Latest news with #JeffJMitchell
Scotsman
3 days ago
- Business
- Scotsman
The 12 UK cities where house prices are rising fastest - including one clear winner
But while prices have begun falling in certain parts of the country, there are some areas where they are still shooting up. The latest Zoopla House Price Index, published today, Monday, June 30, shows that the average UK house price rose by 1.4% during the year to May 2025, and now stands at £268,400. The average time taken to agree a sale is 45 days, according to Zoopla, and the 14% rise in the number of new homes being listed means it is a buyer's market. The areas where prices are rising fastest tend to be those where homes are more affordable, while prices have fallen slightly in places where a typical home costs more than £500,000. The picture in the UK's biggest cities is very varied, with house prices falling by 1.8% in one area and soaring by 6.2% in another - nearly double the next biggest annual rise recroded. Below are the 12 UK cities where the average house price has risen fastest in the last year, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. They are listed in reverse order, with the city which has seen the biggest increase last. 1 . Edinburgh: +1.1% In Edinburgh, the average house price rose by 1.1% during the year to May 2025 and now stands at £277,000, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. The annual percentage increase in house prices there is the joint 11th highest in the UK. | Getty Images Photo: Jeff J Mitchell Photo Sales 2 . Nottingham: +1.1% In Nottingham, the average house price rose by 1.1% during the year to May 2025 and now stands at £205,600, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. The annual percentage increase in house prices there is the joint 11th highest in the UK. | Heritage Images via Getty Images Photo: Historic England Archive/Heritage Images via Getty Images Photo Sales 3 . Leicester: +1.2% In Leicester, the average house price rose by 1.2% during the year to May 2025 and now stands at £227,700, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. The annual percentage increase in house prices there is the joint ninth highest in the UK. | Getty Images Photo: Darren Staples Photo Sales 4 . Bristol: +1.2% In Bristol, the average house price rose by 1.2% during the year to May 2025 and now stands at £341,500, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. The annual percentage increase in house prices there is the joint ninth highest in the UK. | Getty Images Photo: Julian James/Construction Photography/Avalon/Getty Images Photo Sales
Scotsman
3 days ago
- Business
- Scotsman
The 12 UK cities where house prices are rising fastest - including one clear winner
But while prices have begun falling in certain parts of the country, there are some areas where they are still shooting up. The latest Zoopla House Price Index, published today, Monday, June 30, shows that the average UK house price rose by 1.4% during the year to May 2025, and now stands at £268,400. The average time taken to agree a sale is 45 days, according to Zoopla, and the 14% rise in the number of new homes being listed means it is a buyer's market. The areas where prices are rising fastest tend to be those where homes are more affordable, while prices have fallen slightly in places where a typical home costs more than £500,000. The picture in the UK's biggest cities is very varied, with house prices falling by 1.8% in one area and soaring by 6.2% in another - nearly double the next biggest annual rise recroded. Below are the 12 UK cities where the average house price has risen fastest in the last year, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. They are listed in reverse order, with the city which has seen the biggest increase last. 1 . Edinburgh: +1.1% In Edinburgh, the average house price rose by 1.1% during the year to May 2025 and now stands at £277,000, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. The annual percentage increase in house prices there is the joint 11th highest in the UK. | Getty Images Photo: Jeff J Mitchell Photo Sales 2 . Nottingham: +1.1% In Nottingham, the average house price rose by 1.1% during the year to May 2025 and now stands at £205,600, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. The annual percentage increase in house prices there is the joint 11th highest in the UK. | Heritage Images via Getty Images Photo: Historic England Archive/Heritage Images via Getty Images Photo Sales 3 . Leicester: +1.2% In Leicester, the average house price rose by 1.2% during the year to May 2025 and now stands at £227,700, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. The annual percentage increase in house prices there is the joint ninth highest in the UK. | Getty Images Photo: Darren Staples Photo Sales 4 . Bristol: +1.2% In Bristol, the average house price rose by 1.2% during the year to May 2025 and now stands at £341,500, according to the latest Zoopla House Price Index. The annual percentage increase in house prices there is the joint ninth highest in the UK. | Getty Images Photo: Julian James/Construction Photography/Avalon/Getty Images Photo Sales
Scotsman
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Pupil's shocking attack on teacher shows why SNP's guidance on school violence is a sick joke
