Furious councillor brands SNP 'spineless' over school crossing patroller cuts
'If a child is hurt on those roads after August, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Council Leader Marie Burns and her team of spineless SNP drones.'
North Ayrshire Labour have slammed the region's SNP administration after they blocked parents from presenting petitions against council cuts to school crossing patrollers.
This comes just days before schools break for summer and the cuts are implemented.
Parents, concerned for the safety of their children, took time out to attend Wednesday's Full Council meeting prepared to speak and petition councillors to reverse the cuts to school crossing patrols. Instead, they did not have their voices heard.
Cllr Nairn Angus-McDonald presented the motion to permit parents to present their petitions.
He said: 'It's nothing short of a disgrace that this SNP administration have gagged the very parents who have given up their time to campaign for their children's safety.
'SNP councillors quite literally looked these parents in the eyes and decided that they know better.
'If a child is hurt on those roads after August, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Council Leader Marie Burns and her team of spineless SNP drones.'
Earlier in the meeting, Labour councillors challenged the SNP leader over the cuts.
They say the Council Leader was unable to justify why the SNP administration found it acceptable to suspend standing orders last year to review their cuts to school librarians, but refused to do the same to protect children's safety over cuts to crossing patrollers.
Official data from Police Scotland reveals there have been 21 road traffic accidents on the affected roads in the last year, 10 of which have been recorded as serious. However Labour say the administration did not acknowledge those.
Later in the meeting, a second attempt to overturn the SNP's cuts was also blocked after a motion from Labour Leader, Joe Cullinane who said: 'This is a council that has lost its moral compass under the current SNP leadership.
'Not satisfied with targeting children with their cuts, they have chosen to silence parents campaigning for their children's safety.
'I am yet to meet anyone who believes that cutting crossing patrollers is the right thing to do. But the SNP won't listen.
"These cuts will 'save' just £92,000. Is the safety of our kids not worth £92,000? At the very same meeting the council agreed to spend almost £1million per year to fund the soaring costs of the delayed Ardrossan Campus project.
Added Opposition Leader Joe Cullinane 'It's now clear that these cuts have nothing to do with funding. And given the SNP suspended standing orders to reverse cuts to school librarians last year, the barrier to reversing the decision is not governance. The SNP are choosing to put children's safety at risk.
'This whole episode brings shame on this SNP-led Council. For three years they have failed to deliver new policies or projects. All we have had is project delays, rising costs and more and more savage cuts. It's time for change.
'The North Ayrshire Labour Group will continue to stand up for our communities.'
Responding Councillor Burns said: "Once again this is a complete distortion of both the meeting and the provision of the school crossing service.
'For some years now, more than half of our primary schools have not had school crossing patrols because of previous assessments under different political administrations.
'The latest reduction was agreed following the use of the nationally recognised assessment process, which will now be repeated more regularly. This approach ensures that all schools are treated equally instead of the previous decision making process which was not clear or transparent.
'Together with the decision to introduce a 20mph speed limit on our residential streets, and a comprehensive road safety campaign to raise awareness of road safety whenever our children are near roads and not just on school journeys, we aim to take a comprehensive approach to the safety of our children and young people across North Ayrshire.
"These points were made during the meeting but not addressed by Labour. If Labour believe a different process should be adopted across all of our schools they are free to bring that forward.
