University vice-principal ‘asked to leave' after raising concerns, MSPs told
In a submission to MSPs examining the financial problems at the university – which is seeking to cut staff as part of efforts to deal with a £35 million deficit – she added: 'Within a month I had been asked to leave.'
Baroness Alexander, a former MSP who was a minister in the Labour-led Scottish executive, said a former principal had 'made clear' he 'wanted me to leave in early October 2024'.
She added this was shortly after she had restated concerns at a retreat attended by senior figures in the university executive group.
In a written submission to Holyrood's Education Committee, she told how she had raised concerns in writing on 'financial management issues' – although she said taking such action was a 'lonely experience'.
Baroness Alexander said she was 'told not to interfere' in such areas.
She added she 'felt punished for speaking out' but insisted she had chosen 'not to be bought off'.
The University of Dundee is seeking to cut staff as part of efforts to plug a £35 million deficit (Alamy/PA)
Baroness Alexander said she had 'declined the offer of overseas trips at the university's expense to be followed by a generous settlement payment' – claiming this 'seemed unethical and morally wrong'.
She also told how she was 'progressively frozen out of meetings' and had her objectives changed, claiming also that data was 'withheld' from her after she 'challenged the absence/adequacy of financial information in September 24'.
Her submission was published as the committee continues to take evidence from former senior figures at Dundee University over its financial plight.
On Tuesday, Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth announced the Scottish Government is using special powers to award £40 million to the institution.
Meanwhile Baroness Alexander said: 'The University of Dundee deserves to recover and continue a proud tradition of teaching and research.
'I hope the committee's deliberations can aid that outcome.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
41 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Frankly, the worst revelations are in Scotland's official statistics
PA This year's GERS read more like a horror story Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Last week the most shocking revelations about Scottish politics came to light. It should leave us worried. It should make us angry. Based on hard facts rather than unsubstantiated tittle-tattle and tasteless rumours, the evidence cannot be treated lightly or dismissed as wild imaginings. I write, of course, about the Government Expenditure and Revenue (GERS) report for 2024/25 that deserved to be taken more seriously than competing publications claiming to be fact but having all the look of wild fiction. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This year's GERS read more like a horror story worthy of Robert Louis Stevenson (Jekyll and Hyde) or Edgar Alan Poe (The House of Usher) than a dry statistical perambulation around Scotland's public spending and tax revenues. Back in 2019/20 only five years ago – public spending in Scotland was £82.8bn, yet it is £117.6bn today. That is an explosive increase of 42 per cent in just five years. If the rate of spending growth had risen in line with inflation it would have been £103bn this year. The additional £14.6bn has gone on what exactly? The increase in public spending last year alone was by 5.5 per cent – double the rate of inflation – reaching a total per household of £44,882. These sordid economic facts should be the stuff of festival fringe dramas where tragedy and comedy of the absurd is employed to explore the scheming, evasion, and delusion of SNP politicians taking decisions that cost us millions that amount to billions. Plays such as 'Who pays the Ferry, man?' or 'Recycling for Dummies' would look at great schemes that even now are still costing huge sums with no end in sight. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Just yesterday the Scotsman reported exclusively the willingness of Scottish Government politicians to test our public finances to destruction. Having established (late as usual) their shiny new political toy, called the Scottish Benefits Agency, the wilful deviation from how things are done in the rest of Britain means the Scottish taxpayer could be on the hook for an additional £36 million. Why? By not seeking to collect overpayments or errors in benefit pay-outs. Of course, were the Scottish dis-Benefits Agency to not deviate from the norm then the obvious question would be why did we create our own new bureaucracy in the first place? So we can expect more of these policies, higher or different 'benefits' than what were paid out before, at greater cost. And all from a pool of money that the Scottish Government does not have. Remember, the Scottish public finances are spent up to the limit, with any budget underspends quickly reallocated to other departments rather than returned to the taxpayer as a rebate against the next year's taxes. The public borrowing that is available is also maxed-out – which is exactly why the no new borrowing powers should be allowed, it would simply be used to extend the line of credit to an even higher amount rather than more properly provide the headroom for emergencies such as pandemics or disaster relief. Why has it come to all this? The cast of characters is substantial, not just the current finance minister Shona Robison, but stretching back to Kate Forbes, Douglas Mackay and John Swinney – all have had a hand. Presenting their past claims and contrasting them with the reality would hardly make great Fringe comedy, for no one would be laughing – although the potential of exploring the well-being economy devised by Kate Forbes could provide many ironic jaw dropping moments. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Record drug-related deaths anyone? Scottish education standards in English, maths and science falling against those of other countries where we previously built schools and taught the masses? The Book Festival could interview past ministers on how it became possible for Scots pupils to gain English qualifications without having read a novel. We should all be deeply concerned about the waste of money, the rush to book international receptions, the offices we don't need, the staff complement that only knows how to grow and where redundancies are not allowed. The free bus travel with daily excursions to shoplifting centres for under twenty-fives. Improv stand-up could take a new form of spontaneous dialogue delivered by foregoing actors and picking participants from the audience to have a serious discourse around a staged kitchen table. Hard questions could be asked with the actors role-playing the politicians but only allowed to ad-lib their answers – as making it all up seems to be how it's normally done anyway. Likewise, documentaries on devolved disasters could be made for Film Festival premiers. What GERS tells us is that while the UK public finances are bad (and yes, I have written about that too) they are but a pale imitation of the depressing Scottish public finances. When devolution commenced the size of the Scottish state accounted for 43 per cent of the economy. Now the tartan behemoth is a swaggering 55.4 per cent of GDP before oil, falling marginally to 52 per cent when including oil revenues. It is unsustainable without a sponsor, and that sponsor just happens to be Westminster. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The message from GERS is simple but indisputable; until nationalists can show they can deliver a dynamic, vibrant, prosperous, revenue-raising, job-creating economy the path to secession cannot be found because it does not exist. Ironically, if Holyrood were to come to its senses by the electorate giving it an administration that seeks to live within its means by eliminating waste and allowing compulsory redundancies then the economy could transform. Taxes could be reduced, the economic activity could rise and Scotland's wellbeing would be happy again – just not the way the current politicians would like it. It could even make separation possible, but then why would we want to? Frankly, Holyrood is a farce presented as a pantomime – and no one can rewrite any differently.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Labour right wants Wes Streeting in No 10. Why? What does he really stand for?
Just over a year after Keir Starmer entered Downing Street, his political survival already looks uncertain. Perennially indecisive, unpopular with the public and unable to pass major legislation without rebellions, the prime minister has reportedly been put 'on notice' by senior figures within his party. Speculation about a potential successor is mounting. What would Labour's dominant faction – the neo-Blairite right – look for in a candidate? Their best bet would be an effective operator who doesn't carry too much political baggage, a decent communicator, free of Starmer's stumbling reticence, and a committed partisan of their cause: namely the free market and a strong state. They need someone who will go on the offensive for these values, rather than offering the bland apologetics that we have seen from the incumbent. Few fit the bill better than the health secretary, Wes Streeting, who has made no secret of his ambition to lead the country and appears to have spent years laying the groundwork with media rounds, donor events and backroom conversations. When Starmer's leadership of the Labour party was on the brink during the Beergate scandal, Peter Mandelson is said to have canvassed the Labour frontbench to anoint Streeting. 