Latest news with #TheFerret
The National
19 hours ago
- Business
- The National
Norwegian firm planning for first UK deep-sea salmon farm
Offshore salmon farming involves raising fish at sea in submerged cages, several miles away from coastal areas. Modelled on oil platforms, these super-sized farms are bigger than inshore sites and more robust for deeper waters. The new technology is viewed by supporters as a more sustainable form of fish production. But critics have described offshore farming as 'factory farming of the sea' and super farms off Norway have suffered problems such as fish escapes which can impact the marine ecosystem. The finding comes from government documents released under freedom of information law to The Ferret, along with plans leaked from Norwegian aquaculture giant SalMar. They show that the Shetland site, if sanctioned, would see three huge farms spread across an area several times the size of Lerwick – rearing more than five million fish. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say Proposals for the project are already developed enough for Crown Estate Scotland to be considering specific co-ordinates for the farms. The plans have also been shared with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Shetland Islands Council and the Scottish Government. MSPs were told last month that while firms operating in Norway with links to Scotland are looking at offshore opportunities, no companies currently operating in Scotland are considering this. Campaign group Animal Equality criticised what it described as a 'veil of secrecy' over SalMar's plans, while environmental charity Green Britain Foundation (GBF) said the aquaculture industry was demonstrating it 'can't be trusted'. 'They're apparently planning massive offshore operations in Shetland waters,' said GBF's founder Dale Vince. 'We don't need another experiment in factory farming, in a pristine environment, from an industry in pursuit of profit at any cost.' SalMar did not respond to our request for a comment. Salmon Scotland – which represents salmon farmers – said it had no knowledge of any company plans to move immediately into offshore locations. SalMar in Shetland DURING a visit to Shetland in January, SalMar presented a plan to locals for three separate farms, each five kilometres apart and rearing 1.6 million fish apiece. The site's total footprint would cover more than 25 square kilometres. The plans said the super farm could bring dozens of jobs to Shetland. The scale of the project, however, has concerned local fishers. 'It will mean spatial squeeze inshore and offshore for us,' said Sheila Keith, of Shetland Fishermen's Association. 'I'm not convinced growth is always the best thing for industries in Shetland when we have finite space and parameters to work with. Is expansion the best thing for Shetland?' SalMar presented its plans to a number of local stakeholders, including Yell community council at a public meeting. The community council declined to share the presentation with The Ferret but did volunteer emails from SalMar in which the company said: 'We have chosen not to share any written material such as the presentation shared with you and would not like this to be shared with externals such as the media, please do not share it.' READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe The firm raised similar concerns with government officials. In emails discussing freedom of information requests, SalMar urged officials to withhold details and they agreed. 'We will redact the specifics on [redacted] proposed and the more specific area of interest first identified, as well as the reference to [redacted] as previously discussed,' an official wrote to SalMar in March. Shetland Islands Council rejected a similar freedom of information request for emails exchanged with SalMar – citing commercial sensitivities and intellectual property rights. The council told The Ferret that it held 'initial pre-application discussions on this matter', but declined to comment further. Holyrood vote this month HOLYROOD will vote on whether to extend marine planning zones into offshore waters later this month, effectively opening up areas to applications for the new technology, as proposed by SalMar for Shetland. At a meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee (RAIC) last month at Holyrood, Salmon Scotland reassured ministers that regulators would have ample time to develop the expertise to keep offshore farms in check, because companies would move 'incrementally' into deeper waters. 'Companies at the moment have no direct, to my knowledge, plans to move immediately into [offshore] location[s],' said Iain Berrill, Salmon Scotland's head of technical. 'We're not going to rush straight to that area.' Government documents show that SalMar has been discussing plans for a farm in Scotland with government officials for at least 18 months. As early as July 2024, Crown Estate Scotland asked SalMar's holding company, Kverva, to provide co-ordinates to check for existing infrastructure like subsea cables in the area, or other developers who have expressed an interest. Most of these documents – a heavily redacted combination of meeting agendas, minutes and emails – were omitted from the Government's initial freedom of information response to The Ferret, but later released on review. At last month's RAIC Holyrood meeting, ministers were told the Government's marine directorate did not have detailed information about the plans. When asked the next day about those plans, a government spokesperson said some of its communications with SalMar are 'commercially sensitive'. When giving his evidence to the RAIC, Salmon Scotland's Berrill did acknowledge that Norwegian companies are already farming in offshore waters abroad. 