Pages tagged with "News"

WE have all become accustomed to Boris Johnson’s false “bumbling” manner in public appearances and interviews as he tries not to cement his place in history as the PM who made Britain the laughing stock of the world after “getting Brexit done”. However, his and the Chancellor’s woefully inadequate handling of the economy, which has been battered by the pandemic, catastrophic events in Ukraine and spiralling energy prices, are in danger of leaving the UK stuck with the tag, “the poor man of Europe”.

Inflation in the UK is currently as 6.1 per cent, with the Bank of England expecting it to top 8 per cent and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasting an 8.7 per cent rise in the third quarter of this year, a 40-year high.

But how much of the cost of living crisis has been caused by corporate greed, and could that unflattering soubriquet have been avoided had the Tories acted with some humility instead of keeping their big money backers onside?

Price hikes on basics are not confined to the UK. Worldwide oil and gas prices have been rising since the economy began to recover from its first bout of Covid in late 2020 – when the collapse in demand drove prices down. However, when Russia invaded Ukraine, prices shot up to unprecedented levels hitting the whole of Western Europe.

In the UK – which imports only 8% of its fuel products from Russia – around 22 million homes were facing energy prices rises of £700 per year from the beginning of this month, when the energy price cap rocketed by 54 per cent.

Rishi Sunak did announce a temporary 5p per litre reduction in the duty on petrol and diesel, down from 57.95 per litre; and a cut in income tax in two years’ time, prompting widespread criticism, including from the Resolution Foundation, which said only one in eight workers would see their tax bill fall.

The impending financial crisis has promoted hundreds of thousands of words of comment and many guides on how people can cope, so how are the governments of our European neighbours helping their populations?

France

In France, the government cut the cost of fuel by 15 cents a litre and gave six million households a €100 (£83.50) energy voucher to cope with soaring costs. Compare that to the £200 loan being given to UK households, which will be paid back in instalments on future bills

Germany

All taxpayers in Germany are being given a €300 (£250) payment to help with their cost of living rises, with a further €100 (£83.50) for each child and a similar amount for anyone on state benefits. A three-month public transport ticket has been slashed to €9 (£7.50) to encourage people to use low-carbon travel.

Ireland

The Irish government is giving every household a €200 (£167) energy rebate and public transport fares have been cut by a fifth until the end of the year to help people with rising travel costs.

In Northern Ireland, public transport fares have been frozen, while in the UK, rail fares rose by 3.8 per cent at the beginning of last month.

Spain

Spain has seen inflation rise to almost 10 per cent, but the government has still tried to ease the burden on its citizens. It is subsidising fuel by 20 cents until the end of June and pledging to tax excess profits. It has also capped rent rises at 2 per cent.

The UK

Sunak’s spring statement came nowhere close to helping lower income households, and the Institute for Public Policy Research said they still faced an average cash shortfall of £320 this year. The IPPR said his statement was biased towards higher earners – who, it estimated, received four times the support that lower-income households did.

Oil giants have reaped huge benefits from the pandemic and the Ukraine crisis – Shell’s and BP’s combined profits last year totalled $32bn (£24.5bn), triggering calls for a windfall tax to be levied.

Following the privatisation of our utility and transport companies, started by Maggie Thatcher, we have seen them make billions in profits as they push up the prices of energy, water and other commodities. The National Grid, for instance, pays out more than £1bn a year to its shareholders.

Pharma giant GSK, with sites at Irvine and Montrose, has been embroiled in a dispute with the Unite union over a pay offer of 2.75 per cent, while its chief executive Emma Walmsley, received a 17 per cent rise last year, taking her remuneration to over £8 million – prompting claims of “cast-iron corporate greed”.

If an entrepreneur becomes a millionaire, that's great, they took the risks, founded a business and created jobs. Large corporate salaries involve no real risk, as the economy has been restructured to ensure their success and often that they don’t even have to pay taxes.

There’s no getting away from such examples of apparent avarice and, despite the fact that similar claims are much more prevalent in the US, they deserve to be addressed in public on these shores.

But Johnson and Sunak etc are unwilling to do anything to upset their super-rich friends, family members and supporters. This leaves us with two key questions firstly, when exactly does the UK qualify as an oligarchy? And secondly, if Scotland can produce 100% of its energy requirements from renewables in 2022, which is the cheapest form of energy, when will people realise that the cost of living crisis is not only a cost of greed crisis but a cost of remaining in the UK crisis.

The UK Government announced a new energy strategy this week. This concentrates investment in nuclear power. Scots householders will have to pay for that - but Scotland doesn’t need it. The country has more than enough renewables for all its electricity needs and more. 

