Latest news with #ScottishLabour
The National
4 hours ago
- Business
- The National
River Island plans 33 store closures with hundreds of jobs at risk
The retailer has unveiled a radical restructuring plan in a bid to reverse recent heavy losses due to a slump in trading. Bosses blamed the closures on the 'migration of shoppers from the high street to online' and higher costs to run stores. The family-owned retailer confirmed it is proposing to close 33 of its 230 stores by January next year as a result. READ MORE: Scottish Labour drop below Alba and Greens as by-election results called A further 71 stores are also at risk, depending on talks with landlords in order to secure improved rental deals. The retailer, which employs around 5500 people, was founded in 1948 under the Lewis and Chelsea Girl brand before being renamed in the 1980s. It has reportedly hired advisers from PwC in order to oversee the restructuring process. The proposals are set to go to a vote by the firm's creditors – companies or individuals owed money by the retailer – in August. The deal will result in fresh funding being invested into the business in order to help fuel its turnaround. Ben Lewis, chief executive of River Island, said: 'River Island is a much-loved retailer, with a decades-long history on the British high street. 'However, the well-documented migration of shoppers from the high street to online has left the business with a large portfolio of stores that is no longer aligned to our customers' needs. 'The sharp rise in the cost of doing business over the last few years has only added to the financial burden. (Image: NQ) 'We have a clear strategy to transform the business to ensure its long-term viability. 'Recent improvements in our fashion offer and in-store shopping experience are already showing very positive results, but it is only with a restructuring plan that we will be able to see this strategy through and secure River Island's future as a profitable retail business. 'We regret any job losses as a result of store closures, and we will try to keep these to a minimum.' The retailer is among high street fashion chains to have been impacted by weaker consumer spending and competition from cheaper online rivals, such as Shein. River Island fell to a £33.2 million loss in 2023 after sales slid by 19%, according to its most recent set of accounts.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
SNP veteran quits party amid rebellion against leader
John Swinney, the Scottish First Minister, has been dealt a blow to his leadership after an SNP veteran quit the party. Fergus Ewing, who has represented the Inverness and Nairn constituency since 1999, will stand as an independent candidate at next year's Holyrood elections. The 67-year-old accused the SNP of having 'deserted many of the people whose causes we used to champion' amid rumours of a wider revolt. SNP rebels are said to be plotting to oust Mr Swinney following the party's disastrous defeat at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. That contest saw Scottish Labour take the seat from the SNP, while Nigel Farage's Reform UK came third. The rebels are also reportedly concerned that Mr Swinney has failed to advance the cause for Scottish independence, and have not ruled out a leadership challenge at the party's October conference. On Friday, opposition politicians claimed Mr Ewing's decision was a hammer blow to Mr Swinney's credibility. 'It speaks volumes about John Swinney and the SNP's appalling failures in government that even nationalist royalty is prepared to twist the knife in this way,' said Edward Mountain, the Conservative Highlands and Islands MSP. 'By standing as an independent, Fergus Ewing has made it clear he simply cannot defend his party's record to voters while out on the campaign trail.' Mr Ewing said he had taken the decision to abandon the SNP 'because I love the people of Inverness and Nairn and the people of Scotland more than my party, which I have been in for more than half a century'. He had been increasingly at odds with the SNP over gender recognition reform and net zero, also raising issues over the deposit return scheme and marine protected areas. Mr Ewing said Holyrood was more fractious and tribal than ever before and accused the SNP of having 'lost its way'. He also said devolution was 'letting Scotland's people down'. He added: 'Too much power rests unchecked in the hands of party leaders, free to choose candidates who will slavishly support them, rather than stand up for the people who sent them to Holyrood. Choosing the pliant over the talented.' 'Faithful servant' Mr Ewing first hinted in March that he could stand as an independent at next year's election. At the time, Mr Swinney said that he was sorry to learn of the possibility, describing him as a 'faithful servant' of his constituents who had contributed much to the Scottish Parliament. Mr Ewing is the son of Winnie Ewing, whose 1967 by-election victory in Hamilton was a historic breakthrough for the SNP, and is the brother of Annabelle Ewing, the Cowdenbeath MSP. He was first elected to the Scottish Parliament when it was re-established in 1999 and held a ministerial portfolio for 14 years in the governments of both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. Mr Ewing added: 'It's time for Holyrood to live up to the high expectations people rightly held for it, when my mother, Winnie, reconvened our own Parliament in 1999. It came of age some years ago – surely now it's time for it to grow up.'
