Lomond boarding school to accept tuition fee payments in Bitcoin
A Scottish boarding school has announced it will accept payments of school fees in the cryptocurrency Bitcoin.Lomond School in Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute - which charges up to £38,000 per year - said the move came after requests from some parents. Tuition payments will be accepted in Bitcoin from the autumn term this year, but these will initially be converted to UK pounds to "mitigate currency risk".The school said adopting Bitcoin aligned with its "ethos of independent thinking and innovation." No other cryptocurrencies will be accepted.
Lomond Schools claim to be is the first private school in the UK to accept cryptocurrency fee payments.Head teacher Claire Chisholm said: "For generations, this school has nurtured inquirers, thinkers, communicators, and open-minded risk-takers. "It's really no surprise then that the inventor of the television, John Logie Baird, is a former pupil."Lomond was founded in Helenburgh in 1977 in a merger between the historic Larchfield School and St Bride's School for Girls.It accepts pupils from nursery age three until 18 years old.The school said every Bitcoin transaction would be "secure, transparent, and lawful".It said these would meet UK financial regulations, including anti-money laundering and tax compliance.Bitcoin is a type of digital currency that is not controlled by centralised financial institutions. Its price climbed in value in 2024, but it is extremely volatile and can rise and fall in value at the whim of buyers and sellers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
35 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Achieving child poverty target 'could cost £920m a year in benefits'
'Laser-focused prioritisation' required by next Parliament to lift 100,000 children out of poverty Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Scotland could meet its 2030 child poverty target - but a report has warned this could cost £920 million a year in benefits, with "significant additional" spending also required to increase the number of parents in work. Chris Birt, associate director at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) in Scotland , said its research shows: "Holyrood has the chance to prove that it's up to the task of not just setting lofty ambitions, but straining every sinew to deliver on them." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The think tank said there would be financial benefits from getting more parents into employment, and from helping those with jobs to work more hours. Doing this could increase tax revenues to the Scottish Government by £410 million, it said, while cutting spending on universal credit by around £500 million a year. Scotland could meet its 2030 child poverty target - but a report has warned this could cost £920 million a year in benefits, with "significant additional" spending also required to increase the number of parents in work | PA With 240,000 children living in poverty in Scotland, the JRF produced what it described as a "toolkit" for parties running in the 2026 Holyrood election, setting out the impact different policies could have towards meeting the target of having less than 10 per cent of youngsters in relative poverty by 2030-31. The think tank said it had "deliberately not prescribed an exact course of action" but had instead "shown the required scale of action needed". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad To meet the target, the report said the next Parliament would need to "lift around 100,000 children out of poverty" - adding this would "require a laser-focused prioritisation". The Meeting the Moment paper stresses that none of the measures it considered would achieve the target on their own. "Even a near quadrupling of the SCP (Scottish child payment) to £100 a week per child at an annual cost of £1.14 billion would see a child poverty rate three percentage points above the targets," it said. However it found increasing the SCP - which is given to low-income families for every child they have under the age of 16 - to £40 a week would have "the best poverty reduction impact per pound". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This would cost an extra £190 million a year - but on its own would only bring the child poverty rate down to 18 per cent. However the research found that by supplementing the benefit for families with babies and for single parents, and by boosting take-up to 100 per cent of those eligible, when combined with other measures - such as boosting employment among parents in poverty - 90,000 youngsters could be lifted out of poverty, meeting the 10 per cent target. Tax revenues boosted by parental employment The report said: "This would cost an additional £920 million in targeted child benefits in Scotland (as well as other costs associated with increasing employment). "It would also increase tax revenues by £410 million because of increased parental employment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "Universal credit expenditure could also fall by £500 million as demand for it falls due to higher incomes through work." Mr Birt said: "Whoever forms the next Scottish Government has the chance to change what it means to grow up in Scotland . "To do so, they must meet the Parliament's child poverty targets. Not only for Scotland's children and their futures, but to show those who often feel overlooked and ignored by politics that trust can be rebuilt through actions. "This analysis gives each political party a detailed map to help them reach a Scotland free from child poverty. They may choose to take different routes to get there. But whichever route they take will require every ounce of determination and demand action at scale. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "The actions of Westminster governments may help, or hinder, but Holyrood has the chance to prove that it's up to the task of not just setting lofty ambitions, but straining every sinew to deliver on them." Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: "I welcome this report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation . "We are absolutely committed to meeting the 2030 child poverty targets and thanks to the actions we are already taking, families in the poorest 10 per cent of households are estimated to be £2,600 a year better off in 2025-26 and this value is projected to grow to an average of £3,700 a year by 2029-30. "However our policies are having to work harder in the current economic context and as a result of decisions taken by the UK Government, such as keeping the two-child limit on Universal Credit which are holding back Scotland's progress. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "While the Joseph Rowntree Foundation predict child poverty will rise in other parts of the UK by 2029, they highlight that policies such as our Scottish Child Payment, and our commitment to mitigate the two-child limit, are behind Scotland 'bucking the trend'.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
A macro-economic route to end poverty
Increases in government spending add to money already circulating in the economy, but if the dams and diversions remain all this new money ends up in the hands of the banks, landlords, monopolistic corporations and the wealthy. To explore how reforms can be made to the way our economy works, a useful start is to consider an important concept in macro-economics: sectoral balances. The start point is to understand that one person's spending is another person's income. When governments spend, they end up with a deficit unless they tax back the whole amount. That deficit is matched by an equivalent surplus in the non-government sector. READ MORE: Scottish independence support at 58 per cent if Nigel Farage becomes PM – poll Cumulative annual deficits add up to what we know as the 'national debt', which is the total amount of money circulating in the economy. Understood this way it makes no sense to think that the national debt should be paid off. There are two main components to the non-government sector: a domestic private sector and an overseas sector. The domestic private sector can be broken down further into an industrial sector (manufacturing and services), a financial sector and a household sector. The poorest section of the population occupies the lowest deciles within the household sector; they are the ones most likely to rely on debt to purchase even the most basic essentials and the least likely to own assets or have any savings. The money in the economy barely reaches them and what little money they do have to spend eventually finds its way back to the banks, landlords, big corporations and the wealthy. Since an overseas sector surplus means that some of the national debt is held by foreign actors, such as foreign governments and financial institutions, we need to consider the extent to which this functions as a drain on the economy. If money is lost to the domestic economy, there is less available to reach the poorest. However, a zero overseas sector surplus is not an appropriate objective either. Foreign governments and businesses need to hold a certain amount of our currency in order to facilitate trade – they need our money to buy our exports. Overseas governments and investors like to hold some of our government debt (in the form of government bonds), and demand for them is a good indicator of confidence in our currency and its value. Some losses from the economy can be avoided by reducing reliance on imports, particularly for strategic essentials such as food or energy and critical materials. Capital outflows to foreign investors from the Scottish economy currently amount to about 6% of GDP – or £11 billion per year. The Scottish Government has very limited capacity to grow the economy whilst Scotland remains part of the UK, which is why there has been a focus on attracting foreign investment. However, once independent and having our own currency we can rely less on foreign investment, and should then seek to grow our own companies instead. Increasing domestic ownership of our businesses and resources will reduce the outflow of profits, meaning more money is retained and circulated within the economy. Realistically, some foreign investment will be needed, especially where we lack home-grown technology and/or know-how but, in future, foreign investment should be limited to the degree that is supports long-term industrial and economic strategy. Scotland should establish a Foreign Investment Evaluation Agency to assess all proposals for foreign investment to ensure it is aligned with strategic priorities. We should welcome foreign investors who respect our values and will uphold the guarantees of fundamental socio-economic and human rights written into our future Constitution. The FIEA remit should include the evaluation of prospective foreign investors' commitments and record before recommending the issue of a 'licence to operate' in Scotland. Foreign investors must not be able to rely on 'investor-state dispute settlement' provisions in trade agreements. Any litigation against the Scottish Government by an investor must be dealt with in the Scottish courts where the constitutional rights of citizens can be given due weight against the rights claimed by investors. If foreign investors are deterred by the conditions, we must ensure that our own financial institutions step up to the mark to support the formation and development of Scottish capabilities including the recruitment of essential talent from overseas if necessary. In the next article, we will turn our attention to how the domestic private sector surplus can be redistributed so that sufficient money reaches the most disadvantaged households in our society.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