Instead, Scotland urgently needs a transformation of the UK's electricity transmission system which does not serve Scotland's needs.  It also needs more investment in energy efficiency and demand reduction

Here are the three key reasons Westminsters energy strategy doesn't work for Scotland.

1 The UK’s privatised national grid system does not serve Scotland well

Many people assume that the UK’s energy grid is a publicly-owned asset, managed by the UK Government. It is not. It was privatised in 1980, under Margaret Thatcher. 

National Grid Transco PLC is a London-based company that operates in the UK and US. It is enormously profitable. It employees 12,000 people worldwide and made £15 billion in revenue last year. It recently sold a majority stake in the UK's gas transmission and metering business for £2 billion to a consortium led by Macquarie Group. National Grid said this move was part of its transition to low-carbon and that it would: 

"Enable National Grid to maintain a strong balance sheet with its strong investment grade credit rating, supporting its sustainable dividend policy".

Last week, the UK Government announced plans to buy back the part of National Grid Transco PLC that oversees the UK’s electricity systems which it also builds and operates. The Government is not disclosing how much it is paying for this partial renationalisation, which attracted little news coverage. 

National Grid Transco PLC owns and manages the grid infrastructure in England and Wales. It also manages the transmission system in Scotland - although the ownership lies with Scottish Power and SSE, a situation which appears to make investment in the Scottish grid less attractive. Scottish energy companies are charged ten times what English companies have to pay to connect to the grid. 

Shortly after the Scottish Government licensed a huge amount of offshore wind earlier this year, National Grid said it had no plans to connect most of this to the grid for at least a decade. 

SEC’s energy briefing reported: 

“The recent ScotWind auction of 25GW of Scottish offshore wind potential - enough wind energy to power the equivalent of 23 million homes per year - demonstrates the risk (from the grid). Within weeks of the auction being announced, National Grid/ESO declared it did not plan to connect more than 10GW of the successful projects. This left billions of pounds of investment and clean energy potential hanging in the wind.”

National Grid also makes profit from building and managing connectors that link the UK network to Europe. The way the UK mitigates against demand surges or supply shortfalls is to buy electricity at the spot price on the open market.

SSE commissioned independent research which found storing renewable energy in hydro facilities for when it is needed, could save UK bill-payers £690 million a year by 2050. But, like the other facilities that have been granted planning permission by the Scottish Government, it is unlikely to be built because of the lack of a market framework. SSE stated: 

“The study, by Imperial’s researchers, found that 75% of the savings to the energy system from projects like Coire Glas would be from the avoided capital expenditure in higher cost electricity generation technologies that would otherwise be needed to meet the UK’s target of carbon neutrality by 2050 whilst meeting security of supply. “Importantly, the report highlighted that despite all of the benefits which new pumped hydro storage projects would bring, the current policy and market framework is unlikely to bring forward investment in many new projects because the long duration and low carbon capability of pumped hydro storage is not sufficiently valued.”

2 The strategy pours billions into nuclear power - while making unrealistic claims about what that will achieve. 

The money that is invested in nuclear will come from energy consumers. It is predicted that consumers across the UK including Scotland will have to shell out £80 a year through their bills for this. The strategy document says the UK has: “committed to provide up to £1.7 billion of direct government funding to enable one nuclear project to FID (final investment decision) this Parliament.” It proposes up to 8 new nuclear reactors -  which will cost a total of £13 billion.

Unlike renewables, the cost of nuclear power is rising. When completed, Hinkley Point C will be one of the most expensive power stations in the world. The fuel it generates will cost £90 per MWh. The UK’s existing nuclear power costs £45 per MWh. 

Writing in Advanced Science News recently, global expert Professor MV Ramanda wrote:  “Although often blamed on public opposition, especially resulting from the devastating accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the main cause for the drop in nuclear power’s importance has been the steadily rising cost of nuclear reactors and the almost invariable tendency for project construction costs and time to escalate dramatically.”

The UK Government also plans to invest £120 million on smaller reactors.  Professor Ramana wrote:

“Private industry is not going to take the risk of paying for production lines and buying large numbers of reactors that could well prove uneconomic. So, it will be public money, as it nearly always has been the case with nuclear power, that will be risked.”

The UK Gov strategy, however, ignores current science and harks back to a 1950s vision of nuclear power. However, It does not mention that in 1957, a fire at Windscale nuclear plant spread radioactive material throughout Europe. The UK Government still spends £3 billion a year keeping this site, now known as Sellafield, safe.

3 There is no well-funded commitment to improving energy efficiency and insulating homes in the strategy

A large-scale energy efficiently drive would benefit consumers struggling with energy and cost of living crises. But instead of new measures, the strategy repackages existing schemes. It also relies on householders borrowing money to insulate their homes. 

