SNP ‘all over the place' on funding for defence companies, claims Labour
The SNP has been accused of being 'all over the place' on state funding for defence companies, after the Government enterprise agency declined to back a Rolls-Royce welding skills centre.
Rolls-Royce has been told the project in the Glasgow area cannot be supported with £2.5m of funding from Scottish Enterprise.
A Scottish Government minister said the project could not be funded as it concerns 'munitions' and is part of a programme for building attack submarines.
UK Defence Secretary John Healy has described the refusal to back the welding centre as 'student union politics'.
SNP business minister Richard Lochhead responded to MSPs' questions on Tuesday.
He said the Scottish Government and its agencies have a longstanding policy that public money should not support 'the manufacture of munitions'. PA Media Richard Lochhead said the project would be ineligible for Scottish Enterprise support PA Media
Mr Lochhead said as the project concerns an 'attack submarine' it would be ineligible for Scottish Enterprise support, but a formal application had not been received.
Scottish Labour deputy leader Dame Jackie Baillie said: 'The Scottish Government's position is frankly incoherent and their policy on state funded aid for defence is all over the place and applied selectively.'
She pointed out that the Government-owned shipyard Ferguson Marine is carrying out subcontractor work for the Royal Navy's Type 26 frigate programme – arguing 'there are munitions on the frigate'.
Mr Lochhead responded, saying: 'The Scottish Government very much values the role of the defence sector in Scotland and the many jobs it sustains, and indeed the value it adds to the Scottish economy.
'For that reason £45m of support through our enterprise agencies has been allocated to defence companies or companies partially involved in defence activities.' PA Media Labour's Dame Jackie Baillie said the SNP is 'all over the place' PA Media
Dame Jackie asked: 'What does the Government believe the Army, the Navy and the air force should defend the country with?
'Pea shooters, bows and arrows, a telling off?'
Conservative MSP Stephen Kerr aid the SNP's position is 'not just incoherent, it's totally hypocritical'.
Mr Lochhead said funding had focused on the diversification of industry, noting defence is reserved to the UK Government.
He also said governments must take into account 'ethical considerations' when it comes to funding companies in the defence sector.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is doing almost everything badly, say voters in poll showing huge public dissatisfaction with Starmer over immigration, the economy and the NHS
The public think Labour is handling almost every major issue poorly, according to bleak new polling. A survey of more than 8,000 Britons has shown that most think the Government is doing badly on all but two of 15 important policies. The YouGov research found that people are particularly scathing about the way Sir Keir Starmer 's administration is tackling three crucial areas. 'Undoubtedly, the public do mostly think the government are handling many key issues badly, with this particularly noticeable on the three issues that have consistently topped our most important issues tracker since the election: the NHS, immigration and the economy,' the pollster said. Three-quarters think immigration is being handled badly, with a majority (52 per cent) saying ministers are doing 'very badly', while only one in seven (14 per cent) give Labour positive marks. Seven in ten say the economy and NHS are being handled badly, in surveys carried out since May, compared with just one in five who support ministers' efforts. In addition, more than six in ten say the Government is doing a bad job on welfare (69 per cent), housing (66), crime (64) and inflation (62). The only faintly positive result concerns Labour's handling of terrorism, where 37 per cent say the Government is doing well and 34 per cent disagree. And on defence the public are split which 34 per cent disapproving of ministers' approach and 41 per cent backing it. However YouGov pointed out that 'the last Conservative government was also seen as doing better than average on these two issues, particularly terrorism, suggesting credit may not be due to Labour for managing these issues uniquely well'. It comes after Sir Keir plumbed new depths of unpopularity in YouGov's ratings tracker, with even half of Labour's own voters now holding an unfavourable view of him. In detailed findings that may particularly alarm No 10, the survey found that women have a particularly negative view of the Government. Only 16 per cent of women questioned said ministers were handling health well, compared with 26 per cent of men. 'Although the 20-point gender difference on the handling of the NHS is exceptionally large, the pattern is not unusual, with the government's net handling score lower among women on all but one issue polled (transport),' YouGov said. It comes amid claims five million pensioners face paying extra tax to claw back their winter fuel allowance. A complicated solution being mooted to defuse fury at Labour slashing the benefit - worth up to £300 - would see it handed to all the older generation this season. However, around half - with annual incomes over £37,000 - would repay the money later through higher tax bills. The idea has been condemned by unions amid fears bereaved families could be hit with unexpected demands for cash. Labour insiders have voiced alarm at the 'optics' of trying to recoup the allowance from the estates of those who died after getting it. Introducing a tough means test on winter fuel allowance was one of the first announcements Rachel Reeves made after entering No11, and has been blamed for triggering the dramatic slump in Labour's popularity. Only those on the lowest incomes, receiving pensioner credit, have been entitled to the handout. Keir Starmer dramatically announced a U-turn last month, without saying what exactly was being proposed or when it would take effect.
