Keir Starmer has called on Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe to apologise for claiming “the UK is being colonised” by immigrants.

The prime minister said the billionaire’s comments were “offensive and wrong”.

Ratcliffe, who is also the founder and chairman of petrochemical giant Ineos, made his remarks in an interview with Sky News.

He said: “You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.

“I mean, the UK is being colonised. It’s costing too much money. The UK has been colonised by immigrants.”

Sir Jim added: “If you really want to deal with the major issues of immigration, with people opting to take benefits rather than working for a living, if you want to deal with that, then you are going to have to do some things which are unpopular and show some courage.”

Responding to Ratcliffe’s remarks on X, the prime minister said: “Offensive and wrong. Britain is a proud, tolerant and diverse country. Jim Ratcliffe should apologise.”

A Downing Street spokesperson said: “Jim Ratcliffe should immediately apologise. His offensive remarks are wrong and play into the hands of those who want to divide our country.”

At first, the idea of selling a flat can seem straightforward. You catalogue it, locate a buyer and anticipate a quick turnaround. Flat sales can lag behind housing sales, and the reasons aren’t always clear. Many delays stem from things buyers and sellers hadn’t considered, or don’t think about until the process is already underway. Knowing these things early can help you avoid frustration and make the best choices when time is of the essence.

Legal and Paperwork Issues That Slow Things Down

One of the biggest foot-draggers is related to paperwork associated with leasehold ownership. Unlike houses, most flats demand extra paperwork before a sale can proceed.

The management packs are a perfect example. The freeholder or managing agent supplies them and they contain information such as service charges, building insurance and planned works. They are indispensable for the buyer’s solicitor, but are sometimes requested late and can take weeks to arrive. Some managing agents also levy hefty fees, which can add to delays while costs are negotiated.

Ground rent clauses may also prove problematic. Some terms could raise concerns for mortgage lenders, particularly if the ground rent balloons over time. If picked up by legal checks, buyers might pause or even walk away entirely.

Then there are building safety forms. Dozens of flat sales now hinge on new safety regulations to confirm fire safety and the presence of cladding. If the correct form is not provided on time or is incomplete, solicitors may decline to continue until it is corrected.

Practical and Timing Challenges Sellers Often Miss

But beyond paperwork, timing is a significant factor in how quickly a flat sale closes. Property chains also play a part. If your buyer’s buyer has a property to sell and there’s yet another buyer involved, it can drag on significantly longer. Flats are often in long chains, meaning that if one link fails, the entire row collapses.

Delaying for this interval can be pretty frustrating, especially when there is a personal or financial deadline. Job changes, relationship breakups, or repeated costs, such as service charges, can make waiting unbearable. In such a scenario, some sellers seek to minimise uncertainty and think “I’d better look to sell my flat fast“, prioritising speed over receiving the best price for the property. Finding a cash buyer can help them proceed without relying on prolonged chains or legal processes.

Preparation is another area sellers often overlook. Missing documents, murky histories of service charges, or unresolved disputes with managing agents can all slow the process once a buyer has been identified. Buyers are wary, and anything that appears questionable can prompt additional questions or renegotiation.

Flat sales are often delayed for a mix of legal and practical reasons. The management packs, the terms of the ground rent, and the forms for building safety and property chains all play a part but are easy to overlook initially. Sellers who know about these issues in advance can prepare, prevent unnecessary delays, and take the best course of action for their circumstances. A less bumpy experience begins with understanding where problems typically arise and addressing them before your sale is impacted.

The Department for Work and Pensions‘ (DWP) own figures show that the number of Work Capability Assessments (WCA) will be higher than ever in 2031. This is despite the DWP and it’s chief Pat McFadden insisting the WCA will be abolished by then

How exactly does the DWP plan to save money?

Benefits and Work sent the Treasury and DWP a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in December. They wanted a breakdown of the savings vaguely alluded to in the autumn budget.

Back in November, Reeves had announced that the DWP would: Improve operations by increasing face-to-face assessments, increasing WCA reassessment capability, and PIP award review changes, starting from April 2026.

She then said the DWP’s annual total savings would be 1.9 billion, but there was, of course, no breakdown of this in the autumn budget document.