The strategy voices the UK Government's faith in the free market:

“This is not being imposed on people and is a gradual transition following the grain of behaviour. The British people are no-nonsense pragmatists who can make decisions based on the information.”

The SEC Energy Strategy Briefing concluded:

“The UK’s net-zero 2050 target as already looking under pressure. Without more incentives to consumers and business to reduce demand for energy…that target looks further away than ever.”

Like the UK, Scotland has some of the least energy-efficient homes in Europe. Much of rural Scotland doesn’t have access to the gas network - and electricity is priced in a way that makes their bills far higher than the average. They also have to pay higher standing charges than most of England. 

Scotland does not share the UK Government’s nuclear vision. But Scots will still have to pay for it - and the Scottish Government is deprived of the decision-making power to invest in the energy priorities that the Scottish people choose. In short, energy bills will be cheaper in an independent Scotland and the energy sector far more environmentally friendly. 

The UK Government's plans to sell off Channel Four, alongside regular hints that they want to scrap the BBC licence fee, reveal their unwillingness to support the idea of public service broadcasting.  It also exposes Scotland’s marginal status and lack of decision-making power when it comes to how public sector broadcasting is regulated and funded. 

Programme-makers like Alan Clements of Two Rivers Media and Dorothy Byrne have said selling C4 will damage Scotland’s independent production sector. However, Scotland gets only 4% of C4’s spending and it has a much weaker television industry than most similar-sized EU countries. 

An independent Scotland would be in a much stronger position to support public service broadcasting. An overwhelming majority of Scots (75%) according to a recent poll would like to see power over broadcasting move from Westminster to the Scottish Government.

C4 Spends A Smaller Proportion of its Production Budget in Scotland than even the BBC

Channel Four may be widely respected for its nightly news, but actually spends a far smaller percentage of its content budget in Scotland than the BBC does - less than 4% in 2020, half a UK population share. The BBC spent 6.5% of its production budget in Scotland in 2020 and was still criticised for failing to meet its charter obligation to spend 8%. 

C4’s news team has won plaudits for robust questioning of Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries over Partygate, replacing Boris Johnson with an ice sculpture at a climate debate and so. But they have little presence in Scotland - covering it like a foreign country with just one Scotland Correspondent Ciaran Jenkins. No other member of the news team is based in Scotland, according to the C4 website. 

More C4 Employees Live in Vietnam than in Scotland

According to LinkedIn, more C4 employees live in Vietnam than in Scotland. Also according to LinkedIn, only about 3% of C4 employees graduated from Scottish universities. C4 has committed to spending half its production budget outside the M25 next year, but more than half of its 1,700 UK employees still live in London. Of the 57 job opportunities it currently lists, the vast majority are in London with a handful in Leeds. None is in Scotland. 

C4 doesn’t make any specific Scottish content - the best-known show produced in Glasgow is Location, Location, Location. But it did open a Creative Hub in Glasgow in 2019 and the £19 million it spent on content in Scotland in 2020, despite being a small part of the £550 million total, was nevertheless important funding for production companies in the city. 

Channel Four actually makes much specifically “British” content - for example, the Great British Bake Off (although that show was criticised for lacking a Scottish contestant last series), The Great British Dig, The Great British Truck Up, The Great British School Swap, Great British History Hunters etc. Arguably, in an age where the sense of Britishness appears in decline, C4 is an important engine of Unionist cultural identity. 

Rethinking How Broadcasting is Funded

An independent Scotland would be in a position to rethink how public service broadcasting is regulated, funded and supported. It could consider creative suggestions, such as replacing the licence fee with a universal broadband package which could include funding for content production. 

Scotland possesses a much smaller broadcasting base than most EU countries.  All the Scandinavian countries have thriving broadcasting sectors. The largest is the Norwegian which turns over more than 600 million Euros annually. It was formerly funded by a licence fee but in 2020 that changed to funding through general taxation. 

Denmark is introducing a Netflix tax, mandating that 5% of turnover is re-invested in Danish content and that the streaming service provides insight into how its algorithms serve up suggestions.  In France, rules that gave producers rights over TV shows have been extended to streaming services and companies like Netflix are being forced to invest 20% of turnover back into French content. 

France gives independent producers rights - and companies must reinvest 

The FT reported that Call My Agent (Dix pour cent) was first commissioned and financed in France under a regime where producer rights for traditional television were protected by law. This meant ownership of the show eventually returned to its producers — in contrast to most Netflix originals.  After years of heavy lobbying from producers, France extended the Call My Agent model from traditional television to global streaming services, bolstering local producers who want to retain rights to their work. 

Using powers under an EU directive adopted in 2018, France has required big global platforms to invest at least 20 percent of their French turnover in European productions. As a result Netflix, Amazon and Disney have in total committed to invest at least €250mn in France every year from 2022. Furthermore, 85 percent of those productions must be in the French language — and most must be “independent” works where producers retain rights.

