LGBT veterans will not lose other benefits after compensation
Veterans due to receive payments from the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme will not lose out on other benefits after a change to legislation.The Scottish government has confirmed that 1,200 armed forces members who suffered under the ban on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) personnel have now applied to the UK government's payment scheme.The ban was in place within the UK military from 1967 to 2000 and, after years of campaigning, the UK government announced the payments last December. Up to £75m has been set aside to acknowledge hurt and discrimination, with affected veterans able to receive awards of up to £70,000 each.
Some veterans currently receive financial help, on a means-tested basis, through the council tax reduction scheme. But Finance Secretary Shona Robison said regulations would be now changed to ensure any compensation payments do not affect eligibility for this.Ms Robison said: "As we mark 25 years since the lifting of the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces, it is important to recognise the hardship that so many faced, with widespread homophobic bullying and harassment."Nothing will make up for the difficulties that LGBT veterans faced, however, our action will ensure those in Scotland receive every penny that they are entitled to."Under the UK government scheme, those who were dismissed or discharged from the armed forces because of their sexual orientation or gender identity could receive £50,000.Former service personnel who suffered harassment, intrusive investigations or even imprisonment could receive further payments of up to £20,000.
Peter Gibson, chief executive of Fighting with Pride, said the group had "campaigned for justice for LGBTQ+ veterans for many years, helping to secure reparations and financial recognition of their horrendous treatment prior to 2000".He added: "As we slowly see the UK government deal with those financial payments, protected from benefit and taxation impact, it is wonderful to see the Scottish government taking action to ensure other benefits such as council tax benefit is also protected too."We continue to seek out veterans who were discharged or dismissed from the military to support them, and this news is one more step towards helping those in Scotland."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Has Nigel finally shown he can actually be a team player?
Court intrigue always makes good copy, and for that reason we journalists should be sure to add to any speculation about Zia Yusuf's dramatic yo-yoing in and out of Reform UK this week an important qualifier: his proffered explanation, that it was a misjudgement due to 'exhaustion', is perfectly plausible. Politics can be a gruelling business at the best of times, especially when trying to bootstrap a new party into a national force – not to mention a culture shock for people more used to the world of business. Yet if speculation was rife about Yusuf's spectacular (if short-lived) departure, it was in large part because Nigel Farage has in his long career in politics proven time and again that for all his strengths as a campaigner, he has a critical weakness: an apparently chronic inability to work with others and build institutions that last. No potential leadership rival lasts long. In 2015, he recommended Suzanne Evans as his replacement as leader of Ukip – only for the party to end up 'rejecting his resignation', leaving his rival's wings well and truly clipped. A year later, Diane James had the privilege of being Farage's successor for less than three weeks before he was back once again as interim leader (although he did then step back for good). Most recently, we have seen Reform UK struggle to coordinate even a small number of MPs, most obviously with the expulsion of Rupert Lowe (single-handedly responsible for almost half the recorded parliamentary work of Reform's entire caucus). But before that, Farage almost wrecked his party's alliance with the Northern Irish TUV by endorsing his old friend, the DUP's Ian Paisley Jr, against TUV leader Jim Allister – despite Allister having the Reform logo all over his leaflets. Awkwardly, Allister went on to win North Antrim. Things were eventually smoothed over, but the deal had to be renegotiated, and the cost of that may have been huge: had the Commons authorities accepted Allister as counting as a Reform candidate at the election, the party would have had six MPs – the magic number needed to unlock hundreds of thousands of pounds more in public funding each and every year. The history of the Faragist parties tells the same story. If Yusuf has his work cut out building a national campaigning force from scratch, part of the reason is that Farage allowed decades of effort to fall by the wayside when he abandoned Ukip. At the 2015 election, Ukip came second in a hundred seats; it had also started to make a breakthrough in local councils, albeit with many of the same teething problems now facing Reform. It even won seven seats in the Welsh Assembly in 2016. Farage's ability to snap his fingers and call a new party out of the earth, as he did with the Brexit Party, is undoubtedly impressive. But it reset the clock on all that organisational effort. In Europe, Right-wing parties successfully challenging the status quo tend to have a decade of work behind them: Spain's Vox and Germany's AfD were both founded in 2013; Giorgia Meloni's Fratelli d'Italia in 2012. Patching things up with Yusuf removes one big question mark about the long-term viability of Reform UK. But only one. Back-room organisation is necessary but not sufficient for sustained success, and Farage has yet to prove he can work with other politicians, especially ones of the calibre to succeed him one day. Until he does, Reform will remain a one-man band – and it's hard to build the party of the future around a man in his sixties who has already, more than once, tried to leave politics behind.
