Categories
Uncategorized

SNP politicians have a vested interest in ensuring the union between England and Scotland is retained which is the reason Scots remain in bondage after 300 years of colonial rule

The colonisation of Scotland by England was signed up to against the wishes of Scots by our unelected politicians for a one off lump sum payment of £398,085 10s.

(The irony is that the English borrowed the money and added it to their National Debt before giving it to the Scottish politicians.) Double whammy!!!!

A contract rider included a commitment for Scots to accept a recurring commitment to a share of the English National Debt, which at the time was £18 million.

When the treaty was signed Scotland had no national debt so the lump sum payment was shared between the politicians who signed up to the treaty enabling them to purchase estates in England and permanent seats in Westminster.

315 years later the scam continues:

Scottish politicians extract to themselves and their families/associates upwards of £70 million annually from the public purse (SNP-£50 Million).

National debt at 2022 is £2,440 trillion of which Scotland’s liability is around £190 trillion.

Conclusion: SNP politicians have a vested interest in ensuring the union between England and Scotland is retained which is the reason Scots remain in bondage after 300 years of colonial rule.

Lines of effective communication with bodies, such as the UN need to be established if Scotland is to be freed from the illegal “Treaty of Union”.

Advertisement
Categories
Uncategorized

Control of broadcasting policy would be returned to Scotland. Axed without explanation, on the final day, at the instigation of Unionist parties

The Smith Commission

There were nine cross-party meetings over seven weeks prior to the publication of an agreed draft of “Heads of Agreement” proposals on 21 November 2014.

It emerged that Unionist panel members and MSPs of political parties incorporated in Scotland and allegedly independent of Westminster were frequently on the phone taking instructions from their Party leaders in London.

The Unionist backing Commission chairman, Lord Smith of Kelvin, also gave the impression he added weight to the views of the three main Westminster parties over panel members.

A source said: “The position that Lord Smith took was that if the parties who were either in the current UK government or might be in the next refused to budge on something, he went with it. The Unionist votes counted for more.”

The BBC propaganda machine : Scotland

Nov 2014Devolution deal for Scotland

Lord Smith of Kelvin, praised Scottish political leaders for coming together after a “bruising” referendum, with a reminder that the cross-party commission had been set up after the unionist parties promised greater powers for Scotland in the event of a no vote in the independence referendum, in a pledge known as “The Vow”.

The deal was promoted by Unionist “no” campaigners as the greatest transfer of powers to Scotland since the Scottish Parliament was set up 15 years before.

Drawn up in little over two months it included the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of broadcasting:

Control of broadcasting policy remitted to Scotland for near 70 years before being taken away in 1991 by the government in Westminster, without consultation would be returned to Scotland. The “Broadcasting Council for Scotland” would be established providing Scotland with the longstanding broadcasting governance arrangements which had been in place between 1946-1991.

But the foregoing new arrangements were axed without explanation, on the final day, at the instigation of Unionist parties in London and in Scotland and replaced with:

“Scottish Government is to have a role in reviewing the BBC’s charter and the BBC management in Scotland will be expected to report to the Scottish Parliament’s committees”.

Alex Salmond compares BBC's Scottish independence coverage to propaganda in  Communist Russia - Mirror Online

Up Yours – BBC Scotland senior managers refuse to meet with the MSP committee

Ken MacQuarrie, Head of BBC Scotland and his enforcer, Head of News and Current Affairs and Labour Party supporter bully boy Boothman refused to appear before the Scottish Education and Culture Committee at Holyrood stating that BBC management in Scotland was not accountable to the Scottish Government.

They were subsequently ordered to appear by the Chairman of the BBC Trust and finally did so but stonewalled every question put to them. Boothman, (later exposed as a bully left the BBC soon after and transferred his employment to the private

Categories
Uncategorized

 The imposition of the BBC on Scots breeches the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions

The BBC in Scotland

The dictatorial powers of the BBC decide the daily agenda for the Queen’s subjects, how they talk to each other and what about but Scots are unable to trust the output of the BBC and feel they have no personal investment in it.

It was only a matter of time. The truth about the Establishments dept. of  propaganda - Scottish Branch Office. inform-scotland-… | Scotland,  Propaganda, Go fund me

BBC Bias against Scottish Independence

Before, during and after the 2014 independence referendum the public perception was and still is that there was/is an ongoing agenda within BBC Scotland providing support to Unionist ideals and policies to the exclusion of other political opinions in Scotland.

The evidence was the huge number of unresolved complaints and public demonstrations all voicing concern and anger about the blatant lack of impartiality of the news and current affairs division based in Glasgow.

Scottish opinion was marginalised by the very media that Scots were compelled to pay an annual subscription for. And that is an insult added to injury.

Unfairness in Early 2016? BBC Reporting Scotland and perceptions of  propaganda - Newsnet.scot

Protection of the Scottish Culture

In denying Scots their right to the active promotion of cultural diversity through broadcasting the government in Westminster and its Whitehall controlled BBC is in breach of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – Article 11 – Freedom of expression and information. 

Indeed a well respected and truly impartial BBC journalist was asked if the perception that BBC Scotland was anti-nationalist was, in his view, justified said: “Put it this way, it probably comes more naturally to them to attack the nationalists than to attack the union.”

BBC map of the UK mainland | Michael Rawlins
Categories
Uncategorized

The English belief in their nations racial and ethnic superiority and purity provided the excuse to forcibly evict hundreds of thousands of Scots from their homes and country by “bayonet, bullet and fire

The Ethnic Cleansing of Scotland

Ethnic cleansing enacted by the political policies of Westminster governments commenced not long after the Treaty of Union of 1707 was signed and over the past 300 years it has been implemented first through the ruthless efficiency of a standing English Army garrison and after by political programmes put in place designed to asset strip Scotland of industry and commerce transferring control of all aspects of society and the environment to England ensuring the perpetual subservience of Scots to their divine masters in England. Informed commentators interpret the actions as ethnic cleansing.