French public sector broadcasting is currently funded by a licence fee - and a debate about its future is part of the current election campaign with President Emmanuel Macron promising to scrap it if elected in order to help with the cost of living squeeze. There is no clarity over how this would be replaced. 

Wales of course, has SC4, a national Welsh-language channel that was launched at the same time as C4 in response to widespread direct action by Welsh protestors who occupied TV studios, picketed and refused to pay the licence fee.  It was originally funded by the Department of Culture but that has now been transferred to the BBC.

Scots producers and viewers rely on scraps from UK companies

At the moment, the Scottish Government has no say over how broadcasting is funded, regulated or supported. Scotland must rely on scraps from the UK broadcasters who spend less than a population share of independent production north of the border. They also have often been guilty of a London-centric perspective which has often failed to serve Scotland.  

During the 2014 independence referendum, crowds of protestors gathered outside Pacific Quay to protest BBC bias against the case for Scottish independence. Channel Four was not subject to those kinds of protests - but it did not produce much coverage.

Veteran BBC journalist Alan Little has reflected on the ignorance of London-based BBC decision-makers about Scottish affairs and the assumption many of them made that the “Yes” side was chippy, foolish or simply wrong in 2014. In the next independence referendum, Scots will probably have to share less well-funded content on social media rather than rely on broadcasters. 

It’s is not unreasonable to suggest that after independence the TV broadcasting sector in Scotland should at least double in size and become a strong pillar of a dynamic Scottish culture.

Evgeny Lebedev is a member of the British House of Lords

The latest scandal to hit the House of Lords is the news British security services warned that granting a peerage to Russian Evgeny Lebedev - bankrolled by his oligarch father Alexander - could be a risk to national security. The Sunday Times, which broke the story, reported that the warning was subsequently withdrawn after a personal intervention by the PM. The extraordinary story of Lebedev’s relationship with the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson demonstrates the lack of checks and balances on the UK Parliament's undemocratic Upper House.

The latest twist in the Lebedev story came as the British Government lagged international efforts to sanction Putin’s moneymen.  Another Peer - Greg Barker who was energy minister under David Cameron - this week resigned his role working for a company founded by the sanctioned oligarch Oleg Deripaska. 

And there are likely more stories of Russian links to come out - the Intelligence and Security Committee's Russia Report into interference in the Brexit vote concluded that “a number of Members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state.”  

And yet the House of Lords has the power to debate and amend legislation which affects Scotland - more power than Holyrood has. Despite being fully elected, by the Scottish people under a fairer proportional representation system, the Scottish Parliament gets no say at all over controversial laws such as the Nationality and Borders Bill, the Elections Bill and the Internal Markets Act.

The half-reformed House of Lords put shadowy patronage in place of heredity

The House of Lords has never been democratic but in recent years it has become more and more subject to the PM’s personal patronage, with little in the way of checks and balances. Since the 1999 Reform Act, when the Labour Party under Tony Blair abolished the rights of 600 hereditary peers to sit in the Upper House, it has been entirely appointed, largely by the head of the ruling party. (What was touted as a democratic reform was seen by some as a Lords' power grab, as hereditary peers tended not to support Labour. The old hereditaries were arguably more independent, owing no favours to the Government of the day.) 

There appear to be few checks on the PM’s power - Johnson appointed Peter Cruddas to the House of Lords despite the fact he was judged unsuitable by the House of Lords’ own selection committee. That appointment came after a donation to the Conservative Party of £500,00.  

Johnson has also ennobled Brexit ultras like Ian Botham, Kate Hoey and Claire Fox - he even ennobled his own brother Jo Johnson. Johnson has created close to 100 peers. The House of Lords is the largest governing body in the world of any democracy. It is the biggest overall, after the Chinese People’s Congress. 

The Lebedev story - the straw that breaks the camel’s back?

The story of how the Lebedev father and son entered the upper echelons of London society is told in a recent podcast by investigative journalist Paul Galizia on Tortoise Media. The initial launch party cost £2 million - more than it raised for charity. Johnson has attended many other Lebdev parties over the years -  including one in Italy when Johnson, then Foreign Secretary, dismissed his security detail and was spotted returning in a disheveled state. 

In a piece entitled “No one drooled over oligarchs like British toffs — I know, because I helped them“, Sunday Times columnist Camilla Long questioned how London society laid itself open to the money flowing from Russia’s kelptocracy, putting the PM front and centre of this.

Long wrote: “To say Lebedev is intertwined with Johnson is to seriously understate the amount of time the pair spend together. Johnson went to a party thrown by Lebedev the day after winning the general election. Lebedev is known for Instagramming his wolves — one of whom is called Boris. How can the prime minister remotely hope to clean up the mess Putin’s mercenaries have made in this country when he is up to his neck in it himself?”

