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
LikeLiked by 3 people
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 3 people
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why are the Easdales making so much money out of bus services. By cutting the services and putting the price up?
Stagecoach did the same 30 years ago. Increased the fares and cut the service. No one, especially in rural areas, could get a bus.
LikeLike
McGill’s explicitly denies systematic cutting: Sandy Easdale has said, “We don’t cut routes unless they’re vastly loss-making,” and argues that marginal but network-supporting routes are retained.
Where is your evidence that the Easdales’ profits are specifically attributable to service cuts plus fare rises?
Rising profits in operating deregulated bus services could also reflect acquisitions, fleet investment, contract income, cost control, property/other business interests, or the favourable economics of operating in dense urban networks.
I agree that rural services have suffered the most, but private sector bus companies are not charities (or not-for-profit businesses) and public sector subsidies for rural services have declined.
LikeLike
BBC Website article today on Scottish pages:
“Should Scotland look to London and Manchester for inspiration on buses”?
Yes, why does the country, Scotland, not want to follow and so then be inspired by two English cities ?
Though why not have a headline that states “Should Scotland look to Edinburgh for inspiration on buses”.
The BBC article actually even notes Edinburgh in it stating:
“In Scotland’s capital, the council passed its bus network to an arms-length company, but retained majority ownership. Today, Lothian Buses is seen as one of Scotland’s best-performing public transport networks, and has even returned some of the revenue it generates from bus tickets back to the council, in the form of shareholder dividends”
However it seems instead that the BBC are still adhering to the ‘Scotland should follow England on everything that England does’ rhetoric.
What is interesting is that “in 2023 Andy Burnham made an offer to “advise” Glasgow about how to run a local franchise bus service after he launched one, that was exactly three years ago when he, Burnham, was Mayor of Greater Manchester, and he has repeated that offer several times since”.
However in August 2024 STV News online page had this headline :
“McGill’s bus chief says Manchester mayor knows ‘nothing about Glasgow'”
“McGill’s, the largest independent bus firm in Scotland, has reacted furiously to the franchising plans, claiming (that) the standard of bus service delivery in Glasgow is already “a high bar”.
“The chief of McGill’s buses has said the mayor of Manchester “knows nothing about Glasgow” as he offered help to transform the city’s services”
“Speaking to STV News, Burnham said taking buses under public control is the “right thing to do” and even offered to “come and help”.
“CEO Ralph Roberts rails against Andy Burnham’s suggestion that taking buses in the city under public control is the ‘right thing to do’”.
“However, McGill’s, the largest independent bus firm in Scotland, has reacted furiously to the franchising plans, claiming the standard of bus service delivery in Glasgow is already “a high bar”.
“CEO Ralph Roberts, who previously claimed it would cost the taxpayer £400m a year, reacted to Burnham’s offer by saying the mayor “knows nothing about Glasgow” and said his company is ready to “fight” SPT on the franchising plans”
Speaking to STV News, he said: “McGill’s are against the SPT attempt to franchise bus services in Glasgow by default. Not because we are against franchising, or SPT and councils wanting more control, but it means business confiscation for McGill’s”.
“McGill’s is a business that’s family owned and it has been built up over several years with significant investment from the family”
“The standard of bus service delivery in Glasgow is not low, it’s a high bar. So SPT would make the case it’s broken, they’ve already said publicly it’s broken. It’s clearly not broken, if the satisfaction levels are so high”.
“The mayor of Manchester is keen to voice that Glasgow should follow Manchester. The mayor of Manchester knows nothing about Glasgow”.
“We’re going to fight it. Legally, obviously, through the courts. And that is the only recourse we have available to us. Thankfully there are safeguards within the legislation, and we will pursue those safeguards to the fullest extent”.
“The case for franchising, or more control, is a false case.”.
Now reading that STV article in 2024 I noted that there was no quote from either of the Easdale brothers, who own McGill Buses.
Indeed not once did I read in that STV article that either of the Easdale brothers equated Andy Burnham as being someone “behaving like dictator” over his offer to “advise” Glasgow about how to run a local franchise bus service.
However in 2023 there was an article in Route One online that had a headline:
“Glasgow bus franchising advocacy draws furious McGill’s response”
“Franchising of bus services in the Glasgow city region is the “most effective way” to improve them, a report from the Centre for Cities (CfC) in partnership with pressure group Get Glasgow Moving (GGM) has claimed. It immediately drew an incandescent response from McGill’s Bus Group co-owner Sandy Easdale”
“Mr (Sandy) Easdale responded to the report’s publication in remarkable fashion. He describes the reregulation of bus services described within it as “businesses confiscation, straight out of the Vladimir Putin playbook.”
(Seems Mr Easdale knows all of the dictators names and so he is not afraid to use their names to compare others to those dictators , especially when he thinks it will help his argument, which actually it does not do that at all).
Is it not strange that an English Labour Mayor was the one making these suggestions for a local franchise bus service in Glasgow and indeed in the whole of Scotland (excepting Edinburgh) , long before the Scottish elections in May 2026 , yet still the Easdale brothers chose to donate thousands of pounds to the Labour party in Scotland in their election campaign in the Scottish elections in 2026 ?
So then one has to wonder what exactly did they, the Easdale brothers who own McGill’s, expect from Sarwar as a potential next FM, if he, Sarwar, had indeed won the Scottish election for Labour?
Well surely not what Andy Burnham had suggested should happen to the Bus services in both Glasgow and throughout Scotland (though not applicable for Edinburgh).
The other big Q now is , as Andy Burnham is the new Labour PM , then what will he, Burnham, have to say about bus services in Glasgow and Scotland that he wanted to change , will he keep schtum (as in less vocal on this subject ) now that the heat is being (supposedly) applied to John Swinney by the owners of McGill’s buses (and also being applied by the media as well, especially by the BBC)?
Liz S
LikeLike
Lothian Buses deserves credit for the services it operates, although weak competition (eg from FirstBus who acquired the Scottish Bus Group subsidiary in the area) helped to consolidate its supremacy in and around the city.
But its deserved reputation should not shield Edinburgh’s transport “establishment” from scrutiny. Willie Gallagher’s roles as a non-executive of Lothian Buses and then his time as both chair and CEO of the Tram Project is a substantial reason from fairly recent history to challenge the governance narrative around integrated public transport in Scotland’s capital. Hopefully lessons have been learned from
Lord Hardie’s 7-year long inquiry …
LikeLike
Edinburgh buses are subsidised with public money. Along with the £Billion tram system. Cheap fares others do not benefit. Bus passes cannot be used on the trams to the airport, by members of other Cities and places in Scotland
LikeLike