Survivors of Fornethy 'House of Horrors' plead for redress as debate taken to Holyrood
A survivor of Fornethy ' House of Horrors ' has repeated pleas for victims to be given access to the redress scheme after they were snubbed due to their abuse "not being prolonged".
Lynne Sheerin, who was one of hundreds of girls who endured mental, physical, and sexual abuse at the mansion in Kilry, Angus, between 1960 and 1980, said the government's move to block victims from the compensation was "disgusting". Around 200 women earlier came forward to say they were beaten, humiliated, force-fed and sexually assaulted at the hands of staff during their short spell at the all girls' school.
But last year, Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes rejected calls from MSPs to allow the women access to compensation from the Scottish Government scheme. The matter was debated at the Scottish Parliament on Thursday afternoon.
The calls of victims were echoed by MSP Maurice Golden.
Lynne, 57, from Glasgow, told the Record: "We were told we won't be getting access to the redress scheme because our abuse didn't go on long enough. Abuse is still abuse, and what happened at that awful place has had a profound effect on myself and other victims.
"We have lost six women in our group to suicide who just couldn't cope with their trauma any longer. To say we cannot access this scheme because our abuse wasn't prolonged is a kick in the teeth, disrespectful and outright insensitive.
"We were put into that school and as children, they had a duty of care for us. Instead, we were battered, force-fed, sexually assaulted and humiliated.
"It disgusts me."
Speaking during the debate in Holyrood on Thursday afternoon, MSP Maurice Golden said: "The Scottish Government should consult on expanding redress to include short-term institutions like Fornethy.
"I know the Scottish Government has previously refused to expand the scheme's criteria – but I think the public would find it outrageous that compensation was being declined because - in effect - the victims didn't stay in a place of abuse and cruelty long enough.
"For me, one instance is one too many and will have ramifications for the rest of that child's life."
Fornethy House was operated by Glasgow Corporation - now Glasgow City Council - a summer school for children of disadvantaged families.
Parents were sold to the idea that their children would be attending the mansion for a "holiday", but instead they were subjected to unimaginable abuse.
The Tory representative for North East Scotland added: "My view is that all victims of abuse should have access to redress no matter the length of time they received it and regardless of how historic that abuse was.
"Let's remember, those girls were sent to Fornethy by the state - Glasgow Corporation - as it was then - and later Strathclyde Regional Council.
"Those institutions had a duty of care - a long established legal and indeed moral obligation. It is a matter for the courts as well as, in my view, the redress scheme to determine the validity of the harrowing, horrific stories of abuse I have heard."
Lynne, now 57, from Glasgow, was beaten, force-fed, inappropriately touched and mentally abused by staff at the school during her six-week stay in 1975.
Glasgow City Council apologised to victims last year.
Speaking at the time, council leader Susan Aitken, speaking on behalf of the local authority, said: 'I want to say sorry for any abuse suffered by any children who attended Fornethy House.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
26 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
I think Trump may have a point about Scotland's 'windmills'
It is increasingly urgent to separate these two categories of opinion. The Trumpites are unappeasable. The other is reasonable, mainly supportive of energy transition and deserves serious attention before that sound principle is further discredited by what increasingly resembles a Gold Rush mentality that 'anything goes'. A sensible way to develop energy infrastructure would start by determining where power should be generated in order to meet demand. It would then ensure that the means of connection exist to carry that power to its markets, driven mainly by optimum economic efficiency (i.e. cost to consumers). This strategy might well (as happened decades ago with the Hydro Electric schemes) be tempered by a social element; embracing the principle that no part of the country should be excluded from the right to generate power and obtain benefit from it. In the case of wind power, that would underpin the right of Scotland's periphery to contribute to the UK's energy needs and receive commensurate benefit. If all this was set out clearly, there would be a reasonable prospect of public consent and political justification for facing down opposition. Again, it is useful to revert to the Hydro days, where the entrenched hostility of landowners had to be over-ruled in order for the schemes to proceed in the intersts of a greater social good. Read More: Having set out 'the sensible way' to approach these objectives, I should quickly acknowledge that they are now impossible to achieve. The noble concept of state planning to determine key elements of national infrastructure has been replaced with an incoherent mish-mash of privatisation, regulators and corporate greed. Instead of a plan, we have a jigsaw with many pieces missing and no picture to guide us. Even then, the lack of cohesion around what has evolved is stunning and the costs incalculable. We have vast offshore projects which may never be built. Hugely expensive infrastructure which may never be fully utilised. Communities bewildered by the sheer scale of what they are confronted with. Serious questions unanswered about the underpinning rationale. And it is all being made up as they go along, driven by 'targets' which are almost certainly unattainable. In Scotland, the main driving force was the Scottish Government's botched allocation of licences under the ScotWind programme, though there are also scores of onshore projects at various stages of the consenting process. In a more ideal world, I would call for a six month halt to each and