Popular fashion brand opening Edinburgh store as locals 'prepare to be skint'
Get the latest Edinburgh Live breaking news on WhatsApp
A popular fashion brand has announced they will open a store in Edinburgh, with locals buzzing.
Lucy & Yak will be making their Scottish debut, as they promised 'see you soon'. The new shop will be opening up on Rose Street.
The brand sells a range of 'colourful and comfy clothing', designed in the UK. They offer up dungarees, trousers, tees, dresses, bags and more.
Posting to Facebook, the brand said: "We thought it was about time for our Scottish debut.
"See you soon Edinburgh."
Locals were quick to comment with excitement. One said: "Amazing news! Cant wait to visit."
A second posted: "That's the news we were waiting for."
Sign up for Edinburgh Live newsletters for more headlines straight to your inbox
A third commented: "Oh my gosh I am excited and skint already."
The brand was launched by Lucy and Chris, who started by making and selling tobacco pouches from old clothes in New Zealand. Eventually, they moved back to the UK and began producing dungarees - before trying their hand at various fashion items.
Join Edinburgh Live's Whatsapp Community here and get the latest news sent straight to your messages
They opened their first physical store in Brighton in 2019, and have began popping up across the UK.
On their website, they add: "Joyful prints, sustainable choices, circularity, and bringing together a community of the kindest and most creative people is what we're all about."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Spectator
Ian Blackford refuses to rule out Holyrood bid
Well, well, well. After Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes announced she was stepping down at next year's Scottish parliament election, speculation about who could stand for her Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch constituency has been rife. Some have suggested that Ian Blackford, the former SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and onetime Westminster group leader, could make a return to frontline politics by standing for an area he represented down south for almost a decade. So will he make the leap? When quizzed on Spectator TV about whether he would stand at next year's Holyrood election, Blackford did not rule it out – however he remarked: 'It would be a big push for me to get myself there.' How interesting… The investment banker-turned-politician went on: I didn't put myself forward for vetting to be an SNP candidate. It wasn't in my mind to stand for the Scottish parliament. What I've done is I've sought to be respectful to those that have asked me from the constituency over the course of the last few days. I've reflected on some of the some of the things which are going on. I am deeply concerned about the economy. When the UK cannot increase its debt level, the Chancellor will increase tax levels again in the budget this year. But we are not far away from a financial crisis. How do we create the economic growth that will make a difference for, for all of us in these islands and certainly for Scotland as well? I would like to find a way that I can still have an influence in that debate. And I don't believe that I have to be in the Scottish parliament to do that but I will carefully reflect on what people have asked me to do. The speculation began almost immediately after Forbes made her announcement. The Deputy FM was widely expected to run for the party leadership, whenever the next contest will take place, and her impending departure has raised the question of who might succeed First Minister John Swinney when the time comes. One nationalist told Lucy Dunn that: '[Blackford] is the dark horse here. Does he suddenly then become an outsider that could be the next leader, potentially, especially if you're looking at a caretaker regime that's basically saying the new kids on the block aren't ready to take the reins yet?' As an investment banker, Blackford could be a perfect fit to take on the role of economy secretary when Forbes steps aside – if, of course, the Nats hold onto her seat. But whether Forbes is as keen about the possibility of a Blackford return is a different story. On whether she would back a Blackford bounce-back, she told an Edinburgh Fringe audience: 'I am taking those headlines with a huge dose of salt. I did have a chat with him a few days ago and that wasn't in the conversation.' Would she vote for him? 'I will wait and see what the options are,' she replied. Not quite a full-throated endorsement, eh?
