Politics
Wings Over Scotland | The Interests Of The Many
As we told you last week, we’ve now had counsel draft our application for a group proceedings action on behalf of donors to the “ringfenced” independence referendum campaign funds which were stolen and spent by the SNP on party business.
The draft can be read below. We’ve already gathered dozens of people who are unhappy about having their donations misappropriated by the party, and we invite any others who’d like refunds and compensation to join the group by getting in touch via the Wings contact form.
(There will be no cost to you from becoming involved in the claim.)
——————————————————————————-
FORM 13.2-AA Rule 13.2(1A)
IN THE COURT OF SESSION
(Group Proceedings Action) (Chapter 26A)
SUMMONS
IN THE CAUSE
JOHN TAMSON, residing at [address]
REPRESENTATIVE PARTY
against
THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, an unincorporated association having its principal office at Gordon Lamb House, 3 Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh, EH8 8PJ; and JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, Party Leader, STUART MACDONALD, Treasurer, and IAN MCCANN, Nominating Officer, all having a place of business at Gordon Lamb House aforesaid, as Officers of the Scottish National Party representing same and as individuals
DEFENDER
Charles III, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, PETER GRANT, and IAN MCCANN.
By this summons, the court having authorised JOHN TAMSON to be a representative party in group proceedings and having granted permission to JOHN TAMSON to bring the proceedings, the representative party for the pursuers craves the Lords of our Council and Session to pronounce a decree against you in terms of the conclusions appended to this summons. If you have any good reason why such decree should not be pronounced, you must enter appearance at the Office of Court, Court of Session, 2 Parliament Square, Edinburgh EH1 1RQ, within three days after the date of the calling of the summons in court. The summons shall not call in court earlier than 21 days after the date of service on you of this summons.
Given under our Signet at Edinburgh
Solicitor for the Representative Party
Conclusions
-
For declarator that the Defender held the sums donated by each group member to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund in trust for the purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign, and for no other purpose.
-
For declarator that the Defender’s knowing application of the said ring-fenced funds to purposes other than a future independence referendum campaign constituted a fraudulent breach of trust.
-
For payment by the Defender to the Representative Party of the appropriate sum by way of damages which represents a reasonable assessment of the losses suffered by each individual Group Member, being (i) repayment of the sums donated by each group member to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund, together with (ii) such further sum as represents reasonable compensation for the fraudulent breach of trust hereinafter condescended upon, in order that the sum assessed for each group member may be transferred to the group member named in the Group Register, together with interest thereon at the rate of eight percent per annum from the date of each Group Member’s donation(s) to date, or at such other rate and from such other date as the court thinks fit, until payment.
- For the expenses of the group proceedings.
Articles of Condescendence
The Parties’ Designations
-
The Representative Party is John Tamson. He resides at [address]. His date of birth is [date]. He is [occupation]. The Representative Party donated sums to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund, as hereinafter condescended upon, and has a claim against the Defender arising from the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust. The individual group members are designed in the Group Register, which is produced herewith (hereinafter “the Group Members”). Each of the Group Members donated money to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund and has not received a refund of those sums.
-
The Defender is the SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, an unincorporated association and registered political party, having its principal office at Gordon Lamb House, 3 Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh, EH8 8PJ. The Defender is registered with the Electoral Commission. JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, Party Leader, PETER GRANT, Treasurer, and IAN MCCANN, Nominating Officer, are convened as the Officers thereof, as representing the Scottish National Party and as individuals.
Jurisdiction
-
This Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim against the Defender. The Defender has its principal office in Edinburgh, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the subject matter of the present action concerns wrongs committed in Scotland. There are no other proceedings pending before any other Court between the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter of this cause of action. There are no proceedings elsewhere in respect of any of the Group Members named in the Group Register in respect of the subject matter of this action. No agreement exists between the parties prorogating jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present cause to any other Court.
Subject Matter of the Group Proceedings
-
These group proceedings arise out of the Defender’s solicitation from the public, including the Group Members, of donations expressly and repeatedly represented as being ring-fenced for the exclusive purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign; the creation thereby of a trust in respect of those funds; and the subsequent deliberate and dishonest application of those funds to purposes other than the stated purpose, without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members, constituting fraudulent breach of trust.
The Defender’s Fundraising Representations
-
In or around March 2017, the Defender launched a fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public. This was done by way of a website with the domain name www.ref.scot to collect donations “as part of a fundraising campaign for the proposed second referendum”. The website included a video message from the then First Minister and Party Leader of the Defender, Nicola Sturgeon, in which she urged supporters to sign a pledge “to support Scotland’s referendum” and to make a donation to the SNP’s “independence fighting fund”. Potential donors were asked, and many agreed, to set up direct debits by which monthly donations to the Defender would be made for the purposes of funding campaigning for an anticipated future Independence referendum.
-
On 29 March 2017, by email from the Defender’s then party fundraiser, Jim Henderson, those that had by that date executed direct debits to make donations to the Defender for the purposes of funding a future referendum were told inter alia as follows:
“Thank you for your recent donation which will be ring fenced for a future independence referendum. Your decision, with many other members and supporters, to make a monthly contribution will mean that we are able to build up a sizeable war chest to fight the campaign when the time comes.”
The email went on to set out various reasons why a referendum was necessary, with a heavy focus on the then-possibility of the UK exiting the European Union, and concluded:
“We are starting to build the resources that will ensure we are not outspent in the referendum campaign. Your generosity and support will be vital to making that happen.”
