Swinney: Reasonable for ex-Dundee University principal to return £150,000 payout
He stepped down from his post at the university – which is looking to cut hundreds of posts as it tries to deal with a £35 million deficit – in December.
He told Holyrood's Education Committee, which is examining the difficulties faced by the institution, that the university had a 'contractual obligation' to pay him the cash.
Prof Gillespie insisted it was 'not in my thought process to repay a contractual obligation to me for my work at the university' – although he added later he would 'reflect' on the matter.
Mr Swinney however later insisted: 'I think that would be the right thing to do because the University of Dundee is facing an acute challenge.'
A report into the situation at Dundee by former Glasgow Caledonian University principal Professor Pamela Gillies last week heavily criticised Prof Gillespie.
Asked if Prof Gillespie should give back the money, the First Minister said: 'Given the awfulness of the Gillies review of the handling of the finances of the University of Dundee, I think that would be a reasonable thing to do.'
His comments came after Education Committee convener Douglas Ross branded Prof Gillespie a 'coward' and accused him of having 'created this mess and walked away into the sunset'.
Pressing the former principal over his time in charge, Mr Ross asked him if he was 'incompetent or corrupt' – with him replying he was 'certainly not corrupt' so he would 'have to choose incompetent'.
Prof Gillespie began his evidence to the committee with a 'heartfelt apology' to staff and students at Dundee – which is to receive an additional £40 million from the Scottish Government to help its financial situation.
'Let me start off with an apology to the staff and students,' he told MSPs.
'I think staff and students deserve better than they have had with the management and the governance of the University of Dundee over quite some time, but particularly over the period of 2024.
First Minister John Swinney said the University of Dundee 'is facing an acute challenge' (Jane Barlow/PA)
'It's a heartfelt apology for a university that I love, and a city that I hugely respect.
'I accept the buck stops with me. That is why at the end of last year I left.'
Mr Ross said the Gillies report showed Prof Gillespie had 'dangerous over self-confidence and complacency', and an 'overbearing leadership style'.
Prof Gillespie said that description was 'not something I recognise' – although he later told how a complaint had been made against him in a previous job at the Natural Environment Research Council about his 'overbearing behaviour'.
Prof Gillespie stepped down as principal at the University of Dundee in December, recalling this happened after others at the institution told him they had 'no confidence' in his leadership.
He told MSPs it was 'possible' he had then resigned by text – though he said he may instead have sent an email confirming his decision.
Mr Ross told him: 'The only thing I thought about you was you are a coward.
Committee convener Douglas Ross accused Prof Gillespie of being a 'coward' (PA)
'You couldn't go back to the university and face the staff who were losing their jobs, face the students whose studies were so badly disrupted.
'You just created this mess and walked away into the sunset.'
Challenging him on the payout, Mr Ross told Prof Gillespie he had been given 'over £150,000 to walk away from a university you almost destroyed'.
He asked the former principal: 'At any point have you considered paying that money back?'
Prof Gillespie said the university had a 'contractual obligation' to pay him the money.
While he said he took 'overall management responsibility for what happened at the University of Dundee', he told Mr Ross he would 'push back' against the claim that he 'almost destroyed it'.
Liberal Democrat MSP Willie Rennie also pressed for Prof Gillespie to give back the money.
Liberal Democrat MSP Willie Rennie was one of those who pushed Prof Iain Gillespie to hand back the payout he received after quitting (Fraser Bremner/Scottish Daily Mail/PA)
He told the former principal: 'To hold on to that just seems astonishing with the pain other people are feeling.
'I just genuinely want you to think about that, because I think it would send an important message.
'It wouldn't repair the damage but it would send an important message.'
Conservative MSP Miles Briggs said giving back the money could be a way for Prof Gillespie to 'send a message to students, to the staff who are left at Dundee, that you understand your role in this saga'.
The former principal told him: 'You are one of several members of the committee who have suggested that and I will reflect on that.'
Prof Gillespie also hit back at claims from former Holyrood minister Wendy Alexander, who was vice-principal international at the university for almost a decade.
In a submission to the committee, Baroness Alexander had said she was 'frozen out' and then 'asked to leave' her post after raising concerns about university finances.
