Holyrood grilling for former Dundee University principal postponed
Holyrood's powerful education committee is postponing its planned grilling of former Dundee University principal Iain Gillespie.
Politicians on the committee were due to quiz Mr Gillespie and other former members of senior staff in the coming weeks.
He was due to appear alongside former vice principal Lady Wendy Alexander, former court chair Amanda Millar and former finance chief Peter Fotheringham.
But there had been concerns a further explosive evidence session could cause damage to the institution as it attempts to recover.
Professor Pamela Gillies – who is leading the independent probe into what went wrong – had also suggested the evidence sessions were paused until her report is published on June 19.
Douglas Ross MSP, convener of the education, children and young people committee confirmed the delay.
He said: 'The committee has taken on board the suggestion from Professor Pamela Gillies.
'Transparency around what has happened at the University of Dundee remains vitally important to us and we now plan to hear from current and former members of staff following the publication of the Independent Inquiry report, but ahead of the Scottish Parliament's summer recess.'
It means the evidence sessions are likely to take place on June 21.
Members of the committee, including North East Fife MSP Willie Rennie, had argued further evidence should be delayed.
Senior figures at the troubled institution are currently negotiating with lenders for access to a multi-million loan facility.
We reported previously that the university's bank had gone cold on the potential loan after government criticised the first recovery plan.
Confidence was dented further when interim principal Shane O'Neill and other senior insiders appeared before the education committee's first evidence session in March.
Mr Rennie said previously: 'The future of the university remains precarious which is why we should delay our special evidence sessions of the parliament's education committee with the previous leadership of the institution.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
29 minutes ago
- The National
SNP could have got the votes to win had they backed this petition
In the run-up to the by-election the SNP leadership played the well-worn Westminster political 'first past the post' tactic. That is, not to try to promote your own policies but to claim that a vote for your candidate will prevent the 'much worse' party winning the seat. That way there's no need to make any promises or commitments to the electorate, you just claim to be much better than the party you claim is likely to win the seat if your party fails to win it. READ MORE: Israel launches second wave of major strikes on Iran John Swinney insisted on claiming that the outcome of the election would be a win for either SNP or the unknown Reform UK candidate, so that voting SNP was required to stop the neo-fascist Farage bunch from taking the seat, and in doing so, getting a foothold in Scotland. He offered no evidence to back this up, just his own political wisdom and in following this strategy, allowed Labour's 'invisible man' to quietly take the seat with practically no campaign – Labour were probably looking on and thinking it would be rude to interrupt! We now know that John's political wisdom was widely off the mark, indeed his claim that Reform was doing so well probably played into the Farage media hype, which is the core of the Reform organisation, and to that extent helped them in the election. This was a disaster for the SNP, losing a seat that they've held since its introduction in 2011. So again, the only winner was political apathy and disillusionment, with a turnout of only 44.2% compared to 63.2% in 2021, John Swinney seemed to imply this was a reasonable result? I know that in the run-up to this election, the SNP candidate Katy Loudon asked SNP members and the wider constituency for their support. Andy Anderson, the national convener of the Respect Scottish Sovereignty movement, responded to Katy, asking her to give her support to petition PE2135 on Scottish human rights which is currently before the Scottish Parliament. Andy said if she would do this, he would talk to RSS supporters in the constituency and seek their help to get her elected. RSS has about 7000 supporters in Scotland and hundreds of these supporters are in that constituency, so getting their active support for the SNP candidate could have been decisive in the outcome of this election. So how did Katy respond? She didn't. Andy prompted her again. No response. It seems it was more important to the SNP leadership to keep their options open to undermine the UN human rights of the Scottish people than to win a by-election. The Scottish people will not tolerate this, we will persist in our struggle for Scottish human rights and for direct democracy, and this RSS petition is an important part of that struggle. Apathy and political disillusion will not continue to dominate our electoral system. So, if the SNP want a viable political future in Scotland, they had better pay attention to the human rights of the Scottish people and start to respond to this issue. Paddy McCarthy via email IT is always a good way to finish the working week, witnessing the complete meltdown with associated frothing at the mouth of the extremists, those whot love to label themselves as 'Reform'. The followers of Farage – yes, he that is nothing more than a 'market-stall Trump' – dislike having their twisted ideology questioned. Which is in itself a classic reaction by those with leanings towards the totalitarian state. Their disdain for human rights, obsession with national security, and want of suppression of workers' rights all point to the fascist way of thinking. Yet if you were to ask them what their goal is? Their answer is that all they crave is their country back? They are, of course, unable to state where they wish to bring their country back from. But they know that the problems facing the UK could be solved by putting machine guns on the Channel crossing points, kicking out everyone who does not look the same, speak the same, or prays to a different god! After all, are they nothing more than an invasion force sitting in our midst just waiting for the call? Which is similar to the scaremongering used before the start of the First World War. Then it was directed at the German waiters in London, who were supposedly all serving officers in the Kaiser's army. The rancid press also stated that thousand of rifles with even more ammunition had been pre-placed in the UK for use by the waiters/officers! Oh, how they crave to have the country returned to a time of smartly dressed obedient children, with housewives equally smartly dressed doing their daily shopping at local shops. A time that did not exist outside of the BBC. The fascists will not accept that they are being manipulated by politicians who are, by their nature, dangerous, corrupt of ideology, and vile in deed. Scotland as a matter of urgency must separate from that breeding ground of rancid thought that is Westminster. Only through independence and rejoining our friends in Europe (in whatever form) shall we halt this goose-stepping into the abyss of intolerance and authoritarianism. Cliff Purvis Veterans for Scottish Independence 2.0 AN excellent article by Dr Mark McNaught on the advantages of the Efta/EEA over the EU for an independent Scotland (Jun 11). In particular, he calls out the EU's now blatant and highly dangerous military ambitions. What he doesn't mention, however, is that Scotland would be a net contributor to the EU. Latterly the UK was paying around £9 billion annually, the equivalent of more than £150 per adult. Given that Von der Leyen and co are hell-bent on admitting the ultimate basket case, Ukraine, that figure would be a lot higher. George Morton Rosyth
