Scottish government apologises for 'cultural genocide' of gypsy travellers
John Swinney said the "unfair and unjust" policies, enforced by councils and the UK government between 1940 and 1980, had been "unacceptable".
The "experiment" attempted to strip away the nomadic lifestyle of gypsy travellers by rehousing them in low-quality Nissen-type huts, repurposed military buildings and other disused properties at sites across Scotland.
When families became too big for the cramped accommodation, their children would sometimes be taken away, either into temporary care or permanently – with some adopted in the UK or overseas.
Mr Swinney's apology came following the publication of a new independent report published by the Scottish government, which stated: "The context within which the TE [tinker experiment] occurred is best understood as cultural genocide".
The report, based on research from the University of St Andrews, found that the types of accommodation gypsy travellers were relocated to were "known by government agents to be substandard". It said the properties were "frequently without" electricity and running water.
Researchers said the "experiment" was part of a "recurring societal and institutional dehumanisation of gypsy travellers in Scotland", fuelled by the stereotype of them as practising "a backwards or undeveloped way of life".
The report highlighted the role of the UK national government "and specifically the Scottish Office as a primary actor in the construction and enforcement of such policies".
But it said local councils, churches and charities were also involved in "constructing the environment" that allowed it to happen.
Following its publication, the Church of Scotland also issued "a heartfelt and genuine apology for these historic wrongs".
In a statement to Holyrood, Mr Swinney told MSPs: "It is clear to the government that stark prejudice and lack of cultural awareness led to a series of unfair and unjust policies.
"These policies resulted in children being removed from families, and families were forced to live in substandard accommodation and degrading conditions.
"The trauma that this has caused to individuals, families and groups, including those who regard themselves as 'victims of tinker experiments', is significant and lasting".
With some members of the community watching on from Holyrood's public gallery, Mr Swinney added: "As First Minister of Scotland, I want to say this directly to gypsy traveller communities: the 'tinker experiments' should not have happened.
"These policies were wrong. And we recognise how much it is still hurting so many.
"And more than anything else, I want to say this – on behalf of Scotland, we are sorry."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Owning a £500k home does not make you rich': Readers challenge Reeves' property tax plan
Independent readers are divided over proposals being considered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves for a new tax on homes worth more than £500,000, with many questioning whether the threshold would unfairly affect ordinary homeowners rather than the truly wealthy. Several argued that in high-priced areas, £500,000 is not a marker of wealth, with smaller homes often costing more than that. 'In London and parts of the South East, owning a £500k home… does not make you rich,' noted one reader, while others suggested a higher threshold or regional variations to avoid penalising middle-class families. Some readers welcomed the idea of targeting unearned property wealth, arguing that decades of house price rises have created inequalities that younger generations cannot overcome. 'Taxing property, targeting unearned income, is what the government needs to do,' one wrote. Others warned the tax could have unintended consequences, including discouraging downsizing, reducing housing market mobility, and forcing homeowners to raise asking prices to offset the levy. There were also concerns that pensioners or couples on modest incomes could be hit unfairly. Across the board, readers emphasised the need for a fair approach that distinguishes genuine wealth from ordinary homeowners. Here's what you had to say: Regional house price disparities I have recently moved from Berkshire to Yorkshire. The semi-detached house I've bought was £200,000 in Yorkshire, but the equivalent and possibly terraced house in Berkshire would have been £500,000. So this tax would certainly be a detriment to workers in the South East. The salary weighting is far from compensating for the house price difference. Over a £1,000,000 might be a more appropriate national figure, but possibly there would need to be some regional differences. This could also be reflected in IHT rates for inherited property. The problem that really needs to be addressed is ensuring that richer people actually pay tax on all their income and/or property, and that they are not able to legally "evade" tax using loopholes. DavidWR Property wealth tax concerns A tax on the unearned wealth of property due to the housing market of the last 40 years is a sensible tax. However, £500,000 is too low. It will bring many people who are just making ends meet into paying a tax they can't afford. In many parts of the country, especially the South East, £500k will barely get you a two-bed terrace house. If a couple has scrimped and saved to buy one in the last few years and can just afford the mortgage, they may end up being stuck in a property they can't afford to sell. That will impact both job mobility and the housing market. Maybe raise it to £750k to ensure it's only the genuinely wealthy that pay it. Tabbers Redistribution of unearned property wealth A lot of people are missing the point… too much of the nation's wealth has been tied up in property, with huge increases in prices over the last 20–30 years, all to be passed on to siblings. Younger generations without rich parents don't stand a chance. The government has no choice but to try and extract this unearned income and attempt to redistribute it to give other people a future. Taxing property, targeting unearned income, is what the government needs to do (and ignore the naysayers). ChrisMatthews Regional variation needed £500K is far too low… no way is this a wealth tax, more just about managing tax. The average cost of a home around here is about £450K, and that is a two-bed terrace. Surely the price should not be a blanket one but reflect different areas? mindful Impact on downsizing All that is going to do is make it far more likely that people in larger houses won't downsize, leading to increases in the value