Scots must call out far-right activity after warning in Clydebank and Hamilton
Nigel Farage likes to insist there is no room for racists in his Reform UK party.
A week seldom goes by when the right-wing populists are not forced to suspend or kick out another member for sharing far-right views, often on matters linked to race or immigration.
Saying the supposedly unsayable is a big part of Reform's appeal to sections of the electorate who feel they've been ignored or let down.
But calling for a reasoned debate on the UK's migration system is too often an excuse for racists and online cranks to spout their hatred of people who may look or sound different to them.
Far-right groups like Patriotic Alternative may not be official members of Reform but they have been emboldened by Farage's rise in the polls.
The white nationalists drew attention to themselves with their hateful banners displayed in Stonehouse ahead of the recent by-election in South Lanarkshire.
They are now regularly causing a nuisance in Clydebank and harassing a local trade union group that hosts a weekly stall in the town centre advising people on workers' rights.
It is no surprise that these far-right groups would target those seeking a better life for working people because they are completely opposed to progress, fairness and equality.
All they ever want to talk about is division, hate and blaming minorities for society's problems.
The far-right activity in Clydebank and Hamilton should act as a warning to all of Scotland. All decent people, including our politicians, police and the courts, need to step up and call out the far right.
Ignoring them is not an option.
We owe it to them
Glasgow's Queen Elizabeth University Hospital is 10 years old this month.
The thousands of medical staff who have worked there deserve enormous credit. Many people have had their lives improved or saved by the doctors, surgeons and nurses at the QEUH, who devote themselves to our well-being.
But Labour leader Anas Sarwar is right to highlight major failings by those in charge of the hospital that have let down patients and staff.
In his column today Sarwar repeats calls for Milly's Law in Scotland.
This is named after 10-year-old Milly Main, who died during cancer treatment at the QEUH after contracting an infection found in water.
A new law would give bereaved families new rights to demand transparency from hospital bosses over the treatment of loved ones.
Such a measure is long overdue and it would be a vital step in making sure the hospital makes the improvements it needs.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
How realistic is Nigel Farage's promise to cut crime in half?
N igel Farage claims that he has a plan to 'cut crime in half, take back control of our streets, [and] take back control of our courts and prisons '. The Reform leader says that 'we are facing nothing short of societal collapse', wants to build emergency 'Nightingale prisons ' on Ministry of Defence land, and has semi-promised to send convicted murderer Ian Huntley to El Salvador (admittedly a bit of a vote winner). It's an ambitious package, but there are questions about its viability... Is Britain facing societal collapse? No. If it was, you wouldn't get back alive from the pub or be able to get petrol or bread. Is crime up? On some measures and in some places, against certain given periods of time, it is up; on other measures, it's down. The variations in the way crime is measured are one issue – it's risky to go by the number of crimes recorded by the police, because people will sometimes not bother to report them, especially the less serious matters, so statisticians treat these figures with caution. The other way of measuring crime rates, which should also be adjusted for changes in population, is by conducting surveys among the public – but not everything is included. Somewhat confusingly, Farage seems to think that the survey data is unreliable because people have given up telling the police about, for example, thefts that might affect their insurance. That doesn't make sense. Types of crime also necessarily change over time; there are very few thefts of car radios or bank blags these days, but there's massively more cybercrime and fraud. Even in London, described by Farage as 'lawless', not all crime is up; there's a long-term trend down in murder and rape, for example, and there are still plenty of tourists. So fact-checking any politician on the subject of crime is virtually impossible. All such claims need to be treated with the utmost care. What about the costings? Farage presented a 'costings sheet' that purports to show that the whole massive package – recruiting 30,000 more police, opening new 'custody suites', restoring magistrates' court operations, building prisons, paying rent for offenders deported to prisons in El Salvador or Estonia, and the rest – would come to £17.4bn over a five-year parliament: a mere £3.48bn per annum. The costings seem to be optimistic, based on some arbitrary assumptions such as always being able to cut costs to a minimum. They are not independently audited by, say, the Institute for Fiscal Studies – and if it were really all so cheap to do, the Tories and Labour would surely have taken the opportunity to transform the crime scene and turn Britain into a paradise long ago. As for funding even the admitted £17.4bn, there are no specific named savings elsewhere, just some recycled claims about the (contested) cost of net zero and the supposed economic miracle wrought in Argentina by President Milei. Probably not enough to calm the bond markets under a Farage government. Is the UK 'close to civil disobedience on a vast scale'? So Farage claims. His critics say that his 'I predict a riot' remarks tend to have a self-fulfilling quality to them, as seen in the 'Farage riots' in Southport and elsewhere a year ago. Essex Police, who are currently dealing with violent unrest in Epping – perpetrated by 'a few bad eggs', as Farage terms it – won't thank him for his comments. And the anecdotes? Uncheckable, just as Enoch Powell's were in the infamous 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968. We may never know whether, for example, a former army sergeant was denied a job as a police officer because the force was 'having trouble with its quotas' or for some other reason. Reform's tactics are also reminiscent of the Trump playbook, demonstrating an obsession with incarceration and policing by fear. If Farage could build a British Alligator Alcatraz on a disused RAF base in Suffolk, he probably would. But using grass snakes, presumably. Can Farage cut crime in half in five years? It feels implausible. If he could, then presumably he could abolish crime altogether if he were given a decade in office. The 'zero tolerance' approach sounds fine, but if the pledge that every shoplifting offence, every whiff of a spliff, and every trackable mobile phone theft has to be investigated is taken literally – as he seems to intend – then even 30,000 more officers wouldn't be sufficient, and the expanded court and prison system would collapse. Much the same goes for 'saturation' levels of policing deployed on stop-and-search exercises in high-knife-crime areas. Sending many more people to jail is also very costly, but, more to the point, the recent Gauke report explains why prison doesn't work and just makes everything worse. To get crime down under Reform UK, we'd need to turn the UK into a police state.