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Pensioners who challenged winter fuel payment decision in court lose case
Peter and Florence Fanning, from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, raised the petition in the Court of Session in Edinburgh following the announcement last July from Chancellor Rachel Reeves of plans to cut the allowance. The couple lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating bills. They brought the legal action with the help of ex-SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC, who represented them as senior counsel. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Ms Reeves announced the WFP would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160 million. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In a U-turn earlier this week, the UK Government announced the vast majority of pensioners in England and Wales will again receive the winter fuel payment this winter, and the Scottish Government said it is 'working through the options' in the wake of that decision. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood said: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' She added that 'in the absence of any evidence of past widespread discrimination against elderly persons by the government having been put before the court by the petitioners, the categorisation could not be applied to elderly people as a cohort'. The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood wrote: 'In respect of each of the respondents, the rules as to eligibility for payments of WFP and PAWHP were set out in terms of the legislation implementing the respective respondents' policy decisions. 'In these circumstances, and standing the decision reached above on the public sector equality duty and the issue of consultation, the schemes are in accordance with law. 'They are in pursuit of a legitimate aim.' Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' The Govan Law Centre, which acted for the couple, said the pensioners should be 'commended for their courage in pursuing this litigation'. A spokesperson added: 'While our clients have lost their case, we have no doubt that this has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. 'We hope the Scottish Government will now restore the pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the court could have done would have been to order each government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts. The fact they have already reconsidered vindicates our clients' decision to bring litigation.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are carefully considering the judgment.'
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Farage's Reform will ‘let the SNP in', Badenoch warns
She said 'Scottish people deserve better' than another five years of John Swinney's party in power at Holyrood. Hitting out at Reform – which claimed on Friday to now have 11,000 members in Scotland – she said for Mr Farage's party, the union between Scotland and England is 'just not that important'. In contrast, Mrs Badenoch stressed the Conservatives will 'always be proud' of the union. 'Our party will always be ready to protect Scotland's place in the United Kingdom,' she added. She claimed for Labour and Sir Keir Starmer, belief in the union is 'negotiable', like 'every so-called promise' the Prime Minister makes. Speaking at the Scottish Conservative Party conference in Edinburgh on Friday, Mrs Badenoch said: 'We know that when it really matters, like on gender or free speech or taxes, Labour will fold and vote with the SNP.' She went on to say: 'In April this year, Nigel Farage said he would be fine with the SNP winning another five years in power. 'He's fine with another five years of higher bills, longer waiting lists, declining school standards, gender madness, and ultimately, independence.' Addressing her first Scottish conference since taking on the top job, Mrs Badenoch claimed: 'Reform will vote to let the SNP in, Conservatives will only ever vote to get the nationalists out.' Her speech came just over a week after a Holyrood by-election in which the Tories came fourth, well behind Reform in third. Meanwhile an opinion poll has suggested Mr Farage's party could come second in next May's Holyrood election. In that ballot, Mrs Badenoch said Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay will 'put forward a different way of doing things to the SNP and Labour'. She promised the Tories will fight the election on a platform of 'positive new policies to fire up economic growth, create opportunities for workers and businesses, reward aspiration with lower taxes, and improve school standards'. Mrs Badenoch told the conference: 'Under my leadership, and with Russell Findlay in charge in Scotland, my party knows where it stands. 'With your help, we will renew Conservative policies with common sense.' She accepted in her speech the Tories in power at Westminster 'didn't always get things right'. But Mrs Badenoch insisted her election, coupled with Mr Findlay taking over to head the Scottish party last year, mean they are 'under new leadership'. She told supporters the Tories will 'once again represent everyone across Scotland and the United Kingdom who believes the same things that we do'. Adding that she is 'renewing this party', she declared: 'This speech isn't about looking back. It's about the future. Our future.' 🗣️ @KemiBadenoch: "The Conservative & Unionist Party is ready to fight for a common-sense future for Scotland and an even stronger United Kingdom."#SCC25 — Scottish Conservatives (@ScotTories) June 13, 2025 Part of that 'positive vision of the future' includes 'standing up' for the North Sea oil and gas industry, with Mrs Badenoch claiming that by increasing the energy profits levy – also known as the windfall tax – the Tories had introduced, Labour is 'killing the oil and gas industry'. Speaking about the levy, she said: 'Frankly if it is allowed to remain in place until 2030, as is Labour's current plan, there will be no industry left to tax. 'Thousands will have been made unemployed and all the while we import more gas from overseas – from the very same basin in which we are banned from drilling.' She called on the UK Government to remove the energy profits levy, as she added that the Tories would also 'scrap the ban on new licences' for oil and gas developments that has been imposed since Labour came to power. 'We will champion our own industry,' Mrs Badenoch told supporters. 'We will let this great British, great Scottish industry thrive, grow and create jobs – ensuring our energy security for generations to come and making Scotland richer in the process.' She also pledged the Tories will spend more on defence, saying this is crucial as 'our world becomes even more dangerous'. Citing conflict in the Middle East as well as in Ukraine, Mrs Badenoch said it 'becomes even harder to understand why Labour didn't use the spending review this week to set out a clear plan to get to 3% on defence spending'. The Tories, she insisted, will 'stand by Scotland's defence industry to build the security equipment and systems that keep us safe'.
