AQ: Meghan Gallacher MSP, Gerry Hassan, Ivan McKee MSP, Kirsty McNeill MP

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. designer, marketer, logistics manager, all while bringing your vision to life. Shopify helps millions of business sell online. Build fast with templates and AI descriptions and photos, inventory and shipping. Sign up for your one euro per month trial and start selling today at shopify.nl. That's shopify.nl. It's time to see what you can accomplish with Shopify by your side. Hello and welcome to Dumbarton. once the centre of the ancient kingdom of Strathclyde. It sits on the north bank of the River Clyde, with Dumbarton Castle perched on volcanic rock overlooking the Clyde Estuary. It was once known for shipbuilding, glassmaking and whisky production. Now it's popular with tourists and is in commuting reach of Glasgow. We are at the Denny Civic Theatre, a community theatre that offers a performance space for local drama groups, touring shows, tribute acts, children's productions, musicians, community events and even Radio 4 programmes. Here with me is Kirsty McNeill, the Labour MP for Midlothian and a minister in the UK Government's Scotland office. Kirsty became an MP in 2024. Before that, she worked in Downing Street as a special advisor to then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and she was an executive director at the charity Save the Children. Ivan McKee is the public finance minister in the Scottish Government and the SNP MSP for Glasgow Proven. Before being elected to Holyrood in 2016, Ivan worked in manufacturing for 30 years and was a member of Business for Scotland, a group of business people who campaigned for Scottish independence during the 2014 referendum. Megan Gallagher is the Scottish Conservatives Shadow Housing Secretary and an MSP for the Central Scotland region. She used to be the deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives and before becoming an MSP she was a councillor. Megan's a member of Holyrood's cross-party group on animal welfare. She says her love of animals came from spending lots of time in her childhood at Glasgow Zoo, where her dad worked. Do you still get to go? There's no Glasgow Zoo anymore. Oh, I didn't know. No. Fond memories, though. Fond memories. There we are. And Gerry Hassan is a writer and broadcaster specialising in Scottish and UK politics. Gerry has held several academic roles, most recently Professor of Social Change at Glasgow Caledonian University. He is Reviews Editor of Renewal, a journal of social democracy, and he lives in Kukubri in Dumfries and Galloway where he co-founded and runs the local Fringe Festival. Dumbarton, please welcome your Any Questions panel. As is the case every week, our panellists do not know the questions before they are read out live on air. Just to let you know if you're listening along at home, there is a gentleman in the audience who's standing up to make a point because he clearly feels very passionately about subjects. Sir, can I just ask you to either sit down and take your seat? Sir, can you sit down and take your seat? So, if you're listening along, there's a disturbance in the audience here. We are a live programme with a live audience and people clearly are entirely entitled to their views and feel very passionately about some subjects. But we are going to return to our first question. And our first question comes from Tom Reid. Hi, good evening. Has Anasawa helped or hindered Labour's chances at the Scottish election? Has Anasawa helped or hindered Labour's chances at the Scottish election? So the Scottish Labour leader, who of course called for the resignation of Keir Starmer earlier this week. Kirsty McNeil. Well, let me start by saying the thing on which the entire Labour Party is united, top to bottom, left to right. the entire Labour Party is united in thinking that Anas Sarwar should be the next First Minister of Scotland and let's be clear, there are only two options for who can be First Minister of Scotland after the May elections it will either be John Swinney and the SNP having a third decade or it will be Anas Sarwar but let's not deny it, there has been a disagreement a very public one a very public disagreement and Anas is of the view that it's time for a change of leadership in number 10, I disagree with him I love Anas, I respect him but I disagree with him on that. Anas has shown this week that he's his own man and I'm my own woman. So let me say what I feel as a woman in the Labour Party about the events of the last week. We are having a political discussion and that's entirely appropriate but actually what we should be having a discussion about is how we keep women and children safe. and I Madam could I just ask you to take your seat and allow our panellists to make their points Madam, could I just ask you to take your seat, I appreciate you've got strong views but people will want to hear what our panellists have to say so just a reminder you are listening to any questions on BBC Radio 4 We are a live discussion programme and we have a live audience here in Dumbarton. And there are people in the audience, as they are perfectly entitled to have very strong and passionate views on some of the subjects that we discuss during the course of the programme. But it is, of course, important that we do allow all members of the audience to have their view. And we are trying to address the questions that were posed by some members of the audience. So while we just allow some space for that to happen, I'll remind you that this is BBC Any Questions on Radio 4. And we'll just take a beat and remind our panel here, our audience here in the room and our audience listening along at home what the question we were discussing was. That question came from Tom Reid and it was, has Anasawa helped or hindered Labour's chances at the Scottish election? Kirsty McNeill, please do carry on. Well, I do hope and expect that we will have time also this evening to talk about the Palestinian cause. But to return to the question of this week and the question that the questioner asked, I have long believed you cannot solve a problem you can't name. And the Prime Minister this week named the problem correctly, in my view, a structural misogyny. And that was a huge moment because the Prime Minister sat in a room with the women of the Parliamentary Labour Party and said, what is the issue here? It's why some very wealthy and very powerful men get to stay protected, get to stay connected, and get to stay heard, when actually the people who should be protected and the people who should be heard are women and children that have been subject to the most heinous and unspeakable of crimes. Now, the Prime Minister, in naming the problem, in my view, has