'In the longer term,' briefed one party source, 'Wes is their guy, not Keir.' Born into a working-class east London family in 1983, Streeting has been fairly consistent in both his political style and outlook since he was in his early 20s. A pugnacious advocate of private enterprise, and an effective behind-the-scenes operator, his deft handling of the press allows him to stride into the limelight at crucial moments, with memorable one-liners that seem crafted to enrage his opponents. As president of the National Union of Students (NUS) in the twilight of the New Labour era, he inveighed against lecturers' strikes, remarking that 'students need industrial action by university staff like a hole in the head'. He also broke with dominant student opinion by supporting tuition fees and criticising Palestine solidarity protests. From the NUS it was only a small step to parliament, where Streeting landed in 2015. The words 'future leader' were immediately 'appended to his name like a Homeric epithet', according to one insider account. He vigorously opposed the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, repeatedly excoriating him in parliamentary meetings and working with the People's Vote campaign to chip away at his resistance to a second Brexit referendum. This earned him a place in Starmer's shadow cabinet once the right had regained control five years later. There, he made no bones about accepting hundreds of thousands of pounds from donors linked to the private healthcare industry. He insisted that the party needed to get tough on 'law and order' along with 'defence and national security'; and he signalled a clear shift from the foreign policy of the Corbyn era by visiting Israel and meeting with ministers in its government. Now that Streeting is at the helm of the NHS, we are beginning to see how his hypothetical prime ministership might play out. Shortly after the last general election, he sketched out his vision for the health service in the pages of the Sun, writing that 'major surgery' was needed to make it 'fit for the future': moving treatment out of hospitals, so as to focus on local care and prevention. This could not be achieved through public spending, Streeting warned, because 'the money isn't there'. It could only be done through hard-knuckled 'reform'. True to his word, Streeting has helped to normalise the state of perma-austerity at the health department, which will receive only an extra 2.8% annually in real terms over the coming years: less than the long-term historical norm of 3.7%, and far below the average increase of 6.8% under New Labour. This is nowhere near enough to solve the perpetual crisis in the sector, let alone make any real improvements in the quality of care. Without meaningful investment, the levers that Streeting can pull to realise his goals are limited. There is reorganisation through measures such as the summary abolition of NHS England and mass job cuts. There is techno-optimism, allowing AI companies such as Palantir to run parts of the ailing service. And, most importantly, there is privatisation. Streeting has been working hard to ensure that 'more treatments can be delivered through the independent sector', as an official briefing put it. Under his watch, an even greater portion of the NHS – including, potentially, sensitive patient data – is being handed over to profit-making companies. His plan to set up 300 'neighbourhood health hubs' is powered by corporate finance, in what is shaping up to be a frame-by-frame replay of the disastrous PFI initiatives of the 2000s. Research shows that the effect of these policies is to worsen health inequality. But this does not seem to concern the minister. Bullish as ever, Streeting has said he is 'up for the fight' that his plan will provoke. And that is what he now has. In recent weeks, resident doctors rejected his notion that 'reform' alone will magically resolve the service's deep-rooted problems of under-resourcing and understaffing. They refused to accept a pay deal that would amount to a 21% reduction in their salaries since 2008, and instead made a principled case for wage restoration. Streeting was intransigent. During the resulting five-day strike he launched a series of broadsides against the workers, insisting that they must feel the 'pain' of the walkouts and vowing that they would 'lose a war with this government'. Much like his 'bullet in the head' rhetoric, the remarks showed that Streeting's main interest is in positioning himself as a crusader on behalf of the establishment rather than fixing the service he oversees. He is also keenly aware of the populist appeal of his rhetoric at a time when support for the doctors' struggle is in decline. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The other front on which Streeting has been fighting is the culture war. He has imposed a permanent ban on puberty blockers for trans children – despite a wealth of dissenting expert opinion including that of the British Medical Association, which disputes the scientific basis of the prohibition – and he has also barred those under 18 from changing gender markers on their NHS records, potentially making it more difficult for them to access vital services. The irony, of course, is that while Streeting styles himself as the man to beat Nigel Farage, his politics is one of deference to big business, clampdowns on trans rights and incendiary rhetoric to provoke the left. These features are more typically associated with reactionary populism than with social democracy. Streeting's ascent reflects the fact that, in today's Labour party, the former is cannibalising the latter. Oliver Eagleton is an associate editor at the New Left Review and author of The Starmer Project: A Journey to the Right
