Swinney says sorry to Gypsy Travellers for ‘trauma' of the ‘tinker experiment'
John Swinney made clear that the treatment of members of this community in previous years had been 'unacceptable'.
His comments came as a new report, published by the Scottish Government, stated that 'the context within which the TE (tinker experiment) occurred is best understood as cultural genocide'.
Between 1940 and 1980, the so-called experiment – supported by councils and the UK government – attempted to strip away the nomadic lifestyle of Gypsy Travellers, providing rudimentary and often cramped huts for people to live in.
When families became too big to be housed in the huts, children would sometimes be taken away.
The Scottish Government has been carrying out research into the impact of what happened – with report, by the Third Generation Project at St Andrews University, revealing 'discriminatory' policies had been carried out in 27 of Scotland's current 32 local authorities.
The Church of Scotland also issued 'a heartfelt and genuine apology for these historic wrongs'.
Mr Swinney, in a statement to Holyrood, said he hoped his apology could be the 'beginning of a new conversation' with efforts to improve the lives of Gypsy Traveller community in Scotland.
The First Minister told MSPs 'without ambiguity' that 'what happened to Gypsy Traveller communities in Scotland was unacceptable'.
He added: 'It is clear to the Government that stark prejudice and lack of cultural awareness led to a series of unfair and unjust policies.
'These policies resulted in children being removed from families, and families were forced to live in substandard accommodation and degrading conditions.
'The trauma that this has caused to individuals, families and groups, including those who regard themselves as 'victims of tinker experiments', is significant and lasting'.
With Gypsy Travellers in Holyrood's public gallery, Mr Swinney continued: 'As First Minister of Scotland, I want to say this directly to Gypsy Traveller communities: the 'tinker experiments' should not have happened.
'These policies were wrong. And we recognise how much it is still hurting so many.
'And more than anything else I want to say this – on behalf of Scotland, we are sorry.'
Mr Swinney added that although Scotland had 'come a long way since the 'Tinker experiments', there was 'still much to do' in tackling the prejudice the community continued to face.
And while Holyrood ministers published a new Gypsy Traveller action plan last year, the First Minister said the experiences shared as part of the government's work 'underline the urgent need for systemic change, greater accountability, and a shift in attitudes at every level'.
He declared: 'We must do better.'
Stressing the need for 'meaningful action' he highlighted the importance of 'challenging stereotypes, confronting everyday discrimination, and committing to long-term efforts that promote understanding, respect, and equity for Gypsy Travellers'.
He stated: 'Our hope is that we now have a foundation for continuing to build trust and fostering renewed relationships with all those who have been impacted by historical policies.'
His comments came as the report described the tinker experiments as being the 'recurring societal and institutional dehumanisation of Gypsy Travellers in Scotland'.
This was 'often carried out under the stereotype of Gypsy Travellers as a people that collectively practised a backwards or undeveloped way of life', it added.
The research highlighted the role of the UK national government 'and specifically the Scottish Office as a primary actor in the construction and enforcement of such policies'.
But it said that others – including local councils, churches and charities – were involved in 'constructing the environment' that allowed this to happen.
Gypsy Travellers in Scotland were housed in accommodation including Nissen-type huts, repurposed military buildings and disused properties, the report added – with these 'known by government agents to be substandard' with such properties 'frequently without' electricity and running water.
The report also highlighted the 'forced transfer of children', with some youngsters being removed from their families and placed in temporary care, while others were permanently taken away, being adopted either in the UK or overseas.
Afterwards, the Reverend Tommy MacNeil, convener of the Faith Action Programme Leadership Team of the Church of Scotland and Dr Mike Cantlay, convener of its Social Care Council said: 'On behalf of the Church of Scotland, we offer a heartfelt and genuine apology for these historic wrongs, highlighted in the report and carried out in the name of the Church.'
They added: 'We wish to say we stand in solidarity with those who suffered, and deeply regret the harm that came to them as a result of actions by the Church in the past.'