the correct analysis. As a former director of public prosecutions, in my view who has the correct experience and I just want to say there will be survivors of sexual violence in this room and there will certainly be survivors of sexual violence listening at home we will do whatever it takes to fix this you have my word on that this is a government that is completely committed to rooting this problem out and fixing it once for all something very definitive happened this week and we will not let you down Megan Gallagher has Anasarwar helped or hindered Labour's chances at the Scottish election? Well it has been chaos both at UK level and Scottish level for the Labour Party but what I would like to draw upon is the speech that Anasarwar made when he called on Keir Starmer to resign because Anasarwar said that he agreed with the direction of the UK government and agreed with the UK government policies. Well those policies include the family farm tax, the national insurance hikes, just to name two. So it shows to me that Labour, whether it's you know a UK level or Scottish level, are still focused on the wrong agenda and to go back to Kirsty's point when she referenced the violence against women and girls, I don't think you're going to find any panellists here this evening disagreeing with anything that Kirsty said. But where my concerns are with this is that Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson. And that is a huge problem. And if I can finally pick up on the issues that Scottish Labour are going to have to grapple with over the next few weeks as we head into the Scottish parliamentary election, you've got Anna Sarwar, who's called on Keir Starmer to resign. Then you've got Keir Starmer saying that he has full confidence in Anna Sarwar and wants him to become First Minister. And then you've got Douglas Alexander in the middle who is meant to be leading the Scottish parliamentary campaign for the Labour Party, but also backs Keir Starmer. How on earth are you going to square that circle within Scottish Labour? And I think that's a question that needs to be answered. Ivan McKay? Yeah, it is a mess, isn't it? First of all, in terms of what Kirsty said, obviously I agree with all of that in terms of the victims of the Epstein and Mandelson situation. But to answer the question, which was about has Anna Sarwar helped or hindered Labour's prospects in the Scottish election, voters don't like split parties. They don't like parties that are arguing with each other, that are riven by factions, that can't present a common front. They don't believe that they're capable of running a government, and I think that is probably the most important thing to take away from here. I think the second thing to note is that the reasons why Anna Sarwa would have done that, and the only logical reason you would come to why you would do that, is because it's out of desperation. They realise that they're in a very, very bad place, Scottish Labour in Scotland, and that they're struggling to even maintain second place, and is a million miles away from being the next First Minister of Scotland. And I was actually out canvassing voters when that news broke of Annas' speech and you were getting live responses from voters who had just watched it on their television. And the consensus overwhelmingly was that it was done out of desperation and it wasn't somebody you could trust if he was going to do that to a colleague in his own party. So I expect it's because they want to be seen to be different from UK Labour. And I suppose this gets to the heart of it. The fact is that Scottish Labour is part of a UK party. It's a UK party that calls the shots. And the irony is that I think the only time that Scottish Labour is going to flourish again is when Scotland's an independent country and the other are an independent party and they don't have to pay homage to what happens and are held responsible for what UK Labour does in Westminster. Just for clarity, of course, because he has been mentioned, Peter Mandelson. So he was somebody who carried on a relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Peter Mandelson's been approached for comment by the BBC. He hasn't commented publicly this week, but the BBC understands that he says that he hasn't done anything criminal or anything for personal gain. Gerry Hassan. Firstly, I think Anna Sauer had to speak up on this issue and be, you know, absolutely unqualified. and broadly I think to call for your own party's Prime Minister to resign is a big call, but I think it's very understandable and I think broadly the right call. What he was doing, he was taking a risk, it's a big risk to take, but I think in some ways he had no option. Anis Sarwar has been leader of the Scottish Labour Party for five years, I just checked before he came up, five years this month he became leader, and he's got 17% opinion poll rating in Scotland, which is 1% more than Keir Starmer, but he's got 40% of voters on the recent polls don't know, don't have an opinion of him. And that's a bit of a damning indictment after five years. So he's got to try and change that. He's got to try and get some traction and some definition. It's a bit hard to do that after five years, but I think on some level he's doing what he believes. He's trying to, you know, get better definition with the public. I think when Kirsty said one thing, I think you're 100% right on this, but there's more to it. This issue is not just about politicking and process. It's about abuse of power by men with power. And that's the core of it. And this is something that tragically defines modern life and elites. But it's also not just about that. It's about the Prime Minister's judgment. Keir Stammer appointed Peter Mandelson, knowing he had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He's appointed his peer, Matthew Doyle, despite the knowing after the first suggested nominating knowing that he had this ongoing friendship with a paedophile And those are both in the areas of sexual politics and men abusing women But he also appointed Chris Wormald as head of the civil service just a year ago and has now decided that's not the person he wants to head the civil service. So there's clear issues about Keir Starmer's politics and judgment. And if I hope in a small political way one thing to come from it, I hope the name Peter Mandelson through the years is associated with scandal and sleaze and men who make the wrong decisions in the way Rachman once was, because I think Mandelson has disgraced himself and she had no further part ever in any part of British public life. So most people might be aware, but just for those who don't know, Matthew Doyle was a former director of communications in Downing Street, who