ScotRail scrapping peak rail fares – 3 things you need to know
The change is part of the Government's push for Net Zero, with rail travel contributing less than half of carbon emissions for a 20-minute trip compared to car journeys.
READ MORE: Seven things we learnt from Nicola Sturgeon's autobiography Frankly
Fiona Hyslop MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, said: 'Public ownership has created the opportunity to deliver a railway which is run for the benefit of the nation. ScotRail is one of the fastest growing operators, with one of the best passenger satisfaction rates and we are building even further on this success by removing peak fares for good.
'We want more people to choose to travel by public transport for work, study and leisure but we know that many are still struggling with cost-of-living pressures. By removing peak fares, we are making ticketing more simple and more straightforward while at the same time supporting a shift towards sustainable public transport, protecting the climate, and saving people money.'
When will peak rail fares be scrapped in Scotland?
From September 1, ScotRail passengers will pay the same price for tickets purchased before 9am as they would for later services.
Once the extra charges are removed, Super Off-Peak tickets will also be scrapped.
How much money will I save?
On average, commuters will save 35% on train fares once the peak time charges are gone.
Return fares from Edinburgh to Glasgow will see savings of £15.80, and returns between Inverness and Elgin will be cut by £8.50
How does the change affect other ticket types and rail cards?
ScotRail currently sells several different ticket types outside of their standard single and return fares. Railcards, concession and other discount options will remain valid for travel after 9:15am.
Season Tickets will retain their current prices until September 27, whilst Flexipass tickets will see adjusted prices from September 1 to ensure they still offer savings compared to purchasing several single or return tickets.
Customers are advised to check the ScotRail app or website from August 22 to see what the changes will look like come September 1.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
41 minutes ago
- The National
Gordon Brown had a good idea. But it won't fix the problem he created
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Kaitlin Dryburgh, Common Weal's policy communications co-ordinator. GORDON Brown has given Rachel Reeves a sensible suggestion: increase taxes on the mighty gambling industry. Brown supports the proposal from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which would help to plug the two-child benefit cap and alleviate the appalling levels of child poverty we face. The former Labour leader thinks they should stand up to this industry, really show them who's boss, all in the name of doing some good for society. In a sense, he isn't wrong. The gambling industry isn't taxed enough. It also isn't fined as much as it should be – and it's woefully under-regulated. If we were being truly radical, we could follow the lead of some Scandinavian countries and nationalise all gambling, which would allow us to plough profits directly into doing good. That would also create benefits beyond monetary gain, such as a system capable of tracking and intervening in cases of gambling addiction. READ MORE: Is Gordon Brown right that Scottish child poverty 'worse every day'? However, such a move would require being unfazed by the gambling lobby – something Brown would know little about. While he comments on the meagre taxation the gambling industry faces and the good that revenue could achieve, Brown fails to mention the deregulation his government oversaw, the harm it caused, and the fact that in many cases it will have contributed to child poverty. He ignores the stark inequality between children growing up in deprivation and the gambling companies and executives who have grown their fortunes exponentially since he gave them a mighty boost. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown presided over a shake-up of the gambling industry like never before. Tony Blair claimed there was 'no evidence' the changes would lead to gambling addiction (another example of Blair getting his evidence wrong) and even used Blackpool as an example of a place that could benefit from regeneration. Because nothing says 'revitalisation' quite like more gambling. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pictured together during the New Labour yearsWhat followed was an explosion of betting shops and casinos across the country, alongside aggressive television advertising pumped directly into people's living rooms. But perhaps the most significant escalation came with the arrival of smartphones in our pockets: the online gambling boom. Since the liberalisation of gambling laws, the UK gambling market has become one of the largest in the world relative to its population. Thank you, Tony and Gordon. Almost half the UK population places at least one bet a month. Despite Blair's flippant assurance that this relaxation of gambling laws wouldn't cause addiction, he was dead wrong. I saw a betting advert the other month. I don't know if you're like me, but when it comes to this kind of thing on TV, I usually switch off, make a cup of tea, and ignore it. But my god, this one caught my attention, for all the wrong reasons. It showed people in different situations doing mundane tasks: one waiting for a bus, another building flat-pack furniture. The entire message was: in those moments, why not place a bet? Does that not feed directly into addiction? They were effectively saying: 'This isn't really about enjoyment – just do it out of boredom or habit.' READ MORE: Labour took more than £1m in donations and gifts from gambling firms Apparently that was fine, because our gambling regulations are not fit for purpose. One of the most recent large-scale studies estimates that 2.5% of the UK population has some form of gambling problem, and the NHS has seen a rise in those seeking help. Gambling ruins lives; people lose their homes, their jobs, their families, and in some cases their lives. Betting companies are sometimes called out on this. Either they get a slap on the wrist or endure a short bout of bad publicity – but they don't care. Paddy Power, a company worth tens of billions, was fined a mere £280,000 for failing to carry out sufficient checks on problem gamblers. They even actively encouraged one addicted customer to stay longer and spend more on their premises. A decision that cost the individual their jobs, access to their children, and their home. There are countless horror stories of gambling companies employing the most exploitative strategies imaginable to extract as much money as possible from vulnerable gamblers. This is the direct result of commercial lobbyists shaping government policy, rather than the other way around. They feebly present 'investment' as an excuse, when in reality industries like these extract wealth, they don't create it. That's why there are four entries on the top 100 UK Rich List linked to gambling, with a combined fortune of £23.1 billion. Brown certainly has a point when it comes to taxing gambling more heavily, but the monster that is the UK gambling industry is partly his creation. The harm it has caused for decades lies at the door of his former government, and the betting companies are still reaping the rewards of the legislation he helped to pass.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Is Australia supplying weapons to bomb Gaza? Here's what we know about fighter jet parts in the F-35 program
The Australian government has announced it will recognise the state of Palestine, but many politicians and human rights groups are demanding tougher action to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Greens have urged the Albanese government to stop supplying F-35 parts to a global supply chain that can be accessed by Israel, in addition to direct sanctions on senior members of the Netanyahu government. But the federal government denies it is sending weapons to Israel and has criticised 'misinformation' about the F-35s. So what do we know about Australia's role in the supply chain? The Israel Defense Forces has confirmed F-35 planes are used to 'strike terror targets and assist ground forces in very close proximity strikes'. In February last year, a Dutch appeals court found it was likely that F-35s were being used in attacks on Gaza, and a 'clear risk' that parts exported from the Netherlands were 'used in serious violations of international humanitarian law'. Sign up: AU Breaking News email In September, Danish media reported Israel had confirmed an F-35 was used in a missile strike in southern Gaza that killed 90 people and injured hundreds more. Lawyers representing the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq have previously told a UK court the F-35s have played a critical role in Gaza and linked them to airstrikes that have killed more than 400 people, including 183 children and 94 women. The Israeli government was contacted for comment. More than 75 Australian companies have contributed to the global supply chain for the F-35 program, according to the defence department. More than 700 of the fighter jet's 'critical pieces' are manufactured in Victoria alone, according to the state government. One company, RUAG Australia, is the only global supplier of the F-35's 'uplock actuator system', which allows the jet to quickly open its bay doors and fire missiles while maintaining stealth. Australia also hosts a regional distribution hub for F-35 parts. In April, the defence department said Australian companies have been paid around $5bn for their contributions to the F-35 supply chain so far. This is a relatively small proportion of the overall program. Last year, the US government accountability office said the F-35s would cost 'more than $2tn over several decades'. The global supply chain is coordinated by the F-35's primary manufacturer Lockheed Martin in the US. The fighter jet is used by the US and 19 allies, including the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan and South Korea. Manufacturers are not contracted to supply parts to one specific nation, such as Israel. Instead, they supply enough parts for large batches of F-35s that are purchased from Lockheed Martin. In July, the Declassified website published a story alleging dual civilian and military use aircraft parts had been sent from Sydney to Tel Aviv. The story cited shipping records that allegedly listed Lockheed Martin as the source of the parts and described them as being for the 'JSF', or the F-35 joint strike fighter. An Australian government spokesperson said it 'does not have a direct bilateral arrangement with the government of Israel in relation to the F-35 program'. 