Latest news with #PeteWishart
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why is the BBC not talking about Scottish concerns?
Welcome to this week's Media Watch! Remember you can get this newsletter for free in your inbox every week by clicking the banner above. Earlier this month, an Ipsos poll for STV showed that for Scots, immigration was not on their top 10 list of things which sway them at the ballot box. So in the newsroom on Friday when we were discussing ideas for the day, it seemed mighty curious the UK-France deal aimed at tackling small boat crossings across the Channel had been high up in the BBC Radio Scotland morning news agenda almost every day last week. Listening back, we found the build-up to the visit by French president Emmanuel Macron and the agreement itself had been in the Good Morning Scotland bulletin every day from Tuesday to Friday, and on two of those days it was considered the top story. In the Ipsos survey earlier this month, Scots had considered all sorts of subjects to be more important to them than this. Healthcare, education, crime, poverty, cost of living and housing were all of bigger concern. In focusing largely on whether the new 'one in, one out' deal would act as an effective deterrent, SNP MP Pete Wishart accused the BBC of presenting a 'skewed debate' on immigration to Scots which is contrary to their interests. READ MORE: 'When we get into the realms of a debate and discussion about immigration, what tends to come out the UK-led debate about this is absolutely totally contrary to Scotland's interests,' he said. 'All we hear about is curbing migration, what we can do to make life as difficult as possible for the poor souls that make it here, whereas Scotland, just to keep our population up – which is already at crisis levels – we are totally dependent on immigration. 'What the BBC are serving us is a debate which is skewed to be against the Scottish interests." The 'one in, one out' deal will see asylum seekers who arrive in England by small boats sent back to France, while allowing some in France to be sent to Britain if they have ties to the UK. On Friday's Good Morning Scotland programme, the focus was on critics who believe it will not be enough of a deterrent, with a clip of shadow home secretary Chris Philp (below) being played during the 8am bulletin where he called the scheme a 'gimmick'. (Image: Lucy North) That was followed by a five-minute interview with an expert in British and French immigration politics. She was asked about who will be selected to be returned, how big a deterrent 'this could actually be' and what action could be taken to reduce the 'pull factor' of the UK. The way this story was pushed by BBC Scotland seemed even stranger after speaking to Emile Chabal, a professor of contemporary history at Edinburgh University who has published widely on the politics of immigration. He told The National there is a 'stark difference' between how Scotland and England view the issue of immigration. READ MORE: 'From all the policy and research work we have over the last 10 to 20 years, we know that immigration is just a less salient issue for Scots in general,' he said. 'We know that the Scottish Government has a different approach to the question of immigration, which is often characterised as either pro-immigration or pro-certain kinds of immigration. There's certainly an idea that Scotland doesn't have enough people and therefore having more is not necessarily a problem. 'Both at a kind of popular and policy level, Scotland is different to England.' He went on: 'It seems clear to me that most Scots feel that immigration would be a positive thing for the Scottish economy and they feel it would be beneficial demographically for Scotland. This is especially true in perhaps rural areas in a way that it isn't in England where rural areas are often places which have a high degree of anti-immigrant sentiment.' Tom Chivers and Tom Mills – of the Media Reform Coalition – both said the way in which the small boats issue was focused on by BBC Radio Scotland was an example of the corporation 'reflecting the agenda of Westminster politicians' instead of honing in on what is important to its audiences. Mills, chair of the Media Reform Coalition and author of The BBC: Myth of a Public Service, said: 'Looking at news in Scotland is revealing I think because it shows the extent to which BBC news reflects the agenda of Westminster politicians and the right-wing national press, rather than the priorities of its audiences. 'In the end the BBC is accountable to politicians, not to its audiences. That's the root of the problem and it needs to change." News is news, of course, and the issue of immigration is clearly important to many people across the UK. But the BBC surely has regional radio stations for a reason, and the way this story was thrust on people driving to work – who are likely more interested in how much their food is costing or whether they can get a doctor's appointment – certainly does seem very telling about where the broadcaster's priorities lie.
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Why is the BBC not talking about Scottish concerns?
