ENRG platforms will carry interviews, analysis and results
A group of students from Edinburgh Napier’s Journalism department are to provide live coverage of the Scottish election results.
And they have already gained an exclusive interview with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Third year Journalism BA student Steven Brown is editor for the event, which will be staged on Friday, May 7 as the results from the previous day’s election are revealed.
Around 20 students will take part in the Merchiston campus event, which will feature eight hours of live broadcasting on the Radio ENRG platform plus online support on the ENRG Debrief website.
Steven said: “We are really looking forward to the event. We have secured a number of interviews already, with virtually all of the party leaders in Scotland agreeing to talk to us. We aim to provide expert analysis too as the results happen.
“It will be a great experience. Radio ENRG and the Debrief website have established real credibility and are treated pretty much like other professional media.”
The event follows the hugely successful live coverage of the US elections back in November.
That ambitious enterprise caught the attention of the BBC’s North America Editor Jon Sopel, who tweeted his support, saying: “Have a great night. When I was a journalism student, it was me and Steve Richards (another well-known UK print and broadcast journalist) commenting on the Peckham by-election (of 1982). Glad to see you guys starting with the most consequential presidential election in decades.”
This time round, another top BBC journalist will be involved. Edinburgh Napier journalism graduate Nick Eardley, one of the corporation’s leading political commentators, will give his thoughts on the elections in an exclusive interview with ENRG.
Steven said: “It was fantastic to get support from Jon Sopel last time. It’s great to know that people like him started out in exactly the same way we are. And this time Nick Eardley will be helping us out. Just ten years ago he was himself a student in these same classrooms.”
Hours and hours of preparation – agreeing the broadcast and online schedules, sourcing story ideas, sorting out interviewees – will be done before even an article is published on the website or any audio hits the airwaves.
The live coverage itself will begin at 10am on Friday (May 7) on Radio ENRG and run through to 6pm, while the ENRG Debrief website has already begun publishing content.
Steven added: “These events are incredibly inspiring to work on and offer students a unique and invaluable opportunity to learn and gain knowledge and understanding of what it’s like to work as a journalist on huge events.
“To be able to publish our coverage in two mediums, on the radio and online, will give the event a true industry-like feel. It’s going to be an amazing experience.”
Students taking part come from all four years of the Journalism BA plus the Masters programme.
Radio ENRG is a student-led broadcasting platform, organised from Napier’s journalism department. Since its launch in 2014, it has gone from strength to strength, winning numerous national awards for the quality of its content.
Over the years, the ENRG family has grown to include three websites – Debrief, Sport, and Music & Arts – all of which are led by student editors and publish new content most days. More sites are due to come online in the next few months,
Tune in to Radio ENRG from 10am on Friday, May 7 to hear the live coverage at:
Data suggests British Indians are likely to vote Conservative, despite voting Labour in 2019
Research finds younger voters are more inclined to vote for Conservative, despite previously supporting Labour
Only 8% of British Indians feel accurately represented by policymakers and detail their political priorities for local and national Government
Ahead of Thursday’s elections, a new report from the 1928 Institute, a University of Oxford backed think-tank focused on researching and representing the British Indian community, has analysed the political alignment and priorities of British Indians from across the United Kingdom.
Analysis of over 2,300 British Indians across a broad spectrum of migration paths, religious identities, and geographical locations in the United Kingdom found that despite the majority (36%) voting Labour in the 2019 General Elections, the 2021 local elections will see a shift, with British Indians now showing support for Conservative party (33%) and Labour falling behind at 31%.
Demographic split
The report (with fieldwork conducted in August 2020 and December 2020), which investigates and compares the relationship between the political party inclined to support and key demographics: age and location – found that the most sizeable change in voting preference is from those aged between 21 to 50, with 45.9% respondents moving away from Labour resulting in the Conservative party picking up the majority of these voters (48.8%).
However, the analysis found the narrowest gap by age group is 26-30, with just a 2% margin in the Conservative party’s favour. However, further analysis between August and December found a significant increase in those unlikely to vote in this week’s election.
Analysis by location found that in August 2020, British Indians were more likely to vote Labour across most regions, except Scotland, where the Conservative Party took the lead, highlighting that the manifesto of the SNP did not align with the political needs and wants of British Indians.
The regions with the narrowest difference in support between the Labour and Conservative Party are the East of England (4%), followed by Greater London (6%) and the South East (8%).