'Australia has not supplied weapons or ammunition to Israel since the Israel-Gaza conflict began and not for at least the past five years,' the spokesperson said. Lockheed Martin was contacted for comment on whether F-35 parts were sent from Australia to Israel directly. Parts can only be sourced from nations allied with the US due to national security fears. In 2022, deliveries were briefly suspended when Chinese parts were discovered in an F-35. 'Replacing such suppliers would not be straightforward, as Lockheed would have a limited list of countries from which to source components,' said Kelsey Gallagher, a senior researcher with the Canada-based research institute Ploughshares, who specialises in the F-35 supply chain. 'A country like Australia refusing to transfer F-35 components could have a sizeable impact on the program, given how many individual aircraft they are contracted to supply at once,' Gallagher said. It depends on the parts. Several Australian companies are the sole global supplier for some F-35 parts. If these parts were withheld, there could be a significant short-term impact on repairs and sales. Last year, Lockheed Martin told a US court that one relatively small supplier not providing titanium products, as contracted to do so, would 'cause unavoidable and substantial delays in Lockheed Martin's delivery of F-35 aircraft to the United States, threatening national security and Lockheed Martin's reputation and goodwill'. Josh Paul, a former US state department official who resigned over US arms shipments to Israel, says the impact would be greatest if nations acted together in protest against the killing in Gaza. 'The nature of the [F-35] consortium is that all of the countries would feel the crunch and therefore feel compelled to accept that agreement,' Paul told the ABC. Gallagher said most of the contracts between Lockheed Martin and small companies, including subcontractors in Australia, were not public and it was difficult to make claims with certainty. But he referred to a 2025 Lockheed Martin corporate document that told suppliers their 'timely performance is a critical element' of their contracts. 'Logically, a subawardee failing to supply parts following a contract signing could only be seen as a breach of that contract, whatever the reason,' Gallagher said. In 2023, Lockheed Martin sued US-based subcontractor Howmet for failing to deliver F-35 components after a contract dispute. The matter was settled out of court and Howmet continues to supply parts. Gallagher said Lockheed Martin faces financial penalties from the US department of defence for failing to deliver jets on time. 'It could then follow that Lockheed would pass those penalties onto subcontractors that have some part in the delays,' Gallagher said. So far, no country has withdrawn from the F-35 supply chain. But several companies have taken action to reduce or cut the supply of new military equipment to Israel. Germany has stopped exporting material that could be used by Israel during its military operations in Gaza. Germany is the second largest arms supplier to Israel after the US. Australia's defence minister, Richard Marles, says Australia cannot announce similar action to Germany as it does not directly supply arms to Israel. Regarding the F-35 parts, he said on Sunday: 'That is a multilateral arrangement with supply chains that are organised by Lockheed Martin in the United States and have multiple suppliers in respect of all of those supply chains.' The German company Rheinmetall produces fuselages for the global F-35 supply chain. These contributions have not been stopped. In September, the UK suspended most relevant arms export licences for use in Israel. Some nations think so, but this is difficult to independently substantiate. When the UK suspended arms export licenses, it gave a carve-out to the F-35 program, saying international peace and security required that it was not disrupted. The UK is the second largest supplier of parts after the US. The UK government told a court that suspending exports to the F-35 program would have impacted the battle to prevent Russia from occupying Ukraine, as the F-35 was a central pillar of Nato. The Australian government is required to make similar judgments before awarding export licences for parts used in the F-35. It must consider 12 criteria, including the balance