Edinburgh Live
19 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Live
Battery storage next to Midlothian school approved despite safety fears
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Scottish Ministers have given the go ahead to a battery storage site less than 100 metres from a school campus despite safety concerns. Midlothian councillors urged the Scottish Government's Energy Consent Unit to consider the fact the new Battery Energy Storage System, known as BESS, would be so close to the Dalkeith campus which has around 2,500 children and young people in its roll. But a meeting of the council's planning committee next week will hear the BESS has been approved with no mention of fire risks or the proximity of the school in the Minister's decision. A report to councillors says: "The Ministers are satisfied that landscape and visual impacts, impacts on traffic, impacts from noise, coal mining legacy issues, decommissioning, and pollution prevention can all be mitigated via the use of conditions. "The determination letter does not make any comment on fire risk or the safety of the schools campus." Ministers determined the benefits of the new site would be vital to meeting net zero targets They said: "Energy storage such as the proposed development provides will be vital in that context to help maintain the balance between supply and demand, to ensuring security of supply, and to reducing the curtailment of renewable generators under grid constraints which would otherwise result in a loss of valuable renewable generation. "Secure and stable energy supply is a fundamental need of a prosperous economy. As well as the potential economic benefit to local and national businesses during construction, the proposed development would provide further benefit to the economy through its contribution to underpinning energy security and flexibility.' Midlothian councillors wrote to the Energy Consent Unit, which is responsible for decisions about BESS applications, to raise their concern about it being placed on a 12 hectare field behind the school campus which includes Dalkeith and St Davids High Schools as well as Saltersgate School and Woodburn Primary School. Councillor Ellen Scott, SNP administration education spokesperson, told a meeting of the planning committee in December that there had been an explosion and major fire in Merseyside four years ago at a battery storage unit where it was reported the temperature on the site rose to 40 degrees Celsius within two minutes. She said: 'This site is just 70 metres from the edge of the schools campus where 2,500 of our young people, some very young at three years old and some with severe complex needs, are going to be.' Her comments were supported by Councillor Dianne Alexander who also said the site was over a 'coal seam and gas pipe' She said: 'I just think this is too dangerous for us to allow.' The proposals for the site include a BESS with a capacity of 200 megawatts with 168 storage containers spread across four compounds. The containers will be used to house Lithium-ion batteries and the compounds will be hard surfaced and enclosed with three metre high fencing. The report to councillors next week says: "The Scottish Ministers in making their determination on the application, have balanced all relevant considerations, decided what weight is to be given to each and reached a view as to where the balance of benefit lies. "On balance, it is considered that the impacts of the proposed development are acceptable in the context of its benefits, and that the development is supported by relevant planning and energy policies.'
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
How Trump's first buddy Elon Musk became enemy number one
On the surface, it was a dream reciprocal alliance. Musk reportedly contributed some $250m to support Trump and other Republicans in the November elections, while Trump, impressed with the disruptive energy of the tech billionaire, got him to head up the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). But just five months later, their relationship appears to be blowing up in a spectacularly explosive fashion. This week, Musk, whose Tesla business has been hit hard by his association with the president, slammed Trump's flagship tax and spending bill, calling it a 'disgusting abomination'. The outburst came just days after an Oval Office send-off from the president, which was attended by Musk sporting a black eye. Trump presented him with a brown box containing a large golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia, which he said he only gave to 'very special people'. Less than a week has passed and that special relationship is now becoming one of enmity and rage. Musk's resentment toward Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act', was on full display on X/Twitter when the tech billionaire wrote: 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore, this massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that Trump was aware of Musk's stance on the bill, a package that cuts trillions in taxes while scaling back programmes like Medicaid and subsidies that benefit Tesla. Leavitt tried to downplay the conflict, saying Musk's view 'doesn't change the president's opinion' of him, though tensions have clearly been simmering. The Independent noted this week that concerns Musk raised about the administration's crackdown on immigration (he wanted access to the world's best scientific brains, regardless of where they're from) were routinely ignored. And the frustration between him and the Republicans has been stewing for months. Now that Musk has fired the first public shot, his critics aren't holding back. 