The House of Lords has more sovereignty than Holyrood in the eyes of the British state

The courts have interpreted the devolution settlement as meaning that Holyrood has no sovereignty - unlike the Lords.

Despite the fact that the referendum on a Scottish Parliament was passed by an overwhelming majority in 1997; the Commons and the Lords hold all of the legitimate power to rule the UK. They can and do overrule Holyrood on any point. 

The House of Lords is the place where legislation that is imposed on Scotland is debated and amended. Many Acts have been explicitly rejected by the Scottish Parliament - the Internal Markets Act; the Immigration Bill. The Scottish Parliament has no power to amend this legislation. Its recommendations are ignored by the UK Government. 

The contrast between the democratically elected politicians in Holyrood and the spectacle of the House of Lords is becoming increasingly stark. But independence is the only way to ensure the democratically elected Government of Scotland has more say than the characters who currently sit in the House of ‘Lords’. 

The Daily Mail yesterday ran an article criticising Believe in Scotland as having made a false claim about pensions which Believe in Scotland then thoroughly debunked. We have now discovered that the Daily Mail previously published the same claim about the UK state pension being the worst in the developed world. We, (only half-jokingly) wonder if the paper should now report itself to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) admitting that it must have either misled its readers in 2018 or is misleading them now?

Believe in Scotland surveyed 3,226 Yes supporters to take the temperature of the movement on a few key issues and we published the overall results last week. Roughly 6% of the respondents who would now vote Yes said that they voted No in 2014.

We asked them; If you voted 'No' in 2014 but would now vote Yes to Scottish independence, what were the deciding factors that inspired you to change your mind?

There were many answers offered, indeed one response ran to 1,600 words, and all those useful and insightful answers will help improve our messaging. Most respondents offered multiple motivating factors and so we have calculated how often each issue was mentioned as a key driver of the No to Yes switch.

This is what changed their minds:

• 60% Said that a key motivation to switch to Yes was Brexit, they feel lied to, some felt stupid for believing the UK would stay in the EU. Thus the prospectus for independence must include an independent Scotland rejoining the EU or the Yes side wont win. When asked if joining EFTA to access the European single market would motivate them to vote Yes 40% of No to Yes switchers said no.
• 40% Said that the incompetence and uncaring nature of the UK Government and the relentless move towards right wing politics and austerity was a key motivating factor. Much of this criticism centred around Brexit and mismanagement of the health crises.
• 26% Said they felt lied to, that the promises made by politicians, from staying in the EU, pensions being safer in the UK, the vow and more powers not being delivered.
• 19% Stated that they had become more educated and now had more belief in Scotland and its economy and therefore its ability to thrive as an independent nation. About half of this cohort stated that they had read Scotland the Brief and about half stated they had read up on The McCrone report as part of their learning process.
• 17% Said a key reason to switch to Yes was an increasing belief that the NHS was not safe as part of the Union. About half of these responses used the more positive language that the NHS was safer in Scotland’s hands.
• 6% Said they had become sick of the media always talking Scotland down, with some saying that either it has worsened since 2014 or they had been blind to it.
• About 5% mentioned Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership in general and emphasised her leadership during the health crises.

The results were conclusive and were almost universally ‘away from’ motivations. That is to say that people have switched to Yes largely as they feel let down, disappointed in, or lied to by the UK and its government. As opposed to a “Towards Motivation” which would include answers such as 'I think we can build a fairer, greener more successful nation through independence'. We can also see that trend in the 40% stating a negative opinion of the UK Government, most naming Boris Johnson himself but only 5% mentioning the positive leadership of Nicola Sturgeon. Feelings about the UK Government not performing must by their nature be comparative but the dominance of the ‘away from’ motivation is clear.

This is actually very good news for the Yes movement in strategic terms. In indyref1 the Yes side had very little negativity to play with, the UK didn't seem broken to most people, David Cameron wasn’t seen as untrustworthy or completely incompetent and certainly not as a “clown” a word used by some of the switchers to describe the current PM.

So, the UK seemed to still be OK for those that couldn't see either where the UK was headed or were frightened of or resistant to change. Now after Brexit and the health crises the ballance of risk has switched to staying part of the UK.

As a result, but also partly as the Yes campaign started at around 27% in the pollsin 2001, the Yes campaign was relentlessly positive. The problem was that the White Paper was dry, boring, and uninspiring - there was no truly positive vision for people to buy into. It offered a slightly left of centre version of what we had as part of the UK. It was aimed as much at destroying the Labour vote in Scotland if Yes lost, as it was winning the referendum. A clever secondary goal but starting at around 50% Yes means indyref2 is all about winning and to do that we need to keep the approximate current 5% increase in the Yes vote (polling had it as high as a 13% in Jan 2021) and add another 5-10% by promoting an inclusive, fairer, safer more resilient, greener, happier, and successful Scotland as the key message in indyref2. In other words, we need to make the wellbeing of our nation the shared goal of our newly independent nation. Nothing less than an inspiring vision of how to improve Scotland's wellbeing as a nation will do the job.

