Extra £3.45 million awarded to study into possible upgrades to key Dumfries and Galloway road
An extra £3.45 million is to be put into investigating upgrades to the A75.
The UK Government has allocated the cash to a study looking into bypassing Springholm and Crocketford.
The new funding is part of a £66 million package Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced to improve transport links in the west of Scotland.
She said: 'We're pledging billions to back Scottish jobs, industry and renewal - that's why we're investing in the major transport projects, including exploring upgrades to the A75, that local communities have been calling for.
'Whilst previous governments oversaw over a decade of decline of our transport infrastructure, we're investing in Britain's renewal. This £66 million investment is exactly what our Plan for Change is about, investing in what matters to you in the places that you live.'
The need to upgrade the A75 was identified in the Scottish Government's second Strategic Transport Projects Review and the UK Government's Union Connectivity Review.
Despite roads devolved to the Scottish Government, in 2022, the then Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced £5 million for a feasibility study into bypassing Springholm and Crocketford.
That was increased to £8 million by Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in 2023 – but after Labour won last year's General Election, the amount allocated was reduced to 'up to £5 million'.
The aaward of an extra £3.45 million now takes the total for the study to a potential £8.45 million.
Scotland Secretary, Ian Murray, said: 'This £66 million investment in Scotland's roads demonstrates the UK Government's commitment to improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in all parts of the UK as part of our Plan for Change. This investment will make a real difference to people's daily lives and to the local economies of the south of Scotland, Ayrshire and Renfrewshire.
'The A75 is strategically important just not within but beyond Scotland. Its upgrading is long overdue. I am pleased that the UK Government has stepped up to fund the delivery of the A75 feasibility study in full.
'This investment is yet another example of how the UK Government is building the foundations for a stronger, more prosperous future that benefits communities right across Scotland.'
While the UK Government is funding the study, work to upgrade the road will come from Holyrood.
The Scottish Government appointed technical advisors to work on plans for upgrades last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Today's Supreme Court ruling was a narrow miss for the economy
Britain is still, just about, a country in which it is possible to do business. The Supreme Court's decision today saw a drastic reduction in the scope of potential compensation claims against car finance lenders. To the extent that a 'scandal' existed in this field, it is the degree to which the British legal system had appeared prepared to rewrite the terms of loans made close to two decades ago in line with a vague sense that customers deserved a better deal. The direct losses to the financial sector (tens of billions of pounds in compensation claims) would have been significant on their own terms. The economic damage, however, could have been far more widespread. The effect of such a broad-ranging retrospective verdict would have had a chilling effect on the willingness of lenders to take risks in the British market. Who would want to lend money in a country where a court could decide years afterwards that compensation should be awarded to people who signed up to a loan knowing what they would pay and what they would get simply based on the salesman's commission? It is a testament to the sheer terror with which the Treasury would have viewed this prospect and the associated losses of growth and tax revenues that Chancellor Rachel Reeves was reportedly looking into legislative means to overturn a decision that went against the banks; it is hard to think of a stance less natural for this Labour Government to adopt. As things stand, there are still potential claims against those whose loans came with 'excessive' commissions. These should suffice as a warning shot against predatory practices, should any be needed. But it is worth saying that this may not be wholly desirable either. The principle of 'caveat emptor' may have fallen out of fashion, but it is far from clear that the compensation culture we have erected in its place is superior. Investing time and effort into understanding the terms and conditions of a purchase seems increasingly irrational: simply lay out your cash and should you subsequently have regrets, rest safe in the knowledge that the legal system will find a way to attempt to claw it back. This compensation does not materialise from the ether. When it is paid out, the cost is frequently borne by other consumers, who face higher prices or fewer options. This time around, we have at least arrived at a sensible conclusion. The Treasury and Ms Reeves can breathe a sigh of relief. Parliament, however, may wish to give serious thought as to the desirability of a legal structure that permits this sort of uncertainty to arise, and the incentives which it offers the public.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Scottish Tories eye Reform electoral pact
Senior Scottish Conservatives have discussed striking an electoral pact with Reform UK for the Holyrood elections next spring. One figure backing a deal told The Telegraph it could help avoid splitting the vote on the Right and kick the SNP out of power in Scotland. The deal, which would not need to be made public, would see the Tories either not stand candidates or go easy in areas where Reform is better placed to win and vice versa. It comes as Nigel Farage 's party sits above the Conservatives in third place in opinion polls for the Scottish Parliament elections next May. A pact does not have the backing of Russell Findlay, the Scottish Tory leader, whose team released a statement ruling out the possibility when approached by The Telegraph. But the fact a deal is being considered at senior levels in the party underscores the scale of Reform's popularity surge north of the border and the concerns it has triggered among Tories. In Scotland, Reform now has 15 councillors, 14 of whom used to be Conservatives. It is in marked contrast to other political parties previously run by Mr Farage, such as the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which struggled to get a foothold north of border. One Tory MSP has privately spoken of a defection 'watch list' in Holyrood of those suspected of switching to Reform. Mr Farage also waved away the idea he would agree to any such pact, telling The Telegraph: 'No chance. The Tories are dying in Scotland and I've got no desire to do a deal with them whatsoever.' The idea of some form of agreement, public or private, between the Conservatives and Reform has become a common discussion point in Westminster. Average UK-wide voting polls have Reform in first place on 30 per cent of the vote, with the Tories in a distant third on 17 per cent. Labour is in second place on 22 per cent. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has ruled out a pre-vote deal with Mr Farage, but speculation continues with the next general election not due until 2029. The recent by-election result for the Scottish Parliament seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse underscored the challenges of Right-wing parties splitting the vote. Labour won the seat with 32 per cent of the vote, followed by the SNP on 29 per cent. Reform came third on 26 per cent. Had the Tories, who got 6 per cent, not stood a candidate, it is possible Reform would have beaten Labour and taken the seat, though pollsters often caution against hard conclusions when predicting voter behaviour. Mr Farage has agreed to election pacts before. The Brexit Party, the precursor to Reform which Mr Farage led, had criticism of the Tory handling of the issue of Europe as its heart. Yet he still agreed not to stand candidates against sitting Conservatives at the 2019 general election to help Boris Johnson win and get a Brexit deal through the Commons, securing the UK's departure from the European Union. Despite interest in some quarters of the Scottish Conservative Party, other figures strongly played down the possibility of a pact. One Scottish Tory politician who has spent years in influential positions said: 'Churchill's phrase comes to mind, 'You don't negotiate with a tiger when your head's in its mouth'. We're in competition with Reform – we're not in partnership with them.' The source said Scottish Tory supporters had brought up the prospect of a deal with Reform but that there was little chance it would be adopted by the leadership. Another senior Scottish Tory said: 'Why would Reform do a deal? I can see why we might be interested in it, but why would they?' There have long been suspicions on the Right of coordination between Labour and the Liberal Democrats at general elections to maximise the chances of Tory defeats. The Lib Dems surged from winning 11 MPs at the 2019 general election to 72 MPs at the 2024 general election with almost no increase in overall vote share. The party's strategists have talked about how they ruthlessly focused on a small number of winnable seats rather than competing hard everywhere. Labour was likely to have benefited from the decreased campaigning in non-target seats. But there are reasons why striking some form of deal would be less likely in elections for the Scottish Parliament than the UK-wide Parliament in Westminster. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has a proportional element, meaning as well as individual constituency races a party wins some MPs for their overall vote totals. Reform, whose strategists hope to get between 10 and 20 MSPs next spring, is expected to get their victories almost entirely via this way, known as 'the list', rather than winning constituencies. That could provide a disincentive to strike a deal with the Tories, given a lower overall vote total would likely mean fewer MSPs thanks to this proportion element of the election. In polling for next spring's Scottish Parliament elections, Reform is on around 17 per cent, above the Tories on around 12 per cent. The SNP is top, followed by Labour. A year ago, it looked likely that Labour could win power in Scotland but a support slump since Sir Keir Starmer took office last summer means the SNP is now well-placed to remain in office. A Scottish Conservative spokesman said: 'Nigel Farage has said he is content with the SNP winning another five years in power and Reform stood multiple pro-independence candidates in the general election, so no, this won't be happening. 'The Scottish Conservatives want to get the SNP out of power, while Reform will gladly help the nationalists.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Consent for gigantic wind farm is an ironic act of ecocide
The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale. We note 'SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds', but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. READ MORE: Scottish crew 'excluded from Spider Man 4 filming' What will its proposed 'mitigation' provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide. The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened. Aileen Jackson Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may 'breach international law' (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland's position. The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn't qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it's a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let's test the same criteria: Permanent population? Scotland has that; Defined territory? Clearly; Functioning government? We've had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers. Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight. By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one? John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn't say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn't have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That's a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn't begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That's how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That's how international law actually works. The real reason Scotland isn't independent isn't legal, it's psychological. Our leaders won't cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy. So yes, the peers' letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are. James Murphy Bute THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could 'breach international law' warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it. A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice. The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one. Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances. Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion. (Image: Jonathan Brady) More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised. It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Peter Macari Aberdeen