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... For some reason, three stories about Scottish education have jammed themselves together in my mind and lodged there like a bad tune I can't get out of my head (say 'Sugar, Sugar'). The first is that story about the boy in Dundee who slammed his teacher's head onto a concrete floor, leaving her unconscious in a pool of blood. The second is the release of the Scottish Government's guidance on how teachers are supposed to deal, in 2025, with violence in schools. It's called 'Schools – fostering a positive, inclusive and safe environment: guidance'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Now, call me brave but foolish, I have just spent an hour ploughing my way through its 47 pages, and, to be completely truthful, it's left me feeling a wee bit bilious, because as I read it I couldn't help but think of that poor woman in Dundee, lying on the floor covered in blood while the big lad who assaulted her sat at her desk saying she 'deserved it'. Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth, seen visiting Madras College in St Andrews, needs to do more to ensure teachers and children alike are safe (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images Sorry for teacher and pupil In the 'ministerial foreword' of the new document, Jenny Gilruth, who was, let's remember, a teacher for a while before she gave that up for politics, says 'I have listened to teachers, support staff and teaching unions who have shared their experiences with me...' Odd, maybe, that parents and most importantly schoolchildren don't make the cut, but it's a real step forward for the SNP government to admit teachers might be worth listening to when schools are in trouble. I wonder if they listened to that teacher from Dundee. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad READ MORE: The tragedy of Scottish children who just disappear between primary and secondary Of course, being an old retired teacher myself, while my first horrified thoughts were with the teacher, I also felt sorry for the violent boy who assaulted her because, of course, he should never have been anywhere near a mainstream school. He has a very low IQ, is very neurodivergent and, most importantly, had been aggressive before. And you know, I don't expect he was learning very much at school and, at points, I doubt if the rest of his class did either, particularly the ones who were scared of him. Clichés, buzzwords and education-speak The bilious Scottish Government guidance does say that 'exclusion may be used as a last resort' but it suggests all sorts of other ways teachers can help disruptive or violent young people. Schools are advised to take 'a child-centred approach when determining an appropriate response'; of course, 'the appropriate response, even for the same child, may vary according to circumstances on the day'; teachers must always consider the underlying causes of the behaviour; and praise should be used as much as possible, praise that is specific and genuine ('Oh Donald, that was a fine right hook'). Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Perhaps giving them a break from learning anything will help, or letting them out of class a couple of minutes early or, or… if it wasn't such an awful collection of clichés, buzzwords, education-speak and – at points – silliness, it would be funny. But of course it fits in with the current narrative in the relationship between the Scottish Government and the teaching profession, a narrative that eventually boils down to the government, bless them, telling teachers what they can do better. Everything will be 'excellent' Let us remember that the 'Big Idea' of the past few years has been the Scottish Centre for Teaching Excellence – things will get better in our schools if the teachers are more 'excellent', thus making them more equipped, one presumes, to pursue Scotland's 'Curriculum for Excellence'. Everything will just be 'excellent'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Meanwhile, the incidence of violence continues to escalate, and this new guidance will, I sadly predict, make no difference at all to that. Young people are routinely absent from schools, some because they are too afraid to go. Teachers are off with stress and anxiety, including teachers who have taught brilliantly for decades in the past. No one wants to be a new teacher. Academic standards are dropping. Our schoolchildren are less happy than their European counterparts, but that'll be because Scotland's not independent, won't it? Apologies required Here is my own 'guidance' document: 'Many Scottish schools are in a very difficult and unsettled place. We will end the policy of the Presumption of Mainstreaming and introduce much more tailored, expert help for young people whose support needs are beyond the ken of the mainstream classroom. 'We apologise to teachers who have so bravely carried on teaching with disruptive pupils who, generally through no fault of their own, are incapable of learning in a mainstream environment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We apologise to the vast majority of young people who have had their educational opportunities damaged by this policy. And we apologise to the parents of all these young people.' It would then go on to say, among my own selection of appropriate consequences, that young people who assault teachers must be excluded (at least temporarily) from their school. Sigh. Of course that'll never happen. The huge monolith of the Scottish Educational Establishment, having created this 47-page wodge of words and worthiness, will move on. The third thing that happened in Scottish education was the announcement of further expenditure on Gaelic medium education and on the place of Scots in the classroom. I have no problem with this. Gaelic medium schools (there is to be a fourth in Glasgow) do very well, though one might ponder how their existence somewhat works against the comprehensive 'mainstreaming' principle. My grandparents and my parents all spoke the Doric and, even if Scots isn't really a language, there's no harm in young people knowing about it as a part of their cultural environment and heritage. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But it's a wee thing, and a further diversion about Scottish exceptionalism. Really, Jenny, focus on what matters. Get a move oan, sort it oot and dinnae waste mair time.