'There are companies which have facilities in other countries, specifically Norway, which are in those [offshore] locations at the moment, and they have some links to our companies,' he said. 'But at the moment those that are operating here are doing this in an incremental manner.' Scottish Sea Farms (SSF), one of Salmon Scotland's member companies operating in Shetland, is half owned by SalMar. The Government's minutes show that SSF attended at least one of SalMar's planning meetings with officials in June. At that meeting, SalMar agreed to begin sharing co-ordinates with Crown Estate Scotland. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza Neither SalMar nor SSF responded to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Salmon Scotland confirmed Berrill's evidence. They said: 'The evidence provided to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee is accurate – while some Norwegian salmon farming companies have the capability to operate in more exposed offshore locations, none of the companies currently operating in Scotland are seeking to develop such farms at this time.' Crown Estate Scotland's director Mike Spain gave evidence alongside Berrill during last month's committee meeting but did not mention SalMar's plans. A spokesperson said: 'If asked to do so, Crown Estate Scotland occasionally completes checks of the seabed for potential development conflicts as a matter of courtesy. The check is effectively a snapshot in time and does not infer any permissions or development rights.' Holyrood is now expected to vote on opening up Scotland's offshore waters to aquaculture applications on Wednesday, June 11, 2025. If passed, the measures would come into effect a week after on June 18. By extending existing marine planning zones from three nautical miles out to 12, the ultimate consenting decision for offshore farms would still rest with local councils, as it currently does for inshore farms. 'There are a lot of unknowns' OFFSHORE salmon farms – mostly in Norway – have a mixed track record. While almost 16,000 fish escaped during SalMar's first offshore trial in 2019, the company has claimed record low fish deaths in more recent rounds of production. During the RAIC meeting last month, various experts described the technology as untested. From fish health to the logistics of getting staff around the massive sites, the RSPCA told ministers 'there are a lot of unknowns'. The head of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Elspeth Macdonald, raised concerns about the overall environmental impact of offshore farms – such as fish escapes, the impact of offshore infrastructure or the volumes of fish excrement they might generate. SalMar has now put its offshore plans in Norway 'on hold', according to its website, 'due to regulatory uncertainty'. If Holyrood passes the amendment later this month, SalMar is expected to begin its application for Britain's first deep-sea salmon farm this summer. That process would involve a pre-application consultation and public events in Shetland. A final application could then be submitted with Shetland Islands Council, which is responsible for putting the plans past national regulators.
The National
5 days ago
- General
- The National
Citizens Advice Scotland in trans rights row over bathroom change
Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) staff told staff last month that the charity would be enforcing a policy of 'male only' and 'female only' toilets on the basis of sex assigned at birth, according to an email seen by The Ferret. CAS's chief executive, Derek Mitchell, reportedly said in the email, sent May 6, that the charity was bound by 'legal constraints' following the landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court in April on how sex should be interpreted under the Equality Act 2010. The ruling stated that, under the Equality Act 2010, the definition of 'woman' refers to 'biological sex', a decision gender critical campaigners claimed had brought 'clarity on the law'. READ MORE: Labour MPs visit Israel on lobbying trip in middle of Gaza genocide However, legal experts have pointed out that the ruling on the definition of 'man' and 'woman' relates to the 2010 Equality Act only, while campaign groups have also raised concerns over the interpretation of the ruling. Mitchell said the decision to enforce male and female-only bathrooms was in response to the ruling and subsequent interim 'guidance' offered by the UK's human rights regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). CAS's chief executive reportedly clarified that a separate single-occupancy bathroom would also be available 'for any colleague'. 'As an employer, CAS is required to comply with the law, and we need to ensure our practices and policies reflect current legal standards,' Mitchell said. 'This is not an expression of any view on the High Court ruling, it is our legal obligation as an employer.' Mitchell reportedly sent a second update two days later acknowledging the upset that had been caused due to the decision, but doubled down on claims that the charity was bound by the law to introduce changes. The decision has left staff at CAS feeling hurt, afraid, disappointed, and concerned by Mitchell's claim that the decision had been taken out of the charity's hands by legal changes, The Ferret reported. A spokesperson for CAS said they recognised 'this issue touches on deeply personal experiences and we will continue to monitor and review our approach should guidance change'. Lawyers and campaigners have said that the EHRC's update was neither intended as formal guidance nor legally binding, and therefore gives employers options on how they proceed. One staff member at CAS claimed neither the trade union nor the equality, diversity and inclusion committee were consulted ahead of the decision, according to The Ferret. Another staff member told The Ferret how CAS had built its workplace culture around inclusion and dignity, and that this policy change was effectively a 'slap in the face'. 