caltonjock

Christian crusaders won a long battle against the madness of Islam, ensuring religious freedom for its citizens. But the erosion of behavioural norms encouraged by corrupt politicians brought about the unfettered release in the West of the evils of Islam and its evil purpose. Islam is now firmly in control of the political direction of the UK and many other former Christian cultures. A very recent example is the by-election win of yet another non- English speaking immigrant Muslim to the Scottish Parliament. A success gained in a community dominated by Christians. The success, against all predictions, was achieved through the abuse of the unlimited powers of the Imams and Islamic activists ever present in Mosques who dictate with whom the Islamic votes are placed. Such actions are now commonplace in immigrant communities throughout the UK, and the perversion of Christian-led political systems by Islam is nearing completion. What comes next?.

Nov 2010: Jack Straw Labour MP for Blackburn alerted the UK to the sexual abuse of young white girls by Pakistani men

A gang of men were convicted of systematically grooming and sexually abusing teenage girls in Derbyshire. Many of the victims were given alcohol or drugs before being forced to have sex in cars, rented houses or hotels across the Midlands. One girl described a sexual assault involving at least eight men. The nine men were convicted during three separate trials at Leicester Crown Court.

Straw said increasing numbers of Pakistani Muslim men view white girls as “easy meat” for sex abuse and highlighted it was endemic in Blackburn and in many other areas with significant Muslim populations across England.

Aug 2014: Pakistani Grooming gangs reportedly raped near a million underage non-Muslim girls and the CPS failed their pleas for justice

Jack Straw’s warning was ignored by the DPP and the CPS. Four years and 1 million more rapes later the UK public was outraged and angered by party political attempts to shift the blame away from the State onto the victims. 

Reports suggested that there were around 1,400 raped Yorkshire children, (a conservative estimate) given there were multiple rapes on each child.

Adding in the Pakistani Muslim grooming operating in Oxford, Bradford, Rochdale, Newcastle and other cities in England takes the count of rapes committed by Pakistani Muslim men against white children into the millions.

The judge in the Oxford case said the brutal rapists demeaned their victims because they did not share the men’s “religion and culture”.

Nor is it a “small number” of Muslims. It is an endemic problem in Muslim-dominated towns and cities. 

The UK public needs to see justice. That means more than “historic abuse” “no blame game” “no party politics” “look to the future” and all the other rubbish politicians wheel out. We don’t need “the police”, “the council”, “the CPS”. We need names and prosecutions.

Police officers who abetted the rape of children need to go to jail. And another thing who will be responsible for prosecuting members of the CPS for their misconduct?

Keir Starmer, the highly politicised Director of Public Prosecutions, said his CPS did not prosecute because they made assumptions about the credibility of the evidence of victims.

So the DPP and the CPS took on the role of judge and jury and failed the abused children. Why?

It was Labour who did this in Rotherham and Rochdale to win Muslim votes. The police, Labour PCCs, Labour councillors, Labour-leaning prosecutors. 

The Rotherham report says a Conservative councillor brought his concerns to the leader but was told not to make it public.

The Head of Children’s Services Joyce Thacker told The Times she would punish the leaker and in 2008 Labour gave her an OBE for her Services to Young People.

Labour’s greedy, sleazy pandering to Muslim votes brought about the introduction of Sharia tribunals. Labour set them up in law.

Postal vote fraud, uncontrolled immigration, Trojan Horse schools, and now this sick hell.

The Pakistani immigrant community has not fully integrated into British life. Instead of spreading out over the country and adopting British values whilst retaining their own religion, they have been encouraged to massively dominate many towns where they impose their culture on others.

Social planning needs to address the undesirability of one community” taking over an English town or city. We have seen that with our mixed Afro-Caribbean heritage Britons, with Jewish-heritage Britons and all classes and races up until now.

Politicians, the Media and the Press are persistent in their use of the expression “The Pakistani Community” providing confirmation of the failed immigration policy of the Labour Party who actively encouraged mass uncontrolled immigration of Pakistani immigrants so that they would be able to gain their votes in future elections.

Reference to “the community” should address all citizens regardless of ethnic origin. (The Sun)

White girls abused by Muslim child-rape gangs should shut their mouths for the good of diversity

Labour Party leader, Sir Keir Starmer promoted MP Naseem ‘Naz’ Shah, who infamously shared a tweet stating “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths for the good of diversity”.

The British-Pakistani Labour MP for Bradford West liked and shared a tweet in 2017 admonishing white, English girls who spoke out about being raped and sexually enslaved by organised gangs of Muslim paedophiles.

The UK was rocked to its foundations by the never-ending stream of scandals involving predominantly Muslim men targeting white English girls from working-class backgrounds for sexual exploitation.

Most shockingly of all is the fact that authorities and the mainstream media were aware of this for years if not decades but refused to act, even when girls and parents pleaded for help, for fear of being accused of racism by PC fanatics.

The Labour MP for Rotherham, a town where Muslim child-raping gangs were allowed to operate for years with impunity, Sarah Champion, has said that up to 1 million English girls are likely to have fallen victim to Muslim rape gangs as of 2016.

Political activist and author Lindsey German endorsed Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign in the Labour Party leadership election.

In 2019, she wrote that there was little evidence for an epidemic of antisemitism within the Labour Party, with a “very small number of cases proved, and a small number of accusations made”. Such allegations were “political attacks – against Corbyn and his left wing politics, and against all those who criticised the state of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians.

“The Fraud”, written by respected investigative reporter, Paul Holden, lifted the lid on the deceitful, secret campaign inside Labour to destroy Corbyn and install Starmer as it’s right-wing Labour leader.

