The Ferret headlines

Scottish universities have accepted millions of pounds from Chinese organisations with alleged links to the military, human rights abuses and spying, The Ferret can reveal.

Some universities accepted money from companies and institutions with ties to the People's Liberation Army 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".

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.

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.

Luke de Pulford, Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China

Ten universities collectively received at least £39.7m 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 programs 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 the 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...

Scots war heroes have criticised Poppyscotland for axing their top fundraiser in a move that has triggered fears of creeping centralisation from London.

The removal of the charity's head of fundraising would "destroy" public confidence in the charity's commitment to Scottish veterans, according to ex-forces personnel and a senior politician, negatively impacting on the historic Poppyscotland brand.

The brand, which is part of the wider Royal British Legion organisation, runs the Poppy Scotland appeal which sells red poppy pins in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday every November. It also fundraises all year across Scotland to support veterans.

The decision comes after armed forces veterans and their families said they felt betrayed by the axing of a lifeline RBL scheme - the Armed Services Advice Project (ASAP) which supported veterans to access more than £20m in benefits and was funded by Poppyscotland - last year.

This latest move has reignited fears that that less money be raised by the organisation dedicated to Scottish veterans, serving personnel and their families, with some now funnelled down south into wider Royal British Legion (RBL) coffers.

Poppyscotland confirmed that one senior role was made redundant as part of a streamlining process but reaffirmed its commitment to helping Scottish veterans and insisted "every penny raised in Scotland" would stay there.

Veterans have sacrificed much to serve our country and keep our citizens safe. They deserve our full support in turn.

Brian Leishman, MP for Alloa and Grangemouth

Brian Leishman, MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, who raised concerns about the withdrawal of the ASAP scheme at Westminster, told The Ferret:

"Poppyscotland is a proud, trusted and respected brand north of the border. Eroding its ability to raise valuable financial support and taking fundraising in-house is a mistake.

"Centralising fundraising will reduce public confidence in where the Scottish pound might be going."

He stressed that fundraising was a "year round activity", adding: "The axing of ASAP has been bad enough. Cutting the fundraising team in Scotland to make further savings is just not acceptable and will likely be counterproductive in the long term.

"Veterans have sacrificed much to serve our country and keep our citizens safe. They deserve our full support in turn."

Poppyscotland offers crucial support to veterans and their families in Scotland from financial aid and employment help to mental health and housing support.

But without continued steady funding, some fear essential services may be at risk, potentially leaving many without the help they need.

Cammy MacLeod, who founded charity Who Dares Cares which supports armed forces and emergency services personnel, and their families, living with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) claimed the move marked a "potentially profound change in how we honour and support Scotland's veterans".

If people feel their donations are not helping people in Scotland, they will stop donating to the cause.

John Kilpatrick, former RAF corporal

The former soldier, who served in Northern Ireland and Iraq, added: "The Royal British Legion has a proud history, but so does Poppyscotland, which has for decades provided a uniquely Scottish voice in remembrance and welfare. To see that identity potentially diluted in the name of centralisation is deeply concerning.

"Veterans in Scotland deserve support that understands their communities, their culture, and their needs. This isn't about resisting change - it's about preserving the integrity of a legacy that has served our people with compassion and distinction."

Concerns were also raised by former RAF corporal John Kilpatrick, who said he agreed changes at Poppyscotland could undermine Scottish-focused support, and potentially discourage local donations.

He said: "This is a disgrace but it is part of an ongoing process of wiping out Poppyscotland. You can see where this is going - the expansion of the London apparatus ...

First minister John Swinney has been rapped by the UK statistics regulator for making a misleading claim about Scottish education, following a fact check from The Ferret.

During a Holyrood meeting in May, the first minister claimed the SNP had reduced the "overall poverty-related attainment gap" in Scotland by 60 per cent.

Ferret Fact Service looked into this claim in a fact-check article and gave it a 'Mostly False' rating. This was because Swinney was using one specific type of attainment - positive destinations for school leavers - when there are numerous ways the attainment gap can be measured. On many of these measures, there have been much smaller decreases in the attainment gap between rich and poor students.

