Scotland’s Virtual Silence Speaks Volumes
15th January 2026, Westminster finally held a full 90-minute debate on the millions of people excluded from Covid-19 financial support. It should have been a moment of reckoning. Instead, for the Excluded Scotland community, it was a moment of deep frustration. We said we would be watching and we were.
Only two Scottish MPs spoke in the debate, despite every MP in Scotland being invited to contribute.
It was a no show and no apology from Jamie Stone MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross himself an original APPG Co Chair. More on that later!
Not a single SNP MP contributed, even though four SNP MPs sit on the current Gaps in Covid-19 Financial Support APPG. The SNP are the only political party in Scotland who are not headquartered in England and are often quoted as saying they are “The only party to put Scotland and the people of Scotland first”. None showed up for their Excluded constituents when it mattered. This absence is stark, particularly given the strong and vocal support previously shown by figures such as Alison Thewlis, Owen Thompson and Ian Blackford former SNP leader in Westminster.
For the Excluded in Scotland, the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who were financially abandoned, this was a MASSIVELY wasted opportunity solely at their expense. Frankly unforgivable.
Serving as a timely reminder that this is a crucial election year in Holyrood. MSPs have repeatedly told their Excluded constituents that they were Excluded by Westminster’s Tory government of the time and their exclusion can only be rectified by Westminster. So where were their representatives in Westminster when it mattered?
The two Scottish MPs who did attend did not once highlight the financial support schemes that were unique to Scotland. Those devolved measures mattered. They made a real difference. Yet neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats chose to shine a light on what Scotland did better. Had the SNP bothered to attend, they could have put that on record. Instead, Westminster heard a debate about exclusion in which Scotland’s distinct experience was largely invisible.
And looming over it all was the time-wasting spin from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, banging on about the schemes we already know about and which did not help the 3.8 million Excluded at all. Viewed as a deflection to avoid and accept accountability.
But the debate happened. That alone is significant.
For a community that has been ignored, dismissed and sidelined for almost six years, simply being heard in the main chamber matters. It does not erase what was lost. It does not undo the damage. But it breaks a silence that should never have existed.
Nigh on six years after the first lockdown began
The debate was secured thanks to Dr Manuela Perteghella MP (Liberal Democrat, Stratford-on-Avon), an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gaps in Covid-19 Financial Support. From the outset, she acknowledged the tireless campaigning of ExcludedUK and made clear that this was not an abstract policy discussion but a human one.
She reminded the House that around 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from meaningful financial support during the pandemic. These were not fringe cases. They were limited company directors paid in dividends, newly self-employed people, PAYE freelancers, new starters, people on maternity or parental leave, and carers. They paid their taxes. They followed the rules. When everything stopped, they were told they did not qualify.
Manuela was clear: this was not an administrative accident, but a policy decision. The data existed. HMRC had it. Companies House had it. The state chose not to use it. That choice had consequences.
She spoke of constituents forced to take out bounce back loans simply to survive, only to find themselves years later still buried in debt as their businesses failed. She spoke of the mental health toll, of hopelessness and despair, and of suicides linked directly to financial exclusion. The House was reminded that for many, the damage did not end when lockdowns lifted. Businesses collapsed, relationships broke down, homes were lost and confidence in the state was shattered.
Her three asks from those Excluded were simple and powerful: an apology, parity of support, and acknowledgement of loss.
Not complicated. Not radical. Just basic fairness.
That those requests still feel controversial tells you everything about how deeply the Excluded have been marginalised.
The Human Cost Laid Bare
Steve Witherden MP (Labour, Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr), chair of the APPG, reinforced the scale of the injustice. He described supply teachers in north Wales left with nothing, and constituents like Ken, now in his seventies, who had worked since he was 17 and only ever needed help once. That moment came during the pandemic – and the help was not there.
He gave a shout out to Tim and Jennifer.
Across the chamber, MPs from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives told similar stories. A journalist and table tennis coach deemed a fraud risk and denied support. A travel business owner pushed into insolvency and now facing 32% interest rates. A training company forced to move everything online after being denied support because income came via dividends. A takeaway business in Mid Dunbartonshire closed for good, with the owner now paying hundreds of pounds a week just to rent a taxi plate to survive.
These were not reckless operators. They were not gaming the system. They were people who had built legitimate livelihoods, paid into the system for years, and expected that in a national emergency the state would not abandon them. Again and again, the same themes emerged: arbitrary rules, rigid criteria, and lives shattered as a result. People fell through gaps that were known, documented and – crucially – left unaddressed.
This was not an unforeseen consequence. It was a foreseeable outcome of policy choices.
Scotland’s Quiet Contribution and Westminster’s Blind Spot
Two Scottish MPs did speak: Euan Stainbank (Labour, Falkirk) and Susan Murray (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dunbartonshire). Both gave thoughtful contributions highlighting limited company directors, young workers, and the long shadow the pandemic still casts.
But what was missing was just as important as what was said.
There was no mention of Scotland’s distinct support measures, no acknowledgment that devolved decisions mitigated some of the harm, and no challenge to the narrative that Westminster’s schemes were the only game in town. That silence matters. It erases difference. It flattens experience. And it denies the Excluded in Scotland recognition of the fact that, in some cases, Scotland did better.
