Latest news with #TheFerret
The National
13 hours ago
- Politics
- The National
The Scottish universities accept millions from firms linked to China
Some universities accepted money from companies and institutions with ties to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in China, including those which are sanctioned by other countries. Other universities took funding from institutions and tech firms accused of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spy on and target users, spread misinformation and abuse human rights. The director-general of MI5 last year warned vice-chancellors that China and other states the UK Government views as adversaries are attempting to steal technology from universities that can 'deliver their authoritarian, military and commercial priorities'. The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China said The Ferret's research suggests that funding from CCP-linked organisations in Scottish higher education is particularly prevalent. This, it claimed 'should be a matter of deep concern for ministers and the wider Scottish public'. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action However, the Chinese Embassy in London has accused critics and media outlets of 'politicising and stigmatising normal educational exchanges between the two countries'. It has denied the use of subversive tactics abroad and argues that research collaboration with UK universities has 'enhanced mutual understanding'. The Ferret asked Scotland's universities to disclose funding they received from Chinese organisations between 2020/21 and 2024/25. Ten universities collectively received at least £39.7 million of funding. Of that, £5.5m came from organisations allegedly linked to the military, human rights abuses or spying, or was used to fund controversial Confucius Institutes. These are CCP-funded educational and cultural programmes on UK campuses which have been accused of monitoring and censoring UK students, and pushing propaganda. Dundee University refused The Ferret's request while others withheld some information which, they argued, was commercially sensitive. As such, the true total could be higher. Edinburgh University received more than £11m in research funding from unnamed Chinese organisations but it did not provide further detail. The university said it was not feasible to provide a complete list of possible funding from China. Some of Edinburgh Napier University's funding, £1.2m, came from unnamed Chinese partners for transnational education programmes. St Andrews University would only provide funding information for named organisations, rather than any from China. Military links SOME universities accepted money from Chinese organisations with military ties. Strathclyde University received £130,000 in research funding from Wuxi Paike New Materials Technology, which makes metal forgings for the Chinese military. Strathclyde did not specify when it received the money from the firm, which was sanctioned by the US government in December 2020 due to its military links. Strathclyde also accepted £22,100 for 'research studentship/knowledge exchange' from the Chinese Academy of Sciences on an undisclosed date. The academy is designated 'medium risk' by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), due to its alleged weapons research. ASPI is a defence think tank founded by the Australian Government. It has been described as having a hawkish stance on China and has received funding from overseas governments, including the US and UK, as well as the defence industry. In 2020, a drone submarine developed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences was found by an Indonesian fisherman in the South China Sea and thought to be on a possible covert mission by military observers. The following year, in October 2021, Robert Gordon University (RGU) was given £46,820 by the academy to research spectral imaging – a method of capturing highly detailed images. An RGU spokesperson said the research collaboration was transferred to the university in 2021 after it appointed a professor from Strathclyde who was working on the project. The collaboration ended in 2023. In April this year, The Times reported that RGU, Aberdeen and Strathclyde universities were among 23 UK institutions to have signed an agreement with Chinese institutions with alleged military links, despite warnings from MI5. Surveillance and spying allegations SOME universities accepted money from tech firms, including those accused of helping the CCP to spy on users, and spread misinformation. Heriot-Watt University received between £150,000 and £200,000 from tech firm Huawei to research wireless communications hardware between November 2020 and November 2021. In July 2020, it was announced that Huawei will be banned from UK infrastructure by the end of 2027 over fears it could facilitate spying from China. In 2019, we reported that universities and Police Scotland refused to sever links with the tech giant despite fears their devices may be used to spy for Beijing. Huawei has previously said it had never been asked by the CCP to spy and 'would categorically refuse to comply'. In 2022/23, Edinburgh University accepted £127,973 from tech firm, Tencent, to fund a research project called 'serving big machine learning models'. Allegations of mass surveillance and human rights abuses by Tencent were reported years earlier. READ MORE: Scottish Government announces £3 million in funding for 14 festivals CCP committees within Tencent ensure that the state's 'political goals are pursued', according to a 2020 study from ASPI. A 2022 report from Human Rights Watch claimed that via its messaging app, WeChat, Tencent 'censors and surveils' users on the CCP's behalf and 'hands over user data to authorities when 'sensitive' information is discovered'. 