In December 2020, the majority of British Indians were inclined to vote for the Conservative Party. Although Labour retained support in the North West, South East, West Midlands, British Indians across Yorkshire and Humber are inclined to the Conservative and Labour Parties equally (35% respectively). In addition, in the South West, the Liberal Democrats emerged as the strongest party.
Political disconnect and priorities
When asked if British Indians feel accurately represented by policymakers, only 8% agreed. Many went on to state that historically, the British Indian Diaspora were not vocal about their needs and instead focused on settling into their communities. As a result, feel that current and future generations will continue to be overlooked.
The report highlights five key policy areas British Indians would like to see prioritised by the Government: education (54%), health (52%), environment and climate change (44%), domestic poverty (36%), and equalities and human rights (33%).
When asked why British Indians felt these five areas were important, respondents explained that these areas align with their cultural values of giving back to society, or “Seva”, along with the importance of taking care of the vulnerable.
In addition, 4 in 5 British Indians (84%) want the UK Government to prioritise tackling racism and colonialism.
British Indians stand in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement calling for resources and capital to promote equality and human rights across all ethnic minorities. Respondents described that they do not find “BAME” a useful concept as the generalisation incorrectly informs the distribution of resources and identity.
Kiran Kaur Manku, Co-Founder of the 1928 Institute and Researcher Fellow at the University of Oxford, said: “This report provides empirical evidence on has found clear patterns between the needs and wants of British Indians.
“Given that almost three in four British Indians do not feel accurately represented by policymakers at and the 1928 Institute, we would like to see the policy priorities and recommendations urgently be implemented.
“British Indians contribute significantly outlined move from conversation to action. The recently issued ‘race report’ whilst finding no institutional racism in the UK and are calling for rational actions to support society: the national curriculum to include Britain’s colonial legacy and impact, and ethnic minorities task-force the United Kingdom has synergies with embedded ethics our research.”
Alex Salmond: ‘BBC are an affront to Scottish democracy’
ALBA has returned to Ofcom with new evidence of BBC bias in the election campaign.
In a further complaint to the broadcasting regulator (below) ALBA detail the different criteria to debates and coverage being applied by BBC Wales where the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party were accorded full participation in the debates programme.
ALBA leader Alex Salmond said: “The BBC are an affront to Scottish democracy. There have now been no less than seven opinion polls in this campaign showing an ALBA parliamentary breakthrough.
“The new evidence from Wales leaves them without a leg to stand on in terms of their biased Scottish coverage. But BBC bosses continue to ban us from the debates.
“The BBC also continue to refuse fair coverage on the flimsiest of grounds.
“Yesterday (Sunday) for example in one of the most important statements of the campaign ALBA women candidates rallied outside the Parliament in the declaration in support of protected sex based rights.
“The BBC claimed they couldn’t send a camera a few hundred yards because it was a Bank holiday weekend! They then interviewed Willie Rennie in the same area up a hill on his puff saying precisely zilch.
“Of course BBC presenters continue to talk about ALBA, often in disparaging terms. They just don’t allow us on to answer back just as the BBC hierarchy have kept us out of the leaders debates.
“In the last few days of the election the ALBA street and community initiatives will gain further ground and the BBC attempt to silence ALBA will fail.
“However as our letter to Ofcom makes clear the regulator should step in right now and put the BBC house in order.”
LETTER TO OFCOM
Dear Ms. Rose,
Our clients have considered the terms of the Election Committee’s decision of 28 April. We write to invite the Committee to reconsider that decision and to review matters urgently.
Our clients consider that the evidence of a structural bias within the BBC against them grows stronger as the campaign progresses and reaches its conclusion and further examples have occurred since the Committee’s decision.
The treatment by the BBC of other parties is simply inconsistent with its treatment of our clients. On Thursday of last week, the day after the Committee’s decision, the BBC broadcast the equivalent Leaders Debate as part of its coverage of the elections to the Welsh Senedd. Representatives of the Labour, Conservative, Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrats and Abolish the Welsh Assembly parties participated in the first hour of that programme and those of Reform UK, the Green Party and UKIP in the second, half-hour part (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56915347).
