Distillery layoffs send shudders across remote Scottish island
Since 2015 the Harris Distillery has enabled dozens of young locals to stay and work on the sparsely inhabited island off the west coast of Scotland, which has endured years of population decline as islanders move away in search of job opportunities on the mainland.
But the announcement of layoffs in recent weeks has sparked fears of a new exodus of more young residents, leaving the island's tight-knit community crestfallen.
The distillery stands on the shore of the small Tarbert harbour and has become a source of pride in Harris, producing award-winning Scotch whisky and gin sold around the world.
"I've quite often said the world didn't need another whisky, but the island did," said Shona Macleod, who was among the site's first employees when it opened.
She said "the whole purpose of the distillery was to create long-term employment and opportunities for people" at a time when Harris's population had fallen by around half in 50 years, as young people left to find work.
There are now around 1,800 inhabitants on the island in the Outer Hebrides, known for its sweeping beaches and turquoise waters.
- 'Desperately sad' -
When AFP visited the distillery, several of its 50 or so employees -- whose average age is 32 -- were overcome with emotion following the announcement of job cuts at the end of April.
"It's desperately sad," said the distillery's financial director Ron MacEachran, with tears in his eyes.
He is from the nearby Isle of Scalpay, and remembers when there was "a thriving community" in this area decades ago with a prosperous port.
"We set out from the very outset to do something very positive for the island," he said.
"This was not something that we contemplated," he added. "Having to do it is deeply painful, because we understand the impact it has on the individuals."
But he said the whisky industry was facing serious problems, with overproduction, changes in consumer habits and global volatility.
"We've deferred the decision for a staff restructuring as long as possible," he said.
"But we had to take it in order to allow the business more scope to navigate through what looks to be a continuing challenge."
Ten percent tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump -- whose mother Mary Anne MacLeod Trump was born and raised on the neighbouring Isle of Lewis -- were one of several factors creating "uncertainty", he said.
The distillery did not say how many workers would be affected by the cuts, but confirmed staff would be offered voluntary redundancies, followed by compulsory redundancies if targets are not met.
It is also not clear what the news means for the company or its star whisky "Hearach", whose name refers to people from Harris in Scottish Gaelic, or its gin flavoured with local sugar kelp which is served in trendy London bars.
But the uncertainty ushered in by the announcement has come as a blow to young people who stayed on the island after finding work at the distillery.
Several said jobs at the site had helped them feel "settled" at home in Harris.
Donald MacRae, 27, was planning to leave the island to find work as a sports teacher following the Covid pandemic, before he saw the distillery was recruiting staff.
"I was about to move to the mainland," he said.
Now, he has bought a house on Harris and his girlfriend works at the distillery too.
"I'm settled and happy here," he said.
Macleod, 51, worried "young people might have to leave the island again" in search of work.
But MacEachran said he wanted to the distillery to pull through and said he remained hopeful about its future.
"We have something very precious here," he said.
