By stewartb

The BBC News website has this headline on its Scotland and Scotland Politics pages: ‘Labour rules out GB Energy HQ announcement in King’s Speech’. We get insights into Labour’s current plans or absence of plans – from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden. He shares a few things with us via the BBC article and it’s notable which one BBC Scotland chooses to amplify in a headline!

We’re told that further details about GB Energy, including the location of its HQ would be confirmed in “due course”. The BBC journalist gives us this: ‘Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has pledged the firm will drive the transition to clean energy bring a “huge number” of skilled jobs to Scotland’ but then later tells us that:

‘In 2022, Labour said GB Energy would be a “publicly-owned clean energy generation company”, which would operate like Sweden’s Vattenfall or Denmark’s Orsted. But in subsequent interviews, Sir Keir it would actually be “an investment vehicle” rather than an energy production firm ‘Unions have called for more clarity about the plans.’

Firstly, the BBC must surely know that more than just ‘unions’ have called for clarity! Even at the most basic level, how many people within the incorporated entity, will GB Energy actually employ? How many of the jobs (net additional jobs) in Scotland that MAY over time be attributable to greater or lesser extent to the activities and outputs of GB Energy – i.e. employment outside GB Energy – will actually be dependent on where the company is headquartered as distinct from where energy can be generated, where an expert workforce is located, where relevant supply chain companies are located?

The Labour minister’s remarks on the issue of the ‘two-child benefit cap’ are also reported:

‘Another issue that is not expected to be addressed in the King’s Speech is the two-child benefit cap. The cap, introduced as part of austerity measures under the Conservative government in 2017, prevents parents from claiming universal credit or child tax credit for a third child, with a few exemptions.

‘The Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland said that abolishing the cap, which it estimated would cost £1.3bn, would lift 250,000 children in the UK out of poverty, including up to 15,000 in Scotland.’

The we get a big reveal: ‘Asked repeatedly if he agreed that the cap caused harm, Mr McFadden said it was “open to debate”.’

Now obviously BBC Scotland could not publish a headline that amplifies that last remark, could it? Mr McFadden is implying here that it’s NOT about affordability for Labour but about doubting the harms that so many have identified?

This is SURELY a significant insight. For BBC Scotland, better by far to focus on the location of a ‘bauble’ for Scotland!