John Swinney rips into Anas Sarwar on support for benefit cuts
Despite how 12 Scottish Labour MPs joined with others to sign an amendment against welfare cut plans, party leader Sarwar has continued to support Keir Starmer, telling the Holyrood Sources podcast on Wednesday "I support the principle of reform".
At First Minister's Questions, Swinney told the chamber Sarwar falling into line behind the Prime Minister was a sign he "would not be standing up for Scotland anytime soon".
In response to a question on inflation from SNP MSP Marie McNair, Swinney said: "The Scottish Government has taken a number of measures to address the cost of living challenges the public face – whether that's investment in early learning and childcare, or the Scottish Child Payment which boosts household incomes for those in poverty, or the steps that we are taking to lift the two-child limit that should have been lifted as one of the first acts of the UK Labour Government."
He went on: "We face a new threat which is the benefit cuts agenda of the UK Labour Government.
"At a time when many, many Labour MPs are now saying these cuts are unacceptable, isn't it just telling that Anas Sarwar is supporting the Prime Minister in implementing the benefit cuts.
"It demonstrates that Anas Sarwar won't be standing up for Scotland any time soon."
More to follow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's mad planning system is becoming more and more absurd
Across the political spectrum, we don't agree on much. But we can all agree that the UK needs more homes and must start building in earnest. So why is Labour-run Birmingham City Council demanding that Mark Jones rip down the £180,000 two-bedroom 'granny flat' he built in his back garden for his dying father? With bin strikes, rat plagues and near bankruptcy, one might imagine that this particular local authority would have different matters on its mind. Mr Jones said he believed the building complied with planning laws and lodged a retrospective planning application. But the council's officious officers found that the Sutton Coldfield IT engineer has fallen foul of their regulations as it was 'over-intensive', and have ordered it to be demolished by the end of the month. The case shows in microcosm what is wrong with Britain's planning system. Like so much that is wrong on our island, from the NHS to the post-war explosion in council housing, its origins lie with the 1945 Clement Attlee Labour government. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act established our system of planning permission, as well as the modern system of needing consents to build on land. It also meant that all planning authorities had to come up with a comprehensive development plan. Green belts, the listing of buildings and the anathematising of building in the open countryside can all be dated back to this legislation. In some regards, we should be grateful for Attlee's innovation. Anyone who has taken the seven-hour trip from Boston to Washington DC on the Acela Amtrak train will see why. Apart from a stretch along the Connecticut coastline, the prospect out of the windows is of virtually unending urban sprawl. Or contrast the west coast of Ireland with the west coast of Scotland. While the Irish views are endlessly interrupted by the tackiest imaginable McMansions, complete with fake colonnades and naff statuary, the Caledonian vista is virtually uninterrupted. Our planning system has made large-scale developers hugely powerful to a far greater extent than in most other developed countries. Building your own house is straightforward in much of the United States. But then America is a large country with plenty of space, as defenders of the British status quo might point out. The rules in much of Europe, however, are also vastly more flexible. In France, for example, it is relatively straightforward to buy a plot of land on the fringes of a village and build a family home on it. By contrast, in the UK, to build a new single dwelling in the isolated countryside is extraordinarily difficult. One of the very few routes is via what is now called Paragraph 84 consent. This is a rule, first introduced in 1997 in the dying days of John Major's government, allowing for new country houses to be built, but only if they are of 'truly outstanding' design and 'reflect the highest standards of architecture'. We would all, I am sure, like to live in such houses – but to meet such benchmarks requires money, plenty of it. It is not something that rural Mr Joneses, middle-earning IT engineers and their like, will ever be able to afford. The British system places all the cards in the hands of the vast corporate builders, with their new housing developments. Angela Rayner's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is now being pushed through the House of Lords, will only make this problem even worse. It will make development easier, and that is indeed a worthy goal. It will make it easier to overrule Nimby-style objections, but its mechanisms are not there to help people who want to do their own projects. It is all about pushing through large-scale plans in the face of local opposition, be they for new homes, wind or solar farms or the latest railway wheeze dreamt up in Whitehall. It is not about allowing Sir Keir Starmer's much-touted 'working people' to realise their own building ambitions. Our planning system might seem to have been more of a success if our post-war homes were exemplars of design. But that is far