'There have been numerous reports about people getting harassed, detained, or imprisoned for their private messages on WeChat,' it added. A 2020 study from the University of Toronto found that WeChat also monitored users outwith China. Tencent has rejected claims that the CCP uses WeChat for spying. WeChat reportedly spread Russian propaganda and misinformation surrounding Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, while suppressing posts sympathetic to Kyiv, but Tencent declined to comment on the claims. In January, the US added Tencent to a list of businesses it claims work with China's military. Tencent has denied the allegations. Monitoring, restrictions and propaganda SOME organisations funding Scotland's universities have allegedly policed overseas students and restricted their freedoms. Most of these financial contributions were used to fund Confucius Institutes at Scottish universities. Confucius Institutes teach Chinese language and culture, but have been accused of monitoring students, spreading state propaganda, censoring topics – such as the independence of Taiwan – and stifling free speech on campuses. China has rejected the allegations. In 2021, a former Chinese diplomat, who defected to Australia, told The Ferret that China tries to control international students at Scottish universities via student associations. A 2023 report from the UK Parliament's intelligence and security committee said the institutes were run by Hanban, an arm of China's education ministry ultimately controlled by the CCP's propaganda department. Its institutes must obey CCP law, monitor students overseas and influence their behaviour, the report alleged. The last UK government U-turned on a bid to ban the institutes, while top Australian universities closed their institutes in April. Since 2020, Strathclyde, Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt universities have accepted more than £5m, including from Hanban, to fund their Confucius Institutes. Edinburgh's institute was partly funded by Fudan University, which reportedly omitted the phrase 'freedom of thought' from its charter in 2019. Aberdeen University accepted £5000 from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) in November 2023 to fund a visiting researcher. Some European universities have paused or ceased co-operation with the CSC, citing threats to academic freedom, research security and the risk of 'industrial espionage'. Universities 'ignoring evidence of risks' LUKE de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, an international alliance of cross-party politicians, said The Ferret's research was 'shocking, but not surprising'. 'The fact that money is still being allowed to flow without being flagged should be a matter of deep concern for ministers and the wider Scottish public,' he claimed. 'The rest of the UK has been slow to address dependencies which are curtailing academic freedoms and assisting the People's Liberation Army, but this evidence suggests that the problem is even more acute in Scotland and needs urgently to be tackled.' Laura Harth, China in the world director at human rights group Safeguard Defenders, said: 'It remains staggering to see evidence-based institutions consistently ignore the endless amount of evidence on the security, IP theft and foreign interference risks related to co-operation with (CCP) entities. READ MORE: Owen Jones: Opposing Israeli violence is 'extremist'? The world's upside down 'This is the exact opposite of the academic rigour we should expect and an outright denial of their commitment to independent thinking and discovery. 'Universities and other entities that continue to ignore such risks do so at the expense not only of their students and stakeholders, but of our democratic societies as a whole. Such free-riding has to stop.' The Scottish Conservative shadow education secretary, Miles Briggs, said there was 'good reason' to be wary of university funding with alleged links to spying, human rights abuses, the military and other issues. 'For too long SNP ministers have been complacent about the overexposure of the university sector in Scotland without investigating where funding has come from,' he claimed. The Ferret contacted the Chinese Embassy which has previously been critical of what it has branded politicised anti-Chinese rhetoric, but we received no response. Universities ensure 'robust due diligence' ABERDEEN University said it has 'robust procedures in place to ensure due diligence around international collaboration', including 'mitigations' for 'higher risk partnerships' such as a team to review security issues, and the use of an official 'trusted research' checklist. A spokesperson added that the university complies with UK regulations including control requirements around the export or transfer in goods, software or technology, including data, information and technical assistance. Heriot-Watt University said global partnerships were 'vital' to advancing its research and teaching, while also benefitting its students, supporting cultural exchange and contributing to the university's financial sustainability. The university complies with UK Government international security guidelines and partnerships are 'rigorously assessed' to ensure 'academic freedom and institutional autonomy,' a spokesperson added. An Edinburgh University spokesperson said all partnerships, 'including donations and research funding, are subject to a rigorous due diligence process'. A Strathclyde University spokesperson said: 'All of our research is subject to risk assessments, ethical approvals and adherence to UK Government guidelines on national security, export control and the Academic Technology Approval Scheme.' A spokesperson for RGU said: 'All of RGU's international collaborations are developed with robust due diligence and are aligned with the university's commitment to research excellence.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Universities are autonomous institutions and are expected to understand and manage the reputational, ethical and security risks associated with international partnerships. 'This includes conducting appropriate due diligence before entering into new partnerships, and monitoring existing partnerships to ensure they comply with relevant legal requirements'. National security is reserved to the UK Government's Home Office, which did not respond to a request to comment. Every organisation in this article was approached for comment, either directly or via the Chinese consulate in Edinburgh and the Chinese embassy in London.