The Herald Scotland
7 hours ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Will 2026 see people voting against parties - rather than for them?
Mr Swinney's two speeches mark a significant shift in the SNP's political strategy after their defeat in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election at the start of this month. When he and Kate Forbes, his Deputy First Minister and Economy Secretary, took over from Humza Yousaf in May last year, their priority was righting the ship. The SNP had been losing support ever since Nicola Sturgeon's resignation, and under Mr Yousaf's leadership had been overtaken by Scottish Labour, ultimately leading to their heavy defeat in the general election last July. Read More: Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes have succeeded in stabilising their party's position. Since July, support for the SNP has ticked up slightly. But their vote share is still down significantly at around 30-35%, at least 12 points lower than their result at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections. The Hamilton by-election was a painful reminder of that fact, and that despite the collapse in Labour support since the general election, the SNP are still vulnerable in constituencies across the country. Current polling would see them win as many as 60 seats next May, down only a handful compared to 2021, but many of those seats will be tightly contested and swings similar to what we saw in Hamilton could cost them ten to 15 seats. What has been missing from Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes is a vision for Scotland that reflects public feeling about the state of public services and the Scottish economy and charts a way out of the morass. That's what Mr Swinney sought to provide this week. Whether that vision, such as it is, cuts through and either shores up the SNP's voter base or wins back some of those who supported them in 2021 but did not last year, is up in the air. The SNP have been in government for nearly two decades, and it's showing. They look and feel like a tired government running low on ideas and the political capital necessary to make the sweeping changes that Mr Swinney says are necessary. In the most recent Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, trust in the Scottish Government to work in Scotland's best interests fell below 50% for the first time. Just 23% said they were satisfied with how the Scottish NHS is running, the lowest in the devolution era, and 83% said that standards of living in Scotland are falling, a new high. I suspect that Mr Swinney's claim that the status quo no longer serves the public well will resonate just fine. His challenge is to persuade the public that he and the SNP, having now governed Scotland for so long without delivering the change he is claiming is necessary, are the right people to deliver that change. That will be a much harder case to make. Tying that change to independence makes that case that much harder. I understand why he has had to bring the constitutional question back to the foreground for party management reasons, as disquiet around his apparent failure to make a case for secession burst into the open after Hamilton. But a big part of the reason why so many independence supporters voted Labour last July was the SNP's apparent inability to deliver independence or significant change without independence. The former has not been addressed – the same insurmountable obstacles exist; nothing has changed on that front since the UK Supreme Court ruled that Holyrood could not legislate for a referendum back in November 2022. And the latter cannot be addressed if Mr Swinney is simultaneously arguing that sweeping change is needed, and that independence is a prerequisite for that change. Independence might be a priority for SNP members and legislators, but it is not a priority for the Scottish public. Just one-in-eight Scots think that independence is a top issue facing the country, compared to a majority who prioritise the economy and the NHS, and a third who prioritise education. Even among those who voted SNP last July, just a third prioritise independence. There's a risk that putting independence at the heart of their campaign next May distracts from the rest of the SNP's message and leads to a sense that they are out of touch with the public's priorities. In the end, though, none of that might matter, because there is no single party that voters are rallying to as an alternative to the SNP. While Mr Swinney, Ms Forbes, and their party are hardly popular – just 34% of Scots have a favourable view of Mr Swinney, and 21% of Ms Forbes – Labour are even less so. 27% of Scots have a favourable view of Keir Starmer, and just 20% have a favourable view of Anas Sarwar. While only around one-in-five Scots think the Scottish Government is doing a good job on managing the economy or improving the state of the NHS or Scottish education, just a fifth think that Labour would do a better job – a quarter think that they would do even worse. Mr Swinney may spend the months leading up to next year's Holyrood elections pitching a big vision, and of course he must begin laying the groundwork for the SNP's campaign and start making a compelling argument for why voters should let him hold on to the keys to Bute House. Who knows whether that will cut through and persuade anybody, but I have my doubts. It's far more likely that next year's election will be defined by dissatisfaction with both the Scottish and UK Governments, and distrust of politicians generally, with voters voting against parties and politicians they dislike most rather than for those they like. 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 National
11 hours ago
- Business
- The National
Labour whip Vicky Foxcroft resigns over planned welfare cuts