'It's almost like it's polluted my work,' said one staff member. 'Because obviously when we consult, we're very respectful of any kind of pronouns. So I would like to think that we would treat our colleagues the same, and that the attitude from management would be the same.' Another said the decision to put this out 'without going through proper channels to make sure that the information that he's putting in there is correct' made them feel 'less safe within the organisation'. The Good Law Project have raised concerns since the ruling by the UK Supreme Court over how it is interpreted and whether or not it will impact other legislation that governs access to toilets and changing rooms in the workplace. Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and director of legal firm Lawmanity, was shown the leaked emails by The Ferret. She said: 'The Supreme Court decision does not require employers to provide only separate toilets for men and women – it only clarified the meaning of 'sex' for purposes of the Equality Act and in so doing, shifted our understanding of what is required if single sex, mixed sex or only sex facilities are being provided by an employer. 'Employers must consider a range of factors in deciding what toilet facilities to provide, and be prepared to justify their decisions.' She claimed companies or charities that restricted access to some facilities on the basis of a protected characteristic like sex or gender reassignment without being able to justify the decision as a 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim', may be open to legal challenge in the future. READ MORE: Police issue statement after Scottish men killed in Spain shooting 'This is a good reason why organisations should start early with good faith efforts to gather the information they will need to make these decisions,' Ang added. 'By engaging with staff and service users to understand their requirements – and also why clear and practical guidance and support is urgently needed from our UK equalities and human rights regulators, and from our national governments.'
The National
11-05-2025
- Business
- The National
UK events use Scottish land to clean up carbon footprint
Analysis by The Ferret has found carbon credits, or 'offsets', produced by trees planted in Scotland have been bought by events including motorsport rallies, Queen Elizabeth's state funeral and her Platinum Jubilee. Other buyers include British Airways, councils in Devon and Norwich, luxury fashion brand Burberry and the UK arm of a Silicon Valley tech firm. Buying carbon credits theoretically 'offsets' carbon emissions created by events and companies by funding tree-planting and peatland projects that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The credits are supposed to be used to mop up an organisation's unavoidable emissions. However, an MSP and a former boss of Scotland's environment watchdog said buying carbon credits was the 'easy, short-term option' for organisations, unless they had 'exhausted all possibility of reducing their own emissions'. READ MORE: Wildfire 'bigger than five football pitches' near Scottish town The use of carbon credits is 'a greenwashing scam' that 'does nothing to cut carbon pollution', one green campaigner argued. Companies do not have to buy the credits and some do so because of a genuine commitment to protecting the environment. The firms and events who bought Scotland-generated credits told The Ferret that offsets were only a small part of the actions they were taking to reduce their climate impacts. We found that Ascot Racecourse, in Berkshire, bought Scottish credits to compensate for emissions produced by a 'net-zero enclosure' at its famous Royal Ascot event. The London Marathon purchased them to make up for pollution produced by international travel to the race. Upmarket pizza oven company Ooni also bought credits, partly to make up for emissions produced by its own anniversary celebrations. Once redeemed, each credit permits its owner to emit one tonne of CO2, because the equivalent amount has been absorbed. Some believe carbon credits will play an important role in tackling the climate crisis, by attracting money into projects to revive nature and capture carbon. But in Scotland, there are also concerns about how competition for sites to produce the credits is driving up rural land prices, potentially shutting out local communities from owning land. A 2023 study found that ownership of Scotland's forests is becoming increasingly dominated by wealthy estates, investors and absentee owners who live outside Scotland. Swathes of land across the country are currently earmarked for tree-planting and peatland restoration projects which will generate offsets. Some landowners who sell carbon credits do so with the aid of millions of pounds of taxpayer subsidies and a wide range of tax relief, as we detailed in February. Our new findings come from analysis of a public register of carbon credits assigned to organisations in the past three years. The Ferret's previous research, in 2022, found