The National
08-06-2025
- Business
- The National
Norwegian firm planning for first UK deep-sea salmon farm
Offshore salmon farming involves raising fish at sea in submerged cages, several miles away from coastal areas. Modelled on oil platforms, these super-sized farms are bigger than inshore sites and more robust for deeper waters. The new technology is viewed by supporters as a more sustainable form of fish production. But critics have described offshore farming as 'factory farming of the sea' and super farms off Norway have suffered problems such as fish escapes which can impact the marine ecosystem. The finding comes from government documents released under freedom of information law to The Ferret, along with plans leaked from Norwegian aquaculture giant SalMar. They show that the Shetland site, if sanctioned, would see three huge farms spread across an area several times the size of Lerwick – rearing more than five million fish. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say Proposals for the project are already developed enough for Crown Estate Scotland to be considering specific co-ordinates for the farms. The plans have also been shared with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Shetland Islands Council and the Scottish Government. MSPs were told last month that while firms operating in Norway with links to Scotland are looking at offshore opportunities, no companies currently operating in Scotland are considering this. Campaign group Animal Equality criticised what it described as a 'veil of secrecy' over SalMar's plans, while environmental charity Green Britain Foundation (GBF) said the aquaculture industry was demonstrating it 'can't be trusted'. 'They're apparently planning massive offshore operations in Shetland waters,' said GBF's founder Dale Vince. 'We don't need another experiment in factory farming, in a pristine environment, from an industry in pursuit of profit at any cost.' SalMar did not respond to our request for a comment. Salmon Scotland – which represents salmon farmers – said it had no knowledge of any company plans to move immediately into offshore locations. SalMar in Shetland DURING a visit to Shetland in January, SalMar presented a plan to locals for three separate farms, each five kilometres apart and rearing 1.6 million fish apiece. The site's total footprint would cover more than 25 square kilometres. The plans said the super farm could bring dozens of jobs to Shetland. The scale of the project, however, has concerned local fishers. 'It will mean spatial squeeze inshore and offshore for us,' said Sheila Keith, of Shetland Fishermen's Association. 'I'm not convinced growth is always the best thing for industries in Shetland when we have finite space and parameters to work with. Is expansion the best thing for Shetland?' SalMar presented its plans to a number of local stakeholders, including Yell community council at a public meeting. The community council declined to share the presentation with The Ferret but did volunteer emails from SalMar in which the company said: 'We have chosen not to share any written material such as the presentation shared with you and would not like this to be shared with externals such as the media, please do not share it.' READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe The firm raised similar concerns with government officials. In emails discussing freedom of information requests, SalMar urged officials to withhold details and they agreed. 'We will redact the specifics on [redacted] proposed and the more specific area of interest first identified, as well as the reference to [redacted] as previously discussed,' an official wrote to SalMar in March. Shetland Islands Council rejected a similar freedom of information request for emails exchanged with SalMar – citing commercial sensitivities and intellectual property rights. The council told The Ferret that it held 'initial pre-application discussions on this matter', but declined to comment further. Holyrood vote this month HOLYROOD will vote on whether to extend marine planning zones into offshore waters later this month, effectively opening up areas to applications for the new technology, as proposed by SalMar for Shetland. At a meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee (RAIC) last month at Holyrood, Salmon Scotland reassured ministers that regulators would have ample time to develop the expertise to keep offshore farms in check, because companies would move 'incrementally' into deeper waters. 'Companies at the moment have no direct, to my knowledge, plans to move immediately into [offshore] location[s],' said Iain Berrill, Salmon Scotland's head of technical. 'We're not going to rush straight to that area.' Government documents show that SalMar has been discussing plans for a farm in Scotland with government officials for at least 18 months. As early as July 2024, Crown Estate Scotland asked SalMar's holding company, Kverva, to provide co-ordinates to check for existing infrastructure like subsea cables in the area, or other developers who have expressed an interest. Most of these documents – a heavily redacted combination of meeting agendas, minutes and emails – were omitted from the Government's initial freedom of information response to The Ferret, but later released on review. At last month's RAIC Holyrood meeting, ministers were told the Government's marine directorate did not have detailed information about the plans. When asked the next day about those plans, a government spokesperson said some of its communications with SalMar are 'commercially sensitive'. When giving his evidence to the RAIC, Salmon Scotland's Berrill did acknowledge that Norwegian companies are already farming in offshore waters abroad. 'There are companies which have facilities in other countries, specifically Norway, which are in those [offshore] locations at the moment, and they have some links to our companies,' he said. 