‘Scotland lost its way’: SNP candidates clash on independence in fiery first TV debate

Published

2 years ago

March 8, 2023

admin

Candidates vying to replace Nicola Sturgeon clashed over independence in their fiery first TV debate, with Ash Regan claiming Scotland had “lost its way” on the issue “despite the worst UK governments of all time”.

Ms Regan kicked off the event with some harsh words for the outgoing first minister, from whose government she resigned in protest over gender reforms.

“There’s been no progress on independence in the last few years, despite the worst UK governments of all time,” she said in her opening remarks.

“We used to grow support for independence by governing wisely, and it worked.

“At every election going forward, we will make it crystal clear that a majority of votes for the SNP will be a democratic mandate for independence.”

Asked how and when she would achieve independence, Ms Regan said the party has spent years seeking a “moral mandate” and “begging” Westminster for a referendum but with no success.

She argued that a referendum “is not the gold standard”, saying the SNP could use the ballot box at elections to try to leave the UK.

Leadership rival Kate Forbes said independence would only happen when a majority of Scots had been persuaded it was the best course of action, which means “putting the economy front and centre”.

Humza Yousaf also stressed the need to “build popular support” for the cause.

Ms Regan accused her rivals of “going cap in hand to Westminster”, saying: “This hasn’t worked so far, why should it work now?”

But Mr Yousaf insisted Downing Street would tell Ms Regan “where to go” under her plan if she was first minister.

He said a majority of votes in a Scotland election would not bring politicians in London to the table as “there is no common decency with the UK Government”.

“We are talking about a government in the UK that literally sends refugees on planes to Rwanda. They are not going to sit down with us just because we win an election,” he said.

Would an independent Scotland keep the monarchy?

Questions on independence also turned to whether the candidates would keep the monarchy, with Ms Forbes saying there were “bigger issues facing Scotland”.

She added: “I am pretty relaxed, I would see us as part of the Commonwealth.”

But both Mr Yousaf and Ms Regan declared themselves to be republicans.

Mr Yousaf said he would “keep the monarchy for a period of time”, but added: “I would hope an independent Scotland would be a republic in the future.”

Ms Regan said her preference would be to have an elected head of state for an independent Scotland.

She said in the “new circumstances” after the death of the Queen last year it might be time for the SNP conference to debate if retaining the monarchy was still the right policy for the party “or whether we should move to a policy of having an elected head of state”.

Ministers clash on government record and social issues

The harshest exchanges on Tuesday evening came between Finance Secretary Ms Forbes and Health Secretary Mr Yousaf, considered to be the two frontrunners for the top job.

Ms Forbes attacked Mr Yousaf’s record in government – suggesting there would be a place for him in her cabinet but “maybe not at health” – while her record on social issues was scrutinised.

“Humza, you’ve had a number of jobs in government,” she said in a portion of the STV debate which allowed for cross examination between candidates.

“You were a transport minister and the trains were never on time, when you were justice secretary the police were stretched to breaking point, and now as health minister we’ve got record-high waiting times. What makes you think you can do a better job as first minister?”

Mr Yousaf said he “built new roads and railways”, delivered the Queensferry Crossing under budget, “extended protections for domestic abuse victims” and “delivered the fastest ever COVID booster programme”.

Asked if he is the “continuity candidate” and if that means he is the “no change candidate”, Mr Yousaf shot back: “If change means lurching to the right, Kate, if it means rolling back on progressive values, that’s not the right change.”

He told his rival her comments early in the campaign, when Ms Forbes said she would not have voted for same-sex marriage if she had been an MSP when the legislation passed, saw “many people, particularly from our LGBTQ community, say they wouldn’t vote for independence” if she is leader.

Mr Yousaf added: “Forget persuading ‘no’ voters, you can’t even keep ‘yes’ voters.”

Ms Forbes said she made a “solemn and honest pledge when it comes to upholding and defending the right of every Scot”.

There were points of agreement during the debate, with Ms Regan and Mr Yousaf hitting out at the UK government’s immigration plans and all three candidates committing to increase the Scottish Child Payment.

