Kirsty Wark says she preferred A Very British Scandal to Scoop, as while one was a “rollicking drama” the other failed to give “enough people their place”.
Employed by the BBC for nearly 50 years, Wark presented Newsnight from 1993 to 2024, stepping down this summer after more than three decades at the helm.
Speaking at the fourth live show of Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction tour in Glasgow, the BAFTA-winning journalist also dished the dirt on one former BBC colleague she said was not the best “team player”.
Image: Rufus Sewell as Prince Andrew in Netflix drama Scoop. Pic: Netflix/PA
Kicking off with one of the BBC’s most notorious interviews, Wark said Emily Maitlis got chosen to interview Prince Andrew as she was chief presenter of Newsnight at the time.
The interview – which aired in November 2019 – was swiftly branded “disastrous” and “excruciating” for the royal, as he was questioned about his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
When asked by Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby which of the two recent TV productions based on the interview – Scoop and A Very Royal Scandal – she preferred, Wark plumped for A Very British Scandal.
Released earlier this month, Maitlis was an executive producer on the Prime Video miniseries.
More on Electoral Dysfunction
Related Topics:
Wark said: “They’re both dramas, and neither is an absolute, you know it’s not about the truth.
“One gives more weight to some people and the other one gives more weight to other people, but by and large, the idea of it being a team endeavour is much more embedded in the second, the Royal Scandal, than it is in the first.
Advertisement
“The first was a rollicking drama, but I don’t actually think that enough people were given their place.”
Image: Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen in A Very British Scandal. Pic: Prime Video
Scoop, which streamed on Netflix, focused on the story from the angle of Newsnight guest booker Sam McAlister who persuaded Prince Andrew to appear on the show.
Wark said that at the time Prince Andrew had “thought he’d done a really good interview”, and after the chat had offered to show Maitlis around Buckingham Place.
Image: The real interview between Emily Maitlis and Prince Andrew. Pic: BBC
‘I was the one who suggested his train travels!’
Speaking about some of her own interviews over the years, Wark told Rigby, along with co-hosts Labour peer Harriet Harman and Conservative peer Ruth Davidson, about two high-profile interviewees she had rubbed up the wrong way.
She sat down with former prime minister Margaret Thatcher at the height of the poll tax riots.
Wark said she was “preternaturally calm” and had prepared meticulously going on: “Nobody knew except my husband that I was pregnant. And I thought, well, I’m not going to let [Mrs Thatcher] upset me. I’ll be very calm and controlled.”
After the interview – which Wark said nearly got cancelled at the last minute – Thatcher told Wark she had “interrupted me more than I’ve ever been interrupted”, to which Wark said she thought “game on”.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Remembering another interviewee who did not appreciate her journalistic tenacity, Wark said a sit-down with the former Conservative MP Michael Portillo did not end well.
Wark said the ex-chief secretary to the Treasury had “riled her” by saying “stop hectoring me”.
She admitted she had interviewed him after she “returned to work too soon” following the death of her father and godmother.
Wark joked: “The only broadcasting complaint I ever had upheld was with Michael Portillo. And actually, it’s outrageous because I was the one who suggested them for the train travels!”
The former Conservative MP has presented 15 series of Great British Railway Journeys for BBC Two over the last 15 years.
Image: (R-L) Wark, Jill Dando and John Stapleton on BBC Breakfast Time in 1988. Pic: David Crump/Daily Mail/Shutterstock
A former BBC colleague who wasn’t ‘a team player’
She also revealed that when her former BBC colleague Robert Peston had come along to do a few shifts on Newsnight, he had refused to follow the show’s precedent of brainstorming ideas together, and wearing an earpiece so others could pitch in on an interview.
After letting Peston shadow her the day before, she came into work to discover he was going solo for his own interview, adding with heavy irony that he was “a real team player”. Peston is now political editor at ITV News.
In other TV news, Wark admitted she had been “asked so many times” to do Strictly Come Dancing but had so far refused due to work commitments and illness.
She did not reveal if she would consider it in the future.
A keen cook, Wark has appeared on celebrity versions of MasterChef and The Great British Bake Off.
Sir Keir Starmer will deliver a speech today defending the decisions the government made in the budget, following criticisms of sweeping tax rises and accusations the chancellor lied to the country about the state of public finances.
The prime minister is expected to set out how the budget, which saw £26bn of tax rises imposed across the economy, “moves forward the government’s programme of national renewal”, and set “the right economic course” for Britain, Downing Street says.
He will also confirm that ministers will try again to reform the “broken” welfare system, after Labour MPs forced the government to U-turn on its plans to narrow the eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) earlier this year.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer will give a speech later defending last week’s budget. Pic: Reuters
“We have to confront the reality that our welfare state is trapping people, not just in poverty, but out of work – young people especially. And that is a poverty of ambition,” Sir Keir will say.