'But at the moment those that are operating here are doing this in an incremental manner.' Scottish Sea Farms (SSF), one of Salmon Scotland's member companies operating in Shetland, is half owned by SalMar. The Government's minutes show that SSF attended at least one of SalMar's planning meetings with officials in June. At that meeting, SalMar agreed to begin sharing co-ordinates with Crown Estate Scotland. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza Neither SalMar nor SSF responded to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Salmon Scotland confirmed Berrill's evidence. They said: 'The evidence provided to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee is accurate – while some Norwegian salmon farming companies have the capability to operate in more exposed offshore locations, none of the companies currently operating in Scotland are seeking to develop such farms at this time.' Crown Estate Scotland's director Mike Spain gave evidence alongside Berrill during last month's committee meeting but did not mention SalMar's plans. A spokesperson said: 'If asked to do so, Crown Estate Scotland occasionally completes checks of the seabed for potential development conflicts as a matter of courtesy. The check is effectively a snapshot in time and does not infer any permissions or development rights.' Holyrood is now expected to vote on opening up Scotland's offshore waters to aquaculture applications on Wednesday, June 11, 2025. If passed, the measures would come into effect a week after on June 18. By extending existing marine planning zones from three nautical miles out to 12, the ultimate consenting decision for offshore farms would still rest with local councils, as it currently does for inshore farms. 'There are a lot of unknowns' OFFSHORE salmon farms – mostly in Norway – have a mixed track record. While almost 16,000 fish escaped during SalMar's first offshore trial in 2019, the company has claimed record low fish deaths in more recent rounds of production. During the RAIC meeting last month, various experts described the technology as untested. From fish health to the logistics of getting staff around the massive sites, the RSPCA told ministers 'there are a lot of unknowns'. The head of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Elspeth Macdonald, raised concerns about the overall environmental impact of offshore farms – such as fish escapes, the impact of offshore infrastructure or the volumes of fish excrement they might generate. SalMar has now put its offshore plans in Norway 'on hold', according to its website, 'due to regulatory uncertainty'. If Holyrood passes the amendment later this month, SalMar is expected to begin its application for Britain's first deep-sea salmon farm this summer. That process would involve a pre-application consultation and public events in Shetland. A final application could then be submitted with Shetland Islands Council, which is responsible for putting the plans past national regulators.
The National
04-06-2025
- General
- The National
Citizens Advice Scotland in trans rights row over bathroom change
Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) staff told staff last month that the charity would be enforcing a policy of 'male only' and 'female only' toilets on the basis of sex assigned at birth, according to an email seen by The Ferret. CAS's chief executive, Derek Mitchell, reportedly said in the email, sent May 6, that the charity was bound by 'legal constraints' following the landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court in April on how sex should be interpreted under the Equality Act 2010. The ruling stated that, under the Equality Act 2010, the definition of 'woman' refers to 'biological sex', a decision gender critical campaigners claimed had brought 'clarity on the law'. READ MORE: Labour MPs visit Israel on lobbying trip in middle of Gaza genocide However, legal experts have pointed out that the ruling on the definition of 'man' and 'woman' relates to the 2010 Equality Act only, while campaign groups have also raised concerns over the interpretation of the ruling. Mitchell said the decision to enforce male and female-only bathrooms was in response to the ruling and subsequent interim 'guidance' offered by the UK's human rights regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). CAS's chief executive reportedly clarified that a separate single-occupancy bathroom would also be available 'for any colleague'. 'As an employer, CAS is required to comply with the law, and we need to ensure our practices and policies reflect current legal standards,' Mitchell said. 'This is not an expression of any view on the High Court ruling, it is our legal obligation as an employer.' Mitchell reportedly sent a second update two days later acknowledging the upset that had been caused due to the decision, but doubled down on claims that the charity was bound by the law to introduce changes. The decision has left staff at CAS feeling hurt, afraid, disappointed, and concerned by Mitchell's claim that the decision had been taken out of the charity's hands by legal changes, The Ferret reported. A spokesperson for CAS said they recognised 'this issue touches on deeply personal experiences and we will continue to monitor and review our approach should guidance change'. Lawyers and campaigners have said that the EHRC's update was neither intended as formal guidance nor legally binding, and therefore gives employers options on how they proceed. One staff member at CAS claimed neither the trade union nor the equality, diversity and inclusion committee were consulted ahead of the decision, according to The Ferret. Another staff member told The Ferret how CAS had built its workplace culture around inclusion and dignity, and that this policy change was effectively a 'slap in the face'. 