SNP MSP Fergus Ewing to stand as independent in Scottish Parliament election
SNP MSP Fergus Ewing has announced he will stand as an independent candidate at next year's Holyrood election.
Ewing has served as the constituency MSP for Inverness and Nairn since 1999 and is seeking election for the seventh time, ending over 50 years of association with the SNP.
In a personal statement, the 67-year-old said it 'wasn't an easy decision', expressing concern about the SNP's direction and accusing the party of 'deserting many of the people whose causes we used to champion.'
Ewing, who previously served as rural affairs secretary in government, also branded the power-sharing deal with the Greens a 'strategic blunder'.
He cited delays to the dualling of the A9 from Perth to Inverness and A96 from Aberdeen to Inverness as a key factor in his decision to leave the party.
Ewing's statement read: 'I have seen the Scottish Parliament at its best and its worst. I fear in recent years it has been at its worst.
'This has not been an easy decision. I have taken it because I love the people of Inverness and Nairn and the people of Scotland more than my party which I have been in for more than half a century.
'I believe the SNP has lost its way and that devolution itself – presently – is letting Scotland's people down. It doesn't need to be this way.'
Ewing has previously disagreed with the party on several policy issues, including gender recognition reforms, the Deposit Return Scheme, and its level of support for the oil and gas sector.
In 2023, he voted against Green minister Lorna Slater in a no-confidence motion, defying party whips and leading to his temporary suspension from the SNP group at Holyrood.
Ewing described Holyrood as 'more fractious and tribal than ever before' and said 'too much power rests unchecked in the hands of party leaders'.
He called for greater cooperation between Scotland's main political parties to tackle major challenges including economic instability, high energy costs, and public service reform.
'Ordinary people accept that they must work together in their own workplace – with everyone – whether they choose them as friends and allies or not,' his statement continued.
'It's time for politicians to do what the people customarily do – to work together for the interests of the nation.
'In short: It's time for Holyrood to grow up.'
Ewing is the son of Winnie Ewing, whose victory in the 1967 Hamilton by-election marked a significant milestone for the SNP. He is the brother of Cowdenbeath MSP Annabelle Ewing.
He was first elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, when it was reconvened, and went on to serve as a minister for 14 years under both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
SNP Leader John Swinney said: 'It was with real sadness and deep regret that I heard of Fergus Ewing's decision to leave the Scottish National Party.
'We have both served the SNP and the cause of independence for many years, and I commend him for all that he achieved while serving in the SNP Government until 2021.
'Fergus had the option of standing at the forthcoming election for the SNP, given his status as an approved candidate. He chose not to accept that opportunity and I regret that he has ultimately decided instead to leave the party.
'The SNP approaches the 2026 election ahead in the polls, with growing support for independence, and I am looking forward to taking our positive, ambitious vision for Scotland's future to the people.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Welfare state is being treated not as a shared good, but as a burden
Supporters are told to welcome these as signs of pragmatism, but they reveal only a fake-it-till-you-make-it government clinging to the same austerity logic that's gutted public services for more than a decade. There's no strategy of principled adaptation, just damage control masquerading as radical policy-overhaul. READ MORE: Wes Streeting forced to admit Labour wants fewer people claiming PIP Like cynical venture capitalists who asset-strip football clubs, this government treats the welfare state not as a shared good but as a historical burden. Public support systems are remodelled with fewer seats, less atmosphere, and none of the legacy. Cuts are proposed, resisted, and delayed, but always within the logic of managed decline. First they tried to demolish the Kop end stand, now they promise only future fans will be excluded. Proclaiming progress, the luscious playing surface is narrowed and replaced with astroturf. Starmer and his front bench echo the language of 'toughness' while attacking the right to protest and doubling down on hostile-environment policies. Protesters are kettled, marches are banned, and dissent is criminalised by degrees. All this while far-right groups openly organise to infiltrate and co-opt Reform UK, talking of 'seizing control' and reshaping elections by 2030. READ MORE: Scottish Labour MP not 'proud' of Keir Starmer's first year in charge These are not fringe figures. They're part of a co-ordinated ecosystem of antisemitism, Islamophobia, authoritarianism and conspiracism – emboldened by silence and triangulation. Instead of calling it out, however, Labour's leadership seems content to play the same game: pinned in the six-yard box, offering managerial discipline while the far right runs rings around them and takes audacious pot-shots. Picture ex-Scotland manager Craig Levein's infamous 6-4-0 formation against the Czech Republic, but fielding only newly drafted players who might be loyal, but have no experience in big games. Those of us pushed to the margins – disabled people, migrants, Muslims, and working-class communities – know what happens when the centre tries to outflank the right. Rights are lost and protections evaporate. We vanish from the headlines, except when someone from a marginalised group sells their soul for a front-bench post to prop up the attack on their own team. More of us end up in poverty, detention, or despair. READ MORE: Home Office