weapons manufacturers, the Labour Party and financial institutions that poured billions of pounds into fossil fuels were among those buying Scottish carbon credits. They were generated on land owned by Scotland's richest man, private equity companies and property firms. That followed the revelation in 2020 that senior Scottish Government forestry officials feared that a £5 million tree-planting deal with Shell – which earns carbon credits for the oil giant – could be viewed as 'greenwashing'. Most of the credits sold over the past few years are known as 'pending issuance units' (PIUs), which cannot be used to offset emissions immediately because planted trees are not yet mature. In fact, some might not be ready until the early 22nd century. The average PIU was estimated to cost £23.30, according to the Woodland Carbon Code. The register only includes the sale of credits to companies who agree to be named publicly, so some buyers may remain secret. The number of trees planted to generate a credit depends on a range of factors including the location and tree type, but one European offsetting agency puts the number at 31 to 46 trees. Who's buying Scotland's carbon credits? THE biggest known buyer of carbon credits produced in Scotland since April 2022 is Sky Group – the parent firm of Sky News. It was assigned 49,400 credits set to be produced by a tree-planting project near Bridge of Ericht, Perthshire. Sky says it is focused on cutting the emissions from its operations before it buys carbon credits and that it plans to reduce the amount it offsets as the company decarbonises. Salesforce, a cloud-based software firm headquartered in Silicon Valley, bought 6507 credits from a tree-planting scheme on a former upland sheep farm in the Scottish Borders, called Talla and Gameshope, and Maryfield Farm near Banchory, Aberdeenshire. Devon County Council secured 5151 credits from Woodland Trust plantations at Craigengillan, East Ayrshire, and Caplich, near Invergordon, while Norwich City Council bought 929 credits from the Moffat-based Selcoth Forestry. Spanish-owned bank Santander acquired 3566 credits from a project at Delnadamph, part of the Balmoral Estate, which is owned by the King. It said buying offsets 'play a role in mitigating' the bank's pollution as it decarbonises and that emissions from its operations had more than halved since 2019. READ MORE: Humanitarian crisis in Gaza at 'all-time low', warns aid charity Luxury fashion brand Burberry bought up 1599 credits from Scottish and English sites. Credits produced by an East Ayrshire tree plantation will be used to offset emissions from the Queen's Platinum Jubilee and state funeral in 2022, the 2023 Royal Ascot and 'international travel' related to the 2022 and 2023 London Marathons. The same forestry project, Montgreenan near Kilwinning, will generate credits sold to British Airways, a firm behind two music festivals in London, and the University of Glasgow. 'Greenwashing scam'? REACTING to our findings, James Curran, who was chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency between 2012 and 2015, argued that organisations should only use carbon credits 'when they have exhausted all possibility of reducing their own emissions'. 'Otherwise, it's just taking the easy, short-term option,' he said. 'Carbon markets, along with government grants and generous tax breaks, are driving some really bad practices – for example extensive Sitka spruce planting, an alien invasive species that offers very little nature benefit or amenity value,' argued Curran. 'Also, in many instances, there is less carbon uptake than might be expected.' He called for 'root and branch reform' of the carbon credit market, with more scrutiny from regulators. Campaign group Friends of the Earth Scotland branded carbon credits and offsetting a 'greenwashing scam'. 'Tackling the climate crisis requires all big polluters to rapidly cut their emissions but offsetting enables polluters to keep on polluting then simply pay for someone else to plant a few trees in their name,' argued the group's head of campaigns, Caroline Rance. 'It is deeply alarming to see large swathes of land being designated or sold off for carbon offsetting – capturing rural land to protect corporate interest and pricing people out of their communities.' Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie also raised concerns, claiming there was a 'long history of carbon credits, offsets and other 'workarounds' being used instead of direct action to cut emissions'. He added: 'The simple reality is that we cannot all pay someone else to cut emissions for us, so reliance on carbon credits will always risk making inequality worse, by allowing the wealthy to keep polluting.' Community Land Scotland said that while carbon credits can help to reach net zero and allow rural communities to generate income, some investors may use the initiative to avoid reducing their carbon footprint. 'The market for carbon credits is still fine-tuning its business model, but as these processes are refined, it is likely that there could be large numbers of organisations and events chasing a finite number of carbon credits on the moors and hillsides,' said a spokesperson. 