Benefits and Work asked the DWP to:

Please give a detailed breakdown of how the £1.9 billion is to be saved, including:

a) Any additional assessment costs created by increasing the number of WCA reassessments

b) Any savings resulting from a reduction in the number of claimants found to no longer have LCWRA due to the increased number of WCA reassessments

c) Any savings in assessment costs caused by extending the time between PIP reviews

Advertisement

d) Any additional assessment costs caused by increasing the proportion of PIP face-to-face assessments

e) Any savings in PIP costs caused by increasing the proportion of PIP face-to-face assessments, due to the lower success rate for PIP applicants when assessed face-to-face rather than remotely.

Government not keen to be transparent, shocker

The government was, naturally, hesitant to give details about a figure they’d probably pulled out of their arses. The Treasury ridiculously told Benefits and Work it would cost too much to answer their request.

The DWP refused to answer repeated requests from both the Liberal Democrats and Disability News Service on where the savings would come from.

However, in December the DWP put out a press release about increasing face-to-face assessments. It said PIP face-to-face assessments would increase from 6% to 30% and WCAs would increase from 13% to 30%.

At first glance, it’s not clear how more work would mean savings. But this feels like a deliberate attempt to insinuate that so many people are getting benefits because it’s easier to “fake” over the phone.

Finally, some clarity — well….

Finally, this week, after more pressure from Benefits and Work, the DWP replied to their FOI:

The £1.9bn comprises the following figures shown in Table 1:

This £1.9bn figure does not include any additional assessment costs. This is because the reduced number of assessments for PIP releases resource to increase WCA reassessments and face-to-face assessments, and there is no assumed net increase in the number of health care professionals employed by DWP’s contracted providers as a result of these policies.

Advertisement

Benefits and Work have estimated that a huge proportion of the savings will come from reducing admin costs.

57% of savings over the next five years (£1.12 billion) will come from extending the amount of time between PIP reassessments, from 3 years to 5. 31% (£609 million) of the savings will be from increasing WCA assessments. Some of this saving will come from the health element of Universal Credit moving to PIP, meaning, in theory, fewer assessors are needed. But it’s also probably assuming many will get the new lower rate.

8% (£164 million) of the savings will come from face-to-face PIP assessments increasing, and just 3% (£58 million) will come from more face-to-face WCA assessments.

So, despite the DWP saying otherwise, it’s actually a very small amount that will come from kicking vulnerable people off benefits.

But the WCA is supposed to be gone?

What’s even weirder here, however, is that the WCA will still be taking place at all post 2030. This is because in the Pathway’s to Work Green Paper, the DWP planned to have it abolished by 2029. This is because the paper set out that the UC health element would be moved over to PIP and claimants would need to score so many points on the daily living component.

However, this paper was also reliant on PIP cuts going through and PIP eligibility changing so that you had to score at least 4 points in one activity to get the daily living element. But then PIP had to be completely written out of the cuts after huge campaign efforts saw Labour MPs rebel. So until the Timms Review concludes, both claimants and the DWP haven’t got a fucking clue what’s happening there.

Despite this, DWP chief Pat McFadden still hasn’t definitively said the WCA won’t be abolished, just that it’ll be delayed.

The Work and Pensions Committee asked him in December if he still intended to abolish the WCA. His response was, of course, vague as fuck:

Due to its link with the PIP assessment, WCA abolition will not happen until after the Timms Review into the PIP assessment has concluded and any recommendations have been made. In the meantime, work is continuing to determine the detail of how this reformed system would work and discussions are also ongoing with the Scottish Government regarding the interactions between the devolved and reserved systems. We will outline further details on the reformed system, and the timing of WCA abolition, in due course.

DWP — just more proof that the Timms Review is a sham

As Benefits and Work point out, it could be that McFadden knows exactly what will happen with the WCA, but to say otherwise would let slip what we already know. That the Timms review and any notions of helping disabled claimants is just smoke and mirrors when they’re already working so hard to turn the public against us. At the end of the day the department give a fuck whether disabled people live or die.

Featured image via the Canary

US politician Ilhan Omar has burned Donald Trump so hard that it was felt by an ancestor in the small town of Kallstadt in Germany’s Rhineland in 1608.

Omar has often clashed with Trump. Proudly Muslim, left-wing, and Somali, the firebrand Minnesota democrat embodies everything Trump and his goons despise. She has never been cowed before The Mighty Hairpiece and today was no exception.

Omar was commenting on a new Fox interview in which Trump was once again putting the boot into Somali-Americans – including Omar specifically. The president has often singled out the group to whip up hatred in his second term.