It is a fact that there are more descendants of Scots living outside Scotland than there are inside and the population north of the central belt and some places in the lowlands were forced off the land which provided their homes for thousands of years, only to be permitted permanent residence in villages and towns near to the east coast with result that the area denied Scots, larger than Holland or Belgium, is the most sparsely populated in Europe.

The land, viewed as one of Europe’s last great natural wilderness areas was given over to sporting estates becoming the playgrounds of English aristocracy and nouveau riche and became one of Europe’s great human wastelands.

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (December 1948) Article II

The background of the Convention was the Nazi genocide of the 1930s and 40s and was expressly intended to address historical crimes, depending not on mere written law, but on the universality of Natural Law in which certain acts are seen as so repugnant to reason that the conscience along serves to condemn the perpetrator.

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group.
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

What happened in Scotland in the past 300 years constitutes acts of genocide as defined by the Convention.

English politicians conditioned by a belief in Scots racial and ethnic inferiority and impurity evicted tens of thousands by “bayonet, truncheon or fire.”

A historical reality that meets the first three of the five conditions of genocide (bearing in mind the 1948 Convention stipulates that when “any” of the conditions are met genocide has been committed).

The sham devolution of powers to a Scottish Parliament is being dismantled and the colonisation of Scotland by England is being reinstated in response to the determination of Scots to re-establish Scotland’s independence. (summarised from: randompublicjournal)

Categories
Uncategorized

Exposed- the background of the arty clientele of the Dovecot Foundation in attendance at Sturgeons address

October 1992: Daily Mail – Musings of a Scottish lady

Many of my English and European friends and acquaintances are landowners in Scotland. In recent times they have been able to buy and sell many Scottish estates at reasonable prices ensuring the continued growth of our society.

Lord Kimball left Altnaharra in Sutherland. Billy Whitbread sold Kinlochewe. Algie Cluff disposed of Clova. The Forsyth family put Ballathie in Perthshire on the market.

Amazingly Mark and Sandy Diks, the Dutch couple who bought Ben Alder, near Fort William, for £1.5m only a few months ago have decided to sell because Mrs Diks disliked the Scottish climate! Understandable if she was Australian or Italian, but the Dutch who shoot up the highlands are out in all weathers.

Peter de Savery, the English yachting enthusiast bought Glenborrodale Castle on Loch Sunart and now runs it as a hotel.

Derek Holt, the Ayrshire businessman, who built the Kip Marina, bought the Island of Gigha from the receivers of the financially beleaguered Malcolm Poitier.

Lord Laing, the biscuit tycoon, who lives at Dunphail, near Forres, resides virtually next door to his brother Fergus, at Relugas, in Morayshire (some locals call the county Laingshire). Hector Laing set his sons up in neighbouring estates. Anthony and his wife Fof, at Culmony. Robert and his wife Fiona, at Bantrach.

Then there are the Ivory and the Gammell families who have been leading lights in Glenisla in Angus for decades. James and Felicity Ivory at Hole of Ruthven at Kirriemuir. Ian and Johanna Ivory down the road at Ruthven House, near Meigle. Brian and Oonagh Ivory at Brewlands. and their Gammell cousins, Jamie and Jimmy, at Alrick and Craig. Between them, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry. the Keswicks. the Landales. and the Jardine Patersons all from the Jardine Matheson Hong Kong dynasty, account for a lot of Dumfriesshire.

Alistair and Elizabeth Salvesen bought the Whitburgh estate near Pathhead, in Midlothian. With brother Robin Salveson already in residence at Eaglescairnie in East Lothian. Evelyn Salverson, with husband Ian Crombie, at Rankeilour in Fife. Cousin Andrew Salveson at Findrack in Aberdeenshire and Nephew Jeremy at Cardrona, near Peebles. The Salveson’s further increased the family share of ownwership of Scotland.

And what of my own family?

When Torquil, The Master of Camperdown, has finally finished at Eton and Cirencester, we fully expect him to instal himself nearby, most likely in the dower house used by my mother-in-law before we packed her off on the world tour.

Last evening, I arranged for Fiona, our daughter who is at university in Glasgow, to take a party of her chums to the Childline Ball being held at the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh. I do wish I could have gone along myself since I used to simply adore waltzing under those magnificent chandeliers in the great ballroom. Mind you, that was in the days before the local council turned the old place into a multi-purpose community centre; as far as I know, there hasn’t been a really smart dance there for well over a decade. So maybe things are getting back to normal at last!

Anyway, the guest-of-honour last night was Esther Rantzen who presents that amusing television programme about life, and although I have not, as yet, heard from Fiona, with Mike D’Abo’s Band from London (he was the one who took over from the good-looking chap who sang Pretty Flamingo with that Manfred Mann pop group in the 60s), a jazz band, and Scottish country dancing into the bargain, it must have been just like the old days.

Sheriff Neil Gow has written in to chastise me about my bad spelling for which I feel suitably humbled. Alas, I am not a journalist, I am only a woman! I should say, however, that when Camperdown and I were stalking on Arran, we visited Sannox Lodge at the north-east end, not Strabane, where Lady Jean (as a Duke’s daughter, a lady in her own right) has done wonderful things to what I understand was formerly the old factor’s house, next to Brodick Castle. (Summarised from the original)

Categories
Uncategorized

Any international court would declare the 1707 Treaty of Union null and void since it was signed under duress and threat of overwhelming military and economic force

The English government’s Navigation Acts of 1660/61

The Navigation Acts, or more broadly the Acts of Trade and Navigation, were a long series of English laws that developed, promoted, and regulated English ships, shipping, trade, and commerce between other countries and with its own colonies

The laws prevented Scotland from trading with England’s colonies in India and the Caribbean and denied Scots the chance to profit from the trade opportunities that English merchants enjoyed cutting off sources of wealth for Scots. Unlike England and some other European countries, Scotland had no colonies of its own so it continued to fall behind in terms of trade.