'In turn, this could ultimately further increase land prices, effectively excluding the communities that live in these areas. READ MORE: Doctor who grew up in Gaza gives 'emotional' speech at Highlands pro-Palestine march 'Carbon credits need to be controlled and not used as a means to avoid more difficult environmentally-friendly choices.' Those buying carbon credits generated in Scotland stressed they were making efforts to reduce their emissions. Pizza oven-maker Ooni said it focuses on 'reducing our carbon emissions at source', invests in 'credible, permanent carbon removals that are informed by science' and seeks 'opportunities to create a positive social impact'. The London Marathon said it was striving to reach net zero by 2030, primarily by reducing emissions, and had been recognised by the Council for Responsible Sport. A spokesperson said some emissions were more difficult to reduce, including travel, but a £31 levy on international participants had been introduced. 'This is then used in full to purchase high-quality carbon removal credits which is recognised as best practice by multiple climate action organisations and the UK Government's net zero strategy,' they added. Ascot Racecourse pointed to significant decreases in carbon emissions and waste at the site, and said its recycling rate had risen. Its website says the course is 'constantly adapting' to become more sustainable. All companies and events named in this story were contacted for comment.
The National
04-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Experts warn far- right are ‘weaponising Christianity'
EXPERTS have warned that far-right groups are weaponising Christianity for their political agendas and have urged churches to speak out against right-wing extremism. They said groups like Britain First and supporters of the jailed far-right activist Tommy Robinson are increasingly using Christian rhetoric to try to build support for their political causes. The Scottish Government is also monitoring the issue. A response to a freedom of information request by The Ferret revealed its safer communities division suggested staff attend a recent seminar called Christianity and Far Right Extremism, hosted by a think tank called Theos. READ MORE: 'It's needed now more than ever': Thousands march in support of Scottish independence The organisers said far-right extremism has gained ground over recent years in the US and UK, and has sometimes done so by using Christian language, symbols and imagery. Far-right groups claiming to be Christian include Britain First. In 2014, its members targeted mosques across the UK with bibles, calling it a 'Christian crusade'. Supporters also paraded through Muslim-majority areas of UK cities, with large crosses. One of the speakers at the Theos webinar was Dr Maria Power, a senior research fellow at the University of Oxford. She is co-editor of The Church, The Far Right, And The Claim To Christianity, a book published last year on the church's response to the rise of the far-right. Power told The Ferret: 'One of the main problems facing the churches in dealing with right-wing extremism is the fact that many of the 'extremists' are speaking and spreading hate from within the church. 'The Christian churches need to exercise their teaching authority more and speak out against such examples of right-wing extremism, demonstrating how these belief systems are counter to the teachings of Christianity.' She said one of the best things churches can do to combat right-wing extremism is to fund youth work: 'At present, not enough funding is being directed towards youth work, either in the churches or within society as a whole, and this is a fundamental problem. 'Young people need community, and right-wing extremist groups provide this for them when the churches don't.' Patrik Hermansson, senior researcher at the anti-racism charity Hope Not Hate, said there are many groups that connect themselves with Christianity. The clearest example is probably Britain First, he told The Ferret, adding that 'increasingly, Tommy Robinson's supporters have begun using this rhetoric as well'. Another factor is US influence, which Hermansson said has been increasing for a number of years. He claimed some of this 'relates to Christian institutions funding far-right activity in the UK, and US reactionaries building relationships with Christian reactionary groups and activists in the UK.' Donald Trump's US election win 'spurred on the far-right in the UK and is generally supported by it', he added, with the caveat that 'it is probably too early to tell of outright influence'. Last week, a summit aimed at tackling the threat from the far-right, hosted by First Minister John Swinney, was held in Scotland. About 50 organisations – including political parties, faith groups and charities – attended the forum in Glasgow. Swinney claimed that shared values were under 'huge threat' from disinformation and pressure from the 'hard right'. All Holyrood parties except the Conservatives attended the event. Nigel Farage's Reform UK party was not invited. Farage claimed Reform were 'never part of the far-right'. Britain First, the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland were asked to comment. WITHHELD INFORMATION Meanwhile, a separate request for information by The Ferret about a far-right political party registered in Scotland was refused by the Home Office, which cited concerns surrounding 'national security'. We asked the UK Government department for communications it held regarding the Homeland Party – which is registered at a West Lothian address and led by a Scot – and Patriotic Alternative, another far-right group from which Homeland splintered. (Image: NQ) But it declined the request, citing part of the freedom of information act which relates to national security. If released, the information 'would undermine national security and the integrity and effectiveness of the government to conduct practices to keep the public safe', the Home Office argued. 