-
In June 2017, after concerns were raised that money donated as aforesaid might instead be used for general election campaigning, Scottish Labour MSP James Kelly asked the Electoral Commission to investigate. The Defender’s response at that point, made publicly and widely reported including in an article in the National newspaper published in hard copy and online on 13 June 2017, was to deny misuse. The Defender’s spokesman told the National newspaper, in comments quoted in said article, as follows:
-
In or around May 2019, the Defender launched a further fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public on materially identical terms. The Defender represented that donations had “been put into a ring-fenced fund to build up a war chest to fight a future Independence Referendum.” Those representations were again made to donors by email from the Defender’s party fundraiser.
-
In March 2020, a donor requested repayment of moneys donated by him to the ring-fenced fund. The fourth named defender, Ian McCann, replied in writing: “your other donations are in a ring-fenced fund to fight the next referendum, whenever we are in a position to call that… We are not in a position to refund those monies.”
-
In the summer of 2020, the Defender launched a further fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public, again on materially identical terms. In the campaign documentation, donors were given an option to “add my personal donation to the ring-fenced Independence Referendum Campaign fund”.
-
Later in 2020, the Defender’s then Treasurer emailed Members of the Defender, saying inter alia:
-
At the Defender’s party conference in November 2020, its then Treasurer issued the following statement:
-
In 2021, the Defender’s then Treasurer issued the following further statement in the Financial Review section of the party’s annual accounts for 2020:
-
The said representations were not qualified or limited in any way. There was no suggestion that the donated funds could be used by the Defender for any purpose other than a referendum campaign. The acknowledgement emails sent to donors were clear and unambiguous: the money was to be held for and applied exclusively to a future independence referendum campaign.
-
It is understood that the total sums raised by the Defender through the said ring-fenced fundraisers exceeded £600,000. The precise total donated by Group Members falls to be ascertained upon recovery of documents in these proceedings.
The Trust Thereby Created
-
Where persons subscribe money to effect a particular object, and place the money in the hands of certain persons to carry out that object, a trust (or quasi-trust) is thereby created. The trust so created is for the purpose of either carrying out the object of the subscription, or, if that cannot be done, of paying back the money. The persons holding the trust funds are not entitled to outlay the moneys for purposes other than the object for which they were pledged.
-
In the circumstances, the Defender held the sums donated by the Group Members in trust for the exclusive purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign. Alternatively, if no referendum campaign materialised, the Defender was bound to return the donated sums to the donors. The Defender, through its office-bearers and those responsible for the custody and management of its funds, occupied a position of trust in relation to the Group Members as donors. The Defender was not at liberty to treat the moneys thereby donated as its own.
The Fiduciary Relationship
-
By virtue of the terms upon which the donations were solicited and accepted, and the trust thereby created, the Defender and its responsible office-bearers stood in a fiduciary relationship with the Group Members. They were subject to a duty of loyalty, requiring them to act in the interests of the donors by applying the ring-fenced funds only for the stated purpose.
The Diversion of Funds
-
Despite the said representations, the “ring-fenced funds” were not in fact “ring-fenced” (viz, held separately) or applied for the stated purpose. Instead, the funds were absorbed into the Defender’s general finances and applied to the Defender’s ongoing party activities, unrelated to any independence referendum campaign. No independence referendum campaign has taken place since the donations were solicited. The funds were not returned to the donors. They have been spent for other purposes.
-
On or about 3 June 2026, the second named defender, John Swinney, in his capacity as leader of the Defender, publicly confirmed that the ring-fenced referendum funds had been applied to “the ongoing activities of the Scottish National Party.” This admission constitutes a public acknowledgment that the funds were diverted from their stated purpose.
-
This diversion was without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members. No communication was sent to donors informing them that the ring-fencing had been breached or that their donations were being applied to purposes other than those represented. The donors were not asked to, and did not, consent to such diversion of funds.
Fraudulent Breach of Trust
-
Those responsible for the custody and management of the Defender’s funds occupied a position of trust in relation to the Group Members. The deliberate and dishonest decision to apply trust funds to an unauthorised purpose constituted a fraudulent breach of trust which (a) amounted in criminal law to embezzlement; and (b) in civil law gives rise to a right of reparation in the Group Members.
-
The Defender’s office-bearers breached their fiduciary duties to the Group Members by (a) applying the ring-fenced funds to purposes other than those for which they were donated, in breach of the duty of loyalty; (b) failing to maintain the funds separately or to account for them; (c) concealing the diversion from the Group Members; and (d) making false representations as to the continued existence and application of the ring-fenced fund. These acts and omissions contributed to said fraudulent breach of trust.
Loss and Damage
-
As a result of the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust, each of the Group Members has suffered loss and damage, being at minimum the sum donated by them to the ring-fenced independence referendum fund and not refunded. The Group Members have further suffered distress and inconvenience at the revelation of breach of trust, which distress and inconvenience gives rise to claims in reparation given the intentional nature of the wrongdoing.
Prescription
-
The donations in question were all, or at least mainly, paid to the Defender more than five years ago. However, the obligations in respect of which enforcement is sought herein have not suffered prescription, since obligations arising from fraudulent breach of trust are imprescriptible in terms of s.7(2) of and Schedule 3 to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.
