UK eyes more high skilled Indian professionals through Global Talent visa
The
United Kingdom
is looking to deepen its scientific and academic relationship with
India
by inviting more
high-skilled professionals
through its
Global Talent visa
scheme, British Science Minister Lord
Patrick Vallance
said on June 20, while speaking at the 'Unlocking UK-India Collaboration for a New Era of Innovation' session at the India Global Forum in London, Vallance said India's growing strength in
science and technology
offers strong potential for bilateral cooperation.
'There is already a strong relationship between India and the UK, and I think it's growing,' Vallance said. 'But government-to-government relationships on science aren't actually what drives everything. It has to be a scientist and a scientist as well.'
The UK government plans to announce a new Industrial Strategy in the coming weeks, which will outline key international partnerships, including India, with a focus on science, innovation, and skilled mobility.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
These Companies Are Overcharging You For Florida Auto Insurance
Smart Lifestyle Trends
Learn More
Undo
Global talent visa in focus
(Join our
ETNRI WhatsApp channel
for all the latest updates)
The UK's Global Talent visa aims to attract top-tier individuals from around the world who have demonstrated leadership—or the potential for it—in academia, research, arts, culture, or technology. Available to professionals aged 18 and above, it targets both established figures and emerging leaders in these fields.
Live Events
MORE STORIES FOR YOU
✕
UK's Farage promises non-doms protection from tax on overseas assets
UK's Britannia Card: All about Nigel Farage's plans to charge rich expats £250,000 to give to the poor
«
Back to recommendation stories
I don't want to see these stories because
They are not relevant to me
They disrupt the reading flow
Others
SUBMIT
Applicants typically need to secure an endorsement from a relevant UK body—such as the Royal Society for Science or Arts Council England for culture—unless they've already won a qualifying international award. Candidates can apply for the visa through the
UK Home Office
.
The endorsement stage generally takes 4 to 8 weeks for a decision. After receiving endorsement, applicants must submit a visa application to UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). The standard visa processing time is around 3 weeks when applying from outside the UK.
Applicants are required to pay an endorsement fee of £524 and a visa application fee of £192. Additionally, the immigration health surcharge is £624 per year. The visa is typically granted for up to 5 years and is extendable, with eligibility for permanent settlement after 3 to 5 years depending on the endorsement type.
To bring flexibility and international expertise into the UK, the visa supports long-term settlement: individuals recognised as established leaders may qualify for indefinite leave after three years, while those with emerging promise have a five-year path to settlement. Family members can also be included in this program.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Scammers and loan sharks target debt-ridden migrants in UK
Scammers and loan sharks are preying on migrants in Britain, exploiting their desperation to stay in the country as the government clamps down on migration, money experts say. Newly arrived asylum seekers, refugees and temporary workers, who are often unfamiliar with Britain's banking and migration systems, have been targeted with offers of fraudulent debt solutions, private loans and visa help. By the time they reach Britain, many have already accrued debt through visa or overseas recruitment fees, said Joshua Aspden, who works in refugee resettlement at Charnwood Borough Council in northern England. This leaves them in a vulnerable position, often exacerbated by financial exclusion, a distrust of authorities and language barriers. "They might not be fully literate or literate at all in their own language. Some of the people I worked with who got scammed ... didn't know how to read or write," said Aspden, an expert in personal finance issues for migrants. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) "Because ... the debt is overwhelming, they want a quick fix." Live Events Aspden, who has run finance workshops for migrants, said some migrants spend hundreds of pounds on debt management products purchased at offices on the high street, only to discover they were phoney storefronts. Others have paid thousands of pounds for bogus immigration advice, he said. "It might be one of these pop-up offices that somebody's rented for a week. And people have gone back, and the office is not there," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. FINANCIAL EXCLUSION Kate McQueen, community programmes manager at The Money Charity, also runs personal finance workshops for migrants. She said many find it difficult to navigate banking systems. "Some people are coming from countries where there may be issues with people's trust with the banks. Some countries have more informal financial systems," she said. Around 1.6% of the British population, or 900,000 people, did not have a bank account in 2024, according to the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates financial services firms. Of those who did not have an account, a quarter said they did not want to share financial information with banks. Charities say without an accepted proof of address, identification and credit history, it is difficult for people without secure legal status, including asylum seekers and temporary workers, to open bank accounts or borrow money from regulated providers. "Once you're already in debt, it's very common ... to panic and borrow money to pay the original debt. And then, it snowballs," said McQueen. LOAN SHARKS Locked out of formal banking