Trump told Fox News:

Somalia has come in here — what they’ve done to our country, these people — they’ve come into our country, and what they’ve done with that fake congresswoman. She’s so bad.

Trump: “Somalia has come in here — what they’ve done to our country, these people — they’ve come into our country, and what they’ve done with that fake congresswoman. She’s so bad.” pic.twitter.com/SX5idZqV3R

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 10, 2026

Omar spotted the clip and noted:

The leader of the Pedophile Protection Party is trying to deflect attention from his name being all over the Epstein files. At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them.

The leader of the Pedophile Protection Party is trying to deflect attention from his name being all over the Epstein files.

At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them. https://t.co/xC3Ype3zXI

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 10, 2026

Advertisement

Trump is under pressure over the small matter of his name cropping up literally thousands of times in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Epstein files.

In case you’ve been cut off in a mineshaft for a few months, Trump’s long association with the dead child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein is causing him no end of bother.

He’s also been framing Somali people as some sort of enemy within, not least in Minnesota where his paramilitary goons have executed two people this year.

Ilhan’s fun day out gathering Trump together

What follows is simply series of GIFs because no words can describe how hard this went:

“At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them.” https://t.co/smDgJahPTF pic.twitter.com/yEmoPu01o2

— TTCA – The Musical (@Brosnan_in_1997) February 11, 2026

Also this one:

GET THEMMMMMM https://t.co/yjuCYAaPIU pic.twitter.com/yz1ozGLDQV

— ❄️☃️ 𝕓𝕚𝕥𝕔𝕙𝕦𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 🇵🇸☃️❄️ (@comradeyap) February 11, 2026

A personal favourite here:

https://t.co/JZFz5o5rrr pic.twitter.com/DLAUyBEItA

— ‘Ku Shiesty (@KwakuNuamah) February 11, 2026

And also this lad:

https://t.co/ayFPRfNNMO pic.twitter.com/ElXRguFCE0

— R&M Productions (@RMproductionsX) February 11, 2026

In fact, this comeback was so good it even merited the Thierry of Approval:

https://t.co/w79cQ1nd9E pic.twitter.com/fQGs4PJaNL

— the great Keithulhu (@jjgjourno) February 11, 2026

Inevitably these were mixed in with a bunch of comments by crying racist babies. There’s a good chance they also need their hard drives checking. But frankly fuck them: this day goes to Ilhan Omar, long may she own the fuck out of Trump.

For more on the Epstein files, please read our article on how the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors.

Featured image via the Canary

The release of another tranche of documents from the Epstein Files by the US Department of Justice may have led the mainstream media in another direction, towards Jeffrey Epstein’s espionage connections. Corporate media has also failed to frame the victims and survivors as being central to his and countless others’ crimes.

However, another part of this story remains unexamined: Epstein was the linchpin in a full-on criminal enterprise that involved financial crimes as well as sexual abuse and exploitation.

This enterprise involved money laundering, art theft and fraud, currency and market manipulation, insider trading, banking and property fraud, racehorse switching and doping, on top of human trafficking and sexual slavery. And this list is by no means exhaustive.

Investigative journalist Carole Cadwalldr talks about the “broligarchy”, and she’s not wrong. Epstein counted an all-male coterie of billionaires among his circle. They were invited to lunches, dinners, and “conferences” at Epstein’s various properties around the world.

Epstein’s host of shell and “front” companies is the stuff of legend – certainly too many to list here. Thanks to his publicist Peggy Siegel, Epstein was hailed as a “financial wizard” in some quarters, but in reality, his wealth was down to two men – Victoria’s Secret owner Les Wexner, who gave Epstein his $56m New York townhouse, and Leon Black, who gave him a reported $158m.

What’s clear from the new release of files is the extent to which he sought social and financial legitimacy by courting high-net-worth individuals – and the richer, the better.

Here are the richest individuals who are central to this.

Elon Musk and Epstein

Net worth: $850bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 1084

Reported as the world’s richest man, Musk has previously said that Epstein had invited him to his island but he had declined.

While he has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case, the documents released include emails showing Musk had discussed travelling there on more than one occasion – there’s a proposed 2012 trip in which he asked Epstein, “What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?”

The emails from November 2012 show Epstein asked how many people Musk would need transporting by helicopter to the island and Musk replies that it would only be himself and his then-wife, Talulah Riley.

Meanwhile, an email from Musk to Epstein on Christmas Day in 2012 shows Musk asking whether the financier had any parties planned because he needs to “let loose”.

“I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose,” he writes, adding that a “peaceful island experience” is the opposite of what he’s looking for.

In another batch of emails from 2013, Musk and Epstein discuss a visit to the paedophile’s island, working on logistics and dates.

There is no evidence that Musk did take a trip to his island.

On X, Musk posted that he was “well aware that some email correspondence with [Epstein] could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name”.

He added: “I don’t care about that, but what I do care about is that we at least attempt to prosecute those who committed serious crimes with Epstein, especially regarding heinous exploitation of underage girls.”

Jeff Bezos

Net worth: $249bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 189

In 2004, literary agent John Brockman hosted a dinner at a restaurant in Monterey, California, where he hoped to introduce the scientist authors he represented to wealthy individuals. Among those invited included Google co-founder Larry Page, Jeff Bezos and Jeffrey Epstein. The annual event was known colloquially as the “billionaires’ dinner”.

Whatever passed between Bezos and Epstein at the dinner, Bezos extended an invitation to Ghislaine Maxwell to attend his exclusive Campfire Event in 2018. Maxwell would attend the event three times, on one occasion taking tech firm CEO Scott Borgerson. When Maxwell went on the run after Epstein’s arrest on child trafficking charges, it would be Borgerson’s property she would take refuge in.

Bill Gates

Net worth: $168bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 2512

Two emails from July 2013 drafted by Epstein suggest that Gates may have caught a sexually-transmitted disease and sought advice on how to secretly give his wife Melinda antibiotics. But it is unclear if these emails were sent. Both were sent from Epstein’s email account and back to the same account, while no email account associated with Gates is visible.

Gates visited his properties a number of times, including his island, Little St James. Epstein tried to broker a venture between Gate’s foundation and JP Morgan Chase Bank but it fizzled out. Meanwhile, Epstein inserted himself into the picture when Gates’ chief advisor Boris Nikolic was negotiating his departure with a $14m payout.

A spokesperson for the Microsoft co-founder told the BBC:

These claims – from a proven, disgruntled liar – are absolutely absurd and completely false.

They added:

The only thing these documents demonstrate is Epstein’s frustration that he did not have an ongoing relationship with Gates and the lengths he would go to entrap and defame.

Sergey Brin

Net worth: $255bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 258

Epstein was in contact with at least 20 prominent tech executives and investors. Musk, Bezos and Google co-founder Brin attended a dinner during the TED conference in California in March 2011. Brin visited Epstein’s private island and emails show that the pair made plans to dine out.

He also corresponded frequently with Ghislaine Maxwell, and in the files there’s an email about meeting up with Epstein and Maxwell during a trip to New York in 2003. “Let me know what works for you and Jeffrey,” Brin writes.

Obsessed with transhumanism. Epstein was especially interested in Brin’s fiancée at the time, Anne Wojcicki, biotech entrepreneur and 23andMe co-founder. The company filed for bankruptcy last year.

Richard Branson

Net worth: $2.8bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 635

There are numerous pictures of the British Virgin Group founder with Epstein, including on Branson’s island, Necker (as a friend of Branson’s daughter, Holly, Kate Middleton holidayed here with her family and reportedly asked Branson for business advice). Meanwhile, in an email exchange from 2013, he appears to tell him that it was “really nice” seeing him, before adding: “Any time you’re in the area would love to see you. As long as you bring your harem!”

Virgin Group has claimed that “harem” referred to three adult members of Epstein’s team, adding:

Any contact Richard and Joan Branson had with Epstein took place on only a few occasions more than twelve years ago, and was limited to group or business settings, such as a charity tennis event.

However, the pictures paint a different story and point to a more intimate relationship between the two men. Branson was also a fan of Prince William’s charity, Wild Aid, currently under fire for accepting a $50,000 donation from him.

Epstein’s links need to be dismantled

While being mentioned in the Epstein Files is not an indication of wrongdoing, it certainly begs the question of why anyone would go to an Epstein function more than once. What were they getting in return? Was a relationship with Epstein really worth risking everything? For example, if Google co-founder Sergey Brin has used his own search engine, he would have found Epstein’s widely reported conviction for child sex offences.

The files story is one of systemic failure and draws attention to the inability of law enforcement agencies around the world to deal with criminals when they are wealthy and influential. But Epstein was no “kingpin”, merely a cog in a global wheel of male patriarchal supremacy – one that must be dismantled finally and completely.