Lindsey German’s review

It could hardly be a better week to review a book whose subtitle is Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney, and the Crisis of British Democracy. I was reading the last chapter when the news broke that Downing Street advisers were briefing against Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who was allegedly planning to challenge Starmer for leader. The furore that followed demonstrated that the dysfunctionality of Starmer’s administration was on a par with the sheer chaos that has engulfed recent Tory governments.

Paul Holden’s detailed and extensive book is a very important primer for all of us who want to understand what is going on. His case is clear that there ‘is compelling evidence that the political project which propelled Keir Starmer to first party and then national leadership was authoritarian, deceptive, and open to corporate capture, and that it lacked a principled approach to the struggle against racism. As this book shows, the Starmer project has also repeatedly skirted the edges of the law. “This is the machine that now runs the UK”.

Holden identifies the two overlapping projects – what he calls the Labour Together Project and the Starmer Project – that were key to Starmer succeeding to the leadership and then to government. He also identifies the person at the centre of them, his adviser Morgan McSweeney, who is now under fire over the latest briefings. He and the people around him set up Labour Together, aimed at destroying Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and the Labour left which had grown during those years. It was set up in autumn 2015 but was not effective until after the 2017 election.

McSweeney has gained the aura of a spectacular evil genius, but it’s much more likely that he will end up like other such characters in Downing Street (Dominic Cummings, anyone?) who thrive on political manoeuvring, swim comfortably in the pool of Westminster gossip and briefing, but who lack a political understanding of what is actually happening beyond their rarified world.

At root in understanding McSweeney’s motivation, we have to place his hatred of the left. Corbyn’s leadership win in 2015 (McSweeney’s political judgement can be demonstrated by the fact that he managed the campaign of Liz Kendall, who came last with 4.5% of the vote) struck terror into the hearts of Labour’s right. It tried everything to damage the highly popular leader, including the ‘chicken coup’ of summer 2016, when shadow cabinet ministers resigned sequentially, trying to force Corbyn out. There was the pathetic leadership challenge from Owen Smith. There was the constant gossip, innuendo and attack from the bulk of the mainstream media.

Corbyn’s success accelerated plotting.

None of this worked however. When Theresa May called the election in April 2017, no one predicted that it would end in a hung parliament, a Tory government only held together by a sordid deal with the Ulster Unionists and with Corbyn already in receipt of the biggest Labour vote in a general election for a long time.

As Paul Holden demonstrates, McSweeney had already been involved in ensuring that party money and resources were channelled to right-wing candidates and denied to constituencies where such resources might have turned narrow defeats into wins

Now, however, the forces of the right, even more terrified by Corbyn’s relative success in the election, turned towards strategically destroying his leadership. McSweeney took up employment with Labour Together the day after the election result. ‘It was then that McSweeney came on board and started working to undermine the Labour left’.

Money poured into the organisation, an estimated £849,429 between June 2017 and March 2020, especially from two sources, hedge-fund manager Martin Taylor and businessman Sir Trevor Chinn. This covered exactly the period from Corbyn’s near win to the culmination of Starmer’s campaign to be leader. The aim was to defeat Corbyn and to ensure that the left lost convincingly.

There were two main lines of attack against the left, both evident before 2017 but exacerbated in order to ensure the right would triumph. One was the clamour for a second referendum on Brexit, which helped Labour lose a swathe of ‘Red Wall’ seats in 2019.

The other was the campaign on antisemitism, which was weaponised against Corbyn.

Paul Holden examines this important topic thoroughly, demonstrating the role of Labour Together, its determination to use accusations of antisemitism to destroy the left, its close alignment with Zionist organisations and its targeting of the left, including those many Jewish people in Labour who identified with Corbyn. It transpired that many such activists were themselves accused of antisemitism because of their anti-Zionist views and the growing criticisms of Israel from the left. This led to the suspension and expulsion of Jewish activists (some in Jewish Voice for Labour) for alleged antisemitism, and of the black activist Marx Wadsworth on charges which were politically motivated on the part of their opponents.

The mud stuck and the accusations of antisemitism were used to deny Corbyn the parliamentary whip and eventually force him out of the party.

But that was after the 2019 defeat and Starmer’s successful campaign, orchestrated by guess who: McSweeney. As was clear to many of us at the time and as Holden documents very well, this was fraudulent. Starmer would never have won the leadership if he had even whispered the kinds of policies he stood on during the 2024 election.

In the aftermath of Corbyn’s defeat, there was still huge affection for him and, more importantly, respect for his policies. Starmer’s ‘ten pledges’ were a recognition of that. His 2020 campaign video included ‘shots of Stop the War’s march against the 2003 Iraq war; grainy footage of historical trade union confrontations with the police; and, most notably, shots of Starmer standing with Diane Abbott or being embraced by Corbyn’.

None of this lasted past his election. Once anointed, he moved steadily and quite rapidly to the right, ditching his pledges, shadowing Tory policies and continuing his war against the left.

Corbyn’s defenestration in the wake of his perfectly reasonable and honest response to the EHRC report on antisemitism in Labour was one of the most shocking and dishonourable acts by Starmer. It demonstrated how far the Starmer Project and its architects were determined to go to eradicate the left.

Lurching to the right.

Research from Labour Together in 2023 highlighted how far the party was prepared to move right. In Red Shift, it discounted those it claimed would always vote Labour and argued it had to appeal to the ‘Patriotic Left’ and ‘Disillusioned Suburbans’. This meant adopting Faragist policies on issues such as crime and immigration.

As Holden remarks: ‘Having crushed the left and disempowered the membership, the Labour Together and Starmer projects were then free to lurch to the right on policy’.