Between 40-45% of the Scottish population are estimated naturally resistant to change due to their personality type (for example Myers Briggs ISTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ, ESTJ personality types). Fortunately, the Corporate Change Industry has detailed how to manage change with these personality types and that offers clear direction for indyref2.

• The Yes side must offer clarity and explain our vision for independence in logical terms.
• Communicate in an open and honest and inclusive way
• Be clear and discuss the objectives, goals, and vision of where the change will lead.
• Offer a clear timeline and plan of action to manage the change
• Don’t overreach or over-promise. The Scottish population is ready for change now in a way that it wasn't in 2014 they will step forward into the light but not take a leap in the dark.
• Explain the values (that they share) that underpin our vision for Scotland and our plan to build a better nation.
• Let them know how it will affect them, their local communities, and the local economy.
• Involve them in the process and ask their opinions and for their advice - We need to make indyref2 a conversation about a better future, not a political slagging match.
• Use facts to back up the reason for making the change to independence and this requires a fully costed new economic vision for Scotland based on a wellbeing economic approach, not the now outdated 'don't scare the horses' approach of the Sustainable Growth Commission.

There is at least a year’s work to be done to get the new improved case for independence ready. One that combines the ‘away from’ and ‘towards’ motivations that will bring 60% Yes into view. Given that we need to offer those resistant to change enough time to process the change and absorb its benefits, we don’t see indyref2 happening before May 2023. Before anyone wonders, if the SNP Government could have started this work earlier, remember that the opportunity that is presenting itself is a response to Brexit and the Health Crises. The issues of Brexit are taking longer to manifest than anyone imagined and with winter approaching the economic impact of the health crises may not yet be fully behind us. We progress at the speed of the undecided, the soft Yes and No voters who are resistant to change. However, it will become clearer in November that major progress is being made on creating that inspiring vision.

Scotland stands ready do everything it can to support refugees from Afghanistan as the Taliban seizes control and the country sinks into chaos.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said Scotland is willing to accept refugees fleeing the country and has urged the UK government to step up in offering support.

Desperate scenes at Kabul airport have been broadcast showing people trying to leave the country as the Taliban swept into the capital unopposed and took control of the presidential palace. They fear a return to the brutality of the Taliban regime of the 1990s, which saw public executions and a ruthless crackdown on freedoms for women.

There have already been disturbing reports of women being told to give up their jobs in the first areas of Afghanistan to fall under the control of the Taliban in the current resurgence.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon: urged UK government to welcome refugees from Afghanistan

The First Minister posted on Twitter over the weekend: “As we did with Syrian refugees, @scotgov is willing to play our full part and do all we can to help those in peril as a result of the horrifying situation currently unfolding.”

She added: “I hope UK government does similar and offers as much refuge for vulnerable Afghans as possible.'

Scotland has a proud record of helping refugees fleeing violence to rebuild their lives in this country. Almost one fifth of the Syrian refugees who came to the UK as part of a special project have settled in Scotland.

Figures released in 2019 suggested 3,180 Syrian refugees settled in Scotland. Among the highest profile new Scots were 24 Syrian families who made their homes on the island of Bute.

The local community rallied round in support. Mohannad Helmi, who came to Bute with his wife and their two children, told the Guardian in 2017:  “We have been shown nothing but friendliness and affection since the day we arrived. It seems that everyone smiles at us when we go to the shops or go out for a walk.'

Although the UK government is responsible for granting asylum the Scottish government controls devolved matters, including access to essential services such as healthcare and education.

There is such a strong will in Scotland to support newcomers and make people feel welcome

The Scottish government website states: ‘Scotland has a long history of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers and recognises it is a human right to be able to seek asylum in another country.’ It adds: ‘Scotland’s New Scots approach is to support refugees and asylum seekers to integrate into our communities from day one of arrival.’

A report by the Scottish Refugee Council in 2013 estimated there were around 20,000 refugees, asylum seekers and ‘others of concern’ in Scotland at that time.

Scottish Refugee Council CEO Sabir Zazai said recently: “There is such a strong will in Scotland to support newcomers and make people feel welcome. Equally strong is the desire from refugee-led groups to make a contribution and use their skills and expertise to create flourishing, well integrated communities.’