Necessity
-
The Representative Party has called upon the Defender to repay the sums donated by the Group Members to the ring-fenced independence referendum fund, and to compensate the Group Members for the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust. The Defender refuses or at least delays in doing so. This action is accordingly necessary.
PLEAS-IN-LAW FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE PARTY
-
The Defender having solicited and received donations from the Group Members upon the express representation that those donations would be ring-fenced for a future independence referendum campaign, the Court should declare that a trust was thereby created in respect of those funds, and that the Defender was bound to apply those funds exclusively for that purpose, as first concluded for.
-
The Defender having diverted said trust funds to other purposes without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members, and having done so deliberately and dishonestly, declarator should be granted as second concluded for.
-
The Representative Party and the Group Members having sustained loss and damage as a consequence of the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust, the Defender is liable to make reparation therefor and decree should be granted as third concluded for.
IN RESPECT WHEREOF
Halliday Campbell
Solicitor for the Representative Party
——————————————————————————-
The SNP have made it clear that while they expect to be recompensed for the money Peter Murrell embezzled from them, they do NOT intend to repay the donors that the party embezzled the “Referendum Appeal Fund” (current balance: £0) from.
Well, let’s see about that, shall we?
FIFA has launched disciplinary proceedings against Argentina following several alleged breaches during the 2026 World Cup, with the governing body examining incidents from both the semi-final win over England and the final defeat to Spain. The case centres on discriminatory behaviour, team misconduct, protocol failures, and the use of an inappropriate political message. Specifically the Falklands banner displayed after Argentina’s 2-1 semi-final victory in Atlanta.
The banner, which read “the Falklands are Argentine” is being treated as a potential breach of article 13 paragraph 2 c) of the FIFA disciplinary code, which prohibits demonstrations of a non-sporting nature at football events. FIFA’s investigation also covers late kick-offs, racist abuse allegations, security lapses, object throwing and other protocol violations attributed to both players and supporters.
Fallout from England semi-final
The semi-final in Atlanta is central to the case. After beating England, Argentina players held the Falklands banner in front of their supporters and then placed it on the pitch for several minutes. According to FIFA’s charge sheet, the banner had been brought into the stadium by some Argentina fans before being picked up by players at full-time. it remained visible on the turf until members of the squad folded it and handed it to a backroom staff member.
The display is being treated as a serious breach because FIFA’s regulations explicitly forbid political messaging inside stadiums. The governing body is examining whether Argentina’s players knowingly contributed to the display and whether the federation failed to prevent the banner’s appearance.
Argentina escalate tensions after final
The second major flashpoint came in New Jersey, where Argentina lost the World Cup final 1-0 to Spain. The closing moments and aftermath were marked by confrontations between players from both sides, prompting further disciplinary action.
Leandro Paredes is facing proceedings for three breaches of article 14 paragraph 1 i), relating to assault. He was involved in multiple altercations, including grabbing and pushing Spain players. Nahuel Molina is also under investigation after striking Rodri at full-time. Thiago Almada and assistant coach Roberto Ayala have had cases opened against them for their roles in the post-match disorder.
Spain midfielder Gavi is facing separate proceedings for unsporting behaviour, with FIFA reviewing his conduct during the same chaotic scenes.
Wider context for FIFA
The timing of the disciplinary announcement comes as FIFA faces scrutiny over other issues, including controversial proposals attributed to Gianni Infantino regarding commercial changes to the World Cup. The governing body’s decision to release details of Argentina’s charges may shift attention back to on-field behaviour and tournament conduct.
The investigation highlights FIFA’s ongoing efforts to enforce strict behavioural standards at major tournaments. political messaging, discriminatory behaviour and violent conduct are treated as serious offences, and the governing body has shown a willingness to pursue cases even after the competition has concluded.
Argentina consequences
If found guilty, Argentina could face a range of sanctions, including fines, warnings, suspensions for individuals and potential restrictions on future matchday operations. players such as Paredes, Molina and Almada could receive bans, while coach Ayala may also face disciplinary measures. the federation itself could be penalised for failing to prevent the banner display and for broader misconduct involving supporters.
By Faz Ali
World football has entered its most serious institutional crisis in decades, after the 55 national associations that are members of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) announced their unanimous agreement to boycott all FIFA tournaments, foremost among them the World Cup, should FIFA President Gianni Infantino proceed with his plan to privatise FIFA competitions and sell stakes in them to private-sector investors.
The decision followed an emergency meeting convened by UEFA amid mounting European opposition to the proposal, which officials on the continent regard as a threat to the future of the game and to the nature of international tournaments – which they view as belonging to the national associations and the fans, rather than as assets available for sale and investment.
Unanimous European rejection
UEFA, in an official statement issued on behalf of the 55 national associations, confirmed that all members stand united in rejecting FIFA’s proposal to transfer ownership of shares in the World Cup and its other competitions to private-sector investors, emphasising that European associations will not participate in any tournament organised by FIFA should the plan go ahead.
They said:
We unanimously and unequivocally reject FIFA’s proposal to transfer ownership interests in the World Cup and other FIFA competitions to private investors.
The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product. It is one of football’s greatest sporting legacies. It has been built over generations by players, national teams and supporters across every continent. No part of it should ever be surrendered to private investors. The World Cup is not for sale.
UEFA has called on FIFA to withdraw the proposal entirely and to provide binding guarantees that no similar project will be put forward in the future, arguing that ownership of global tournaments must remain in the hands of football governing bodies rather than investors.