Accompanying this is the scandalous treatment of a number of individuals: respected MPs like Beth Winter deselected from safe Labour seats, likely successful candidates such as Faiza Shaheen, bumped by a Zoom call because she was too left-wing. At the same time, a series of Labour Together figures and other allies of McSweeney were parachuted into seats without so much as a word to local party members. The worst example has to be that of Diane Abbott, who resisted being forced out of her Hackney seat but who has been treated really shabbily by the party leadership.

Holden tells us of the ‘Leaked Report’ and its allegations of racism and misogyny on the part of various staffers at Labour Party headquarters. Some of the worst examples were those aimed at Abbott. Yet when one of the examples of this from The Fraud was leaked to the press, and it led to the departure of Paul Ovenden, by now a Downing Street adviser, there was barely concealed sympathy for him from the media and anonymous colleagues.

This is a sorry tale of opportunism, deceit, dishonesty and at the very least political fraud. It reflects very badly on Starmer and McSweeney but not just on them. Many of the present cabinet members played a key role in Labour Together, including Wes Streeting, Steve Reid and Lisa Nandy. They have all presided over a brutal attack on the left, a sharply rightward-moving politics and a cosying up to big business and employers, which prevents any challenge to their power and influence.

Starmer, of course, won a big majority, but he is spectacularly unpopular and his policies disastrous. His course on Gaza led to some prominent Labour figures, including the unlamented Jonathan Ashworth, losing their seats to independents, and others seeing their huge majorities slashed (this is the case with Streeting and Shabana Mahmood, both tipped as future leaders but who may lose their seats at the next election).

So too may Starmer, if he gets that far. Left independent Andrew Feinstein took nearly 20% of the vote in 2024 while Starmer’s fell dramatically. Despite the triangulation of the right, Labour is losing votes to both left and right, with Reform in a strong position and the Greens and the nascent Your Party on the left.

Now this venal and incompetent government is heading for another fall, this time over the tax-raising budget they promised never to introduce. That’s because, despite the supposed genius of McSweeney and his mates in Downing Street, they have failed to see what nearly everyone in the country can see; that attacking pensioners, or the disabled, or children on benefits, is not popular. Nor is sucking up to billionaires and hedge-fund managers. Nor is supporting Israel’s genocide. Nor is alienating ethnic-minority voters, who don’t like being scapegoated.

Time for a change from the left. That will be a struggle and, in the process, will mean a fight against Starmer and all he stands for. Paul Holden’s book is well worth reading and covers a huge amount, impossible to deal with in one review. It gives us plenty of ammunition about why and how things have gone so badly wrong.

Building an alternative means breaking not just from this party and these individuals, but from the whole idea of Labourism, which delivers less and less under neoliberalism, and which scapegoats and marginalises those it is supposed to represent.

01 Nov 2017: James Dornan MSP, without consulting Ms “A”, sent details of a twitter exchange between Mark McDonald and Ms “A”, to John Sweeney, which he had retained for over a year without the knowledge or permission of either person.

02 Nov 2017: Mark was invited by John Swinney and Liz Lloyd to a meeting at which he was informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “Me2” movement.

03 Nov 2017: Lloyd then convened a second meeting with Mark at which she showed him a copy of his messages to Miss A. She did not provide the name of the person that had supplied it to her. but she did say that a complaint that had been lodged against him by an SNP Party member (Dornan). She advised him that his position as a minister of the government was no longer tenable and he would need to resign.

05 Nov 2017: Mark resigned as minister for childcare and early years.

07 Nov 2017: In a weird turn of events Sturgeon dismissed the notion that Mark should resign from Holyrood claiming that “Some may well have thought it was not serious enough to resign for.” Sturgeon’s statement suggested Sweeney and Lloyd acted against Mark McDonald without her knowledge or authority.

08 Nov 2017: Alerted by Sturgeon’s intervention of her belief that the reasons for Mark’s dismissal from his minister post was probably without foundation the SNP “hit squad” identified an urgent need to establish a “Moorov doctrine” pattern of harassment against Mark without delay to prevent his escape from the justice they had decided on.*

(*) The Moorov doctrine is a mechanism which applies where a person is accused of two or more separate offences, connected in time and circumstances. In such a case, where each of the offences charged is spoken to by a single credible witness, that evidence may corroborate, and be corroborated by, the other single witnesses, so as to enable the conviction of the accused on all the charges.

11 Nov 2017: A special investigation team, including an ex police officer was contracted, at considerable cost, to “dig for dirt” on Mark.

16 Nov 2017: A third potential complainer surfaced. Mark’s Party membership was immediately suspended and a team of private investigators including an ex-policeman were contracted at considerable expense, to complete investigations and report their findings to the Party’s Compliance Officer by 3 December 2017.

05 Dec 2017: Mark was summoned to meet with representatives from the SNP following which they issued a surprising “no further action” statement saying there was no criminality involved in the allegations against him. But the allegations although trivial were not dismissed. An expensive investigation had revealed nothing of note. Or so it seemed!!!!! The “Moorov Doctrine” manouvre had failed to produce results.

But Dornan continued his unfair pursuit of Mark and demanded that the full content of the allegations forming the “Moorov Doctrine” should be sent to the Ethics Commissioner for decision.

Mark was suspended from Holyrood for one month but left politics at the end of parliament in 2021.

Weeks later the incident came under scrutiny of the press and revealed the bad faith of the “witchfinders” in the upper echelon’s of the SNP who claimed to be fair minded.

The heavily canvassed and reluctant complainant and many other Party members attended the Party’s 2015 Xmas function.

The complainant was a young researcher new to the Party scene who underestimated the adverse effect of over indulging in alcohol consumption. She became quite enamoured with a much older married man Jamie Hepburn, MSP and left the party to continue their tryst.They were away for some time.