In a letter informing the Prime Minister of her resignation, the MP for Lewisham North said she understood 'the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill' but did not believe the proposed cuts 'should be part of the solution'. She said: 'I have wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the Government and fight for change from within. 'Sadly it is now (sic) seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see. READ MORE: Scottish Labour is a political fiction, nothing more than a branding 'I therefore tender my resignation as I know I will not be able to do the job that is required of me and whip – or indeed vote – for reforms which include cuts to disabled people's finances.' Foxcroft, who previously served as shadow minister for disabled people, is the first frontbencher to resign over the proposed benefit cuts, and the second to go over policy issues following Anneliese Dodds' decision to quit as development minister over cuts to the aid budget. Rebel Labour MPs welcomed her decision, with Hartlepool's Jonathan Brash saying he had the 'utmost respect' for her 'principled stand' and Crewe and Nantwich's Connor Naismith saying it 'must have been an incredibly difficult decision but she should be commended for standing by her principles'. Responding to Foxcroft's resignation, a Government spokesperson said: 'This Labour Government was elected to deliver change. The broken welfare system we inherited is failing the sick and most vulnerable and holding too many young people back. It is fair and responsible to fix it. 'Our principled reforms will ensure those who can work should, that those who want to work are properly supported, and that those with most severe disabilities and health conditions are protected.' Keir Starmer has faced a backlash from some Labour MPs over proposals to reform the welfare system expected to save up to £5 billion a year. Legislation introduced into Parliament on Wednesday includes a tightening of the criteria for the main disability payment in England, personal independence payment (Pip). Ministers also want to cut the sickness related element of universal credit (UC), and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim it. The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were 'impossible to support'. Pip is a benefit aimed at helping with extra living costs if someone has a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition. Around 800,000 people are set to lose out on the benefit under the Government's proposals, according to an impact assessment published alongside Wednesday's legislation. The impact assessment also confirmed a previous estimate that some 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, are likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/2030, although the Government repeated that this does not take into account the potentially positive impact of £1 billion annual funding by then for measures to support people into work. Changes to universal credit are expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year. But the Government said around 3.9 million households not on the UC health element are expected to have an average annual gain of £265 from the increase in the standard UC allowance. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the legislation 'marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity'. But Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Labour MP for Poole and one of the backbenchers opposed to the change, said the Government was 'rushing through' the changes and urged ministers to think again.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
This is why Scottish Labour MPs were tense in Westminster
Westminster is known for its intense energy with late night and lively debates. But as Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall unveiled the draft Bill that could save £7 billion from the benefits budget, the pressure was even higher. Kendall's plans restricts personal independence payments (PIP) for thousands of people, with impact assessments from the DWP suggesting 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – could be pushed into poverty by the reforms. Rebellions are widely expected, with discontent growing amongst the Labour party. In Westminster Hall on Wednesday, hours before Kendall unveiled the Bill, it would be an understatement to suggest Scottish Labour MPs were on edge. Read more Unspun: They had come to meet poverty campaigners from Trussell Trust, from constituencies all across Scotland, who were warning food bank use was worse than ever – and would soar if the welfare changes progressed. I spoke to around 15 of Scotland's Labour MPs in the early afternoon and every single one had been reluctant to mention the welfare plans. Several completely refused to speak about the policy, while those that did mostly towed the party line, stressing the current welfare system was broken – a line that followed from the UK Government hours later when the Bill was published. While the Bill in its entirety had only been published on Wednesday, the headline changes have been known for months, but Labour MPs warned they could not speak about any aspect of welfare reform until they had seen the paper. Those who did speak on the record were mixed, but the vast majority that I had spoken to across the day mentioned 'concerns' around the Bill – though were not planning to make those concerns public yet. Scottish Labour MPs were on tenterhooks, waiting to find out whether they will lose the party whip for voting against the UK Government's controversial welfare cuts. They have an almighty choice in front of them: vote against the UK Government's controversial welfare reforms and face the wrath of senior party officials, or vote for the cuts and face fury from the voters who elected them to Westminster in the first place. Labour suspended seven MPs for six months last year for voting against the government, urging senior figures to scrap the two-child benefit cap. Now it could happen again. It has also been reported by The Times that anyone who abstains from the vote could be 'blacklisted' from promotion. Starmer has a working majority of 165, meaning 83 Labour MPs would have to rebel for the party to lose the vote. But 42 Labour MPs have already publicly warned the proposals are the 'biggest attack' on the welfare state since Tory austerity, and there are others weighing up their options. Labour cannot afford such a big challenge to their authority. But for Scottish Labour MPs, the challenge is immense. Scottish Labour MPs need to decide whether they are willing to risk losing loyal constituents for the appearance of party loyalty.