The Liberals currently have one seat in the Senedd and are averaging around 4% in current polling. The Greens have no seats and are averaging around the same. UKIP support in Wales is so low that it has not even registered on the last two polls. The AWAP is currently predicted to take two seats in the Senedd. Reform UK is averaging 1% in the polls and is predicted to take no seats
We set out an extract from the BBC’s 2021 Guidelines, applicable to Wales, in the undernote below, highlighting sections relating to “larger” and “smaller” parties. We would submit that our clients’ polling performance, and the developing political context in Scotland, is such that it would be simply perverse to exclude them from the upcoming BBC Leaders Debate.
A decision to do so would be simply illogical, entirely inconsistent with the treatment afforded to other parties elsewhere across the BBC’s output and simply inexplicable other than by animus towards our clients. What other possible explanation can be proffered for such an entirely inconsistent approach? No single example of that animus is going to be conclusive and any single example can be explained away but we would submit that that does not mean that each example can simply be ignored.
Some regard must be had to the pattern provided by the totality of each single example. An emblematic example of the BBC’s attitude towards our clients occurred yesterday. A number of our clients’ women candidates met outside the Holyrood Parliament building to publicise our clients’ policies on women’s rights. Our clients spoke in advance to the BBC about coverage of that event. The BBC explained that it would not be able to cover it as it did not have a camera in the area yet it managed, our clients later noted, to give coverage, in the same location, of the Liberals’ Willie Rennie.
We would submit that the behaviour of the BBC shows quite clearly that it is ignoring, and suggests that without intervention it will continue to ignore, the very clear exhortation in the Committee’s decision that it (the BBC) must, in short, keep matters under review to ensure that in determining the level and nature of the coverage which it gives our clients it gives proper weight and consideration to the developing political context in Scotland.
In addition to the matters outlined above, however, our clients are dissatisfied with certain aspects of the decision itself. They have obtained the opinion of Counsel on matters.
Our clients (and we) were surprised that the BBC, having decided not to take up the Committee’s invitation to be present at the substantive hearing, and to make oral representations at the same time and in the same forum as our clients, were nevertheless provided with details of Mr. Salmond’s extemporaneous submission and given a chance to comment, extensively, on it and to submit further material to the Committee.
Over and above that, Counsel’s advice is that the Committee’s decision is in error and susceptible to judicial review. His view is that the terms of paragraphs 3.20 and 3.21 are clearly erroneous and that the terms of the latter are self-contradictory. The 2017 changes expressly abandoned not just the list of larger parties but the whole concept of larger parties and the whole concept of having a list of them. The BBC in its own submissions supported that abandonment of these concepts. None of that makes any sense if the point was, as the second sentence of paragraph 3.21 asserts, simply to allow broadcasters to come up with their own definitions of “larger parties” and make their own lists of them.
If that had been the intention or purpose, there would have been no mention of concept, rather than the constant repetition of it which in fact features as part of the 2017 document. All that would have been needed was a simple statement that Ofcom would no longer be deciding who the “larger parties” were or providing a list of them and that it would be up to individual broadcasters to do so if they wanted to continue to use the concept.
It may be true, as asserted at paragraph 3.21, that the BBC using concepts which have been specifically discontinued by Ofcom (supported by the BBC) does not in itself contradict the Code, although in Counsel’s view even that is arguable.
What is undoubtedly true, in his opinion, is that in the specific case of the Alba Party the use of those discontinued and disapproved concepts by the BBC has caused a view to be taken of the appropriate coverage to be given which would not have been taken had those disapproved concepts not been applied.
Counsel does not accept that the approach taken by the BBC can be separated from what is required directly by the Code as easily as the Committee decision asserts. In fact, in his view, it cannot be separated at all. His view is that this flawed approach taints the whole Committee process and makes the outcome of it unfair.
Counsel also believes that Ofcom should not have gone back to the BBC after Mr. Salmond’s oral submission as the BBC had already indicated that their participation in the process was concluded.
He also points out that Ofcom selected a day at random and then based little or nothing in its decision on what actually happened on that day. The selection of a random day was a method of approaching things proposed by Ofcom and yet the results produced were then ignored or explained away as unrepresentative.
This is completely illogical. To ignore the fact that our clients did not feature at all on this random day in effect breaches the process which the Committee itself prescribed, negates its whole point and fails to recognise that the coverage on this random day in fact wholly vindicates our clients’ basic argument that they are unfairly treated by use of the disapproved concepts of “larger” and “smaller” parties rather direct application of the present Ofcom Code.