'He's a complete joke. He had no idea what the f*** he was doing,' one republican told Axios anonymously, fearing retaliation from Musk. 'Nobody really wanted him here. We couldn't wait to get rid of him.' Axios also reported that House speaker Mike Johnson told House Republicans in a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday that Trump himself is 'pi**** off' at Musk. Johnson said at a press conference after the meeting that he talks to Trump 'multiple times a day' and that the president is 'not delighted that Elon did a 180'. Another republican, backed up that assertion, told Axios: 'I knew it was a matter of time before the two alpha males would explode, fight each other.' Elsewhere, Trump's former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a bitter enemy of Musk, has suggested that the first schism in their relationship came in March when the president refused to show the billionaire the Pentagon's attack plans for a hypothetical war with China. Speaking to The Atlantic last month, Bannon said of that moment: 'You could feel it. Everything changed. The fever had been broken.' Others believe the final nail came when Trump abruptly decided over the weekend to withdraw the nomination of Musk ally and investor, Jared Isaacman, to be Nasa's next administrator. Appearing on the All-in Podcast yesterday, Isaacman said he was disappointed when he learned that his nomination had been revoked, noting that the fact it coincided with Musk's departure from the White House wasn't a coincidence. 'There were some people who had some axes to grind, and I was a good visible target,' he said. This claim has been disputed, however, with complaints from Republican senators about Isaacman's track record as a Democratic donor also given as a reason for the decision. That Musk now feels angry and disillusioned is no surprise to those who have long believed that such oversized egos were destined to collide. But the roots of this volatile dynamic go beyond tariffs and immigration. Some say the toxicity of their relationship stems from the formative paternal influences that shaped both men. For Donald Trump, the blueprint for leadership was laid by his stern and demanding father, Fred Trump Sr. From a very young age, Donald was taught that there were only 'winners – or 'killers' – and losers', a lesson his father relentlessly imparted. According to Tony Schwartz, who co-authored The Art of the Deal with Trump, Fred was a 'very brutal guy' with 'very, very little emotional intelligence'. 'I strongly suspect that he had a relationship with his father that accounts for a lot of what he became,' Schwartz told PBS's Frontline website. Trump's niece, Mary, a clinical psychologist who wrote the bestselling book Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man, says Fred Sr 'destroyed' Donald by hindering his 'ability to develop and experience the entire spectrum of human emotion'. Elon Musk 's own childhood was similarly difficult and his relationship with his father, Errol Musk, was fraught with tension. Musk said in a 2022 TED Talk: 'I did not have a happy childhood, to be frank. It was quite rough.' His father is said to have taken the side of his son's school bullies, calling him 'worthless', something which he has denied. When Elon Musk moved to America, Errol allegedly told him: 'You'll be back in a few months. You will never be successful.' Being raised in environments where dominance, ruthlessness, and an inability to show weakness are paramount is unhelpful, particularly when it comes to father son relationships. 'In my field,' says Dr Frank Ochberg, a pioneering psychiatrist and trauma expert who helped define PTSD, 'if you have been abused by a parent when you're very young, that's of consequence. And there are various ways in which people who eventually had a powerful impact on the world for better or worse are evaluated in terms of parental impact. 'It doesn't take a rocket scientist – although Elon is a rocket scientist – to say having a bully as a father can make you a bully as a man, and an effective one at that. And if you do have the combination of Musk and Trump together, you can also empower other bullies, male and female – and they have.' Ochberg says Trump and Musk have both succeeded in bringing bullies and bullying tendencies into what we might consider sacred spaces – the workplace and, in Trump's case, one we associate with high morality such as the seat of government. But, he says, 'I think seeing them publicly disagreeing with each other diminishes the moral and political force of each of them.' It seems that a long-term, equitable partnership between the two was always an impossibility, especially one where one, Trump, demands utter loyalty, which Musk, a man his biographer Walter Isaacson points out engages 'Demon Mode', a state of intense focus and anger while working on projects, is unwilling to give. Cornell law professor Sarah Kreps notes, there's simply 'not room at the centre of politics for two such massive egos'. It was only November when Trump's son Eric, dismissing reports of a breakdown in his father's relationship with Musk, said his dad 'loves' and 'adores' the SpaceX owner, and considers him a 'super genius'. In the end, perhaps this was always the only way it could go: two men raised in the shadow of domineering and difficult fathers with something to prove; both intoxicated by their own authority, colliding in drama and chaos of their own making. The rift between Trump and Musk may read like a celebrity feud, but it's far more consequential. For now, Trump and Musk remain locked in a game of egos, and the rest of us are just along for the ride.