every one of them until the demand for a big picture on which to base the resultant jigsaw is met. There are so many carts before horses. How much power is needed? Where should it be generated from? What certainty can be attached to projects which would meet these objectives? Where is the hardware going to come from? What benefits are communities entitled to? None of these questions is being answered to any satisfactory degree. The calendar cannot be turned back to the point, at least five years ago, when clarity was essential. But the alternative, surely, is not just to keep digging and building. Each of the ScotWind projects depends on successfully bidding (against each other) for subsidy under Contract for Difference and some of them, even then, will be on the fringes of offering an acceptable return to multinational developers and (foreign) state energy companies. But which will happen and which won't? By the time we know, how many pylons will have been built to meet a hypothetical demand? The argument over zonal pricing highlights the fragility of all this. In terms of lower bills, it was a mirage and even the mirage would not have kicked in for at least seven years if the projects happened at all. The big Scottish energy companies led the campaign against zonal pricing but how many more demands will be made before their ScotWind projects actually happen? And at what ultimate cost? To me, the most important aspect of the Government response which ruled out zonal pricing was the clear pointer towards generation being as close to markets as feasible which calls into question the lazy assumption that there is unlimited demand for Scottish wind power in the rest of the UK. Surely that question has to be addressed now, rather than letting 'the market decide' in five years time? Then there is the whole question of community benefit which should have been addressed by the [[Scottish Government]] years ago, rather than being left to local communities to do their best against massive odds. The former leader of Highland Council, Michael Foxley, wrote last week that in 1991, they set a community benefit rate at £5k per MW which, adjusted for inflation, should now be £12.5k. Instead, wrote Foxley, 'the average benefit paid in Highland is just £3k per MW'. Communities are being left 'with a few shiny beads' and things are going backwards in the prolonged absence of Government action to make standardised community benefit a condition of project approvals. As usual in Gold Rushes, the landowners are coining it. There is an interesting case in the Court of Session at present in which the owner of 55,000 acres in the Cabrach area of Moray is suing EDF for what he claims is a shortfall to what they pay him to lease moorland on which 59 turbines are built. Most unusually, this case has laid bare of the finances which underpin these deals. The landowner, a dodgy character named Christopher Moran, is claiming he is due another £6 million on top of the £28 million he has received over just three years. Transparency is another reasonable demand to which every community is entitled yet it is totally absent from the Gold Rush. I have long advocated an energy transition linked to a balanced energy policy – we need a bit of everything to achieve a mix that is affordable, sustainable and secure. By placing so much reliance on wind, Scotland risks an outcome that meets none of these criteria. And absolutely nobody seems to be answerable or in charge. Brian Wilson is a former Energy Minister. He was Labour MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Scottish Government challenged to explain Israel relationship
It came despite ministers despite publicly denouncing the atrocities Israel has carried out amid the genocide in Gaza. The details were revealed by The Ferret and the Sunday National after a months-long FoI battle. Green MSP Ross Greer has tabled a written question asking if the [[Scottish Government]] would still describe Scotland as a critical friend of Israel, adding SNP ministers have 'let themselves down' over the lack of transparency on the issue. In August last year, it was revealed that External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson had met the Israeli ambassador Daniela Grudsky and that the [[Scottish Government]] had tried to set up an earlier meeting with First Minister John Swinney and the ambassador while talking itself up as a 'critical friend' of Israel. Following a 10-month Freedom of Information battle, The Ferret was able to reveal that the Scottish Government had taken the lead from the Israeli government over the lack of transparency from the meeting's minutes between Robertson and Grudsky. READ MORE: Palestine Action gets green light for ban challenge Greer has now challenged the Scottish Government to clarify its relationship with Israel after it 'fought hard' to hide the details of the meeting. The MSP for West Scotland said the SNP Government has said the 'right things' in public but has failed to take meaningful action, like scrapping public funding for companies which sell arms to Israel. (Image: PA) 'It's depressing but not surprising that the Scottish Government fought so hard to hide the details of their meeting with the Israeli embassy,' Greer said. 'The images of Palestinian children starving to death or blown apart are horrific beyond description. 'To suggest that our country could be any sort of 'friend' of the apartheid regime responsible for these crimes is frankly offensive. 'The [[Scottish Government]] has said the right things in public about Israel's genocidal assault on Palestine, but they have let themselves down with what they've said directly to the Israelis, and with their own actions, such as continued public funding for those who sell arms to Israel.' Following public anger around the meeting last year, Swinney said that it had been 'accepted on the basis it would provide an opportunity to convey our consistent position on the killing and suffering of innocent civilians in the region'. However, the Scottish Government had published a statement prior saying that the attendees had also discussed 'areas of mutual interest, including culture, renewable energy, and engaging the country's respective diasporas'. In the redacted minutes much of the section on 'Israel/Scotland relations' was blacked out, The Ferret reported earlier this month. 