it was announced in December was going to be made a Labour peer and then emerged that he had campaigned for a Scottish council candidate called Sean Morton who at the time had been charged with indecent child image offences. He went on to be convicted. Matthew Doyle said at the time he believed Sean Morton when he was protesting his innocence but he has apologised for a judgement of error in that. Kirsty McNeil, you hear what the panel have to say here and actually there are people including Anna Sarwar who have said that this has come down effectively to the Prime Minister's judgment. And Anna Sawa was making the point that there were too many things going on in Downing Street. There were too many mistakes or distractions, as he put them, going on in Downing Street. So what really has changed between then and now? Well, I think something really significant has changed this week. And I think we have all had cause to reflect on where we can potentially go wrong when we assume that these problems are problems of so-called bad apples. Now, I'm not saying for a moment there should be anything other than justice served when people behave appallingly. And in my view, if you do unspeakable things to children, you belong in one of only two places, hell if you're dead or jail if you're alive. I'm not diminishing for one second that there should be justice when individuals have behaved badly. but we also and at the same time need to take an unflinching look at the enabling conditions which allow violence and corruption and abuses of power to go unchecked and in naming naming madam a little bit of explanation again for these people listening at home there are people with clearly very, very strong views in this room, particularly on the situation in Gaza from what they are shouting out. And it is entirely right and understandable that people feel passionately. But the nature of this programme is that we are led by questions from our audience when they submit their questions and they determine the subjects that we discuss. And there were a lot of people here in our audience in Dunbarton that did want to talk about the political developments of this week, involving, of course, the leadership of the UK Prime Minister. So we're just going to return to that and let Kirsty McNeil finish her point. So it's very important, I think, to look at the enabling conditions and what is it that allows people to escape justice and in some cases even scrutiny for such a long time. Now, where I would agree with Gerry is Peter Mandelson has been associated with a number of scandals over the years and yet has been given repeated opportunities and second, third, fourth chances. Women tend not to be given the first chance to make mistakes such as these. And when they do make mistakes, what happens, the consequences tend to be very swift and quite severe. So we do need to think about what are the enabling conditions that allow people to make mistakes and to carry on with a gilded circle where there is no accountability. And what has been acknowledged this week is that must never, ever be allowed to happen again. The Prime Minister has called this problem what it is, structural misogyny that needs a structural response as well as an individual response where individual victims and survivors get justice and individual perpetrators are brought to justice. Let's pick up with our next question too because there are similar themes. This one comes from Ian Talman. Hi Ian. Hello. Do you believe women ought to be involved or as I say in the room when decisions are made and would this lead to less indecisive government? And when you say indecisive government, Ian, what are you referring to specifically? The UK government. The UK government. What, and the policy changes that we've seen, U-turns, as some people call them? Okay, so Ian wants to know, do you believe women ought to be involved in the room when decisions are made? There has been a call, actually, from senior Labour parliamentarians this week for the creation of a new post of First Secretary of State, which they would hope would want to be appointed by a woman. Megan Gallagher, on this subject, do you think women need to be in the room when decisions are made, and would that make a difference? Well, with the Conservative Party, women have been in the room. You know, I'm proud to be part of a political party who have had a number of female prime ministers. And again, we have had a number of excellent female politicians that have came forward and have made real change to our country. And again, that goes for here in Scotland as well. We've also had excellent female leaders, but I do believe that politics changes when women are in the room because different discussions are talked about. And, you know, it's not for me to look beyond the Conservative Party usually, but again, if you look at other political parties with female leaders, that's when you see different issues being brought to the forefront. One that I could notably mention is childcare, because childcare is a massive issue, particularly when you find that women are caregivers. They're usually the primary caregivers in their family. and you usually find that these topics are brought to the forefront when women are in the room and decisions are taken when women are involved in politics. Gerry Haffan. Well, on all the evidence of politics in Britain and elsewhere, yes, obviously. We've had lots of media reporting, for example, that Downing Street at the absolute zenitha has been run as a boys' club. That's what lots of women ministers and advisers have said. There's lots of senior women in Downing Street, but when some of these crucial decisions have been made, they haven't been there. We've also got, in terms of wider politics, as Megan said, we have had, some of us might not like this, but we've had four Tory women leaders, three Tory women prime ministers. Obviously, one of those recently was a total disaster. But the Labour Party, with all its supposedly comradeship and so on, never managed to have a women leader. The only leader they've ever had at UK level is the interim leader, Harriet Harman. and I think there's something wrong in Downing Street if you take that example it's a dysfunctional Downing Street that clearly Keir Starmer is responsible for where we've had systemic ministers being briefed against Sue Gray was hired then sacked but these are about wider issues in our society still about how we do politics and I think for all the great advances that we have made there's more women MPs, more women leaders in public life the Me Too movement. In some ways, we are going back in certain places because there is an abrasive, abusive, misogyny and entitlement culture in some men. And we know