The scope of the act was surreptitiously extended in 1689, to include France, the low countries and any colony of England or Holland and was enforced by English and Dutch warships patrolling, controlling the high seas, the North Sea and the English Channel.

Scottish ships carrying fish and or other cargo would be stopped and boarded, the cargo confiscated, ships sunk and the crews press-ganged into the English navy.

England effectively placed an embargo on Scotland and enforced it by blackmailing other countries dependent on England’s support at sea and in Europe and the new colonies.

What was particularly galling was that at a time when their families starved at home in Scotland (due to the adverse impact of the embargo) tens of thousands of Scots were forcibly conscripted into and died fighting for the recently formed United Kingdom in Europe under the command of incompetent English generals.

But the ever resilient Scots refused to give up their sovereignty and retained their freedom denying England’s attempts at colonising the country.

The English Alien Act of 1705

The continued resistance of Scots to colonial rule frustrated English politicians whose attentions were increasingly given over to developing its North American interests. Something need to be done to bring the Scots to heel.

The English Parliament’s Alien Act of 1705 speeded up the process of a Union with Scotland with the explicit threat to confiscate all Scottish held estates held in England by non-residents unless the Scottish Parliament entered into treaty negotiations by Christmas Day 1705.

An added threat was that an embargo would be placed on Scottish products being imported into England.

Darien – Money talks

At the time the Treaty of Union was signed in 1707 Scotland had no debt whilst England’s national debt was £18 million.

Article XV of the Treaty granted £398,085 and ten shillings sterling to Scotland – a sum known as “The Equivalent” – to offset future liability towards the English national debt.

But most of the money was used to compensate the investors in the Darien scheme, many of whom were in the Scottish Parliament and then persuaded to support the Union.

A “parcel of rogues” as described by Robert Burns.

It was hardly a voluntary union as it was opposed by all the churches and burghs in Scotland and widespread rioting followed news that the Treaty of Union had been signed.

Article XIX of the treaty contains the words “…that no causes in Scotland be cognizable by the Courts of Chancery… or any other Court in Westminster Hall”. Therefore, it can be argued that the UK Supreme Court breaches the Treaty of Union (Fraser Grant)

The 1707 Treaty of Union

The Union of Scotland and England was achieved by the signing of the Treaty of Union in which the members of the Scottish and English Parliaments (neither democratically elected) agreed to form a new “British” Parliament.

This did not happen as English politicians at Westminster decided that, contrary to the agreement, there would be no new joint Parliament but “the English Parliament continuing” which would incorporate (absorb) the Scottish Parliament.

Since it was the members of the Scottish Parliament that signed the Treaty it is they, now democratically elected who have the right to express the will of the people of Scotland about such matters as whether they wish to withdraw from a Treaty in which almost every clause has been broken. Self-determination is a right under all international laws.

It is of note that the people of Scotland were torn out of Europe despite their vote to remain, and their being told in the 2014 Independence Referendum campaign that only a no vote in 2014 would ensure their remaining in Europe (Susan FG Forde)

Categories
Uncategorized

Westminster the end of the Empire is near

The end of Queen Victoria’s reign brought with it the slow but relentless and agonising dissolution and dismemberment of the British Empire since it was unable to sustain its existence being founded through the conquest of many formerly free independent nations.

It was also thinly spread across the world and this encouraged the regimes of the appointed governors to practice widespread institutional abuse on the populations of the colonies.

The Royal Navy, which had policed the Empire using gunboat diplomacy lost its power, influence and ability to control affairs and this encouraged the long suffering residents of many colonies to rebel and demand that the British leave.

In some instances the requested withdrawals were achieved peacefully but in many examples the British had to be thrown out of former colonies by force of arms.

In 2022 the Empire is a pale shadow of what it used to be and yet its leaders in Westminster continue to strut the world stage like a punch drunk fighter boasting of its continued influence on world affairs.

The Empire includes just two colonies (Scotland and Wales) attached to Westminster by oppression and abuse and held captive by force.

The weakness of their situations being attributed to the land attachment and the death and banishment of many millions of their residents who fought against overwhelming odds for many years.

It is time Westminster acknowledged the rights of Scotland and Wales and declared an end to the Empire.

Categories
Uncategorized

The ups and downs of ultra successful entrepreneur Baroness Michelle Mone OBE 

Michelle Money & the Ups & Downs of her Business Life.

2014: Recurring threats by Mone to transfer her business to England should Scotland become independent are simply, “hot air” since she no longer has a controlling stake in her new company, (Ultimo Brands International) which incidentally is registered for business in London.

Her company, MJM International morphed into, “Ultimo Brands International” in January 2014 and is registered with Companies House in London.

It has Mone, Anthony Caplan, Poleg and Amalean as its directors.

Caplan is Mone’s lawyer with Poleg and Amalean both board directors at MAS Holdings a (Sri Lanka based company) which holds 51% ownership of UBI leaving Mone in control of 49%.

Poleg, chairman of UBI, said, “We are delighted that we will soon be operating under a new company name, “Ultimo Brands International” a name change reflecting the resurgence of the brand and our ambitions for growth beyond the UK.”

A spokeswoman for UBI said the Ultimo range was being overhauled and relaunched in early 2014 .

Mone, the new poster girl for British Airways

Boldly modelling a swimsuit of her own design, is yet another eye-catching twist in the career of one of Scotland’s best known business figures who said: “I have absolutely no problem with people expressing an opinion, but if you are going to be disrespectful, I don’t want to hear it. I’ve been called a “****”, a cow, a slut, as well as being told “I’m going to get it”, “we’ll come and get you” and they’re “going to throw me across the border”.

