The Corporate Herald too, has no problem with anti-democratic behaviour today.
Watching Anas reveal his true non-Labour-as-was values, only a lingering rump of Labour loyalists stayed him last week.
You can see from that face, that Mussolini ‘visionary’ face, that Anas won’t let stupid voters affect his self-esteem when two super rich brothers will give him lots of money. You’ll know from those terrible counter-productive YouTub videos of him, parading Glasgow streets like a well-spoiled son, that Scottish Labour had wads to spend but no members to knock your door. They’ve been getting cash by the barrowload for years.
Here’s more on that:
The Ferret has been good recently. I’ve shared their latest reports but this one smells a bit, like some of their earlier ones, of Scottish Labour residual loyalty and of Unionism.
They offer us this:
before going on to name Robin MacGeachy:
Companies he owns or co-owns handed £910,000 to the Scottish Liberal Democrats and £700,000 to Scottish Labour. This represents nearly half of all of the Lib Dems’ donations, and nearly a quarter of Labour’s.
and Sandy Easdale:
The Easdale brothers, who are among Scotland’s richest men, gave £150,000 to Scottish Labour via one of their firms. The bus tycoons said they want to help the party remove the SNP from power, believe Anas Sarwar has a better handle on business, and reportedly promised to double the donation if the party leader was able to shape policies which they considered to meet Scotland’s needs.
and:
No direct donations were recorded as being made to Reform UK in Scotland, but the central party received £22.2m since the last Holyrood election, and has overtaken the Tories as the most successful UK fundraiser.
More than half (£12m) of its coffers were filled by Thailand-based businessman Christopher Harborne, a crypto investor and former Tory donor. Several of his businesses are reportedly subsidiaries of an international jet fuel broker that works with oil companies, and which was awarded £29m worth of contracts by the US Department of Defense.
and:
The UK Tories banked £107m in the last five years. Frank Hester accounted for nearly a fifth of the party’s donations, handing over £20m either in his own name, or via his software firm The Phoenix Partnership.
Henry Keswick, a Dumfries and Galloway landowner, donated £18,000 to the Scottish Tories. His family firm, Jardine Matheson is incorporated in the tax haven of Bermuda. The Keswicks previously gave £2m to the Tory party, an anti-EU group and the Better Together campaign.
but the pro-Independence parties:
The Scottish Greens received just £139,000 – a mere two per cent of the total reported by Scotland’s parties. Apart from £7,850 given to the party by its Highlands and Islands co-convenor, all recordable donations came from its MSPs’ own pockets, demonstrating a dearth of backing from larger donors.
and finally, the SNP, despite John Swinney pictured predominantly above:
The ruling SNP was considerably less effective at fundraising compared to other major parties, clocking up £1.65m (22 per cent) amidst periods of leadership turmoil, a police probe, and a drop in polling numbers. More than half of the SNP’s donations were in the form of bequests from late supporters.
Source: https://www.theferret.scot/meet-the-donors-funding-scottish-politics/
So, not one named businessman or wealthy donor giving to the SNP or the Greens in the hope of influencing policy. All income from members? With the Greens, the SNP is a truly democratic trustworthy party. In the light of that, the Ferret’s headline and image are disgracefully misleading and likely to influence some unwary voters on the night before the vote.
Discover more from Talking-up Scotland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Talking-up Scotland 
So it seems a Labour MP, Josh Simons, is willing to give up his seat to allow Andy Burnham to stand in his seat in a (unnecessary) by-election.
Josh Simons was the former Labour Together Director , he stood down from that role in order to stand as a Labour candidate in the 2024 UK GE.
The recent scandal(s) connected to him were :
While running the think-tank Labour Together, Simons commissioned an American public affairs firm, Apco, to investigate journalists who were reporting on the think-tank’s undeclared political donations. Simons subsequently emailed the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)—part of GCHQ—suggesting the journalists’ information came from a state-sponsored hack and circulated within a “pro-Kremlin propaganda network”.
“Following reports of these emails, Prime Minister Keir Starmer ordered an ethics inquiry into Simons’s conduct led by Sir Laurie Magnus. While the independent adviser ultimately cleared Simons of breaching the ministerial code, Simons resigned from his government post in February 2026 , stating that remaining in office had become a distraction”.
(“Subsequent investigations found no evidence of Russian interference and indicated the reporters’ documents actually came from whistleblowers within the Labour Party rather than a hack”)
So basically this scandal would just not go away for Simons so his future hopes of any further career trajectory was rubber ducked, though I am sure Burnham will find him a cushy job , if indeed Burnham wins his Constituency seat in the by-election and then goes onto win the Labour leadership contest.
Also not forgetting his, Simons, warped (lack of actual ) humour when during an interview with LBC he suggested that “Channel smuggling gangs should be put on a barge and sent to Scotland” , he later apologised and said that this was said in jest.
(Because of course these smuggling gangs that end up getting people killed in the Channel and also Scotland as a dumping ground for these smuggling gangs were both somehow things that that he , Simons, saw fit to joke about.