Their statement acknowleged that the Church of Scotland 'tolerated discrimination and the use of derogatory language by its employees and members'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Councillor call for wider debate on Stirling school mobile phone policies
The current situation allows for individual schools across the region to prepare their own policies on mobile phone usage in classrooms. Mobile phone use in schools could be debated by councillors. Individual schools across the area have their own approach to pupils' phones in their buildings and classrooms. But a rural Stirling councillor has asked when the topic could be brought before elected members for wider discussion. Last year the Scottish Government published guidance that enabled headteachers to limit or ban the use of mobile phones at their schools. But at a recent full meeting of Stirling Council, Forth and Endrick ward Conservative councillor Paul Henke asked just what such bans or limitations existing at each of the area's secondary schools. Children and young people committee convener, Labour councillor Danny Gibson, said: 'The Scottish Government published Mobiles Phones-Guidance for Schools (August 2024). 'The vision of the paper is 'to enable all schools and local authorities to develop an ethos of citizenship that leads to respectful and responsible use of mobile technology. This will encourage schools to positively embrance mobile technology to enhance learning now and in the future, whilst helping them protect staff, children and young people from the possible disruptive and harmful consequences of misuse'. 'All of Stirling Council secondary schools have reviewed their mobile phone policies in line with the national guidance. 'Each school has established a clear and consistent policy on acceptable use of mobile phones, developed in consultation with parents, carers, pupils and staff. 'While each school has tailored their policy to suit the individual context, there are several common themes across all schools.' The themes include: classroom expectations - pupils must deposit their phones in secure storage boxes upon entering the classroom or keep them on silent and stored in their school bags during lessons; use during the school day - mobile devices, including headphones earphones, must not be used during the school day, except before school starts, at break time, and at lunchtime; and responsible use - all mobile devices must be used responsibily and in accordance with the school's policy. Cllr Henke thanked the convener for the response, but further asked him to advise when a council policy covering this could be brought forward to committee for debate. Cllr Gibson said: 'I'll check with officers what the intention is in that regard and I'll advise the councillors directly.'
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sometimes what communities really need from councils is bravery
Schools across Scotland have shut their doors for the summer, but not all will reopen for the autumn term. If you have followed any of The Herald's education coverage in recent months, you have read stories about council strategies for mothballing schools and nurseries and the Scottish Government guidance which sets the rules for this process. Mothballing refers to the temporary closure of a school (or nursery), and local authorities are required to review this decision at least once a year. Mothballing is intended to provide schools with a lifeline. Instead, it is often used as a way for councils to prolong the inevitable. As a result, painful decisions become more painful and drag on for years. The vast majority of mothballed schools never reopen, to the point that campaigners have come to describe mothballing as 'closure by stealth'. Read more: It is not difficult to see why this is the case. Technically, local authorities are only allowed to mothball a school when the roll has fallen to zero, or very close to zero, according to guidance for the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. At first glance, a recent decision regarding Fountainhall Primary School in the Scottish Borders Council appears to be a textbook case for mothballing. On closer inspection, however, it proves to be a better example of a council trying to soften the blow — and likely deflect some heat — by kicking the can down the road on a likely closure. Between 2020 and 2024, Fountainhall's roll fell from 24 to five pupils, with a total capacity of 50. There was only one child enrolled for the start of the 2025-2026 academic year. Fountainhall fits some of the criteria established in the mothballing guidance: it is only for schools with a 'very low' roll where education for the pupils is 'not presently viable.' However, there is another important criterion that the Scottish Government guidance outlines. Local authorities should only mothball schools when the roll is low and there is good reason to believe that the low roll is only temporary. According to the guidance, the 'and' is crucial and it is clear about why. Even though permanent closure is more final than mothballing, it triggers a statutory consultation process that involves extensive community engagement, culminating in approval from the Scottish Government. This consultation process places additional requirements on local authorities and, in theory, provides more protections for parents and community members to have their voices heard. An important side note: councils love to use the word 'consultation,' but they do not usually mean this type of statutory consultation. What they usually mean is engagement, not the legal definition of consultation found in the 2010 Act. I like to think of it as the difference between a consultation and a Consultation. The mothballing process requires consultation, not Consultation, and councils have much more freedom to decide what that looks like. This game of semantics frustrates parents and rural campaigners, because the guidance explicitly states that mothballing should not be a way to deprive communities of their legal right to a Consultation about the potential closure of their school. However, because mothballing often leads to closure, parents feel that the ultimate Consultation isn't an accurate reflection of the situation. If a school has been 'temporarily closed' for one, two, three years, is it any surprise that few parents asked about enrolling their children or considered moving to the area? This means that when the legal Consultation on closure finally rolls around, the picture is skewed. Interest has fallen off. Parents who had battled the original mothballing have since been forced to move on. Their children attend schools in other communities, and a fight for another transition is different from a fight to keep children in place. All of this is why guidance states that if a council wants to mothball a school, it must be more likely than not that the school will be viable in the long term. Otherwise, the council should initiate the more formal process of permanent closure. And yet, during the recent debate at Scottish Borders Council (SBC) over whether to mothball Fountainhall, the language made it clear that the assumption was that the school would not become viable in the future. The council papers were explicit: 'The Fountainhall school roll is projected to be 1 from August, which is an out of catchment placement. 'Based on this, and considering future planning and migration, Officers project that the number of children will not significantly increase in the coming years within the Fountainhall catchment area.' If the school is being mothballed due to low enrollment, and the council has no expectation that the enrollment will increase, then the question should be about closure, not mothballing. In their objections to the mothballing decision, a group of parents seized on this. In a letter to councillors on the eve of the vote, they called for a statutory consultation on closure to begin "without delay". "Fountainhall deserves proper consultation and legal safeguards – not administrative shortcuts that carry permanent consequences." On the surface, this sounds counterproductive for a group that is fighting to save their school. However, what the parents recognised is that the permanent closure process should provide them with more protections and impose greater oversight on the council's ultimate decision. If nothing else, it offers parents a sense that the democratic process is being followed. As many have told me, an unwanted decision is easier to swallow if there is trust that decision-makers were brave enough to take the hard way out. Instead, another community is looking at unknown years of uncertainty, likely followed by a painful trek towards an even more painful conclusion.
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scottish Government accused of undermining Ardrossan harbour
The ship is too big to fit into Ardrossan harbour safely, with planned upgrades halted in 2023 due to rising costs. The Scottish Government said earlier this year it was considering renationalising the harbour to ensure Ardrossan remains the mainland port for Arran. Read More: However, former Labour MP for Cunninghame North - now largely North Ayrshire and Arran - Brian Wilson has raised concerns after submitting a Freedom of Information request. The Herald columnist asked for communications concerning Ardrossan between transport secretary Fiona Hyslop and (Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd). Wilson wrote: "One interesting line had either slipped through the net or been left in deliberately, in which the chief executive of CMAL, Kevin Hobbs, wrote, the week following Ms Hyslop's instruction: 'We do not believe and have expressly stated that resilience at Ardrossan (given the entrance through the roundheads and turn) will never be as resilient as Troon given the open sea approach'. "In other words, the chief executive of CMAL could hardly have been clearer that they have no interest in pursuing what, in public, has been their obligation and the Scottish Government's aim. So the question now is whether Ms Hyslop's 'instruction' is ever intended to prevail? "I make no claim to nautical expertise but that is not the issue at stake. The real question is whether, consistent with Mr Hobbs' comments, CMAL and Transport Scotland have been (and still are) working to ensure that Ardrossan never again will be the gateway port for Arran. "If that is the case – as I believe it is – the people of Arran and Ardrossan have, for the past decade, been cynically and cruelly deceived. To that, I object strongly – and call for an inquiry into the full circumstances, without evasions or redactions." Under current regulations, the Scottish Government does not have the power to force a sale of the Ardrossan harbour. It's understood negotiations are ongoing between CMAL and Peel Ports over a potential deal. A Transport Scotland spokesperson said: 'This Government is fully committed to Ardrossan serving the Arran route and to investing in the harbour to ensure that the service is fit for the future. 'We want to see progress just as much as local campaigners do. However, as was explained to them when they met recently with CMAL, Transport Scotland and CalMac, a timeline can only be reasonably established and published should actual purchase and transfer of control of the port be successful. 'It is wholly appropriate that CMAL leads on the Ardrossan negotiations. Should ownership transfer be successful, CMAL would be the asset owner and responsible for taking forward any development works at Ardrossan. As owners of 26 ports and harbours across Scotland, they also bring essential experience to these complex discussions. 'We will of course update Parliament and the local community once there is progress and an outcome to report, however, CMAL and Peel Ports need time and space to undertake and conclude negotiations.'