This was brought to the attention of the UK Statistics Authority by Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, who wrote to chair Sir Robert Chote, quoting the Ferret Fact Service article.

In his response, Chote agreed Swinney "should have been clearer" that he was referring to just one measure of attainment.

In fact, positive destinations for school leavers are not one of the thirteen key measures the Scottish Government uses to measure its progress on the poverty-related attainment gap.

Sir Robert wrote that "to maintain trust and confidence in their statements, ministers should take care that when they claim progress of their policies it is by their own defined measures". He confirmed that the UK Statistics Authority has raised the matter with the first minister's office.

The Scottish Government did not confirm whether Swinney plans to correct the record when asked by The Ferret.

After Sir Robert's comments were published, Duncan-Glancy raised the matter at first minister's questions in May. She said the letter "demolishes the government's claim on the attainment gap and exposes the truth - that a generation of children have been let down by a government that is more interested in spinning numbers than in solving problems".

John Swinney responded, saying he acknowledged the letter and argued the attainment gap has reduced across a number of different measures.

He said: "I have used one particular measure of the attainment gap - I could use others. The poverty-related attainment gap between young people from the most and least-deprived areas meeting standards in literacy is at a record low in primary schools, and the attainment gap has reached record lows between secondary pupils achieving third level in literacy and numeracy.

"Nothing will detract me from focusing on improving the life chances of children, whether or not they are living in poverty, and ensuring that we tackle the issues around household income and engagement with schools. That will lie at the heart of the steps that we are taking in relation to our attainment agenda."

The Ferret asked the First Minister's office whether Swinney would correct the record.

A spokesperson admitted it is "important that information provided to Parliament is accurate and its basis in evidence clear" but did not commit to the parliamentary record being updated.

"The Scottish Government uses a range of measures and sources to consider progress made in closing the poverty-related attainment gap and the First Minister cited a number of statistics in parliament to show there has been progress made in addressing the poverty-related attainment gap," a spokesperson said.

"This included progress in relation to the poverty-related gap for young people in a sustained positive destination (9 months after leaving school), which has reduced by three-fifths (or 60 per cent) since 2009-10.

"But we accept there is more to do to address the lasting impact of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis for young people affected by poverty."

The Ferret is an independent, investigative journalism cooperative dedicated to holding power to account. Since 2015, we have reported on corruption, environmental issues, human rights, and political influence in Scotland. Our work is supported by members who b...

It took John Swinney two and a half months to secure a key meeting with Sir Jim Ratcliffe on the future for workers at Grangemouth - and the billionaire only spared half an hour of his time on a video call.

The first minister wrote to the Ineos chair and chief executive on 6 February asking to meet him at a "very early opportunity" to discuss "a way forward that protects employment at Grangemouth".

But despite an offer from Swinney to travel to meet Ratcliffe in person, the Scottish Government could only secure a 30-minute meeting on Microsoft Teams with him on 25 April.

That was 78 days after Swinney contacted Ratcliffe - who ranked at number seven on the Sunday Times rich list and is reportedly worth over £17bn - and just four days before it was announced the century-old refinery at Grangemouth had processed its last oil.

The Ferret has also obtained internal Scottish Government documents which say ministers only found out about the end of refining at Grangemouth from media reports. Around four hundred people employed at the site are losing their jobs.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) questioned how the Scottish Government could deliver a fair energy transition for workers when it "can't get a meeting in the diary" with key business leaders.

One MSP claimed Ratcliffe seemed happy to be a "pantomime villain" but added that it does not "seem like either a just transition or the wider future of Scotland's economy" is at the top of Swinney's "in-tray".

It is no surprise that Sir Jim Ratcliffe has so little respect for the workers and communities impacted by the closure of his refinery at Grangemouth that he won't spare more than a few minutes of his time to discuss it with the first minister.

Catrina Randall, Friends of the Earth Scotland

An Ineos spokesperson said the company's track record "speaks louder than any headline" and it was "no secret that the diaries of senior political and business leaders are extremely demanding". They accused The Ferret of trying to "manufacture a controversy out of nothing".

The Scottish Government said it was committed to securing a "sustainable future" for Grangemouth and had committed £87m to protecting jobs at the site.

The findings come from correspondence released to The Ferret following a freedom of information (FOI) request.

In his letter to Ratcliffe on 6 February Swinney said he was "willing to travel" for a meeting and do so "at the earliest opportunity".

The Ferret requested Sir Jim Ratcliffe's response to this letter but was told by the Scottish Government that it did not hold a reply from Ineos to Swinney. We also asked for all correspondence between Ineos and the Scottish Government on the back of the letter.

Documents released show the first minister again wrote to the Manchester United co-owner on 21 February outlining Scottish Government financial backing for new proposals at Grangemouth. Swinney wrote he was "committed to working" with Ineos and urged the company to "live up" to its "responsibilities as a responsible business".

Subsequent emails, which are partially redacted, show Scottish Government officials and an Ineos representative - whose email sign off says they are based in Monte Carlo, where Ratcliffe reportedly owns a home - trying to find a date for a meeting over the course of a number of weeks in late March and early April.

These included 'chaser' emails sent by the Scottish Government to Ineos after they had not received a response. In one email, the Scottish Government notes that a meeting at the beginning of March had "unfortunately" not gone ahead.

Most of the details of the meeting that eventually took place on 25 April are redacted, but partial minutes do show Ineos arguing the refinery was "aged and loss making" and Ratcliffe expressing "concern about carbon taxes and energy costs".

The Grangemouth refinery is owned by Petroineos, a joint venture between Ratcliffe's firm and PetroChina, which is owned by the Chinese government.

It was announced...

Glasgow City Council has been accused of "moral" and "bureaucratic" failure over delays to a memorial for victims of the Covid-19 pandemic which is sitting in storage at taxpayers expense.

Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon announced the nationwide Remembering Together initiative in March 2021, with projects in each of Scotland's 32 council areas given £120,000 to create a "unique" local memorial.

The national project concluded in September 2024, with memorials completed or being installed in every council area - except Glasgow.

Across Scotland memorials funded through Remembering Together ranged from music and events to benches and the creation of a special tartan in the Borders.

Govanhill Baths Community Trust, the community organisation leading Glasgow's project, says a sculpture co-created by artists and Glaswegians affected by Covid-19 is finished and ready to be installed in Queen's Park, in the city's Southside.

However, the council has yet to approve the installation, claiming that "valid" safety concerns about the memorial have not been "adequately addressed".

Govanhill Baths disputes this, and claims the council has shown little engagement with the project or guidance on what steps can be taken to ensure it is installed.

It says council employees have attended meetings about the project without being properly prepared and that goalposts for it to gain approval have been shifted at the eleventh hour. The sculpture remains in storage, which has cost the organisation over £1,800 in public money so far.

Instead of a public space for reflection and care, we are left with a sculpture in storage, accumulating monthly costs - because of systemic failures and a lack of accountability.

Fatima Uygun, Govanhill Baths Community Trust

The chief executive of Govanhill Baths Community Trust, Fatima Uygun, claimed trying to get clearance from the council had been "one of the most frustrating and disheartening experiences" the organisation had faced.

"We began this project with a deep commitment to honouring the lives lost, the communities most affected, and the collective trauma we've all carried," she said.

"The community showed up. The artists delivered. But instead of a public space for reflection and care, we are left with a sculpture in storage, accumulating monthly costs - because of systemic failures and a lack of accountability."

Uygun argued those most impacted by Covid-19 - including those "experiencing disabilities, bereaved families and frontline workers" - had been "sidelined" by a process that, for many of them, echoed the failures they experienced during the pandemic.

"We've submitted proposals, attended meetings, revised plans, and waited," Uygun continued. "This memorial was meant to offer dignity and space to grieve. The fact that it remains hidden from public view is more than a bureaucratic failure - it's a moral one."

The artwork, designed by Glaswegian artists Littlewhitehead, is around two metres tall and features concrete panels on a metal frame. Its design has yet to be unveiled to the public but the plan is to put it near the poetry garden in Queen's Park.