'It's almost like it's polluted my work,' said one staff member. 'Because obviously when we consult, we're very respectful of any kind of pronouns. So I would like to think that we would treat our colleagues the same, and that the attitude from management would be the same.' Another said the decision to put this out 'without going through proper channels to make sure that the information that he's putting in there is correct' made them feel 'less safe within the organisation'. The Good Law Project have raised concerns since the ruling by the UK Supreme Court over how it is interpreted and whether or not it will impact other legislation that governs access to toilets and changing rooms in the workplace. Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and director of legal firm Lawmanity, was shown the leaked emails by The Ferret. She said: 'The Supreme Court decision does not require employers to provide only separate toilets for men and women – it only clarified the meaning of 'sex' for purposes of the Equality Act and in so doing, shifted our understanding of what is required if single sex, mixed sex or only sex facilities are being provided by an employer. 'Employers must consider a range of factors in deciding what toilet facilities to provide, and be prepared to justify their decisions.' She claimed companies or charities that restricted access to some facilities on the basis of a protected characteristic like sex or gender reassignment without being able to justify the decision as a 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim', may be open to legal challenge in the future. READ MORE: Police issue statement after Scottish men killed in Spain shooting 'This is a good reason why organisations should start early with good faith efforts to gather the information they will need to make these decisions,' Ang added. 'By engaging with staff and service users to understand their requirements – and also why clear and practical guidance and support is urgently needed from our UK equalities and human rights regulators, and from our national governments.'
The National
11-05-2025
- Business
- The National
UK events use Scottish land to clean up carbon footprint
Analysis by The Ferret has found carbon credits, or 'offsets', produced by trees planted in Scotland have been bought by events including motorsport rallies, Queen Elizabeth's state funeral and her Platinum Jubilee. Other buyers include British Airways, councils in Devon and Norwich, luxury fashion brand Burberry and the UK arm of a Silicon Valley tech firm. Buying carbon credits theoretically 'offsets' carbon emissions created by events and companies by funding tree-planting and peatland projects that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The credits are supposed to be used to mop up an organisation's unavoidable emissions. However, an MSP and a former boss of Scotland's environment watchdog said buying carbon credits was the 'easy, short-term option' for organisations, unless they had 'exhausted all possibility of reducing their own emissions'. READ MORE: Wildfire 'bigger than five football pitches' near Scottish town The use of carbon credits is 'a greenwashing scam' that 'does nothing to cut carbon pollution', one green campaigner argued. Companies do not have to buy the credits and some do so because of a genuine commitment to protecting the environment. The firms and events who bought Scotland-generated credits told The Ferret that offsets were only a small part of the actions they were taking to reduce their climate impacts. We found that Ascot Racecourse, in Berkshire, bought Scottish credits to compensate for emissions produced by a 'net-zero enclosure' at its famous Royal Ascot event. The London Marathon purchased them to make up for pollution produced by international travel to the race. Upmarket pizza oven company Ooni also bought credits, partly to make up for emissions produced by its own anniversary celebrations. Once redeemed, each credit permits its owner to emit one tonne of CO2, because the equivalent amount has been absorbed. Some believe carbon credits will play an important role in tackling the climate crisis, by attracting money into projects to revive nature and capture carbon. But in Scotland, there are also concerns about how competition for sites to produce the credits is driving up rural land prices, potentially shutting out local communities from owning land. A 2023 study found that ownership of Scotland's forests is becoming increasingly dominated by wealthy estates, investors and absentee owners who live outside Scotland. Swathes of land across the country are currently earmarked for tree-planting and peatland restoration projects which will generate offsets. Some landowners who sell carbon credits do so with the aid of millions of pounds of taxpayer subsidies and a wide range of tax relief, as we detailed in February. Our new findings come from analysis of a public register of carbon credits assigned to organisations in the past three years. The Ferret's previous research, in 2022, found weapons manufacturers, the Labour Party and financial institutions that poured billions of pounds into fossil fuels were among those buying Scottish carbon credits. They were generated on land owned by Scotland's richest man, private equity companies and property firms. That followed the revelation in 2020 that senior Scottish Government forestry officials feared that a £5 million tree-planting deal with Shell – which earns carbon credits for the oil giant – could be viewed as 'greenwashing'. Most of the credits sold over the past few years are known as 'pending issuance units' (PIUs), which cannot be used to offset emissions immediately because planted trees are not yet mature. In fact, some might not be ready until the early 22nd century. The average PIU was estimated to cost £23.30, according to