Counsel feels that the BBC’s admission of the AWAP, a party which he feels is comparable by analogy to our clients, into the equivalent debate in Wales is significant. Appendix 3 of the BBC guidance says in terms that AWAP can be given coverage “proportionate” to the four “larger parties” in Wales under certain circumstances but the BBC has failed to take a similar view of Alba. As a result, Counsel feels that even in terms of their own flawed guidance the BBC has acted inconsistently.
As we say, in light of all this, our clients are dissatisfied at the BBC’s continuing decision to exclude them from the upcoming Leaders Debate and we would ask that the Committee urgently reconsiders matters in light of the new material which we present and of the submissions made in this letter. Failing that, we will require to take our clients’ urgent instructions o the options for judicial review which Counsel advises are open to them.
On 6 May voters across Scotland will be called to elect 129 members of the devolved Scottish Parliament for the sixth time in its history (writes Electoral Reform Society’s FEDERICO SCHOLARI).
The Scottish Parliament passes laws on crucial areas of local government, including health, education and transport- as well as some influence on tax and welfare benefits.
Anyone with a Scottish address, registered to vote and aged 16 and over is eligible to vote.
In 2015, Scotland championed the votes at 16 campaign by lowering the voting age to 16 to extend the franchise, allowing more than 100,000 young people to have their say in both parliamentary and local council elections.
73 constituency MSPs are elected from the Westminster-style FPTP ballot paper. The candidate with most votes is elected for each constituency, irrespective of vote share.
56 ‘list’ MSPs (the so-called additional members) are then added from a second ballot paper that includes a list of parties. Additional members are added based on the number of seats a party has won in the first ballot versus their overall vote share, in order to make parliament more proportional and match how voters preferences.
A proportional compromise?
The second ballot paper ensures greater representation, which compensates for the ailments of FPTP. The proportional element is intended to override any disproportionality created by the majoritarian nature of the constituency seats, providing a more proportional parliament while also keeping a single local MSP.
General Elections 2019 (FPTP) vs. Scottish Parliament Elections 2016 (AMS)
Our 2019 report on General Elections shone a light on those voters left voiceless due to disproportionate voting systems- with Scotland delivering some of the most disproportionate results across the UK for Westminster elections.
Under pure FPTP, the Scottish National Party performance was highly disproportionate, with a 22 percentage point increase in seats for an eight-point increase in votes. Some precarious victories occurred, with slim majorities in seats where more than two parties had substantial support.
Contrarily, the 2016 parliamentary elections saw the most proportional results to date under the AMS, which is a substantial improvement over pure FPTP. If the Scottish Parliament elections were conducted under FPTP we’d see one-party domination across Scotland with supporters of the other parties losing out.
Voting Intentions
The most recent polls show the SNP -currently in power- boasting a considerable lead over both Conservatives and Labour. The only notable change from the 2016 elections results sees the Greens gaining some ground over Lib Dems.
Differing areas of political debate include the potential for a new referendum for Scottish independence, post-pandemic economic recovery, climate change policies and more.
The Alba Party
There has been much talk of the launch of Alex Salmond’s pro-independence party, seen by many as an attempt to ‘game’ the AMS system to secure a disproportionate result in favour of pro-independence parties.
Alba, which is only contesting list seats, is pitching itself to pro-independence SNP voters who, due to the SNP’s dominance in the constituency seats, might see their list vote wasted.
But if Alba succeeded in this it’s not because they gamed the system but because enough voters supported them. if a party is popular enough to pick up a decent level of support on the List vote and gain seats, like the Greens did in 2016 and look like doing again, then it isn’t really ‘gaming the system’. The system is designed to provide fair representation for supporters of parties who would not be properly represented under FPTP.
Polls show that it is far from certain that Alba will receive enough support to pick up List seats but ultimately that is a matter for the voters of Scotland to determine, one way or the other.
A more representative system
As Scottish voters prepare to go to the polls in May they can do so knowing that their vote will count and the parliament elected will be representative – a luxury most voters in England don’t have at this election.
And now, after 20 years of PR in Scotland surely it’s time Westminster caught up and ensured that voters in England could vote with the same peace of mind.
Highest ever numbers of registered voters and postal votes
With less than a week to go until the Scottish Parliament Election 2021, Edinburgh is gearing up to play its own part in the vote on 6 May.
Preparations are already well under way across the city’s 140 polling places and at the Royal Highland Centre, where the count will be held over two days (7 and 8 May).
Training is in progress for staff working on the day and the first postal votes are being processed.