Scotsman
17 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why letting 16-year-olds vote could give Gen Z as much political power as pensioners
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox 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... So the government at Westminster has announced that, in time for the next general election, 16 and 17-year-olds will be allowed to vote. As you will know, this has been the case in Scotland since 2014 and democracy has not ground to a halt. Some opposition parties are saying this is just a cynical attempt to gain the youth vote for the left, and, indeed, it seems that, in England, the main beneficiaries would be Labour and the Greens (who are, in England, a very respectable and sensible bunch relative to the screaming bag of cats they are here in Scotland). Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is, of course, to be expected and indeed welcomed: to misquote someone (no, it's not Churchill): 'If you're not left wing when you're young, there's something wrong with your heart, and if you're still left wing when you're old, there's something wrong with your head.' That's not to say that, in due course, some young people won't vote for Reform (along with the rest of their family). Increasing the youth vote by lowering the voting age should give the young generation a stronger voice in politics (Picture: Mark Runnacles) | Getty Images Young people made me proud The arguments being played out in England now echo those from 2014, when young Scots of 16 and 17 were allowed to vote in the independence referendum. It would seem they mainly voted 'Yes', though their turnout was lower than their grandparents, who mainly voted 'No'. I was at that time a head teacher, and was lucky enough to get Kenny MacAskill (then still with the SNP) and Sir Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, to come and debate independence with our S5 and S6 students, almost all of whom were about to vote for the first time. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Two of their number spoke with these highly experienced politicians. This was, in fact, one of my very happiest teaching memories, because the contributions of the young people, both in questioning and in giving their own points of view, were wonderful, causing even Sir Menzies – not the least grumpy of grumpy old men – to tell me how proud I should be. I was. I've never accepted the argument that teenagers are too ill-informed or immature in their thinking, too fickle and easily swayed, too uninterested to vote. I think 16 is the right age. Only dafties (this is a technical term) advance the argument that – this being the case – then why not 14-year-olds or five-year-olds? Well, simply because, as with many things, there has to be a lower limit and periodically society has to review it. Personally I think voting is probably easier than being in the army or, indeed, having sex. Obviously, some young people will lack the acumen and intelligence to vote, but then that's true for many people of all ages. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Our parents' politics If someone wanted to start a 'disenfranchise stupid people' movement, and it succeeded, then I think that would have a profound effect on elections – but nobody is seriously going to advance that, with its echoes of voter suppression in the USA. Most people who vote have, in truth, only a fairly sketchy idea about the policies of the party they are voting for are. There are exceptions – like Greens on the environment; the SNP and Alba on independence – but there are apparently hordes of people ready to vote for Reform, and, possibly beyond their opposition to immigration, almost nobody knows what their policies are. Of course, we are all influenced to some extent or other by our parents' political views. I grew up in a very heavily political household (suffice to say the First Minister was kind enough to speak at my father's funeral). But still, the first vote I ever cast was in the European referendum in 1975 and I voted in favour of Europe, and just lied to Mum and Dad about how I had voted, the SNP at that time being highly anti-European. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It would be very interesting to know what proportion of young people vote the same way as their parents do. We are also all now influenced in one way or another by social media – in many respects young people, attuned to the vagaries of TikTok or Instagram, may better be able to make their own minds up than those of us enslaved to X/Twitter or 'the News'. Increasing Gen Z's political clout However, the central argument in favour of extending the franchise is that this is the most difficult time to be young for a long, long time, certainly in my lifetime, and letting more young people vote might well be a means of getting politicians to take their views and needs further into account. For example, our elected representatives are obliged to protect the triple lock on the old age pension, when in fact a great many pensioners are very well off, relative to those under 25 working on their first jobs. Young people, if they are interested in politics at all, tend to focus on issues – currently, they worry about Gaza, the climate crisis, equity, and they would – in the main – support parties willing to take these things on. Maybe we need a few more 'naïve' voices casting votes that might lead to higher taxation on rich people, or more Draconian rules being applied to water companies. If nothing else, the old established parties might need to shake up in their thinking. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Nationalists are predictably rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of England 'copying' the Scots by this move: unusually in these days of Scottish exceptionalism, I agree with them – extending the vote to older teenagers doesn't seem to have done them, their parents or the country any harm. At their best, our young people are superb – confident, articulate, kind and clever – and we are right to put our faith in their judgment.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Nigel Farage on UK crime: how do his statements stack up?