STV News
13 minutes ago
- STV News
Scottish water bosses to get £400k pay rise amid customer price hike
Scottish Water bosses have received £400,000 in pay rises despite hiking prices by nearly 10% for customers. The total cost of senior executive salaries rose to almost £1.4m in 2025, up from just more than £1.1m the year before, the body's annual report released on Wednesday shows. The chief executive Alex Plant's salary has gone up by £50,000 and now sits at £295,000. His total pay packet, including pension contributions, totals £523,000. Scottish Labour has said the 'eye-watering' salary increases will 'stick in the craw' for people across the country who are paying higher water bills this year. 'People across Scotland are struggling to make ends meet, yet the wages of bosses at Scottish Water are eye-watering and continue to rise,' Labour deputy leader Dame Jackie Baillie said. Baillie said water bosses are picking up 'hefty incentive bonuses totalling more than £230,000' at the expense of Scottish taxpayers. From April, the average household bill increased by £44 per year. That's on top of a 8.8% rise the year before. Scottish Water said more investment was needed as current infrastructure is put under 'significant pressure' by more extreme weather conditions, such as more periods of drought and intense rainfall. The Scottish Lib Dems said this year's pay rises are the third highest on record, despite water bills going up sharply and 24,398 sewage dumps last year. 'The SNP government is rewarding their water company for failure,' Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP said. 'Scottish Water are paying out enormous bonuses to bosses who are presiding over filthy sewage dumps and hitting customers with bigger bills.' Chief operating officer Peter Farrer saw his salary fall by around £20,000 but his overall package increased to £312,000. Chief financial officer Alan Dingwall, who joined the firm last year, was paid a salary of £175,000 and a total package of £293,000. But the body's annual report also shows a record performance in the past year in customer satisfaction – which hit 94% – as well as other positive results in leak reduction and the halving of serious pollution, leading Mr Plant to describe the past 12 months as 'our strongest year ever'. A spokesman for the utility company said: 'Scottish Water is one of the largest and best-performing utilities in the UK, but executive pay is significantly lower than in similarly sized private companies, where we need to compete for talent. 'Across the business, the biggest percentage pay rises have been given to the lowest-paid workers, narrowing the gap between the chief executive's pay and median employee earnings, which is already much smaller than the pay ratios in other companies of our scale. 'Total remuneration also includes pension contributions and variable pay related to performance, which is only paid when the business delivers strong results, as it did last year, with 94% customer satisfaction. 'Every Scottish Water employee is eligible for an annual outperformance payment.' The Scottish Government has been contacted for comment. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The National
24 minutes ago
- The National
Expert debunks everything you've been told about Scottish 'deficit'
Here, you can watch the full video. The transcription is also written below. It's GERS day: The day in Scotland when the Government Expenditure and Revenue Statement for Scotland is published by the Scottish Government. Every year it's presented as the truth about Scotland's public finances, and in reality, it's a Completely Rubbish Approximation to the truth or it's CRAp, as I've always described it. The real position is this. The Scottish Government balances its books. Every single council in Scotland balances its books. Every public agency that is reflected in jurors balances its books. In other words, the truth is Scotland's public finances balance, by definition and by law. So where does the deficit that GERS reports come from? Well, it comes from the actions of the UK Government. It has to, because nobody else can create this deficit on behalf of Scotland because nobody else has the legal power to do so. And, therefore, if Scotland is running a deficit, we know who to blame. It's Westminster, and nobody at Holyrood is responsible. READ MORE: What is the GERS report and how is it calculated? Now let's just look at some of the detail behind that, because as usual, GERS is saying that Scotland is running a large public finance deficit; one that is larger than that in the rest of the UK. And that is because people in Scotland are said to be paying a little bit less tax than people elsewhere in the UK. And I deliberately emphasised the point, "a little bit less tax". In fact, if we take oil into account, they pay no less tax than other people in the UK. But if we take oil out of account, it's about £500 or so less than other people in the UK. So, the difference is insignificant, and that's amazing given that average incomes per head in Scotland are lower than in the rest of the UK. But let's look at the second part of this equation, and that is that the supposed spend on people in Scotland is £2670 per person more than it is on people in the rest of the UK. It's over £21,000 and it's around £18,000 per person in the rest of the UK; a figure, which you're probably going find pretty staggering because you're going try and work out how you get that much benefit. And the answer is, it is very hard to work out. But the point is that the deficit per person in the