What sparked the row?
On Saturday, the Telegraph published a front page report accusing First Minister Humza Yousaf of a conflict of interest over a decision to give £250,00 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA).
The paper claimed Mr Yousaf had overruled officials who advised Unicef receive a donation of £100,000 and £200,000 to fund water programmes in Gaza. It said the First Minister preferred the money go to UNRWA - which the Telegraph went on to say "has been criticised over alleged links to Hamas". Some 16 countries paused funds to the agency in January after Israel accused at least 12 UNRWA staff of involvement in the 7 October attacks by Hamas. The European Commission, Sweden and Canada have since announced they will resume aid payments to UNRWA. US intelligence cast doubt on Israel's claims last month.
READ MORE: SNP call for Kerr to be sacked as MP hopeful as Gaza aid row deepens
In November, the Scottish Government announced the funding to UNRWA in response to a flash appeal for emergency aid as more than a million Palestinians faced displacement amid the conflict with Israel. The award was made while the First Minister's wife Nadia El-Nakla's parents Elizabeth and Maged El-Nakla, from Dundee, were trapped in the war torn territory. They were able to leave Gaza via the Rafah crossing on November 3, while other members of the family later fled to Turkey. As of mid-January, Nadia El-Nakla's brother and elderly grandmother were still in the territory.
What did the Scottish Conservative MSP Stephen Kerr say in the Telegraph article?
Mr Kerr, who is a member of Holyrood's standards, procedures and public appointments committee, appeared to have suggested that the decision to give aid to UNWRA was to exert some leverage to get the First Minster's parents in law out and home safely to Scotland. His implication was also: would the Scottish Government have responded to the appeal if Mr Yousaf's relatives had not been stuck in Gaza?
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf commits to further humanitarian aid for Gaza
Mr Kerr told the Telegraph said: “The First Minister has some serious explaining to do, starting with why he overrode officials to take money away from the vital Unicef water programme and assign it to UNRWA.
“It looks as if the money was not budgeted and that the First Minister was prepared to bend the rules and not follow procedure.
“Humza Yousaf has a clear conflict of interest in the awarding of aid to Gaza. Clearly, the fact that so many members of his family are either living in Gaza or are involved with Palestinian organisations raises significant questions about what his motivation is for using taxpayers’ money in the area.”
What did the First Minster's spokesman say?
Essentially the Scottish Government pointed out that UNRWA had no role in enabling the First Minister's family to escape Gaza and that there was clearly no conflict of interest therefore and the claims were false. Basically his argument was that for there to be a conflict of interest UNRWA would have had to have some influence in who was allowed to escape. But UNRWA did not.
In a response to claims made in the article a spokesman for the First Minister said there was a “rigorous process to ensure complete transparency and accountability” in the allocation of money from the Scottish Government's International Development Fund.
Parachutes drop supplies into the northern Gaza Strip, as seen from southern Israel, Friday, March 8, 2024. (AP Photo/Leo Correa).
He said that while the fund “primarily” supports projects in partner countries, funding has been made available to address “urgent humanitarian needs” in several other countries in recent years.
The spokesman said: “UNRWA had no role in the situation regarding the First Minister’s extended family, and any suggestion of a conflict of interest in this matter would be completely untrue. The record shows the First Minister’s actions were consistent with his obligations towards openness and honesty in the Scottish Ministerial Code.
“The decision not to restrict funding to water supplies was based on advice from officials, following discussions with UNRWA, Unicef and the British Red Cross, who all stressed the importance of flexibility in providing humanitarian support according to changing needs on the ground.”
How did the First Minister respond after the Telegraph article was published?
He was fuming, calling the story a smear and suggesting the story was trying to link him to supporting terrorism.
Responding on Twitter/X, Mr Yousaf said: “I don’t usually respond to smears against me or my family but this story is so outrageous it requires a response. Most of my political life, I’ve battled insinuations from sections of the media desperate to link me to terrorism despite campaigning my whole life against it.”
The “latest smear” from The Telegraph is just a continuation of these Islamophobic attacks, Mr Yousaf said.
He pointed out that the Scottish Government gave the aid funding to Gaza like "virtually every government in the West, because of the unarguable humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded there", the funding was directed to UNRWA's emergency appeal because it was deemed "the most flexible" funding route. He also pointed out the UK Government had also given funding to UNRWA.
“To be clear, the Scottish government gave money to Gaza, like virtually every government in the West, because of the unarguable humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded there," he said.
"Funding to UNRWA was deemed the most flexible way of ensuring money got to where it was needed. Hence why so many governments, including the UK, gave millions to them.”
What is happening now?
The row is still ongoing after Mr Kerr went on the BBC yesterday and refused to back down. It's arguable that he even fuelled the row by saying Mr Yousaf's reaction to the Telegraph article was an "over-reaction".
Later last night, in a statement to The Herald, Keith Brown, the SNP depute leader called for Mr Kerr to be sacked as a Conservative general election candidate.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel