21 May 2013
Last updated at 05:41 GMT

A small cruise liner which ran aground in the waters of Oban Bay has been refloated.

The Grenadines-registered MS Serenissima, which had 112 people on board, became stuck in sand and gravel at about 18.30 on Monday.

It was refloated at about 01:10 after an earlier attempt failed due to high winds.

Stornoway Coastguard said there were no reports of injuries and no signs of pollution or damage to the ship.

Divers will conduct underwater surveys of the 85m vessel, which is now anchored in Oban Bay, to ensure its seaworthiness.

The ship, which had been making its way from Ireland to Oban, is expected to set sail to its next port on Tuesday night.

An Oban RNLI spokesman said the Serenissima had run aground on the Corran Ledge.

“The initial attempt at refloating the ship used its own engine with the lifeboat providing assistance by pulling at the stern,” he said.

“Unfortunately this attempt was hampered by a strong wind blowing the ship towards the shore, and was unsuccessful.”

21 May 2013
Last updated at 05:25 GMT

By Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC World Service

The puzzle of why the penguin is unable to fly may have finally been solved.

Researchers believe that the bird’s underwater prowess may have cost it its ability to fly.

By looking at seabirds closely related to the penguin, scientists confirmed that a wing that is good for flying cannot also be good for diving and swimming.

The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor John Speakman, from the University of Aberdeen and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said: “Like many people, I’ve always been interested in penguins, and seeing them do these phenomenal marches across the ice, I’ve often thought: ‘Why don’t they just fly?’

“And it’s really great to be involved in the group of people that have solved it.”

Stubby wings

There are several long-standing theories about why birds cannot fly.

One idea is that some species became flightless because of a lack of predators on the ground.

“The other idea is a ‘biomechanical hypothesis’,” explained Prof Speakman.

“When the bird is flying and diving it has to use its wings to do two different things. The biomechanical hypothesis is that you cannot build a wing that is good at doing both.”

To investigate, the researchers looked at a close relative of the penguin: the guillemot.

This black-and-white seabird not only looks a lot like a penguin, it can swim nearly as well. But unlike the penguin it can fly.

The researchers analysed the amount of energy that the bird was using.

They found that it could dive with relative ease, but while flying was much more tiring for the guillemot.

Prof Speakman said: “The energy costs are very very high. These birds have these very short wings and they have to beat them at an incredible speed to stay in the air. It is exhausting for them.”

The researchers believe that the guillemot is using so much energy, it is only just able to keep itself aloft.

They said that the bird represented a tipping point between seabirds that are able to both fly and swim, and those that are flightless.

In the past, they suggest, the penguin would have faced an evolutionary trade off between staying airborne or having agility beneath the waves.

Prof Speakman explained: “Basically the hypothesis is that as the wings became more and more efficient for them to dive, they became less and less efficient for them to fly.

“At some point it became so ‘expensive’ for them to fly, that it was better to give up flying all together and make the wings into small flippers.”

20 May 2013
Last updated at 23:41 GMT

Councillors are being asked to commit £455,000 to the cost of redeveloping Scotland‘s oldest working theatre.

The cash has been been sitting in reserve for more than two years after an earlier bid to free it up for the Theatre Royal in Dumfries was rejected.

At that time, Dumfries and Galloway Council decided to explore the development of a new cultural centre.

However, in the meantime a business plan has been put in place to finance a £2m overhaul of the venue.

The Guild of Players and Dumfries Theatre Development Trust have already secured funding commitments of £1.4m.

An agreement from the local authority to release the cash held in reserve would put the project within touching distance of its financial target.

A report by independent arts consultants EKOS said there was no clear rationale for funding cultural development in Dumfries without the Theatre Royal.

It concluded the council would see a significant return for a relatively limited investment.

Potential closure

Members of the local authority’s policy and resources committee are now being asked to release the funds.

A funding pledge from the Holywood Trust saved the 18th Century building from potential closure nearly two years ago.

Now, a project has been drawn up that would see the use of adjacent properties in order to provide better access and facilities.

It is hoped the proposal would allow the creation of a specialised rehearsal area, a more welcoming foyer and enhanced bar and food facilities.

Another aim of the theatre owners, the Guild of Players, is to expand youth involvement.

The Theatre Royal was built in 1792 and included Robert Burns among its original patrons.

20 May 2013
Last updated at 23:38 GMT

The amount of alcohol sold in Scottish shops has fallen by 2.6% in the year since multi-buy promotions were banned, according to research.

A report by NHS Scotland and Glasgow University claimed the Alcohol Act was responsible for a 4% drop in wine sales and an 8.5% cut in pre-mixed drinks.

The act, introduced in October 2011, placed restrictions on how alcohol could be displayed and promoted.

Researchers said all potential reasons for the fall were taken into account.

Dr Jim Lewsey, from the University of Glasgow and co-author of Monitoring and Evaluating Scotland’s Alcohol Strategy, said: “Similar declines were not observed in England and Wales, where the Alcohol Act does not apply.

“The possible impacts of other factors, such as changes in income and alcohol prices, were taken into account.

“This provides evidence that the effects were associated with the act and not some other factor.”

Mark Robinson, from NHS Health Scotland and study lead, said some retailers had responded to the multi-buy discount ban by selling individual bottles of wine for £3.33 instead of offering three bottles for £10.

He said: “However, the incentive for people to buy more alcohol than they may otherwise have bought was removed and wine sales decreased.”

He warned that despite the cut in sales, alcohol consumption remained high and alcohol was still sold at low prices.

“There is good evidence to show that the positive effects of the Alcohol Act would be enhanced by minimum unit pricing, which would prevent the sale of cheap, high strength alcohol,” he said.

20 May 2013
Last updated at 23:36 GMT

Scotland has been held back by past and present UK governments, Holyrood’s SNP administration has claimed.

In a paper, to be published later, it cites six areas where Westminster has pursued policies said not to have been in the best interests of Scotland.

The arguments are being outlined the day after Treasury analysis suggested independence would cost savers and borrowers north of the border.

Scotland‘s electorate is being asked to vote yes or no to independence.

On Thursday, 18 September, 2014, they will answer the straightforward question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

In the build up to the vote, both the Scottish and UK governments have been publishing documents that illustrate their cases.

This week, the two sides are focusing on the economy and financial sectors such as banking.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said a Treasury paper, titled Scotland analysis: Financial services and banking, highlighted a number of questions that needed to be answered by the Scottish government.

He believed it was up to ministers at Holyrood to say what would happen to Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), mortgage products, pension funds and car insurance.

Previewing the launch of a Scottish government paper, titled Scotland‘s Economy: the case for independence, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the Westminster system of government “is hindering Scotland‘s potential”.

She highlighted six areas including;

• The decision of the last two Westminster governments to cut capital spending which would have supported an additional 19,000 jobs in Scotland
• The UK government’s failure to establish an oil fund for future generations, similar to the Norwegian fund now worth an estimated £450bn
• The decision by the UK government to engage in a boom in credit and debt expansion
• Allowing income inequality to grow dramatically in the UK
• The decision to concentrate economic activity in London
• And the decision to pursue austerity rather than focus on growing the economy.

Ms Sturgeon said: “The evidence is clear. The UK government’s economic policies have been holding Scotland back for generations.

“Only with the powers of independence can Scotland meet its full potential.

“We already know – and the report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group has confirmed – that by international standards Scotland is a wealthy and productive country, and has the potential to be an economically successful independent nation.”

‘Economic mismanagement’

She goes on to say that Scotland has a wealth of resources in the areas of life sciences, creative industries, ICT, oil and gas, renewable energy, food and drink, manufacturing, financial services and tourism.

Ms Sturgeon believes that with the full powers of independence the Scottish government “would have the powers to do much more”.

She added: “The paper the Scottish government will publish today sets out in clear, concise detail the fundamental economic strengths of Scotland across a range of diverse sectors.

“Scotland can more than afford to be a successful independent country – the question everyone must ask themselves is whether we can afford not to be independent given the scale of economic mismanagement by Westminster.”

20 May 2013
Last updated at 23:36 GMT

Scotland has been held back by past and present UK governments, Holyrood’s SNP administration has claimed.

In a paper, to be published later, it cites six areas where Westminster has pursued policies said not to have been in the best interests of Scotland.

The arguments are being outlined the day after Treasury analysis suggested independence would cost savers and borrowers north of the border.

Scotland‘s electorate is being asked to vote yes or no to independence.

On Thursday, 18 September, 2014, they will answer the straightforward question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

In the build up to the vote, both the Scottish and UK governments have been publishing documents that illustrate their cases.

This week, the two sides are focusing on the economy and financial sectors such as banking.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said a Treasury paper, titled Scotland analysis: Financial services and banking, highlighted a number of questions that needed to be answered by the Scottish government.

He believed it was up to ministers at Holyrood to say what would happen to Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), mortgage products, pension funds and car insurance.

Previewing the launch of a Scottish government paper, titled Scotland‘s Economy: the case for independence, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the Westminster system of government “is hindering Scotland‘s potential”.

She highlighted six areas including;

• The decision of the last two Westminster governments to cut capital spending which would have supported an additional 19,000 jobs in Scotland
• The UK government’s failure to establish an oil fund for future generations, similar to the Norwegian fund now worth an estimated £450bn
• The decision by the UK government to engage in a boom in credit and debt expansion
• Allowing income inequality to grow dramatically in the UK
• The decision to concentrate economic activity in London
• And the decision to pursue austerity rather than focus on growing the economy.

Ms Sturgeon said: “The evidence is clear. The UK government’s economic policies have been holding Scotland back for generations.

“Only with the powers of independence can Scotland meet its full potential.

“We already know – and the report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group has confirmed – that by international standards Scotland is a wealthy and productive country, and has the potential to be an economically successful independent nation.”

‘Economic mismanagement’

She goes on to say that Scotland has a wealth of resources in the areas of life sciences, creative industries, ICT, oil and gas, renewable energy, food and drink, manufacturing, financial services and tourism.

Ms Sturgeon believes that with the full powers of independence the Scottish government “would have the powers to do much more”.

She added: “The paper the Scottish government will publish today sets out in clear, concise detail the fundamental economic strengths of Scotland across a range of diverse sectors.

“Scotland can more than afford to be a successful independent country – the question everyone must ask themselves is whether we can afford not to be independent given the scale of economic mismanagement by Westminster.”

20 May 2013
Last updated at 23:36 GMT

Scotland has been held back by past and present UK governments, Holyrood’s SNP administration has claimed.

In a paper, to be published later, it cites six areas where Westminster has pursued policies said not to have been in the best interests of Scotland.

The arguments are being outlined the day after Treasury analysis suggested independence would cost savers and borrowers north of the border.

Scotland‘s electorate is being asked to vote yes or no to independence.

On Thursday, 18 September, 2014, they will answer the straightforward question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

In the build up to the vote, both the Scottish and UK governments have been publishing documents that illustrate their cases.

This week, the two sides are focusing on the economy and financial sectors such as banking.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said a Treasury paper, titled Scotland analysis: Financial services and banking, highlighted a number of questions that needed to be answered by the Scottish government.

He believed it was up to ministers at Holyrood to say what would happen to Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), mortgage products, pension funds and car insurance.

Previewing the launch of a Scottish government paper, titled Scotland‘s Economy: the case for independence, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the Westminster system of government “is hindering Scotland‘s potential”.

She highlighted six areas including;

• The decision of the last two Westminster governments to cut capital spending which would have supported an additional 19,000 jobs in Scotland
• The UK government’s failure to establish an oil fund for future generations, similar to the Norwegian fund now worth an estimated £450bn
• The decision by the UK government to engage in a boom in credit and debt expansion
• Allowing income inequality to grow dramatically in the UK
• The decision to concentrate economic activity in London
• And the decision to pursue austerity rather than focus on growing the economy.

Ms Sturgeon said: “The evidence is clear. The UK government’s economic policies have been holding Scotland back for generations.

“Only with the powers of independence can Scotland meet its full potential.

“We already know – and the report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group has confirmed – that by international standards Scotland is a wealthy and productive country, and has the potential to be an economically successful independent nation.”

‘Economic mismanagement’

She goes on to say that Scotland has a wealth of resources in the areas of life sciences, creative industries, ICT, oil and gas, renewable energy, food and drink, manufacturing, financial services and tourism.

Ms Sturgeon believes that with the full powers of independence the Scottish government “would have the powers to do much more”.

She added: “The paper the Scottish government will publish today sets out in clear, concise detail the fundamental economic strengths of Scotland across a range of diverse sectors.

“Scotland can more than afford to be a successful independent country – the question everyone must ask themselves is whether we can afford not to be independent given the scale of economic mismanagement by Westminster.”

20 May 2013
Last updated at 23:36 GMT

Scotland has been held back by past and present UK governments, Holyrood’s SNP administration has claimed.

In a paper, to be published later, it cites six areas where Westminster has pursued policies said not to have been in the best interests of Scotland.

The arguments are being outlined the day after Treasury analysis suggested independence would cost savers and borrowers north of the border.

Scotland‘s electorate is being asked to vote yes or no to independence.

On Thursday, 18 September, 2014, they will answer the straightforward question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

In the build up to the vote, both the Scottish and UK governments have been publishing documents that illustrate their cases.

This week, the two sides are focusing on the economy and financial sectors such as banking.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said a Treasury paper, titled Scotland analysis: Financial services and banking, highlighted a number of questions that needed to be answered by the Scottish government.

He believed it was up to ministers at Holyrood to say what would happen to Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), mortgage products, pension funds and car insurance.

Previewing the launch of a Scottish government paper, titled Scotland‘s Economy: the case for independence, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the Westminster system of government “is hindering Scotland‘s potential”.

She highlighted six areas including;

• The decision of the last two Westminster governments to cut capital spending which would have supported an additional 19,000 jobs in Scotland
• The UK government’s failure to establish an oil fund for future generations, similar to the Norwegian fund now worth an estimated £450bn
• The decision by the UK government to engage in a boom in credit and debt expansion
• Allowing income inequality to grow dramatically in the UK
• The decision to concentrate economic activity in London
• And the decision to pursue austerity rather than focus on growing the economy.

Ms Sturgeon said: “The evidence is clear. The UK government’s economic policies have been holding Scotland back for generations.

“Only with the powers of independence can Scotland meet its full potential.

“We already know – and the report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group has confirmed – that by international standards Scotland is a wealthy and productive country, and has the potential to be an economically successful independent nation.”

‘Economic mismanagement’

She goes on to say that Scotland has a wealth of resources in the areas of life sciences, creative industries, ICT, oil and gas, renewable energy, food and drink, manufacturing, financial services and tourism.

Ms Sturgeon believes that with the full powers of independence the Scottish government “would have the powers to do much more”.

She added: “The paper the Scottish government will publish today sets out in clear, concise detail the fundamental economic strengths of Scotland across a range of diverse sectors.

“Scotland can more than afford to be a successful independent country – the question everyone must ask themselves is whether we can afford not to be independent given the scale of economic mismanagement by Westminster.”

20 May 2013
Last updated at 23:36 GMT

Scotland has been held back by past and present UK governments, Holyrood’s SNP administration has claimed.

In a paper, to be published later, it cites six areas where Westminster has pursued policies said not to have been in the best interests of Scotland.

The arguments are being outlined the day after Treasury analysis suggested independence would cost savers and borrowers north of the border.

Scotland‘s electorate is being asked to vote yes or no to independence.

On Thursday, 18 September, 2014, they will answer the straightforward question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

In the build up to the vote, both the Scottish and UK governments have been publishing documents that illustrate their cases.

This week, the two sides are focusing on the economy and financial sectors such as banking.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said a Treasury paper, titled Scotland analysis: Financial services and banking, highlighted a number of questions that needed to be answered by the Scottish government.

He believed it was up to ministers at Holyrood to say what would happen to Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), mortgage products, pension funds and car insurance.

Previewing the launch of a Scottish government paper, titled Scotland‘s Economy: the case for independence, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the Westminster system of government “is hindering Scotland‘s potential”.

She highlighted six areas including;

• The decision of the last two Westminster governments to cut capital spending which would have supported an additional 19,000 jobs in Scotland
• The UK government’s failure to establish an oil fund for future generations, similar to the Norwegian fund now worth an estimated £450bn
• The decision by the UK government to engage in a boom in credit and debt expansion
• Allowing income inequality to grow dramatically in the UK
• The decision to concentrate economic activity in London
• And the decision to pursue austerity rather than focus on growing the economy.

Ms Sturgeon said: “The evidence is clear. The UK government’s economic policies have been holding Scotland back for generations.

“Only with the powers of independence can Scotland meet its full potential.

“We already know – and the report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group has confirmed – that by international standards Scotland is a wealthy and productive country, and has the potential to be an economically successful independent nation.”

‘Economic mismanagement’

She goes on to say that Scotland has a wealth of resources in the areas of life sciences, creative industries, ICT, oil and gas, renewable energy, food and drink, manufacturing, financial services and tourism.

Ms Sturgeon believes that with the full powers of independence the Scottish government “would have the powers to do much more”.

She added: “The paper the Scottish government will publish today sets out in clear, concise detail the fundamental economic strengths of Scotland across a range of diverse sectors.

“Scotland can more than afford to be a successful independent country – the question everyone must ask themselves is whether we can afford not to be independent given the scale of economic mismanagement by Westminster.”

20 May 2013
Last updated at 23:36 GMT

Scotland has been held back by past and present UK governments, Holyrood’s SNP administration has claimed.

In a paper, to be published later, it cites six areas where Westminster has pursued policies said not to have been in the best interests of Scotland.

The arguments are being outlined the day after Treasury analysis suggested independence would cost savers and borrowers north of the border.

Scotland‘s electorate is being asked to vote yes or no to independence.

On Thursday, 18 September, 2014, they will answer the straightforward question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

In the build up to the vote, both the Scottish and UK governments have been publishing documents that illustrate their cases.

This week, the two sides are focusing on the economy and financial sectors such as banking.

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said a Treasury paper, titled Scotland analysis: Financial services and banking, highlighted a number of questions that needed to be answered by the Scottish government.

He believed it was up to ministers at Holyrood to say what would happen to Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), mortgage products, pension funds and car insurance.

Previewing the launch of a Scottish government paper, titled Scotland‘s Economy: the case for independence, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the Westminster system of government “is hindering Scotland‘s potential”.

She highlighted six areas including;

• The decision of the last two Westminster governments to cut capital spending which would have supported an additional 19,000 jobs in Scotland
• The UK government’s failure to establish an oil fund for future generations, similar to the Norwegian fund now worth an estimated £450bn
• The decision by the UK government to engage in a boom in credit and debt expansion
• Allowing income inequality to grow dramatically in the UK
• The decision to concentrate economic activity in London
• And the decision to pursue austerity rather than focus on growing the economy.

Ms Sturgeon said: “The evidence is clear. The UK government’s economic policies have been holding Scotland back for generations.

“Only with the powers of independence can Scotland meet its full potential.

“We already know – and the report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group has confirmed – that by international standards Scotland is a wealthy and productive country, and has the potential to be an economically successful independent nation.”

‘Economic mismanagement’

She goes on to say that Scotland has a wealth of resources in the areas of life sciences, creative industries, ICT, oil and gas, renewable energy, food and drink, manufacturing, financial services and tourism.

Ms Sturgeon believes that with the full powers of independence the Scottish government “would have the powers to do much more”.

She added: “The paper the Scottish government will publish today sets out in clear, concise detail the fundamental economic strengths of Scotland across a range of diverse sectors.

“Scotland can more than afford to be a successful independent country – the question everyone must ask themselves is whether we can afford not to be independent given the scale of economic mismanagement by Westminster.”