Prof Gillespie insisted he did 'not want to get into a slagging match about people's characters', he told MSPs: 'Wendy's performance in terms of delivering student numbers wasn't what we needed it to be.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
4 hours ago
- Scotsman
SNP under fire for 'glacial progress' as cladding investigations progress revealed
Opponents have accused the SNP of lagging behind cladding progress in England Sign up to our Politics newsletter 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... SNP ministers have been criticised for 'glacial progress' after it was revealed that only three of the estimated 1,450 buildings that might require cladding work in Scotland have been assessed. Following the Grenfell disaster, governments have been pressured to ensure that buildings are safe, particularly due to concerns over cladding brought on by the Grenfell disaster. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Grenfell Tower New statistics published by the Scottish Government have revealed that out of an estimated 1,450 buildings that may require work to remove cladding, just three have been fully assessed under Scotland's cladding remediation programme. Remediation work has only been completed on a mere 0.2 per cent of potentially affected buildings. The data revealed that another 12 single building assessments (SBAs), which assess any risk to life as a result of cladding, are currently underway. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Only two buildings across Scotland currently have active remediation work being undertaken. The Scottish Government defines a 'single building assessment' as one which 'results in a report on any risk to human life that is (directly or indirectly) created or exacerbated by a building's external wall cladding system', and 'what work (if any) is needed to eliminate or mitigate the risk'. The statistics have come despite the Scottish Government scheme having already received 600 expressions of interest from those responsible for potentially impacted buildings. The expressions of interest have been submitted for buildings in 18 of the 32 local authority areas in Scotland, with the largest proportion relating to buildings in Glasgow. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This lack of progress contrasts with the situation south of the Border, where 2,490 buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation works, representing 48 per cent of buildings within the programme. In England, there is a target to complete the remediation of high-rise buildings by 2029 and for mid-rise buildings to have either been completely remediated by the date, or to have a plan in place with a date set for completion. In Scotland, no such target exists. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have claimed there is 'no excuse' for slow progress after the Grenfell tragedy eight years ago. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Liberal Democrat communities spokesperson, Willie Rennie, has warned that there are 'no excuses' for the SNP making slow progress on removing dangerous cladding. Willie Rennie Mr Rennie said: 'In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster, there can be no excuses for making such glacial progress, but this SNP government continues to blunder their way through in slow motion. 'This is an issue where Scotland simply cannot afford to fall behind; by moving so sluggishly with the necessary building works, the SNP government are only increasing the risks to peoples' lives. 'That's why I am imploring ministers to urgently step up the pace in fixing at-risk buildings and keep homeowners, residents and local authorities informed on developments.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The Scottish Government has introduced legislation mandating the use of fire-suppression systems in new-build multi-occupancy properties over 18 metres; introduced regulations prohibiting the use of combustible cladding materials on high-medium risk buildings; and introduced regulations requiring the installation of interlinked smoke alarms in all properties. 'We committed to addressing unsafe cladding and the wider system failures that allowed these risks to go unchallenged. That commitment is now underpinned by law through the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which took effect in January 2025. 'We are moving at pace to support the identification, assessment, mitigation and remediation of buildings affected by unsafe cladding. Where risks are identified and require immediate intervention, we will take appropriate action because protecting lives is our top priority and cannot wait. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Operation Broadcroft: Police Scotland refuse to reveal costs
He said the investigation was looking into claims that a 'very, very senior civil servant - Mr James Hynd - gave a false statement on oath at the inquiry'. When the former First Minister and Alba Party leader died suddenly, aged 69, in North Macedonia in October last year it was not clear if and for how long the police investigation into the matter would continue. But The Herald revealed in June that the investigation was still ongoing. READ MORE: Following our report, this newspaper asked the force under freedom of information legislation details on the cost of the inquiry, how many officers were involved and the date the inquiry began. However, our request for the cost and the number of officers working on the inquiry was refused by Police Scotland on the grounds the force does not have the information "In response to your request, I can advise you that the information sought is not held by Police Scotland and section 17 of the Act therefore applies," Police Scotland told The Herald. "By way of explanation, the total costs relating to any investigation, both relating to the investigation itself and the number of hours involved, are difficult to quantify as the nature of policing means that officers are deployed to wherever their services are most required. "Furthermore, the number of officers required throughout an investigation will fluctuate and officers involved in a particular investigation, or multiple investigations, can be redeployed to other duties at any time, dependant on their skillsets." It continued: "Police Scotland may keep limited records for investigations, which record overtime costs and non-pay costs. These costs do not provide an accurate reflection of the total number of hours spent on an investigation nor do they provide, for the reasons stated above, an accurate cost for an investigation. "The costs do not include, for example, officer hours where that officer would have been on duty anyway and as such are not recorded as a specific expense to a particular investigation." Alex Salmond giving evidence to the Holyrood inquiry into how the Scottish Government handled complaints against him. (Image: PA) The force also refused to release the date the inquiry started on the basis this information could "prejudice" the probe. Outlining its decision, the force's freedom of information officer told The Herald: "The information sought is held by Police Scotland, but I am refusing to provide it in terms of section 16(1) of the Act on the basis that the section 34(1)(b) – Investigations, exemption applies. "Information is considered exempt from disclosure if it has at any time been held by Police Scotland for the purposes of an investigation which may lead to a decision to make a report to the Procurator Fiscal to enable it to be determined whether criminal proceedings should be instituted. The matter you are enquiring about is subject to a live police enquiry. "This exemption is non-absolute and requires the application of the public interest test. I do appreciate that there is a degree of interest in the release of the information you have requested and that to do so would help inform public debate on policing in Scotland. "However, it is essential that any release of information does not interfere or prejudice enquiries or risk such enquiries in the future. To do so would put the enquiries at risk and to do so would be vastly against the public interest. The balance lies in withholding the information requested at this time." The Herald is seeking a review of the decision. READ MORE: [[Alba]] leader Kenny MacAskill, a former [[Scottish Government]] justice secretary, criticised Police Scotland for withholding the information from [[The Herald]]. "Utterly ridiculous and deeply disturbing," he said before making reference to other inquiries around how complaints against Mr Salmond were handled. Last year the Information Commissioner criticised the [[Scottish Government]] relating to a legal battle around freedom of information requests about Irish lawyer James Hamilton's report into Nicola Sturgeon. Mr Hamilton's inquiry was into whether Ms Sturgeon broke the ministerial code when her predecessor Mr Salmond was being investigated for sexual harassment by the Scottish Government. She was not found to have breached the code. "The investigations relating to the Holyrood inquiry and Alex Salmond grow murkier by the hour. "We've a government which was found to have been acting illegally by the court and which has had to be brought to heel by the information commissioner. "Whether it's the redaction of documents or the denial of legitimate information the tale of obfuscation and what appears a cover up continues unabated. "Police Scotland is though independent and separate from government abd openness and transparency are required in this of all cases." Police Scotland has previously given details about the cost of Operation Branchform, the inquiry into the SNP's finances, including when the investigation was ongoing. Operation Branchform ended in March with the inquiry costing the force £2.2million. The police investigation was launched in July 2021 following a number of complaints and concluded in March this year. During that 44 month period [[Nicola Sturgeon]] resigned as First Minister and [[SNP]] leader in February 2023 and was succeeded by Humza Yousaf. In April that year, Ms Sturgeon's husband and former [[SNP]] Chief Executive Peter Murrell was arrested. He was later charged by Police Scotland and appeared in court in March this year on one charge of embezzlement where he made no plea and was granted bail. No date has yet been given for his second court appearance. During Operation Branchform Ms Sturgeon was also arrested and questioned, as was Colin Beattie, the former SNP treasurer. However the police investigations against both ended in March with no charges or further action against either. Operation Broadcroft is into evidence given by Mr Hynd, who was the Scottish Government's head of cabinet, parliament and governance at the time, into the Holyrood inquiry in 2020 which probed how the Scottish Government handled complaints of sexual harassment made against Mr Salmond. The former First Minister was later cleared of all of the charges against him in a separate criminal trial. The Court of Session was told in August 2024 that detectives were probing evidence given to the Scottish Parliament inquiry by Mr Hynd, The probe by a committee of MSPs - formally called the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints - concluded in March 2021 that the government investigation into Mr Salmond was 'seriously flawed". During his evidence to the parliamentary inquiry Mr Salmond alleged that there was a conspiracy among senior SNP figures, including Ms Sturgeon to imprison him. Ms Sturgeon has strongly denied the claim. The Court of Session action was launched by Mr Salmond in November 2023 to seek "significant damages" and compensation for loss of earnings reportedly worth £3 million. The sum would be in addition to the £500,000 that Mr Salmond was awarded in legal costs after a judge said in 2019 that the government investigation into the allegations against him had been 'unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair" and also "tainted with apparent bias". Mr Salmond's lawyer Gordon Dangerfield told the Court of Session last August that the Police Scotland investigation into Mr Hynd was called Operation Broadcroft and was being headed by a senior detective. Mr Dangerfield told the court hearing at the time: 'I can advise that the ongoing Police Scotland investigation is named Operation Broadcroft. It is led by senior investigating officer Detective Superintendent Graham Lannigan." Mr Hynd was responsible for drawing up the government's policy on the handling of complaints involving former and current ministers - the policy under which Mr Salmond was investigated. The Scottish Government has previously said would not comment on a live police investigation or on individual staffing matters. Police Scotland was approached for comment.
The National
15 hours ago
- The National
Consent for gigantic wind farm is an ironic act of ecocide
The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale. We note 'SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds', but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. READ MORE: Scottish crew 'excluded from Spider Man 4 filming' What will its proposed 'mitigation' provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide. The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened. Aileen Jackson Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may 'breach international law' (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland's position. The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn't qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it's a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let's test the same criteria: Permanent population? Scotland has that; Defined territory? Clearly; Functioning government? We've had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers. Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight. By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one? John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn't say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn't have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That's a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn't begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That's how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That's how international law actually works. The real reason Scotland isn't independent isn't legal, it's psychological. Our leaders won't cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy. So yes, the peers' letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are. James Murphy Bute THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could 'breach international law' warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it. A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice. The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one. Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances. Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion. (Image: Jonathan Brady) More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised. It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Peter Macari Aberdeen