“And so while we will invest in apprenticeships and make sure every young person without a job has a guaranteed offer of training or work, we must also reform the welfare state itself – that is what renewal demands.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:46
Sky’s Ed Conway looks at the aftermath of the budget and explains who the winners and losers are
The prime minister will add: “This is not about propping up a broken status quo. Nor is it because we want to look somehow politically ‘tough’. The Tories played that game and the welfare bill went up by £88bn. They left children too poor to eat and young people too ill to work. A total failure.”
More on Budget 2025
Related Topics:
Instead, he will argue it is about “potential”, saying: “If you are ignored that early in your career, if you’re not given the support you need to overcome your mental health issues, or if you are simply written off because you’re neurodivergent or disabled, then it can trap you in a cycle of worklessness and dependency for decades, which costs the country money, is bad for our productivity, but most importantly of all – costs the country opportunity and potential.
“And any Labour Party worthy of the name cannot ignore that. That is why we have asked Alan Milburn on the whole issue of young people, inactivity and work. We need to remove the incentives which hold back the potential of our young people.”
The announcement will come after the Conservative opposition described the budget as one for “benefits street”, following the chancellor’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap from April, at a cost of £3bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:30
Prime Minister defends the budget
‘Government must go further and faster on growth’
The prime minister is also expected to launch a staunch defence of the budget overall, saying it will bear down on the cost of living through measures like money off energy bills and frozen rail fares; increase economic stability; and protect investment in public services and infrastructure that will drive economic growth.
He will argue that “economic growth is beating the forecasts”, but that the government must go “further and faster” to encourage it.
He will also reiterate his vow to scrap regulation across the economy, which he will argue is not only pro-business, but also a way to deal with the cost of living.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:57
How will your personal finances change following the budget announced by the chancellor?
“Rooting out excessive costs in every corner of the economy is an essential step to lower the cost of living for good, as well as promoting more dynamic markets for business,” the prime minister will say.
He will confirm reforms to the building of nuclear power plants, after the government’s nuclear regulatory taskforce found that “pointless gold-plating, unnecessary red-tape and well-intentioned, but fundamentally misguided environmental regulation had made Britain the most expensive place to build nuclear power”.
“We urgently need to correct this,” the prime minister will say.
Business secretary Peter Kyle will be tasked with applying the same deregulatory approach to major infrastructure schemes and to accelerate the implementation of Labour’s industrial strategy.
In response, Tory shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said: “It is frankly laughable to hear the prime minister say Rachel Reeves’s Benefits Street budget has put the country on the right course and that he wants to fix the welfare system.
“His chancellor has just hiked taxes by £26bn to pay for a welfare splurge, penalising people who work hard and making them pay for those who don’t work at all. And she misrepresented why she was doing it, claiming there was a fiscal black hole to fill that she knew didn’t exist.
“Labour’s leadership have repeatedly shown they lack the backbone to tackle welfare and instead are just acting to placate their left-wing backbenchers.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:58
Rachel Reeves tells Sky News she did not lie about the state of the public finances
Chancellor accused of ‘lying’
Sir Mel is referring to the chancellor’s speech on 4 November in which she laid the ground for tax rises due to the decision by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to review and downgrade productivity over recent years, at a cost of £16bn, which led to a black hole in the public finances.
But the OBR revealed on Friday that it had told the Treasury days earlier that there was actually a budget surplus of £4.2bn, leading to outrage and claims that she misled the country about the state of the public finances.
Rachel Reeves was asked directly by Sky’s Trevor Phillips if she lied, and she replied: “Of course I didn’t.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:51
Why did Reeves make the situation sound ‘so bleak’?
She said: “I said in that speech that I wanted to achieve three things in the budget – tackling the cost of living, which is why I took £150 off of energy bills and froze prescription charges and rail fares.
“I wanted to continue to cut NHS waiting lists, which is why I protected NHS spending. And I wanted to bring the debt and the borrowing down, which is one of the reasons why I increased the headroom.
“£4bn of headroom would not have been enough, and it would not give the Bank of England space to continue to cut interest rates.”
Ms Reeves also said: “In the context of a downgrade in our productivity, which cost £16bn, I needed to increase taxes, and I was honest and frank about that in the speech that I gave at the beginning of November.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:30
Badenoch says Rachel Reeves should resign
But Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: “I think the chancellor has been doing a terrible job. She’s made a mess of the economy, and […] she has told lies. This is a woman who, in my view, should be resigning.”
Report due on OBR breach
The tumultuous run-up to the 26 November budget culminated in the OBR accidentally publishing its assessment of the chancellor’s measures 45 minutes before the speech began, in what was an unprecedented breach of budget security.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
The chair of the OBR, Richard Hughes, apologised for the “error”, and announced an investigation into how it happened.