UK is £2200 per person, and it is claimed as a consequence of adjusting for these tax figures and for the extra spending for people in Scotland that the deficit per person in Scotland is over £4700 per person per year. And I'm going to put it to you that that is nothing to do with what is actually happening inside Scotland's public finances, for the reasons I've already explained. They balance. So what are the reasons for the deficit? First of all, as the GERS statement itself, rather pointedly says, expenditure on social provision and welfare in Scotland is higher than it is in the rest of the UK. And there's a little dig at the Scottish Government for that in this document. But in truth, that's not the reason. The truth is Scotland is poorer than the rest of the UK and has more social need than the rest of the UK, and also needs more support because of the environment of Scotland being different from the rest of the UK. It's colder for a start. And so, there are issues in Scotland that have to be addressed which Westminster is never going to care about, which are reflected in this report and which don't get adjusted for as a consequence. They are never going to be solved until Scotland is independent. But the rest of this deficit is created by Westminster because it is the only organisation that can create it because nobody in Scotland has the power to do so. And I'm saying that that is deliberate. Scotland is deliberately having costs dumped on it by Westminster in a way that is entirely unreasonable. It is claimed that Scotland has excess costs, in other words, in my opinion, and some of those are easy to identify. For example, Scotland is not buying new nuclear power stations in the south of England, and it would never need them because it has a power surplus. In fact, Scotland is underreporting its national income because companies in Scotland are being paid to not produce renewable energy. You couldn't make up a situation more bizarre than that, which is so biased in favour of England. And Scotland would never, if it was independent, waste the money that the UK does on defence so that Keir Starmer can continue to go around the world politically posturing as if the country is a world power when everybody knows it isn't. And nor would Scotland spend money on HS2, which is never going to come near the country. And nor would it pour subsidies into investment in the south-east of England, which is the absolutely standard norm in the UK Government accounts for which apparently Scotland has to pay. Independence could change all this. Scotland would have its own capital, which would boost its GDP. All profits earned in Scotland would be taxed in Scotland, and I very strongly suspect that is not the case at present. All interests paid in Scotland would be taxed in Scotland because it would have to be paid to Scottish banks, and I very strongly suspect that that is not being accounted for properly at present. And in addition. VAT paid in Scotland would definitely be collected in the country and once more, I'm not at all convinced that is happening right now. And Scotland could, if it was an independent country, crack down on the small company abuse that is now denying the revenue across the whole of the UK, tens of billions of pounds, and therefore costing Scotland a significant amount as well. And all of this could be done to change the way in which Scotland's accounting works. But Westminster isn't interested in doing that. So long as it can dump its costs on Scotland and Wales, and Northern England and Northern Ireland, then it doesn't care that it is making losses in those areas as a consequence of its accounting because it can blame them for being the burden on the rest of the UK. They keep wasteful projects alive on the basis of this while starving Scotland of funds to meet real needs. This is accounting abuse on a giant scale. READ MORE: We have to create an alternative to GERS to make the case for indy The figures that are used in GERS are flawed because the UK Government supplies what is, in my opinion, and I'm allowed to have this opinion, flawed apportionments of UK national data. And Scotland has no control over this. What it's charged for is a matter for the UK Government to decide and not for Scotland to decide. America sought independence for less reason than that. And these estimates would all change if independence was to be a reality. In fact, in fairness, GERS says that. There is no indication of what Scotland's finances would be like if it was independent from the extrapolation of the GERS statement. But if you listen to a Unionist, you would never believe that. They love GERS, they always have, and remember that it was created in 1992 precisely to prove that Scotland couldn't be an independent country, and more than 30 years on the Scottish Government, headed by the SNP for well over a decade now, is still producing this nonsense data and looks incredibly weak as a result for doing so. Year after year I have begged the SNP to change the methodology, to put forward a proposal as to how this can be properly accounted for, and to show, at least, the degree of expense which is reallocated which they would challenge, and that which is not. But it doesn't happen, and that's ridiculous. So, we end up with a situation where GERS is, as I've always described it, CRAp – a completely rubbish approximation to the truth. It's misleading. It's untruthful, and it's politically loaded against Scotland. It's time to scrap it, to replace it, and to show Scotland's real potential. Scotland can and must do better than this.