A council spokesperson said there was "a risk from children climbing and falling from the structure" and also from a "concrete panel falling from the steel structure that supports these panels".

They continued: "We have valid concerns about the safety of the proposed structure that have not been adequately addressed by the team from Govanhill Baths.

"Govanhill Baths undertook to provide us with information that would satisfy our safety concerns and so far they have not done so. As the landowner of Queen's Park, we have a legal responsibility to ensure our parks are safe for the public to use.

"Without further information from the project team that satisfies our safety concerns, the community trust does not have permission to install the structure in Queen's Park. We are happy to continue the dialogue with their project team and find a way for the pro...

The future of Holyrood was called into question this week, after claims that more than a third of Scots wanted to abolish the devolved parliament.

Numerous social media accounts and media outlets reported that a poll had found 37 per cent of Scots were in favour of scrapping the Scottish Parliament. This claim was also promoted by on X, via the Grok AI chatbot.

37 per cent of Scots support abolishing Holyrood.

Social media posts

Ferret Fact Service looked at this claim and found it Unsupported.

Evidence

There are a number of groups and political parties which have campaigned for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, arguing that the devolved parliament costs too much money and focuses on policies which do not help the people of Scotland.

The Abolish the Scottish Parliament Party stood candidates on the regional list in the 2021 Holyrood election. It gained 7,262 votes, amounting to 0.3 per cent of the vote share. UKIP also made ending the devolved parliament part of its campaign in 2021 and gained 3,848 votes on the regional list and 699 in constituencies.

The claim recently promoted on social media that more than one-third, 37 per cent, of Scots want to scrap the parliament comes from a Norstat (formerly Panelbase) poll which was published in June, with the polling done in late May. It was commissioned by pro-independence blogger Wings Over Scotland.

However, the question asked was not a straight choice between keeping the Scottish Parliament in its current form or abolishing it.

Instead, the poll asked respondents about a hypothetical choice in a referendum between Scottish independence or a return to being ruled by Westminster only.

The poll's exact wording was: "If there were to be a second independence referendum tomorrow and the ONLY options on the ballot paper were full independence or the permanent closure of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood and a return to direct Westminster rule, how do you think you would vote?"

According to Wings Over Scotland, the response -which did not include 'don't knows' - was 37 per cent in favour of a return to Westminster direct rule and 63 per cent choosing full Scottish independence.

This is not a standard polling question, and is unlikely to form the basis of a future referendum. The form of the question may not give an accurate picture of the position of most Scots on the Scottish Parliament, as the question did not allow those surveyed to keep the status quo.

There have been several other polls in recent years which have asked related questions. A survey for the Sunday Times in January 2024 found 26 per cent of Scots thought that devolution had been a bad thing for Scotland, while 50 per cent thought it had been good.

Another poll for Holyrood Sources podcast, from March 2024, found 26 per cent of those surveyed agreed that "devolution was a mistake 25 years ago and should not have happened".

Ferret Fact Service verdict: Unsupported

The claim that 37 per cent of Scots want to abolish Holyrood is not supported. The poll on which the statistic is based asked whether those surveyed would like full Scottish independence or to abolish the Scottish Parliament and go back to direct rule from Westminster. No status quo option was available. Recent polls asking about devolution's impact on Scotland have shown around a quarter saying it was a bad idea.

Unsupported - A claim that is not backed up by solid evidence and cannot conclusively be judged true or false.

Main image: iStock/MartinIsaac

A new bill to widen freedom of information legislation in Scotland and cover private firms providing public services has been introduced to the Scottish Parliament.

Katy Clark MSP's bill aims to address problems with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and improve transparency and accountability in public services.

If the bill becomes law, third-party organisations that deliver public services such as care homes would be subject to FoI laws, and public authorities would be obliged to proactively publish certain information.

The Labour politician's bill would also remove the first minister's power to override certain decisions of the Scottish Information Commissioner, whose enforcement powers would also be strengthened.

Scottish Government slammed on freedom of information

Clark said it was time to end private providers of vital public services being "entirely exempt from transparency".

In 2023, the outgoing Scottish Information Commissioner, Daren Fitzhenry, described government FoI procedures as "not fit for purpose" in a damning final report.