'Releasing this information would allow those of concern to the authorities to gain knowledge or information, which would allow them to further or continue their activities of concern.' The Home Office also said it was exempt from releasing the information due to another section of the act, which relates to the formulation or development of government policy, and allows for it to occur in private and 'without fear of premature disclosure'. 'This is because the information relates to current, ongoing policy development, the Counter-Extremism Sprint 2024, to understand and effectively respond to the threat posed by extremists and extremist groups in the UK,' the Home Office stated. 'Release of information relating to these groups risks undermining development of new government policy to respond to the threat of extremism in the UK.' If released, the information would be 'highly likely to be useful to high-harm, extremist groups and individuals seeking to circumnavigate government oversight and intervention', argued the Home Office. Such actors spread 'damaging conspiratorial narratives', 'exacerbate community tensions, promote violence and radicalise into terrorism', it added. The counter-extremism programme was commissioned by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in August last year. It was designed 'to understand and effectively respond to the threat posed by extremists' – namely those of Islamic and far-right ideologies – and learn how the Government can adapt. The review was reportedly accelerated following far-right riots in England and Northern Ireland last year, which saw organisations including Homeland and a Scottish white supremacist martial arts club try to use the unrest as a recruitment drive. Homeland's enquiries secretary, Carl Wilkinson, told The Ferret that his party does not meet the UK Government's 2024 definition of extremism. The definition includes the 'promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights'. Wilkinson highlighted that Homeland is a registered political party, and argued that it participates in elections, 'has never promoted violence' and 'operates under the law and within the bounds of democratic norms'. The news comes days after Homeland held a conference focused on the mass deportation of migrants with guest speakers including the man behind a conspiracy theory cited by white supremacists and mass murderers. The event was also attended by members of the far-right German party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), which was designated as extremist last week. 'Remigration conference' Homeland's recent conference on April 26, in Lincolnshire, focused on 'remigration', which the party describes as removing 'illegal, unintegrated, and unwelcome migrants'. Speakers included French academic Renaud Camus, who coined the term 'the great replacement' – a conspiracy theory that white Europeans are being replaced by Muslim people of colour in collusion with a globalist elite. Camus appeared via video link after the Home Office barred his entry to the UK, reportedly telling him that his presence in the UK was not 'conducive to the public good'. The writer denounces violence, but his work has been cited by white supremacists and mass murderers. Homeland defended Camus as having 'consistently promoted peaceful discourse and democratic solutions' and argued he 'cannot be blamed for the actions of individuals who have cited his work'. Also in attendance was Lena Kotré, an elected politician from Germany's Alternative for Germany party, now classified as extreme-right by German intelligence. She reportedly met with neo-Nazis last year and, in Berlin, handed out self-defence stabbing weapons, which are legal in Germany but banned in the UK. Homeland alleged that Kotré distributed the weapons to women who had been targeted by sexual violence from immigrants. The party called it 'a blatant lie' that Kotré attended a neo-Nazi event, which it argued was a 'political conference'. Who are the Homeland Party? The far-right party is led by Kenny Smith, a former British National Party politician from the Isle of Lewis. In 2023, Smith led a breakaway faction from PA to form Homeland, which registered as a political party despite an intervention from the Home Office and warnings from some Electoral Commission staff that senior figures shared 'terrorist literature' and 'antisemitic and racist' content. Homeland dismissed the 'spurious claims' it alleged were made by 'junior' commission staff determined to reject the application. 'Toxic and divisive rhetoric' A SCOTTISH Trades Union Congress (STUC) event, held last week, focused on opposing the far-right. 'Hundreds of trade unionists' declared that 'the toxic and divisive rhetoric of the far-right has no place in our society', STUC's general secretary, Roz Foyer, told The Ferret. 'We will take that call and that action to every town and city across Scotland.' Scottish Labour's Michael Marra said Scots 'must remain vigilant about the rise of the far-right and stand up against the division that extremist groups want to sow'. Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman called for 'a focus on extremism in education settings and on groups using social media to radicalise people, specifically vulnerable groups who are susceptible to this kind of conditioning, covertly or openly'. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'We work closely with partners in Scotland and the UK to ensure we are able to identify and tackle the threat of extremism and terrorism.' Counter-extremism is reserved to the UK Government. The Home Office does not comment on individual cases.