that there's a mediocrity of men who manage to get on in life, which is not that women are judged by more difficult standards. And that is going to require a cultural revolution. It's not going to happen. Me Too hasn't changed things in America and look at America or here and this crisis we've gone through now will hopefully lead to people like Keir Starmer asking better questions when they appoint people but it's going to require a whole pile of more thinking and more challenging power and more men stepping up as well and challenging other men about what they say and do. Kirstie McNeill just to some of the points that Jerry Hassan made there the Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy she has said that there have been Labour briefings dripping with misogyny she said I think politics does often operate as a boys club and I don't think the Labour Party is immune to that is she right so I think she's right and the Prime Minister has confirmed that he thinks she's right too. Just as a matter of fact, it's important to state that we have a women Home Secretary, a women Foreign Secretary, a women Chancellor. So we have many very capable and formidable women in great offices of state. But in direct answer to the question, do I think that lots of things change when women are in the room for the better? Undoubtedly, yes. I think there's two things that I would say about this, though. The first is, if we're going to have different voices in the room and different people heard and perspectives given weight, difference of all sorts, lots of demography, background perspective. If we have them in the room, one of the things that we are hoping for is that they will exercise challenge and hopefully change minds. And if someone comes out of a room, having been challenged from different perspectives, and says, do you know what? I've changed my mind. I've listened and I've learned something. I think we should be more welcoming of that in politics rather than saying, some people haven't changed their mind for 20 years and that's somehow a great sign of integrity. To my mind, that's a great sign of just a lack of empathy and curiosity and you're not listening to the people that are in front of you. So if we're going to have more diversity and more challenge, I think we need to welcome the knock-on consequence of that, which is more people changing their minds and that, to my mind, is wholly for the good. The second thing I'd say is I spent this morning with primary school children in my constituency talking about whether there should be a social media ban for under-16s and the reason I wanted to ask them is because they know more about the consequences of that policy than people who are over 16. And it's important to go to the experts. So I don't want women just for the sake of tokenistically having women. I want women because we are experts in some things that affects our life. And when we're talking about things that affect older people, we should ask them. And when we're talking about things that affect disabled people, we should ask them. And when we're talking about things that affect kids, we should ask them. So it's really about valuing different kinds of expertise, I think. Ivan McKay. Yeah, of course, I agree with the question. and reflecting on some of the points that have been made on the panel, Gerry's absolutely right in terms of men standing up and challenging that toxic masculinity and that behaviour and that sense of entitlement when it appears. And Kirsty's absolutely right about the collegiate approach from having different voices in the room and having women around that table can lead to better policy. In the Scottish Cabinet, with Scottish Government's Cabinet, that we've got 12 members of the cabinet and nine of them are women at the moment. So I think that is a strong reflection on the talent and the quality of the women that are in the party. And those voices come, as you'd expect, through very strongly when we have those discussions on taking policy forward. Thank you all. And Ian, thank you for your question. And a reminder, you can share your views on anything we discussed during the course of the programme And the way you do that is by phoning any answers. 03700 100 444 is the number you need. And lines open at 12.30pm on. Starting a business can be overwhelming. You're juggling multiple roles, designer, marketer, logistics manager, all while bringing your vision to life. Shopify helps millions of business sell online. Build fast with templates and AI descriptions and photos, inventory and shipping. Sign up for your one euro per month trial and start selling today at Shopify.nl. That's Shopify.nl. It's time to see what you can accomplish with Shopify by your side. Saturday. We are on to our next. It comes from Deborah McFadgian. Hello. What does the panel think about the BBC not reporting the truth about the genocide in Palestine? Deborah, thank you for raising... APPLAUSE Thank you for raising both your view and your point, which has echoed the feelings that have been expressed by some other members of the audience that people at home might have been able to hear. The question that you had submitted on the card and the one that I have written down here is relevant. So I'd like to read that out so people can hear that question so we can have that important discussion. Sir, could I again ask you to take your seat because there will be people in this audience and there will be people at home that want to hear the questions that were submitted by the audience in the room and the answers from the panel. I will remind people again that people obviously have very strong views and passionate feelings and that is completely understandable and there is an opportunity for people to air those feelings and views and the way to do that is to phone up BBC Radio 4 Any Answers is a program specifically for people to air their views and the way they do that is by phoning 03 700 100 444. The question that Deborah had submitted and written down which is relevant and an important discussion was what does the panel think about the de-proscription of Palestine action today. So this was a judgment that the decision by the UK government to prescribe Palestine action as a terrorist organisation was overruled and ruled unlawful. Jerry Hassan. Yes, well, I thought that the prescription of Palestine action and the grotesque overreach of the Met and other police authorities of criminalising 3,000 peaceful protesters is a shameful moment in what passes... I mean, we've all seen the pictures of people going about their rightful business of expressing the freedom of speech and being arrested. And also, the actions of the Labour government, firstly, it debases the term terrorist