Will the SNP give more than warm words to help Scottish journalism?
This week's Behind the Headlines comes from content editor Xander Elliards. To receive the newsletter direct to your inbox every week for free, click here.
IT is easier to learn about Scotland's green hydrogen industry from German television than from UK broadcasters, Culture Secretary Angus Robertson told a room of journalists and editors at Holyrood on Thursday.
The remark was a stark reflection on the state of Scotland's media – one that grew sharper as Robertson continued.
The SNP minister, himself a former BBC journalist, lamented the near-absence of foreign correspondents with regular slots in Scottish newspapers, saying he could count them 'on one finger' – a reference to The National's David Pratt.
He acknowledged the broader crisis: Shrinking resources, job cuts, and a media landscape struggling under commercial pressures.
A meeting was held in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday to discuss the fledgling Scottish Public Interest Journalism Institute (Image: Gordon Terris) 'Cuts, shrinkages to the industry – they've all had significant wider impacts on our institutions, culture, and society,' he said.
'Nevertheless, it's heartening to hear about the potential of the new institute and how it could be utilised to help support and preserve our independent publications and local titles and to ensure that we have an industry well into the future.'
Robertson's reference was to the fledgling Scottish Public Interest Journalism Institute (SPIJI), which is set to officially launch next month (or thereabouts).
SPIJI was recommended by the Scottish Government's own Public Interest Journalism Working Group – formed in 2021 to tackle the pandemic-era and structural threats facing Scottish newsrooms.
Chaired by The National's founding editor Richard Walker, the institute aims to follow models such as the Dutch Journalism Fund: An arm's-length, state-backed body that invests in media as a democratic necessity.
READ MORE: Seamus Logan: Using an election as plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly
But progress has been slow, not least because the SNP have been reticent to give the group anything more than warm words.
Back in 2022, when the idea was supported by the Scottish Government, Robertson said: 'We want to do all we can to support the sustainability and diversity of public interest journalism in Scotland and we will be working closely with industry stakeholders to see how an institute could help to ensure the sector remains resilient.'
All they can, it seems, except put their money where their mouth is.
At the meeting in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday, an array of Scottish writers, from freelancers and researchers to editors and reporters, spoke frankly about the state of the industry.
One contributor described a vicious cycle: Falling print sales trigger cost-cutting and staff losses, quality declines, prices rise, readers abandon ship, and the spiral deepens.
READ MORE: Assa Samake-Roman: We need to look at where our money vanishes to
The cause is no mystery: Shareholders' pockets need to be lined, and public service journalism suffers.
SPIJI offers an alternative. Its goal is to support local and independent journalism in ways commercial executives won't, and to defend Scotland's democracy by ensuring its citizens are informed. Because when the media falters, democratic accountability weakens.
That's why the SNP's inaction on this matters. It is not enough to simply acknowledge the problem.
If the Scottish Government truly believes a strong Scottish media is essential to a strong Scottish democracy, then it must do more than make speeches. It must fund that future.
Our media needs more than warm words. It needs investment. Without it, who will tell Scotland's story?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘You have to fight tooth and nail': PIP claimants tell of struggle to get awarded as Labour accused of making it harder
Sarah has just found out that she will likely be able to keep her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) after months of worry. The 40-year-old mother-of-one works from home, which allows her to juggle life with being a new parent and her disabilities. Chronic fatigue syndrome in her joints means she regularly experiences brain fog and exhaustion, and needs help. And it's her PIP that makes this possible, helping her to afford a carer, stay in work and spend time with her baby. Claimed by 3.7 million people, the health-linked benefit at the heart of Labour's proposed welfare reforms is designed to help with extra costs incurred by living with an illness or disability. The government's concessions on plans to cut welfare spending now mean that Sarah won't be subject to stricter eligibility criteria when next assessed for the benefit. Instead, from November 2026, only new claimants look set to be subject to the tighter criteria, under Labour's bill going through Parliament. But Sarah says she is struggling to see this as a victory. 'If there's another Sarah who's born a few years later, and ended up in this situation, it's still just as appalling,' she says. 'It's encouraging some disabled people to throw other disabled people under the bus. And it's vicious, because it relies on some people being scared enough to say 'well, we'll take what we can get'.' And like so many others, Sarah did not find applying for PIP an easy process to begin with. 