Later in the evening Mark noted her behaviour and condition had further deteriorated due to the alcohol and he decided to remove her to the safety of his nearby accommodation. She slept on his bed and he curled up in a quilt on the floor. The next day the young lady had no recollection of the previous evening but witnesses confirmed the accuracy of events to the SNP investigators. Ms A , when interviewed by private investigators, said her overnight stay in Mark’s bedroom had been uneventful and had no cause to register a complaint against him.

She then spoke to Hepburn who suggested she shouldn’t mention anything about the evening to anyone.

Hepburn was subsequently summoned to attend a meeting with very senior SNP people.

The content of the meeting was not recorded but a dossier was compiled and sent to Bill Thomson, the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, for decision. There was no mention in it of the Xmas party or of Hepburn’s inappropriate behaviour. His abuse of a young vulnerable female researcher was whitewashed from the probe.

That left a minor matter of the loan of the deposit on a flat of £476.14 that Mark had asked his staffer to pay for him in May 2016, and a three week delay in reimbursing it.

The Standards Commissioner’s investigation found that Mark’s conduct had “showed a lack of respect” over the flat deposit. That was it!!! No complaint registered and the incident could not be judged by the ethics Commissioner on a single weak case.

Comment: The absence of any judgement by the Ethics Commissioner on Hepburn’s tryst with the young vulnerable staffer leads to the conclusion that Hepburn’s role in events had been excluded from the dossier for political purposes.

The Commissioner’s opinion that Mark had shown a “lack of respect” in paying back the loan was subjective and warranted no mention in his summary opinion and its inclusion reduced the charges against Mark to a farcical level which was unpalatable when combined with the knowledge that Mark had been under severe stress at the time as he was waiting to find out if his father had terminal cancer.

Ms A was not offered up by the SNP investigation team to speak to the Ethics Commissioner because of the risk of exposing her disgraceful behaviours at the Xmas party.

Her evidence provided to the Ethics Commissioner, via a solicitor nominated by the SNP, stated she did not wish to participate in the investigation, except to confirm her agreement to the factual information set out in the report. The report made no mention of the conduct of Jamie Hepburn whose career blossomed at the expense of Mark’s.

16 November 2017: James Hynd- Head of Cabinet, Parliament and Governance Division, emailed (Private Secretary 1 to Evans). (Policy on Complaints Against Ministers.)” As requested”. James.

Afternote: In his statement to the Holyrood Inquiry Hynd said he had been charged with developing a new complaints procedure policy by the Cabinet on 31 October 2017. and “for the avoidance of doubt” Sturgeon was keen that the new policy should be overhauled to include former ministers.

Comment: But Hynd later responded to Mackinnon talking about the “route map” she had sent him following her meeting with Evans asking if the pathway concerning former ministers was informed by legal advice. Hynd was not the person who raised the “former ministers” aspect of the new procedures

16 November 2017: Hynd forwarded a copy of the draft policy to the office of the UK Government, Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood seeking approval to implement the new procedure. It was not forthcoming. See the exchange of heavily redacted mail correspondence and transfer of the draft procedure to London.

Leslie was keen that you had the chance to see the proposal a) for any
thoughts/advice you could offer and b) to make sure that any approach of this sort would not cause difficulties at your end of things. Very happy to discuss on the phone if that would be easier and quicker for you.

17 November 2017: Hynd circulated to the Scottish Government civil service senior management team, and Lloyd (first sight, at her request) a second draft procedure titled “Handling of sexual harassment complaints involving current or former ministers.”

17 November 2017: Approval was not forthcoming. Instead the response expressed grave concerns about implications for politicians throughout the UK if the Scottish Government would be permitted to act in isolation from the other governments of GB and Northern Ireland introducing a process for complaints about ministers and former ministers which had not been universally approved.

The cabinet Office instructed that the policy changes should be deferred until such time as the other governments had completed their own reviews.

Reference was also made to the unfairness of the revised policies which demanded standards of personal conduct for Scottish politicians greatly in excess of those for civil servants which remained unchanged. Double standards were not acceptable. The document was unfit for introduction.

Afternote

Afternote 1: 16/17 Nov 2017, Hynd /Somers and the Cabinet Office in London exchanged views:: The “Cabinet Office” in London exposed the hypocrisy of the intent behind the proposed changes and rightly blocked the proposals.

16 Nov 2017, 22:27: Hynd: to: Cabinet Office, London “As we have just briefly discussed, I attach a draft paper setting out the process to be followed in the event that we receive a complaint of sexual harassment against a former Minister. For completeness, the draft also describes the process for dealing with a complaint against a current Minister. As you will see, there are a couple of areas still in development where we have still to decide between alternative options but hopefully overall you will get the gist of what we are seeking to do. Leslie was keen that you had the chance to see the proposal:

(a) Any thoughts/advice

(b) to ensure that our approach , if implemented, would not cause difficulties at your end. Very happy to discuss on the phone if that would be easier and quicker for you.

16 Nov 2017, 22:35: Cabinet Office, London: to: Hynd: “Of course. I can’t see a paper attached.”

16 Nov 2017, 23:29: Hynd: to: Cabinet Office, London: “Thanks. I sent it from my iPhone. Hopefully it’s come through this time.”

17 Nov 2017, 10:48: Cabinet Office, London: To: Hynd:

“Hi James. This feels very uncomfortable to be highlighting a process for complaints about Ministers and former Ministers. I am doing a quick review for Jeremy on whether our processes have kept pace with developments/concerns – would it be possible to wait?”

17 November 2017: Hynd forwarded the Cabinet Office response to Sturgeon’s Principle Private Secretary (PPS), John Somers.

17 Nov 2017, 11:03: From: John Somers: To: Hynd. “Oh dear, I did wonder if that would be their reaction. Not sure how long their review will take but FM and Perm Sec. keen to resolve quickly and to discuss on Tuesday.