“I’m not a murderer, a thief or a rapist. I’m a good person who employs a lot of people in Scotland, both Yes and No supporters, and we all get on. We should all be able to live in a country where you can express views and not be vilified for it.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/michelle-mone-bas-poster-girl-in-an-ultimo-swimsuit.1395878309

Kate Hopkins, in her column for the, “Sun” labelled the Scottish lingerie tycoon an, “asylum seeker” after Mone pledged to move to England if Scotland became independent. Hopkins said, “If you are part of Scotland and have the opportunity to vote, you should remain in the country where you exercised your democratic right. “The last thing we need is more asylum seekers in England. She went on, “Even if they are wealthy and have norks like Marilyn Monroe.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/504797/Katie-Hopkins-lays-into-Michelle-Mone-for-moaning-about-Scottish-independence

Mone has revealed she suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder. In general, sufferers experience repetitive, intrusive and unwelcome thoughts, images, impulses and doubts which they find hard to ignore. The thoughts push them to perform repetitive acts as a way to alleviate the symptoms.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/i-m-obsessive-sufferer-admits-bra-tycoon-1-1037728

Mone has been criticised for fronting a campaign backing Scottish manufacturing when her own products were being made overseas in China.

http://www.scotsman.com/business/transport-industry/mone-hits-back-at-chinese-whispers-1-1393283
http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/underwear-tycoon-denies-sweat-shop-reports-1-523506

Mone got into another ruck with the press over claims that her business would be worth 100m when only months previously it had to be rescued from bankruptcy by entrepreneur Tom Hunter.

Having dispensed with Jordan’s services after a single day, firing Peaches Geldof for alleged drug taking and insisting she only hired Penny Lancaster because she was cheap, Mone has finally found a model she was able to work with: herself.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/ultimo-run-by-ms-mone-appoints-a-fantastic-new-model-er-ms-mone-1-806942

Mone clenched her fist and spat venom about lingerie models who refused to stalk the catwalk in her skimpy thongs.

“F***ing neurotics,” says Mone, creator of the Ultimo bra, which has boosted cleavages worldwide with its stitched-in sacs of silicone gel. “I think they’re bloody prima donnas. They’re getting paid fortunes, and they’re in there moaning their arse off. I feel like punching every one of them.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/the-ultimo-sacrifice-1-605796
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/bra-queen-mone-gets-it-off-her-chest-for-bbc-1-1360771
http://www.scotsman.com/news/undies-with-a-capital-u-1-1357321
http://www.scotsman.com/business/finance/beauty-business-under-her-skin-1-524960

Mone: “The number of tribunals, and the amount of protection available to workers, has “gone way over the score”.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/mone-hits-out-at-workers-rights-after-start-of-tribunal-1-719678

Former employee, (at a tribunal)

Miss Woods claimed, “ Mone asked women at job interviews if they planned to start a family and did not seem to appreciate staff taking time off for family reasons.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/i-was-forced-out-of-job-by-bra-tycoon-1-716430

Mone, the bra tycoon, pledges her support to Labour’s election campaign.

Mone extolled Labour’s economic and jobs record, yesterday, when the party outlined its plans for workers.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/mone-lift-for-labour-1-705286

Mone brands Chancellor Alistair Darling’s 50p rate “a disgrace” and likened it to “Monopoly money”.

Mone confessed she might also now be considering a move to Hong Kong to continue her successful Ultimo business.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/97173/Darling-s-Budget-tax-hike-may-force-Michelle-Mone-to-uproot-for-Hong-Kong

Mone branded a, “manipulative cow” by Rod Stewart

Mone’s decision to drop his 34-year-old girlfriend, Penny Lancaster, deeming her not well enough known angered the 60-year-old rocker who said “I hope she [Mone] chokes on her profits.”

Mone, also received offensive e-mails over the move. But the real reason why Mone and Lancaster went their separate ways appeared to be the usual culprit: money.

It has since been revealed that Lancaster’s £200k contract to promote Ultimo was nearing its end and Mone had asked if she could continue using the model’s image for another five months for free. An ‘offer’ rejected as “ludicrous.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/bra-firm-thanks-ditched-model-rachel-hunter-for-her-support-1-1110684
http://www.scotsman.com/news/storm-in-a-d-cup-1-1298380
http://www.scotsman.com/news/not-a-penny-more-1-507786

Mone buy’s out investors

Mone has bought out Sir Tom Hunter and Ian Grabiner in a deal understood to be worth £800,000.

The Scots billionaire and the chief operating officer of fashion group Arcadia had invested in Mone’s lingerie company, Ultimo, when the business nearly collapsed after its launch in 1999. The firm has since prospered.

http://www.scotsman.com/business/mone-buys-out-ultimo-investors-1-1079065

Mone considering moving to the United States to further her television career.

A regular guest on, “The Apprentice – You’re Fired” she revealed on social networking site, “Facebook” that she was torn between staying in Scotland and uprooting her children, to live in the US. “Decisions to make, offered a huge opportunity in LA but have to live there for a lot of the time,” she wrote. “Don’t think I can leave my home … wish I wasn’t such a home bird. “It would initially be for a year but huge decision as I would have to take kids out of school.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/celebrity/lingerie-tycoon-michelle-mone-unveils-her-ultimo-dream-house-1-799642

She may only have been two thirds of the way through her contract, but it seems that Abbey Clancy is no longer the face of Ultimo.

The 28-year-old WAG has been sacked by Mone after the two fell out following another campaign which Abbey has recently fronted wearing next to nothing.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/478227/Michelle-Mone-terminates-Abbey-Clancy-s-Ultimo-contract-after-model-stripped-off-for-Veet

Revealed: Tory peer Mone secretly received £29m from ‘VIP lane’ PPE firm

The Conservative peer and her children secretly received £29m originating from the profits of a PPE business that was awarded large government contracts after she recommended it to ministers.

Mone’s support helped the company, PPE Medpro, secure a place in a “VIP lane” the government used during the coronavirus pandemic to prioritise companies that had political connections. It then secured contracts worth more than £200m.

Michelle Mone on her yacht Lady M

Document indicate tens of millions of pounds of PPE Medpro’s profits were later transferred to a secret offshore trust of which Mone and her adult children were the beneficiaries.