Nicola Sturgeon has condemned what she describes as ‘the shameful abandoning’ of the people of Afghanistan

Nicola Sturgeon has condemned what she describes as ‘the shameful abandoning’ of the people of Afghanistan and has said the world ‘can’t just turn away’.

The response by the UK government to the crisis in Afghanistan has come under fire, with some news reports suggesting that senior military figures fear key allies there are being left behind because the Home Office is afraid of the message that offering asylum would send to refugees.

The Sunday National revealed the case of one former interpreter who sold his belongings after being told he was accepted into the UK’s 7000-place Afghan Relocation and Assistance Programme (Arap) for former support staff in May and was told to prepare to leave within four weeks.

Last week, the Home Office turned him away citing “security fears” and he now fears the Taliban will behead him.

Yesterday, the Scottish Government released new figures highlighting that the number of Scottish domiciled students that have been offered a place at a university in Scotland is at a record high. Indeed, this year, the figure has risen 10% to 31,070. Furthermore, UCAS data has suggested that the number of acceptances from the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland to universities across the UK has increased by 7% to 4,700. This is another record high statistic.

However, the matter of concern that arises from this data is the number of applicants from EU countries. Indeed, this year’s statistics highlight a 56% decrease, on SQA results day, in the number of acceptances to universities in Scotland from people based in EU countries. These figures, once again, suggest that Brexit is the biggest threat to Scotland and our education system, not independence. Therefore, throughout this article, we will consider the potential of Scotland’s education system and recognise the importance of education and skilled individuals in helping an independent Scotland to prosper. We will then look further into the damage that Brexit is causing to the education sector.

Scotland’s successful and growing further education sector

Firstly, let’s look at some of the successes of Scotland’s education sector. As the figures above demonstrate, Scottish Universities are becoming increasingly popular among individuals who reside in Scotland. This is unsurprising with Scotland holding 4 of the world’s top 200 universities, as well as many excellent colleges. 

The success of Scotland’s education sector extends beyond university and college, however. For example, in 2019, the number of apprentices benefitting from work-based learning rose for the 8^th consecutive year with more than 28,000 people in Scotland starting apprenticeships between 2018 and 2019. While this was slightly lower in 2020 as a result of the pandemic, employers demonstrated their commitment to Modern Apprenticeships during the second half of the year when, despite the economy going back into lockdown, demand increased four-fold. This resulted in the end of year Modern Apprenticeship figure for 2020/21 being 18,655.

As a result of these fantastic opportunities, Scotland has the most educated population in Europe. Indeed, the most recent figures, demonstrate that 47% of the population, aged 25 to 64, have obtained either a university, college or vocational qualification. This is 4% above the UK average and 15% above the EU average.

How would education support an independent Scotland?

So, one may ask why these successes are so important to Scotland and why, here at Believe in Scotland, we suggest that the education sector would help an independent Scotland to thrive? Well, first of all, a prosperous nation requires a skilled population. Indeed, educated people, in turn, produce high quality research, excellent teaching, and carry out the skilled professions that are critical to the development of a nation and a thriving economy. 

This is evident in Scotland, with the higher education sector contributing massively to the Scottish economy. Previous research recognises that the higher education sector has an annual economic impact of over £11bn GVA. This means that with every £1 of public investment, the further education sector multiplies it into £11 of economic impact.

This sector also employs nearly 44,000 people and significantly, 69% of those jobs are located in the most deprived decile of local authorities in Scotland. This shows how important this sector is not only to those in training but also for individuals in employment, particularly those living in more deprived areas of the country. 

In terms of higher education research and development, Scotland is internationally recognised and respected for its quality and its innovative and collaborative nature. As a result, Scotland HEIs receive over 15% of the total UK Research Council competitive investments. This reflects the high quality of the research carried out by these institutions. This suggests that Scotland’s education sector already has a strong research base and would continue to develop as an independent country.

Overall, it is clear that Scotland’s further education system, and the country’s skilled population, would be critical in supporting Scotland’s move to independence. It is evident that with Scotland holding the most educated and skilled population in Europe and already acquiring a strong and internationally-admired research base, the education sector in an independent Scotland would continue to thrive.

The real danger to our education sector – Brexit

However, the real danger that faces Scotland’s higher education sector is Brexit. Firstly, as recognised at the beginning of this article, there has been a 56% decrease in the number of applicants from EU countries. In 2021, only 1200 EU students accepted a place at a Scottish University. This compares to 2730 in 2020. The National Union of Students (NUS) Scotland has said that this is because of the excessive fees that EU students have to pay as a result of Brexit.

Although EU students did not pay tuition fees in Scotland prior to Brexit, these students supported Scotland and the economy in many other ways. Indeed, financially, both EU and non-EU international students spend money on accommodation, travel and other living and recreational expenses. This amounts to tens of thousands of pounds for each individual student, contributing hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish economy. For example, a report by Oxford Economics in 2017 on the economic impact of UK universities estimated that every EU student would generate approximately £44,000 in gross output. These figures do not include tuition fees or some other forms of on-campus spending, including university accommodation.