The National
27-04-2025
- Business
- The National
Edinburgh University denies purchasing iconic building
An internal communication from the university to staff in late March – shared with The Ferret – said it had bought the former Scottish Widows building opposite Edinburgh's Commonwealth swimming pool the previous month. However, in response to queries from The Ferret, a spokesperson for the university denied it had bought the building. They did not explain how the miscommunication had occurred. Pressed further, a spokesperson said: 'At this stage, all we can say is that any information suggesting the university has bought the building is incorrect.' READ MORE: Scottish university axes 350 members of staff as further cuts loom The property on Dalkeith Road in the Newington area of the city is known for its distinctive brown hexagonal buildings. Staff reacted with anger and disappointment to the confusion around the purchase, while the union said it had now lost any remaining trust it had in management. The information was shared in an online post just weeks after the university announced £140 million of cuts over the next 18 months. The Ferret understands the post was taken down a few days later. (Image: Wikipedia Creative Commons) Last week, the university said 350 staff had left through a voluntary severance scheme launched in January and that academic promotions would be frozen for the 2025-26 year. The university has not ruled out further compulsory redundancies. On Friday, the University and College Union (UCU) branch released an analysis claiming that up to 2000 jobs might be at risk and more money than ever is being spent on buildings. The Scottish Widows building, said the memo, was bought as part of the university's 'capital plan' to continue its commitment to 'world-class facilities' for students and staff. The Edinburgh branch of the University and College Union (UCU) called for urgent answers over the confusion and for clarity about whether buying the property was, or is, under consideration. The university told staff it had purchased the building in answer to a question posted on an internal online hub. The Ferret understands the question reflected longstanding rumours circulating among Edinburgh staff. The union said the rumours were fuelled by the lack of 'transparency and accountability' surrounding capital expenditure at the university. It claimed 'finance and capital' were 'driving the direction of the university rather than teaching and research'. Scottish Labour said 'overstretched' university finances meant it was 'more important than ever' that 'all financial decisions are sound and high standards of transparency are being held'. The Dalkeith Road site has been vacant since 2020. But plans to redevelop it into a 'business hub' and nearly 200 apartments – of which 35% were expected to be 'affordable' – were approved by the council in 2023. READ MORE: Scottish university staff to vote on strike action in dispute over £140m in cuts The cost of that refurbishment – which would include replacement of the building's glass facade because it contained 'significant amounts of asbestos' – was previously estimated to be £100m. University of Edinburgh management has blamed factors including a fall in the recruitment of international students, 'longstanding' underfunding of Scottish undergraduates and rising staff costs for its financial troubles. But the UCU – which is balloting members on strike action – has accused senior staff of 'manufacturing a crisis' to justify cuts and claim the biggest threat to its finances is 'unrestrained' capital spending on things like buildings. A number of universities across Scotland – including Dundee, Robert Gordon and Aberdeen – are facing financial problems. The body that represents Scotland's higher education institutions, Universities Scotland, argues the root cause of the crisis is underfunding. The amount the Scottish Government gives universities for each Scottish student has declined in real terms for more than a decade. Universities have become increasingly dependent on income from international students – who often pay tens of thousands in fees – to plug the gap. Analysis by The Ferret last year showed seven of Scotland's universities relied on international fees for more than a quarter of their total income in the 2022-23 academic year. There has been a fall in recruitment of non-EU students this year, partly because of a change to UK Government visa rules which made studying in Britain less attractive. Funding pressures have meant some universities have recorded operational deficits in recent years. Edinburgh, however, has continued to record surpluses – although it says these are now not sustainable – and has significant assets which the UCU claims could be used to stave off job cuts. The union claims management has not been transparent in sharing details of modelling to forecast future deficits, and that the target of £140m in cuts had been set 'arbitrarily'. It also claims senior staff are incentivised to view buildings as 'assets' and staff as 'costs'. Announcing the scale of cuts