Scottish Enterprise to keep funding Israel-linked arms firms
In February and under pressure from Amnesty International, within the SNP, and the Greens, Forbes told MSPs that a review would be launched of public funding given to weapons companies that supply Israel.
The government agency Scottish Enterprise (SE) has given £8 million to 13 companies involved in weapons manufacturing since 2019 – although the SNP Government maintains that the funding doesn't go directly to the production of munitions and that 'due diligence' checks are thorough.
READ MORE: MPs slam 'flat-footed' Government effort to recover £1.9bn in Covid loan fraud
However, that has been called into question given that, of the 199 human rights checks between 2021 and 2023, no firm ever failed. Pressure has also built around arms firms' links to Israel, which is accused of conducting a genocide in Gaza.
Forbes said in February that the Scottish Government did 'not believe that public funding should be spent on the manufacture of weapons or munitions' and that it would 'review and ensure" the most robust processes are in place for funding given to weapons companies.
The review has now concluded that despite funding the manufacturer of parts for F-35s and other military technology, Scottish Enterprise have never funded munitions.
Reacting to the review, Scottish Greens co-leader Lorna Slater MSP said: 'I am honestly shocked at this outcome, the SNP have been right to call out Westminster's disgraceful complicity in Israel's war crimes but when it came to taking action here in Scotland the SNP have shamefully chosen the future of war profiteers over the lives of innocent Palestinians.
'Not a single penny of public money should be spent on funding arms companies that are profiting from war crimes and genocide in Gaza and the West Bank."
She added: 'This decision shows that the SNP not only know about their funding of Israel's arms dealers, but they are happy to green light future deals!
'The SNP have been happy to talk the talk when it comes to rightly condemning Labour's bloody hands in this conflict, but when it really counted they've done nothing but try to sweep their continued funding of these arms dealers under the rug.
'We cannot sit back and continue to allow Scottish tax payers money to be spent on funding war profiteers. Scottish Greens will continue our fight to end Scotland's complicity in Israel's genocide.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
27 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Readers Letters: If UK Government will support English refinery, why not Grangemouth?
A tale of two refineries puzzles reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On 30 June BBC News reported that the UK Labour Government is funding the Official Receiver to ensure the safe operation of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery which is located in North East Lincolnshire. Speaking on the matter in the House of Commons, Energy Minister Michael Shanks stated: 'The government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security and do everything we can to support workers.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While any action on the part of the government to save jobs is commendable, I know that Michael Shanks and his fellow Scottish Labour MPs are aware of the recent closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery, which was every bit as important to Scotland's energy security as the Prax Lindsey refinery is to the people of the East of England. It is not an unfair question to ask Mr Shanks and the UK Labour Government why they were prepared only a few months ago to sit back and watch the Grangemouth refinery and its workers being thrown onto the scrapheap, yet now when a refinery based in the East of England comes under threat of closure, immediate measures are being put in place to save it? Prior to last year's general election Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar went on record to state that if Labour was elected it would prevent the closure of Grangemouth. The people of Scotland now know Labour did nothing to save Grangemouth. The Labour Party, and particularly, Messrs Shanks and Sarwar, need to explain why keeping open the oil refinery in Lincolnshire is more important than the same action for Grangemouth. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad During the 2014 independence referendum the Labour Party in Scotland was in the vanguard of the Better Together campaign. Some workers who've lost their jobs at Grangemouth might be asking themselves, 'Better for whom'? Jim Finlayson, Banchory, Aberdeenshire Disaster masters Kenny MacAskill of Alba attributes the rundown of the North Sea to Ed Miliband. Mr Miliband has indeed come over as an eco-zealot in his time in office, obsessed by impossible timescales and unimaginably expensive dreams of net zero, oblivious to the human misery and energy deprivation involved in what he proposes. However, in the greater scheme of things the SNP are by far the greatest single cause of the disaster of ending North Sea oil and gas decades prematurely. Compared to the nationalists and their Green allies' constant denigration of the industry over many years, including Grangemouth, Ed Miliband has been a recent and minor figure and has only held office for a year. The nationalists have their own super and not-so-smart eco-zealots. What other countries, not having the UK's natural wealth in energy, must think with these innocents in charge of our resources is mindboggling. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh End dependency Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A 40 per cent increase in small boat crossings and a year of U-turns has Labour struggling to maintain the trust of its voters, as well as its own MPs. With 11 million people of working age not working something radical needs to be done. Of 3.7m claiming Personal Independence Payments, 2.4m are new claimants, mainly for mental health reasons. The Scottish Government spends over £33 billion a year on welfare, more than Health. Like the UK Government, which spends proportionately less at £275bn,it cannot stand by and avoid making savings or, as Labour are doing, make a hash of what will be just a 1 per cent welfare saving. Around a quarter of working age people are not working and when pensioners are included, as many adults are in work as not working. This is unsustainable and it seems Labour will need to freeze tax thresholds. If pensions, defence and health are going to be protected something else has to give. Going 'further and faster' on growth also demands getting a grip on the burgeoning welfare bill. If escalating borrowing for future generations is to be avoided the dependency culture in Scotland and the rest of the UK must end without impacting the most vulnerable. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Not a poor show Recent analysis shows that levels of relative poverty in Scotland have been lower than in the UK as a whole for the last two decades. This is surely a vindication of the policies pursued and adopted by successive Scottish governments over that time and strongly suggests that Holyrood administrations have been far more effective in looking after the needs of the people they represent than those in Westminster and the Senedd. To give some examples, in 2024 the level of relative poverty in the UK was 21 per cent while Scotland stood at 20 per cent (England and Wales were slightly above the UK figure). In terms of child poverty Scotland's percentage fell from 25 per cent in 2021 to 23 per cent last year. In both England and Wales rates in 2024 were 31 per cent, exactly the same as in 2021. (Steve Witherden, Labour MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr has indicated he would be in favour of the Welsh government introducing something similar to the Scottish Child Payment.) The relative poverty rate for people of pension age in Scotland was 15 per cent in 2024 compared with 16 per cent for the UK as a whole. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If the Scottish Government can outperform the UK and Welsh administrations in such a key measure of quality of life with one hand tied behind its back, as at present, we can only imagine how far ahead an independent Scotland would be. Our country simply cannot afford to be held back any longer! Alan Woodcock, Dundee Britain needs PR The Labour Welfare Reform Bill, after multiple concessions, stumbled over the line, despite 49 backbenchers rebelling. How many arms were twisted en route to this pyrrhic victory, which leaves the Party mortally wounded and the Government perhaps terminally unpopular? The only victor in all of this is the increasingly likely figure of Nigel Farage. A recent poll makes him more popular than Keir Starmer. Both Labour and the hapless Tories, under the even more unpopular Kemi Badenoch, are sleepwalking into a Farage premiership at the next general election. Our crazy first-past-the-post voting system could see that result with Reform UK winning with just 28 per cent of the vote. Labour, a year ago, polled just 34 per cent of a low turnout to win a stonking majority. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Please, let's bring in a proportional representation form of polling before it's too late. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh New approach It is reported that the SNP has a 'massive £5 billion budget black hole' which can only result in cuts to services or tax rises. Let us not forget that it is the same folks behind this fiasco who back the campaign for 'Scottish independence'. Then we learn of the SNP's opposition to defence spending, particularly, of course, towards nuclear weapons. Just what sort of fairyland do the SNP live in if they fail to recognise the dangers of conflict in today's unsettled world? Do they suppose that violent dictators respect the wishes of uninformed pacifists? Just when will the good people of Scotland realise that they are governed at Holyrood by what amounts to a minority administration with, until recently, unelected Green Party support? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What Scotland needs urgently is a fresh approach to the regional government at Holyrood, or closure of this unsuccessful institution. Robert I G Scott, Northfield, Ceres, Fife Tapestry tragedy It was interesting to read about Martin Roche's visit to the Borders, particularly his take on The Great Tapestry of Scotland based in Galashiels ('Why troubled Borders region is pinning its hopes on 'game-changer' Center Parcs', 1 July). He must be one of the very few visitors to the attraction which he ranks in the top ten. I hope his piece encourages readers to flock to it. Residents have a very different perspective. When considering taking on the tapestry – which no other area wanted – Scottish Borders Council engaged expensive consultants who told them 50,000 people would visit the Tapestry each year, that is 1,000 per week. It doesn't happen – barely a fraction of that number visit. The only well-supported part of the venue is the coffee shop. To subsidise the Tapestry the council is shutting essential, enjoyed and valued community services. Most of the fellow Border residents I speak to would prefer to have community centres and swimming pools than the Tapestry. I do hope the proposed Centre Parcs development near Hawick lives up to expectations. Mary Douglas, Glendearg, Galashiels Truth out there? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I have an odd phenomenon to report. Perhaps a reader can help me out on this? It was on the night of 2-3 July and my wife and I had stayed up watch some pre-recorded nonsense on TV. It was rather late – or, perhaps, early – being at 12.50am. To our surprise, a sudden, bright light appeared to our south, so over the Morningside Drive area. The light was like a ball of flame and just as bright. It appeared to be no more than a couple of hundred feet up. It lasted no more than two seconds and was gone. We have double-glazing, so I don't know if there was any sound, but I opened the window and stuck my head out and there was silence. What could it have been? A meteor would surely not have just been a sudden flash? Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sarwar must take on Labour in Westminster if he is to win Holyrood
Mr Sarwar's pitch to voters at last July's General Election was that Scots should vote Labour to get rid of two governments failing Scotland – the Conservative Government at Westminster, and the SNP Government at Holyrood. That pitch was wildly successful, with Scottish Labour winning 35.3% of the vote and 37 of Scotland's 57 seats. The pitch made by Sir Keir Starmer in the same campaign was premised on the idea that what Britain needed after years of Conservative turmoil was stable, grown-up government. As Rachel Reeves put it, 'stability is the change'. That was the heart of the UK Labour pitch, and in turn it was foundational to Mr Sarwar's: replace Scotland's failing governments, SNP and Conservative, with stable, capable Labour government. Read more by Mark McGeoghegan This week's fiasco over Labour's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill exemplifies where that pitch has fallen apart. Whether one agrees with the bill itself, how it was handled by Number 10, and by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, was the height of political malpractice. A bill infused with cuts to PIP that anyone familiar with the Labour Party knew would be unacceptable to dozens of Labour MPs (in the end, over 130 signed a reasoned amendment against the Bill). A Whip's Office that seemed unable to keep track of where the Parliamentary Labour Party was on the vote. A political office in Number 10 incapable of carrying Labour MPs with it. A compromise on cuts to PIP that simply created a new, potentially more toxic problem of a two-tier disability benefits system. More compromises agreed while Liz Kendall stood at the dispatch box, arguing for MPs to back a bill being gutted in backroom deals as she spoke, to the confusion of MPs in the chamber. This absolute clusterbùrach exemplifies the issues Labour have faced since coming to office last year, from the infighting that led to Sue Gray being ousted to policy U-turns on the Winter Fuel Allowance and a national grooming gangs inquiry. If stability was the change being promised by Labour, it has not delivered. It isn't unreasonable for Scottish voters to look at the Labour Government in London, which Mr Sarwar told them would restore stability and good governance to Westminster and conclude that they have no reason to believe, based on the evidence, that that is what Labour would deliver in Edinburgh. And that's the conclusion they seem to have reached. An Ipsos poll released earlier this week found that Scots' net satisfaction with Sir Keir has fallen from -12 a year ago to -42 today, and their net satisfaction with Mr Sarwar has fallen from -1 to -18. Net satisfaction with John Swinney has also fallen, from -2 to -17, but the 32% of Scots satisfied with his performance as First Minister seems enough to put him in pole position to remain in Bute House after next May. More problematically for Labour, the SNP is more trusted than it is on the top issues that voters say will determine how they vote next May, from healthcare to the economy, and enjoys