UEFA views FIFA’s corporate takeover plans a radical shift in the nature of global football governance, granting the private sector unprecedented influence over the most important international tournaments, which threatens the independence of the game and prioritises commercial considerations over sporting values.
Repercussions that could threaten the World Cup
The European decision has significant implications for the future of FIFA tournaments, as the UEFA system includes the world’s leading national teams and those with the most titles, meaning that a boycott would directly affect the sporting and commercial value of the World Cup and other international competitions.
UEFA is also seeking to rally support from other continental federations to join its stance, amidst reports of reservations within some Asian federations, whilst others continue to consider their position on the proposal before making a final decision.
Although FIFA has so far stood by its plan, the European consensus presents the world governing body with its greatest political and administrative challenge under President Gianni Infantino, and threatens to cause an unprecedented split within the global football system if a settlement is not reached in the near future.
Featured image via the Canary
By Alaa Shamali
Luke Littler’s latest triumph has pushed a familiar question back into the centre of darts: is anyone, in any sport, operating at his level of control right now? His World Matchplay defence in Blackpool, sealed with an 18-9 win over Gerwyn Price, was another reminder of how far ahead he is of the field. It was his second straight Matchplay title, another major added to a season in which he has already swept every PDC ranked crown available.
Littler’s numbers in 2026 make the argument difficult to resist. He has won every major, controlled every long‑format match, and produced averages that have redefined what is possible on the biggest stages. His Matchplay performance, built on relentless scoring and clinical finishing, has only widened the gap between him and the rest of the PDC.
Cross‑sport comparisons
Luke Littler’s dominance is measurable through titles. Darts offers more majors than most sports, but even if you strip it down to the biggest four, Littler still holds them all. That clean sweep, combined with the manner of his victories, places him at the top of the global conversation.
Only two athletes who come closest to matching Littler’s level: world No 1 Jannik Sinner in tennis and world No 1 Scottie Scheffler in golf. Both have been the standout performers in their sports across the past year, with Sinner’s rise to the top of the ATP rankings and Scheffler’s sustained run of elite finishes on the PGA Tour. But neither has matched Littler’s total control of their competitive landscape.
Sinner’s dominance has been impressive, but tennis spreads its majors across different surfaces and conditions, making sustained superiority harder to maintain. Scheffler’s consistency has been remarkable, but golf’s variables, with course setups, weather, fields of 150 players, make absolute dominance almost impossible. Littler, by contrast, has controlled every major stage he has stepped onto in 2026.
Beau Greaves’ parallel rise
Littler’s case is strong, but Beau Greaves’ has also had an extraordinary run in women’s darts. Greaves won the Women’s World Matchplay in Blackpool and has been on a streak that includes 17 titles from 24 qualifying events and a run of 114 consecutive match wins. Fallon Sherrock ended that streak with a 102 average, underlining how high Greaves’ level has been.
It is very rare for one nation to have two players dominating both the men’s and women’s circuits at the same time. Littler and Greaves have reshaped the competitive landscape in their respective fields, producing levels of consistency that are difficult to match in any other sport.
The Taylor question
Taylor’s record was 16 world titles, sustained across multiple eras. Which remains the benchmark. He reinvented his game repeatedly, adapted to new formats, and maintained superiority over different generations of opponents. Littler, by contrast, has two world titles, both won in 2025 and 2026 after his breakthrough in 2024.
Littler has the potential to challenge Taylor’s legacy, but the gap remains significant. Dominance in the present does not automatically translate to all‑time greatness. Taylor’s longevity, adaptability and title count still define the sport’s historical hierarchy.
Littler’s rise has brought new fans into darts, many of whom did not experience Taylor’s peak years. Taylor’s achievements across decades still place him at the top of the sport’s all‑time list.
Littler’s current form, makes him one of the most dominant athletes in any sport right now, but greatness requires sustained excellence over many years. Taylor’s record remains unmatched, and Littler’s challenge is to maintain his level long enough to close that gap.
Luke Littler mindset
Littler has made no secret of his ambition. After his Matchplay win, he spoke about wanting to become the greatest darts player of all time and about chasing the feat of winning every major in a single calendar year. His performances in 2026 suggest that goal is realistic, but the sport’s calendar is demanding and the margins at the top are tight.
His ability to maintain high averages across long‑format matches has been the defining feature of his season. He has produced consistent scoring power, controlled the pace of matches, and delivered under pressure with a maturity beyond his age. Those qualities have made him the sport’s dominant force and placed him at the centre of the global debate.
Greaves, Sherrock and the women’s landscape
Sherrock’s performance to end Greaves’ winning streak showed that the top players are capable of producing elite numbers. Greaves’ consistency, however, remains the standout feature of the women’s game.
Her ability to win titles across different formats and maintain long winning runs mirrors Littler’s dominance in the men’s game. The parallel rise of both players has given darts a unique narrative in 2026, with two English athletes controlling their respective circuits.
The wider sporting picture
The comparison with Sinner and Scheffler places Littler’s dominance in a broader context. Tennis and golf reward consistency, but their structures make absolute control difficult. Littler’s ability to win every major in a single season, combined with the manner of his victories, sets him apart.
His performances have reshaped expectations within darts and forced analysts to reconsider how dominance is measured across sports. The debate will continue, but his current form makes him the leading candidate for the title of the world’s most dominant sportsperson.