I suspect we don’t have a policy on former civil servants.

But we are looking at this in the context of the overall review of policies and the justification for having something about Ministers is the action that Parliament is taking in light of allegations about MSP conduct –which includes a recent SG Minister?

Might be worth getting Nicky’s take on the question about civil servants…”

Afternote 2: Questioned by the Holyrood Inquiry Hynd said: “Sturgeon was keen to take national leadership on the matter and delaying implementation of the new procedure was not an option for her.”

Comment: Of note was that the procedure for civil servants was not updated to include retrospective consideration of harassment allegations.

Afternote 3: Lloyd in her written statement to the Holyrood Inquiry said the inclusion of herself in the circulation of the draft procedure created a requirement to identify and amend the ministerial code since the code was Sturgeon’s responsibility.

Comment: But the Ministerial Code and the proposed complaints procedure was the business of the Civil Service and Lloyd had no legitimate input.

Afternote 4: So there it is. A complaint of sexual harassment against a former male Civil Servant, would not be investigated, It would be for the complainant to inform the police.

17 November 2017: Somers and Evans exchanged notes of progress with Liz Lloyd.

20 November 2017: Somers, Principal Private Secretary, to Sturgeon met with Ms A, at her request, in the First Minister’s office. She told him the purpose of her informal meeting with Sturgeon was to relate to her information that she thought would improve the organization. She stressed she was not making a complaint, she simply wanted to assess with Sturgeon her options on how she could best share her experiences.

Ms A was denied access to Sturgeon by Somers but was thereafter subjected to intense pressure from senior civil service managers and other senior political and legal persons to register a complaint against Alex given assurances that all of her concerns would be resolved to her satisfaction through use of “newly drafted” all-encompassing procedures, which she would have a hand in compiling. In this regard she placed her trust in and was used by the Scottish government as a sacrificial lamb in a political vendetta against Alex.

Afternote: Somers (gatekeeper to Sturgeon) told the Holyrood Inquiry that he had not briefed Sturgeon about his meeting with Ms A or her request for a private meeting with the her upholding his commitment to her to keep the details of their conversation secret. He said: “I wouldn’t tell Sturgeon because it wasn’t my experience to share. That was my first priority. Secondly, had I done that, I would have put Sturgeon in a state of knowledge about something she couldn’t have taken action upon at that point.”

The last sentence of Somers statement revealed the true intent of cruel denial of access to Sturgeon by Ms A since the decision to prevent Sturgeon from access to any knowledge of a complaint had been taken beforehand.  

October 2017: The Cabinet of the Scottish Government provided its civil servants with a “commission” – a formal instruction – which was recorded in the Cabinet minutes under the heading of “Sexual Harassment” as follows: “While there is no suggestion that the current arrangements are ineffective, the First Minister has asked the Permanent Secretary to undertake a review of the Scottish Government’s policies and processes to ensure they are fit for purpose.”

Comment: Sturgeon’s own observation concluded that the procedures in place were effective and they contained no mention of retrospective allegations against former ministers. Perhaps because there was no precedence in employment law that would allow it.

The only recourse open to an aggrieved person was to inform the police.

If after reviewing the documentation Evans honestly thought that the Scottish Government’s policies and procedures would be fit for purpose, only after a retrospective clause had been inserted it was incumbent on her to conform with the “Ministerial Code” and provide Sturgeon with the evidence of the need to do so.

The Ministerial Code states: It is for the First Minister to judge the standards of behaviour expected of Ministers.

It is for the First Minister to decide whether there has been a breach of such standards. And, where the First Minister decides that there has been such a breach, it is for the First Minister to decide what the consequences for the Minister are to be.

Very explicit!!! Any allegations of misconduct against Ministers should be reported to Sturgeon immediately.

31 October 2017: Ann Harvey, principal assistant to the chief whip at the SNP’s Westminster Group reported to the Inquiry that she had received 16 text messages, some from SNP HQ, to her private number, each one fishing for information which could be damaging if used against Alex Salmond.

A few persisted in asking for confirmation that Sue Ruddick ( a personal friend and ex colleague of Ann) had been physically assaulted by Alex while they were campaigning together during the 2008 General Election campaign.

Her answer to that enquiry was a categorical rebuttal there was no physical aggression at any time on the part of Alex. 

What’s up? Someone was after getting to Alex before the Civil Service got involved in pursuing long dead unproven allegations.

Note: Ruddick went on to report a common assault against her by Alex, to the police in August 2018 (10 years after the alleged incident).

The police investigated but said there was insufficient corroborative evidence to charge, however, the circumstances were included in a later report to the Crown Office and Procurator fiscal. 

But they all count!!!! when the time is right!!!!!!!!“

Comment: Murrell, in a statement to the Holyrood Inquiry said that Party policy dictated the handling of complaints within the Party was the responsibility of the Party Executive and it did not share case details with any other organisation unless the complaint highlighted a “clear act of criminality”, and the Party had not informed the Scottish Government or any member of it of a any complaint from a Party member against a minister of the Government.

But Murell was wrongly informed. Mark MacDonald, an SNP minister was forced to resign by Sturgeon’s Special Adviser, Liz Lloyd raising questions about the First Minister’s adherence to the Ministerial Code, particularly regarding the conduct of her Special Adviser, Liz Lloyd, and the handling of SNP disciplinary matters versus government processes. The details provided, combined with web sources, highlighted issues:

02 Nov 2017: Mark MacDonald was summond to a meeting with Deputy First Minister John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, at which he was informed of “chatter” about his inappropriate conduct among SNP members.

03 Nov 2017: Liz Lloyd, Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff and Special Advisor, convened a second meeting with MacDonald, without the knowledge or authority of Sturgeon and told him him that his position as a minister was untenable and he should resign from his Ministerial post immediatly. Which he did.