'It feels really deliberate' 'It feels like you're being tripped up constantly,' Sarah says. 'It feels really deliberate, how difficult it is. It feels extremely deliberate. Because there are so many ways it can be made more accessible to disabled people.' Halfway through her assessment for PIP, Sarah's infant daughter started to cry in the other room. This caused her to panic, and she shouted to her husband that the baby might need changing. Because of this 'the assessor said I was clearly able to respond to my daughter's needs and assess what she needed,' Sarah says. 'But I said to him I can't care for my daughter on my own, I rely on other people doing that for me. I need somebody with me while I'm with her.' None of this was included in his report, she claims. And it's not just Sarah. Ginny's husband Tim was diagnosed with myotonic muscular dystrophy in 2006, a progressive genetic condition that affects muscles and movement. The mother-of-two works part-time while also caring for her husband full-time. His PIP award means means Ginny is entitled to a £200 Carers Allowance, which she says is essential to support her family. 'Tim doesn't like to admit it, but people frequently can't understand what he says. Every day I'm asking him to repeat himself as his wife, and I know him well,' Ginny explains. 'He was asked to repeat himself at least five times during the assessment. But when it came to the report, it said the assessor had no problem understanding him.' Ginny says the assessor also wrote down that Tim was managing to work part-time for 25 hours as a library assistant. He was actually working just 25 hours a month, just over six hours a week, Ginny says. 'Do you have a dog?' At a PIP assessment, the assessor will decide if an applicant has limited ability to carry out daily living activities. They do this by asking applicants to carry out a range of activities, awarding them points based on how limited their ability is. According to one former assessor, opening questions might include: 'How are you doing today? How did you get here? Do you have a dog?' An applicant could be forgiven for thinking these questions are just small talk, their PIP assessor being friendly and trying to ease them into the process. But in most cases, the assessment has already begun, the former worker says. How they answer these questions could be the difference between a lifeline to pay for their health-related costs or nothing. The former assessor, who wished to remain anonymous, said this approach is standard for PIP assessors. It is permitted under the DWP 's PIP assessment guide, which recommends assessors carry out 'informal observations' that may 'show discrepancies'. 'As soon as you say to them, 'I'm here to do the assessment, is that OK?' and they say yes, it's started,' she explains. 'And then you'll comment, you'll look around the room for photographs of them on holiday, of children. You're looking for evidence that they're not telling the truth.' According to polling by disability charity Sense, over half (51 per cent) of disabled people with complex needs report feeling humiliated during benefits assessment. A further 45 per cent said the process made their symptoms worse. The charity's policy adviser, Evan John, said: 'I think sometimes when you hear some of the discussion around PIP, somebody might think that it was an easy benefit to claim, but that experience is really divorced from the experiences of disabled people.' 'We'd like to see a system that treats disabled people with dignity, that assess people fairly, but doesn't make them feel like criminals for trying to access the support they need.' 'You have to fight tooth and nail' Neither Sarah nor Tim were awarded any points at their PIP assessment. Instead, they asked for a mandatory consideration, but were turned down and faced a lengthy wait for an appeal at a tribunal. 'We went to mandatory consideration fully aware that they would just turn that down because that seems to be the standard with them,' Ginny says. 'But that was just a step to go to appeal.' Sarah was only given the lowest rate of PIP after tribunal, while Tim was awarded his in light of more medical evidence. Around 56 per cent of PIP assessments resulted in a reward between 2019 and 2024. But around two-thirds of decisions are overturned at the tribunal stage, independent of the DWP, by a panel of decision-makers including a judge. 'You have to fight tooth and nail,' Ginny says. 'All the government's talk about 'people just are getting this too easily' or 'supporting people who have the most severe conditions'. 'In my book, my husband has a severe condition and it just feels like they're redefining disability to suit themselves.' It remains to be seen whether the government's concessions over its welfare plans will be enough to appease wavering backbenchers with MPs set to vote on the measures on Tuesday. A DWP spokesperson said: 'The fact is that PIP assessment suppliers and healthcare professionals are involved in the process but are only one part of the evidence used – they have no role in the decision-making process, and are clearly instructed not to base their opinions solely on the situation seen at assessment. 'We're creating a sustainable welfare system that genuinely supports sick and disabled people while always protecting those who need it most, and at the heart of this is our review of the PIP assessment to ensure it is fit for the future. 'We will work with disabled people and a range of experts on this as we deliver our Plan for Change.'