the Woodland Carbon Code. The register only includes the sale of credits to companies who agree to be named publicly, so some buyers may remain secret. The number of trees planted to generate a credit depends on a range of factors including the location and tree type, but one European offsetting agency puts the number at 31 to 46 trees. Who's buying Scotland's carbon credits? THE biggest known buyer of carbon credits produced in Scotland since April 2022 is Sky Group – the parent firm of Sky News. It was assigned 49,400 credits set to be produced by a tree-planting project near Bridge of Ericht, Perthshire. Sky says it is focused on cutting the emissions from its operations before it buys carbon credits and that it plans to reduce the amount it offsets as the company decarbonises. Salesforce, a cloud-based software firm headquartered in Silicon Valley, bought 6507 credits from a tree-planting scheme on a former upland sheep farm in the Scottish Borders, called Talla and Gameshope, and Maryfield Farm near Banchory, Aberdeenshire. Devon County Council secured 5151 credits from Woodland Trust plantations at Craigengillan, East Ayrshire, and Caplich, near Invergordon, while Norwich City Council bought 929 credits from the Moffat-based Selcoth Forestry. Spanish-owned bank Santander acquired 3566 credits from a project at Delnadamph, part of the Balmoral Estate, which is owned by the King. It said buying offsets 'play a role in mitigating' the bank's pollution as it decarbonises and that emissions from its operations had more than halved since 2019. READ MORE: Humanitarian crisis in Gaza at 'all-time low', warns aid charity Luxury fashion brand Burberry bought up 1599 credits from Scottish and English sites. Credits produced by an East Ayrshire tree plantation will be used to offset emissions from the Queen's Platinum Jubilee and state funeral in 2022, the 2023 Royal Ascot and 'international travel' related to the 2022 and 2023 London Marathons. The same forestry project, Montgreenan near Kilwinning, will generate credits sold to British Airways, a firm behind two music festivals in London, and the University of Glasgow. 'Greenwashing scam'? REACTING to our findings, James Curran, who was chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency between 2012 and 2015, argued that organisations should only use carbon credits 'when they have exhausted all possibility of reducing their own emissions'. 'Otherwise, it's just taking the easy, short-term option,' he said. 'Carbon markets, along with government grants and generous tax breaks, are driving some really bad practices – for example extensive Sitka spruce planting, an alien invasive species that offers very little nature benefit or amenity value,' argued Curran. 'Also, in many instances, there is less carbon uptake than might be expected.' He called for 'root and branch reform' of the carbon credit market, with more scrutiny from regulators. Campaign group Friends of the Earth Scotland branded carbon credits and offsetting a 'greenwashing scam'. 'Tackling the climate crisis requires all big polluters to rapidly cut their emissions but offsetting enables polluters to keep on polluting then simply pay for someone else to plant a few trees in their name,' argued the group's head of campaigns, Caroline Rance. 'It is deeply alarming to see large swathes of land being designated or sold off for carbon offsetting – capturing rural land to protect corporate interest and pricing people out of their communities.' Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie also raised concerns, claiming there was a 'long history of carbon credits, offsets and other 'workarounds' being used instead of direct action to cut emissions'. He added: 'The simple reality is that we cannot all pay someone else to cut emissions for us, so reliance on carbon credits will always risk making inequality worse, by allowing the wealthy to keep polluting.' Community Land Scotland said that while carbon credits can help to reach net zero and allow rural communities to generate income, some investors may use the initiative to avoid reducing their carbon footprint. 'The market for carbon credits is still fine-tuning its business model, but as these processes are refined, it is likely that there could be large numbers of organisations and events chasing a finite number of carbon credits on the moors and hillsides,' said a spokesperson. 'In turn, this could ultimately further increase land prices, effectively excluding the communities that live in these areas. READ MORE: Doctor who grew up in Gaza gives 'emotional' speech at Highlands pro-Palestine march 'Carbon credits need to be controlled and not used as a means to avoid more difficult environmentally-friendly choices.' Those buying carbon credits generated in Scotland stressed they were making efforts to reduce their emissions. Pizza oven-maker Ooni said it focuses on 'reducing our carbon emissions at source', invests in 'credible, permanent carbon removals that are informed by science' and seeks 'opportunities to create a positive social impact'. The London Marathon said it was striving to reach net zero by 2030, primarily by reducing emissions, and had been recognised by the Council for Responsible Sport. A spokesperson said some emissions were more difficult to reduce, including travel, but a £31 levy on international participants had been introduced. 'This is then used in full to purchase high-quality carbon removal credits which is recognised as best practice by multiple climate action organisations and the UK Government's net zero strategy,' they added. Ascot Racecourse pointed to significant decreases in carbon emissions and waste at the site, and said its recycling rate had risen. Its website says the course is 'constantly adapting' to become more sustainable. All companies and events named in this story were contacted for comment.