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Zia Yusuf returns to Reform UK just 48 hours after quitting as chairman
Zia Yusuf is returning to Reform UK just 48 hours after quitting as party chairman, claiming his resignation was a 'mistake'. The 38-year-old businessman said his decision to stand down had been the result of 'exhaustion' and working for 11 months 'without a day off'. Party leader Nigel Farage, speaking to the Sunday Times newspaper alongside Mr Yusuf, said the former chairman will now effectively be doing 'four jobs', though his title has not yet been decided. He will lead Reform's plans to cut public spending – the so-called 'UK Doge', based on the US Department of Government Efficiency which was led by tech billionaire Elon Musk. The ex-chairman will also take part in policymaking, fundraising and media appearances. Mr Yusuf said he was quitting Reform following the latest in a series of internal rows, in which he described a question to the Prime Minister concerning a ban on burkas from his party's newest MP as 'dumb'. Announcing his resignation on Thursday afternoon, he said: 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.' Mr Yusuf said he had been left feeling undervalued by some in the party and drained after being subjected to relentless racist abuse on X, and made the comments in 'error'. 'I spoke to Nigel and said I don't mind saying I made an error. It was a function of exhaustion,' he said. Asked about the row over talk of banning the burka, Mr Yusuf said he 'certainly did not resign because I have any strong views about the burqa itself' but felt blindsided by Sarah Pochin's question to Sir Keir Starmer. He said that 'if there were a vote and I was in parliament, I would probably vote to ban it actually' but that 'philosophically I am always a bit uneasy about banning things which, for example, would be unconstitutional in the United States, which such a ban no doubt would be'. Reform will hope the show of unity between Mr Farage and the former chairman is enough to quell concerns about internal personality clashes, amid recent scrutiny of the leader's fallings out with former allies. It follows the suspension of MP Rupert Lowe from the party following complaints about his conduct, which he denied, and suggested the leader had a tendency to row with colleagues he felt threatened by. Labour branded Mr Yusuf's return a 'humiliating hokey-cokey' and said working people could not afford 'the risk of economic chaos with Reform UK'. Party chairwoman Ellie Reeves said: 'Reform's revolving door shows that the party is all about one person – Nigel Farage. 'Zia Yusuf's humiliating hokey-cokey is laughable but there is nothing funny about Farage's £80 billion in unfunded commitments. 'His reckless plan is Liz Truss's disastrous mini-budget on steroids and would spark economic chaos that increases bills and mortgages. 'Working people simply can't afford the risk of economic chaos with Reform UK.'
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
It's no wonder that the middle classes are fleeing Rachel Reeves's anti-wealth island
A brain drain is coming. We need to talk about emigration. Yes, you read that right, emigration – not just immigration. You heard the warnings during the Brexit wars – business and investors will leave for Paris, Frankfurt, Milan (and the Earth will stop spinning...) unless we remain in the customs union – and back then it was largely a load of hot air. But hear me out. This time, it's actually happening. Entrepreneurs and businesspeople are fleeing in their droves. In the past year alone, more than 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Only China saw more high net-worth individuals leave. European countries are now stealing our lunch, with Italy and Portugal styling themselves as destinations for investor flight with attractive low-tax regimes. It wasn't Brexit that did it, but an economically illiterate tax regime determined to squeeze the juice dry. The best-paid 1 per cent already paid about a third of all income tax collected: those with the broadest shoulders were – and still are – bearing the greatest burden. But the Chancellor viewed successful investors and risk-taking entrepreneurs as criminals to punish, rather than assets to court. The non-dom tax changes may have polled well in focus groups, but they've backfired – and the public will now pay the price. Who is going to fund increases in defence, healthcare and transport spending? Yet again, it will fall to the middle classes to bridge the gap left. The Chancellor's ineptitude means further tax rises on working people in the autumn are now inevitable. The social contract with the middle class hasn't simply frayed – it's been shredded. They have been disproportionately targeted to fund a record tax burden while their quality of life has remained largely stagnant. They're paying more than ever to get less than ever in return. The public services they use are crumbling, the streets they walk feel less safe, and the town centres they visit are hollowed out by petty crime and boarded-up shopfronts. In France, discontent leads to riots; in Britain, it seems to dissipate into despair. The very real risk now is that Brits vote with their feet and simply pack up and leave en masse. A recent poll showed that nearly a quarter of UK adults are considering moving abroad in the next five years. These are highly skilled professionals who are the bedrock of any country: 48 per cent of those in the IT industry are considering emigrating, as are 30 per cent of those in the healthcare sector. And it's not just white-collar workers, either – when I speak to tradesmen, they think they would have far better prospects in countries such as Australia and Canada. This is no longer an issue of investor flight, but a full-on brain drain. In the 1970s, a high-tax and anti-business environment led to Britain experiencing a net loss of 500,000 people. Half a century later, history could well repeat itself. Even my generation, now pushing into our 40s, who didn't feel like we had it particularly good entering the jobs market in the 2000s, and with the massive house-price boom of that period, had it so much better. When I speak at universities, I am struck by how many are contemplating opportunities abroad. And who can blame them? Young graduates today pay more than ever to live in tiny bedrooms in shared flats. The prospect of homeownership – or starting a family – has never been more distant. Unlike previously, the alternatives to the UK are increasingly appealing. Their money can go further elsewhere, and they can live in more prosperous countries with a better quality of life. In 2007, the average Brit was richer than the average American, Australian, Austrian, Belgian, Canadian and German, to name just a few. Now, they have all overtaken us. And it's not just them. Finland, the UAE, Hong Kong and Israel have all sailed past us when it comes to GDP per capita. A failed policy consensus of the past 20 years has driven this country into decline – and now the consequences are upon us. We won't return to being a country of net emigration anytime soon. Quite the opposite: Starmer's immigration White Paper was a recipe for more mass legal and illegal migration. That means hundreds of thousands more migrants who, over their lifetime, will take out more then they put in – many of whom are from culturally divergent countries. Meanwhile, net contributors are pushed towards the exit. On average, a millionaire leaves the country every 45 minutes, while an illegal migrant enters the country every 15 minutes. It's the most brain-dead migration policy imaginable. I don't just fear for the raw economic consequences. If middle-class flight takes off, the foot will slam on the accelerator driving the dizzying pace of change. Brits who have grown up here and are imbued with our history, heritage, culture, customs and traditions can't simply be swapped like-for-like. Nations, like all good things, take an age to create but are easily destroyed. Many Brits can sense that the country they love is slipping away: at first gradually, then suddenly. I understand why people consider leaving the UK, although I could never, ever imagine it myself. I too despair sometimes, but I care too much to just shrug my shoulders and resign myself to defeat. We have a fight on our hands to turn this country around. But safe streets, cohesive communities, cheap energy, functioning public services, higher wages and a startup culture are never unobtainable. For all our problems, this is a great country – and I'm convinced we can be greater still.