What comes next
Luke Littler now turns his attention to the BoyleSports World Grand Prix, where he will defend another title. With the Grand Slam and World Championship still to come later in the year, the possibility of a full sweep remains alive.
If he maintains his current level, the debate over cross‑sport dominance will only intensify. For now, his performances place him at the top of the conversation, with Sinner, Scheffler and Greaves forming the closest comparisons.
Featured Image courtesy of Luke Littler Instagram
By Faz Ali
Eddie Howe’s time at Newcastle United is over. After nearly five years in charge, the head coach has stepped down following discussions with the club’s hierarchy over the past 48 hours. The move, however, did not come out of nowhere. Howe had already begun contemplating a departure weeks earlier, even as he continued preparing the squad for their Premier League opener against Liverpool on August 23.
His exit lands just 25 days before that fixture. It also arrives at a moment when Newcastle are attempting to stabilise after a turbulent summer of major sales, shifting priorities and growing uncertainty around key players. Howe leaves with the club still to issue a formal statement, but the decision is his, not theirs. Newcastle wanted him to stay. He felt he had taken the project as far as he could.
Matthias Jaissle lined up
Newcastle are moving quickly. Matthias Jaissle, currently at Al Ahli, set to replace Howe. The club hope to appoint the 38‑year‑old German within 24 hours, allowing him to take charge of the upcoming pre‑season camp in La Manga. Jaissle’s current employers, Al Ahli, are one of four clubs owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund. This is the same ownership group behind Newcastle, which has helped accelerate discussions.
Kieran McKenna and Antonio Conte were also considered, but Newcastle have settled on Jaissle as the preferred candidate to take the squad forward.
Howe and a summer of doubts
Newcastle’s summer has already been defined by major outgoings. Sandro Tonali has joined Tottenham in a £100m deal. Anthony Gordon has moved to Barcelona for close to £70m. Captain Bruno Guimaraes wants to leave and is wanted by Arsenal. Last summer, Alexander Isak departed for Liverpool in a British‑record £125m transfer.
Those departures have shaped Howe’s thinking. He believed he could take Newcastle forward again this season, but only if the club recruited strongly. Instead, the squad has been stripped of several of its most influential players, leaving Howe concerned about what the team would look like by the start of the campaign.
Newcastle have made additions, with winger Bazoumana Toure from Hoffenheim for £42m, midfielder Sean Steur from Ajax for £23m, and goalkeeper Ewen Jaouen from Reims for £18.5m. Yet they also missed out on Johan Manzambi, who chose Aston Villa. The balance of the squad remains in flux.
Howe’s final days
Howe’s final match was a 4‑1 pre‑season defeat to Bristol City on Wednesday night. The result did not trigger the decision, but it framed the timing. Upon returning from the game, Howe informed his coaching staff. He will now take a break from football. The players have not yet been told; they were given a day off and will fly to Spain for the training camp on Friday.
There is no acrimony. The club believe Howe has done an exceptional job. He simply feels the project has reached its natural limit under his leadership.
Howe’s reign: five years of progress
Howe’s tenure is one of the most significant in Newcastle’s modern history. Appointed in November 2021 to replace Steve Bruce, he inherited a team winless in its first 14 Premier League games. By May 2022, he had guided them to safety and an 11th‑place finish. The first team ever to stay up after failing to win any of their opening 14 matches.
In August 2022, he signed a new long‑term contract. By February 2023, he had taken Newcastle to their first final in 24 years, losing the Carabao Cup final 2‑0 to Manchester United. Three months later, he delivered a fourth‑place finish and Champions League qualification for the first time in more than two decades.
January 2024 brought an FA Cup Tyne‑Wear derby win. Newcastle’s first victory over Sunderland in almost 13 years. In May 2024, they finished seventh, scoring 85 goals and posting their highest Premier League goal tally ever.
March 2025 delivered silverware: a 2‑1 win over Liverpool in the Carabao Cup final, ending a 56‑year wait for a major trophy. Two months later, Howe secured another Champions League qualification with a fifth‑place finish.
The 2025‑26 season brought challenges. Isak left for Liverpool on deadline day. Newcastle reached the Champions League knockout stages via the play‑offs but were beaten by Barcelona. They finished 12th in the league. Gordon left for Barcelona in May 2026. Tonali followed in July. Guimaraes expressed his desire to leave. The squad was shifting faster than Howe believed was sustainable.
July 2026, after months of reflection, Howe has stepped down.
Howe’s final words on Guimaraes
Before news of his departure broke, Howe addressed the uncertainty around Guimaraes. He refused to offer assurances over the midfielder’s future, noting that neither the club nor the player fully controlled the situation. He emphasised Guimaraes’ commitment and quality, but acknowledged that external forces were shaping the saga.
His comments were calm, measured and consistent with his approach throughout his tenure: clarity without theatrics.
There are fears Newcastle could slip into a relegation battle without Howe, pointing to the scale of player departures and the reliance on unproven replacements. Supporters have expressed shock, frustration and sadness. Some believe Howe was not backed sufficiently. Others feel the timing is difficult but accept the decision. Many simply thank him for the memories.
Howe’s legacy
Howe leaves as one of Newcastle’s greatest managers. He delivered Champions League football twice, ended a decades‑long trophy drought, rebuilt the club’s identity and raised standards across the squad. His work was defined by consistency, clarity and a refusal to indulge in noise.