It's time to put renewed emphasis on life skills for our young people
Worse, the same report suggests that the prospect of securing a good job is just as dependent now as it was 20 years ago on who you know, rather than what you know. Perhaps most worrying, the report suggests that in a world where the nature of work is changing very rapidly, young people are being prepared by the education system for a career in traditional professions which might not even exist in the very near future, so significant is going to be the impact of AI. You could dismiss the report, except for the fact that it comes from a source as authoritative as the OECD. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is a Paris-based think tank that is, admittedly, dominated by the world's richest countries, but it is also noted for producing the best comparison statistics on education in the world. READ MORE: Scottish independence support at 58 per cent if Nigel Farage becomes PM – poll In fact, the report is so persuasive because what the researchers did was compare current world data with data from 20 years ago, when they first undertook work of this sort, and they would appear to be shocked to find that so little has changed. I am not surprised by this. If anyone had told me when I was at university, in the 1970s, that I would be making most of my income as a social media content creator, I would have been bemused by the suggestion. No-one had heard of the internet, or YouTube, or electronic recording data of the type we now use. Nor did any of the technology we use to consume social media exist back then. I make the point for a good reason. If my own career has changed this radically, and the rate of change in the nature of work is increasing and things are changing more often, what is it that we should now be training young people so that they have skills that may support them for decades, rather than a year or two at most after they leave either school or university? I have had six university appointments over the past 28 years and I appreciate the value of an academic education. But what I also realise is that this type of education, which dominates Highers and university courses, does not suit most people. In fact, in many disciplines, unless you want to be an academic, it is not much use at all. That is most especially true as far too many courses do not encourage much critical thinking at undergraduate level. All that means I am not surprised by what the OECD has found. I know that there might be exceptions to my comments in the case of some applied disciplines, such as medicine or veterinary science, and some engineering courses, but even then, these subjects exist in a real-world context once the person studying them has left university. To ignore this fact when they are training is quite ridiculous. So, what do I suggest we should do? I think the time has come for the unnecessary focus on academic disciplines in education to go. If the tiny minority who want to pursue a career in that area need concentrated training, that is for postgraduate education, above all else. At the level of Highers, in particular, the focus has to be very heavily on life skills. Of course, two or three more specialist subjects should be taken, but as important as these might be, so are essential and transferable life skills to ensure that people have the opportunity to change careers as time develops, as will inevitably happen to almost everyone now. So, what skills do I think are required? Try this list, which are things that matter to me now as an employer (which I am): Effective written communication Effective verbal communication Applied numeracy, including how to construct business-oriented spreadsheets Basic bookkeeping, accounting and budgeting An outline of the tax system Website creation and management The essentials of marketing Time management Basic employment law and contract law There is no job that exists for anyone over the age of 21 that does not require most skills, and most young people arrive in employment missing many of them. If, however, young people arrived with them, it would then be relatively easy for employers to provide more vocational training after the age of 21, using apprenticeship schemes if appropriate. Even those schemes are, however, at present, being hindered by a lack of these basic essentials, even among graduates. My suggestion is that at least 40% of the required undergraduate courses should also be cut on these issues. The result would be degrees that might be useful, and more fun to study, which is an issue that really matters to me when I know that so many students do not get very excited by their undergraduate university courses at present. Scotland could make these changes. Everyone would be a winner.
