in the audience, that they feel the need for such films. The victims of violence – whether in Israel/[[Palestine]], Russia/Ukraine, Sudan or wherever – need us to know of their plight. Especially where journalists are forbidden, where state propaganda conceals what is actually going on. I had wondered, before going, if there might be something uplifting, something hopeful, in the experience of watching difficult material in the public sphere. There was. The courage and decency of ordinary people in terrible circumstances, health professionals going about their jobs even when they themselves have become the target, and have lost loved ones. All that might have been apparent watching alone at home on TV. But being in the presence of brave volunteers, helping not for any political motive but because it's what they do, that was heartening. The admiration and gratitude for organisations such as the Palestine Red Crescent Society. People who risked their lives by telling what they had witnessed, Israelis as well as Palestinians. Do we have, as human beings, a duty to watch such films? To listen to the morning news, the evening headlines. Painful though it all might be. Perhaps it could propel us into some kind of action, however meagre. Write to our MP or MSP. Donate to a charity. Protest. One of the speakers summed it up for me. A colorectal surgeon who has been volunteering in Gaza said before showing some clips of his own experiences, 'I'm sorry'. 'Sorry to make you see this. But I think it's important. I think you need to see this.'
The National
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Media expert raises fears over BBC Gaza documentary review
The BBC was found to have breached one of its editorial guidelines on accuracy after it failed to disclose that the narrator in the axed documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone was the son of a Hamas official. However, the review crucially stated on page one there was nothing 'in the narrator's scripted contribution to the programme that breached the BBC's standards on due impartiality' while it added there was no evidence 'to support a suggestion that the narrator's father or family influenced the content of the programme'. Professor Des Freedman, who works in the media department at Goldsmiths, University of London, said these points have not been widely focused on by the mainstream media, with most headlines homing in on the single accuracy breach. READ MORE: Angus Robertson hits out as Labour 'keep UK veto on Scottish laws' And he fears the review and the way in which the breach has been reported on will now give the BBC "cover" to make more 'cowardly decisions' on Gaza coverage. 'I think it provides BBC executives, who have already made some cowardly decisions such as decided to drop the Doctors Under Attack documentary, with cover to say that actually doing this kind of work in Gaza is too complicated,' he told The National. 'They will do this in the light of the fact they know there will be pressure placed on them. 'The best way of responding to that pressure is not to give in, because that pressure will still come. It's actually to make sure you commission serious, high-quality current affairs programmes and documentaries that assess what's going on. 'My worry is they are going to interpret this as yet another reason to steer clear [of investigative Gaza coverage].' Freedman (below) added he has concerns over the review branding the documentary a 'higher-risk project' which might require more intense oversight, such as 'embedding a BBC executive into the independent production company'. (Image: Goldsmiths) He added: 'Why should a documentary about the most appalling war crimes taking place be seen as higher risk? 'Surely the risk would be not to report it. 'I find it worrying it's put into that category of higher risk with more editorial intervention by people who have already demonstrated that they are not willing to sanction impartial reporting of the attacks on Gaza.' While the review was going on, the BBC axed the Basement Films documentary Gaza: Doctors Under Attack following concerns that it would 'not meet the high standards' of impartiality – a move that was widely criticised especially after it was broadcast by Channel 4 with no formal concerns raised. Ofcom boss Melanie Dawes said at the weekend that failings on Israel-Palestine coverage present a "real risk" for the BBC. She said it had been guilty of 'own goals' in its reporting and declined to give executives her support. Upon discovering the Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone narrator, Abdullah, was the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as deputy minister of agriculture in Gaza's government, the BBC removed the documentary from iPlayer. In an email to staff – shared on social media by Basement Films – BBC News CEO Deborah Turness said the BBC would not reinstate the documentary in full but would explore re-editing some of the material. READ MORE: Everything to know about the BBC's Gaza, Glastonbury and Gregg Wallace crises Freedman insisted the documentary must be reinstated in full as he warned that 'breaking it up into morsels' could create even more problems for the BBC. 'They should reinstate the programme onto iPlayer as soon as possible in full, making clear what has happened and allow viewers to make their own minds up,' he said. 'A breach of accuracy does not mean in itself that that programme cannot continue on iPlayer. 'I think the BBC have acknowledged this because Deborah Turness has suggested that the programme could in parts be reintroduced to iPlayer. That's such a typically cowardly way of doing things. 'There is an appetite for this type of content, a comprehensive report has found in terms of programme content, it was pretty much flawless […] so there is no objective reason why the programme shouldn't be put back up there.' He added: 'The idea you can break this up into morsels is exactly what we don't need. We need proper investigative reporting of what's been going on [in Gaza]." Ex-BBC journalist Karishma Patel also said there was "no editorial reason" for the BBC not to put the programme back on iPlayer with details of the narrator's background outlined. She said: "The one breach of BBC editorial policy can easily be resolved by signposting the relevant context in the film, alongside a proper explanation of how ministerial roles operate in Gaza. "I see no editorial reason why the BBC should not air and upload this amended version of the film - an important piece of public service journalism - to BBC iPlayer. "But there is a broader conversation to be had here – if the BBC is serious about signposting the relevant connections of every contributor, why not tell us when an interviewee has served in the Israeli military? "If the BBC is serious about including all relevant context in its news coverage, why not highlight the ICC arrest warrant out for Benjamin Netanyahu whenever he's mentioned? "The inconsistency in how these rules are applied, especially around Gaza, is distorting reality and misleading audiences." When approached for comment, the BBC directed The National to a statement from Turness which said: 'At the heart of this programme were powerful and important stories that need to be told. But it's clear that in this programme we made a significant mistake. "This is why we have drawn up a robust action plan to make sure all of Peter Johnston's recommendations are implemented. "Our audiences deserve the highest possible standards of accuracy from the BBC, and we are strengthening our editorial oversight to ensure that we deliver this for them. "We remain committed to reporting from Gaza, despite the fact that international journalists are not allowed in."