Newcastle now enter a new phase. A new head coach is expected imminently. A reshaped squad awaits. The project continues, but the architect of its revival has stepped aside.
Howe departs with respect, appreciation and a legacy that will endure long beyond the turbulence of this summer.
Featured Image via The Independent
By Faz Ali
The Supreme Court has today granted Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori permission to challenge the government’s continued terrorism ban on the group.
Palestine Action was ‘proscribed’ in July 2025. The ban was overturned in February 2026 by the High Court, which found it unlawful. Shabana Mahmood – still home secretary despite a change of PM – was allowed to go to the Court of Appeals. The appeals court overturned the High Court’s decision in June 2026, ruling that Mahmood was better placed than legal experts to decide what is a justified infringement on UK human rights.
But today, 30 July 2026, the UK’s highest court has granted Ammori permission to appeal to it. The case will be held sometime in the last three months of this year.
Palestine Action mass arrests limbo
The UK state has arrested more than 3,500 people for peacefully protesting against the ban. Dozens more were arrested today, including clergy, after a further protest at Westminster Magistrates’ Court – photos and footage will follow.
Britain today: An elderly woman in a wheelchair is escorted away by the police and risks up to 14 years in prison for supporting terrorism since the Home Secretary proscribed a protest group in 2025.
Her crime? She said: "I support Palestine Action and I encourage you to join". pic.twitter.com/GbHR7Aotro
— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) July 30, 2026
The appeal decision means their cases will remain in stasis. The Starmer-turned-Burnham war on UK rights to protect Israel faces a new challenge.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
FIFA president Gianni Infantino has unveiled a commercial project. It could become one of the biggest financial ventures in the organisation’s history.
The plan would partially privatise FIFA’s commercial operations, most notably the World Cup. For the first time, outside investors would be allowed to take a stake in these activities.
Below, Al-Kanari breaks down the key elements of the proposal, how it would work, its potential value, and why it has faced such strong opposition.
A new commercial company
At the centre of the proposal is the creation of a new independent company, FIFA Forward Enterprise. This company would take control of FIFA’s commercial assets.
Those assets would include all of FIFA’s major revenue streams, including the World Cup — the organisation’s biggest source of income. They also include broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, advertising contracts, ticketing revenue, licensing rights and event operations.
The plan would see up to 20% of the company’s shares sold to outside investors, including investment funds and private companies. Meanwhile, FIFA would retain an 80% majority stake.
The proposed company has been valued at around $20bn, based on an assessment carried out with US bank J.P. Morgan.
Funding incentives for approval
To win support from member associations, Infantino has tied the proposal to a major funding package for FIFA’s 211 national associations. There are two possible outcomes depending on whether the plan is approved.
If approved, the $10bn package would see each national association receive $40m during the 2027–2030 cycle. Of this, $20m would be distributed directly through the Fast Forward programme. Additionally, another $20m would go towards development projects through FIFA’s Forward programme over four years.
The proposed funding would then increase in later cycles, rising to $22m for 2031 — 2034 and $24m for 2035 — 2038.
If the project is rejected, the $2.7bn package would not go ahead.
Instead, associations would receive only FIFA’s standard funding of $10m for the next cycle. This means they would miss out on roughly 75% of the additional money offered under the proposal.
Deadline and approval process
Infantino has set 19 September as the deadline for federations to decide whether to join the project. The decision affects access to the $40m funding package.
The proposal requires approval from more than half of FIFA’s member associations, as well as backing from the FIFA Council.
Infantino insists the plan would not change FIFA’s governance structure. He argues that sporting, technical and organisational decisions would remain entirely under FIFA’s control.
Opposition to FIFA
The proposal has triggered significant opposition, led by UEFA and joined by other continental federations and prominent figures across football.
Critics argue that the World Cup is a global sporting institution, not a commercial asset. Furthermore, they believe that allowing investment funds to take ownership stakes would fundamentally change the nature of the tournament. They fear commercial interests could begin to outweigh sporting priorities.
Opponents have also criticised the way the proposal was developed, arguing that it was created behind closed doors with financial institutions and without consultation with the six continental federations. These include UEFA and CONCACAF, or the clubs and organisations responsible for running competitions.
They have also accused FIFA of using funding as leverage, arguing that tying additional money to a 19 September deadline places pressure on federations. This is especially true for those with fewer resources — to approve the plan.
Critics say the financial incentives amount to an attempt to push the proposal through by exploiting the funding needs of poorer federations.
Featured image via the Canary
By Alaa Shamali
The National have linked a Reform councillor who spoke at a ‘Nazi rally’ to a far-right vigilante group. And she’s not even the only one linked to these awful groups:
NEW: Reform councillor Audrey Dempsey, who shared a stage with neo-Nazis this weekend in Glasgow, has actually been "advising" a far-right vigilante street patrol group in the city
The National can reveal that she has been guiding the group on going to the "next level" pic.twitter.com/lmRB6xtrp8
— Laura Webster (@LauraEWebsterr) July 29, 2026
Nazis
We should note that Reform politicians have disputed that the ‘Nazi rally’ was in fact a Nazi rally. As Grace wrote for the Canary:
On Saturday 25 July, a far-right ‘Unite the Clans’ rally saw masked, violent fascists attacking people of colour on the streets of Glasgow. However, Reform MSP Thomas Kerr has since taken to social media to complain about the racist thugs being called Nazis — because obviously that’s the most important issue at hand.
