West Lothian shopping centre welcomes American pretzel company's first Scottish store
The Centre in Livingston has welcomed American pretzel company, Auntie Anne's, which is the only one in Scotland, bringing 10 new jobs to the area.
To mark the occasion, a giant pretzel pulling ceremony was held and fans of the famous twisted delicacy waited over an hour before the launch for the chance at a freebie, reports The West Lothian Courier.
Auntie Anne's, which is famous for its warm, freshly baked sweet or savoury pretzels, was founded by Anne Beiler and her husband Jonas in 1988 and started out at a Pennsylvania farmer's market.
The business was first established to help support Jonas' dream of providing free family counselling services for their community, and 'giving-back' continues to be a priority for the business.
It is now the world's largest hand-rolled, soft pretzel company, with over 2,000 stores in over 25 countries, including Hong Kong, Egypt and 44 in the UK.
Pretzels available at their new branch, located next to schuh, include Original, Cinnamon, and Vanilla, with Stix and Nuggets sharing options. The savoury selection features Cheese & Jalapeño and Pepperoni flavours, along with a range of Jumbo Pretzel Dogs and the fan-favourite Mini Dogs - bite-sized pretzel-wrapped hot dogs.
Drinks include fresh lemonades, slushies and coffees, and a range of Italian gelato is also available.
Max Burton, Managing Director of Auntie Anne's UK & Ireland, said: 'The opening of our new branch at The Centre, Livingston marks Auntie Anne's exciting return to Scotland.
'This is part of a wider UK expansion strategy driven by strong performance and growing franchise interest, with Livingston being the perfect place to start.'
Gary Anderson, Operations Manager at The Centre, Livingston, added: 'We are delighted to welcome Auntie Anne's to The Centre, Livingston and the creation of 10 new jobs to the local area.
'The grand opening has been a huge success, with visitors travelling far and wide to experience their world famous handcrafted and freshly baked pretzels.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Trump's 25% tariff on India exposes cracks in Modi friendship and threatens economic growth
In his latest diplomatic broadside, Donald Trump's decision to slap a 25% tariff on key Indian exports - combined with a provocative tweet teasing a new trade deal with Pakistan - has triggered not only economic alarm in India but also political unease for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose once-touted personal rapport with Trump now appears to be under strain. 'India has been taking advantage of the US for far too long. Time for a level playing field. New deal with Pakistan coming soon. Much fairer," the US President posted on Truth Social earlier this week. '25% tariff now live on Indian medical imports. American jobs matter more than cheap Indian drugs. Too much going to Russia, not fair to us!' The sudden tariff hike, targeting Indian pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and textiles, comes amid simmering friction between the two countries and has sent shockwaves through both the Indian diplomatic and business communities. India's Ministry of Commerce & Industry responded cautiously, saying it had 'taken note' of the US President's remarks and was 'studying their implications.' The ministry reaffirmed India's ongoing commitment to concluding a 'fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial' bilateral trade agreement with Washington. Indian business leaders, however, have not held back. Harsh Vardhan Agarwal, President of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), called the tariff imposition 'disappointing,' warning it would dent export performance and undermine the hard-won trust between the two economies. 'This move is unfortunate and will undoubtedly impact our exporters,' Mr Agarwal said. 'We still believe the two countries can arrive at a comprehensive trade deal that benefits both sides.' Adding to New Delhi's discomfort is Trump's recent and controversial claim that he helped mediate a ceasefire during the latest flare-up on the borders, a statement India has neither confirmed nor directly rebutted. The ambiguity has invited criticism in India. What has made the situation more politically volatile is Prime Minister Modi's long-standing public embrace of Trump. Their joint appearances at 'Howdy Modi' in Houston and 'Namaste Trump' in Ahmedabad were projected as symbols of a thriving personal and strategic alliance. That narrative is now under scrutiny. With Trump turning publicly confrontational, India's opposition parties have pounced. They are demanding that Modi push back against Trump's remarks on the ceasefire and take a firmer line against the tariffs, accusing the government of compromising national dignity for diplomatic optics. Meanwhile, the Indian medical and pharmaceutical sectors, among the worst affected, have voiced strong objections. Dilip Kumar, Chairman of the Medical Tourism division at the Chamber of Commerce, told Indian media that Trump was attempting to 'kill the market of the Indian economy.' 'But that's not going to happen,' Mr Kumar said. 'The American market is dependent on Indian and Chinese suppliers. The real losers will be the US patients, not Indian exporters.' He added that India would now look to strengthen its trade relationships with Europe and other regions. 'We are resilient. We survive and bounce back - even in the toughest times.' For New Delhi, the challenge now is how to safeguard its economic interests without triggering an open confrontation, especially with a leader who rarely pulls his punches, even with friends.