However before anyone in Scotland, including the media here, is tempted to believe the hype over the prospect of Andy Burnham potentially becoming the next Labour leader so then somehow this being a game changer for Labour’s future prospects in Scotland, if that is , he does manage to acquire a seat in the HOC’s.
Well remember this:
In August 2022 Burnham claimed at the Edinburgh Fringe that Nicola Sturgeon had failed to reply to his request to meet during his visit to Scotland, an allegation that he also repeated in an interview with The Sunday Mail.
However Nicola Sturgeon refuted this claim made by him, in that on the same day that the interview with The Sunday Mail came out she then posted this response online:
“Interesting interview with Andy Burnham in today’s @Sunday_Mail I was a bit perplexed by this part of it tho – Andy and I met on Wednesday afternoon in St Andrew’s House and had a constructive discussion about a range of issues”.
(She then circled the “this part” of his interview in the Sunday mail where he claimed he got no response about meeting with her).
Burnham then had to respond to her tweet in him saying that the interview with the Sunday Mail had occurred before the meeting had been confirmed.
He wrote: “We certainly did Nicola – it was good to see you. This interview took place before the meeting had been confirmed.”
So if that was (really) the case why then did he not advise The Sunday Mail of this, get them to retract that (now) incorrect statement that he had made to them in the interview prior to the article being published, so then they could remove the part that was 100% incorrect and also was, as a statement, potentially damaging to Ms Sturgeon.
Why indeed (if that was indeed the actual case).
(Maybe more a case of Ms Sturgeon was on the ball -again- and so he, Burnham, was caught out- in a Labour lie).
We should also remember the petty strop that Burnham took when, during Covid , he told Nicola Sturgeon that he was “angry at the Manchester-Scotland travel ban” and that “she was doing to Greater Manchester what she had criticised UK Ministers of doing to Scotland – which was taking decisions without consultation or warning”.
(This decision she , Ms Sturgeon, took as Scottish FM was based purely upon a public health measure, based on Covid levels in the area. However his -very public- overreaction she suspected was “more about getting into a spat with me as part of a some positioning in a Labour leadership contest of the future, then I am not interested. ).
So as well as grandstanding to show his supposed strength as a ‘leader’ it was also, for Burnham , a case of him believing that a Scottish FM of a country apparently should be expected to always first consult with a Metro Mayor of an English city before making any significant decision such as this during this crucial time, so who was really trying to play politics here ?
Also he obviously saw his status as a Metro Mayor of an English city as being either equal to or above that of her status as the Scottish FM?
Let is also not forget that he, Burnham, is no friend to Scotland and that he is also just another Labour pro UK politician determined to stop Scotland becoming independent.
Andy Burnham has also argued that “regions like Greater Manchester should have the same fiscal powers, financial, and autonomy as Scotland, specifically pushing for an English equivalent to the Barnet Formula”
He also argued in 2020 that an “English equivalent to the Barnett Formula is necessary to ensure extra public spending in England is matched similarly to how Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland receive funding” –
So is that not the exact same argument that Nigel Farage made in 2014 – as in who speaks for England and what about England ?
The UK media will try to (yet again) con voters in Scotland into believing that Burnham is somehow different and so then he will treat Scotland better. His track record contradicts that, as he sees our country as being no different to certain English Cities. So really for Scotland, if he won the Labour leadership, it would be business as usual (basically just the same as we now currently have with Starmer at the helm).
So for Scotland the potential new (Labour) boss, Burnham, would be the (exact) same as the potential old (Labour) boss, Starmer.
(Also Rayner and Streeting are no different either , as they both helped and also supported Starmer during his time as Labour PM , while also they were never heard to talk up for Scotland but instead, just like their colleagues , they were both only too happy to help to talk against Scotland in spouting their Labour lies about our public services ).
Of course we would also then have the same tired old pantomime being played out by Sarwar & Ballie, with both of them getting behind their new (latest) HQ leader , where the new (latest) HQ Labour leader will come up here on infrequent visits to try and placate the natives (as in they would also try to con the Jock natives)……….so yet again it will be the same old same old for Scotland (but for places like Manchester, well with Burnham , potentially they will thrive no doubt under his premiership).
Scotland still seemingly stuck in this loop , but there is a way to break out of it for good.
If only some (more) people within Scotland finally came to the conclusion that enough is enough……………
Liz S
LikeLiked by 2 people
Waste of money. SNP still beats them all.
LikeLike
It is, without doubt, totally deluded to blame Starmer (dead man walking) for the Scottish message boys, and girls, complete failure to inspire the Scottish electorate.
Sarwar and Baillie regularly shot on their own doorstep by having only one policy and only on M.O. which is to bring down the record breaking, democratically elected SNP Scottish Government. They have nothing positive to say and have no answers to the issues that Scots care about.
Starmer is toast.
Sarwar and Baillie to follow shortly. Nastzi Nigel racing into the lead for Westminster, and who can blame the English voters? Decades of incompetence and corruption, shit water and shit governments
Scotland has an escape route.
It would be madness not to take it.
LikeLike
The above from John Lawson.
Totally scunnered by the significant percentage of Scots who have not wakened up to our chance of a better future OR, are really quite comfortable being shit upon, from a great height, by a belligerent foreign government.
LikeLiked by 1 person