The reason we’re confident calling it such is because many attendees were happily throwing off Nazi salutes:
Multiple Nazi salutes at the ‘Unite the Clans’ racist & fascist rally in Glasgow yesterday. They deny they are racist as majority of society abhors it. They masquerade as ‘protectors of women’, but only use concerns over women’s safety to scapegoat& build their fascist movement. pic.twitter.com/mUhNHLWP30
— Stand Up to Racism – Scotland (@SUTRScotland) July 26, 2026
Given the above, it’s no wonder an MSP has called for the group to be proscribed:
BREAKING: Anti-migrant groups causing terror in Scotland should be proscribed, an MSP has told the Home Office
Maggie Chapman has called on the UK to ban groups like Unite the Clans pic.twitter.com/p3PHBAYiJL
— The National (@ScotNational) July 28, 2026
Nazism is a well-understood and documented ideology with clear goals and methods. Clearly, any individual or group who promotes Nazi ideology is a threat to society. And as the philosopher Karl Popper wrote on the ‘paradox of tolerance‘:
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
Back to the rally, Grace reported:
Reform councillor Audrey Dempsey is the elected representative of Springburn and Robroyston ward. She was also a speaker at the rally, pictured above in front of a sign for neo-Nazi group Patriotic Alternative.
Reform has not taken any action against her. And now we know that things are even worse than we thought.
Reform: The new Blackshirts
We now know that Demsey has also advised a vigilante street movement called Scots Active. The group is known for targeting migrants, as reported by the National:
Founded by Darren Docherty, Scots Active undertakes masked street patrols under the guise of protecting the local community, and frequently attends anti-immigration protests in Glasgow.
In a Facebook post thanking Dempsey for joining them on a street patrol, the group said:
We are so thankful she could take the time to come and complete a full walk. As well as all the advice and much more we need to take ourselves to the next level this year.
With counsellor Dempseys (sic) advice we are confident that we will make the right moves to becoming a non profit charity, have an official number for anyone needing our help to contact us on and we will hopefully have enough funding to get us set up in a small office space so the team have a base.
The National reached out to Scots Active for comment, with the group posting the following to their Facebook page shortly after:
You fucking stupid mate your gonny spread the lies you clearly listen to anyways fs take yer rag paper n shove it up yer hole.
Tiring
While Reform councillors are attending Nazi rallies and supporting violent street movements, senior Reform politicians are complaining that people are calling them ‘far right’ online. Frankly, it’s a ridiculous state of affairs, and it’s one that the public seem to be wising up to.
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
On June 28th, unelected Prime Minister Andy Burnham appointed Bridget Phillipson as the new Labour Party chair. What many in the mainstream media did not report, however, is Phillipson’s connection to Stuart Roden, a lobbyist with links to Israeli intelligence.
Stuart Roden
In 2023, Phillipson registered two £40,000 donations from Roden, the co-founder of Hetz Ventures, a Tel Aviv-based venture capital firm he set up with London-born former Israeli intelligence officer Judah Taub. According to a Declassified UK report, Roden’s Hetz firm employs:
an array of former Israeli soldiers, many of whom have served in elite intelligence units.
Last year, leaked diaries revealed that Roden had been conducting private meetings with then Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotolevy, and Phillipson is not the only recent Burnham appointment he has bankrolled.
Lisa Nandy
Labour MP Lisa Nandy, who also held “secret” meetings with Israeli ambassador Hotolevy, received a £40,000 in-kind donation from Roden in 2024, as well as a policy adviser paid for by serial pro-Israeli financier Trevor Chinn the year before. Now, she is Burnham’s Culture Secretary.
After a Freedom of Information request into Nandy’s meeting with Hotolevy, the Labour government refused to provide further details. Instead, Nandy’s department said that they would prioritise:
protecting relations between the United Kingdom and Israel.
Luke Akehurst
For at least two years, Phillipson was benefitting from quarterly payments from Chinn, again for “staffing costs”. During her deputy leadership bid in 2025, she also received support from Labour First, a group run by ex-Israel lobbyist and now Labour MP Luke Akehurst.
Akehurst, who has also been funded by Roden, was quick to celebrate Burnham’s appointment of his “friend” Phillipson as party chair. Former Israeli embassy officer Shai Masot once described Akehurst as:
one of the best on the inside … of the [Labour] party.
ELNET UK
In 2023, lobby group ELNET UK paid for a member of Phillipson’s staff to visit occupied Palestine. Described in financial disclosures as a “study tour”, they were accompanied by Akehurst. A staffer for Burnham’s new Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, also travelled with the group.
ELNET lists the Israeli Foreign Ministry as one of their “partners”. A 2024 trip organised by the lobby group was led by Jeffrey Epstein “pal” and disgraced ex-Labour peer Peter Mandelson. Mandelson described Burnham’s new chief of staff, James Purnell, as “one of my boys”.
Other donations
In October, Phillipson received £40,000 from megadonor David Sainsbury and £15,000 from his daughter, Francesca Perrin. Phillipson has also admitted to accepting £14,000 in donations from Waheed Alli, Keir Starmer’s largest personal donor, for “lobby journalist” events.
In 2022, Phillipson accepted £15,000 from ex-Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy. Earlier this year, Murphy’s Arden Strategies lobby firm was caught offering companies access to a VIP dinner with “top advisers” to Starmer and Rachel Reeves in exchange for £30,000.