Mr Yousaf has previously announced he would look to increase the benefit, but said on Tuesday he would look to push it to £30 per week from £25 in his first budget if elected first minister.

Ms Regan said she would see “what more we could do on that”, while Ms Forbes suggested any increase would “have to reflect what inflation is at the time”.

World

What’s it like with the National Guard on the streets of DC?

Published

2 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

What's it like with the National Guard on the streets of DC?

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

What’s it like on the streets of DC right now, as thousands of federal police patrol the streets?

Who is Steve Witkoff, the US envoy regularly meeting Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu to broker peace in Ukraine and Gaza?

And why is Californian Governor Gavin Newsom now tweeting like Donald Trump?

Martha Kelner and Mark Stone answer your questions.

If you’ve also got a question you’d like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@sky.uk.

You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.

World

It’s been a confusing week – and Trump’s been made to look weak

Published

2 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

It’s been a confusing week.

The Monday gathering of European leaders and Ukraine’s president with Donald Trump at the White House was highly significant.

Ukraine latest: Trump changes tack

The leaders went home buoyed by the knowledge that they’d finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe. He had committed to provide American “security guarantees” to Ukraine.

The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week (we got some noise about American air cover), but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine – “it’s Europe’s problem” and all the rest of it.

Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russia would have a problem with it.

Trump’s envoy’s language last weekend – claiming that Putin had agreed to Europe providing “Article 5-like” guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket – was baffling.

Russia gives two fingers to the president

And throughout this week, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine.

“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia,” he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years.

Remember that NATO’s “eastern encroachment” was the justification for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak.

It’s two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That’s telling.

The bilateral meeting (between Putin and Zelenskyy) hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close – “within two weeks” – looks decidedly doubtful.

Maybe that’s why he went along with Putin’s suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first.

It’s easier for the American president to blame someone else if it’s not his meeting, and it doesn’t happen.

NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees – the ones Russia won’t accept – will work.

European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: “It’s not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!”

The argument goes that it’s not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops.

Would Trump threaten force?

The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements.

The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: “Vladimir – look what I did to Iran…”. But, of course, Iran isn’t a nuclear power.

Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a “security guarantee” is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future.

Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don’t see Trump’s America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything.

A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another “justification” to push back.

Image and reality don’t seem to match

Among Trump’s stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit.

He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union.

That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don’t match.

The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.

World

At least 17 dead in Colombia after car bombing and helicopter attack

Published

2 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

At least 17 dead in Colombia after car bombing and helicopter attack

At least 17 people were killed after a car bombing and an attack on a police helicopter in Colombia, officials have said.

Authorities in the southwest city of Cali said a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated near a military aviation school, killing five people and injuring more than 30.

Authorities said at least 12 died in the attack on a helicopter transporting personnel to an area in Antioquia in northern Colombia, where they were to destroy coca leaf crops – the raw material used in the production of cocaine.

Antioquia governor Andres Julian said a drone attacked the helicopter as it flew over coca leaf crops.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro attributed both incidents to dissidents of the defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

He said the aircraft was targeted in retaliation for a cocaine seizure that allegedly belonged to the Gulf Clan.

Who are FARC, and are they still active?

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist guerrilla organisation, was the largest of the country’s rebel groups, and grew out of peasant self-defence forces.

It was formed in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, carrying out a series of attacks against political and economic targets.

In 2016, after more than 50 years of civil war, FARC rebels and the Colombian government signed a peace deal.

It officially ceased to be an armed group the following year – but some small dissident groups rejected the agreement and refused to disarm.

According to a report by Colombia’s Truth Commission in 2022, fighting between government forces, FARC, and the militant group National Liberation Army had killed around 450,000 people between 1985 and 2018.

Both FARC dissidents and members of the Gulf Clan operate in Antioquia.

It comes as a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that coca leaf cultivation is on the rise in Colombia.

The area under cultivation reached a record 253,000 hectares in 2023, according to the UN’s latest available report.