Asked why she did not include PPE Medpro in her House of Lords register of financial interests, her lawyer replied: “She did not declare any interest as she did not benefit financially and was not connected to PPE Medpro in any capacity.”

The leaked documents, which were produced by the bank HSBC, appear to contradict that statement. They state that Mone’s husband, the Isle of Man-based financier Douglas Barrowman, was paid at least £65m in profits from PPE Medpro, and then distributed the funds through a series of offshore accounts, trusts and companies.

The ultimate recipients of the funds, the documents indicate, include the Isle of Man trust that was set up to benefit Mone, who was Barrowman’s fiancee at the time, and her children.

In October 2020, the documents add, Barrowman transferred to the trust £28.8m originating from PPE Medpro profits.

Michelle Mone being sworn into the House of Lords as Baroness Mone of Mayfair in 2015.
Michelle Mone being sworn into the House of Lords as Baroness Mone of Mayfair in 2015. Photograph: PA

That was just five months after Mone helped PPE Medpro secure contracts to supply masks and sterile gowns for use in the NHS.

Contacted about the new disclosures, HSBC said it was unable to comment, even to confirm if the couple had been clients.

A lawyer for Mone said: “There are a number of reasons why our client cannot comment on these issues and she is under no duty to do so.”

A lawyer who represents both Barrowman and PPE Medpro said that a continuing investigation limited what his clients were able to say on these matters. He added: “For the time being we are also instructed to say that there is much inaccuracy in the portrayal of the alleged ‘facts’ and a number of them are completely wrong.”

Mone, 51, and Barrowman, 57, have over the last two years insisted they had no “involvement” in PPE Medpro, and “no role” in the process through which the company was awarded its government contracts.

PPE Medpro has repeatedly refused to identify its mystery backers, but denied it was awarded contracts because of “company or personal connections” to the UK government or Conservative party.

Their claims are at odds with documents appearing to show the couple were secretly involved in PPE Medpro’s business, and emails suggesting Mone repeatedly lobbied the government on its behalf during the nine-month period after she helped secure its place in the VIP lane.

Michelle Mone and her husband, Douglas Barrowman

However, the Guardian’s latest revelation – that the peer and her husband secretly amassed an offshore fortune on the back of PPE Medpro profits – could prove the most consequential for Mone, who has already been placed under investigation by the House of Lords commissioner for standards.

Separately, PPE Medpro has become the subject of a potential fraud investigation by the National Crime Agency.

In April this year, NCA officers searched several addresses, including the mansion Mone and Barrowman occupy in the Isle of Man. At the time, lawyers for PPE Medpro declined to comment on the NCA investigation.

The controversy over Mone and PPE Medpro threatens to embroil the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, who has pledged to make “integrity and accountability” pillars of his leadership.

David Cameron, who was himself embroiled in a lobbying scandal last year, was the Conservative leader who appointed Mone the baroness of Mayfair in 2015.

The former owner of a lingerie business, she has proven to be one of the party’s most high-profile and controversial peers.

Michelle Mone founded the lingerie brand Ultimo.
Michelle Mone founded the lingerie brand Ultimo. Photograph: SWNS.com

HSBC investigation

The leaked documents setting out HSBC’s understanding of the offshore distribution of PPE Medpro’s profits were produced by the bank, which held several accounts linked to the Tory peer, her husband and children.

HSBC launched its own investigation following media reports about Mone’s apparent links to PPE Medpro, which raised potential concerns for the bank.

A report produced by HSBC on the couple and their links to PPE Medpro stated that it did “not manage to corroborate” those concerns.

Michelle Mone and Douglas Barrowman attending an event at Guildhall in London in 2017.
Michelle Mone and Douglas Barrowman attending an event at Guildhall in London in 2017. Photograph: Jeff Moore/Alamy

In the process of investigating the couple, however, HSBC pieced together a money trail showing that Barrowman had transferred tens of millions in PPE Medpro profits through a network of offshore entities. About £29m ended up in the trust benefiting Mone and her children, the report indicates.

The bank’s investigation noted that “large value inter-account transfers” originating from PPE Medpro were being routed through Barrowman’s offshore accounts, often crediting and debiting within minutes of each other.

The internal bank report described the money flows as “unusual activity”, noting a concern that Barrowman “may be attempting to conceal the true origins of the funds through multiple layers of transactions creating a distance between the receipt of PPE funds and the final beneficiaries”.

Referring to Mone, it concluded that the transfers “suggest a UK peer in the House of Lords has benefited from a contract with the UK government”. Barrowman is understood to have told HSBC that his wife had “no involvement” in the business activities of PPE Medpro, and the onward transfer of its profits via his personal bank account had been made “in his personal capacity”.

HSBC was unable to corroborate any concerns of wrongdoing by the couple, but it did identify a number of “risks” related to retaining Barrowman and Mone as clients – including what it saw as potential reputational damage to the bank. Multiple sources have told the Guardian that HSBC then decided to drop the couple as clients.

Message and money trails

Mone and Barrowman have long denied any involvement in PPE Medpro, or any role in the process through which it was awarded government contracts. However, over the last two years the Guardian has ascertained multiple instances in which the couple appear to have been involved in the business.

The Tory peer first approached ministers in May 2020, before PPE Medpro had even been incorporated as a company. She contacted Michael Gove, who was then a Cabinet Office minister, and Theodore Agnew, then a minister for procurement, using their personal email addresses.

Mone told her fellow Conservative politicians that large quantities of PPE could be procured via “my team in Hong Kong”.

Cabinet Office officials then added PPE Medpro to the VIP lane, which was used by the government early in the pandemic to prioritise referrals from politically connected companies.

The government has consistently defended the VIP process; spokespeople have maintained that contracts were awarded “in line with procurement regulations and transparency guidelines, and there are robust rules and processes in place to prevent conflicts of interest”.

However the VIP procurement process has been ruled unlawful by the high court.

Within weeks of Mone’s referral, which led to PPE Medpro being added to the high-priority channel, the company had received two government contracts worth a total of £203m to supply millions of face masks and sterile surgical gowns.

Around that time, Mone and her then fiancé appear to have been secretly involved in PPE Medpro’s business, according to previously leaked documents. Barrowman appears to have been personally involved in setting up PPE Medpro’s deals with a supply chain partner, Loudwater Trade and Finance, in which PPE Medpro committed to using its “extensive network” to seek contracts with the UK government. Barrowman also participated in a meeting between the Cabinet Office, PPE Medpro and Loudwater.

Meanwhile, Mone appears to have sent a WhatsApp message from a private jet in which she discussed specific details relating to PPE Medpro’s contract for sterile gowns. The message was sent to a person in PPE Medpro’s supply chain who referred to her as “Lady Michelle”. The couple were also included in correspondence between PPE Medpro’s suppliers about the cost price of gowns.

Masks in the PPE Medpro product catalogue.
Masks in the PPE Medpro product catalogue. Photograph: PPE Medpro

When the Guardian reported on their apparent secret involvement in the company, Mone’s lawyers said its reporting was “grounded entirely on supposition and speculation and not based on accuracy”, while lawyers for Barrowman said the Guardian’s reporting amounted to “clutching at straws” and was “largely incorrect”.

In September 2020, Barrowman was paid at least £65m in “profits” from the PPE deal, the HSBC report states. It states that money was transferred in two instalments to the Warren Trust, one of Barrowman’s Isle of Man trusts, using the reference “Distribution”.

From there, transfers totalling £45.8m were made to Barrowman’s personal HSBC Isle of Man bank account. That account, in turn, transferred £28.8m in October 2020 to the Keristal Trust, the beneficiaries of which, bank records indicated, were Mone and her children, the report states.

The Keristal Trust’s “settlors” – a reference to the individuals who created or funded it – were Barrowman and another individual linked to PPE Medpro, the document indicates. The document adds that the Keristal Trust’s bank account was opened in May 2020. That was the same month Mone recommended PPE Medpro to Gove and Agnew.

The HSBC report states that smaller sums – ranging from £5,000 to £200,000 – originating from PPE Medpro profits were passed to some employees of the Knox Group, Barrowman’s financial services firm, who were involved in the PPE business. According to the report, one of those employees told the bank the transfers were “gifts”.

Honeymoon period

Like his wife, Barrowman has repeatedly distanced himself from PPE Medpro, although neither of them have explicitly denied that he benefited financially from it. Previously, his lawyers have also insisted that Barrowman was never an “investor” in PPE Medpro.

However the leaked HSBC report suggests that another Barrowman trust in the Isle of Man made an investment of £3m in PPE Medpro in June 2020, using the reference “PPE Transfer”. The £3m capital injection was later repaid into Barrowman’s trust by PPE Medpro, along with interest, the report states.

Contacted this week, PPE Medpro declined to comment about whether Barrowman had invested in the company, citing a continuing investigation. Barrowman also declined to offer further comment citing live investigations, but his lawyer said he disputes the Guardian’s “claims and accusations”.

Barrowman will now be under pressure to explain why he received at least £65m in PPE Medpro profits, and apparently passed on around half of that to his wife and her children, all via offshore payments.

Barrowman and Mone’s huge windfall from PPE Medpro’s profits appears to have landed at an auspicious time for the couple: a few weeks before their wedding in the Isle of Man and honeymoon in the Maldives.

Mone on a yacht at sunset.
An image of Mone posted on her Instagram account.

Their extraordinary enrichment from the profits of PPE Medpro may explain why Mone continued to lobby the government for further business for the company, months after it had been awarded £203m in PPE contracts.

Around the time Mone’s trust received tens of millions in profits originating from PPE Medpro, she appears to have lobbied another then Tory minister, James Bethell, this time promoting the company’s sale of Covid-19 tests, leaked emails suggest.

PPE Medpro ultimately failed to persuade the government to buy its antigen tests, despite Mone’s continued efforts to pull strings with her political contacts.

In February 2021, back from her honeymoon, Mone appears to have been lobbying again, according to an email sent by Jacqui Rock, the chief commercial officer for NHS test and trace.

The senior civil servant told colleagues that Mone was angry at the treatment of PPE Medpro, whose products were being subjected to tests. The Tory peer believed PPE Medpro had been “fobbed off”, Rock told colleagues. “Baroness Mone is going to Michael Gove and Matt Hancock today as she is incandescent with rage.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/23/revealed-tory-peer-michelle-mone-secretly-received-29m-from-vip-lane-ppe-firm

Categories
Uncategorized

Edward Heath -Its Scottish oil and the use of financial profits from it is for Scots to decide

quote-unemployment-is-of-vital-importance-particularly-to-the-unemployed-edward-heath-71-11-23

1972. The discovery of oil in the North Sea, stirred Prime Minister, Edward Heath’s concerns about the poor state of the Scottish economy and perceiving a need for change, he initiated a policy review.

His secretary wrote to Cabinet members;

“As you know, the point has recently been put to the Prime Minister that the benefits of oil production brought ashore in Scotland should accrue, and be seen to accrue, to the Scottish economy.

The Prime Minister sees considerable force in the arguments, believing it would be difficult to stress too highly the psychological gains which would come from the revival of the Scottish economy being seen to be something from which Scotland was achieving from its own resources, not just by the grace and favour of the Government at Westminster or of English industry.” Adding: “The Prime Minister understands that novel arrangements may be required to achieve this result.”

Heath’s proposals created alarm at Westminster and led to many “on and off the record” meetings and an outpouring of confidential minutes and memos between various factions within and outwith government and the civil service,

Primary contributors objectors were: Gordon Campbell, (later Baron Campbell of Croy) the Scottish Secretary of State and head of the Department of Trade and Industry and Anthony Barber, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

by Walter Bird, bromide print, October 1959

Baron Campbell of Croy

In stating their opposition to Heath’s proposals, the Westminster establishment voiced concerns about taking oil revenues away from the Treasury.