options, many migrants turn to people within their community for loans but are often exploited, said Catherine Wohlers from the England Illegal Money Lending Team, which investigates and prosecutes loan sharks. Around 1 million people in the UK have borrowed from a loan shark, or illegal money lender, according to a 2023 report by the Centre for Social Justice. Wohlers said many migrants have borrowed thousands of pounds to pay for groceries, bills, rent and remittances sent home. She said two Filipino women were prosecuted last year for illegally lending 4.2 million pounds ($5.68 million) to other Filipinos, mostly healthcare workers, and charging exorbitant interest. The shame of being in debt keeps migrants under the control of loan sharks, who also threaten to reveal details to the wider community and immigration officials, which migrants falsely believe could lead to deportation. "That's what keeps them paying above and beyond what they've originally borrowed," Wohlers said. IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN With the government vowing to cut net migration to Britain over the next four years, migrants are increasingly falling prey to scams, charities said. "Refugees desperate to reunite with their child or spouse also face the costs of family reunion visas, legal and travel costs, with very little assistance available," said Penny Sims, a spokesperson at the British Red Cross charity. Migrants are often sent letters or messages from scammers pretending to be from the Home Office, the ministry overseeing immigration to the UK, McQueen said. "It's so cruel, but something that's very specific to refugees and asylum seekers are fraudulent messages claiming to be from the Home Office saying, 'Good news, we're going to give you your status. You just need to pay us and go on this link,'" she said. Zahra, an Afghan immigration legal adviser in the UK, who used a pseudonym for privacy, said several of her clients have paid thousands of pounds for Afghan resettlement schemes even though applications are free. "We received emails from community members saying, 'I paid the fees, but nothing has happened with my application.' We asked them to share the email they received... and it was very clear that the scammers faked (an official) email," she said. Immigration advisor Yuliia Ismail from Settled, which supports European Union citizens and Ukrainians in Britain, said she has seen cases of Ukrainian refugees being charged by scammers for visa applications that were never submitted. Ismail, who offers free immigration advice, said charities like hers are overwhelmed by people seeking visa support. "Scammers do take advantage of how busy advice agencies are. People will want that information anyway, so they will ultimately ask someone for it," said Aspden. "Financial capability for refugees, migrants has been neglected completely. People have been cheated out of funds in many different ways and it's because they have been desperate," he said.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Neetu Yoshi IPO opens June 27, price band fixed at Rs 71-75. Check details
The initial public offering (IPO) of metallurgical engineering company Neetu Yoshi will be available for public bidding from Friday, June 27 and the company has fixed a price band of Rs 71-75 for this issue. The company aims to raise Rs 77.04 crore (at the upper end of the price band), with its shares proposed to be listed on the BSE SME platform. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The World's Most Stunning Blue Flag Beaches Ranked: Top 25 List! Read More Here are the key details you need to know: Neetu Yoshi IPO size The issue size is 1,02,72,000 equity shares at a face value of Rs 5 each with a price band of Rs 71 - Rs 75 per Share. As part of the equity share allocation structure, up to 29,20,000 equity shares have been reserved for the anchor investor portion. The Qualified Institutional Buyer (QIB) category may be allocated up to 19,52,000 equity shares. Live Events A minimum of 14,65,600 equity shares will be allotted to Non-Institutional Investors (NIIs), while retail individual investors (RIIs) will receive not less than 34,14,400 equity shares. Additionally, up to 5,20,000 equity shares have been earmarked for the market maker category. Net proceeds from the Neetu Yoshi IPO The net proceeds from the IPO will be utilized for the setting up of a new manufacturing facility and for general corporate purposes. Book running lead managers of Neetu Yoshi IPO The Book Running Lead Manager to the Issue is Horizon Management Private Limited, and the Registrar to the Issue is Skyline Financial Services Private Limited. About the company Neetu Yoshi Ltd is a metallurgical engineering company manufacturing critical safety spares for railways. The products include mild steel, spheroidal graphite iron, cast iron, and manganese steel (0.2 kg to 500 kg). The Company is an RDSO-certified vendor supplying 25+ critical safety spare parts for Indian Railways, specializing in braking solutions, suspensions, propulsion aids and coupling attachments. The company has established a Class 'A' RDSO-certified manufacturing facility in Bhagwanpur, Uttarakhand, spanning 7,173 sq. meters with 8,087 MTPA capacity. With advanced infrastructure, in-house testing, and a strategic location, the company delivers precision-engineered, high-quality metallurgical products at competitive prices. As a late mover, Neetu Yoshi leverages advanced technology, CNC precision, and cost-efficient processes to gain a competitive edge while developing next-gen railway solutions. Neetu Yoshi financial performance In FY24, the company achieved a revenue of Rs 4,733.42 lakh, EBITDA of Rs 1,718.57 lakh, and a PAT of Rs 1,257.72 lakh. For the nine-month period ended December 31, 2024, the company achieved a revenue of Rs 5,136.08 lakh, EBITDA of Rs 1,684.89 lakh, and a PAT of Rs 1,199.24 lakh.