More people than ever before are registered to vote in this election Edinburgh (401,321 people) and more than a quarter of these (102,138) have opted to vote by post – the largest number of postal votes of any Scottish local authority and the highest ever for the Capital.
And though registration for the electoral roll is now closed, citizens are still being urged to think carefully about their vote, to ensure they know when, where and how to vote on Thursday, 6 May and to return their postal vote in plenty of time.
Andrew Kerr, Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council and Returning Officer for the Edinburgh constituencies and the Lothian Region, said: “We are entering the final days of preparation for the Scottish Parliament Election and anticipation is clearly beginning to build across the city.
“Running an election in the Capital is no mean feat, and it’s thanks to a great deal of organisation and the hard work of our Elections Team and hundreds of count and polling staff to adapt to the additional restrictions due to the pandemic that things go to plan.
“As we draw nearer to the day, I hope the public are making their own plans for voting, and ensuring they know when, where and how to have their say, remembering to put one cross on each paper on the day.
“On polling day there will be additional hygiene and distancing measures at polling places to keep voters and staff safe. These include a fresh pencil for each voter, protective screens for polling staff, one-way systems in some venues, additional ventilation and limits on the number of voters in polling places at any time.
“This year we’ve got the largest electorate we’ve ever had for an election in Edinburgh (401,321 registered to vote) and more than a quarter of these (102,138 people) have opted for a postal vote – the highest number of postal votes we’ve ever had and more than any other Scottish local authority. If you’re voting this way please make sure you post it in plenty of time – they must be received by 10pm on Thursday 6 May.“
As we count down the final few days until voting day on 6 May, we’re counting up some of the key facts about Edinburgh’s vote:
401,321: the number of people registered to vote in the Scottish Parliament Election 2021 in Edinburgh. Of these 102,138 of these are postal voters. This is the highest electorate and number of postal votes ever for an election in Edinburgh and there are more people registered to vote by post in Edinburgh than in any other Scottish Council area.
There are six constituencies in Edinburgh – Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh Eastern, Edinburgh Northern & Leith, Edinburgh Pentlands, Edinburgh Southern and Edinburgh Western. The Lothian Region also includes the three constituencies Almond Valley, Linlithgow and Midlothian North & Musselburgh.
There are 33 individual candidates standing across Edinburgh’s constituencies. 18 parties and one independent are contesting the seven seats available for the Lothian Region, with a total of 94 candidates involved.
140 buildings will be used as polling places on Thursday, 5 May, housing 352 polling stations. Each station will have two ballot boxes – one for the lilac Constituency paper and one for the peach-coloured Region paper.
This year, the Council will employ over 900 polling staff to assist the public to cast their vote – with one presiding officer and at least one polling assistant in each polling station.
The count will take place over two days (Friday 7 and Saturday 8 May), counting three constituencies on each day. Friday: Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh Southern and Edinburgh Western. Saturday: Edinburgh Eastern, Edinburgh Northern and Leith and Edinburgh Pentlands. The results of the regional list vote will be declared on Saturday 8 May.
Over the two-day count, there will be another 300 staff per day tallying votes.
Amongst the equipment used in Edinburgh this May will be:
140 POLLING PLACES
250,000 pencils*
632 bottles of hand gel
140 bottles of anti-bac spray
140 blue rolls
140 boxes of face masks
140 boxes of gloves
280 visors
COUNT VENUE – HIGHLAND HALL, ROYAL HIGHLAND CENTRE
250 bottles of hand gel
36 bottles of anti-bac spray
36 blue rolls
27 cleaning stations
320 clear rubbish bags
3,744 Glacier mints/fruits per day (served in individual cups for each staff member)
660 post-it pads
1068 rubber thimbles
ADDITIONAL FACTS
8526m² – the area of the count venue – Highland Hall at the Royal Highland Centre. This is bigger than the size of a professional football pitch.
At the UK Parliamentary Election in December 2019 turnout in the Capital was high, at an average of 73% across Edinburgh’s five constituencies
Turnout for last Scottish Parliament election in 2016 was approx. 60%
Edinburgh accounts for around 8.7% of Scotland’s electorate – second highest in Scotland after Glasgow.
Three different types of polling booths are used in Edinburgh – aluminium, wood and cardboard.
Polls open at 7am and close at 10pm on 6 May.