from the case. Probably the only country in Western Europe that has uglier townscapes than those found in much of Britain is Germany. Walk through Cologne, and outside of its Cathedral and Romanesque churches you would be hard put to find an uglier city with less inspiring buildings. Colognians have a very good excuse. When their city was rebuilt in the 1950s from the ashes the RAF had reduced it to, beauty was not foremost on their minds. We have no such excuse for some of the horrors that urban planning has imposed on our towns and cities. And our planning laws did little to protect us from these missteps. When Nick Boles was housing minister in the Cameron government, he was evangelical about relaxing planning rules in urban and suburban areas. He wanted to allow thousands upon thousands of Mr Joneses to do pretty much as they pleased with their own land and property, and thought this would make a huge difference to our housing shortage. It would also empower local people. Such an approach would clearly be a disaster if applied to, say, the Victorian garden square of London or the Georgian terraces of Bath. They would soon be scarred with endless glass boxes and extensions which would now be on trend, but soon look very dated. If Labour really wants to empower working people, allowing the Mr Joneses to build on their back gardens could be just the thing. But don't hold your breath.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Defence Scotland: SNP told to urgently rethink 'mad' strategy as internal fears grow
Sign up to our Politics newsletter 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... As governments across the globe grapple with the most dangerous international landscape in a generation, John Swinney is under pressure to allow the SNP to have its first proper debate on where it stands on defence in more than a decade. The alternative risk is of his party 'falling behind' and Scotland potentially missing out on crucial investment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The defence, aerospace and security industry is estimated to be worth around £3.2 billion to Scotland. The Ministry of Defence spends more than £2bn each year with Scottish industry. The forward section of Type 26 Frigate HMS Cardiff is rolled out from the SBOH at BAE Systems Shipyard in Govan, Scotland. Picture: John Linton/BAE Systems/Royal Navy | John Linton Despite conflict still raging on the European continent and the situation in the Middle East still resulting in lives, including children, being lost every day, the SNP has not had a proper debate about where it stands on defence policy since 2012. Instead a position to block investments perceived to be linked to munitions and an unassailable opposition to the Trident nuclear weapons system, located on the Clyde, are the SNP's flagship defence policies. UK to boost defence spending With Sir Keir Starmer's UK government committing to spend 5 per cent of its GDP on defence by 2035, the SNP has come under intense pressure to shift its long-held opposition to spending public funds on the 'manufacture of weapons or munitions', with a perception Scottish ministers are turning their back on the wider defence industry. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It is understood Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, who also holds the economy brief, is keen for a rethink on her government's and her party's position. The Prime Minister visited the BAE shipyard in Govan earlier this month to announce his strategic defence review, with an ambition to 'build a fighting force that is more integrated, more ready, more lethal than ever' and 'innovate and accelerate innovation to a wartime pace'. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during a visit to BAE Systems in Govan, Glasgow, to launch the strategic defence review. Picture: Andy Buchanan/PA Wire Sir Keir also stressed he was 'using this moment to drive jobs and investment', including six new munitions factories and 1,000 new jobs. The Faslane submarine facility on the Clyde will receive £250m of investment as part of a UK government boost announced in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's spending review. Row over welding investment Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Last month, it emerged the economic development agency, Scottish Enterprise, refused to support plans for a new specialist welding centre over fears it could be used to support the building of Royal Navy submarines. Ferguson Marine, which SNP ministers nationalised in 2019, has taken on contracts to construct Royal Navy vessels. The Scottish National Investment Bank, set up by SNP ministers in 2020, 'does not invest in organisations that are primarily engaged in the manufacture of munitions or weapons'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Former SNP MP Stewart McDonald, who spent almost five years as the party's defence spokesperson at Westminster from 2017 to 2022, has warned 'the party needs to have a defence debate again'. Speaking to The Scotsman, he said: 'It hasn't had a proper defence debate since 2012 when we changed the policy on Nato. 