For more on the the Epstein Files, please read our article on how the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors here.

Featured image via the Canary

In life, some things are always true. One such truth is that wherever there is instability, pain and suffering in the world, former Navy SEAL and mercenary kingpin Erik Prince will be there trying to make a profit out of it. Like a fly on an open wound…

The Trump loyalist is now operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And he’s got a drone armada and a bunch of Israeli contractors with him. Prince signed a deal with Congo in 2025 to support the government in a conflict with Rwanda-backed rebels.

Haaretz reported on 11 February:

Blackwater founder Erik Prince deployed a private security force to operate drones and help the Democratic Republic of Congo’s army secure the strategic city of Uvira against Rwanda-backed rebels

His entourage includes:

a private security force trained by Israelis to operate drones and help the Democratic Republic of Congo’s army secure the strategic city of Uvira

But Prince, descendant of a line of US industrialists, is a busy man if nothing else…

Erik Prince — real-life Bond villain

Prince made a name in Iraq, where his now-defunct firm Blackwater is famous for the massacring of civilians. The early stages of that unpopular US occupation saw a boom in private military firms being used by the US and others, as well as by foreign oil firms. Trump eventually pardoned those convicted for the killings. Prince raked in millions anyway.

Blackwater was re-branded as Xe in 2009, then Academi in 2011. What hasn’t changed is that Prince has been making money out of war and chaos for decades.

Prince has interests in Ukrainian drones, Israeli occupation and the US dirty war with Venezuela. Prince sought to securitise Europe’s frontier against desperate refugees. He has been described as a real-life Bond villain and a hardcore Trump man from the start:

Erik Prince has always been politically connected to Maga, the Maga movement, and that’s going back to 2015.

He is also reported to be:

 a central figure among a web of other contractors trying to sell Trump advisers on a $25bn deal to privatize the mass deportations of 12 million migrants.

Prince also ran private military contractors to Haiti and is implicated in illegal arms deals in Libya. There doesn’t seem to be an authoritarian regime or shadowy outfit he won’t roll with: the UAE, Ecuador, China, Russia, the CIA… and the list goes on.

Now we know what sort of man this is, back to Congo.

Diamonds in Africa

Kinshasa hired the mercenaries

to help secure and improve tax revenue collection from Congo’s vast mineral reserves.

Sources in the country told the press:

Prince’s contractors operated in coordination with Israeli advisers who were involved in training two Congolese special forces battalions on day and night operations, according to a fifth source briefed on the operation.

They added the Israeli mandate is “training only”:

The AFC/M23 rebels briefly seized the city on the border with Burundi in December in a major blow to ongoing US- and Qatar-backed peace negotiations. They withdrew after Washington threatened to retaliate

And Hareetz said:

The US has offered Congo support brokering an end to the conflict in return for access to the nation’s critical mineral resources.

Trump’s art of the deal at work again…

Now Prince’s mercenaries are on the ground. Neither his nor the Congolese government’s spokespeople offered any comment. Prince is again confirming his role as colonialist grim reaper figure. In truth, he probably relishes that persona. It follows that he and Trump are natural bedfellows. Like the US president, Prince embodies the spirit of American capitalism and its role across the world. The trail of bodies his operations have left behind seems to confirm this.

Featured image via the Canary

The UK government has admitted that a study into the suitability of Scottish sites for new nuclear power projects could have been “a waste” of money. The government commissioned Great British Energy-Nuclear (GBE-N), a public body, to carry out the study.

The revelation came after Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) secretary of state Ed Miliband told Scottish journalists in October 2025 that:

given the growing interest in nuclear in Scotland, I’m asking GBE-N to assess Scotland’s capability for new nuclear power stations, including at Torness and Hunterston.

This is going to be a very, very big issue in the Scottish election campaign. We are saying yes to new nuclear in Scotland.

Labour hoping to end SNP ban on new nuclear in Scotland

Scotland is due to go to the polls to elect a new Scottish parliament and Scottish government in May 2026. Labour is hoping to wrest back control from the Scottish National Party (SNP).

In an article about the same interview published in October 2025, the Scotsman newspaper reported that a “senior UK government source” had said they were considering submitting planning applications for new nuclear developments at Torness and Hunterston because they expected a Scottish Labour victory at the Holyrood election.

The UK Labour Party and Scottish Labour support nuclear power and nuclear weapons. This position is coming under pressure as the Green Party of England and Wales, which vehemently opposes all nuclear, increasingly challenges Labour in public opinion polls.

Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, the government released documents to the Canary about Miliband’s request to GBE-N. These included a Q&A document prepared by DESNZ officials. It revealed that officials knew there would be concerns about new nuclear proposals in Scotland.

No new nuclear can be built in Scotland because planning policy is a devolved matter, and the ruling SNP opposes nuclear power. The rebuttal in the DESNZ Q&A was that there is “cross-party interest in new nuclear” in Scotland.

Energy department officials contradict each other on responsibility for study

The documents released under FOI also revealed that a DESNZ official, whose name was redacted, had sought to reassure GBE-N colleagues that DESNZ was not “behind the briefing” in an email sent on 22 October 2025 at 4:02pm.

That position was contradicted by an email in a separate earlier conversation where, on 21 October 2025 at 6:46pm, John Staples, DESNZ director for new nuclear strategy and fusion energy, said:

our SpAds [special advisors] want SoS [secretary of state] to be able to say the below to Scottish journalists.

‘Below’ in the email were lines drafted for Miliband which included:

I will ask Great British Energy – Nuclear to begin assessing Scotland’s capability for new nuclear power stations.

The internally prepared Q&A included a question which asked:

Isn’t this study a waste of money?

The DESNZ answer said:

New nuclear projects can deliver millions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-quality jobs to a region – UK ministers want to understand the potential for new projects right across Great Britain.

The Canary approached the Labour Party for comment, which deferred to DESNZ. DESNZ did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Obvious’ that study would be ‘waste of money’ – Scottish CND

A Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) spokesperson told the Canary:

It is obvious that an assessment of the viability of new nuclear sites in Scotland would be a waste of money, since the foremost issue is not the viability of sites but Scottish government policy.

Energy policy is devolved to Holyrood and the Scottish government very sensibly opposes new nuclear plants in Scotland.

Advertisement

There are a whole host of reasons why new nuclear plants in Scotland would be a terrible idea, including the absolutely exorbitant cost of nuclear plant construction, the reliance on destructive and unjust international uranium supply chains, and the enormous and cross-generational burden of decommissioning nuclear plants, which in the case of Dounreay is expected to take hundreds of years.

In particular, the notion that Scotland, which is a net energy exporter and has the potential to become an international renewables powerhouse, should pivot to costly nuclear projects at this stage is somewhat absurd.

Investing the same sums invested in nuclear power plants – scores of billions and climbing for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – into the grid, home insulation and the renewables sector across Scotland would be an immeasurably better investment.

For Scottish CND, another concerning element of the renewed push for nuclear power is the deep imbrication [overlapping] of the ‘civil’ and military nuclear industries, as openly promoted in the 2025 Industrial Strategy.

Advertisement

From this perspective, investment in new nuclear power plants can be seen as defence spending by stealth and a means of shoring up the UK nuclear weapons industry – something which is of no benefit to Scotland and indeed causes major risks and harms in Scottish communities.

New nuclear would be incredibly expensive – Scottish government minister

Cross-party Scottish politicians elected to the Holyrood and Westminster parliaments criticised the commissioning of the study.

Scottish government energy secretary Gillian Martin MSP told the Canary:

The Scottish government does not support the creation of new nuclear reactors in Scotland.

New nuclear would be incredibly expensive and the levy placed on energy bills to pay for nuclear reactors will cost Scottish electricity bill payers £300m over the next decade.

Advertisement

Nuclear reactors also produce a legacy of dangerous radioactive waste. Instead, we are focused on supporting the development of Scotland’s immense renewable energy potential – which provides more jobs, is faster to deliver, is safer, and more cost effective than the creation of new nuclear reactors.

Significant growth in renewables is providing key opportunities for our future energy workforce in Scotland, with independent scenarios from Ernst and Young showing that with the right support, Scotland’s low carbon and renewable energy sector could support nearly 80,000 jobs by 2050.

SNP criticises ‘Westminster obsession with nuclear’

The SNP’s Westminster energy spokesperson Graham Leadbitter MP told the Canary:

People in Scotland are already paying a tax for new nuclear power stations in England they neither want nor need, driving up energy bills at a time households are already under serious financial pressures.

Scotland is blessed with an abundance of clean, renewable energy already, enough to power our nation many times over.

Advertisement

So this Westminster obsession with nuclear isn’t based on need, or even any desire from people living here who would rather not pay hand over fist for expensive and unnecessary nuclear power.