ctx/alm/lcm/jkb/srg
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Tariffs Shock India, With New Delhi Weighing Its Options
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A decades-long partnership between the United States and India has come under sudden strain, as President Donald Trump's new wave of tariffs on Indian exports left officials in New Delhi caught off guard and scrambling for answers. Trump's decision to impose a 25 percent duty on Indian goods earlier this month—with plans to double it to 50 percent next week over India's continued purchases of Russian oil—landed with little warning and no clear path forward. It marked a stunning public rupture between two countries that have for years portrayed themselves as close strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. "This is the worst downturn since 2013 or 2014," Shajak Sengupta, a senior research associate at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, told Newsweek. "What makes it more serious is how public and high-level the criticism has been. This didn't come through backchannels—it came straight from the president." Sengupta cited multiple tensions behind the rift beyond Russian oil, including India's rejection of Trump's claims to have mediated a cease-fire with Pakistan, stalled trade talks on agriculture, and a broader desire to pressure Moscow. US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 13, 2025. US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 13, 2025. Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP) (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images "But when all of those issues get bundled into tariffs, with no signaling beforehand, that's when it becomes a structural problem," he said. Modi's Bet on Trump Falters Just months before the tariff shock, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood shoulder to shoulder with President Trump in Washington, declaring a new phase in the U.S.-India strategic relationship. "We're going to open up India like never before," Trump said during a joint press appearance at the White House, where he announced a target of expanding bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. Modi, in turn, called the U.S. "India's most trusted partner" and said he expected the "big deal" to be finalized "within months." "In the language of America, it's 'Make India Great Again' — MIGA," Modi said as Trump smiled along. "When America and India work together, this MAGA plus MIGA becomes a 'mega partnership for prosperity." Their February meeting was cast as a breakthrough moment: both leaders praised each other's vision, committed to deepening defense and economic cooperation, and previewed a bilateral trade agreement that was, by all public accounts, nearing completion. WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 13: U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet in the Oval Office at the White House on February 13, 2025 in Washington, DC. WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 13: U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet in the Oval Office at the White House on February 13, 2025 in Washington, optimism has since collapsed under the weight of Trump's August tariff orders, with the South Asian giant facing a penalty higher than that imposed on China, long cast as America's chief economic rival. "It's a lesson in the limits of chemistry," said Chietigj Bajpaee, senior research fellow for South Asia in the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House. That breakdown in personal diplomacy has quickly translated into real economic costs. The new tariffs, now among the steepest levied by the U.S. on any trading partner, strike directly at sectors central to India's export economy such as textiles and leather goods, which together accounted for $18.3 billion of exports to the U.S. in 2024. "With Trump, everything is leverage," Bajpaee said. "What seemed like alignment in February turned out to be a setup for pressure in August." Trade Fallout Spills Into Strategy What began as a trade dispute has quickly widened into a broader geopolitical reckoning. Indian officials are said to be furious at what they view as scapegoating by Washington. "It is extremely unfortunate that the U.S. should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest," the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement. "We reiterate that these actions are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable." The fallout comes at a time of renewed alignment among BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—all of whom are facing pressure from Washington on various fronts. Modi is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin later this year, following a planned BRICS summit in China that Modi will attend. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, left, Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, at a BRICS summit, on October 23, 2024, in Kazan, Russia. Russia hopes to revive a three-way bloc... Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, left, Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, at a BRICS summit, on October 23, 2024, in Kazan, Russia. Russia hopes to revive a three-way bloc with India and China."This has renewed the convergence of interests between India, Russia and China," Bajpaee said. "But India still seeks to project a benign worldview—non-Western, but not anti-Western. And the long-term rationale for working with the U.S. hasn't changed." Inside the White House, however, officials have sharpened their tone. "India portrays itself as being one of our closest friends in the world, but they don't accept our products. They impose massive tariffs on us," said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff, in a Fox News interview. "They're taking advantage of us on trade and underwriting Putin's war effort." Stephen Miller: "India portrays itself as being one of our closest friends in the world; but they don't accept our products, they impose massive tariffs on us, we also know they engage in a lot of cheating on immigration policy." — captive dreamer (@avaricum777) August 4, 2025 Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added fuel to that fire on CNBC Tuesday, accusing New Delhi of "profiteering" from