Scotland did make different choices. It used discretionary funds. It targeted hardship. It recognised that rigid UK-wide schemes were leaving people behind and attempted, within limited powers, to plug some of the gaps. It was not perfect. It did not reach everyone. But it mattered to those it did reach. None of that was placed on the Westminster record.
That is not a neutral omission. It shapes the historical narrative. It allows UK ministers to present a simplified version of events in which all support was equal and all failures were unavoidable. It also denies Scotland’s excluded community the recognition that their government at least attempted to see them.
Most glaring of all was the absence of SNP MPs. Four of the nine SNP MPs at Westminster sit on the very APPG that exists to address these gaps. All were invited. None attended.
For absolute transparency ; the allocation times for debates in Westminster even after the dates are announced is wholly chaotic and last minute. It was in called in to sharp focus in the preceding debate by Bob Blackman MP.
For communities across Scotland who were excluded, who wrote, campaigned, protested and waited, that absence has be noticed.
Four of the SNP’s Westminster group of nine MPS sits on the APPG. Their absence was astounding.
During the pandemic, prior to the July 2024 UK election there were 59 SNP MPs in Westminster and the majority of them were a loud supportive voice for their Excluded constituents and part of the first Gaps in Support APPG.
The third largest party in the UK back then.
That is not an accident.
Diary Clash? Do Share What Took Precedence, We are All Ears!
It is important to be clear about this. This was a scheduled, 90-minute debate on an issue that EVERY party has previously championed. It was known in advance. Invitations were issued. The significance was clear.
Scotland’s SNP once led on this issue. Ian Blackford was vocal. SNP MPs stood alongside campaigners. They raised exclusion repeatedly. They understood that this was not a niche problem, but a systemic injustice.
How things seem to have changed …
In an election year, with trust in politics already fragile, choosing not to show up for some of the most badly affected constituents in Scotland is not a small misstep. It sends a message, whether intended or not, that the Excluded are no longer a priority. For people who lost everything, that will land hard.
Fraud, Waste and the Bitter Irony
A recurring thread throughout the debate was the contrast between the supposed “fraud risk” used to deny support to legitimate taxpayers and the billions lost through actual fraud, waste and cronyism.
The PPE Medpro case was cited. VIP lanes were referenced. The Covid counter-fraud commissioner’s finding of £10.9 billion lost was repeated. MPs from multiple parties pointed out the bitter irony: while limited company directors were told it was too risky to support them, politically connected firms were fast-tracked and paid for unusable kit. Paul Kohler MP (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon) put it bluntly: money was wrongly withheld from the Excluded while it was wrongly handed out elsewhere. This is not just a historical grievance. It goes to the heart of trust in government. People were denied help because of alleged risk, then watched billions vanish with little consequence. The message that sends is corrosive: that ordinary taxpayers are scrutinised and excluded, while those with access and influence are waved through.
That is not a technical failure. It is a moral one.
A Pattern of Political Evasion
By the time the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, rose to speak, many were hoping for something new. What they got instead was a familiar list of schemes, statistics and spending totals. Furlough. SEISS. Business grants. Billions spent. Millions helped. All true. All irrelevant to the Excluded and already acknowledged time and time again.
For those who sat through the debate, it felt like time-wasting spin. The issue was never whether some people were helped. The issue is that millions were not. Rehearsing schemes that did not apply to them does not answer that. It avoids it.
There was no apology. No commitment to redress. No clear pathway forward. Just a restating of what the Treasury already says.
This is a pattern. It has been repeated for years. Ministers talk about scale and spend, not about design and exclusion. They talk about what was done, not who was left out. For the Excluded, this will land as yet another example of being talked around rather than talked to. That matters, because acknowledgement is the first step towards repair. Without it, there is nowhere to go.
To Reiterate An Election Year Missed Opportunity
This debate took nearly six years to happen. Campaigners fought, organised, documented and endured. For Scotland, it should have been a platform. Instead, it was a reminder of political absence.
Had the SNP { “The only party to put Scotland and the people of Scotland first” } shown up, they could have:
-
Put Scottish support schemes on the Westminster record
-
Challenged the narrative of UK-only solutions
-
Stood visibly with their excluded constituents
-
Demonstrated leadership in an election year
- Challenged the current PM’s promise when in opposition, to right this wrong
They did none of these things.
For Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the reluctance to highlight Scotland’s distinct approach also speaks volumes.
There seems to be little appetite in Westminster to acknowledge that, in some areas, devolved choices made a difference.
That does not help the Excluded. It helps political tidiness.
And political tidiness is cold comfort to people who lost their livelihoods.
Where Does This Leave the Excluded Now?
The debate matters. It is now on the record. The scale of exclusion, the human cost, the suicides, the debt, the policy failure – all of it is in Hansard.
But nothing has yet changed.
There is still no apology. There is still no compensation. There is still no structured redress. There is still no clear commitment that future crisis support will be inclusive by design.
For the Excluded in Scotland, there is the added sting of political absence and missed opportunity.
The fight is not over. If anything, this debate shows exactly why it must continue.
The Minister must meet with ExcludedUK.
Because being heard is not the same as being helped.