Other benefits of welcoming EU students to Scotland include improving the range and quality of education provision. A multicultural, multinational learning environment is hugely beneficial for all students and helps to raise cultural awareness and a global perspective among domestic students. Furthermore, EU students often stay in Scotland longer-term and are therefore, a valuable asset to Scotland’s workforce.

Lastly, before Brexit, Scotland was a valued partner in many EU research collaborations and often secured significant funding from EU research programmes as a result. For example, between 2015 and 2016, Scottish Universities received £97m from various EU sources, equating to 10.1% of their total research income. With Scotland being unwillingly dragged out of the EU with the rest of the UK, the loss of such funding will be a huge blow to the education sector.

Conclusions

Overall, it is clear that Scotland’s education sector is thriving and would support the economy in a move towards independence. However, what is also evident is that Brexit poses the greatest threat to Scotland’s education sector and is already causing huge damage, with a dramatic decline in EU students and a loss in funding for research and development.

Independence opponents’ attempts to portray Scotland as too poor to stand on its own feet have been demolished by a new report showing the country bucked the UK downward trend and attracted more foreign direct investment last year.

The 2020 investments were made while renewed arguments in favour of independence were gaining increasing support.

An annual survey by professional services company EY reported 107 foreign direct investment (FDI) projects in Scotland in 2020, an increase of 6 per cent compared with the previous year. That success contrasts with declines in investment of 12 per cent for the UK as a whole and 13 per cent across Europe.

The countries that were the source of most investment into Scotland were the USA (39 projects), Ireland (10) and the Netherlands (8).

The survey ranked Edinburgh as the UK’s top city outside London for foreign direct investment

According to EY,  Scotland last year “bolstered its position as the UK’s most attractive FDI location outside London” .It accounted for 11 per cent of investment projects, up from 9 per cent in 2019

The survey ranked Edinburgh (pictured above) as the UK’s top city outside London for FDI, with 36 projects. Glasgow was fifth with 23 projects and Aberdeen seventh with 13.

The leading sectors for FDI in Scotland were digital technology with 19 projects, agri-food with 14 and business services with 11.

Scotland’s impressive performance came in the face of the global Covid 19 pandemic. It was recorded as opinion poll after opinion poll showed a majority of Scots supported a Yes vote in a second referendum, smashing the myth that independence would ‘frighten off’ investors.

Ally Scott, EY Scotland managing partner, said:  “Amid arguably the most challenging environment for FDI in living memory, it’s clear that Scotland has put in an impressive performance.'

Of course, Scotland’s economic performance is always used by opponents of independence as a reason why Scotland should remain within the UK. Economic success is used as an argument that remaining within the Union is essential to that success and economic problems are used as a reason why we can’t make it alone.

This survey, however, shows that there are specific reasons why Scotland is bucking the investment trends, none of them a result of remaining in the UK.

Scottish Enterprise has put the country’s appeal to global companies down to the quality of our workforce as well as a “competitive cost base, world-class universities and supportive business environment”. Linda Hanna, Scottish Executive interim chief executive, has praised the benefit of a 'team Scotland' approach across the public sector, business and universities.

London’s vote as most attractive region has almost halved since 2019, while Scotland’s has more than doubled

According to EY,  a survey of 570 international business “decision makers” found 15 per cent ranked Scotland as the most attractive part of the UK in which to establish operations — behind only London at 25 per cent, and up from the 7 per cent reported in 2019.

Ally Scott said: “Scotland has now narrowed the gap significantly with London. The scale of this two-year shift is illustrated by London’s vote as most attractive region almost halving since 2019, while Scotland’s has more than doubled.”

The Scottish government last winter unveiled an inward investment strategy that aims to attract 50 leading global companies to Scotland. The strategy prioritises nine “areas of opportunity” ranging from digital services to the exploitation of space. The plan as been described as a fundamental shift in approach to attracting investment from overseas and other parts of the UK.

It has a number of core Scottish government values at its heart which businesses will be expected to share. These include the fair treatment of employees and reduction of carbon emissions.

The Scottish government said the EY survey showed it had a “strong base from which to build” on FDI. “This supports the approach of the Scottish government’s inward investment plan to further internationalise the economy by focusing efforts on our existing global strengths,” it said.

The survey also showed that UK inward investment in manufacturing continued to decline compared with levels in EU member countries. The manufacturing drop has been attributed to Brexit, as Britain no longer has easy access to European markets.

Foreign direct investment is defined as  an investor establishing a substantial and lasting interest in an enterprise based in another country.