*voters are encouraged to bring their own pencil, or can keep the single-use pencils provided at the polling places
Regulation of the construction industry is essential for a safer and more productive future, election hopefuls from Scotland’s main political parties told a special digital hustings hosted by the Construction Industry Coronavirus (CICV) Forum.
The importance of skills and training in the industry also won unanimous cross-party agreement from panellists during the exclusive event held online this week.
Support for reform of procurement practices and a review of VAT on domestic repairs were other positive talking points – supporting the Forum’s own manifesto suggestions for ways to improve the industry.
The hustings, held via webinar on Tuesday 27 April, featured five candidates currently facing election to the Scottish Parliament:
Carole Ford, Scottish Liberal Democrats
Monica Lennon, Scottish Labour
Laura Moodie, Scottish Greens
Alexander Stewart, Scottish Conservative and Unionist
Kevin Stewart, SNP.
Answering questions from senior Forum representatives and members of a selected audience, all panellists agreed that regulation was essential for the future of the construction industry.
Kevin Stewart said: “It should be the aim of all of us to drive up standards and safety and build trust in people doing day to day work. Why is a security guard a regulated professional when a plumber is not?
“We need to have real debate about the regulatory issues, and a consensus about moving forward on regulation. The Grenfell Inquiry highlights the need to have occupations regulated to keep people safe and give public confidence in construction work.”
Ms Ford agreed, saying: “Professional regulation’s primary purpose is to protect the public, maintain high standards and protect qualifications and standards in the sector.
“The cowboys are doing no favours to those who are properly qualified, so we are totally committed to all measures which would support consumers and protect standards and professional qualifications, and totally in support of having a well-regulated, well respected construction industry which has the confidence of the public.”
Also in favour of regulation was Ms Lennon, who said: “It is important that qualified tradespeople are recognised for their experience and their competence, meaning the public will have confidence in who is coming into their homes or workplace.
“It makes sense to give people confidence in their work and that they will work safely and have pride in what they do, so we fully support measures to improve regulation and improve public safety.”
Training and apprenticeships ‘vitally important’
The importance of skills, training and apprenticeships in the sector was another topic on which all panellists were in full agreement.
Alexander Stewart said: “Economic growth is the cornerstone for this recovery, and construction plays a vital role in that. Skills and training apprenticeships are vitally important and we fundamentally believe that there should be more funding put into it.
“We want to bring people back and get more new people into the industry and ensure that women have more opportunity to become more involved. We also want economic growth, which will only come about through investment in training and support mechanisms.”
Ms Lennon concurred: “Jobs are at the top and at the heart of our manifesto and our vision for the next five years is a roadmap to recovery that focuses on skills – up-skilling, re-skilling and how we can support local government to take on apprentices and use a talented workforce in Scotland to retro-fit homes to tackle fuel poverty and create new jobs in construction and manufacturing.”
Procurement ‘a bugbear that needs resolved’
Questions on procurement reform had been raised by several Forum members ahead of the husting – and again, all five panellists were firm in their convictions that change is needed.
Ms Moodie said: “We believe public procurement could be a real growth boost for small, local businesses that are socially and environmentally responsible and we are committed to reforming procurement requirements that could fulfil that.
“We want to make sure Scottish businesses capture more of the supply chain opportunities, especially from the rise in the growing renewable industry and I believe there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of accessibility and use of online procurement tools.
“We would also like to see more support for small businesses so they can compete on a level playing field with bigger companies in terms of bidding for the work.”
Ms Lennon added: “Procurement is quite simply a bugbear that needs resolved and there are huge opportunities around local engagement and low carbon innovation. SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy and we will reorientate procurement to make sure it works for businesses in Scotland.”
Ms Moodie said it was a “burden on businesses” when they were trying to expand and develop, while Ms Lennon said any changes would unlock plenty of opportunities.
Ms Ford agreed, adding: “The current VAT system is regressive and holding back demand for vital energy efficiency improvements and retrofits.”
Kevin Stewart was also in agreement, adding that VAT was not a devolved matter but that he wanted it reduced or abolished for refurbishment repairs and regeneration projects.
Panellists also responded to one audience member’s point that a recent survey revealed that 52 per cent of homes are not wind and watertight, with £3.8bn spent annually on their repair and maintenance.
Ms Ford replied that in the west of Scotland the factoring issue in tenements needs looked at as well as that of owners’ responsibilities, saying: “The Edinburgh solution has its own problems, but owners and the responsibilities of multi-occupancy properties needs reviewed.”