Fashion United
2 hours ago
- Fashion United
Fast fashion faces a reckoning as tariff loophole closes
For years, fast fashion has thrived on a global supply chain built for speed, scale and, most crucially, exemptions. But with the stroke of a pen, the US has redrawn the rules. President Donald Trump's latest executive order, coming into effect on August 29, ends the de minimis tariff exemption for goods under 800 dollars, a loophole that enabled brands like Shein and Temu to ship low-cost clothing to American consumers free of import duties, reported the BBC. Once confined to China and Hong Kong, the policy now spans the globe, and with it, a new chapter begins for the business of ultra-cheap fashion. The de minimis threshold effectively allowed online retailers to bypass traditional tariffs, using volume and velocity to flood the US market with disposable apparel at prices domestic brands could never match. Now, with those same parcels facing the full weight of country-of-origin duties, the economics shift dramatically. The White House points to concerns over opioid trafficking and customs evasion, the BBC said, but the implications will be most acutely felt in fashion's lower rungs: the 5 dollar T-shirt, the 10 dollar dress, the two-week trend cycle that fuels an industry addicted to newness and price. For American consumers, who have grown used to restocking wardrobes at the click of a button, price hikes may be inevitable. For platforms built on razor-thin margins and cross-border arbitrage, operations could change dramatically. What happens next? Some brands may try to absorb costs or reroute supply chains; others will raise prices or perhaps rethink the model entirely. Hopefully, an ideological shift is underway: after decades of deregulated consumption, the end of the de minimis era is more than a policy change. It could be a signal that fast fashion's free pass may be over.
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Ursula von der Leyen's deal exposes the delusions of EU boosters
Photo byThe French prime minister François Bayrou said it was a 'dark day' for Europe. Under the trade deal that Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Scotland on 26 July, the US would impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports, but the European Union would not increase tariffs on American imports in return. According to Bayrou, 'an alliance of free peoples' had 'resolved to submission'. It was definitely a climbdown for the EU. Ever since Trump was re-elected last year and threatened new tariffs on imports to the US, the European Commission had threatened counter-measures – just as it did during the first Trump administration, when it responded to US tariffs on European aluminium and steel with its own tariffs on American products like bourbon. In the end, though, the EU simply accepted the new US tariffs this time – and on top of that, promised to increase purchases of American liquified natural gas and weapons. To be clear, what was agreed in Scotland is a political or 'framework' deal and a lot of the important details have yet to be worked out. In particular, it is not yet clear whether pharmaceuticals – a hugely important sector for the EU and especially Germany – will be included or how much steel will be exempt from tariffs. Moreover, the promises that von der Leyen made to increase investment in the US have already turned out to be empty – there is no way the EU can buy $750bn of American oil and gas in the next few years and it cannot direct companies to invest in the United States. Nevertheless, in the few days since the deal was announced, it has widely been seen as a humiliating European capitulation to Trump. Many critics of deal – especially EU boosters who fantasise about the idea of 'strategic autonomy' or a 'geopolitical Europe' – seem to imagine that the EU could have followed an alternative approach and stood up to Trump. In reality, though, there was little alternative to what Bayrou called 'submission'. Critics of the deal think EU member states undermined von der Leyen and forced her to negotiate from a position of weakness. It is true that some member states, especially Germany and Italy, ultimately backed off from threats of retaliatory measures because they feared that a full-on transatlantic trade war would ultimately hit important sectors of their economies harder than they are now being hit by the new US tariffs. But the idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it had but did not use – and that if it had used it, it could have struck a much better deal – is wishful thinking. As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU has long thought of itself as an economic superpower and prided itself on its ability to negotiate trade deals – that, of course, was one of main arguments why the UK should remain within in the EU. This deal has somewhat undermined that self-image. After all, in May, the UK was able to negotiate a slightly better deal with the Trump administration, with a baseline tariff of 10 per cent. But what really makes the EU weak relative to the US is its vulnerability in security terms. The idea that the EU had leverage over the US that it did not use only makes sense if you think that economics and security are completely separate realms and that security issues are irrelevant to trade negotiations and cannot be linked. But deep down, despite all the tough talk and the threats of retaliation to Trump's tariffs, European politicians knew that taking such a confrontational approach could have consequences for US support for Ukraine – or even for Nato and the US security guarantee to Europe itself. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It's striking that this trade deal was being negotiated just as Trump seemed to be becoming increasingly frustrated with Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Ukraine. Earlier in July, Trump had reinstated supplies of US weapons to Ukraine – albeit paid for by Europeans – and threatened new economic sanctions against Russia if Putin did not make progress in negotiations within 50 days. (The day after the EU-US trade deal was announced, Trump said he was now giving Putin even less time.) As tentative as European leaders know Trump's shift on Ukraine is, they do not want to jeopardise it. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who apparently spent hundreds of hours in frustrating negotiations with Trump administration officials, hinted at this in a briefing the morning after the announcement of the deal. He said he could not go into the details of everything that was discussed with Trump in Scotland, but 'it was not just about trade'. In the end, what has made the EU so dependent on the US, and made the EU's 'submission' inevitable, is the war in Ukraine – or, to be more precise, the way that, for the last two and half years since the Russian invasion in 2022, European leaders have insisted that their own security depends on a Ukrainian victory. Related
