Scotland's leading think tank rebrands as Enlighten
Chris Deerin, Enlighten's director, said the decision to change a name in place in 2008 was made reluctantly but ultimately became an opportunity.
'Reform UK had a very good general election, ended up with five MPs, and as we know from the polls, they are going to do quite well next year at the Holyrood election.
'And we started to find there was confusion arising when we were speaking to people and introducing ourselves,' he told The Herald's Unspun Live podcast.
'As we became aware that their prospects were actually pretty good, the confusion — even though we were here first — was there.
'We are obviously operating in the political world. They are operating in the political world. So, with some regret, we realised we would have to change our name.
'It was only when we had to change it that I realised how good a name Reform Scotland actually was. Because it was a statement of intent. We went to reform Scotland, and also it just worked as a kind of nomenclature.'
Mr Deerin said the new name evoked the spirit of the Scottish Enlightenment, "the intellectual flourishing, the pragmatism, the empiricism, the intellectual courage that came then".
'And we would like to think that that informs what we do. It also refers to the attempt to shed light on the challenges and the opportunities that Scotland faces," he said.
The think tank will continue to focus on long-standing priorities, including economic growth, improved public services, and social opportunity. But Mr Deerin said the name change marks something of a moment of renewal.
With the next Holyrood election less than a year away, Enlighten is working to influence party manifestos. Mr Deerin said he believes the think tank is better placed than ever to shape serious policy.
'We are more in demand from politicians, policymakers, and civil servants than we were five years ago. And that gives me hope,' he said.
'We are not changing our principles or the way we go about our business. We do research that is very much based on data and evidence. We are non–partisan. We are independent.
"We produce research that we dig into the data and think, right, here is something that is not working properly, or something that is — but could be better. And we think, looking at all of that, here are some ideas we can propose.'
Mr Deerin, a former journalist, said the Scottish Parliament's first quarter-century includes serious underperformance on education and health — two areas where Enlighten will continue to campaign for reform.
'I was there when the Parliament opened and I am a great supporter of the principle of devolution. But I do think that probably the past 25, 26 years now have been something of a missed opportunity at times.
"I think when you look at our public services, they have not been reformed in the way that they might be. They have not been modernised. I think a lot of the vested interests in Scotland have not been challenged,' he said.
'If you were a poor kid in the East End of Glasgow in 1999, and you are still a poor kid in the East End in 2025 — have your life prospects been changed by the Scottish Parliament? That is a hard case to make. And it should not be.'
Mr Deerin said Enlighten would remain 'fiercely' non–partisan and work with all parties, including Reform UK.
'We need to be interrogating Reform in the way that we interrogate the other parties, exposing their weaknesses, listening to their ideas.
"If there are any there that are worth considering, then we should consider them. And if the ideas are ones we need to take down, we should take them down.'
First Minister John Swinney welcomed the rebrand. He said: 'Think tanks like Enlighten are a vitally important yet sometimes overlooked component of our democratic system."
"Their findings can sometimes prove challenging, and politicians may not always support their conclusions," he added. "But ultimately, this healthy divergence of opinion is a crucial element of a healthy and thriving democracy.'
Scottish Secretary Ian Murray added: 'Enlighten is a great name for one of Scotland's foremost think tanks. The organisation is a key part of Scotland's political life, encouraging thoughtful debate across a range of issues.'
Enlighten chair and former First Minister, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, said: 'We have become Scotland's most influential think tank, just at the time when Holyrood and Westminster need fresh ideas and honest, challenging analysis to help our nation succeed, with opportunities for all to be successful. The time is right for a new name that reflects the breadth of our ambition. We aim to enlighten our public debate, and we will.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reform's non-stop psychodrama threatens to drive voters away
Nigel Farage was given just 10 minutes' warning before Zia Yusuf unleashed an earthquake that could shatter Reform UK's electoral fortunes. The party leader said that after a telephone conversation on Wednesday morning, he thought Mr Yusuf had 'had enough' of politics. But it was on Thursday evening that Reform's chairman resigned in the latest in a series of internal disputes that has begun to distract from the party's electoral success. As voters were trickling out of polling booths in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election in Scotland, where Reform's position looks strong, Mr Yusuf announced he no longer thought working for the party was a 'good use of his time'. The barely veiled implication was that he does not believe Mr Farage should be prime minister – a stunning admission from a man who has made putting Reform in Downing Street his single goal since the days after last year's general election. Mr Yusuf, a successful entrepreneur and millionaire, was hired to professionalise the party's candidate selection, fundraising and day-to-day operations. Under his leadership, Reform has moved into a plush new Westminster headquarters, won a parliamentary by-election and majorities on 10 English councils, and placed itself in the crosshairs of Sir Keir Starmer. There was also an almighty row with Rupert Lowe, one of the five MPs Reform voted in at the 2024 election, who fell out with Mr Yusuf and was reported to the parliamentary authorities and police for bullying, which he denies. Mr Farage backed his chairman and suspended the whip from Mr Lowe in March, and both sides have since sued each other. It proved a bitter row, but one that Mr Yusuf survived. As recently as Monday, Mr Farage told The Telegraph that while the 38-year-old businessman was 'new to the game', he would 'be around for many, many years to come', and would play a 'significant role in shaping the future of the country'. The fact that he resigned four days later is a testament to the work Reform still needs to do to become a general election-winning machine. Reform sources say there has been a dispute in the party for some time over what exactly Mr Yusuf should do in his role as chairman. As a recent graduate of Britain's business world, he was the obvious choice to lead 'UK Doge', Reform's Elon Musk-inspired efficiency drive in the councils it now runs. But that shift, from running Reform to the 'Doge' role, has led to the rise of another figure, 24-year-old Aaron Lobo, who served as Mr Farage's producer at GB News and has recently become Reform's operations manager. The divide between the party's political team and Mr Yusuf's more managerial role was laid bare on Wednesday at Prime Minister's Questions, when Sarah Pochin, the newest Reform MP, asked Sir Keir whether he would ban the burka. Mr Yusuf, who is a Muslim, said he only learnt about the question when he saw it online. He later added he thought it was 'dumb' for a party to ask the Government to endorse policies it did not support. But it later emerged that other party figures were more open to banning the burka than he expected. Lee Anderson, the chief whip, said he agreed they should be outlawed, adding: 'No one should be allowed to hide their identity in public.' Mr Farage said the public 'do deserve a debate' about banning religious face coverings. He added, in an interview with GB News, that he had known about the question in advance. The row was remarkable not just for its contents – which led to accusations of racism from Labour – but because it played out in public. If Mr Yusuf was in charge of his party, why did he not know what was going on? And why would he respond to his colleagues online, rather than in the office? Sources close to the party say that Mr Yusuf has become increasingly uncomfortable with the level of scrutiny his dispute with Mr Lowe brought, and had complained that every time he went on a national broadcast channel, he received a deluge of racist abuse online. On Thursday night, Mr Farage blamed 'alt-Right' abuse of Mr Yusuf online and claimed criticism of him on X had begun to upset him in recent weeks. The Telegraph understands he also found it difficult to bridge the gap between the party's more aggressive wing, once led by Mr Lowe, and attempts to become more moderate to attract disaffected Conservative voters. Unfortunately for Mr Farage, the incident is only the latest in a series of high-profile rows between the party leader and his senior colleagues. In his remarkable and lengthy political career, the veteran Brexiteer has fallen out with Ukip colleagues Mark Reckless, Douglas Carswell, Godfrey Bloom and Suzanne Evans, and the Reform deputy leader Ben Habib. Reform already has an uphill battle in convincing voters that it is a credible political force before the next general election. Mr Farage has done an impressive job in building a party with five MPs into a project with a seven-point poll lead over Labour that has all but killed off the Conservatives. The fact there are now Reform-run councils across the country is a boon. However, turning Reform's momentum in opposition into the sense it is a party of government will be much harder, and endless rows and resignations will not give voters any confidence on that front. Plus, if the row over the burka ban is genuinely the reason for Mr Yusuf's resignation, there are also policy questions to be asked. Chiefly, how much does Mr Farage want to rely on migration and race issues for votes? Will he tolerate his party's MPs criticising core beliefs of Muslims in the Commons chamber? Mr Farage, aided by Mr Yusuf, has come to think about his party as more of a political business than a party in the traditional Westminster mould. In the early-stage startup world, rows between executives over the direction of their projects are not uncommon – as Mr Yusuf has no doubt experienced. But stopping the in-fighting and resignations is now a business-critical issue. Reform's psychodrama risks driving voters back to Labour and the Conservatives, at a time when it must maintain its position in the polls or fizzle out.