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Feral seagulls 'close to killing a human' as stark warning issued to tourists
A warning has been issued after a child was left with "blood running down her face" in flurry of horrific attacks from the flying gulls with politicians calling for more to be done Feral seagulls are edging closer to killing a human, it's been claimed. n what is seen as the most alarming warning yet over the terrifying flying threats, a summit to deal with them is set to get off the ground. Former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross, who previously called a debate on the issue at Holyrood, told Parliament humans risk being killed over the "growing problem" of kamikaze-diving seagulls. The politician said: 'The strength of the cross-party support in my debate should be all the SNP government need to finally act before we see someone killed due to being attacked by a gull.' Adding fuel to the flames, Tory Rachael Hamilton claimed "aggressive" seagulls had attacked seven children in just one month in Eyemouth last year. She went on to highlight how one girl had gashes to her scalp and "blood running down her face" after a "divebombing attack," the Daily Star reports. The MP added: 'Aggressive seagull behaviour continues to cause a real concern amongst businesses, amongst tourists, amongst everybody that has anything to do along the harbour. 'And it is not just a seasonal nuisance. It is a serious, growing health risk. It's a safety risk, particularly for children and elderly residents.' The latest flap over gulls comes after the people of Moray in Scotland were dive-bombed by the birds. In one case, an elderly woman broke her leg during a gull swoop. But other ministers are urging Brits to hug a gull. MSP Jim Fairlie said a summit on tackling the scourge of demented seagulls should not 'demonise' the pests. His fellow Nationalist MSP Christine Grahame added: 'Language such as 'mugging' and 'menace' can be applied to us, or our counterparts, but it is not appropriate to demonise an animal simply looking for food. 'What we mustn't have is people versus gulls, or gulls versus people.' Highlands and Islands MSP Mr Ross said he has been 'inundated' with reports about the dangers of gulls from constituents. They included a couple in the village of Hopeman who were 'worried about going out of their home' due to the aggressiveness of the birds. Jeff Thornhill, a Moray pensioner, said he and his wife were 'dive-bombed' by gull on Monday morning while they were out for a stroll. Among the other victims of the birds is terrified Caroline Mackay, who has lived in the coastal town of Nairn for almost 50 years. She said: 'I know they are part of living beside the sea, and I accept that, but they are quite a danger.' Lucy Harding from Nairn Business Improvement District said they had received 85 reports of gull attacks in the last year alone.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
‘Tell me what to ask about' — MP faces cash for questions claims
A former Conservative minister allowed a company that paid him £60,000 a year to effectively write several of his parliamentary questions, leaked emails have revealed. George Freeman submitted queries to Labour ministers about the sector the firm operates in, potentially handing the company a commercial advantage. He also asked a director at the environmental monitoring company to tell him 'what to ask about', in exchanges that may have breached ethics rules and are likely to see Freeman accused of taking 'cash for questions'. In one exchange, he asked if they could help him 'get the wording right', which he could then 'convert into parliamentary language'. In some examples, the phrases used by the company's director are copied word for word by Freeman in his submitted questions to ministers. The Mid Norfolk MP is also alleged to have held virtual business meetings using his office in Portcullis House. An email appears to show that in one of these meetings he discussed various business objectives with the firm. Freeman, 57, who was first elected as an MP in 2010, resigned as science minister from Rishi Sunak's government in November 2023. He later complained he could not afford to pay his £2,000 a month mortgage on a ministerial salary of £118,300. In April last year, he began acting as a paid adviser to GHGSat Limited, which uses satellites and aircraft sensors to measure greenhouse gases, including methane, from industrial sites and helps businesses monitor and reduce their emissions. Freeman appears to have broken multiple rules set out in the MPs' code of conduct, including lobbying on behalf of a private company he was paid by and using the parliamentary estate for his private business interests. He also appears to have failed to follow the advice issued to him by the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba), the watchdog that regulates the private sector roles ex-ministers and civil servants can take up after leaving office. Approached on Saturday, Freeman said that, while he did not believe he had done anything wrong, he was immediately referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the watchdog responsible for policing MPs' conduct. As science and space minister, Freeman was heavily involved in the sector that GHGSat operates in, although he does not appear to have dealt with the firm while in office or presided over policies, regulation or commercial decisions that would have benefited it. He is now a member of the Commons science and technology committee, as well as a UK trade envoy. The company paid him £5,000 a month for eight hours of work between April last year and March this year. Leaked emails suggest that, while on the payroll, he tabled written parliamentary questions to government departments with the help of the managing director, Dan Wicks. Written parliamentary questions are seen as a vital tool for MPs, allowing them to seek data or information not in the public domain, or press the government to take action. They are only supposed to be tabled as part of their parliamentary duties and not their private business interests. At 11.35am on November 27 last year, Freeman emailed Wicks to notify him that 'following our latest catch up I'm preparing some written parliamentary questions to table on the DSIT [Department for Science and Technology] space data and Desnz [Department for Energy Security and Net Zero] emissions tracking platforms. 