The Special Advisors’ Code of Conduct, requires Special Advisors to act with integrity, avoid conflicts of interest, and not use their position for party political purposes.

They are temporary civil servants bound by the Civil Service Code, which emphasizes impartiality and objectivity, though they are exempt from the merit-based appointment requirement to provide politically aware advice.

Lloyd’s involvement, addressing a complaint lodged by an SNP member against MacDonald, a government minister, blurred the lines between party and government roles.

Critics, including Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP, argued that Lloyd’s role as a Special Advisor made her involvement in handling an SNP complaint “improper,” as it should have been managed by SNP officials like Peter Murrell, the party’s Chief Executive.

The involvement of Lloyd, who was aware of the complaint and briefed MacDonald, raised questions about whether she accessed information improperly or acted beyond her remit.

The Ministerial Code requires ministers (including the First Minister) to ensure their Special Advisers adhere to their Code of Conduct. Sturgeon’s failure to address Lloyd’s actions could be seen as a lapse in oversight, potentially breaching the Ministerial Code’s requirement to manage Special Advisors’ conduct.

Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and SNP Chief Executive, testified to the Holyrood Harassment Inquiry in Jan 2021, that the SNP did not share complaint details with government officials or Special Advisers unless there was a “clear act of criminality.”

He claimed he first became aware of the complaint against Macdonald on 03 Nov 2017, at a meeting with Lloyd.

This contradicts suggestions that Lloyd acted on SNP-related information, raising questions about how she obtained details of the complaint and who authorized her to confront MacDonald.

The Ministerial Code states that the First Minister is responsible for approving Special Adviser appointments and can terminate their employment.

Sturgeon’s failure to discipline or dismiss Lloyd for her involvement in the MacDonald case, despite allegations of improper conduct, could be seen as a failure to enforce the Special Advisor’s Code avoiding her responsibilities under the Ministerial Code.

Sturgeon’s called MacDonald on 04 Nov 2017, confirming her acceptance of his resignation confirming her endorsement of the violation of the Special Advisor’s code by Lloyd.

This is contrary to her statement to the Holyrood inquiry in which she emphasized that she ensured government business was conducted through official channels and subject to FOI legislation.

The MacDonald case exposed an overlap between party and government matters, which the Ministerial Code was in place to prevent.

The lack of clarity about how Lloyd accessed details of the complaint and why the matter was not handled solely by the SNP (as Murrell claimed was party policy) raises questions about Sturgeon’s adherence to the Code’s requirement to maintain a clear distinction between roles.

When questioned about the MacDonald case, a Scottish Government spokesperson stated only that MacDonald resigned following allegations “from outside the Scottish Government” about his personal conduct, without addressing Lloyd’s role or the process. The limited response did not clarify whether Sturgeon ensured proper procedures were followed, as required by the Ministerial Code.

Sturgeon’s continued retention of Lloyd as Chief of Staff, was inconsistent with the Ministerial Code’s requirement to ensure Special Advisers acted within their Code of Conduct.

His assertion was at odds with the conduct of Lloyd who demanded from government Minister Mark Macdonald his immediate resignation after she and John Swinney concluded that he had sexually harassed a member of the Party. Her actions contravened the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors. Conduct that warranted her immediate dismissal.

Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN10.pdf31 October

2017: David Clegg of the Daily Record telephoned Scottish Government contacts “acting on a tip-off” asking questions of Scottish Government contacts seeking to ascertain if any complaints about harassment had been made about Alex Salmond during his tenure as First Minister.

The responses were negative.

Comment: How could it be that David Clegg and the Daily Record were aware about complaints on 31 October 2017 when, the official briefing was that no-one in the Scottish Government, up to and including Nicola Sturgeon, had any idea about them at that time.

The sequence of events and comments outlined raise significant questions about the transparency, adherence to protocol, and motivations behind the handling of allegations against Mark Macdonald and then Alex Salmond in the context of the Scottish Government’s processes in 2017.

key points and analysis of and general principles of governance and accountability. The Cabinet Commission and Existing Procedures (October 2017)

The Scottish Government’s Cabinet minutes from October 2017 indicate that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon commissioned a review of the government’s policies and processes on sexual harassment, despite her own observation that the existing arrangements were effective. The absence of any mention of retrospective allegations against former ministers in these procedures confirms there was no precedent in employment law for such measures.

A critical point: If Permanent Secretary Evans believed a retrospective clause was necessary, the Ministerial Code required her to provide evidence to Sturgeon to justify change. In the absence of supporting evidence, the inclusion of retrospective provision confirms any new arrangements would be procedurally irregular and motivated by other factors.

The Ministerial Code is clear that allegations of misconduct against ministers must be reported to the First Minister immediately. It was for Sturgeon to judge standards of behavior and decide consequences. Bypassing the protocol indicated a breach of governance standards, undermining the integrity of the process.

2. Ann Harvey’s Report of Text Messages (31 October 2017)

Ann Harvey’s account of receiving 16 text messages, some from SNP HQ, seeking damaging information about Alex Salmond—specifically regarding an alleged assault on Sue Ruddick in 2008—is highly concerning. Her categorical denial of any physical aggression by Salmond suggests that these inquiries were speculative or agenda-driven.

The timing is also notable. The messages predate the formal involvement of the Civil Service in pursuing allegations against Salmond. implying that individuals or groups within or connected to the SNP were actively seeking to build a case against Salmond before any official process was underway.

The later reporting by Ruddick in August 2018, despite the police finding insufficient evidence, and its inclusion in a report to the Crown Office, further complicates the narrative.