The Herald Scotland
39 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
ScotRail is 'fixing' AI train announcer after voice controversy
But after prompting from Fiona Hyslop, he said: 'The Transport Secretary tells me they're fixing it, so they will be fixing it.' Ms Potter has welcomed this commitment as a 'meaningful step forward'. The issue was raised at First Minister's Questions at Holyrood, with Scottish Conservative MSP Dr Sandesh Gulhane asking if it is how the Scottish Government – which took ScotRail into public ownership in 2022 – 'supports actors'. The Tory pressed the case with Mr Swinney after Ms Potter, in a widely shared Facebook post, accused ScotRail of dismissing her concerns. She said Iona came from voice data held by Swedish-based company ReadSpeaker, who she did recordings for in 2021 – adding that by using her voice in an AI model the company had acted outside of the terms of her agreement with them. Ms Potter spoke of her 'distress' at discovering Scotland had 'installed the ReadSpeaker model 'Iona' that contains my biometric voice data as their new announcer on all their trains'. She insisted: 'I did not know. I was not asked. I did not consent.' Mr Swinney said he is 'sure' the rail operator will be 'engaging constructively with all concerned'. He added: 'I think sometimes these things do indeed need careful handling and I am sure ScotRail will be doing exactly that.' Following the First Minister's comments, a spokeswoman for Ms Potter told the PA news agency: 'We welcome the fact that the First Minister acknowledged the issue at hand and confirmed that ScotRail 'will be fixing it'. 'While the language may not be definitive at this stage, this public commitment is a meaningful step forward for Gayanne, and other artists in her position. 'That said, this case isn't just about hiring Scottish actors. It's about the use of a real actor's voice without her informed consent, and the broader need for ethical standards in the deployment of AI voice technology. 'We now hope that 'fixing it' will include direct engagement with Gayanne, proper accountability from those responsible, and a clear commitment to ensuring that consent, transparency, and fair treatment become non-negotiable in the use of AI by public bodies. 'The public sector needs to be rigorous in their procurement of AI solutions and the commercial partnerships they strike with AI companies.' Ms Potter's representative said the voice actress had been told by ScotRail earlier this week that the matter was between her and ReadSpeaker. She said they would request that ScotRail cease using 'Iona', adding: 'Any use of Gayanne's or anyone else's voice through AI must be based on her full, informed consent and agreed upon under fair conditions.' ReadSpeaker has said it has a contract to use her voice and its legal team has 'comprehensively' addressed Ms Potter's concerns.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill
Strange to say but a government with a Commons majority of 156 is somehow in danger of losing one of its more important pieces of legislation. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is commonly called the 'data bill' or ' AI bill' because it is central to the regulation of the new world of artificial intelligence; indeed, it is the first act of parliament specifically designed to deal with it. After breezing its way through the Commons, it has encountered unexpectedly stiff resistance in the House of Lords. Peers have five times rejected parts of the bill, and unless the government is prepared to compromise, the AI bill will have to be abandoned. Why is the AI bill in trouble? There are a lot of complicated parliamentary shenanigans involved, but at issue is the right of artists, creatives, authors – and, indeed, journalists – to own and make a living out of their work. Elton John, Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney are just a few members of a formidable coalition of interests who want to stop AI giants 'scraping' their work, undermining their livelihoods, and potentially killing the whole sector. It's the biggest change to the law in copyright and intellectual property in generations, effectively abolishing royalties, and hasn't really been subjected to the kind of national debate that it merits. The artists, writers and musicians have found a doughty defender in Beeban Kidron, a film director (Bridget Jones) who's been leading the guerrilla warfare in the upper chamber. As a lead character, she's been compelling. What do the Lords rebels want? A relatively modest amendment to the bill that would subject AI companies to copyright rules and make them declare when and what material they are using for their own commercial purposes: a duty of transparency. Thus, copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by whom. How determined are the rebels? Very. In the words of Baroness Kidron: 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House widespread theft. We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both Houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Why won't the government give way? It has offered concessions, but ministers maintain the new law does not weaken copyright law; creatives, who have the most to lose, beg to differ. Obviously, the government is anxious not to lose a whole piece of legislation that also covers, for example: a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking; and a framework for research into online safety. AI is also an important driver of economic growth. More than that, the government has been trying to tread a middle path between the more restrictive European approach and the American policy of laissez-faire. If Britain annoys the Americans, who lead in the sector, it might spoil the trade deal and relations more widely. Can't the government just force it through? Not easily. The deadlock between the Commons and Lords is such that either the bill gets amended to the satisfaction of both sides, or it cannot go forward for final readings and ultimately royal assent. This resistance by the Lords is exceptional and called 'double insistence', arising from the fact that the bill originated in the Lords rather than the Commons. (It must have been assumed to be less controversial.) But in the end, the government could get its way by invoking the Parliament Act, which trumps anything. The new law would be delayed, but the rebels might lose their cause by refusing to compromise. What is likely to happen? A compromise – but with further Lords reform in the way, the rebel peers may feel they have nothing to lose. By delaying the bill, they would force ministers to think again and allow the campaign by Elton John and his formidable creative forces to regroup and build more momentum – the issue still lacks much salience with the public. Either way, it has been tough on the personable Peter Kyle, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology.