'So that I get the wording right can you email me the key technical terms / names of the projects / frameworks and what to ask about & I'll then convert into the right parliamentary language.' At 4.29pm, Wicks replied that Freeman should ask questions of the DSIT to better understand whether it would continue 'investment in national space data activities'. He then listed three specific areas he could ask about. The first was to ask the DSIT whether it would continue to invest in 'the Earth observation Data Pilot run by the Geospatial Commission and whether that will be extended or grown into a pan-government purchasing mechanism'. This was a government-run pilot launched in 2023, when Freeman was still science minister, which was testing ways public bodies could access satellite data to better inform 'analysis in key policy areas, including land use, environmental monitoring and emergency response'. Wicks's second proposal was for Freeman to ask the DSIT whether it planned to 'continue funding the Earth observation data hub as a tool for public sector to access and make use of different Earth observation data'. This was another programme funded by the DSIT, and uses a mix of public and paid-for commercial space data to inform decision making within government, businesses and academia. On GHGSat's website, it stated it supplies data to the hub. Outlining his third proposed question, Wicks added: 'And of course, the Methane programme run by UK Space Agency that makes use of GHGSat data.' Freeman was responsible for the UK Space Agency when he was a minister. He also suggested Freeman ask the agency's chief executive about his recent commitment to 'prioritise 'supporting development of methane emissions measurement best-practices'.' Wicks then suggested Freeman submit a separate question to Ed Miliband's Desnz department to work out whether it would 'start integrating more GHG [greenhouse gas] measurement data' into its methodology for calculating emissions which he said would build on 'investments such as Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measurement and Modelling Advancement (Gemma) to explore the added value of satellite data.' All of the proposals set out in Wicks's email appear to be aimed at obtaining information from ministers that would be beneficial to GHGSat: The following day, at 12.51pm, Freeman emailed a member of his parliamentary staff and asked them to submit questions to ministers via the clerks who formally process written questions on behalf of MPs. He asked his staffer to tick 'any 'interest declaration' box if there is one' — a process which flags that an MP has asked a question that relates to one of their publicly registered interests. While this was done, it was not disclosed that the company had shaped his questions. Freeman then listed five questions for DSIT, all of which draw on the proposals Wicks had made the day before: Freeman also requested three questions be submitted to Desnz and a final question be tabled to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: A search of the parliament's website shows eight of these questions were formally tabled by Freeman over several days in December last year, with ministers responding several weeks later to each of them. The MPs' code of conduct makes clear that 'taking payment in return for advocating a particular matter in the House is strictly forbidden'. It adds that they may not speak in the Commons, vote or initiate parliamentary proceedings, or make approaches to ministers in return for payment — and must not initiate proceedings which would provide financial or material benefit to an organisation or individual from whom they have received financial reward. It also prohibits MPs from pursuing interests which are 'wholly personal', 'such as may arise from a profession or occupation outside the House'. Hannah White, director of the Institute for Government think tank, who previously served as secretary to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said: 'Commons rules are intended to prevent any public perception that 'outside individuals or organisations' might pay an MP in order to benefit from their actions in Parliament. The evidence suggests there are clear questions to answer about whether these rules have been breached.' The Sunday Times has also seen extracts from Freeman's online work calendar showing he had regular meetings with GHGSat and Wicks via Zoom calls from at least July last year until March this year. One, on October 22 between 4.45pm and 5.45pm, listed Freeman as the organiser and the location as 'PCH', short for parliament's Portcullis House, where Freeman's parliamentary office is based. It is alleged by a source that he held several meetings with businesses that are listed on his register of interests using his parliamentary computer. In an email attached to this meeting, Wicks asked Freeman whether he would be able to meet with him and GHGSat's president, Stéphane Germain, 'in person next week' and that they should schedule 'regular' 30-minute catch-ups twice a week. Wicks then outlined priorities they had 'discussed on the call', one of which was 'UK Gov engagement', and another 'engagement strategies with senior officials'. The MPs' code of conduct states that 'excepting modest and reasonable personal use, members must ensure that the use of facilities and services provided to them by parliament, including an office, is in support of their parliamentary activities, and is in accordance with all relevant rules'. When Freeman took up his adviser role with GHGSat, he also received advice from Acoba, the appointments watchdog. It noted that 'there are risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office', adding: 'In particular, this is a company that is interested in government policy and decisions relating to the civil space sector and emissions.' According to Acoba, Freeman had assured the watchdog that he had 'made it clear to the company that you will not lobby government on its behalf, and this will not form part of your role.' It imposed conditions on the appointment, including a two-year ban on him being 'personally involved in lobbying the UK government or any of its arm's length bodies on behalf of GHGSat Ltd'. Freeman said: 'As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs [All-Party Parliamentary Groups] and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest. 'Throughout my 15 years in parliament (and government) I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism. I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course.' A spokesman for GHGSat said: 'GHGSat retained George Freeman MP for a brief period to help GHGSat understand and navigate the geopolitical environment in the UK and Europe. GHGSat signed a services agreement with Mr Freeman that did not include any lobbying activities and was concluded on the basis of the terms laid out by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. GHGSat takes all applicable laws and regulations concerning lobbying extremely seriously.'