between human rights concerns and national security and foreign policy considerations. Under the arms trade treaty, which Australia is a party to, providing weapons to a group involved in armed conflict can lead to criminal liability if the equipment is used to commit war crimes. In January last year, the international court of justice ruled the claim of genocide in Gaza was 'plausible'. The Greens senator David Shoebridge says component parts are considered weapons and Australia is therefore breaching international law. But Donald Rothwell, an international law expert at the Australian National University, says he would 'not be as decisive' as Shoebridge in his interpretation of international law. Rothwell said being definitive was difficult as 'there can be so many component parts of weapons'. 'Some component parts may have been exported to Israel for civilian use but then utilised for weapons,' Rothwell says. 'I would take the view, though, that Australian exports that are component weapon parts, and which are exported to the IDF, are contributing to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.' Paul told the ABC last week that Australia's supply of components and parts to the F-35 fighter jets, which have been used by Israel, constitutes 'directly the facilitation of war crimes'. During a recent court hearing, the UK government acknowledged its supply of F-35 components for potential use in Israel was in breach of its own arms export control laws. Around 15% of the F-35's parts, including ejection seats, are made in the UK. The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, says Australia's role in the supply chain 'raises grave concerns that Australian parts and components are involved in the atrocities we have seen unfold in Gaza'. Amnesty International Australia's Mohamed Duar has said 'the lack of transparency surrounding Australia's defence exports has made it extremely difficult to determine the extent of our involvement in the commission of genocide and war crimes'. Human Rights Watch was among 232 civil society organisations who urged nations involved in the F-35 supply chain to 'immediately halt all arms transfers to Israel'. Marles says Australia does not supply weapons to Israel and has complained about 'misinformation' regarding exports, arguing it has 'raised tensions in this country, which is deeply destabilising for Australia's social cohesion'. Marles says Australia has contributed to the F-35 program for decades as part of a multi-lateral agreement with Lockheed Martin in the US, rather than Israel directly. The foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, has also described Australia's contributions to the supply chain as 'non-lethal in nature'.
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Migrants attempting to enter UK in refrigerated trailers are ‘constant threat'
The study, published by logistics company Oakland International, stated that 4,415 instances of a truck or van being found with stowaways seeking to reach the UK were recorded between 2016 and 2023. An average of nearly 100 people per month were detected infiltrating trucks entering the UK between January and September last year. People hiding in trailers cause delays, increased costs, potential damage to goods and disposal of produce, researchers found. Companies transporting food, household goods and healthcare items dispose of an average of 56% of stock on an infiltrated lorry. The value of lost stock can be up to tens of thousands of pounds, research found. This can result in revenue loss several times higher. The report, produced with research company Analytiqa, stated: 'The use of refrigerated trailers to gain illegal access for stowaways remains a constant threat to food safety and contributes to considerable unnecessary waste and risk within the food supply chain.' Oakland International co-founder Dean Attwell said: 'The rise in clandestine infiltration is not just a statistic, it's a ticking time bomb for food safety, driver security and public health. 'Every compromised load puts the public at risk and costs the industry millions per year. 'We need urgent, co-ordinated action across the supply chain to implement robust security protocols, improve traceability and ensure accountability at every stage.' In cases where a vehicle is found carrying a hidden entrant, the Government can issue the transport company with fines of up to £10,000 per stowaway. Road Haulage Association senior public affairs lead Ashton Cull said failings within Border Force and the Clandestine Entrant Civil Penalty Scheme mean 'all the responsibility and liability is being unfairly shifted onto drivers and businesses who have taken all possible steps to secure their vehicles'. He added: 'We repeat our call for further and urgent investment in training and technology at our borders to help keep loads secure. 'We want to see a fair system in place that protects drivers, goods and businesses as well as our borders. 'We look forward to seeing greater urgency on this issue.' The Home Office was approached for a comment.