Scotsman
5 days ago
- Business
- Scotsman
How ‘single stupidest thing any country has ever done' is behind benefit cuts and high taxes
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... Over the next few days, the Labour party may well continue to tie itself in knots over cuts to welfare and efforts to balance the books. Keir Starmer's original proposals would have saved the Treasury an estimated £5 billion but also meant about 300,000 disabled and sick Scots would have lost hundreds of pounds needed simply to make ends meet. After the plan was condemned by more than 100 charities, which warned it could push some of the most vulnerable people into 'destitution', cross-party social justice committees in the Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast legislatures raised 'significant concerns', and a rebellion by some 120 Labour MPs, changes by the government will see people who currently receive personal independence payments continue to do so but the cuts will still affect future claimants. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The devolved administrations are right to be worried. Here's the rub, there may often be a focus in the media on the Scottish Government's spending, but it is Westminster that has an outsized impact on our day-to-day lives. Decisions made in London are the overwhelming factor in how much money the Scottish Parliament can spend, and are keenly felt by Scottish citizens. People who supported Brexit celebrate on the day the UK formally left the European Union. Few seem quite so enthusiastic today (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images Eye-watering Westminster waste These welfare cuts might be aimed at saving the UK Government cash but they will affect Holyrood's ability to tackle poverty, potentially costing the Scottish Government more. The UK remains a heavily centralised state compared to many of our neighbours and it shows. When these issues arise in the Scottish Parliament there is often, rightly, a focus on any waste and where the money could be found or saved. That is appropriate and all governments should be scrutinised for their expenditure. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, if you are really looking for savings, expensive policy decisions and want to get into the really big bucks, you could do worse than cast your eye over Westminster waste. Given the UK is seeking to save billions with a highly damaging hit to the poorest in society, causing quite the political headache, it is worth reflecting on why Westminster could do with being more careful with our taxes. Let's run through a few of them, starting with the recently scrapped Rwanda scheme, that never delivered anything, and yet cost £715 million between 2022 and 2025. That's small beer when you compare it with the costs of PPE procured during the pandemic, with an estimated £4bn of equipment being unusable and £9bn being written off by the UK Department for Health. High speed, high expense Even that pales in comparison with the costs of the High-Speed Rail link. At 2019 prices, it has cost £33bn, so far, and is set to rise to £67bn (in 2024 prices) with no train due to go anywhere until 2033. That will simply connect London and Birmingham, with phase two having been scrapped, but not before it had swallowed up £2.5bn. All that money and effort to shave about half an hour off the Birmingham to London journey. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It should also tell us something of the parlous state of the UK's infrastructure planning when the country remains one of the few in western Europe without high-speed rail. It could have been transformative for this island. When Alex Salmond was First Minister, he gave the line planning permission from Edinburgh and Glasgow to the Border, since the business case was stronger if it included Scotland, yet that was rejected. It says something of an overly centralised UK that it was decided to start building from London, despite that being the hardest part of the line. If you want to look at the even bigger levels of cash, the Truss budget was said to have cost UK homeowners £300bn and the government billions more due to higher borrowing costs and other costs to the Treasury. This matters with UK Government borrowing now at the second highest level since records began, and the UK's net debt to GDP ratio sitting at 96.4 per cent. Brexit calamity Let's not forget the Brexit calamity. US politician and businessman Michael Bloomberg told an audience in Dublin this week that leaving the EU is 'the single stupidest thing any country has ever done'. And boy has it cost us all. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As we marked (no one celebrated) the ninth anniversary of the EU referendum earlier this week, it is estimated it has led to a £40bn hole in public finances, a 4 per cent drop in UK productivity, and a 15 per cent drop in trade, along with £100bn's worth of tax rises – not helped by the UK Government's decision to pursue the hardest of hard Brexit. Why Labour continue to pursue this disastrous policy is beyond me. Government is hard, and no government gets it all wrong or all right. That said, there is an unwillingness to tackle some of the structural issues with governance in the UK. Instead of taking bold steps, Labour has decided that the simplest course of action is to cut benefits – that will cost us all in the long term. This Labour government is seeking to save money on the backs of those who can afford it the least whilst failing to tackle deeper problems that the UK faces because of bad choices, poor governance and unnecessary waste. The UK isn't working, and its spending choices deserve more scrutiny. I would argue – and I would – that we should be showing Westminster and its wasteful ways the door. Mind you, the newest door that was put into the House of Parliament cost £10m (60 per cent over the original estimate) and guess what, it isn't working either.
