THE leader of the Scottish Family Party has been criticised for taking part in an interview with a prominent figure from a far-right group.
Richard Lucas, who leads the party, took part in a video interview with Patriotic Alternative (PA) Scotland's organiser Simon Crane, The Ferret reports.
We previously told how PA unfurled a 'White Lives Matter' banner at the top of Ben Nevis to the horror of witnesses.
READ MORE: What happened at the anti-gender reform protest at Holyrood
The far-right group has also been accused of misogynistic abuse by two former female members.
It has been revealed that the interview took place during a demonstration against Scotland's gender reforms outside of the Scottish Parliament on January 12, organised by SFP and Stef Shaw, known as the "Glasgow Cabbie".
Crane also interviewed Niall Fraser, a former candidate for All for Unity, George Galloway's party, and described him as a "rising star" in the SFP.
We previously told how those protesting against the Gender Recognition Reform Bill called activists who supported the reforms "rapists and paedophiles".
Our footage from the event led to Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie calling for a police investigation.
A Scottish Greens spokesperson told The Ferret: “Patriotic Alternative is an extreme and hateful group that peddles misinformation and prejudice. The fact that they would want to speak to and promote the Scottish Family Party tells us everything we need to know about both of them.”
SFP leader Lucas said Crane was a member of the political party but left to join PA due to his "ethno-nationalist political stance".
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: Alister Jack is acting like a governor-general
“Our view is that ethno-nationalism is a dead end that can generate tension and hostility but struggles to offer any practical way forward in tackling some real issues that exist in the UK with regard to integration, shared values and common culture," he added.
Lucas told The Ferret that he takes “any opportunity to present the SFP to a new audience” and would “probably” speak to PA again.
He added: “The last thing that people involved in such organisations need is isolation.
“I would be happy to discuss any common ground and, more importantly, to seek to challenge and persuade adherents to reconsider their views.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel