3rd round of Scottish Zero Emission funding announced

[Volvodart]

From a freedom of information request, the unsuccessful bidders for funding were:-

SPT 12 x ADL
Shuttlebus 5 x ADL 1 x EVM
Glenfarg CT 5 x EVM
McGills 33 x ADL

First Bus bid was reduced from 75 x Yutong and 30 x Kleandrive repowers

Third last page here:-

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2026/05-b/foi-202600514020/documents/eir-202600514020---information-released---documents/eir-202600514020---information-released---documents/govscot%3Adocument/EIR%2B202600514020%2B-%2BInformation%2Breleased%2B-%2BDocuments.pdf

 

[overthewater]

It would be interesting to find out why McGill's was rejected? To me that looks like Stirling was the next depot to get stock.

 

[AilsaBus]

It would be interesting to find out why McGill's was rejected? To me that looks like Stirling was the next depot to get stock.

Easdales donation to Labour obviously had nothing to do with it....(wink wink)

 

[scosutsut]

On page 60 it states "Of the nine applications received, six met the minimum scoring thresholds and were shortlisted for discussion"

So 9 received
5 agreed
4 rejected
3 of those 4 were thrown out straight away.

 

[Volvodart]

McGill’s launches legal action over bus contracts

McGill's launches legal action over bus contracts – Daily Business

McGill’s Buses, owned by brothers Sandy and James Easdale, has launched a multi-million pound legal action claiming the latest government contracts were unlawful.

dailybusinessgroup.co.uk

McGill’s Buses, owned by brothers Sandy and James Easdale, has launched a multi-million pound legal action claiming the latest government contracts were unlawful.

Transport Scotland awarded £45 million to five operators through the Scottish Zero Emission Bus Challenge Fund Phase 3 (ScotZEB3).

McGill’s applied for £4.3m to help buy 33 zero-emission electric buses from Scottish manufacturer Alexander Dennis, but its bid was rejected.

It has now submitted an appeal against the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland to the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

McGill’s argues that the government breached the UK Subsidy Control Act 2022, alleging that no separate subsidy control assessment was conducted for ScotZEB3, and that the funding is being used to subsidise new, competing routes rather than upgrading existing diesel fleets.

The company is challenging the scoring process and wants to overturn the decision taken in March, and force a comprehensive rethink of how zero-emission subsidies are allocated.

Sandy Easdale said: “The move would have boosted Scottish jobs and enabled it to remove more diesel vehicles from its fleet across Scotland.

“The largest share – £13 million – was awarded to coach firm Ember to buy 100 Chinese electric coaches to expand its existing network, which would not result in any diesel vehicles being replaced.

The Easdales said their bid would have benefited Alexander Dennis (pic: DB Media Services)
“We have questionable decisions being made on large amounts of public money by nameless people in secret rooms who are trying to avoid scrutiny.

“Decisions on taxpayers’ sums of this magnitude should be fully transparent and decision makers should be willing to be held accountable.”

McGill’s chairman Ralph Roberts said: “It now appears the fund is being used to support new competing services rather than replace existing diesel fleets, which raises serious questions about whether it is delivering on its stated aims.”

Co-owner James Easdale added: “There is also a fundamental question about fairness and transparency in how this funding has been allocated. We have looked very closely at the scoring process and reached the inevitable conclusion that a legal appeal had to be submitted.”

Last year, the Scottish Government was forced to step in to fund a furlough scheme for staff at Alexander Dennis after the firm announced it was considering consolidating its operations at a single site in Yorkshire, putting around 400 jobs at risk.

At the time, bosses said the firm would need an increase in orders if it was to become sustainable in the central belt.

Ember will be the biggest recipient from ScotZEB3, netting more than £13m for 100 buses and 43 charging points. Rock Road has been given £11.5m for 93 buses and 101 chargers.

 

[318266]

I try not to be political, but it does seem like their thought process is that if they lose, then it's no loss to them given their self-proclaimed deep pockets, whereas if they win then public money is lost which must be defended to the media (see the media discussion in the aftermath of FWSL v. the Scottish Ministers for a v. similar situation), losing credibility in an administration which tends to pride itself on not being pro-billionaire, which then in turn could lead a more sympathetic-to-billionaire administration into office.

 

[alan25]

McGill’s launches legal action over bus contracts

McGill's launches legal action over bus contracts – Daily Business

McGill’s Buses, owned by brothers Sandy and James Easdale, has launched a multi-million pound legal action claiming the latest government contracts were unlawful.

dailybusinessgroup.co.uk

Is this going to be a recurring theme? Every time things dont go their way they will throw a hissy fit XD

 

[overthewater]

To be fair they do have a few points,

* Including the fact government money is being spent on 100 coaches for brand new routes - we don't even know what they have planned for them. If people are saying Easdale brothers should put thier hands in the pockets, will SO should Ember. Should the money be spent on competing services? would Ember have even started these route without Government funding?

* It does look like they were going to buy Alexander buses, and surly that's were our tax money should have went? Helping local people.

 

[Stan Drews]

Is this going to be a recurring theme? Every time things dont go their way they will throw a hissy fit XD

Other than the threat of business confiscation, which I’d expect any business to challenge, are you able to expand on these “hissy fits”?

 

[Wyrleybart]

From a freedom of information request, the unsuccessful bidders for funding were:-

First Bus bid was reduced from 75 x Yutong and 30 x Kleandrive repowers

As a matter of interest, I did recently see that Kleandrive had gone into administration, but it seems Palmer Energy Technology have bought the company out of administration.

Former Aston Martin CEO Andy Palmer’s PETL acquires bus repowering specialist Kleandrive from administration - Sustainable Bus

Palmer Energy Technology has acquired Kleandrive’s business and assets through administration, bringing the electric bus...

www.sustainable-bus.com

Palmer Energy Technology has acquired Kleandrive’s business and assets through administration, bringing the electric bus repowering specialist into its clean propulsion portfolio. Palmer Energy Technology Limited (PETL) is a UK-based clean energy and battery technology group co-founded by former Aston Martin CEO Dr Andy Palmer.

 

[scosutsut]

To be fair they do have a few points,

* Including the fact government money is being spent on 100 coaches for brand new routes - we don't even know what they have planned for them. If people are saying Easdale brothers should put thier hands in the pockets, will SO should Ember. Should the money be spent on competing services? would Ember have even started these route without Government funding?

* It does look like they were going to buy Alexander buses, and surly that's were our tax money should have went? Helping local people.

It's going to come down to how the scheme was written.

1. Its going to depend on what the scheme said it was for, or specifically what the criteria were. Was explicitly to expand zero emission take up, or was it to remove diesel's from the roads? It feels that is what that argument is going to hinge on.
2. The scheme couldn't specify that and didn't. That's them just trying to add a morality aspect to their plea, but I suspect the success or failure of their challenge will hinge entirely on point 1.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that McGills bid fell down on the charging side, something about not offering out opportunity charging to passing coaches / HGVs so lacking adding a public benefit side to it.

I can't help but wonder how much is going to be wasted on lawyers on both sides here versus funding what they asked for? But from the Government's perspective it's not budgeted for and you don't want to let them bully their way to what they want otherwise everyone would do the same.

 

[alan25]

Other than the threat of business confiscation, which I’d expect any business to challenge, are you able to expand on these “hissy fits”?

Launching legal action.

 

[cactustwirly]

It's going to come down to how the scheme was written.

1. Its going to depend on what the scheme said it was for, or specifically what the criteria were. Was explicitly to expand zero emission take up, or was it to remove diesel's from the roads? It feels that is what that argument is going to hinge on.
2. The scheme couldn't specify that and didn't. That's them just trying to add a morality aspect to their plea, but I suspect the success or failure of their challenge will hinge entirely on point 1.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that McGills bid fell down on the charging side, something about not offering out opportunity charging to passing coaches / HGVs so lacking adding a public benefit side to it.

I can't help but wonder how much is going to be wasted on lawyers on both sides here versus funding what they asked for? But from the Government's perspective it's not budgeted for and you don't want to let them bully their way to what they want otherwise everyone would do the same.

What is the public benefit to funding 100 coaches from Yutong, the Scottish government effectively supporting the CCP. For Ember to abstract revenue from the public funded railway.

Vs McGills improving local buses and supporting British jobs at ADL.

There definitely is a case here, it looks dodgy to me.

Personally this sort of funding package should ban the money being spent in China, it a monumentally stupid thing to be doing. And the workers at ADL are paying a heavy price for it

 

[Volvodart]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that McGills bid fell down on the charging side, something about not offering out opportunity charging to passing coaches / HGVs so lacking adding a public benefit side to it.

Yet First, who of all companies offer the most external charging, lost most of their bid.

 

[GusB]

The ScotZEB3 guidance document lists the eligibility criteria:

https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ScotZEB3-Guidance-document-1.pdf

Eligible Bodies
5. Applications may be submitted by a single Public Service Vehicle operating company or by a consortium.

For consortium bids (optional).
6. Bids from consortia comprised of bodies from the following categories are eligible:
• Financiers
• Manufacturers of zero emission buses
• Charge Point Operators (CPOs)
• Energy companies Confidential 3 ScotZEB3
• Public Service Vehicle (PSV) Operators in Scotland registered local bus services.
• Scottish local authorities and Regional Transport Partnership
• Other road transport operators wishing to share infrastructure, e.g. HGVs, vans
...

Vehicles
...
11. All vehicles acquired through this scheme must be operated in Scotland by a licensed PSV operator on registered local bus services for a minimum of seven (7) consecutive years from entry into service.
...

As long as an operator, either on its own or as part of a consortium, operates registered local bus services it was eligible to bid for funding. In Ember's case the term "local" is a bit of a misnomer, but that could equally be said for Stagecoach or any other operator with longer interurban routes.

I don't see anything in the document that specifies that the vehicles have to be used to replace existing diesel vehicles rather than on new routes.

What is the public benefit to funding 100 coaches from Yutong, the Scottish government effectively supporting the CCP. For Ember to abstract revenue from the public funded railway.

Where else is Ember to get its vehicles from? With Plaxton having been killed off, an operator that wants to run coaches on its registered services has no choice but to look abroad, whether that be China, continental Europe or anywhere else. There's no point in complaining that public money is going to a Chinese manufacturer when your local manufacturer has exited the market!

As for McGill's, where was the concern for Scottish jobs when it ordered *checks notes* Mercedes-Benz Citaros and *ahem* Yutongs?

 

[scosutsut]

What is the public benefit to funding 100 coaches from Yutong, the Scottish government effectively supporting the CCP. For Ember to abstract revenue from the public funded railway.

Vs McGills improving local buses and supporting British jobs at ADL.

There definitely is a case here, it looks dodgy to me.

Personally this sort of funding package should ban the money being spent in China, it a monumentally stupid thing to be doing. And the workers at ADL are paying a heavy price for it

Monumentally stupid or not, your issue is with the Subsidy Control Act 2022 which explicitly bans applying domestic content restrictions to subsidies, which is entirely what ScotZEB is.

 

[cactustwirly]

Monumentally stupid or not, your issue is with the Subsidy Control Act 2022 which explicitly bans applying domestic content restrictions to subsidies, which is entirely what ScotZEB is.

Well there's nothing stopping them from buying Mercedes, Irizar or any other manufacturer.

Don't you see there is a problem? Government have excluded Huawei from 5G infrastructure for the same reason

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2026 ==

The ScotZEB3 guidance document lists the eligibility criteria:

https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ScotZEB3-Guidance-document-1.pdf

As long as an operator, either on its own or as part of a consortium, operates registered local bus services it was eligible to bid for funding. In Ember's case the term "local" is a bit of a misnomer, but that could equally be said for Stagecoach or any other operator with longer interurban routes.

I don't see anything in the document that specifies that the vehicles have to be used to replace existing diesel vehicles rather than on new routes.



Where else is Ember to get its vehicles from? With Plaxton having been killed off, an operator that wants to run coaches on its registered services has no choice but to look abroad, whether that be China, continental Europe or anywhere else. There's no point in complaining that public money is going to a Chinese manufacturer when your local manufacturer has exited the market!

As for McGill's, where was the concern for Scottish jobs when it ordered *checks notes* Mercedes-Benz Citaros and *ahem* Yutongs?

They buy from Irizar, Mercedes, Iveco, Caeteno, anyone but the Chinese.

Giving money to Chinese companies is basically funding their regime, don't you see the problem here? Or would you support companies like Huawei building 5G infrastructure too?

 

[stevieinselby]

Don't you see there is a problem? Government have excluded Huawei from 5G infrastructure for the same reason

Giving money to Chinese companies is basically funding their regime, don't you see the problem here? Or would you support companies like Huawei building 5G infrastructure too?

It isn't the same.
The problem is not buying from Chinese companies ... China is not under sanctions the way that Russia is ... the problem was that the govt didn't trust Huawei not to put secret spying equipment into our 5G infrastructure. That's very different from buying buses.
The Chinese government being able to covertly intercept communications without us knowing about it is a much bigger national security problem than the risk of the Chinese government remotely disabling a load of buses and coaches because of reasons, where it would be pretty obvious what had happened immediately and which would destroy any potential for overseas business for them again. They're not going to kill the golden goose of their export market like that. Whereas spying would be much harder to detect and much harder to prove.

 

[GusB]

They buy from Irizar, Mercedes, Iveco, Caeteno, anyone but the Chinese.

Giving money to Chinese companies is basically funding their regime, don't you see the problem here? Or would you support companies like Huawei building 5G infrastructure too?

Buying from any of those companies isn't really supporting British jobs, though - the money is still flowing out of the country! In any case, it's only fairly recently that European manufacturers have begun to offer electric coaches; Yutong was the only option for a long time. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather that there were UK-built options that operators could choose but our domestic manufacturers have so far failed to produce an electric option. Wrightbus is in the process of developing a coach with an electric driveline, but it'll be powered by a hydrogen fuel-cell and you can ask the good people of Aberdeen how well that worked out! Furthermore, if the likes of Alexander Dennis did offer a pure EV coach option, where do you think it would source the batteries from?

As a matter of interest, how are you accessing the forum? I'm not really a gambling man, but I'm willing to bet a small amount that whatever device you're using will have either been manufactured entirely in China, or will have a fairly high percentage of Chinese-made components.

 

[mattb7tl]

Launching legal action.

A guy with a criminal tax fraud conviction launches legal action in the name of taxpayer value. I suspect we will see his company stop abusing the pensioner payouts since he cares so much about value?

What is the public benefit to funding 100 coaches from Yutong, the Scottish government effectively supporting the CCP. For Ember to abstract revenue from the public funded railway.

What would be the public benefit of buying inferior vehicles? Chinese manufacturers have been developing electric vehicles for far longer, giving them greater experience, credibility and technical expertise in the sector. They recognised early that they could not compete with established manufacturers on diesel technology, so they invested heavily in electrification. They took the risk, while we fell behind. You snooze, you lose, and we lost.

 

[AB93]

As for McGill's, where was the concern for Scottish jobs when it ordered *checks notes* Mercedes-Benz Citaros and *ahem* Yutongs?

They buy from Irizar, Mercedes, Iveco, Caeteno, anyone but the Chinese.
Giving money to Chinese companies is basically funding their regime, don't you see the problem here? Or would you support companies like Huawei building 5G infrastructure too?

They have 96 Yutong EV single decks?

 

[318266]

I've broached this topic before, but to avoid repeating myself, the Scottish Government could reasonably argue that investing heavily in Ember via subsidies will accelerate the removal of tailpipe emissions on Scottish intercity coach networks, fulfilling the point of ScotZEB3. This is because Ember runs what is widely perceived as a premium, bespoke and modern service compared to their main competitors Scottish Citylink and Flixbus, at a decent value, which means that passengers are attracted to move from those competitors to Ember. Therefore, it follows that if Ember can run a more aggressive competition campaign against their competitors (who run 99% and 100% diesel vehicles respectively in Scotland), for example by having more vehicles for (complete speculation here) fight on the very popular M8 corridors from Glasgow to Edinburgh/Airport, more passengers will move to electric travel, which will lower the number of diesel coaches on the road as it becomes impossible to the competitors to financially justify running as many services as they presently do, when Ember presents such insurmountable competition.

 

[Mikey C]

Surely the priority, if government money is involved, should be removing diesel buses from cities, where air quality is at its worst and people are breathing in the fumes, rather than coaches slogging along motorways and rural main roads, where the impact of diesel particulate pollution is far less serious.

 

[LiviCrazy]

I don’t know what goes into the application process, but is it also possible that decisions are also based on quality of submission, i.e. who has submitted the best business cases? Having worked with the government in various cases, I’d be surprised if there isn’t some level of quality criteria included in this process.

 

[47550]

I've broached this topic before, but to avoid repeating myself, the Scottish Government could reasonably argue that investing heavily in Ember via subsidies will accelerate the removal of tailpipe emissions on Scottish intercity coach networks, fulfilling the point of ScotZEB3. This is because Ember runs what is widely perceived as a premium, bespoke and modern service compared to their main competitors Scottish Citylink and Flixbus, at a decent value, which means that passengers are attracted to move from those competitors to Ember. Therefore, it follows that if Ember can run a more aggressive competition campaign against their competitors (who run 99% and 100% diesel vehicles respectively in Scotland), for example by having more vehicles for (complete speculation here) fight on the very popular M8 corridors from Glasgow to Edinburgh/Airport, more passengers will move to electric travel, which will lower the number of diesel coaches on the road as it becomes impossible to the competitors to financially justify running as many services as they presently do, when Ember presents such insurmountable

I've broached this topic before, but to avoid repeating myself, the Scottish Government could reasonably argue that investing heavily in Ember via subsidies will accelerate the removal of tailpipe emissions on Scottish intercity coach networks, fulfilling the point of ScotZEB3. This is because Ember runs what is widely perceived as a premium, bespoke and modern service compared to their main competitors Scottish Citylink and Flixbus, at a decent value, which means that passengers are attracted to move from those competitors to Ember. Therefore, it follows that if Ember can run a more aggressive competition campaign against their competitors (who run 99% and 100% diesel vehicles respectively in Scotland), for example by having more vehicles for (complete speculation here) fight on the very popular M8 corridors from Glasgow to Edinburgh/Airport, more passengers will move to electric travel, which will lower the number of diesel coaches on the road as it becomes impossible to the competitors to financially justify running as many services as they presently do, when Ember presents such insurmountable competition.

What you seem to be suggesting is a public subsidy to remove competition..which as AFAIK not allowed under the Public Subsidy Control Act

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2026 ==

Monumentally stupid or not, your issue is with the Subsidy Control Act 2022 which explicitly bans applying domestic content restrictions to subsidies, which is entirely what ScotZEB is.

Not my area of expertise but in Manchester, TfGM have publicly stated that they want all new buses for the Bee Network to be British built. If they can do that then why not in Scotland ? (For the record they have bought BYD and Volvo BZLs but all recent orders seem to have been Wright / ADL).

 

[Stan Drews]

A guy with a criminal tax fraud conviction launches legal action in the name of taxpayer value. I suspect we will see his company stop abusing the pensioner payouts since he cares so much about value?

Bearing in mind that Transport Scotland approve the fares charged by Scottish bus operators and that the concessionary schemes are designed so that operators are no better, no worse off, could you enlighten us about this abuse of the pensioner payouts?

 

[GusB]

Surely the priority, if government money is involved, should be removing diesel buses from cities, where air quality is at its worst and people are breathing in the fumes, rather than coaches slogging along motorways and rural main roads, where the impact of diesel particulate pollution is far less serious.

A coach slogging along motorways and rural main roads will end up in a town or city at some point along its journey.

Not my area of expertise but in Manchester, TfGM have publicly stated that they want all new buses for the Bee Network to be British built. If they can do that then why not in Scotland ? (For the record they have bought BYD and Volvo BZLs but all recent orders seem to have been Wright / ADL).

It's all well and good saying that vehicles should be British-built, but this simply isn't an option for operators that run coaches on longer stage services. Plaxton is no longer in the game and no other manufacturer makes full-size bodies. There has been no UK-built chassis option for over 20 years.

 

[Mikey C]

A coach slogging along motorways and rural main roads will end up in a town or city at some point along its journey.

But for a small amount of its mileage during a day, as opposed to a bus in say Glasgow or Edinburgh spending 100% of its time in town.

 

[47550]

A coach slogging along motorways and rural main roads will end up in a town or city at some point along its journey.


It's all well and good saying that vehicles should be British-built, but this simply isn't an option for operators that run coaches on longer stage services. Plaxton is no longer in the game and no other manufacturer makes full-size bodies. There has been no UK-built chassis option for over 20 years.

True - there aren’t any British built options for coaches. I am puzzled how the Ember bid succeeded when the aims of the zebra fund include
- supporting skilled jobs
- maximising economic opportunities from the transition [to zero emissions]
- supporting high value employment

Also, to be eligible vehicles should be used on local bus services.

We don’t know all the details on how bids have been scored and there are other criteria to be met but on the face of it McGills bid which is for Alexander Dennis vehicles provides more jobs in Scotland and therefore should rank higher than Embers (and be compliant as Embers coaches are not used on local services).

 

[Glasgowbusguy]

What you seem to be suggesting is a public subsidy to remove competition..which as AFAIK not allowed under the Public Subsidy Control Act

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2026 ==


Not my area of expertise but in Manchester, TfGM have publicly stated that they want all new buses for the Bee Network to be British built. If they can do that then why not in Scotland ? (For the record they have bought BYD and Volvo BZLs but all recent orders seem to have been Wright / ADL).

There is no British built electric coach