organisation. Clearly, Palestine Action are not a terrorist organisation. Some of the direct actions they have done are a little bit uncomfortable for some of us because there was a police officer injured and that needs to be recognised and go through due process. But there are journalistic sources who say that the Starmer government prescribed Palestine action partly to aid their friend Donald Trump or at least to try and keep him on because Palestine action were associated with some of the actions at the Trump-owned Turnberry Golf Course. And if that's the case, if that's the kind of relationship we have with Trump... Just to say, I don't know the details of what you're saying there. I can't say whether that's right or wrong. I'll just say, it's been reported. It might be right, it might not be wrong. But I think that it's right that this has happened today, this decision. It's a decision for democracy and freedom. And I think, just to say as a quick conclusion on this, from the comments that have been made in the floor, I understand why the BBC don't say genocide, because that's about legal constraints. But what I'd like to see is the BBC naming what are the absolutely legally defined crimes of the Israeli state, which is the occupation and theft of Palestinians lands. And so many times I watch the 6 o'clock news, the 10 o'clock news or news night or something and they won't even call it an occupation and it's an occupation in international law. Palestinian lands has been stolen. Kirsty McNeil, I don't know if you want to address the point that Gerry Hasser made about the motivation for the prescription of Palestine action in the first place as well as the broader question. Well I think the motivation for the prescriptions actually being discussed in the judgment today. So let me start with where I hope we can all agree. I hope there's consensus across this panel, across this room, and across people listening at home, that we can and should be supporters of the Palestinian cause. And that what has been unfolding on our TV screens night after night after night is unbearable. There are lots of ways to support the Palestinian cause, including supporting the many humanitarian organisations that are with great difficulty and with aid workers in grave danger supporting people on the ground. In a previous life I visited and met with the children of Gaza and what they were enduring long before this most recent conflict was unendurable. So I hope we can have consensus about that and that there needs to be justice for the Palestinians, there needs to be life saved, there needs to be aid in and so on. I think it is possible to advance that cause best by campaigning in a peaceful and persuasive manner and by giving direct support to the Palestinian people through humanitarian organisations. I don't believe the best way to advance the humanitarian cause is by taking sledgehammers and breaking into defence sites. The judgement today, let's just be clear about it, the judgement today said this is an organisation that has engaged in and supported acts of terrorism. what the judgment said was they don't believe that that has reached a magnitude that reaches the threshold for prescription. Yeah, and they said it was disproportionate, the prescription of this organisation. Yeah, but let's be very clear, there has been a legal judgment that prescription is a disproportionate response to acts of terrorism, which is what is named in the judgment. Right, but let's be very clear, the High Court has ruled that the decision taken by the government to prescribe this group was wrong. It was disproportionate legally, is what the judgment actually says. Unlawful. It was unlawful, as the judgment said. And the Home Office will be appealing that judgment. And it's completely appropriate in our democracy that politicians decide things. So this was proposed by the then Home Secretary, passed by Parliament, has been challenged in the courts. The courts are a perfectly legitimate and healthy part of our democratic process. They've come to determination. There'll be an appeal. There'll then be another determination. and that's how our system is designed to work. So this is playing out through the courts as is entirely appropriate in a constitutional democracy. I just want to remind our panel and our audience at home that there are active legal cases regarding individuals involved with Palestine action. I'm sure none of us would want to jeopardise the specifics of those, but we should absolutely discuss the principles of this decision. Ivan McKee. Yeah, I entirely agree with what Gerry said. A number of points to make here. First of all, reflecting on the genocide that's happening in Gaza and indeed across the West Bank. It's a real stain on humanity. It's absolutely heartbreaking, shocking, disgraceful behaviour of Israel. It still continues despite the ceasefire, with I don't know how many hundreds killed since the ceasefire, including the West Bank, and the stealing of land continues apace, and that needs to be called out for the genocide that it is. I welcome the judgment today on Palestine action. I think of your selling I support Plasticine action T-shirts. There's probably the market's fallen out of that now, but it just shows the ridiculousness of the decision that the UK government took to prescribe an organisation that clearly wasn't a terrorist organisation in the way that they did in an attempt to stamp down on freedom of speech, which I think is a really chilling approach from the UK government. So it's good to see the judgment today, and we'll see where that goes next. But the right to free speech, the right to protest, and the right to be able to call out what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank for what it is a critically important part of our society that we have here in the UK. What about the other points that were made in the judgment, which did say a very small number of Palestine actions, activities, amounted to acts of terrorism. And it also talked about Palestine Actions' other criminal activities. Do you think that that is the right approach to protest, to make a point, to stand up for the cause that the cause in this case is the cause of Palestine? Well, I think the key word there is criminal. There are laws that make those other activities already illegal. So that didn't require the prescribing of that organisation and making it illegal for people to indicate support for that organisation in public. that was absolutely a significant overreach in part of the UK government. More than 2,000 people have been arrested at demonstrations in the months since Palestine action was prescribed. Megan Gallagher, do you think that that is the right response? Well, I think this