Welcome to this week's Media Watch! Remember you can get this newsletter for free in your inbox every week by clicking the banner above. Earlier this month, an Ipsos poll for STV showed that for Scots, immigration was not on their top 10 list of things which sway them at the ballot box. So in the newsroom on Friday when we were discussing ideas for the day, it seemed mighty curious the UK-France deal aimed at tackling small boat crossings across the Channel had been high up in the BBC Radio Scotland morning news agenda almost every day last week. Listening back, we found the build-up to the visit by French president Emmanuel Macron and the agreement itself had been in the Good Morning Scotland bulletin every day from Tuesday to Friday, and on two of those days it was considered the top story. In the Ipsos survey earlier this month, Scots had considered all sorts of subjects to be more important to them than this. Healthcare, education, crime, poverty, cost of living and housing were all of bigger concern. In focusing largely on whether the new 'one in, one out' deal would act as an effective deterrent, SNP MP Pete Wishart accused the BBC of presenting a 'skewed debate' on immigration to Scots which is contrary to their interests. READ MORE: BBC breached editorial guidelines in Gaza documentary, review finds 'When we get into the realms of a debate and discussion about immigration, what tends to come out the UK-led debate about this is absolutely totally contrary to Scotland's interests,' he said. 'All we hear about is curbing migration, what we can do to make life as difficult as possible for the poor souls that make it here, whereas Scotland, just to keep our population up – which is already at crisis levels – we are totally dependent on immigration. 'What the BBC are serving us is a debate which is skewed to be against the Scottish interests." The 'one in, one out' deal will see asylum seekers who arrive in England by small boats sent back to France, while allowing some in France to be sent to Britain if they have ties to the UK. On Friday's Good Morning Scotland programme, the focus was on critics who believe it will not be enough of a deterrent, with a clip of shadow home secretary Chris Philp (below) being played during the 8am bulletin where he called the scheme a 'gimmick'. (Image: Lucy North) That was followed by a five-minute interview with an expert in British and French immigration politics. She was asked about who will be selected to be returned, how big a deterrent 'this could actually be' and what action could be taken to reduce the 'pull factor' of the UK. The way this story was pushed by BBC Scotland seemed even stranger after speaking to Emile Chabal, a professor of contemporary history at Edinburgh University who has published widely on the politics of immigration. He told The National there is a 'stark difference' between how Scotland and England view the issue of immigration. READ MORE: BBC host takes issue with expert over 'Israeli concentration camps' 'From all the policy and research work we have over the last 10 to 20 years, we know that immigration is just a less salient issue for Scots in general,' he said. 'We know that the Scottish Government has a different approach to the question of immigration, which is often characterised as either pro-immigration or pro-certain kinds of immigration. There's certainly an idea that Scotland doesn't have enough people and therefore having more is not necessarily a problem. 'Both at a kind of popular and policy level, Scotland is different to England.' He went on: 'It seems clear to me that most Scots feel that immigration would be a positive thing for the Scottish economy and they feel it would be beneficial demographically for Scotland. This is especially true in perhaps rural areas in a way that it isn't in England where rural areas are often places which have a high degree of anti-immigrant sentiment.' Tom Chivers and Tom Mills – of the Media Reform Coalition – both said the way in which the small boats issue was focused on by BBC Radio Scotland was an example of the corporation 'reflecting the agenda of Westminster politicians' instead of honing in on what is important to its audiences. Mills, chair of the Media Reform Coalition and author of The BBC: Myth of a Public Service, said: 'Looking at news in Scotland is revealing I think because it shows the extent to which BBC news reflects the agenda of Westminster politicians and the right-wing national press, rather than the priorities of its audiences. 'In the end the BBC is accountable to politicians, not to its audiences. That's the root of the problem and it needs to change." News is news, of course, and the issue of immigration is clearly important to many people across the UK. But the BBC surely has regional radio stations for a reason, and the way this story was thrust on people driving to work – who are likely more interested in how much their food is costing or whether they can get a doctor's appointment – certainly does seem very telling about where the broadcaster's priorities lie.
