Podcast: Westminster intrigue and what it means for Scotland


Jim Murphy’s political nemesis returned to the Newsnet Radio podcast studio to reflect on her first few months as the MP for East Renfrewshire, one of the most fiercely contested seats of the 56 won by the SNP last May.

Kirsten Oswald last spoke to podcast host Derek Bateman in the run-up to last year’s general election. At the time few gave her much chance of taking the seat. Her victory was among those to underpin the sheer scale of the SNP gain and Labour’s staggering defeat in Scotland.

She joined Glasgow businessman Paul Fee to discuss the ongoing tussle between HM Treasury and Scottish Government over the fiscal arrangements involved in the implementation of the Smith Commission proposals to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Are both sides playing with a straight bat? What are the implications for the future of Scotland and the UK? Is there an agenda, and if so what is it? All this and more as our guests attempt to unravel Westminster’s Scottish intrigue…

The Newsnet campaign podcast will run every weekend until the Scottish elections in May, and you can help ensure that happens by subscribing, or making a one-off payment. This helps us to maintain the podcasts’ high technical standard, and to introduce video podcasts to the service. Please help if you can. Thank you for your continuing support.



  1. Kirsten says: “Its great to be the MP for East Renfrewshire”. Why, I ask myself, for heavens sake even, does any SNP politician think “its great” to be a Westminister MP? As Derek highlighted, EVEL shows all the respect Scottish MP’s get. Even the dugs in Musselburgh High Street ken the fiscal framework/vow/smith is a unionist stitch-up. 56 Scots MP’s are irrelevant and powerless, as Derek implies. Paul Fee is right – our overlords are asset stripping and draining money out of Scotland, and no coincidence Smith the investment banker is involved in ownership of so many major Scottish businesses and mostly former public utilities in energy, airports and ports. “Our side of the House” she says: as if longevity there is inevitable and we are ‘together’ with other unionists on “our side of the house”. “Unhelpful going forward” is all Kirsten has to say about the way the Tories and their investment banker mates continue to piss on Scotland and the Scots. Fee is right – “you will do what you are told to do” is the Tory/banker approach to the Scots; and what difference has a feeble 56 made or will ever make? Nae doot Scotland is being subjected to a ‘scorched earth’ economic strategy led by a Tories/Offshore Bankers consortia who own all the key assets Maggie sold off, and the SNP are doing absolutely zilch about this, if they even realise it is happening under their well-paid (i.e. unionist salary) noses. Independence is ‘radical’ but the SNP certainly aint.

  2. Alf. Baird I have read your posts and I still don’t know where you stand I mean I agree the 56 S.N.P. Mps may be feeble through no fault of their own I would rather have them there as 56 unionists mps and I freely admit I am not the sharpest knife in drawer but I really do not get which side you are on or do you just have an S.N.P. Bad attitude ?

    • Blair, you are perfectly entitled to challenge any of the comments I made on a number of the specific issues discussed in Derek’s podcast and I’d be happy to respond. You don’t appear to have done that.

  3. Alf is right. Paul Fee is correct. The Westminster Regime is out to punish and impoverish us. I see no point in playing their games to their rules. Enough is enough.

    Our MPs in London should leave a token 3 MPs (rotating) at Westminster and decant to the public benches in Holyrood. After all London only has 3 MPs in Scotland.

    Might at least shake things up a bit. We cannot just allow them ‘business as usual’.

    • “The Westminster Regime is out to punish and impoverish us.”

      Much as they did with any other ‘wayward/ungrateful’ colony, Arthur, though now intensifying because they ken the writing is on the wall. Scotland’s political leaders need to up their game.

  4. Alf, Derek, et al
    I posit that the current scenario could not be better especially when coupled with BREXIT likely outcome.

    SNP ca’ing cannily until we shall ca’ awa very imminently – to paraphrase Kirkintilloch’s motto -from this faux Union on our own terms and in our own time having guddled the Unionist tummy.

    Also. a second referendum need not necessarily be the only option in doing so as I believe Mr Salmond has indicated since re-Indy referendum 1.

    Personally, I see no impediment to abrogating the Treaty beyond panic stricken legal eagles and associated other minority vested interests for already we are becoming de facto re-independent as witnessed by the Alex Salmond-led recent delegation to China where he met with counter-parties at a high enough level to piss Mr Cameron, the FCO, and, officially, the British Embassy there severely off.

    As a long-time resident of the Far East, by way of the Middle East, I could not have found the diplomatic signals sent to the UKGov to have been any more deliciously clearer in its variation of Agincourt Salute of which the Anglo-Brit establishment are so fond to bum about when it suits them.

    So, simply, forward in the spirit of John MacLean and many, many others and dancing to our own tune rather than the Morris Dancer Shuffle.

  5. Alf I do not profess to know all of your posts or points but after I read them I am left wondering if you are for independence or not it is probably my failure to understand them but that was my main question thank you for taking the time to reply to me

    • Like I said: “you are perfectly entitled to challenge any of the comments I made on a number of the specific issues discussed in Derek’s podcast and I’d be happy to respond.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here