Kevin Stewart spoke of “educating people” about the importance of properties being wind and watertight and the need to be ambitious in helping more, while namesake Alexander added: “Homes need to be fit for purpose and there is a need to invest in the sector.”
Praise for ‘collective expertise’
Finally, there was one more thing all the panellists agreed upon – the excellent work of the CICV Forum.
The unique collective was formed in early March 2020 in response to the urgent COVID-19 threat and now comprises 29 leading construction trade and professional associations.
Alexander Stewart said: “It’s so important that the Forum is at the table as you have boots on the ground and work closely together to get the plans put into place. All the ideas in the CICV Forum manifesto are very good and we would support you in achieving them.”
Ms Ford agreed, saying: “The level of detail in CICV Forum documents is only possible because of your collective expertise. Working together has generated documentation that is a lot better than if carried out by one organisation.”
Kevin Stewart added: “The Forum has been at forefront of promoting working safely and long may it stay at the table with government. In particular I would like to pay tribute to the construction character Campbell who has been used to promote messaging through your clever use of social media.”
Forum actions include lobbying the Scottish Government to influence policy and push for positive action, as well as providing expert advice on important sector issues including commercial, employment, planning, skills, and health and safety.
Hustings ‘a resounding success’
The hustings format was the brainchild of Gordon Nelson, Scotland Director of the Federation of Master Builders, a key member of the Forum.
He said: “From the feedback we have received from the sector, it was clear that the hustings event was a resounding success and generated a wealth of constructive and thought-provoking answers from our panellists.
“It proved also that construction is very much at the heart of Scotland’s recovery, and that all parties are committed to rebuilding together and investing in a safer and fully skilled industry that will benefit the whole nation.”
With the Holyrood Elections next week, 80 disabled people, families and carers came together to grill representatives of the major political parties at an online hustings event on Thursday, April 22nd.
As many as one in five people in Scotland are disabled or have a long-term health condition meaning they are a sizeable portion of the electorate. Despite this, very little time has been given to debating the issues that directly affect disabled people and families as campaigning has gone on.
Last week’s event was organised by a consortium of nine major charities who are trying to rebalance the debate so the voices of disabled people and families are heard and their views considered.
At the hustings disabled people questioned candidates from the five main Scottish political parties on a wide range of issues including social care, the impact of the pandemic, social security, employment as well as rights and access.
The panel was chaired by award-winning freelance journalist and broadcaster Pennie Taylor, who specialises in health and social care issues and covered by STV on Wednesday.
Rob Holland, External Affairs Manager for the National Autistic Society Scotland and one of the organisers of the hustings said: “Around one million people in Scotland have a disability or long-term health condition yet their views are often excluded from the national debate.
“Given the uncertainty about the post-COVID landscape it is more important than ever for political parties to hear from disabled people and families, understand the challenges they face and do something about it.”
The hustings event was organised by ENABLE Scotland, Health and Social Care Scotland (the ALLIANCE), Leonard Cheshire Disability, MS Society Scotland, National Autistic Society Scotland, RNIB Scotland, Scottish Autism, Sense Scotland and Sight Scotland.
QUOTES from disabled people that attended the Hustings:
David Weir, is 30, autistic and from Glasgow. He said: I always vote and encourage other autistic people to vote.
“I feel that many politicians don’t listen – so the more disabled people speaking up the more they will understand the challenges we face and hopefully do something about it.”
Cat Johnson, 34 from Edinburgh, was diagnosed with MS at the age of 21 in 2007. She said: “As someone with MS who has acquired disability rather than being born with one, you see both sides and remember how things were before.
“The way that we view and treat disabled people in society is so far off what is OK and that’s frustrating.
“It’s good to see politicians and their parties engaging at this stage but we need a longer term push for real change to provide better support for disabled people.
“Things like the new Scottish social security system holding on to the 20-metre-rule, which sets a baseless measure for the highest level of mobility support, need to change if we want to build a better, fairer society.”
Kirin Saeed, 52, from Edinburgh is blind. She said: “I as a visually impaired Asian woman believe events like these offer me and others to question the main decision makers, politicians, as well as to create greater awareness in the hope greater change may happen, although we have come a long way there is so much still yet to do.
“COVID19 has shown the importance in investing in the vulnerable of society to benefit all.