speaks to the wider conversation about protests and how protests are conducted. I fully support freedom of speech and the right for people to have freedom of speech. But I think we've got to be careful when protests overstep the mark, or if they do overstep the mark, what therefore happens as a result. But if I may also speak to our communities, because our communities are watching on as to what's happening over in Israel and Gaza. And there's communities here who might have relations in terms of what's happening over there as well. and what we are seeing, regretfully, is an increase in racism, anti-Semitism, all of those things that are really not helpful and I'm sure that we would all be completely against. And what we need to see is people pulling together, communities pulling together in this and making sure that we are respectful and we're making sure that what we do doesn't have a negative impact on others. Okay. Okay. And let me tell you that when it comes to genocide and the use of the term, as Jerry Hassan says, it is a legal definition. A UN commission of inquiry said Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. That was a report from September. Israel rejected that report and has always denied a genocide. Again, please share your views. These are important subjects and we do want to hear them. So that's why we give you an opportunity to share them. Any answers, 03700 100 444 is the number that you need. Right, we are on to our next. It comes from John McCollum. Hello. Hi. We appear to pay more tax than ever. Why are governments continually skint? John. I mean, Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee. I mean, we hear all the time, don't we, that there is spending constraint, that governments haven't got enough money to fund X, Y or Z. We appear to pay more tax than ever, John says. Why are governments skint? Well, because we spend the money we've got, because that's what people would expect us to do, because they expect us to be invested in services and there are always more things to spend money on. I've got a few points there. I think it's important to recognise in the Scottish context, we've obviously taken a slightly different approach to that. There's a different tax structure here. If you earn more, you pay more. If you earn less, you pay less here than you do in the rest of the UK, which is important to recognise. More than half the taxpayers in Scotland pay less than they do. So just for people who don't need the details, it's basically if you earn about £33,000, you pay less income tax if you live in Scotland. If you earn above that, you pay more income tax because the Scottish Government has the power to vary the income tax bands. So through that, we raise a bit more money and we spend on a whole range of things. So tuition fees are free in Scotland, which is significant. Nobody pays for prescription charges in Scotland. We've just abolished peak railfares. we have got a whole range of benefits including the scotch child payment which more than 300 000 children get which means that we've got child poverty going down when the rest of the uk has got it going up and we invest across a whole range of other activities in scotland that we we value so those decisions are political decisions that are made by the people that are elected by the people of scotland i would also say though it's really important and part of my role as public finance. The Minister has taken forward the public service reform agenda. It's really important that those services are delivered as efficiently as they possibly can be and as effectively as they possibly can be, and we're getting value for money for every pound of public money that we do spend, which is taxpayers' money. So we're absolutely focused on that agenda as well to make sure that we get as much of that money at the front line and we strip out any waste in service delivery so it's as effective as possible. There's always quite a lot of talk about that, about productivity improvements or efficiency savings when it comes, not just from the Scottish Government, but actually political parties and governments always say that. But in this latest budget that the Scottish Government set in January, it's been pointed out that you are depending on quite a lot of efficiency savings in future years. But they are often not realised. We've got two very clear targets. We've delivered quite a significant amount already. There's more than 300 million come out of our cost base over the last two or three years through better procurement, through better use of digital, through reducing buildings. We've shut a dozen government buildings in the last couple of years. The number of people in the civil services has come down by 5% over the last three years and we've got targets to continue to reduce that. We've just reduced the number of non-territorial health boards in the health sector by combining two boards, taking out whole layers of management. So we've got more to do on that, an awful lot more to do on that, but I think we've got real clarity. What about the millions that we have to spend on war? Okay. Madam, I'm going to ask you, as I ask the other people that stood up to express their views in this audience, just to take a seat so that you can allow our panellists to finish making their points and allow our audiences at home to hear them. I can't quite hear what you're saying on the points you're trying to make, so I can't reflect them to our wider audience at home. So we'll continue on with the question that was also posed by a member of our audience, which was about tax and public spend, which of course also affects a lot of people. please carry on. Yeah and just on that point the Scottish Government made a decision last year communicated by the First Minister that we wouldn't spend, we'd make sure no government money or no government agency money was given to any companies that were involved in supplying weapons to the genocide in Israel So in terms of the efficiencies AMG we very clear we got a target of billion over the next five years As I say we already delivered more than million in savings We're very clear about where that's coming from, which parts, which portfolios and which organisations need to deliver on that. And one of the jobs that I've got to do is make sure that they do. Okay. Megan Gallagher, we hear a lot about public services under strain, yet the tax burden is going up. Why is it? Public services are under strain and people don't get bang for their buck in Scotland, that's for sure. There's SNP spending woes and I could list off a number of costs that have spiralled out of control under the SNP's tenure as a government. You've got unfinished roads, unfinished ferries, you've got prisons