STV News
06-07-2025
- Business
- STV News
SNP urges Starmer not to ‘punish' children by keeping benefit cap
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged not to 'punish' children by keeping the two-child cap following Labour's U-turn on benefit cuts. The SNP urged the Prime Minister to end the limit amid reports it could stay as a result of Labour scrapping most of its welfare reforms. The UK Government had attempted to save around £5 billion a year by cutting welfare, mostly for those claiming disability and health benefits, but U-turned following a revolt from MPs. The move means the Treasury may not see any savings at all as the welfare budget is still set to rapidly rise in the coming years. Media reports suggest the U-turn could see ministers keep the cap in order to save money. The Prime Minister previously indicated he would only abolish the two-child cap, which prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for more than two children, when it had the money to do so. Asked in May whether he would scrap the policy, he said: 'We'll look at all options of driving down child poverty.' The SNP, which will mitigate the limit in Scotland by 2026, has urged the UK Government to scrap the cap, which it says is pushing thousands of children into poverty. The party said analysis from the House of Commons Library found that 2.3 million families could be lifted out of poverty if the UK Government matched Scottish Government policies. These included the Scottish Child Payment, abolishing the two-child benefit cap and scrapping the so-called bedroom tax. According to the House of Commons Library, these measures would lift 96,000 families in Scotland out of poverty. The analysis also shows that over the past decade the number of children living in poverty in the UK has risen from 3.7 million (27%) in 2013/14 to 4.5 million (31%) in 2023/24. That number is expected to rise to 4.6 million (33%) by 2029-30, according to the data. SNP deputy Westminster leader Pete Wishart urged the Prime Minister to have a rethink on his welfare plans. He said: 'Keir Starmer must not punish children for his disastrous mistakes over the Labour Party's cuts to disabled people. 'It is utterly shameful that as a direct result of Labour Party austerity cuts, child poverty is rising to record levels in the UK – and the Prime Minister is failing to lift a finger to tackle it. 'Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is the absolute bare minimum – and it should have been done on the Labour Government's first day in power. 'It's pathetic that senior Labour Party figures now want to keep this punitive welfare cut just to show rebel MPs who's in charge. 'Saving Keir Starmer embarrassment is not more important than tackling child poverty.' Wishart urged Starmer not to 'drag his feet' on the two-child cap and to instead match the SNP's Scottish Child Payment with a similar policy for the entire UK. He added: 'Thanks to SNP action, Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling. 'Unless Keir Starmer urgently follow's Scotland's lead, his lasting legacy will be pushing millions of children into destitution.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are determined to bring down child poverty. We've just announced a new £1 billion package to reform crisis support, including funding to ensure the poorest children do not go hungry outside of term time. 'This comes alongside the expansion to free breakfast clubs and the move to make over half-a-million more children eligible for free school meals. 'We have also increased the national minimum wage and are supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. 'We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure we deliver fully funded measures that tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.' Scottish Labour MP Gregor Poynton said: 'After nearly two decades, the SNP government have failed Scotland's children. 'The educational attainment gap between the richest and poorest kids continues to widen. Almost one in six young Scots are not in education, employment, or training. 'The SNP's housing crisis means 10,000 children are living in Scotland without a home to call their own. It's clear we need a new direction. 'Labour has taken action to tackle poverty in Scotland by increasing the minimum wage, giving a pay rise to 200,000 of the lowest paid Scots. 'Labour is bringing down energy bills for all, particularly for the poorest families. 'The UK Labour Government ended Tory austerity in Scotland and provided the biggest budget settlement for Scotland in history, meaning more money for our public services. 'The SNP government has the money, they have the powers, but they are out of ideas, out of excuses and out of time.' 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
The National
06-07-2025
- Business
- The National
Keir Starmer told not to 'punish' children by keeping two-child cap