His report revealed that there was a backlog of 117 FoI cases in May 2023, that some government FoI responses had been delayed for over two years, and that the role of political advisers was "ambiguous" and "anonymous".

The Scottish Government stressed then it was committed to ensuring "openness and transparency".

Carole Ewart, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland, welcomed Clark's bill and said she would work with MSPs from all parties to ensure it becomes law by March 2026, in order "to fix Scotland's transparency deficit".

She added: "We are delighted the bill will be considered by MSPs and hope it achieves all party support to ensure the architecture of transparency, accountability and scrutiny so carefully constructed 23 years ago is restored and strengthened to improve FoI practice, meet the challenges of public service diversification and the digital age."

We are delighted the bill will be considered by MSPs and hope it achieves all party support to ensure the architecture of transparency, accountability and scrutiny so carefully constructed 23 years ago is restored and strengthened to improve FoI practice, meet the challenges of public service diversification and the digital age.

Carole Ewart, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland.

David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, also welcomed the bill and said the extension of FOI rights to third-party organisations like care home providers "is long overdue".

He added: "We need to ensure that the information published by public bodies reflects our expectations in this digital age and it's also an undisputed fact that FOI has failed to keep up with the way public services are being delivered."

The Ferret is an independent, investigative journalism cooperative dedicated to holding power to account. Since 2015, we have reported on corruption, environmental issues, human rights, and political influence in Scotland. Our work is supported by members who believe in journalism that challenges, exposes, and informs. If you value in-depth, fact-based reporting, you can support our work by becoming a member. Join us today: https://theferret.scot/subscribe

Main image credit: iStock and Natali_Mis

A Norwegian company has drawn up plans for Britain's first deep-sea salmon farm in waters off Shetland, The Ferret can reveal, prompting concerns it is an "experiment in factory farming" that could damage the environment.

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.

Proposals for the project are already developed enough for Crown Estate Scotland to be considering specific coordinates for the farms. The plans have also been shared with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Shetland Islands Council, and the Scottish Government.

Named: five lochs polluted by fish farms

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 kilometers 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?"

We don't need another experiment in factory farming, in a pristine environment, from an industry in pursuit of profit at any cost.

Dale Vince, Green Britain Foundation.

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".

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 proposed and the more specific area of interest first identified, as well as the reference to as previously discussed," an official wrote to SalMar in March.

Shetland Islands Council rejected a similar freedom of information request for emails exchanged with Sa...

Knife crime has made headlines in recent weeks, after the death of a boy at Irvine beach in May.

Kayden Moy died after allegedly being stabbed, and three teenagers were arrested in connection with the incident.

During first minister's questions on 22 May, Scottish Conservatives leader Russell Findlay asked John Swinney what he would say to parents scared for their children's safety after a series of recent knife incidents involving young people.

The first minister firstly paid tribute to Kayden, and outlined Scottish Government steps to tackle knife crime. He went on to claim that knife crime in Scotland had fallen over the past 15 years.

"We have seen a sustained fall in knife crime in the past 15 years."

First minister John Swinney

Ferret Fact Service looked at this claim and found it Half True.

Evidence

Scotland has had significant success in reducing deaths caused by knife crime since 2005, when Police Scotland's violence reduction unit was set up. Its approach to violent crime was rooted in treating violence as a public health crisis, and it is credited in reducing murders and gang violence in Scotland.

Swinney's claim is that there has been a sustained fall in knife crime in the last 15 years. There are a few different ways to measure this.

Statistics on the number of murders each year in Scotland are broken down by the weapon used. Knives are counted under 'sharp implements'.

There were 57 murders using sharp implements in 2008-09, and 28 in the most recent data covering 2023-24.

This is a significant reduction in the last 15 years. However, the latest figure of 28 is an increase from the low of 23 in 2013-14, and higher than 2021-22 (25 murders) and 2018-19 (27).

According to Scottish Government research, the most common main method of killing in each of the last 10 years was with a sharp instrument like a knife.