staff concerned over 'absurd ban on Palestine Action' Meanwhile, Number 10 parades like champions of Europe, running victory laps over a non-league economy. The fans are left with crumbling public services – akin to Manchester United fans getting drenched beneath Old Trafford's increasingly dilapidated roof. And though our elected manager and board point to victories of old, it's clear they're preparing to flog the stadium that is the UK to the highest bidder, while calling it progress. There's still time to fight this decline, but only if leaders stop hiding behind spreadsheets and rediscover the courage to name what we're up against: a political slide toward exclusion, authoritarianism, and resentment – selling the strongest players in the name of a squad rebuild. The public knows the difference between real change and stage-managed retreat. Delivering anything less than what's needed means not just losing the match, but the risk of relegation and surrendering the values on which the club's success was genuinely built. Ron Lumiere via email FOLLOWING Laura Webster's Saturday article on about Labour founding the welfare state, which has become a standard response by Labour hacks to every scenario: the Labour welfare state is a myth. The welfare state was agreed, with minor differences, by the wartime coalition. Bismarck had a welfare state in the 1870s and he was no socialist either; he wanted a race of supermen. The Brits had to acknowledge that the German soldier was fitter, taller and better educated, like the Channel Islands' children after German occupation. READ MORE: We investigate the state of the welfare state – read our new series England did not achieve public education till the 1870s, due to opposition by the controlling Church of England. The Church of Scotland had no wish to control public education in Scotland, which has been free since the reformation. Incidentally, Catholic education legislation was introduced at the turn of the last century by a Liberal government, not because they were sympathetic to Catholicism, but because the wanted to create divisions in Scotland. Incidentally, there are no 'Prodistent' schools in Scotland, merely non-denominational schools where Catholic and other-denomination pupils and teachers are more common than most people realise. It was a Liberal minister in World War One, Winston Churchill, who introduced free milk, because of the poorer state of the British working class compared to German wartime recruits. The architect of the welfare state was the Liberal Lord Beveridge. Lords Wilson and Callaghan introduced further austerity and pay freezes etc. Donald Anderson Glasgow IF Westminster taxed the rich cheats who threw money at Brexit so they could avoid the new EU laws on tax havens, they would bring in way more cash than they will get from hitting the poor and disabled. They could close the loopholes the government deliberately creates and make everyone pay their tax. Loopholes are actually government-created corruption. Labour could recover if they taxed the rich – as long as Israel doesn't mind, of course. Bill Robertson via email
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Third of renters 'could be forced out by rent hikes' despite landmark reforms
Labour's significant Renters' Rights Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, will ban landlords from evicting renters for no reason from their homes - but fears remain As many as a third of renters could be forced out by rent hikes despite landmark legislation to protect their rights, research shows. Labour 's significant Renters' Rights Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, will ban landlords from evicting renters for no reason from their homes. But despite Section 21 evictions being abolished, campaigners have raised concerns that landlords would still be able to use unfair rent hikes to push people out of their homes. Polling by the Renters Reform Coalition (RRC) has found 34% of renters, and 29% of renters with children, said they would "definitely" be forced to move home by a rent increase of £110 per month. Analysis by the campaign group suggests the average rent increase recommended at first-tier rent tribunals is more than double this at over £240 per month. RRC said the government recognises 'unreasonable rent increases' and had promised to 'empower' renters to challenge them through tribunals. But its polling showed more than half of renters (54%) were unaware that rent tribunals exist and only 14% said they were 'very likely' to use one to challenge a rent increase in future - even after the government has made changes to improve the process. The RRC is calling on the government to introduce a cap on in-tenancy rent increases so renters can remain in their homes. The Renters' Rights Bill is in its final stages of the House of Lords and so is due to become law soon. Peers have attempted to amend the legislation to limit rent increases. Tom Darling, Director at the RRC, praised the 'long overdue' Bill to improve renters' rights but said 'the rent rise eviction loophole is a serious gap in the legislation'. 'Even after section 21 is abolished, our research suggests as many as a third of renters will still face being pushed out of their homes and communities by rent increases, and landlords will be able to use rent hikes they know tenants cannot afford to threaten or intimidate,' he said. "The government's proposed solution will not address this - our analysis shows rent tribunals will do nothing to protect the large proportion of renters who already cannot afford average market rents, even if they were willing to take their landlord to a tribunal in the first place.' A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman said: 'Our landmark Renters' Rights Bill will ensure that landlords are only be able to increase rents once a year to the market rate, and tenants will be able to challenge unreasonable rent increases through the First-tier Tribunal. 'This will prevent unscrupulous landlords using rent increases as a backdoor means of eviction, while ensuring rents can be increased to a fair rate.' The Government has been clear it does not support rent caps. Officials say heavy-handed controls tend to mean higher rents at the start of a tenancy. It was also highlighted that MHCLG secured a £39billion investment for affordable housing at the Spending Review. ::: The RRC commissioned polling from More in Common, who surveyed 1,076 private renters through three separate polls between April 25 - May 5.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