In the run-up to the 2024 general election, Arden helped raise funds for more than 30 Labour Party candidates. Their clients include arms manufacturer Northrop Grumman, which supplies weapons components to the Israeli military.
In November, Phillipson stood for deputy leader of the Labour Party. She received another £10,000 for her campaign from Murphy, a former director of Labour Friends of Israel. In 2015, Murphy promised to:
support Israel long after my political career is over.
Coup complete
In October 2024, Phillipson posted a short update on her personal website titled:
Good to meet with Andy Burnham.
At the time, Starmer had only been Prime Minister for three months.
Now, just two years later, Burnham has ousted Starmer and Phillipson is Labour Party chair. The Burnham coup is complete.
Featured image via Manchester Evening News.
The UK government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is still failing families affected by the potentially wrongful Post Office convictions scandal.
It’s now almost 12 months since the DWP first announced its review into its infamous handling of prosecutions against Post Office staff. Yet no review has begun and still no reviewer is even appointed.
The widow of a sub-postmaster told Sky News she is “extremely” frustrated at the stalling of the review. It is supposed to investigate the (mis)handled prosecutions of multiple Post Office staff.
Quick recap on the scandal
More than 700 people running small local post offices received criminal convictions between 1999 and 2006. Faulty accounting software made it appear that money had gone missing from their branches.
The Horizon IT system developed by the Japanese technology giant Fujitsu caused this. The Post Office installed the software in the late 90s, but flaws in its programming showed up deficits in branch accounts.
Postal service executives, refusing to acknowledge problems with the software, forced their workers to repay the shortfalls. Some were imprisoned or left out of pocket, while others failed to find other jobs and even lost their homes. However, in December 2019 a High Court judge concluded that the system contained a number of “bugs, errors, and defects”.
The UK government announced in September 2023 that every postmaster convicted would receive a payout of hundreds of thousands of pounds. This was the bare minimum for the damage caused.
As of 2026, more than 600 postmasters have seen their convictions overturned, and over £320m has been paid out in compensation. However, the DWP has still to review its departmental role in some 100 convictions.
DWP boss McFadden making vague pronouncements about ‘helping people into work’ again
Featured image via the Canary
The University of Swansea has U-turned on a 2023 commitment to cut careers and recruitment ties with fossil fuel companies, against the wishes of student and staff campaigners.
Following one of the hottest Junes on record, the university has removed pledges from its Ethical Careers Policy to:
not knowingly devise marketing campaigns advertising […] roles which contribute to the detrimental effects of the fossil fuels, mining, arms and tobacco industries [and to exclude oil, gas and tar sands companies from access to] careers fairs and employer events.
In removing these statements, the university is effectively now permitting fossil fuel companies to promote their work and advertise to students. This comes after Met Office estimations that over 2,700 excess heat-related deaths occurred in May and June. The ban on tobacco companies remains in place.
In 2023, Swansea became the seventh UK university to exclude the fossil fuel industry from its careers and recruitment activities, after an 18 month campaign by students and staff. They were campaigning as part of the nationwide Fossil Free Careers campaign, coordinated by student-led charity People & Planet.
Since then, more than 10 additional universities have committed to banning the fossil fuel industry from promoting jobs to students. The campaign has had endorsement from the National Union of Students (NUS) and the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU).
Josie Mizen, co-director of Climate Justice at People & Planet, said:
After months of deadly heatwaves, it is absolutely shameful that Swansea University has backslid on its commitment not to work with the industry most responsible for the climate crisis.
This decision tells students and staff loud and clear: that their futures, their communities and the planet they live on matter less than their university’s cosy relationship with an industry that puts profit ahead of people’s lives.
We urge Swansea University to reverse its decision, and we stand in full solidarity with students and staff who resist university complicity in climate breakdown.
Swansea is one of 35 universities who this month have joined the Defence Universities Alliance (DUA). This is a scheme to promote greater collaboration between academia, the Ministry of Defence, and the arms industry.
A key criterion listed in the DUA Charter is to “promote careers in Defence” and to:
allow and support the attendance of defence sector firms […] at careers events.
The dropping of arms and fossil fuel exclusions from Swansea’s Ethical Careers Policy came just days after the university was announced as a founding member of the DUA.
A staff member at Swansea University said:
As a staff member I am extremely disappointed that Swansea University has chosen to remove the clause from their ethical careers policy which excludes fossil fuels, mining, and arms careers from any marketing campaigns.
Considering Swansea prides itself on positively impacting the ‘health, wealth, culture, and well-being of a global society’ this feels like a step in the opposite direction.
I hope that the university will reconsider this decision as I believe it has an ability and responsibility to show moral leadership for its staff, students, and community.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
What went right this week: global road safety progress, plus more
Cellnex Telecom, S.A. 2026 Q2 – Results – Earnings Call Presentation (OTCMKTS:CLLNY) 2026-07-30
South Korea Crypto Trading Spikes as Stock Market Drops
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Sports4 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business21 hours agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Tech4 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Crypto World5 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Politics3 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Politics2 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
Entertainment6 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
News Videos4 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Fashion7 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Sports7 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
News Videos7 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Business2 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World4 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
Politics4 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
News Videos5 hours agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Entertainment2 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
Crypto World2 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Entertainment5 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
You must be logged in to post a comment Login