Nigel Farage has launched a six-week campaign and policy blitz, pledging to halve overall crime in the first five years of a Reform UK government. At a press conference on Monday, the Reform leader made a series of claims about crime levels in the UK and government efforts to lower them. In an article teeing up his proposals for the Daily Mail, Farage wrote that 'over the past 20 years, crime has become commonplace across Britain' and that ministers seemed to be spending money on 'everything except keeping the people of this country safe'. Here are some of his main claims and how they stack up. Crime has rocketed since the 1990s Farage's central argument is that crime has risen so much that the UK is 'facing societal collapse', while politicians are in complete denial. He wrote on Monday that total crime is 50% higher than it was in the 1990s. He told reporters that the crime survey for England and Wales was 'based on completely false data' and that 'if you look at police-recorded crime … there are some significant rises in crimes of all kinds, particularly crimes against the person'. He went on to argue that the true figures were even higher than the records showed, because 'most of us now don't even bother to report crime'. In fact, the Office for National Statistics regards the crime survey for England and Wales as the more accurate metric of long-term crime trends, because it includes incidents that haven't been reported to the police and is unaffected by changes in how crime is recorded. It is unclear what Farage's claim that it is based on 'completely false data' is founded on. The ONS also says police-recorded crime 'does not tend to be a good indicator of general trends in crime' and should only be used in conjunction with other data. ONS analysis of crime survey and police-recorded crime data concludes that crime against individuals and households has generally fallen over the last 10 years, with some important exceptions including sexual assault. There have been long-term decreases in violence with or without injury, theft offences and criminal damage since the mid-1990s. There are, however, some increases in the short-term. The latest survey shows a 33% increase in fraud last year, and a 50% increase in theft from the person compared with 2023. People in the UK no longer feel safe Farage claimed that 'people are scared of going to the shops' or 'to let their kids out' and that 'witnessing and experiencing crime has become normalised'. It's true that a significant proportion of British voters – 22% according to YouGov's poll tracker – regard crime as one of the biggest issues the country faces. Crime ranks behind the NHS, however, cited by 33% of people, and immigration and asylum, cited by 53%. One concrete data point Farage mentioned was that 57% of women felt it was unsafe to walk on the streets of London, which came from a Survation poll carried out this spring. Other parties don't care about crime Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Farage claimed to be 'astonished there's been so little debate in Westminster amongst all the political classes on this issue'. In fact Labour and the Conservatives put pledges on crime at the centre of their manifestos in the run-up to the July 2024 election, and both parties are spending a considerable amount of time debating and legislating in this area. One of the government's five driving 'missions' is to halve serious violent crime and raise confidence in the police and criminal justice system to its highest level. London is lawless Farage made a series of claims about crime in London, including that tourists were increasingly reluctant to visit the capital and that wealthy people such as the oil magnate John Fredriksen were leaving. Fredriksen – a Norwegian-born Cypriot billionaire who is selling his £250m mansion in Chelsea – in fact cited Rachel Reeves' tax changes as the main reason behind his decision and said the UK was becoming too much like Norway. He has said nothing about crime. Farage also said one in three people in London had been subject to phone theft. This appears to have come from a survey of 1,000 people by a UK fintech start-up called Nuke From Orbit, rather than the police-reported figures that Farage said he preferred. According to the Metropolitan police, 80,000 phones were reported stolen in London in 2024, which suggests the crime affected far fewer than one in three people. The Reform UK leader did cite some official figures, including that shoplifting in London was up 54% last year compared with 2023, which came from the ONS.