Scotsman
6 days ago
- General
- Scotsman
How fish farming is devastating marine life with a single salmon consuming up to 350 wild fish
Consumers should buy wild fish from sustainable stocks and, if buying farmed fish, ensure that it's organic, if they want to help save our seas from an environmental catastrophe 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... Early summer on Scotland's most northerly island of Unst, Shetland. Gannets, fulmars and puffins patrol the cliffs, their calls echoing over slopes dotted with sea pinks. But beneath this vibrant scene lies a troubling truth: seabird breeding failures that have coincided with the presence of industrial fishing trawlers offshore. It was 30 years ago when I first discovered that the phrase 'there's plenty more fish in the sea' couldn't be trusted. Those fish in the sea are finite. And if we carry on as we are, seabirds won't be the only ones facing trouble. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There has been welcome progress since then, not least the Scottish Government's recent ban on sandeel fishing in all Scottish waters, including those in the North Sea. The decision was made to protect marine biodiversity and align with national and international commitments to environmental protection. Salmon, known as the 'King of Fish', are natural wanderers who should not be forced to swim in circles like caged tigers endlessly pacing around their enclosure (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images Third of all sharks face extinction However, the backdrop is that human activity continues to steadily drain the life out of the ocean. We are plundering the seas faster than the fish can replicate. At the recent United Nations' Ocean Conference in Nice, a statistical 'catch of the day' was showcased: that more than a third of the world's fish are harvested unsustainably. Pushed beyond their biological limits. More than a third of all sharks and rays are now at risk of extinction because of overfishing. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In 1883, scientist Thomas Huxley notoriously declared that 'all the great sea fisheries are inexhaustible' and that 'nothing we do seriously affects the numbers of fish'. More than a century on and it has become abundantly clear he was wrong. The damage done by overfishing goes beyond the marine environment. Billions rely on fish for protein, and fishing provides livelihoods for millions of people around the world. As wild fish stocks dwindle, fish farming is often touted as the solution. But far from easing the burden on our oceans, it may be compounding the crisis. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Farming of carnivorous fish species like the salmon farming found along the west coast, the Highlands, and Northern Isles, is wrongly seen as a solution to declining wild fish populations. That's because vast quantities of fish are being caught from the wild simply to feed farmed fish in what is a wasteful process – a single farmed salmon can take about 350 wild fish to produce. By continuing to feed wild-caught fish to farmed fish, we are taking away an essential layer in the food chain, thereby undermining the future for the oceans. Eroding marine ecosystem's foundations Today, about a fifth of the world's fish catch is used as animal feed, being fed to farmed chickens, pigs, and fish. Anchovies, sardines, and herring are the main species targeted by the industry, with supplies often sourced from as far off as South America and Africa. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad These wild fish tend to be the foundation of the marine ecosystem, providing food for puffins and other seabirds, as well as feeding the bigger fish that we like to put on our plate. In total, they would be enough to provide a billion more people with a dietary supply of fish, while leaving them in the ocean would take huge pressure off hard-pressed fish stocks. In Scotland, fish farming has grown from just a couple of sites about 50 years ago to more than 200 today. It now feeds as much wild-caught fish to its salmon as is eaten by the entire UK population. The industry has been described as Scotland's 'new oil', but like petrochemicals in the context of climate change, it's seriously in need of an urgent rethink. Intensively farming what are essentially wild fish species like salmon also raises serious animal welfare concerns. Salmon are farmed in large sea cages anchored along the coast, with each fish having the equivalent of a single bathtub of water. Swimming in circles Yet, these are natural ocean wanderers. Which is why huge shoals of farmed salmon swim in incessant circles, showing behaviour reminiscent of caged tigers pacing their enclosures out of frustration. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Like the environmental impact, welfare conditions for farmed fish are often out of sight, out of mind. Hidden below the depths. However, from time to time, investigations bring home what life can really be like for the incarcerated 'king of fish'. One such example in recent years was by a diver who took to the icy waters off the west coast of Scotland, Skye and Shetland to uncover salmon farming's hidden side. Farmed salmon were found with diseased and swollen gills. One swam in a bit of a daze, with eyes missing and sockets red raw. Some had chunks out of their bodies and gaping wounds, while others had seaweed growing from their injuries, as if they were rotting alive. Industrial fish farming often causes serious concern for animal welfare and is central to a ravenous fishmeal industry. The true impact on iconic wildlife and the ecosystem we all depend upon is only just coming to light. Some companies involved are starting to make changes, but much more needs to be done. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Consumers can help by buying wild fish from sustainable stocks, preferably line caught. If buying farmed fish, then ensure that it comes from a certified organic supplier. There remains a chance to take action – but only just. As oceanographer Sylvia Earle warns, 'there is still time, but not a lot'. The choices we make now will determine whether future generations inherit thriving seas – or empty ones.