in February, principal Sir Peter Mathieson claimed in an email that 'steadily rising' staff numbers and pay rises in recent years had meant the amount spent on staff was 'no longer sustainable' and had to be reduced. He wrote that capital spending was also being reviewed but reducing this would 'only be a short-term measure' and would 'do nothing to address the underlying issues'. The university's provost, Kim Graham, said at the start of April that it was 'exploring opportunities to dispose of buildings which are no longer strategically critical to the university'. Mathieson himself has faced scrutiny for his pay packet and expenses. He is one of the highest earners in Scottish academia and staff said they had been left 'speechless' to learn Mathieson had received a 2.5% pay rise in January, the month before he announced the scale of cuts the university is planning to make. The Ferret also revealed in March that Mathieson had taken a second job at a company linked to the university last year, which critics said could distract him from the problems facing the institution. READ MORE: Scottish university boss raises prospect of tuition fees amid financial crisis According to Sophia Woodman, president of the Edinburgh branch of the UCU, the confusion around the mix-up over the purchase 'makes it extremely difficult' to 'trust anything' university management says. 'Yet I'm not even that surprised,' she told The Ferret. She claimed that graphs shared showing cashflow 'have subsequently been changed'. Woodman continued: 'Peter Mathieson has said in public that he has shared detailed financial modelling when all we've had is eight slides, two of which were title slides. 'It means we all wonder if the underlying assumptions could also be wrong.' She called for 'urgent clarity' and for the university to confirm whether buying the Scottish Widows building 'had been under consideration'. A university spokesperson told The Ferret: 'The university has not acquired 15 Dalkeith Road. We are reviewing all capital expenditure as we assess affordability across all university activities.' 'Marie Antoinette moment'? MEANWHILE, a new freedom of information (FoI) request shared with The Ferret has revealed guests were wined and dined at the private home Mathieson lives in free-of-charge in the affluent new town area of the city. The university said 10 events had been hosted at the property since November 2023. Guests enjoyed delicacies including champagne, caviar crème fraiche, and wild mushroom and truffle arancini. At one end-of-year reception for 40 staff, seven bottles of wine and 10 bottles of prosecco were downed. Guests also enjoyed canapes such as avocado on savoury biscuit and haggis bon bons, whisky and mustard. The cost of that event was £906. At a working dinner last June, 14 people had gin-cured salmon, potato veloute and turnip chou croute, alongside a prime Scotch fillet of beef. Three bottles of £65 champagne were also drunk at the event which cost £1300. Edinburgh University said in the FoI response that the principal's residence was 'not solely used as a family home, but is also as a venue for hosting formal university events. 'This includes events to welcome international guests, which strengthens the university's global reputation and increases our partnerships and potential funding streams,' it argued. Referring to the events at Mathieson's house, Scottish LibDem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton claimed it could be Edinburgh University's 'Marie Antoinette moment'. He added: 'Constituents are contacting my office concerned about their jobs. They will have absolutely no truck with lavish spending from university bosses when they and their colleagues are staring down the barrel of compulsory job cuts. 'Since the news of prospective cuts emerged, I have been in contact with the principal about the situation at the university and I will keep up the pressure on behalf of all the staff and students who this will affect.' READ MORE: Scottish university chief spends more than £40k on travel amid funding crisis Scottish Labour's education spokesperson Pam Duncan-Glancy said: 'At a time when university finances are so overstretched, it is more important than ever that all financial decisions are sound and high standards of transparency are being upheld. 'However, university funding in Scotland is fundamentally no longer fit for purpose and Scotland's world-class universities are being put at risk and young Scots are being failed as a result.' A spokesperson for Edinburgh University said: 'The university has not acquired 15 Dalkeith Road. We are reviewing all capital expenditure as we assess affordability across all university activities. 'The principal's residence is often used as a venue for hosting formal university events to welcome an array of guests, such as dignitaries, international partners and other supporters. All hospitality was provided using standard menus from our internal university catering service. 'These events help to enhance the university's reputation, strengthen our partnerships and potential funding streams.'