A senior official at the Scottish Office, in London, wrote in a memo to Downing Street:

“The oil discoveries have raised speculation in Scotland on the financial aspects and will continue to do so. But, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Campbell, would not wish to see direct payments from the oil revenues, as these would be too late to be really useful and would raise a new principal causing difficulties if applied in other contexts.

On the general question of the financial relationship of central Government with Scotland, the present has been evolved over many years and the types and amounts of grants, for example to local authorities for housing and education…follow formulae which recognize special circumstances and needs where they exist. Mr Campbell considers that to dismantle this system, besides being a Herculean task, would resurrect innumerable issues now mercifully dormant.”

In a memo, Treasury officials said they too were looking at aspects of the Prime Minister’s request and argued against it strongly, saying that Scotland took a markedly larger share of public spending than she contributed to public revenue.”

The same Treasury officials later said there could be: “no question of hypothecation” of oil revenue to finance Scottish expenditure.

Other Unionists in opposition to Heath’s proposals presented a uniform front, unanimously suggesting that aims would be better met by investment in infrastructure and the fostering of fabrication yards and supply companies.

Their strident opposition to Heath’s proposal garnered support, and culminated in the submission of an alternative proposal, transferring all revenue gathered from the oil bonanza to the Treasury in Westminster.

The Unionist consensus was that, “any change in the financial relationship between Westminster and Scotland would resurrect innumerable issues, (a veiled reference to Scottish Independence) now mercifully dormant”.

Edward Heath, blindsided, and out-voted in cabinet, accepted their proposal. Scotland has been ripped off since.

Categories
Uncategorized

Darien – English treachery exposed – A letter from the Scottish Chancellor to King William in 1701

17 January 1701 – An Address to King William in London from the Scottish Chancellor, Patrick, Earl of Marchmont, concerning events in Caledonia.

We your majesty’s most faithful and dutiful subjects, the noblemen, barons and burgesses of the Scottish parliament, do in all humility represent that we are of sound mind, and do and shall ever most heartily acknowledge, that God raised your majesty to be our great deliverer, by whom our religion, liberties, rights and laws were rescued and restored into the happy estate and condition within which we now enjoy them.

Not least amongst the blessings was that your majesty desired the Kingdom to introduce measures for raising and improving the trade of the nation, and you were pleased in the year 1693 to give the royal assent to an act of parliament authorizing societies and companies in general, and then by act of parliament in the year 1695, to elect and establish “The Company of Scotland, Trading to Africa and the Indies,” And, with the powers, privileges, liberties and immunities contained in the said act, by virtue and warrant whereof letters patent were also granted for the same effect under the great seal of this your ancient kingdom.

But though the act and patent contained nothing save what is agreeable to the law of nations and to the use and custom every where in like cases, yet no sooner were they expedited and the founders began to act than, to the great surprise of the said company and of this whole kingdom, the kingdom of England take offence and acting against the company place upon it great and grievous hardships.

First there was the address, made in December 1695 by both houses of the parliament in England wherein they complained to your majesty of our said act of parliament for granting to the said company the privileges and immunities therein mentioned, as likely to bring many prejudices and mischiefs to all your English subjects concerned in the trade or wealth of that nation

And at the same time the House of Commons ordered an inquiry to be made to establish who were the advisers and promoters of our said act of parliament and acting on the information so gathered did move and make several prosecutions, even against the subjects of this kingdom who did not so much as reside in England, and only were acting by virtue and warrant of our said act of parliament and your majesty’s patent, whereby our said company was also disappointed and frustrated at the loss of the subscriptions of our own country men and others in England to the value of about £300,000.

And further, the House of Lords, by another address to your majesty, upon the twelfth of February 1698, persisted with the opposition made against our company and their colony of Caledonia in Darien in the continent of America, on the grounds of it being prejudicial to their nation and detrimental to its trade.

They went on to use the aforementioned statement to justify certain proclamations emitted in the year 1699 by the governors of the English plantations against our said company and their colony as agreeable to the above mentioned address of both houses of parliament, alleging that the same did proceed upon the unanimous sense of that kingdom in relation to any settlement we might make in the West Indies, and gave forth their resolution that the settlement of our colony at Darien was inconsistent with the good of the plantation trade of England.

All which being laid before us by our said company, and having fully considered the same, we have unanimously concluded and passed the resolve that the votes and proceedings of the parliament of England and their address presented to your majesty in December 1695 in relation to our act of parliament establishing our Indian and African Company, and the address of the house of lords presented to your majesty in February last, were an unwarranted meddling in the affairs of Scotland and an invasion upon the sovereignty and independence of our king and parliament.

Secondly, when our company sent their deputies to the German City of Hamburg, about the month of April 1697, to establish a treaty with that city and its inhabitants establishing free commerce to join with them according to the warrant contained in our act of parliament and your majesty’s patent, these deputies were immediately upon their arrival opposed by Sir Paul Rycault, an Englishman resident in that city, and a Mr Cresset, your majesty’s English envoy at the court of Lunenburg.

Both made several addresses to the senate of that city in prejudice of our company, and at length gave to the senate a memorial in your majesty’s name as king of Great Britain, stating that they represented your majesty, and the said deputies endeavoured to open to England a commerce and trade with the City of Hamburg by making some convention or treaty with them and had commanded the City fathers to notify the Luneburg Senate that, if they should enter into any convention with Scottish men, your subjects, who had neither credential letters, nor were otherwise authorized by your majesty, you would regard such proceedings as an affront to your royal authority and would not fail to resent it.

And then, noting that the City of Hamburg, without regard to their remonstrations did offer to make conventions or treaties with the Scottish deputation, proceeding upon the supposition that they were vested with sufficient powers, they repeated their complaint beseeching the said Luneburg Senate, in your majesty’s name, to remedy the matter since the City of Hamburg were intent on proceeding to enter into a contract with said Scotsmen were not instructed with due credentials and also expressly invading their rights and privileges.