“I am a pragmatic optimist and feel the only way we will have greater say is to be at the heart of the legislative process. And having the chance to question and getting a small response is a positive start. It is what happens afterwards that I really look forward towards.”
Representing the main political parties at the event were Jeremy Balfour (Scottish Conservatives), Pam Duncan-Glancy (Scottish Labour), Neil Gray (SNP), Gillian Mackay (Scottish Green Party) and John Waddell (Scottish Liberal Democrats).
Statement delivered on Wednesday afternoon (28 April) by DUP Leader and First Minister of Northern Ireland Rt. Hon. Arlene Foster MLA:
A short time ago I called the Party Chairman to inform him that I intend to step down as leader of the Democratic Unionist Party on the twenty-eighth of May and as First Minister of Northern Ireland at the end of June.
It is important to give space over the next few weeks for the Party Officers to make arrangements for the election of a new leader. When elected I will work with the new leader on transition arrangements.
As First Minister it is important that I complete work on a number of important issues for Northern Ireland alongside other Executive colleagues. Northern Ireland and its people have been heavily impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and there remains more work to be done to steer us thorough the pandemic and to lessen its impact on the lives of everyone.
It has been the privilege of my life to serve the people of Northern Ireland as their First Minister and to represent my home constituency of Fermanagh/South Tyrone. I first entered the Assembly in 2003 and undoubtedly the journey of the last eighteen years has been memorable. There are many people who have helped and supported me throughout that period and I will always been grateful for the kindness and support shown to me by them.
Whilst there have been many difficult and testing times for the Executive it remains my firm view that Northern Ireland has been better served having local Ministers at this time. It is unthinkable that we could have faced into the Coronavirus pandemic without our own devolved Ministers in place and no Ministerial direction for Departments.
As I prepare to depart the political stage it is my view that if Northern Ireland is to prosper then it will only do so built on the foundations of successful and durable devolution. That will require continued hard work and real determination and courage on all sides.
Whilst the focus is on me today I recognise that will pass. For me my decision to enter politics was never about party or person, it was about speaking up for the voiceless and building a Northern Ireland which could prosper and be at peace within the United Kingdom.
I am the first to recognise there have been ups and downs over the last five and a half years.
The 2016 Assembly election result and our Party’s best ever Westminster result in 2017 stand out amongst the high points when the electorate sent a clear message that they wanted to keep Northern Ireland moving forward.
The Confidence and Supply Agreement was able to bring one billion pounds of extra spending for everyone in Northern Ireland. Our priorities were not narrow but based on more investment in mental health and hospitals, bringing broadband to rural communities, improving our roads and ensuring funding to encourage more shared housing and education.
For our innocent victims, I am proud we battled together and whilst too late for some, we finally secured a truly deserved pension for you.
For our armed forces, the Veterans’ Commissioner is in place. You have an advocate to stand up for you and ensure your voice is heard at the heart of government.
Of course as with highs there were lows along the way.
The three years without devolution caused untold harm to our public services and the RHI Inquiry was a difficult period. The Protocol being foisted upon Northern Ireland against the will of unionists has served to destabilise Northern Ireland in more recent times.
Whilst there is still a job of work to do, I am proud that there is a young generation of Democratic Unionists getting involved in politics and trying to shape Northern Ireland for the better.
Over the last twelve months, I have been holding online meetings every week with young people mainly from working class communities and encouraging them especially the young women to get involved.
I echo that encouragement today. Politics and debate is the only path to effect change in society. You will and can be the MPs, MLAs and Councillors of tomorrow.
My election as leader of the Democratic Unionist Party broke a glass ceiling and I am glad inspired other women to enter politics and spurred them on to take up elected office.
I understand the misogynistic criticisms that female public figures have to take and sadly it’s the same for all women in public life.I want to encourage you to keep going and don’t let the online lynch mobs get you down.
To the hundreds of Party supporters who have been in touch over the last few days, I say a sincere thank you for the opportunities to serve you and the support you have given me. For almost five and a half years I have been incredibly humbled to have the opportunity to lead the Democratic Unionist Party.
I have sought to lead the Party and Northern Ireland away from division and towards a better path.
There are people in Northern Ireland with a British identity, others are Irish, others are Northern Irish, others are a mixture of all three and some are new and emerging. We must all learn to be generous to each other, live together and share this wonderful country.
The future of unionism and Northern Ireland will not be found in division, it will only be found in sharing this place we all are privileged to call home.