The SNP urged the Prime Minister to end the limit amid reports it could stay as a result of Labour watering down most of its welfare reforms. KEIR Starmer has been urged not to 'punish' children by keeping the two-child cap following Labour's partial U-turn on benefit cuts. The UK Government had attempted to save around £5 billion a year by cutting welfare, mostly for those claiming disability and health benefits, but made concessions following a revolt from MPs. READ MORE: At least 42 Palestinians killed by Israel as doctors warn babies facing death The move means the Treasury may not see any savings at all as the welfare budget is still set to rapidly rise in the coming years. Media reports suggest the move could see ministers keep the cap in order to save money. The Prime Minister previously indicated the Government would only abolish the two-child cap, which prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for more than two children, when it had the money to do so. Asked in May whether he would scrap the policy, he said: 'We'll look at all options of driving down child poverty.' The SNP, which will mitigate the limit in Scotland by 2026, has urged the UK Government to scrap the cap, which it says is pushing thousands of children into poverty. The party said analysis from the House of Commons Library found that 2.3 million families could be lifted out of poverty if the UK Government matched Scottish Government policies. These included the Scottish Child Payment, abolishing the two-child benefit cap and scrapping the so-called bedroom tax. According to the House of Commons Library, these measures would lift 96,000 families in Scotland out of poverty. The analysis also shows that over the past decade the number of children living in poverty in the UK has risen from 3.7 million (27%) in 2013/14 to 4.5 million (31%) in 2023/24. That number is expected to rise to 4.6 million (33%) by 2029-30, according to the data. SNP deputy Westminster leader Pete Wishart urged the Prime Minister to have a rethink on his welfare plans. Pete Wishart MP (Image: PA) He said: 'Keir Starmer must not punish children for his disastrous mistakes over the Labour Party's cuts to disabled people. 'It is utterly shameful that as a direct result of Labour Party austerity cuts, child poverty is rising to record levels in the UK – and the Prime Minister is failing to lift a finger to tackle it. 'Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is the absolute bare minimum – and it should have been done on the Labour Government's first day in power. READ MORE: Here's why banning Orange marches would be a bad idea 'It's pathetic that senior Labour Party figures now want to keep this punitive welfare cut just to show rebel MPs who's in charge. 'Saving Keir Starmer embarrassment is not more important than tackling child poverty.' Wishart urged Starmer not to 'drag his feet' on the two-child cap and to instead match the SNP's Scottish Child Payment with a similar policy for the entire UK. He added: 'Thanks to SNP action, Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling. 'Unless Keir Starmer urgently follow's Scotland's lead, his lasting legacy will be pushing millions of children into destitution.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are determined to bring down child poverty. We've just announced a new £1 billion package to reform crisis support, including funding to ensure the poorest children do not go hungry outside of term time. 'This comes alongside the expansion to free breakfast clubs and the move to make over half-a-million more children eligible for free school meals. 'We have also increased the national minimum wage and are supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. 'We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure we deliver fully funded measures that tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.'
The Herald Scotland
29-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
The CalMac ferries are better than the catamaran option
Catamarans may have merits but their proponents seem to tie these in with aspects that are at the very least controversial: absence of accommodation for reduced crews and absence of restaurant facilities, thrown in alongside lower costs for build. Perhaps there are drawbacks relating to this that are not being discussed: onshore accommodation for crews will remove the capacity for onboard shift systems for crews and therefore reduce daily hours in line with rest hours legislation; reduced crews will mean fewer staff available to assist passengers in the event of emergencies – currently stewards as well as other crew are trained to assist with all aspects of this including crewing lifeboats, so reductions could mean fewer lifeboats and more inflatable life rafts that passengers will be expected to manage themselves. There is also the possibility that shore-accommodated crewing will result in fewer sailings in worsening weather, as being stormbound in another port will be avoided for cost and accommodation reasons. Some catamaran proponents in Scotland have clear associations with a private model for our west coast ferry services, involving unbundling and drastic reductions in costs in order to reap maximum profits. Whether this would ever lead to improved and more reliable services is highly debatable and the public inquiry your article called for may not answer that question if its focus is on ferry design and procurement. The regular publication of reliability data for CalMac ferries demonstrates that despite all the well-versed issues, the public model is able to divert resources to where they are needed so that services are maintained at a high level: would this be the case with an operator serving just one route? Colin Turbett, Shiskine, Isle of Arran. Yes was never winning It seems some people have very selective memories about the referendum result in 2014 (Letters, June 22). It was never the case that