Sarwar Criticises Mandelson's US Ambassador Appointment as 'Clear Mistake'
Sarwar: Mandelson Should Not Have Been US Ambassador

Scottish Labour Leader Condemns Mandelson's Diplomatic Appointment

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has declared that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as the United Kingdom's ambassador to the United States, describing the decision as "clearly a mistake".

The intervention comes as Lord Mandelson, who was dismissed from the diplomatic role last year due to his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has resigned from the House of Lords. This follows the release of information suggesting he shared confidential government details about the 2009 financial crisis response with Epstein.

Police Investigation and Political Fallout

The Metropolitan Police has now launched an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office in connection with these revelations. Speaking at a press conference in Glasgow, Mr Sarwar stated unequivocally that the appointment was inappropriate from the outset.

"It's quite clearly the case that Peter Mandelson should not have been the ambassador to the US," Mr Sarwar asserted. "It's right that he is not a member of the Labour Party and he should not sit in the House of Lords. I've heard the Prime Minister say that, had he known then what he knows now, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson as the US ambassador – that was clearly a mistake."

Westminster Pressure and SNP Criticism

One of the most vocal figures demanding Lord Mandelson's expulsion from the Lords has been SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn. Mr Flynn has drawn connections between Mandelson's relationship with Epstein and similar associations involving Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy and former Number 10 adviser Matthew Doyle, now a peer, with convicted paedophile Sean Morton.

While Scottish Labour has removed Ms Duncan-Glancy from its frontbench and she has announced she won't stand in May's election, the party has resisted calls to withdraw the whip from her. Meanwhile, Baron Doyle has taken his seat in the upper chamber without obstruction.

Sarwar's Counterattack on SNP

Mr Sarwar launched a strong rebuttal against Mr Flynn during the press conference, invoking the case of former SNP MP Patrick Grady, who was suspended from Parliament for inappropriate conduct towards a staff member.

"I would direct this directly at Stephen Flynn, but also other members of the SNP," he said. "He wants to shamefully use the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, who abused women, who clearly abused positions of power and relationships, to try and make comparisons with the situation with Pam Duncan-Glancy. It's frankly disgusting and beneath them."

Mr Sarwar contrasted his party's actions with those of the SNP, noting that while Ms Duncan-Glancy has been removed from the shadow cabinet and won't stand for re-election, the SNP "stood by and defended and protected" Mr Grady after his suspension.

Flynn's Response and Ongoing Controversy

In response, Mr Flynn criticised Mr Sarwar's judgment, highlighting his previous description of Mandelson as an "old friend" despite public knowledge of his Epstein connections. He also pointed to Ms Duncan-Glancy's continued party membership despite her association with Sean Morton.

"Anas Sarwar has shown appalling judgment over his close relationship with Peter Mandelson and Pam Duncan-Glancy," Mr Flynn stated. "He embraced Mandelson and boasted that he was his 'old friend' despite knowing that he maintained contact with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which has been a matter of public record for many years."

The SNP Westminster leader accused Mr Sarwar of failing to take decisive action and suggested voters would disapprove of his handling of the situation, linking it to broader concerns about Labour's leadership under Keir Starmer.

This exchange highlights the ongoing political tensions surrounding associations with convicted offenders and the scrutiny of appointments to high-profile diplomatic positions, with both major Scottish parties trading accusations about judgment and accountability in sensitive matters.