Instead what they should be focusing on is delivering on their promise to cut energy bills by £300 which have instead, under Labour’s rule, risen significantly higher.

People in Scotland are tired of these out-of-touch diktats from Westminster politicians about what should be built here, all while ignoring the genuine concerns of the people who live and work here.

It’s no wonder more and more people are concluding that decisions about Scotland should be made in Scotland with the full powers of independence.

Advertisement

‘New nuclear would waste time, money and political attention’ – Scottish Greens

Scottish Greens net zero spokesperson Patrick Harvie MSP told the Canary:

There is a clear majority against new nuclear power programmes in Scotland.

New nuclear would waste time, money and political attention which should be spent on the real challenges we face on climate and energy policy.

Scotland has made impressive progress in building an energy system based on renewables, which are cheaper, faster to deliver and far safer for people and the environment. There’s still plenty of potential for renewables to keep growing.

The UK government shouldn’t be wasting money trying to push nuclear projects on Scotland, against the wishes of Scotland’s parliament.

Advertisement

If they care about cutting emissions and cutting fuel poverty, they’d be changing electricity price regulation to pass on the low cost of renewable generation to billpayers, which would cut the cost of living and create a powerful incentive to switch away from fossil fuels for heat and transport.

If the UK government won’t do that, it should give Scotland the power to do so for ourselves.

Scotland should not have to deal with the distraction of UK Labour’s nuclear fantasy, when we need both governments to scale up and speed up in eradicating fuel poverty and in the race to net zero.

Featured image via the Canary

Novara Media’s Ash Sarkar has laid bare the blatant double standard in the Labour Party’s vetting process:

Worth remembering that Faiza Shaheen was deselected as a Labour candidate for liking tweets from the Greens *before* she was ever a Labour member.

What could possibly explain such an intensive vetting process for the left, and such an apparently shoddy one for the right? https://t.co/hSxjZfYKfN

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) February 11, 2026

Labour have one rule for one lot, another for the rest

Sarkar’s interjection followed a post from the Times assistant political editor Geri Scott. Scott referred to a comment from Education minister Georgia Gould, who insisted the government were ‘unaware’ of Matthew Doyle’s links to Sean Morton when announcing his peerage.

Doyle reportedly campaigned for Morton, a former Moray Labour councillor. A court sentenced Morton in 2018 for possessing Child Sexual Abuse Materials (CSAM). Authorities brought charges against him in 2016, yet Labour waited a year before suspending him from the party. A recent investigation found that Doyle was jailed for further similar offences last year, shining a spotlight on Labour’s selective vetting.

Despite Gould’s deflection, Scott has pointed out the government were aware prior to the letters patent being sealed and passed to the King, adding:

A govt source says: “There is no established precedent for withdrawing a peerage nomination after the announcement stage.”

An X account responded and challenged Gould’s links to Mandelson herself:

Georgia Gould? daughter if Philip Gould? Appointed by Peter Mandelson ? See? dots dots dots all joining up

Sarkar points out this double standard by referring to the Labour party’s treatment of Faiza Shaheen. The party suspended Shaheen prior to the general election. The scandalous suspension came after old posts showed Shaheen liking content from the Green Party. Sarkar astutely points out those likes were prior to being a member of the Labour Party, whilst shining a light on what is (or isn’t) a ‘sackable offence’ in the eyes of Labour leader and PM Keir Starmer.

One X account commented:

You can’t say they’re not thorough when investigating things they are bothered about, it’s such a shame they have really bad priorities.

They can hardly say they weren’t warned, with the leader of the SNP tabling a motion 4 weeks ago in response to Doyle’s peerage:

It’s just 4 weeks since I tabled a motion opposing this very appointment to the House of Lords.

Why did Keir Starmer ignore the warnings, and the victims, and appoint him anyway?https://t.co/oBXOdUm9hF https://t.co/NJxMbFujGm pic.twitter.com/IiVFNQwt6O

— Stephen Flynn MP (@StephenFlynnSNP) February 10, 2026

Advertisement

Vetting process clearly works, but the boss shouldn’t get to decide

This issue once again exposes a blatant double standard at the heart of government. It also reveals the autonomy afforded to those in charge when it comes to deciding what ‘issues’ matter to them.

Sexual offences against children should really be on that list of concerns. And Starmer must answer why it doesn’t seem to actually bother him in the first place.

Featured image via the Canary