that have spiralled into millions upon millions of pounds to complete. It's the SNP's financial mismanagement that is leading to taxes increasing. And if I may talk about council tax, that's probably another tax that we'll see increases right up and down the country. And this is because the SNP government refuse to fund our councils properly. And I bet if I had to ask any one of you, what do you get in terms of council services? You'll probably all say we get our bins collected because that's how bad our public services are getting although I've seen a lady there who's saying our bin doesn't get collected that's even worse This shows you that the SNP have not got it right when it comes to how they finance the country and how they actually work out tax per spend Now what the Scottish Conservatives would do we would do something different and what we're actually proposing in this election period is that we would actually cut tax so people have more money in their pockets. So what services would have to go to pay for that? Well, again, it's looking at efficiencies. Ivan's already said that government efficiencies, you know, you can find a billion pounds worth of savings. That is not out of the ordinary. We, of course, as the opposition party, we don't have the full insight into all the government spending in all the different areas. But that is something that we are offering, which is different to all the other political parties. Ivan McKay? Two very brief points. First of all, in terms of council tax, it's important to remember that council tax in Scotland is on average £600 a year lower than it is in the rest of the UK. But council tax will never be for 14% of the budgets that it comes from you guys. That needs to be factored into, when you're talking about tax differential north and south of the border. And the second point is that, and Megan's just answered her own question, the Tories have got no idea how they would save that money because they haven't looked at the data, and she's admitted that they don't even have the data to look on that. Sorry, Ivan. And that is in addition to the savings that we've already identified, the one and a half billion I talked about. So we know where that's coming from. They need to find another billion on top of that and that would make real cuts to the health service, education, to schools right across the country. Sorry, Ivan. The benefits bill in itself is going to go up to £10 billion by 2030. How is your government going to plug that hole? I mean, you're not addressing the big issues in our country. That's another S&P spend that's going to go up and up and up, and you've got no idea how you're going to tackle that. Of course we have, and that's the whole point. We balance the budget every year. And every year, and we're in Parliament now for 10 years, every year the Tories and others will say, oh, you can't balance the budget, you'll never balance the budget. We manage to balance the budget every single year for the last 18 years, and we'll continue to do that. And we've just laid out the spending review for the next five years. There's concerns about the S&P budget this year. Hang on, hang on. where the money's going to be spent on the next five years. I've got to let the other panellists in to answer this question. Kirsten McNeill, of course, we know in the last two UK government budgets, taxes have gone up. The first one, there was that national insurance increase for employers. In the second one, there was the freezing of the tax thresholds, which mean more people get dragged into paying higher rates of tax. But why does the government then still talk about pressure on public finances? Well, I mean, let's just start by being clear about why we are where we are. We are where we are because austerity absolutely ravaged our public services. They were on their knees when Labour came in in July 2024. So you ask where your taxes go, it goes on things like our beloved National Health Service, where south of the border we have been able to bring waiting lists down. It goes on things like we live in an incredibly and increasingly dangerous world and money is required for defence, not least that creates defence spending that creates jobs here in Dumbarton and on the Clyde. So we are in a situation where we have an ageing population, a dangerous world, a number of pressures and demands on public services and public spending. Notwithstanding those pressures, the Labour government was able to get the Scottish government an extra £11 billion. And I would just invite you as Scottish taxpayers and Scottish taxpayers across the country to think, where has that money gone? Have you seen £11 billion of benefit from it? and I would say no you haven't and one of the reasons for that is that the SNP Scottish Government is just absolutely addicted to wasting your money and if you had to have one iconic example of it I get asked about the ferry fiasco on the streets of Midlothian people in Midlothian aren't using the ferries day to day but they do know that it's an iconic example of a government that can't govern Gerry Hassan One of the reasons our taxes are high, post-war high, is the UK economic model we've lived with for the last 45 years is broken. Completely and utterly broken. And the political parties are scared to try and face up to that, look into that void. Since 2008, the bankers crash. Average British living standards have stalled, stalled completely in real terms. We've also then had the self-harm of Brexit, a hard Brexit no one voted for. We've had the COVID pandemic. All these things have added to the cost of public services and have raised taxes. And if we just take us very quickly, two specifics. Business rates in Scotland. I live in a small-town curcubre, vibrant, dynamic, successful. The rise in business rates for the hospitality sector is crippling people. And the UK government have come in with a support package. We need that from the Scottish government. We've already done that. They've gone up massively this year, Ivan. And the second point is the generational issues and divide in this country and the way young people have been consistently shafted. Student loans and student debt have suddenly become an issue in England. To start repaying your student debt in England, to start the amount of debt eating into it, you need to earn a salary of £66,000. That needs addressed. The social contract is being eroded and torn up in Britain, and that needs addressed to then we can start having a Bible record. that wants for everyone. Ivan McKee? Just to reply on the rates point, just for example, people talking about the increase in rates through the revaluation in pubs. The average increase on pubs through the revaluation in Scotland is 