the war by purchasing Russian oil at a steep discount, refining it, and selling it back on the open market while pocketing the profit. "This opportunistic arbitrage is unacceptable," the former hedge-fund manager said. The strategic cost of the rift could be significant. "India shares America's view that China poses the world's most significant strategic threat," Richard Rossow, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Newsweek. "A strong trade agreement would accelerate this growing partnership and bolster military cooperation—both bilaterally and through forums like the Quad," an informal diplomatic working group made up of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States and designed to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. Alyssa Ayres, a former senior State Department official and now a professor at George Washington University, told Newsweek the downturn signals a shift in the president's focus during his second term. "In Trump's first term, he emphasized India's market access issues, but also worked to deepen the broader relationship," she said. "Now it looks like trade concerns are crowding everything else out." What Comes Next? Despite the tensions, both sides have reason to tread carefully. India remains the United States' ninth‑largest trading partner, while the U.S. is India's top export destination, importing over $86 billion in goods last year. "India is one of our ten largest goods‑trading partners and a key supplier of offshore IT‑enabled services," said Rossow. "And to India, the U.S. is easily the most significant economic partner—the largest destination for its goods and services exports, and the largest source of inbound foreign investment." Calls for diplomacy have grown louder. "The U.S. and Indian governments need to talk to each other in private and resolve their differences," Ambassador Atul Keshap, president of the U.S.–India Business Council, told Newsweek. "Washington and Delhi have proven they can have difficult conversations that address problems and keep 25 years of partnership on track. Business needs predictability and clear signals of continued technology and supply chain collaboration. Substantial investments in both directions create jobs and shared prosperity in both America and India—and are worth sustaining." Sengupta warned the standoff may already be taking a toll, with tariffs and uncertainty already slowing investment and economic activity in both countries. Indian firms have invested more than $40 billion in the U.S., supporting nearly 425,000 American jobs—a sharp increase from $22 billion and 125,000 jobs in 2020, according to industry data. "If ties continue to sour, you could see a plateauing or even decline in trade and investment—the kind of flows needed not just to fuel India's development, but also the U.S. strategy to reduce dependence on China." Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley reinforced the warning in a Newsweek opinion column published Wednesday, urging the administration not to lose sight of the larger picture. "Scuttling 25 years of momentum with the only country that can serve as a counterweight to Chinese dominance in Asia would be a strategic disaster," she wrote. Haley called for direct talks between Trump and Modi and said India should be treated "like the prized free and democratic partner that it is—not an adversary like China."
New York Post
20 hours ago
- New York Post
Europe is not prepared to take up the defense of Ukraine
There are many more ways in which a peace process can fail than succeed. But for either to happen, it first needs to start. And that is often the most difficult step. But after his big summit in the White House, Donald Trump seems to have pulled off the unthinkable: A summit has been organized between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky which would kick-start peace negotiations. What did it take to get here? While a cease-fire will not be a precondition, the Europeans have been granted some of the assurances they wanted on security guarantees. Whether these can be enforced is an entirely different matter — but America's agreement, in principle, to help the Europeans meet their obligations does mark an important shift in this seemingly endless war. Since it is now unlikely that Trump will change his mind and revert to the Biden-era policy of unconditional, if hesitant, support for Ukraine, we are now left with two possible scenarios for how the war plays out. In the first, Ukraine and Russia will agree to a peace deal, and the US and Europe will try their best to make the post-war security arrangement work. It is our baseline scenario, but it will be hard to pull off since the question of land is a particularly difficult one. 4 President Donald Trump (R) and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands at the end of a joint press conference at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. AFP via Getty Images The starting point of the talks would have to be the existing military situation — not Russia's or Ukraine's maximal demands — and would then need to be followed by detailed negotiations. In the second scenario, the peace talks will go ahead but fail. Trump will then blame Zelensky and actively disengage from supporting Ukraine. Beware of extrapolating yesterday's show of support: The smiles are deceptive. Trump wants to get out. Like the real estate developer he once was, who has first put a deposit down, Trump has invested political capital into a peace process and he is not going to back down. 4 Russian President Vladimir Putin listens to acting Head of the Komi Republic Rostislav Goldshtein during a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2025. AP This scenario would be very bad for Ukraine and for Europe. America would withdraw — for real this time. The Europeans would be left having to support Ukraine and build a new security infrastructure without US support. This is not really a viable financial or military option for European leaders. After all, their engagement would have to be major. The Ukraine-Russia front line is, at the moment, about 745 miles — around the length of the Cold War-era inner German border. Nor does this include the rest of Ukraine's de jure border to the north and east with Russia, and with Belarus. There have been some comparisons with the situation in Korea — but the demilitarized zone there is barely 155 miles in length. 