Your comment that “they all count when the time is right” suggests a perception that allegations, even those lacking corroboration, were being strategically retained for future use. This raises questions about whether the process was being manipulated to target Salmond specifically.

3. Peter Murrell’s Statement and Lloyd’s Conduct

Peter Murrell’s assertion that the SNP’s policy was to handle complaints internally and only share details with external bodies in cases of “clear act of criminality” is significant.

If true, this would mean that no SNP complaints against Salmond should have been shared with Scottish Government civil servants or special advisors in Autumn 2017 unless they met this threshold.

However, you note that Special Advisor Liz Lloyd’s conduct allegedly contravened the Ministerial Code, which governs special advisors and requires adherence to strict standards of behaviour.

If Lloyd shared or acted on information improperly, this would constitute a breach of the Code, potentially warranting dismissal.

The failure to address such a breach could point to inconsistencies in how the Scottish Government enforced accountability.

4. David Clegg’s Inquiry (31 October 2017)

The fact that David Clegg of the Daily Record was inquiring about harassment complaints against Salmond on 31 October 2017, based on a “tip-off,” is striking, especially given the official stance that no one in the Scottish Government, including Sturgeon, was aware of such complaints at the time.

This discrepancy suggests either a leak of sensitive information or premature media involvement, both of which undermine the claim of ignorance within the government.

It also raises questions about who provided the tip-off and why, particularly if the government’s internal processes were still in the review stage and no formal complaints had been acknowledged.

Analysis and Implications:

The timeline and details, supported by the referenced document (SP_SGHHC_-_FN10.pdf), point to several potential issues:

• Procedural Irregularities: The introduction of retrospective allegations unsupported by evidence, exposes the revised sharassment policy as a violation of the Ministerial Code and principles of fair governance.
• The lack of precedent in employment law for such measures further questions their legitimacy.
• Potential Political Motivations: The text messages reported by Ann Harvey and the media inquiry by David Clegg suggest that efforts to gather damaging information on Salmond were underway before any formal process was established. This indicates a coordinated effort to target him, driven by political rather than procedural considerations.
• Breaches of Protocol: The actions of Liz Lloyd coupled with her failure to report misconduct allegations to Sturgeon immediately, as required by the Ministerial Code, suggests lapses in accountability.
• Murrell’s statement about SNP policy further complicates the picture, as it implied that any sharing of complaints with the government would have been improper unless criminality was evident.
• Transparency and Trust: The discrepancies between the official narrative (no knowledge of complaints) and external inquiries (Clegg’s tip-off) erode trust in the government’s handling of the situation. If information was being shared or pursued outside formal channels, it undermined the integrity of the process.

Conclusion: The events of October 2017, suggest a troubling pattern of procedural overreach, many breaches of the Ministerial Code, and malicious efforts by a number of people to gather allegations against Alex Salmond.

The lack of transparency, combined with the timing of media inquiries and internal SNP communications, raises legitimate concerns about whether the process was fair, impartial, and consistent with governance standards.

Permanent Secreary Evans, acting as she did without providing verifiable evidence to Sturgeon, and Special Advisor, Liz Lloyd, who wilfully and repeatedly contravened the Ministerial Code.

Their actions should be subject to a Public inquiry,since there is the broader implication that the unneccessary review of harassment policy may have been influenced by political factors beyond ensuring “fit for purpose” procedures, compromising the principles of fairness and due process.

Extracted from: “Break-Up: How Alex Salmond And Nicola Sturgeon Went To War” written by former Daily Record political editor David Clegg and Times journalist Kieran Andrews.

“This was not the first occasion during my time as political editor of the Record that I had been given cause to suspect Salmond could be a potential subject of harassment complaints.

I’d been covering the Scottish Parliament for seven years when the #MeToo movement erupted in the autumn of 2017 and sparked a wave of intense scrutiny of the behaviour of powerful men.

I had a conversation with a Scottish Government official that would set the course for what followed. The well-placed figure said dramatically: “Everyone working in government knows that if a Harvey Weinstein scandal is going to emerge in Scotland, it will be about Alex Salmond.” Stunned by this comment from a normally level-headed contact, I immediately rang my editor, Murray Foote, to discuss what to do.

It was decided that I should drop all other stories and spend the next few weeks digging into Salmond.

I began contacting civil servants, SNP staffers and government employees I knew had worked closely with the former first minister in the previous two decades.

On 31 October 2017, I submitted a series of questions to the Scottish Government asking if any complaints had been made about Salmond during his time as first minister.

The government insisted there had been no complaints. So despite continuing “chinese whispers” at Holyrood about Salmond, no claims could be corroborated with sufficient certainty to allow publication.”

Clegg’s, persistent and unfruitful pursuit of damaging information from Scottish government employees and civil servants, about Alex Salmond contravened the news editor’s “code of Practice”.

” Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.”

Clegg admitted that with malice aforethought he had contravened the code by conducting a “harassment fishing trip” that revealed nothing of any verifiable substance.

02 November 2017: An email headed, “Sexual harassment – message from the Permanent Secretary” was distributed to all Scottish Government staff. It gave no mention of former Ministers or historic complaints. Indeed, the message guided respondents “to share concerns about current cultures or behaviours” and where appropriate to speak to a senior civil servant employed outside the Human Resources Department, who had been tasked by Evans to provide a confidential “Employer Counselling and Wellbeing” support service. (EAP).

03 November 2017: Letter from Sir Jeremy Heywood to Evans. ” Civil Service response to misconduct or misbehaviour,” (copied to Richards and Mackinnon), asking that the Civil Service management team in Scotlande should be satisfied that info on conduct and on how to raise a concern is clear and easily accessible for all staff and channels for raising a concern are well publicised and easy to use, and that staff feel positively encourages to speak up; and? processes for investigating concerns and, where relevant, taking follow up action, are working well and ensure timely resolution.”