'All of this is moving at such pace. The entire international picture is moving at such 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.' Former SNP defence spokesperson Stewart McDonald Mr McDonald warned 'there is a risk the party falls behind in that debate'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'That's a debate that is going on in capitals all across Europe. And although Edinburgh is not a state capital, the Scottish Government has a role to play as a domestic partner. SNP's 'awkward' defence stance 'We have an industry in Scotland worth many billions of pounds, employs 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 very long time.' Mr McDonald has suggested Mr Swinney should gather the major and smaller defence employers in Scotland, 'get the defence procurement minister up from London and say 'how do I marshal the resources of the government, spending, policy, legislative, to better support this industry?'.' READ MORE: BAE Systems funding provides 300 jobs boost for Scottish shipyards Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The former SNP MP added: 'At a time of heightened international conflict, Scotland's defence industry has a part to play. 'I understand there's a bit of political balancing to be done here, but I think that can be over-thought and over-egged. 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 investments relating to munitions 'a stupid policy' and hit out at the restrictions in place for the Scottish National Investment Bank. He said: 'Defence is the one industry that has enormous growth happening in it right now and that's not likely to end time soon. So why should our National Investment Bank not invest in it? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'It's entirely normal in every other country in Europe or the world for your national institutions to support your national interests, including your national security interests. So why is the Scottish National Investment Bank not doing that? I think that's mad.' Vanguard-class submarine HMS Vigilant, one of the UK's four nuclear warhead-carrying submarines, at HM Naval Base Clyde at Faslane | PA Asked whether the SNP needs to revisit whether it opposes Trident, Mr McDonald warned opening up that debate 'would just be self-indulgent' and 'would just say the same thing it's always said'. He said: 'I think it could better focus its attention on other parts of the defence discussion. The reality is it can't move Trident off the Clyde. 'There are areas they can focus on and have genuine positive consequences - working with industry around development of skills. The defence industry really felt that after Brexit.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Labour Glasgow MSP Paul Sweeney, who before entering politics was an arm reservist and Clyde shipbuilder, has branded the SNP's position "really frustrating'. Mr Sweeney first came up against a brick wall trying to encourage Rolls Royce to use Scotland to manufacture small modular nuclear reactors. There was opposition to such a move, even if the reactors weren't being used in Scotland where there is a de-facto ban on nuclear power stations being built due to the SNP's hostility to the technology. 'Bizarre' SNP position Mr Sweeney acknowledged the Scottish Government had previously supported defence industries in Scotland. But he has been left aghast at the decision to block investment in the welding facility. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'I found the decision of Scottish Enterprise to indicate to Rolls Royce that they would not be able to support grant funding for the naval welding facility extremely bizarre. Labour MSP Paul Sweeney | Supplied 'It's clearly on the back of pressure over comments made by the former first minister Humza Yousaf. There was a recent debate at the Scottish Parliament by the Greens on this stuff.' Mr Sweeney added: 'It's a misnomer to conflate foreign policy issues with domestic security and defence requirements. 'There is a logical absurdity of suggesting that this is about defence exports to unsavoury regimes, when it's primarily about our domestic national security and defence in the context of a pretty fraught geopolitical situation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'I find the context of this somewhat delusional and frustrating. I think it's fair to say there's certainly a split within the SNP about this.' The MSP insisted that BAE Systems on the Clyde, where he previously worked, 'has no involvement with any regime suspected of human rights abuses', adding 'there's no association with the Israel-Palestine issue'. Protesters form a blockade outside BAE Systems in Govan Picture: Jane Barlow/PA Wire Mr Sweeney said: 'They do not issue vessels for export to those territories - they never have. There is no obvious connection. 'It's also deeply reckless rhetoric in the context of the need to expand the Royal Navy and expand our domestic shipbuilding programme.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Glasgow MSP warned the Scottish Government's opposition 'creates a problem for investment in Scotland that doesn't exist anywhere else in the UK'. He said: 'There's a nervousness about Scotland - there's a more volatile risk of being caught on the horns of a political argument.' Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Jamie Greene has penned a letter to the Deputy First Minister, Ms Forbes, insisting 'the Scottish Government must also play its part in realising that economic potential' of the defence sector. Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes | PA He added: 'That means creating the right environment for jobs and investment as well as tackling obstacles that could otherwise dampen those opportunities. At the moment there are worrying gaps in Scotland's skills pipeline.' Norwegian potential Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad BAE Systems are building Type 26 frigates for the Royal Navy including HMS Belfast and HMS Birmingham in Govan. More investment could be on its way to the Govan shipyard, with the Norwegian government reportedly keen to purchase Type 26 frigates. Defence Secretary John Healey has told MPs he has 'been working hard to persuade the Norwegians' about taking on the frigates. In response to parliamentary questions, Ms Forbes, in an apparent acknowledgment of the benefits to the economy, has stressed the 'potential industrial and employment opportunities for Scotland are significant' if Norway does press ahead with Clyde-built frigates. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She said: 'Officials from the UK and Scottish governments have held constructive informal discussions around how the bid might be best supported.' A Scottish Government source suggested SNP ministers 'want to move on it', but are wrestling with how to 'manage it within the party'. The insider added: 'Some people find it exasperating and peculiar. It's just a bit out of place now in the new reality we are in.' When the Scottish Enterprise row emerged earlier this month, Mr Swinney told journalists he was sticking to his guns. He said: 'We have a policy position on the use of Scottish public expenditure for the manufacture of munitions. We apply that consistently and that remains the Government's position.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But speaking on the Holyrood Sources podcast this week, he opened the door to a change of heart, stating that 'issues can be reconsidered'.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Scottish Government officials accused of censoring experts who warned Gaelic will die out
Sign up to our Politics newsletter 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... Officials have been accused of colluding against and "censoring" experts who warned Gaelic-speaking communities will die out within a decade unless radical action is taken. Professor Conchúr Ó Giollagáin, who co-authored a landmark 2020 study into the crisis facing the language, published as The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community, said officials and academics had failed to properly engage with its findings. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said the recently passed Scottish Languages Bill, which aims to support Gaelic in Scotland, was 'largely pointless' and weaker than what was originally proposed. The Scottish Languages Bill is 'largely pointless' | Getty Images But Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, who has responsibility for the language in the Scottish Government, insisted there had been 'an encouraging increase' in Gaelic speakers. Writing for The Scotsman, Prof Ó Giollagáin, of the University of the Highlands and Islands, said the Scottish Languages Bill failed to respond 'coherently and credibly to the documented reality of Gaelic community demise'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'The official and academic failure to engage sincerely with the reality check which the Gaelic crisis evidence engendered is also implicated in this misguided legislation. 'The book's evidence was subjected to an irrational academic and official antagonism in which custodians of existing Gaelic promotion colluded to ensure that the Gaelic crisis perspective would be denied a fair hearing. 'In censoring the Gaelic crisis, these custodians have merely reasserted a version of what constitutes Gaelic promotion while at the same time refusing to accept any responsibility for its societal failings. They have washed their hands of any linkage between their institutional power and the consequences of official inertia.' He added: 'The reality is that the Gaelic crisis evidence has never been properly considered or debated in Scottish academia, in official language bodies or in governmental circles. Five years on, nobody in these key sectors for Gaelic affairs has sat down with the authors for an in-depth discussion on the implications of their research for the sustainability of Gaelic in Scotland.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Prof Ó Giollagáin said the Scottish Languages Bill 'is more likely to generate a cottage industry of navel-gazing language politics, rather than offering practical help to a language community in existential crisis'. He continued: 'Given the irrelevance of this Bill to the social circumstances of the Gaels, it is likely that this legislation will become the sociolinguistic equivalent of a religious liturgy for a non-existent congregation.' The expert called for a 'Gaelic community summit' to identify sources of support outwith the political sphere, adding: 'Besides availing of the limited opportunities from the Bill, it is clear that the Gaels are going to require a bespoke fund to support their collective efforts to reverse the current trajectory towards social erasure.' Ms Forbes said: 'It is inaccurate to claim that the Scottish Languages Bill was weakened during its progression through Parliament. It was strengthened to make it easier to establish Gaelic schools and introduce targets on Gaelic speaker numbers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'There has been an encouraging increase in Gaelic speakers and we are taking action to drive growth in Gaelic communities, so that more people who speak Gaelic continue to live in those areas.'