'Councillor Angus-MacDonald should reflect on his language. Councillors are expected to act with respect and decorum which he seems to find increasingly difficult to do.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
19 minutes ago
- The National
Wes Streeting forced to admit Labour wants fewer people claiming Pip
Wes Streeting was interviewed on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme by Victoria Derbyshire, who was filling in for Kuenssberg, about the UK Government's proposed cuts to welfare, which have been described as a 'two-tier disability system' by campaigners. The UK government confirmed on Friday evening that it will make major changes to its planned welfare cuts, aiming to avoid a rebellion by more than 120 Labour backbenchers. Under the new plan, people already receiving Personal Independence Payments (Pip) or the health element of Universal Credit will keep getting them. However, the cuts will apply to future claimants. READ MORE: Police 'examining' Kneecap and Bob Vylan Glastonbury Festival performances When pressed by Derbyshire, Streeting was forced to admit that the Labour Government is planning on having fewer people able to claim disability benefits by reforming the welfare system. During the interview, Derbyshire said: 'Members of the cabinet, you on this program this morning, and the Prime Minister have said it previously, the current system is not sustainable. 'But even after your review, the bottom line is you want fewer people in receipt of Pip, fewer disabled people in receipt of Pip, don't you?' Streeting replied: 'Well, we want to make sure we're getting the line in the right place in terms of.' To which Derbyshire cut him off and asked: 'So, the answer is yes. You want fewer disabled people claiming Pip.' (Image: BBC) Streeting continued: 'I think 1000 more people, coming on every day, like it's not sustainable in its current form, it's just not. 'And unless we address that issue, we've got to do it in a fair way. 'We've got to do it in the right way.' Derbyshire interrupted Streeting again saying: 'But you won't say that out loud. Why not?' Streeting replied: 'Well I just did.' Derbyshire then asked for clarification that there will be fewer disabled people able to claim Pip. To which Streeting replied: 'I literally just said, we've got to make sure that in terms of where we are, where we draw the line, where we get it right, that it is sustainable for the longer term.' MPs are expected to vote on the welfare reform bill on Tuesday at Westminster which the UK Government will be hoping to pass after it offered Labour rebels a series of concessions in an effort to head off Keir Starmer's first major Commons defeat since coming to power. The UK Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, and cut the health-related element of Universal Credit, saying this would save around £5 billion a year by 2030. Now, the changes to Pip eligibility will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only while all existing recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. Speaking on Times Radio earlier this week, campaigner at Disability Rights UK Mikey Erhardt said: 'The idea that you will be less in need, or less deserving of support, depending on the when of the condition that necessitates that support, is something you just have to reject out and out.' Meanwhile, Ian Greaves, who edits the Disability Rights Handbook containing in-depth information on the social security system across the UK, said Labour's 'very small' concessions on welfare reforms will still leave the system 'woefully inadequate'.
The Herald Scotland
25 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Ian Blackford calls on SNP to support defence industry
At this week's NATO summit, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer committed to raising defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. READ MORE Mr Blackford said this was a "seismic shift" and would have "massive implications for the budgets of every government department over the next decade." "Though in these islands we have excellence in many aspects of our armed forces, to a large extent our military capability has been hollowed out," he wrote. "The need to enhance defence capability and at pace is stark. "There is now a race to invest and if we take last year's defence spending of £53.9 billion as our base, we are going to have to find by 2035 an extra £60 billion plus a year to invest in defence. "Where is this to come from?" The former MP said 'difficult choices' would need to be made. He argued that defence funding should not be seen as a moral compromise, but as an economic lever. "Austerity will be a price to be paid as a consequence of having to invest in our national security. "Investment in defence, though, can be a lever and transformative in itself in generating economic growth." He noted that the industry already supports 33,500 workers in Scotland and contributes £3.2 billion in gross value. "We all want a high-growth, high-wage, high-productivity Scotland—a society that drives investment in skills and innovation." The SNP has long opposed public money being spent on munitions. The Scottish National Investment Bank's ethical investment policy currently bars organisations 'primarily engaged in the manufacture of munitions or weapons' from receiving support. Ian Blackford calling on the SNP to embrace the defence sector (Image: PA) Recently, a new welding centre—backed by Rolls-Royce and intended to support Royal Navy submarine construction—was denied funding by Scottish Enterprise. The UK Government has since stepped in to fund the initiative. The SNP has faced accusations of hypocrisy, as the Scottish Government funds Ferguson Marine, which is subcontracted by BAE to work on Royal Navy frigates. Mr Blackford's intervention comes as John Swinney faces mounting internal and external pressure to reconsider his government's position. Recently, the First Minister suggested the policy could be "reconsidered" given the growing threat from Russia. Speaking on the Holyrood Sources podcast, he said: "I'm conscious we are living in a very different context today. I do think the Russian threat is very real. We have to consider these questions." He added he had no objections if a company wished to set up a munitions factory in Scotland. The First Minister added: "We do not use public money to support the manufacture of munitions but will support skills and defence companies." Speaking to Scotland on Sunday, Stewart McDonald, the SNP's former defence spokesperson at Westminster, said it was time for the party to look again at the policy. "It hasn't had a proper defence debate since 2012, when we changed