4 Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks during a joint press conference with the European Commission President in Brussels, on August 17, 2025. AFP via Getty Images Adequately securing such a large border on the Ukrainian side would take a huge amount of troops — one estimate suggests as many as 150,000 European soldiers. This is a far larger deployment than anyone has envisaged; Emmanuel Macron mentioned troop numbers in the thousands earlier in the year similar to the so-called trip-wire deployments in the Baltic States. And even if they wanted to, European leaders don't have the troops needed to provide genuine assurances to Kyiv. Johann Wadephul, the German foreign minister, recently admitted that Germany probably wouldn't have the capacity to send troops to Ukraine. And while the UK might be keen to voice its political commitment to the country, it's doubtful that it can meaningfully back this up. 4 President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky participate in a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2025. AFP via Getty Images A RUSI piece last year indicated that Britain does not have enough equipment to sustain a proper three-brigade armored division. Even deploying a single brigade would use up 70%-80% of the British Army's total combat engineering capabilities. There are other challenges too. At this stage, the easiest way to blow a deal, by either side, would be to refuse concessions on land. The Russian claim for the entirety of the Donbas region, including the parts they don't occupy, is a maximalist one, from which Russia would have to retreat if the negotiations were to succeed. There are some commercial assets in the region of interest to Moscow — mines and industrial companies based in the Russian-occupied parts — but it has military significance for Ukraine. In any case, there is a long history of European regions being split. Karelia split into Finnish and Russian parts after the Winter War of 1939-40, and parts of the old Prussia are now in Lithuania, Russia, Poland and Germany. Negotiations, though, will be fraught. But the big difficulty European leaders will face is how to deal with their war-crazed supporters back home. There has been a great deal of cheerleading and regime-change fanaticism in the European political and media space, with many recent headlines insisting that Russia must not be rewarded for its aggression. None of these authors, of course, has a military strategy for victory, because strategic thinking is not what educated Europeans do. They use the passive tense when they speak or write: Something must be done, they intone. Rarely, if ever, do they say: 'We will do this and are ready to make sacrifices to do so.' But we do know the rest of the world does not look at Russia the way Europe does. This Eurocentric perspective no longer dominates global discourse — except, of course, in Europe. It is clear that we are living in one of those dangerous moments in history where fate could flip either way. Yet for all his arrogance, at least Trump has a strategy, whereas; the Europeans do not. Reprinted with permission from unHerd.
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Nvidia developing more powerful AI chip to sell in China: report
Nvidia is developing an AI chip for China that is more powerful than the H20 model it is currently allowed to sell in the region, according to a report. The new chip, tentatively named the B30A, is a less advanced version of its Blackwell B300 design, which is blocked from sale in China by export restrictions, two sources familiar with the company's plans told Reuters. It's likely to deliver about half of the raw computing power of the B300 – after President Trump signaled he'd be open to allowing a new chip into China that's '30 to 50% off' in terms of power, adding that the H20 has grown 'obsolete.' Advertisement 3 Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang speaks about new products as he delivers the keynote address at an AI conference in March. AFP via Getty Images Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Tuesday said he wouldn't be surprised if CEO Jensen Huang wants to sell a new chip to China. 'I'm sure he's pitching the president all the time,' Lutnick told CNBC's 'Squawk on the Street.' 'I've listened to him pitch the president, and the president listens to our great technology companies, and he'll decide how he wants to play it.' Advertisement Nvidia is aiming to send samples of the new chip to Chinese clients for testing as early as next month, the sources told Reuters. 'We evaluate a variety of products for our roadmap, so that we can be prepared to compete to the extent that governments allow,' an Nvidia spokesperson told The Post in a statement. 'Everything we offer is with the full approval of the applicable authorities and designed solely for beneficial commercial use.' Advertisement 3 Nvidia is aiming to send samples of a new chip to Chinese clients as early as next month, according to a report. REUTERS Trump recently announced an unprecedented deal for Nvidia and AMD to give the US government 15% of revenue from their sales in China – in exchange for permission to recommence sales of the H20 and AMD's MI308. Nvidia built the H20 model specifically to bypass Biden-era export controls, but the company was ordered to halt sales in April. Trump said last week that he asked for a 20% cut of Nvidia's China sales, but that Huang negotiated it down to 15%. Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters It's unknown whether Nvidia would receive regulatory approval for the sale of these chips, as there are still strong national security concerns around handing China a lead in the AI race. And there's growing distrust of Nvidia in China as state media claim their chips pose security risks, though Nvidia has maintained this is false. 3 Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang at an AI summit in July. AFP via Getty Images But Nvidia doesn't want to lose its share of the Chinese market to domestic rivals like Huawei. About 13% of Nvidia's revenue in the past financial year came from China.