Your majesty was graciously pleased to signify to the company, once and again by your secretaries, that you had given orders to these ministers not to make use of your majesties’ name and authority to obstruct the company in the prosecution of their trade with the inhabitants of that city, which, nevertheless, the said English ministers altogether misrepresented.

Which being also complained of to us by the company and duly considered by us, we have unanimously concluded and passed another resolve that the memorial presented in your majesty’s name as King of Great Britain to the senate of Hamburg, upon the seventh of April 1697, by Sir Paul Rycault, then resident in that city, and Mr Cresset, your majesties’ envoy extraordinary at the Court of Lunenburg, were most unwarrantable, containing manifest falsehoods and contrary to the law of nations injurious to your majesty and an open encroachment upon the sovereignty and independence of this crown and kingdom, the occasions of great losses and disappointments to the said company and of most dangerous consequence for the trade of Scotland now and in the future.

Thirdly, your majesty’s favour of forming the company, having been very acceptable to the whole of Scotland and having the financial support of many subscribers of all degrees and from all parts, and having procured a greater advance of money for a venture then was ever made before, the council and directors of the company thought good to make some settlement for a plantation. And, having considered that by the for-said act of parliament they were limited in their planting of colony’s either to places not inhabited or to other places with consent of the natives and inhabitants, and not possessed by any European prince or state.

And having investigated available information understood that that part of Darien in America, where they thereafter fixed, was no European possession, they set forth well equipped with ships, men and provisions, which, arriving upon that coast in November 1698, the founders of the colony did not only find the place uninhabited, but also treated and agreed with the chief men of the natives near to the place, whom they found in an independent and absolute freedom, and, being very kindly and friendly by them admitted, our colony took possession and settled upon the most complete right of a place, void and unoccupied and with the consent of all the neighbouring natives that could have any pretence to it, and thus the company hoped they had made a good settlement and happily prevented others having designs for the same place in such manner as might tend to the advantage of all your majesty’s dominions.

But when they believed that their matters were thus in a hopeful and prosperous condition, they were exceedingly surprised to hear that proclamations had been published by the governors of the English plantations placing an embargo on the company as enemies, debarring them from all supplies, and that these proclamations had been executed against Darien with the utmost rigour, forbidding our men wood, water and anchorage, and all sorts of provisions, even for money, contrary to the very rules of common humanity: and, within some weeks after, the company was informed that their colony had deserted Darien to the great loss and regret of the whole of Scotland.

And though the Company sent out a very considerable second mission to repossess Darien, the same rigorous execution was still continued against them. Which proclamations proceeding, as we believe, and that from the very style and variations that may be observed in them, from the error of the governor’s mistaking, as it is like from some cautions given them for prevention and not from direct orders, we are persuaded were not emitted by your majesty’s warrant, beside that they were executed with an unheard of rigour.

And therefore, upon a further complaint from our company in this matter, we have most unanimously concluded and past a third resolve in these terms: that the proclamations in the English plantations in April, May, June and September 1699 against our Indian and African Company and colony in Caledonia were and are injurious and prejudicial to the rights and liberties of the company, and that the execution of these proclamations against the settlers sent out by the said company was inhumane, barbarous and contrary to the law of nations and a great occasion of the loss and ruin of our said colony and settlement of Caledonia.

And we taking to our further consideration the proceedings of our company in making the said settlement and how they punctiliously observed the condition of the for said act of parliament and patent in making their plantations in no European possession, with the greatest caution both to fix in a place void and uninhabited and also with consent of all the neighbouring natives that could have the least shadow of pretence thereto, and that yet on the other hand the said planters have been treated by the Spaniards, first at Carthagena and then in the very seat of our colony and like ways in old Spain, with all insolences and hostilities, not only as enemies but as pirates.

We thought it our duty, for vindicating and securing our said company and colony from all imputation or charge that has been or may be brought against them, to pass and conclude with the same unanimity a fourth resolve: that our Indian and African Company’s colony of Caledonia in Darien in the continent of America was and is legal and rightful, and that the settlement was made conform to the act of parliament and letters patent establishing the said company, and that the company, in making and prosecuting the said settlement, acted warrantable by virtue of the said act of parliament and patent.

We, having thus found the for said invasions to be manifest encroachments upon the undoubted independence and sovereignty of this your majesty’s ancient crown and Scotland and unanimously passed the above-mentioned resolves and votes for asserting the rights and privileges of our said company, and also for asserting our company’s right to their colony of Caledonia, we have further thought good to lay the same before your majesty by this our solemn address.

And, therefore, do with all humble duty and earnestness beseech your majesty to take this whole matter to your royal consideration and to prevent all encroachments for the future that may be made, either by your English ministers abroad or any other to the prejudice of this kingdom and our said company, or any project of trade that we may lawfully design, and to assure our said company of your majesty’s royal protection in all their just rights and privileges, and to grant them your countenance and concurrence for reparation of their losses, especially those great losses and damages that they and their colony have suffered by the injuries and violences of the Spaniards.

And further, we represent to your majesty that the press ganging of Scots by the English for their sea service is contrary to the natural right and freedom of the subjects of Scotland, ought to be absolutely discharged.

All which we represent to your majesty with the greater confidence, as being most assured that none of your kingdoms and subjects are or can be more dutifully and zealously affected to your majesty’s royal person and government than we and the good subjects of your ancient kingdom of Scotland are, and shall ever continue to testify by laying out our selves for your majesty’s service to the utmost of our power.

Signed in presence by warrant and in name of the estates of the Scottish parliament may it please your majesty, your majesty’s most humble, most obedient and most faithful subject and servant, Patrick, Earl of Marchmont, Lord High Chancellor to the Parliament of Scotland, 17 January 1701

Patrick, Earl of Marchmont

King William of England was never crowned King of Great Britain, yet his two representatives insisted on referring to him as this in 1697, (10 years before the Treaty of Union was signed). This reveals the duplicity of William and his cronies in Westminster. He sold out Scotland, then fell off his horse and died before he could enjoy the fruits of his deceit.