a 25-point lead over Labour on being most trusted to stand up for Scotland's interests. Part of the difficulty for Mr Sarwar is that it is exceptionally challenging for Scottish leaders of GB-wide parties to distance themselves from their Westminster counterparts, for a variety of reasons. But he also hasn't attempted to. When he backed Sir Keir's immigration policy and accepted that immigration had to come down 'across the board', he upturned decades of Scottish Labour policy. He tied himself closer to the Starmer project. When he refuses to criticise or explicitly backs UK Labour policies, then claims that he would do differently as First Minister, as he did on disability benefits, it's not hard to understand why he might be met with incredulity. Asking a question at a Holyrood Sources event a couple of weeks ago, Cat Headley put it to Professor Sir John Curtice that there's a fundamental unfairness in holding up Labour's year in power at Westminster, cleaning up a mess of the Conservatives' making, against the SNP's nearly two decades in power in Edinburgh as if they are equivalents. Liz Kendall has performed woefully of late (Image: PA) I have some sympathy with that view. Ultimately, voters are electing a Scottish government next May, not voting in a referendum on Labour's performance in London. In principle, it's right that it's the SNP's record in government that is the focus of that campaign and media scrutiny of our politics. And perhaps that shift will happen. After all, in December 2010, while Scottish voters were still focused on Westminster political news, Labour led the SNP by 49% to 33% at Holyrood. It wasn't until the campaign began in earnest that attention shifted, as did the polls. But in the end, if Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour don't want to be judged by Labour's record at Westminster, they have the option of distancing themselves from that government. Just a third of their own voters last July trust them most to stand up for Scotland's interests, while a fifth trust the SNP to do so the most. Mr Sarwar could still find himself sitting behind that desk in Bute House a year from now. That likely means clawing back the SNP-Labour swing voters that delivered dozens of Scottish Labour MPs last year, and that starts with Mr Sarwar making the politically tricky decision to critique his colleagues at Westminster. Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
What have they done? We'll all rue the cost of Labour rebels' actions
Perhaps these two ministers should just have resigned, explained why, precipitated the increasingly inevitable Greece 2009-type collapse facing this country and triggered the brutal policies that entails. The world has moved on from the draconian undertones of the 1834 Poor Law's "deserving and undeserving poor", but surely few could disagree with the argument put forward by former Labour MP Tom Harris this week that the objectives of reform should be aimed "squarely at those who have given up trying to get a job and have decided they would prefer to rely on benefits long-term". Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven. A Phyrric victory Keir Starmer's concessions on his welfare bill resulted in little more than a Pyrrhic victory which has left him wounded and extremely vulnerable. Who will ever believe him again when he tries to portray himself as the man who will take difficult decisions when he fails to stand by them? From the outset of his premiership, he has tied himself to the apron strings of his Chancellor who is to him the one to make Britain's economy grow again, a faith he has but very few others now share. His future is inextricably bound up with hers. So, if she fails, he fails. If she offers her resignation as a result of the effects of the pressure put upon her by the adverse criticisms of her role as Chancellor, it would be natural to assume that he would also jump ship not long after. Read more letters It is rumoured that there is the sound of sharpening knives being heard in the Labour ranks to find replacements for both of them. Should such a double whammy occur, the only course of action open to the Government would be to call an immediate election, which would send a shiver down the spines of what were formerly considered our two main parties. It is so hard for any politician to relinquish power that it would be unsurprising to see him soldier on while at the same time making it virtually unlikely that Labour would be a viable political force again. In this Government came with mighty promises of creating a dynamic economy where investment and growth would lift us out of the despond of a flatlining economy and create a country where prosperity and sound public services would march hand in hand. The febrility of our electorate with the 24/7 insensitivity of non-stop social media has left us with a country unwilling to make sacrifices to secure a stable future where everyone benefits. Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs. Scotland ahead in poverty fight Recent analysis shows that levels of relative poverty in Scotland have been lower than in the UK as a whole for the last two decades. This is surely a vindication of the policies pursued and adopted by successive Scottish governments over that time and strongly suggests that Holyrood administrations have been far more effective in looking after the needs of the people they represent than those in Westminster and the Senedd. To give some examples, in 2024 the level of relative poverty in the UK was 21% while Scotland stood at 20% (England and Wales were slightly above the UK figure). In terms of child poverty Scotland's percentage fell from 25% in 2021 to 23% last year. In both England and Wales rates in 2024 were 31%, exactly the same as in 2021. (Steve Witherden, Labour MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr has indicated he would be in favour of the Welsh Government introducing something similar to the Scottish Child Payment.) The relative poverty rate for people of pension age in Scotland was 15% in 2024 compared with 16% for the UK as a whole. If the Scottish Government can outperform the UK and Welsh administrations in such a key measure of quality of life with one hand tied behind its back, as at present, we can only imagine how far ahead an independent Scotland would be. Our country simply cannot afford to be held back any longer. Alan Woodcock, Dundee. Indy in EU is a viable option Ewen Peters (Letters, July 2) argues that Scotland is doing less well than recent figures on foreign direct investment suggest. He seemed concerned that Scots might be encouraged towards independence. Mr Peters wrote: "In the Trumpian era of unpredictable tariffs, the experience of our Irish neighbours flags the dangers and risks of placing your most important economic eggs in the inward investment basket." Yet however fierce international trade wars become, Ireland can rest secure in the knowledge that as a member of the EU it has tariff-free access to the 27 member countries. Scotland does not have that and the Brexit damage over time gets worse and not better. Scots might well conclude that independence back in the EU is indeed a viable option and perhaps one that offers greater prosperity than remaining in the UK. Jackie Kemp, Edinburgh. Nothing special Malcolm Parkin (Letters, July 3) tells us that 'one goodish aspect of Britain is that one can spout nonsense on one day and still be at the same address the next day'. The same can be said of any country in Europe and of most countries in the world including the many independent states. There is nothing special about Britain in this regard. David Clark, Tarbolton. Stop the grandstanding I read your front page headline ("Minister's pledge in new bid to beat homes shortage", The Herald, July 3) with a sense of déjà vu. The "pledge" not to roll back on a target of 110,000 affordable homes by 2032 put me in mind of similar "pledges" to complete the dualling of the A9 where the Government continued to maintain that the time schedule was still achievable long past the time when it was glaringly obvious that it could not be done. The Housing Secretary talks of the need to have a "challenging" target. I feel that a large part of the current lack of confidence in/disillusion with governments and politicians stems from too many headline-grabbing so-called challenging pledges issued with no detailed plan or schedule or realistic funding provision to ensure delivery of the pledge. Past experience also tells us that without measurable milestones to monitor ongoing progress, the author of the pledge is generally safely ensconced in another government role before the chickens of failed achievement come home to roost. The Government would have far more credibility if it delivered against realistic targets rather than grandstanding with targets and programmes grabbed out of thin air. John Reid, Dunblane. • Màiri McAllan, when questioned as to the credibility of the target "to deliver 110,000 affordable homes by 2032" states: "I think it is. I think that it will require us to step up." Indeed. It seems that someone failed to inform Ms McAllan that delivering upon promises is an essential part of the job. Merely stating a target doesn't cut the mustard. Yes, Ms McAllan, you will to need to step up. Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon, Jamestown. Housing Secretary Màiri McAllan (Image: PA) Swinney is no leader I read the article by John Swinney (''There is nothing wrong in Scotland that cannot be fixed'', The Herald, July 1) with growing despair. He asserts that most people are realistic about the challenges facing Scotland, conveniently omitting that the "challenges" are mainly as a result of his and his Government's inept handling and lack of honesty in accepting this. The article demonstrates clearly that he lacks leadership, and that he and the Government do not have any idea what the key priorities are for the Scottish people. I have never read a more wishy-washy article containing nothing of substance but "motherhood and apple pie". One saving grace was that he did not invoke the old chestnut that the answer to all our challenges is independence, God help the people of Scotland with this man as leader. Douglas Eadie, Bonhill.