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: The Kirk may be dying, but the need for faith remains
A retired minister has little faith in the future of the Church of Scotland but believes people still need something to believe in Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As a retired minister, I have my beliefs, but don't attend church. I find it difficult, if not impossible to believe in the church any more, and I know full well that I'm not the only one. My only point of agreement with Doug Morrison (Letters, 18 August) is deploring the uncomfortable fact that the Church of Scotland is one of the biggest landowners, if not the biggest, in Scotland. All this in the name of a Saviour, who, famously, had 'nowhere to lay his head'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Church of Scotland may well be dying, and may deserve that fate. Faith may be dying, but the need for faith lives on, most obviously in the 70 per cent of young people who profess to have no faith at all. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in session at New College, Edinburgh, in May this year (Picture: Andrew O'Brien) Someone famously said that 'if you believe in nothing, you'll believe in anything', and that's dangerous, given the depression, despair and even suicide, which comprise the legacy of us adult generations to our young people today. I suspect that Jesus, humble as he was, was embarrassed to be dubbed and, even worshipped, as a Messiah. His teaching includes many gems, one of which is that our lives must be grounded in rock, not sand. That rock is faith, religious or otherwise. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Plastic takeaway Scientific research increasingly shows that eating and drinking from plastic containers can harm our health and young people may be most vulnerable. Yet for many, the risk still feels too far from their home to change daily habits. Convenience serves the masses. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad During our three weeks in Scotland recently takeaway cups and boxes were offered everywhere, even in national parks. We travel with stone coffee cups and a reusable carrier for scones and tarts, and the reactions we got were mostly surprise. The worst 'inconvenience' we experienced? Friendly smiles, laughs at the slogans on our cups, and conversations with lovely Scottish people. So flip the default. Instead of assuming customers will take food or drink in a plastic-lined cup or 'recyclable' box and walk straight into a national park, assume they'll have it in their own containers. Imagine the mountain of cups you would avoid using each year. Even if the long-term health and environmental benefits feel far away, the instant reward is there: human connection. Lotte Roelofs, Amsterdam, Netherlands Chamberlain's back Donald Trump, aka Neville Chamberlain, thinks he is securing 'peace for our time' by which presumably the former British Prime Minister meant 'peace for a time', and just like in 1938, placates the aggressor. Donald, Donald, when are the scales going to fall from your eyes? You think Vladimir Putin regards you with respect. Let me disabuse you. He thinks you are a patsy, all bluster, no substance, all threats, no action. He is running circles round you. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ultimately, maybe you don't care. After all, the Ukraine conflict is a 'quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing' and, just like Chamberlain, you are not interested. But if you get the Nobel Peace Prize after all this, then the award is utterly devalued. Trevor Rigg, Edinburgh Bonnie JD JD Vance, will ye no' come back again? Please – no come back! Steve Hayes, Leven, Fife Sturgeon's legacy Nicola Sturgeon is the most capable female politician to emerge from any part of the UK during the last 30 years and to suggest as D Millar does (Letters, 16 August) that she has no legacy is as ludicrous as it is detached from reality! Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Conducting daily media briefings as she did throughout the Covid pandemic could by no means have been an easy or pleasant task and must ultimately have imposed a massive strain on the then First Minister. Mr Millar, though, criticises her efforts in doing this and allegedly 'keeping the nation petrified' (better petrified than dead, surely?) and 'continually ordering the nation to stay at home'. It sounds like he is suggesting Ms Sturgeon was exaggerating the threat posed by Covid and unnecessarily strict as far as preventative measures were concerned. Would Mr Millar have been happier with no lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing etc which would, of course, have resulted in thousands more deaths? Perhaps he could enlighten us? What I would suggest is that Mr Millar reads what Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott have to say about Britain's handling of the Covid emergency in their book Failures Of State. The book outlines gross failings on the part of the UK Government and the waste of billions of pounds on equipment and systems that didn't work. It is made crystal clear therein that Nicola Sturgeon's management of the pandemic in Scotland was much more professional, considered and effective than Boris Johnson's south of the Border. Alan Woodcock, Dundee Double standards It is depressing to read the media's take on Kate Forbes being banned after having previously been given the right to speak at the Summerhall arts venue. This was apparently because employees and others felt threatened by Ms Forbes's views on issues such as same-sex marriage. I struggle with this. I believe that employees in a venue that has debate and freedom of expression as part of its raison d'être should have thought about that before applying for a job there. The same goes for those who choose to perform there as well as visitors. If you object then simply avoid the place or change shifts. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Notwithstanding that, an employer has a duty of care to take employee concerns about their work environment into account. However. the media seem to take a different view – believing that in publicly accessible venues it is unacceptable for employee rights to be given primacy over the rights of others. Fair enough. But contrast that stance with the media's treatment of Sandy Peggie, an employee who also felt unsafe in the presence of somebody whose beliefs she was opposed to. In that case the employer responsible for a publicly accessible venue had decided a trans woman could use a female changing area. But the employee refused to accept that decision and all attempts by the employer to address or mitigate the employee's concerns were either rejected or were deemed unworkable. Ms Peggie's argument was that she felt unsafe in the presence of a particular individual as a consequence of her employer's decision. But those at Summerhall also felt unsafe in the presence of a particular individual as a result of an employer decision, only to find that their stance is denounced and ridiculed by the very same journalists championing Ms Peggie's cause. Bemused? Join the club. Robert Menzies, Falkirk Wedge issue What is this current obsession with gender identity politics? The reason I ask is that it is not an obsession shared by my wife of 25 years or my teenage daughters. In fact, my eldest daughter has no time for such views or those of JK Rowling, Reform UK or the Tories. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So if the three women in my household don't have time for such things, is it just a 'wedge issue' to drum up support for political parties like the Tories and Alba and those politicians that have an issue with Nicola Sturgeon? Is the problem not males in general who have no respect for women rather than simply the transgender community? Peter Ovenstone, Peterhead, Aberdeenshire Mea maxima culpa Whilst I was surprised and pleased to read Brian Wilson's article, 'Scotland's men need to stop being so willing to wheesht' (16 August), he should not be satisfied with his mea culpa, no matter how deserved it is. He has identified that so many politicians, universities, employers, the art world, almost in its entirety, closed their eyes and minds to the biological facts of gender and the repression of any challenge to Nicola Sturgeon's gender orthodoxy, but that seems to be the end of his reflection. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Can we look forward to Mr Wilson, in his next article, offering suggestions about how MPs and MSPs might have the courage to call out sophistry when it is being forced down their throats by an autocratic leader or powerful minority group? Lovina Roe, Perth, Perth & Kinross Big spenders Politicians seem to delight in spending other people's money. One could be forgiven for expecting some cognisance of this fact but this appears to be, frankly, unrealistic. SNP ministers are intending to write off a £36 million benefits debt (Scotsman, 18 August). Did anyone ask those who are paying? Even at a local level, Glasgow City Council is also calling for government help as a £66m bill looms to house refugees who make up nearly half of the homeless in the city. Financial prudence does not seem to figure in all of this, particularly since it is taxpayers who are not only getting this bill but, in all probability, are expected to find even greater sums in the future. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The blame will be put upon Westminster as usual but this has long lost its political impact upon the Scottish economy as the GERS figures show. When, if ever, is the taxpayer going to get some relief from this endless spiral of overspending, reduction in services and higher taxation, all running in tandem and it begs another question: just what are our highly paid politicians actually doing? Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Write to The Scotsman