the Yes campaign was winning in the build-up to that vote. It was shown to be ahead in one poll, but that was it. I have yet to meet anyone who has said that 'The Vow' was a factor in how they voted. The Yes campaign lost that vote because the proposal it put in front of us was not strong enough, and people could see that. It had simply not made the case, and ultimately, a miss is as good as a mile. The chances of it coming back this decade are remote. In relation to Pete Wishart, his constituency here in North Perthshire voted against by 62.5% to 37.5%. Yes was never really in the running here at all, to the extent that most of its activists abandoned Highland Perthshire in particular and did their campaigning in Dundee. As for Mr Wishart himself, I cannot remember a single contribution that he made at that time, so he probably is not the best person to try to rewrite the history books now. Victor Clements, Aberfeldy. Read more letters Johnstone will not be missed Few, I'm afraid, who care about well-run and fairly conducted political affairs at a devolved Scotland level will miss the departure of Alison Johnstone as Presiding Officer ("Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone to stand down from Holyrood next year", June 22). I am sure Ms Johnstone was a well-meaning and diligent MSP and no doubt a nice person, but in my view what she was decidedly not was fair and unbiased when acting as speaker at Holyrood. I believe she made no effort to disguise what many saw as out-and-out bias and disdain for those with whom she did not agree politically and that unfortunately is how she will be remembered. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh. Gilruth must do better I have written, in these columns, that there were only two solutions to the tsunami of school violence now afflicting our schools. The first was to bring back corporal punishment, still a feature of the most academically successful schools in the world, in South-east Asia. Perhaps we could send Jenny Gilruth there to investigate, given she was born one year after the belt was abolished and has no concept of well-disciplined schools. Second was to suspend payments of different child benefits to the parents of those suspended or excluded. Some of these schemes operate in Europe. Ms Gilruth's research could start in France. But no, apparently not in Scotland. There is now a third way. While the innocent bullied cower at home, those doing the bullying, and still freely roaming the corridors, will have laminated sheets full of bullet points of the support the feral can now access. Bless. Our teachers and pupils deserve better than the buzzword-riddled report from our floundering truanting Education Minister, with her back story of avoiding broadcast interviews, for example Good Morning Scotland, and sometimes, disturbingly, conceding she does not read education reports on violence in schools, for example the EIS one on Aberdeen in February 2004. Could do better. John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing. Hold ministers culpable William Loneskie (Letters, June 22) is right; successive governments have been much more concerned about protecting far-off countries rather than our own borders. Those seeking revenge on the UK must surely be using the English Channel to smuggle in agents equipped with phials of bio-toxins or dirty bombs. But even if they're used, will any ministers culpable be prosecuted? Don't make me laugh. George Morton, Rosyth. Pete Wishart (Image: UK Parliament) Blessed are the peacemakers I refer to the news report by Josh Pizzuto-Pomaco ('Ex-FM Yousaf hits out at Starmer at London pro-Palestine march', June 22). Keir Starmer must make Benjamin Netanyahu aware that in the civilised world's collective memory of Israel for decades to come will be its slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents (58,000 to date). That includes, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in the past month, 500 Palestinians trying to reach food distribution points and the few UN aid convoys. Sheer barbarity! However it would be wrong to ignore the many Jewish citizens of Israel who defy courageously their government by working for peace and justice often with those of other brave souls seem to take seriously the teaching of the Hebrew (Jewish) Prophets such as Isaiah who envisioned a transformed world where violence is overcome and justice prevails. And dare I mention the man we know of as Jesus who lived and died a Jewish Prophet no matter what significance his followers gave him after his death? He is reported as saying 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God' and even more significantly given the current situation in the occupied territories 'I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home'. These words are what we Christians have to offer the Palestinians but they must be backed up by action. Otherwise our prayers will be no more than empty words. John Milne, Uddingston. Trump does not deserve prize The suggestion that Donald Trump should win a Nobel Peace Prize, much less several as he believes, is unsound and offensive. A subjective assessment of the list of Peace Prize winners, and other Nobel categories, shows people who have contributed so much for so long and made improvements to our lives and our knowledge. How can Donald Trump claim this? Pick a noble person for the Nobel prize. Dennis Fitzgerald, Melbourne.