Powys County Times
15-07-2025
- Business
- Powys County Times
Most Europeans would support independent Scotland joining EU, poll finds
A majority of Europeans favour an independent Scotland being allowed into the European Union – though a third of Britons would be opposed to this, a survey has found. YouGov questioned people living in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Spain on their views on the prospect of an independent Scotland becoming part of the EU. Support across these nations for Scotland to join the EU ranged from just under two-thirds (63%) to three-quarters (75%). 46% of Britons support independent Scotland joining EU 32% of Britons opposed to this But across Great Britain – where more than 2,000 people were polled – less than half (46%) said they would back an independent Scotland being part of the EU, with 32% saying they would oppose this. The research was carried out despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer having made clear he has no plans to allow a second vote on Scotland leaving the UK. Just last month the Labour leader said having another ballot on the issue is not a 'priority' and he cannot imagine one taking place while he is in Downing Street. And while the UK Government recently announced a new agreement with the EU, there is no prospect of the UK seeking to rejoin the trading block as things stand. YouGov's research comes almost a decade on from the 2016 Brexit referendum, which saw the UK as a whole vote to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to remain. The latest poll found 63% of French people surveyed would support an independent Scotland joining the EU, with only 13% opposed. In Italy, 64% favour Scotland being allowed to join, with 11% against, broadly similar to Spain – where 65% said they would support an independent Scotland in the EU while 13% are opposed to this. In Germany, support was higher at 68%, with only 10% of people polled against an independent Scotland being part of the EU, while in Denmark three-quarters (75%) of people back Scotland being part of the trading block, with 6% against this. External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson said: 'Brexit has diminished Scotland in every way – it has left people poorer, hurt business and ripped opportunities away from our young people. 'Returning to the EU is in the best interests of Scotland. It is central to our future economic and social success and offers us the chance to regain what has been lost by Brexit. 'With the UK Government unwilling to rejoin, it is clear that it is only with independence that Scotland can take our place at the heart of Europe as a co-operative EU member state – and it is welcome that people in many European nations stand ready to welcome us.' SNP MSP Stuart McMillan said: 'It comes as no surprise that people across Europe would welcome an independent Scotland rejoining the EU. 'People recognise the benefits of EU membership for all countries and can see the enormous damage that Brexit continues to cause. 'Brexit, which Scotland never voted for, is making people poorer, damaging our NHS, harming the economy and stealing opportunities from our young people. 'Labour's broken Brexit Britain is failing at every turn. It is only with independence that Scotland can build a better future, back where we belong in the heart of Europe.'
Leader Live
15-07-2025
- Business
- Leader Live
Minister vows ‘improvements' to Internal Market Act
Mr Alexander however made clear that ministers have not considered scrapping the Internal Market Act (IMA), with the Scottish Government branding the results of the Westminster review 'completely unacceptable'. Angus Robertson, the Scottish Government's Constitution Secretary, insisted the legislation – which Holyrood has twice voted against – 'undermines' the Scottish Parliament. Mr Alexander however said the UK Government has 'been explicit about the need for businesses to have certainty', saying this is 'why the review has not considered repeal of the Act or any of its provisions'. He said the UK Government has instead 'pledged to explore improvements in the way the Act's provisions operate', adding 'very real concerns' have been raised. Following the UK's departure from the European Union, the then Tory UK government introduced the IMA in order to create a single market across the four nations of the UK. The legislation however caused difficulties for the Scottish Government when it attempted to introduce a deposit return scheme for empty cans and bottles ahead of the rest of the UK. In the wake of the review, the UK Government is promising changes, including the introduction of exclusions to the legislation, that have been agreed by all governments within a common framework. As well as considering economic impacts, issues of environmental protection and public health will also be looked at for exclusions – with the UK Government saying this ensures a 'balance of factors is considered'. Mr Alexander stressed the importance of having a 'well-functioning UK internal market' as part of the Government's 'ambition to improve economic growth for the benefit of businesses and people in all parts of our country'. He added: 'Latest figures show that trade between the four nations of the UK is valued at £129 billion and that it is particularly important to the economies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.' But Mr Robertson insisted the IMA had been introduced by the previous Conservative government 'without the consent of any devolved government or Parliament'. Speaking about the legislation, he added: 'It undermines the ability of the Scottish Parliament to use its powers to pursue devolved social and economic objectives in Scotland for the people to which it is accountable. 'It introduces radical new uncertainty as to the effect of laws passed by the Scottish Parliament and effectively provides a veto to UK ministers. 'Nothing set out in the UK Government's response to the review changes this position, which is completely unacceptable. 'The conclusion of the review falls well short of our stated position of repeal and replace the Internal Market Act, and indeed short of the legislative change required to mitigate the most damaging aspects of the operation of the IMA. 'It is important also to note that the Scottish Parliament has twice voted to repeal the Act – since it is fundamentally misconceived and incompatible with devolution.' While he said the Scottish Government welcomes the UK Government's intention 'to address some of the most egregious issues with the function of the IMA exclusions process', he added that SNP ministers 'remain concerned that there is no clear vehicle to give meaningful effect to these changes, which work against our shared interests to promote growth, protect jobs and ensure seamless trade across the UK nations'.