the policy on NATO," he said. "All of this is moving at such pace. The entire international picture is moving at a rapid pace and if we are a party that seeks to be an independent state—and an independent state in NATO and the EU—then we should have stuff to say on this." Mr McDonald warned: "There is a risk the party falls behind in that debate." He said: "That's a debate going on in capitals across Europe. And although Edinburgh is not a state capital, the Scottish Government has a role to play as a domestic partner. "We have an industry in Scotland worth many billions of pounds, employing somewhere between 33,000 and 35,000 people, and it has a very awkward relationship with the Scottish Government—it has done so for a long time." He suggested Mr Swinney should gather major and smaller defence employers in Scotland, invite the defence procurement minister from London, and ask: "How do I marshal the resources of the government—spending, policy, legislative—to better support this?" "I understand there's a bit of political balancing to be done here, but I think that can be over-thought and over-egged," he added. "We do live in much more dangerous times and there's a risk we are just saying the same stuff we've been saying for a long time—and that just would not be credible to stand still politically as the entire world changes around you." Mr McDonald branded the Scottish Enterprise ban on munitions-related investment "a stupid policy" and criticised restrictions at the Scottish National Investment Bank. Meanwhile, in the Sunday Mail, Labour's Scottish Secretary, Ian Murray, called on the SNP to reverse its opposition to nuclear weapons entirely. "Any responsible government has to make sure they put their national security and the safety of their own people first. "Scots only have to turn on their TVs and pick up their newspapers to read about the fact that there is a changing global instability. "I do think the Scottish Government should readdress it." Previously, Mr Murray described himself as a 'lifelong unilateralist' and was one of 2000 parliamentarians to have signed the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) pledge, which obliges signatories to work for their respective nations to sign up to a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons through the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). He added: "My views on nuclear weapons changed some time ago but they have been underlined and emphasised by the fact that the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence has become a huge global stability issue. "For the Scottish Government to tell Rolls-Royce, one of the most respected British institutions, that they will not contribute to them investing in a highly skilled welding academy in Glasgow tells the public that they do not care about jobs, growth and opportunities for the future. "That is a huge part of the defence dividend we should be trying to capture. Places like Babcock and BAE Systems are hiring foreign welders from the Philippines and South Africa to do the work local people should be doing." READ MORE However, SNP defence spokesperson Dave Doogan told the paper that the party remained 'resolute' in its opposition to nuclear weapons. "We believe we're firmly in step with the vast majority of civil society in Scotland on that point. "Ian Murray, consistent with many other issues, is not in step with the majority of civil society in Scotland. "I've spoken to armed forces professionals who deal with the nuclear deterrent and nobody talks about it in the triumphant way in which Westminster politicians of the two main parties do." Any change in the Scottish Government's policy would likely be met with opposition from the Scottish Greens.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
A British Leyland of TV is the Government's worst idea yet
A show about a good-looking human rights lawyer who becomes a triumphant, reforming prime minister? Or a mini-series about a brilliant, glamorous economist who becomes Britain's first female chancellor? Perhaps a movie about a fiery red-head who works her way up from poverty to become the most powerful woman in the country? As the Government paves the way for a potential merger between ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 to create a single, state-backed commercial broadcaster, it is not hard to imagine the kind of shows it might commission. But hold on. A British Leyland of television is the Government's worst idea yet. What the industry actually needs is more competition – not less. It may still be a few years off. But Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Government is very clearly paving the way for a major consolidation of the British broadcasting industry. Last week, as part of its shiny new 'industrial strategy', it opened the door to removing the barriers that prevent a merger between the existing terrestrial broadcasters. Apparently, ministers will examine 'possible consolidation between broadcasters', along with 'closer strategic partnerships'. Meanwhile, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Ofcom will be asked to review their definitions of 'television advertising' to include YouTube and Netflix, which again will make mergers easier. Add it all up, and it is not hard to see where this is going. We will need a single, state-backed commercial broadcaster to cope with a changing market, stand up to the American streaming giants, and preserve what used to be one of the UK's strongest industries. Heck, they could even bring in the marketing whizzes who gave us Great British Energy and Great British Railways to come up with the branding for Great British Television. Of course, we all understand that something needs to be done. In a world where streaming dominates, and with most people under 30 barely even aware of what traditional broadcasting through signals and aerials was, the industry is in an increasingly dire position. ITV, the biggest of the three, has seen its share price slump from 265p 10 years ago to just 80p now, and the broadcaster is only worth £3bn. There has already been plenty of speculation about a break-up, perhaps with a sale of its production unit, or else a full-scale takeover of the company, probably by a foreign buyer. Channel 4 has been slashing jobs and cutting back on its programming budget as it grapples with a declining advertising market. Meanwhile, Channel 5, which has never been a huge success since it was launched in 1997, is also potentially in play as its American owner Paramount prepares for a takeover by media company Skydance. Why not put all three together and create a new British-owned powerhouse in commercial broadcasting?