The Scottish Government told Ferret Fact Service that Swinney's claim referred to data from Public Health Scotland (PHS) which publishes statistics on hospital admissions due to assault by a knife or other sharp object. According to PHS, this "provides one way of assessing the impact of knife crime".

In 2023-24 there were 438 emergency hospital admissions as a result of assault by a knife or other sharp object, which has reduced from 1,414 in 2008-09. There has been a small increase in recent years, with 405 people admitted in 2022-23, and 399 in 2021-22.

A further measure of knife crime in Scotland is found in the Scottish government's annual statistics on the crime of 'handling a knife or pointed weapon in a public place', also known as possession.

Until 2017-18, Scotland only recorded crimes where the weapon wasn't also used in another offence (like as part of an assault or murder). Where a knife was used in a murder, for example, the weapon was considered as part of that offence.

Since then, recording has changed. So now data on possession of a bladed weapon is split into two categories - where it is used as part of another crime, and where it is not.

In 2023-24, there were 2,137 knife or pointed weapon crimes recorded where the weapon was used in another offence. This number has increased since statistics were first counted in 2017-18, when 1,595 crimes were recorded in this category.

For crimes where the blade or pointed weapon was not used in another offence there has also been an increase, from from 2,140 in 2017-18 to 2,582 in 2023-24.

Fifteen years ago, there were 4,080 crimes recorded in this category, so there has been a reduction since then. However, the data shows there has been an increase in recorded crimes of handling knives and pointed weapons over the last seven years.

Ferret Fact Service verdict: Half True

John Swinney's claim about knife crime over the past 15 years depends on what measure you look at. There has been a reduction in the number of people killed or injured by knife crime in the last fifteen years. However Swinney's claim there has been a 'sustained' drop is contradicted by...

A Scottish charity may be discriminating against transgender staff after announcing a change to bathroom access following the recent UK Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, say legal experts.

In a leaked email sent to Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) staff last month, its chief executive claimed the charity was bound by "legal constraints" following a recent Supreme Court decision 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". Following the ruling on 16 April, 'gender critical' campaigners claimed the decision had brought "clarity on the law" and described the decision as "a massive relief".

But lawyers have since pointed out the ruling on the definition of "man" and "woman" relates to the 2010 Equality Act only, and campaign groups have raised concerns over the interpretation of the ruling.

In an email on 6 May, chief executive Derek Mitchell said CAS would be enforcing a policy of "male only" and "female only" toilets on the basis of sex assigned at birth. This, he said, was in response to the ruling and subsequent interim "guidance" offered by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is the UK's human rights regulator. A separate, single-occupancy WC would be available "for any colleague", he clarified.

Mitchell also wrote: "As an employer, CAS is required to comply with the law, and we need to ensure our practices and policies reflect current legal standards. This is not an expression of any view on the High Court ruling, it is our legal obligation as an employer." Two days later Mitchell sent a second update that acknowledged the upset that had been caused, but doubled down on claims that the charity was bound by the law to introduce changes.

Staff told The Ferret they were left feeling hurt, afraid and disappointed by the decision and concerned by the claim this decision had been taken out of the charity's hands by legal changes.

It's almost like it's polluted my work.

Staff member, Citizens Advice Scotland

Lawyers and campaigners told The Ferret that the EHRC update was neither intended as formal guidance nor legally binding, therefore giving employers options on how they proceed. They also warned that caution must be taken to avoid legal challenges.

When approached by The Ferret, Citizens Advice Scotland said it recognised "this issue touches on deeply personal experiences and we will continue to monitor and review our approach should guidance change".

Staff at CAS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, claimed neither the trade union or the equality, diversity and inclusion committee were consulted ahead of the announcement.

One worker claimed they no longer felt able to come out as trans at work, saying that "this is not a safe place to be". Others described 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".

Since the ruling, legal professionals and campaigning organisations including the Good Law Project, have raised concerns over how it is the interpreted and whether or not it will impact other legislation that governs access to toilets and changing rooms in the workplace.

Explainer: The Supreme Court gender ruling

Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and director of legal firm Lawmanity, was shown the leaked emails. She said: "The Supreme Court decision does not require employers to provide only separate toilets f...