'The public deserve absolute clarity on what was said at this meeting,' Greer said. 'Does our government really believe that Scotland should be a 'critical friend' to Israel as it commits genocide? If so, who made that decision? If that is no longer the position, when did it change, and what happened in the last 10 months that was somehow worse than the first year of this genocide?' (Image: Hatem Khaled, REUTERS) Following the backlash, Robertson faced calls for him to resign from his ministerial role from SNP members and grassroots campaigners. Greer added that it's not just the public that need to know what happened as he said: 'Many people in the SNP have stood with us in defence of the Palestinian cause for decades. 'I know how deeply upset they were by this meeting. They deserve more answers and less evasion from their leadership.' In response to Greer's comment, Robertson said the Scottish Government is 'unequivocal' that it would not be appropriate to meet with the Israeli Government until progress is made towards peace. He said: 'More than 60,000 people have been killed in Gaza, a truly horrific figure – and many more are now being left to starve at the hands of the Israeli Government. 'Civilians who queue to access what little humanitarian aid is permitted to enter Gaza are frequently shot at and killed by Israeli Defence Forces. We are strongly focused on doing whatever we can to help the people of Gaza and the First Minister discussed the issue with President Trump when he met him this week. (Image: PA) 'We have repeatedly called for the recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state within a two-state solution but recognition should not be conditional and must be backed by sanctions against Israel if the violence continues. 'As the rhetoric of Israeli politicians has become increasingly extreme in recent months, the Scottish Government is unequivocal that it would not be appropriate to meet with the Israeli Government. 'This will remain our position until real progress has been made towards peace and Israel cooperates fully with its international obligations on the investigation of genocide and war crimes.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
What MSPs tried to expense – and why Parliament said no
However, the identities of the MSPs involved and the amount they attempted to claim have not been revealed. Parliament officials said as this information was not required under their financial procedures, it was not held and therefore not releasable under FOI. READ MORE Rejected claims included several travel expenses related to party-political activity — including an interview with STV and party spokesperson events. One Scottish Government minister also attempted to claim travel expenses for attending a ministerial event, even though Holyrood expenses can only be claimed for duties carried out in Parliament or for assisting constituents. Other unsuccessful claims included a subscription X, which the Holyrood authorities said was "political." Bids to reclaim the cost of a party newsletter, and festive greeting cards were also turned down. Politicians had to pick up their own food and drink bills too, with MSPs turned down for reimbursement for tea and coffee, and lunch at a 'team day.' Meanwhile, one MSP was knocked back in their attempt to claim for the cost of picture frames so they could display motions for constituents. Another failed to have the cost of garden plant canes reimbursed on the basis there was no provision for it in the scheme. A spokesperson for the Scottish Parliament said: 'MSPs are reimbursed for costs incurred in carrying out their parliamentary duties. Party political-related costs and sundry items such as Christmas cards are not, however, covered by the scheme.' Last year it emerged that the amount claimed in expenses by MSPs had soared by nearly £2 million in a year. Figures released by the Scottish Parliament show expenses for the 2023/24 financial year reached £25.35 million, up by £1.89 million — 8% — on 2022/23. Some £20.6 million (81%) of the money was used to cover staff costs at MSPs' parliamentary and constituency offices. The rest was used on the costs of running an office, travel and accommodation, among other things. The party leaders' allowance ballooned by 63% to £46,012 – up from £28,220 the year before. It is the second consecutive year the figure has nearly doubled. In 2021/22, the leaders' allowance was just £11,510, although it was £38,778 in 2020/21 and £36,873 in 2019/20. Earlier this month, the *Daily Mail* revealed a string of similar rejections at Westminster, with claims for luxury homewares, meals and even flowers knocked back. Unlike in Holyrood, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) revealed names and costs. Labour MP Sean Woodcock attempted to claim £216 for duvets, Egyptian cotton towels and shower cream from Marks & Spencer, but was told the expenses watchdog does not permit furnishings or home goods. Another Labour MP, Dr Simon Opher, had a £46 claim for flowers rejected, while Gill Furniss submitted £210 for a gaming desk and office chair — also refused. Luke Myer tried to claim £155 for a three-door wardrobe to store stationery, but was told IPSA rules only allow furniture for constituency offices. Chris Webb, who won a by-election in Blackpool South last year, submitted a £2,100 claim for videography services, and Anna Turley sought £500 for speechwriting support — both rejected. LibDem MP Lee Dillon was turned down after trying to charge £204.95 for a Christmas meal for his team, including steak, scallops and pudding. Former SNP MP Steven Bonnar sought £5,160 for a staff training course more than two months after losing his seat — a claim also rejected. He told the paper: 'As you'd expect, I was keen that my staff got whatever support they could during the post-election period prior to the closure of my office and the end of their employment. In this one instance, a request was turned down, which I have no issue with.'