of those houses as the market dries up. The cost of moving house is already stopping many pensioners from downsizing. The level should be far higher or adjusted for regional differences at the very least. KrakenUK Inefficient housing stock In the south of England, developers only want to build large homes as that's where they can make the most profit. They justify the need for large homes by stating there is a terrible shortfall. In reality, there are millions of large homes in the UK with single elderly people rattling about in them, when a smaller, more efficient, quality home would make far more sense. Older people balk at the thought of selling up and paying loads in Stamp Duty for their new home. A new 'selling' tax will just cement this inglorious cycle. Hardly Surprised Council tax outdated This Council Tax was a last-minute replacement for the Poll Tax. It has become as unpopular because it is based on property prices nearly 35 years ago. Things have moved on since then, and so should this tax system. jadfg Illusion of wealth through property The illusion that you create wealth while sitting on your backside checking Zoopla to see how much your house has gone up has to be broken. Work creates wealth. Property prices just redistribute it unfairly. The worst result of house price booms is the emergence of millions of little property empires of buy-to-let investors who retire at 45 and contribute nothing thereafter. Ironically, they end up renting to each other's kids, but their imagination doesn't stretch that far. Carolan Middle-class southern households Labour seem determined to lose all support everywhere. In London and parts of the South East, owning a £500k home, which is often smaller than a £300k home up north, does not make you rich. This is partially about trying to win over people who call middle-class southerners 'the London elite'. Has Starmer not realised that no amount of red meat can satisfy the rabid? They just grow bigger and stronger on it. Starmer and co are reluctant to penalise the super-rich who can get rich after their term in office or use their media clout to hound them out. BrotherChe Economic warning More adjusting of the net curtains while the house crumbles… Prof Richard Wolff and Analyst Sean Foo on China dumping increasingly worthless US bonds, but after Japan and China, the UK, the third largest holder of worthless bonds, is buying more – collapse is on the horizon, especially as Trump blunders with little understanding of the impact: Meanwhile, here in the UK, our chancellor is buying US Treasury Bonds like there's no tomorrow! At the same time, we are told we are so skint we'll have to cut back on help for the disabled. This will wreck our economy – all to try and crawl to Trump, who hates them! Dolphins Impact on pensioners A property tax doesn't take account of residents' incomes. Four wage-earners in a £499k property would not pay, but a couple of pensioners in a £501k property would have to starve – and freeze – to death. Lucy Lastic Property as investment People look to accumulate profit in house ownership to compensate for low wages. If their gaff is going up by 5 per cent year on year, they're quids in and can retire in style. Lots of people own houses as a business – what percentage of homeowners actually live in that home? Stop anyone owning more than one house, especially foreign buyers. We are rife with investors dispossessing us here. covergo Want to share your views
The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
Zelensky knows from bitter experience not to trust promises on security
Just like the summit meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin a few days previously, Monday's extended meetings between the US, Ukrainian and European leaders ended with all concerned claiming success – but major questions remain over what exactly was agreed. Sir Keir Starmer came away from the talks claiming there had been 'real progress' towards peace in Ukraine, with 'two material outcomes': the prospect of a direct meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, and of security guarantees to protect Ukraine. But on both of these issues, it is unclear how these outcomes match up with what Russia thinks is happening next. The notion of 'security guarantees' has caused deep confusion and extensive speculation since Trump envoy Steven Witkoff floated the idea of 'NATO-like' backing for Ukraine on Sunday. The fact that this would represent a stunning reversal of not just NATO but also US policy, combined with Witkoff's track record of a poor grasp of the key issues and misunderstanding what he has been told by the Russian side, should have set alarm bells ringing despite the excitable media reaction. Any realistic protection for Ukraine would thwart Putin's ambition to address what he calls 'the root causes of the crisis' – namely Ukraine's existence as a sovereign, independent nation able to determine its own future. And sure enough, Monday's meetings ended with no public clarity on what kind of backing for Ukraine was under discussion, making it impossible to tell if this amounts to meaningful protection or something that can be comfortably ignored by Moscow. Trump's comment that Russian acceptance of security guarantees for Ukraine was 'one of the key points that we need to consider' at the White House meetings could even be read as suggesting that no plans had yet been proposed, let alone endorsed by the Russian side. Possible support to Ukraine covers a vast range of different options, from promises on paper up to the physical presence of Western troops there in order to deter further Russian aggression. The former could prove as worthless as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where Russia committed to respecting Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and borders, and to not using military force against it. In return Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons. The latter – putting soldiers on the ground – has until now been consistently ruled out by the United States, and by European states without American backing. Meanwhile Volodymyr Zelenskyy has referred to promises of arms purchases from the United States as part of a security package, although this just as much resembles part of a bidding war for Trump's favours in which Zelenskyy is competing with Putin. The confusion also extends to the prospect of any possible meeting between Putin and Zelensky. Despite Trump interrupting the meetings to keep the European leaders hanging for 40 minutes while he checked in with Putin, the pattern was repeated