The National
04-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Experts warn far- right are ‘weaponising Christianity'
EXPERTS have warned that far-right groups are weaponising Christianity for their political agendas and have urged churches to speak out against right-wing extremism. They said groups like Britain First and supporters of the jailed far-right activist Tommy Robinson are increasingly using Christian rhetoric to try to build support for their political causes. The Scottish Government is also monitoring the issue. A response to a freedom of information request by The Ferret revealed its safer communities division suggested staff attend a recent seminar called Christianity and Far Right Extremism, hosted by a think tank called Theos. READ MORE: 'It's needed now more than ever': Thousands march in support of Scottish independence The organisers said far-right extremism has gained ground over recent years in the US and UK, and has sometimes done so by using Christian language, symbols and imagery. Far-right groups claiming to be Christian include Britain First. In 2014, its members targeted mosques across the UK with bibles, calling it a 'Christian crusade'. Supporters also paraded through Muslim-majority areas of UK cities, with large crosses. One of the speakers at the Theos webinar was Dr Maria Power, a senior research fellow at the University of Oxford. She is co-editor of The Church, The Far Right, And The Claim To Christianity, a book published last year on the church's response to the rise of the far-right. Power told The Ferret: 'One of the main problems facing the churches in dealing with right-wing extremism is the fact that many of the 'extremists' are speaking and spreading hate from within the church. 'The Christian churches need to exercise their teaching authority more and speak out against such examples of right-wing extremism, demonstrating how these belief systems are counter to the teachings of Christianity.' She said one of the best things churches can do to combat right-wing extremism is to fund youth work: 'At present, not enough funding is being directed towards youth work, either in the churches or within society as a whole, and this is a fundamental problem. 'Young people need community, and right-wing extremist groups provide this for them when the churches don't.' Patrik Hermansson, senior researcher at the anti-racism charity Hope Not Hate, said there are many groups that connect themselves with Christianity. The clearest example is probably Britain First, he told The Ferret, adding that 'increasingly, Tommy Robinson's supporters have begun using this rhetoric as well'. Another factor is US influence, which Hermansson said has been increasing for a number of years. He claimed some of this 'relates to Christian institutions funding far-right activity in the UK, and US reactionaries building relationships with Christian reactionary groups and activists in the UK.' Donald Trump's US election win 'spurred on the far-right in the UK and is generally supported by it', he added, with the caveat that 'it is probably too early to tell of outright influence'. Last week, a summit aimed at tackling the threat from the far-right, hosted by First Minister John Swinney, was held in Scotland. About 50 organisations – including political parties, faith groups and charities – attended the forum in Glasgow. Swinney claimed that shared values were under 'huge threat' from disinformation and pressure from the 'hard right'. All Holyrood parties except the Conservatives attended the event. Nigel Farage's Reform UK party was not invited. Farage claimed Reform were 'never part of the far-right'. Britain First, the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland were asked to comment. WITHHELD INFORMATION Meanwhile, a separate request for information by The Ferret about a far-right political party registered in Scotland was refused by the Home Office, which cited concerns surrounding 'national security'. We asked the UK Government department for communications it held regarding the Homeland Party – which is registered at a West Lothian address and led by a Scot – and Patriotic Alternative, another far-right group from which Homeland splintered. (Image: NQ) But it declined the request, citing part of the freedom of information act which relates to national security. If released, the information 'would undermine national security and the integrity and effectiveness of the government to conduct practices to keep the public safe', the Home Office argued. 'Releasing this information would allow those of concern to the authorities to gain knowledge or information, which would allow them to further or continue their activities of concern.' The Home Office also said it was exempt from releasing the information due to another section of the act, which relates to the formulation or development of government policy, and allows for it to occur in private and 'without fear of premature disclosure'. 'This is because the information relates to current, ongoing policy development, the Counter-Extremism Sprint 2024, to understand and effectively respond to the threat posed by extremists and extremist groups in the UK,' the Home Office stated. 'Release of information relating to these groups risks undermining development of new government policy to respond to the threat of extremism in the UK.' If released, the information would be 'highly likely to be useful to high-harm, extremist groups and individuals seeking to circumnavigate government oversight and intervention', argued the Home Office. Such actors spread 'damaging conspiratorial narratives', 'exacerbate community tensions, promote violence and radicalise into terrorism', it added. The counter-extremism programme was commissioned by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in August last year. It was designed 'to understand and effectively respond to the threat posed by extremists' – namely those of Islamic and far-right ideologies – and learn how the Government can adapt. The review was reportedly accelerated following far-right riots in England and Northern Ireland last year, which saw organisations including Homeland and a Scottish white supremacist martial arts club try to use the unrest as a recruitment drive. Homeland's enquiries secretary, Carl Wilkinson, told The Ferret that his party does not meet the UK Government's 2024 definition of extremism. The definition includes the 'promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or undermine, overturn or replace the UK's system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights'. Wilkinson highlighted that Homeland is a registered political party, and argued that it participates in elections, 'has never promoted violence' and 'operates under the law and within the bounds of democratic norms'. The news comes days after Homeland held a conference focused on the mass deportation of migrants with guest speakers including the man behind a conspiracy theory cited by white supremacists and mass murderers. The event was also attended by members of the far-right German party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), which was designated as extremist last week. 'Remigration conference' Homeland's recent conference on April 26, in Lincolnshire, focused on 'remigration', which the party describes as removing 'illegal, unintegrated, and unwelcome migrants'. Speakers included French academic Renaud Camus, who coined the term 'the great replacement' – a conspiracy theory that white Europeans are being replaced by Muslim people of colour in collusion with a globalist elite. Camus appeared via video link after the Home Office barred his entry to the UK, reportedly telling him that his presence in the UK was not 'conducive to the public good'. The writer denounces violence, but his work has been cited by white supremacists and mass murderers. Homeland defended Camus as having 'consistently promoted peaceful discourse and democratic solutions' and argued he 'cannot be blamed for the actions of individuals who have cited his work'. Also in attendance was Lena Kotré, an elected politician from Germany's Alternative for Germany party, now classified as extreme-right by German intelligence. She reportedly met with neo-Nazis last year and, in Berlin, handed out self-defence stabbing weapons, which are legal in Germany but banned in the UK. Homeland alleged that Kotré distributed the weapons to women who had been targeted by sexual violence from immigrants. The party called it 'a blatant lie' that Kotré attended a neo-Nazi event, which it argued was a 'political conference'. Who are the Homeland Party? The far-right party is led by Kenny Smith, a former British National Party politician from the Isle of Lewis. In 2023, Smith led a breakaway faction from PA to form Homeland, which registered as a political party despite an intervention from the Home Office and warnings from some Electoral Commission staff that senior figures shared 'terrorist literature' and 'antisemitic and racist' content. Homeland dismissed the 'spurious claims' it alleged were made by 'junior' commission staff determined to reject the application. 'Toxic and divisive rhetoric' A SCOTTISH Trades Union Congress (STUC) event, held last week, focused on opposing the far-right. 'Hundreds of trade unionists' declared that 'the toxic and divisive rhetoric of the far-right has no place in our society', STUC's general secretary, Roz Foyer, told The Ferret. 'We will take that call and that action to every town and city across Scotland.' Scottish Labour's Michael Marra said Scots 'must remain vigilant about the rise of the far-right and stand up against the division that extremist groups want to sow'. Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman called for 'a focus on extremism in education settings and on groups using social media to radicalise people, specifically vulnerable groups who are susceptible to this kind of conditioning, covertly or openly'. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'We work closely with partners in Scotland and the UK to ensure we are able to identify and tackle the threat of extremism and terrorism.' Counter-extremism is reserved to the UK Government. The Home Office does not comment on individual cases.