The chancellor has said that she retains confidence in him, despite the “serious breach of protocol”, and confirmed to Trevor that the investigation report will be delivered to her on Monday, although it is not clear when it will be published.
China’s central bank has flagged stablecoins as a risk and has promised to refresh its crackdown on crypto trading, which it has banned since 2021.
The People’s Bank of China said on Saturday, after a meeting with 12 other agencies, that “virtual currency speculation has resurfaced” due to various factors, posing new challenges for risk control.
“Virtual currencies do not have the same legal status as fiat currencies, lack legal tender status, and should not and cannot be used as currency in the market,” the bank said, according to a translation of its statement.
“Virtual currency-related business activities constitute illegal financial activities.”
China’s central bank banned crypto trading and mining in 2021, citing a need to curb crime and claiming that crypto posed a risk to the financial system.
Bank says stablecoins of concern
China’s central bank highlighted stablecoins as a particular concern, stating that the tokens weren’t meeting legal requirements and were being used in criminal activities.
“Stablecoins are a form of virtual currency, and currently cannot effectively meet requirements for customer identification and Anti-Money Laundering, posing a risk of being used for illegal activities such as money laundering, fundraising fraud, and illegal cross-border fund transfers,” the bank said.
The People’s Bank of China, headquartered in Beijing (pictured), noted stablecoins as a concern at an inter-agency meeting on Saturday. Source: Wikimedia
The bank said it would “persistently crack down on illegal financial activities” related to crypto to “maintain the stability of the economic and financial order.”
The 13 agencies that attended the meeting stated that they would “deepen coordination and cooperation” in tracking down crypto users by strengthening information sharing and enhancing monitoring capabilities.
Reuters reported on Wednesday that China had the third-highest share of Bitcoin (BTC) mining, with its market share reaching 14% by the end of October.
In August, China’s financial regulators reportedly instructed brokers to cancel seminars and stop promoting research on stablecoins over concerns that it could be exploited as a tool for fraudulent activities.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong opened the doors to licensing stablecoin issuers in July, but some tech companies suspended plans to launch stablecoins in the region after Chinese regulators reportedly intervened to pause the offerings.
White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks has fired back at The New York Times over a report detailing how his government advisory role could benefit his investments and those of his close associates.
Sacks said in a post to X that despite having “debunked in detail” the Times’ reporting over the past five months, the outlet continued to publish the article on Sunday about his supposed conflicts of interest.
“Today they evidently just threw up their hands and published this nothing burger,” Sacks wrote. “Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don’t support the headline.”
Sacks is a co-founder and partner at the venture firm Craft Ventures, and his special government employee role at the White House has drawn scrutiny in the past, with Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren saying in May that he is “financially invested in the crypto industry, positioning him to potentially profit from the crypto policy changes he makes at the White House.”
Before he became crypto czar, Sacks and Craft divested over $200 million in crypto and crypto-tied stocks, at least $85 million of which Sacks owned, but Sacks retained an interest in several illiquid investments of “private equity of digital asset-related companies.”
Sacks retains 20 crypto investments, The Times reports
The Times reported that its analysis of Sacks’ financial disclosure found he has retained 708 tech investments, 449 of which are AI-related and 20 are tied to crypto, all of which could benefit from the policies Sacks supports.
In one example of a perceived conflict in Sacks’ role, the outlet stated that Craft Ventures is invested in the crypto infrastructure company BitGo, which offers a stablecoin-as-a-service.
BitGo filed to go public in September, with regulatory filings showing Craft owned 7.8% of the company.
The Times noted that Sacks was a major backer of the stablecoin-regulating GENIUS Act, which was signed into law earlier this year. Many crypto commentators predicted that this would boost the use and adoption of the tokens by institutions.
Other examples noted by the Times involved Sacks’ and Craft’s ties to companies involved with AI, which have skyrocketed in value as the White House and Wall Street bet on the technology’s potential.
The Times noted that Sacks’ ethics waivers, shared in March, stated he would sell his interests in AI and crypto; however, they don’t disclose when he sold the assets and do not detail the value of his remaining investments.
NYT created “bogus narrative,” says Sacks
In his X post, Sacks shared a letter to the Times sent by his lawyers at Clare Locke accusing the outlet of setting out “to write a hit piece” and giving their reporters “clear marching orders” to find conflicts of interest.
Sacks added it was “very clear how NYT willfully mischaracterized or ignored the facts to support their bogus narrative.”
Sacks’ spokesperson Jessica Hoffman told the Times that he has complied with rules for special government employees, and the Office of Government Ethics said that Sacks should sell his investments in certain types of companies but not others.
Sacks’ role as a special government employee is limited to 130 days, and in September, Democratic lawmakers questioned whether he had exceeded the number of days allowed with his appointment.
However, Sacks reportedly carefully manages the days he spends as a special government employee to ensure that he stays under the limit.