of the US and Russian sides coming out with completely different versions of what was agreed on any given issue. Trump promised a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, while Russia did not agree that this had been agreed. This too is unsurprising. Zelensky has always said he is ready to meet Putin; Putin, on the other hand, maintains that Zelensky is not a legitimate leader, and therefore declines to recognise him as a negotiating partner. In any case, it is far from clear that a meeting of this kind would make it any easier to end the war, given the complete incompatibility of the two sides' objectives – Ukraine's destruction, or its survival. For the leaders of five European states, of NATO and of the European Commission to be extracted from their schedules at zero notice and delivered across the Atlantic in a last-ditch effort to avoid disaster at the hands of Trump was an extraordinary spectacle. It suggested these leaders do genuinely believe that the future of Ukraine is vital to the future of Europe. But whether this dramatic intervention will be followed up with meaningful steps to enforce any possible peace settlement remains to be seen. Talk continues of a European 'coalition of the willing' to support peace in Ukraine. But the limits of European capacity to intervene were rammed home painfully in February, when Keir Starmer and others concluded that this would be impossible without US support. The requirement for action rather than words led to a painful realisation of the difference between a coalition of the willing and a coalition of the able. And despite firm advocacy for a ceasefire from the Europeans on Monday, Trump did not budge from Putin's position that the fighting must continue during negotiations on a settlement. Trump's determination to follow the Russian line showed through in his claim that he has "ended six wars without a ceasefire", which flatly contradicts his claims at the time the United States was attempting to bring about ceasefires between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or Thailand and Cambodia. Rightly or wrongly, Putin still assesses that he can gain more by fighting on than by agreeing a ceasefire. And that brings up another key issue where it is not clear what, if anything, has been agreed: the "land swaps", Trumpspeak for Ukraine giving up territory and people in the Donbas region that Russia has been unable to conquer militarily, in exchange for saying that it will not attack further on other parts of the front line. Trump coming face to face with Putin triggered another reversal of his views on Ukraine, and a return to looking to Zelenskyy alone to end the war – in effect blaming the victim for resisting rather than the aggressor for attacking. European leaders intervened in an attempt to head off any US attempt to impose disastrous terms on Ukraine on behalf of Russia. The European effort was a carefully choreographed massaging of Trump's ego, in an attempt to compete with Putin's hypnotic hold. One after another, the Europeans repeated Trump's words back to him and praised him as the only person capable of breaking the deadlock and ending the war. The fact that it is Putin, not Trump, that can end the war at a moment's notice, and that the ceasefire they were arguing for was long treated as the worst-case outcome and a sellout to Moscow, were carefully overlooked. But the danger remains that Trump and those around him are seduced by Russia's framing of the war and by Putin's manipulation, leading Trump to grasp at the belief that 'he wants to make a deal with me'. Treating Russian territorial gains as an inevitable outcome is a Kremlin talking point, strongly endorsed by Trump. And describing Russian agreement to security guarantees for Ukraine as a major concession by Moscow is an extraordinary demonstration of mental capture. The United States has never previously sought or needed permission to protect its allies and partners against invasion. Volodymyr Zelensky ended the day appearing calm and confident, saying that 'no unacceptable decisions were made'. But still, the fundamentals of what has been agreed between Trump and Putin remain murky, and the risk remains of Trump concluding once again that the only obstacle to peace is Ukraine's inconvenient insistence on defending itself. European leaders have done their best to bring the situation back from the brink of disaster – but the coming days will show whether it was enough.
Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
Switzerland is considering joining 'dirty money' task force, UK official says
LONDON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Switzerland is considering joining a British-led international task force targeting kleptocrats and recovering stolen assets, a British government official said, as it seeks to shake off its reputation as a haven for dirty money. Foreign minister David Lammy discussed the International Anti-Corruption Coordination (IACCC) with the Swiss government during a visit to the country earlier this month, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The Swiss government did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Joining the task force would allow Swiss authorities to share intelligence and work more closely with other countries on major investigations targeting dirty money. Lammy told Reuters that Switzerland is "a key partner in the fight against illicit finance and corruption" and its participation in the IACCC would be "invaluable". Switzerland, the world's largest manager of offshore wealth, has tried to shed its image as a safe haven for illicit funds and has recently taken steps to improve transparency, including proposing stricter rules on beneficial ownership. The IACCC task force was launched in 2017 and is hosted by Britain's National Crime Agency (NCA). It brings together enforcement bodies from countries including the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to share intelligence and coordinate investigations. Since it was founded, it has identified 1.8 billion pounds in suspected stolen funds, and frozen 641 million pounds of assets, the IACCC says. Britain has ramped up its efforts to tackle illicit finance since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It has positioned itself as a leader in the global fight against kleptocracy, but it still faces its own challenges on that front. The NCA estimates that over 100 billion pounds ($135.32 billion) is laundered through or within the UK each year, often via British-registered corporate structures. ($1 = 0.7390 pounds)
