By Liz S
BBC Website headline:
“McGill’s accuse Swinney of behaving like dictator over bus plans”
Surely the real headline should be “Labour donors , who own McGill’s, accuse Swinney of behaving like dictator over bus plans”.
I mean let’s get some context here.
Prior to the Scottish elections in May Sandy & James Easdale , owners of the McGill Bud Group, pledged a conditional six-figure donation to Anas Sarwar and the Scottish Labour Party ahead of the May 2026 Holyrood elections.
The brothers stated their goal is to “help remove the SNP from power at Holyrood”.
In this latest #SNPBAD article on the BBC Scottish politics page of their website they write:
“Sandy Easdale, who owns McGill’s alongside his brother James, said Swinney “appears to have transformed into the next Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe”.
Well who does Sandy Easdale think Anas Sarwar , who he donated to, has transformed into since abandoning Scottish politics ?
I mean Anas Sarwar betrayed his party in Scotland and also betrayed those who donated thousands of pounds to his party prior to the Scottish elections in May 2026 ?
I mean surely John Swinney would be the last person in UK politics that anyone would compare as being the “next Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe” , unless that is they, who made this comparison, were politically compromised due to their obvious and reported support for another party in opposition to the party that John Swinney leads.
They , the Easdale’s, really threw their money away did they not.
So then really , how truly wise are they ?
That is in them ever being regarded , by the public in Scotland ,as being honest , credible and savvy in their publicised judgements upon Scottish politics and also upon John Swinney ?
I mean they had donated thousands to a party who then only ended up with 17 MSP’s in the Scottish election.
Then after the May election, Anas Sarwar, who was leader of the party that the Easdale’s donated to , then insisted that he would “absolutely” stay on as Scottish Labour leader, despite his party recording their worst ever result at a Scottish Parliament election.
Then barely 2 months later it was reported that “Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar is set to stand down to become a minister in Andy Burnham’s government.
It would mean Sarwar leaving the Scottish Parliament and his leader role, then taking up a seat in the House of Lords”
So honestly who the Hell cares what these billionaire brothers have to say anyway?
Well the BBC does (obviously).
That’s because the BBC can then publish and also report yet another #SNPBAD headline and story , while also failing to acknowledge , as in give prominence to, the real emphasis within this ‘story’, that is, as a story, yet one more hostile attack against the SNP that is purely partisan in nature.
The BBC where truth, facts, honesty, fairness, principles, accuracy, impartiality, responsibility, accountability and so then also the reporting of the (so called) ‘news where we (supposedly) are’ all go to die.
Liz S
Discover more from Talking-up Scotland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
BBC HQ are also still at .
Last week BBC Newsnight had Winston Marshall on their programme.
He is the ex Mumford & Sons ‘guitarist’ turned podcaster, which is how Newsnight presented and represented him. (what about the Banjo Ha Ha).
However they, BBC Newsnight, omitted to mention that he is also the privately educated privileged son of Paul Marshall the GB News & The Spectator owner.
Apparently people online were posting some of his, young Marshall’s, contributions on Newsnight that included:
A suggestion that there should be a “mine-laden ‘floating wall’ in the Channel to stop small-boat crossings”
Also that “(Burnham) says he doesn’t want to be divisive and yet he brings up the most divisive issue of the last 10 years” and then that “Andy Burnham’s stance on Brexit won’t be popular with “Red Wall” voters”.
Then apparently “To lift up the poor you have to create wealth” (well who knew).
Then the right’s favourite target “We have 1.85 million foreign nationals claiming 2.3 , sorry £23 billion pounds worth on Welfare”.
So basically Immigrants , small boats, Welfare , oh and do not betray the Brexit vote and then also create wealth (like Daddy senior has and so wants to increase and so then keep – though some may also correctly see this as also being young Junior’s motivation also #Nepo Baby ).
So basically what we get time and time again is the same old same old privileged right wing contributors promoting the same old same old nasty things courtesy of the same old same old unethical BBC.
The BBC is so so very obviously transparent, that if you still cannot see through them then you really really really need your brainpower tested .
Liz S
LikeLike
According to billionaire Sandy Easdale, Swinney returning buses to public ownership is EXACTLY like Robert Mugabe’s government forces killing over 20,000 people. Sure it is. (He doesn’t want to hear my opinion about billionaires and the French Revolution solution to such people)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m puzzled by the Easdale’s financial support for a political party, Labour that is fully supportive of bus franchising, a policy these rich business donors oppose – with ridiculously over the top claims – when it’s proposed by the SNP.
From the Labour Party’s manifesto for the 2026 Holyrood election: ‘Bring local bus services back under public control, reforming regulations to fast track franchising and supporting local authorities to purchase the infrastructure needed to deliver locally run services that boost bus routes and improve affordability.’
An insight into earlier opposition from certain private bus companies (e.g. Stagecoach) to the introduction of a franchising model in Greater Manchester can be found in this 2021 articles- ‘GM bus franchising leaps ahead despite opposition (https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/gm-bus-franchising-leaps-ahead-despite-opposition/ ). This opposition was ignored in Manchester: a Labour-run authority introduced public control of bus services.
On January 7, 2026 the Local Government Chronicle had this headline: ‘Bus franchising’s new dawn – The new Bus Services Act is designed to make it easier for councils and combined authorities to franchise buses’.
The Act relevant only to bus services in England, the article notes: ‘Bus franchising by local authorities has been a very long time coming, but the Bus Services Act 2025 has finally cleared the bureaucratic clutter that made previous powers hard to use.
‘The legislation, which received royal assent in October, means any transport authority can now implement franchising and the once-vociferous legal opposition from operators has abated.’
So a Labour-run Westminster government gives extensive new powers to local authorities in England to establish franchised bus services.
What were the Easdale brothers – apparently vehemently opposed to SNP plans for bus franchises – expecting Labour, the party they supported financially, to do regarding its own clear manifesto commitment to establish bus franchising across Scotland? Was the likelihood of a Labour government in Holyrood intending to introduce bus franchises a disbenefit the Easdales judged worth accepting to gain something else? Not sure that the Tories and Reform intended to introduce bus franchises to Scotland if they had gained power in Holyrood earlier this year. So yes, puzzling?
LikeLike
The Easdales were probably confident that Labour in Scotland would ditch the policy once in power—-same as saving Grangemouth, thousands of British Energy jobs centred on Aberdeen and all the rest of their lies.
gavinochiltree
LikeLike