As a visibly physically disabled MP, my view on the welfare bill is clear: we need a reset and fast
In March 2020, when the Conservative government looked like an outlier in appearing to pursue a Covid strategy centring on herd immunity, for the first time in my life I felt raw, hot fear. Thinking of my toddler and what might happen if I caught coronavirus and was treated under the then Nice guidelines 'frailty' score was too much. I sobbed deeply. After 10 years of austerity, I knew then that disabled people would pay an enormous price for the pandemic thanks to the government's handling of it. Disabled people did: almost 60% of Covid-related deaths involved disabled people in that first wave. I vowed then that I would do all I could to use my skills and experiences of 20 years working in disability law and policy to deliver a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect. Five years later, I am one of the only visibly physically disabled members of parliament. I was proud to be elected last year as the first person to have grown up in my constituency to go on to represent it in parliament for more than a century. I am proud, too, that Labour's manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people, and to the principle of working with disabled people to ensure our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Consequently, since April, I have been engaging relentlessly with government, at the very highest level, to change its proposals as set out in the universal credit and personal independence payment bill. I made it clear from the start I could not support the proposals on personal independence payments (Pip). Pip is an in-work benefit, designed to ensure disabled people can live independently. There are 4 million disabled people in poverty in the UK. As a matter of conscience, I could not support measures that would push 250,000 disabled people, including 50,000 children, into poverty. Nor could I accept proposals that used a points system, under current descriptors, that would exclude eligibility for those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support. The concessions now announced are significant, including that all recipients of Pip who currently receive it will continue to do so. I know this will be an enormous relief for many of my nearly 6,000 constituents in receipt of Pip and for disabled people across the country. However, I will continue working, as I have done from the beginning, to look at these concessions carefully against the evidence on the impact upon disabled people, including my constituents, and disabled people's organisations. Fundamentally, I will be looking for further reassurances that the detail will fulfil Labour's manifesto commitments to disabled people. The social model of disability must be central to this – removing barriers to our inclusion in society. Proposals must take a mission-led approach across all five missions to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. I hope to see three things from government, embedded in the text of the amendments, if the bill reaches the report stage. First, the review being led by Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, must not be performative. The government must not make the same mistake twice. I strongly recommend bringing in a disabled expert on equality and employment law, such as Prof Anna Lawson at the University of Leeds, to support this work. Second, the government must consult disabled people over the summer to understand the impact of the proposed changes from November 2026 on future claimants. These must mitigate risks of discrimination for those current recipients with similar disabilities and against pushing new disabled claimants into poverty after November 2026. In doing so, it must produce an impact assessment that also reflects the impact of unmet need for future recipients on health and social care services, and clarifies the application of new criteria on those receiving Pip if they get reassessed. Third, growth must mean inclusive growth. In implementing the £1bn employment, health and skills support programme, there needs to be a clear target for closing the disability employment gap. Importantly, there needs to be a commitment to a sector-by-sector strategy on closing this gap and a skills training strategy for the employment support workers enabling disabled people into work. These approaches outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. This matters. The Conservatives left us with a pitiful 29% employment gap and 17% pay gap for disabled people. The Labour government has an opportunity to bring in a new era of policymaking for disabled people that takes a laser focus in closing this gap. The disability sector believes that this can be reduced by 14%; generating £17.2bn for the exchequer. We must seize this moment to do things differently and move beyond the damaging rhetoric and disagreements of recent weeks. In line with the prime minister's statement that reform should be implemented with Labour values of fairness, a reset requires a shift of emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential. I will continue to engage with government and disabled people's organisations, to fight for a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect. Marie Tidball is Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism and co-chair of the disability parliamentary Labour party Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