15%, and that's over three years. The equivalent number in England is 30%, and we've put in 860, well, it's more than now, £870 million in relief packages to support businesses and cap those rate increases. So absolutely, people ask where the money's gone. that's the best part of a billion pound. Maybe you should come and speak to our businesses either. I've run businesses, Gerry, I know how this works, and talk to businesses about this very, very regularly. They say we've come out with more measures yesterday, specifically targeted on those businesses, so they're getting a better deal now than they are south of the border. Well, let's just pick up on that. That is not true. Gerry Hassan? That is not true. The businesses that I know in Kirkcoubrae, they are facing, and all across Dumfries and Galway, the increases in their business rates now, not some faction, not some percentage are colossal and are putting those people after the national insurance rises close to the wire. I appreciate the businesses are under challenge but those rises are capped. That's the whole point I'm talking about. And the relief now for hospitality businesses in Scotland is 40% compared to 30% down south. And Kirsty McNeil, just on that point you know that there are pubs, hospitality, retail venues who are crying out in England for some extra support from the government. And extra support has been forthcoming but I think people will be quite disappointed by Ivan and I'm afraid it's the constant cry of the SNP, Scottish Government of look at England, so there's sewage on your beaches but think about England, there's 10,000 kids in Scottish temporary accommodation think about England, there's 800,000 tests and treatments outstanding in Scotland think about England, Scottish taxpayers want to know what you're going to do for Scotland they're not satisfied with 10,000 Scottish kids in temporary accommodation they're not satisfied with the state of the waiting list in Scotland they're not satisfied with Scottish public services or the management of Scotland's economy. And constantly saying, could you look over there, could you look over there and don't hold us to account for the things we're actually responsible for is one of the things that is going to change in May. Ivan? No, what is really important is to make the point of what we have done, and this is, as I said before, the only part of the UK where child poverty is coming down, if you're talking about children and temporary accommodation, it's going up in the rest of the UK under the UK Labour government. We've just taken waiting lists over the last seven months It's coming down consistently on long waits, down almost 40% now, and that's continuing month on month. So there's a huge amount being delivered. We've just opened the first of the GP walk-in centres to tackle the 8am rush, and there's many more of those to come. You've had 20 years, Ivan. Really, really important to recognise that. And I've given you a long list of other things that we've done in that period over the last 19 years. I mean, Megan Gallagher, I just want to come back to the point that you made about wanting to lower taxes. I just wonder, is there a point, when you take the essence here of John's question, that there needs to be an honest conversation between the public and the people in power about what governments can do, what they can afford to do, and what people are willing to pay for. Yes, there does. And that's why we have been honest in terms of that we need to reduce taxes. We need to get our economy moving. But not the other side of that equation. What does that mean in terms of the services then that people rely on? Is that not the trade-offs? Does there not need to have a conversation about that? BBC, you can't hide. Thank you again for your very strong views on that, which you've already expressed once during the course of the evening. But we do appreciate you coming along and participating in tonight's programme. Megan, do carry on. So you'll be aware that opposition parties do not have all of the details that governments do in relation to budgets. But we would want to look at that. We would scrutinise that. We would find the billion pounds worth of tax cuts. We would give people more money in their pocket to spend. growing our economy, a stimulating economy can then be put back into our public services, it pays dividends at the end of it. But we have been honest as well, we would look at the welfare budget, because the welfare budget is going to increase to £10 billion by 2030. That is unsustainable. Ivan McKee has not been able to answer this evening how his own government is going to tackle it. Aha, go read the spending review we've published just recently. You just say we'll have a balanced budget. Which is what we do every year. It means we don't spend any more than we've ever seen. There's debate about your budget this year. What it means is there's no black hole. Only from you. There's debate about your budget this year. Please don't talk over each other because no one can hear you. Briefly, Gerry Hassan. Just very briefly, I think one of the missing parts of Scottish political debate is yes, lots of us care about poverty and inequality but we also need to talk about wealth, success, innovation and part of the devolution settlement is we get a large part of our money from Westminster. That in a way I think psychologically stops us addressing those issues. We need to think about how we grow and make Scotland prosper, not just how we divide the cake. Okay. Thank you all very much indeed. We are out of time. Just time to remind you that you can share your views and the way you do that is by calling any answers 03700 100444 and if you've been listening at home, you will have heard that there have been some strong and passionately held views expressed from our audience here tonight, which again is why we do have a phone-in programme so you can share them. 03700 100 444. And the reason we come to communities around the country is so we can hear the feedback from our audiences. I thank you to our panel for carrying on with our discussion. I thank you here to our audience. And we thank you at home for listening. Shopify helps millions of business sell online. Build fast with templates and AI descriptions and photos, inventory and shipping. Sign up for your one euro per month trial and start selling today at Shopify.nl. That's Shopify.nl. It's time to see what you can accomplish with Shopify by your side. From the sun-like paradise to the dark streets of Belfast. Put your hammer on, man. Good humor, serious misdades, very unfulfilled characters and precisely the right dose of sarcasm. BBCNL, the place for the best British misdades series. Just on your Canadian TV.