04 November 2017: Lloyd’s statement to the Holyrood Inquiry:

During the evening of Saturday 4th November 2017, a member of staff in the SNP parliamentary media office, (afterwards confirmed through a FOI request to be one of the two original complainants who subsequently made allegations of harassment about Alex Salmond) that she had received a query in relation to Mr Salmond and an alleged incident said to involve him at Edinburgh airport some 10 years before.

The person said she called to alert me to the possibility of such a story running, in case any ministers were on Sunday morning media. I informed the First Minister of the query and that I understood that Mr Salmond would not be responding that evening.

On Monday 06 November 2017 I was approached by Ms A and Ms B Civil Servants within the Scottish Government raising concerns that Mr Salmond and his representatives were contacting civil servants to ask that they provide statements in relation to the matters raised by Sky News to Alex Salmond’s legal representatives.

Ms A and Ms B intimated that they found the contact unwelcome.

I was asked if I or other Special Advisers could ask Mr Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct, however I was informed shortly after receiving this request that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached and were taking the matter forward, so I made no approach to Mr Salmond.

Comment: Miss Lloyd is over embellishing her recollection of events. A FOI release recorded the call to Lloyd had been made by the same person that had called her before. The content of the conversation advised that it was Alex Salmond’s legal team, NOT Alex who had made enquires. An important correction

05 November 2017 : Media announced the Alex Salmond Show would be broadcast weekly on Russia Today (RT) starting 10 November 2017

This was Alex announcing his return to political journalism after losing his Buchan seat at Westminster in June 2017 following an enforced 6 month period of unemploymentl brought about by his “blackballing” by the Unionist controlled media who denied him the opportunity to carve out a new career in political journalism away from frontline politics.

Sturgeon Led Unionist politicians publically criticising Alex choice of broadcaster whilst neglecting to acknowledge that every other option for employment had been denied him.

Sky News and its outlets also joined in the attacks on Alex, launching a “Get Salmond” campaign utilizing its methodology of tasking journalists to get into the gutter and abuse the target..

05 November 2017: Sturgeon messaged Alex at 0850 hours:

“Hi – Are you free to speak this morning?” They spoke. Sturgeon briefed Alex about the query from Sky News “about the allegations of misconduct at Edinburgh Airport some 10 years before.” Alex denied the allegations. Sky news did not run the story.

06 November 2017: Evans informed Sturgeon of telephone contact between Alex and two Scottish Government members of staff. She said Alex wanted to talk to them about an alleged incident at Edinburgh Airport incident that Sky News were investigating.

Her information was incorrect Alex had not contacted anyone. Telephone contact had been through by Alex’s legal team who were aware the person’s concerned worked closely with Alex around the time of the alleged incident at Edinburgh Airport.

She had been told by two different sources, (the FOI release later confirmed them to be Ms A and Ms B) that they had received the contact and they were a bit bewildered and unhappy about it. She didn’t know what was said, she didn’t ask, she didn’t think it was appropriate to know.”

Comment: An incredible admission, if true. Evans was the most senior Civil Servant in Scotland and was not concerned enough to ask why two of her senior staff members were unhappy about being contacted by Alex Saimond’s legal represntatives.

09 November 2017: Sturgeon contacted Alex to comment on his decision to host a weekly political discussion programme on RT. The content of her message was redacted – as was the reply from Alex.

In a previous submission to the inquiry, Ms Sturgeon said the Sky News episode had given her a “lingering concern” that allegations about Mr Salmond could surface.

James Hamilton completed an independent inqury, with the full support of Nicola Sturgeon, to establish if she had breached the Ministerial Code. His conlusion was that the code had been breached but not intentionally by her. The Inquiry accepted his findings. She was off the hook.

But there was a play on words which allowed which allowed Hamilton to reach his conclusion and they were put in place at the time the parameters of his remit was decided by John Swinney who was fully aware of all the actions of Sturgeon and her senior Civil Service managers.

The facts are clear. The Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans and her senior manager team engaged in a criminal conspiracy breaching the Ministerial Code by maliciously failing to timeously inform Nicola Sturgeon of allegations of harassment being lodged against Alex Salmond by two Government employee’s.

This record provides the evidence.

07 November 2017: Hynd, Richards and MacKinnon exchanged opinions on how to deal with harassment complaints against former Ministers. McKinnon tabled a “routemap” of a policy which suggested application to former Ministers.

07 November 2017: Allison & complainant Ms B. Allison informed the Holyrood Inquiry she had received a telephone call in the course of which Ms B, made allegations against Alex.

Ms B said she was responding to a 2 November 2017 email headed, “Sexual harassment – message from the Permanent Secretary” which had been distributed to all Scottish Government staff.

Following the conversation Allison telephoned Evans office and arranged a telephone conference so that she could advise the Evans of the details of the allegations.

That the first contact was made to Allison remains a mystery given she was the Director of Communications, Ministerial Support and Facilities having given up her position in human resources some time before.

08 November 2017: Hynd produced a first draft procedure applying only to Former Ministers. Referring to his work and that of MacKinnon he said that “neither of the pathways involving Ministers look right”.

09 November 2017: Allison briefed Evans who judged that whilst the information provided by Ms B was of concern further action not yet required.

09 November 2017: Evans then convened an urgent meeting and further discussed the allegations with Allison then met separately alone, with Richards.

09 November 2017: Evans failed to brief Sturgeon immediately which was a breach of the “Ministerial Code”.

An email from Evans private secretary was circulated that evening appraising recipients of the content and outcomes of the earlier meeting and the actions that were to follow from it. One action was: “Evans would like to have calls/conversation’s tomorrow with: Allison, Russell and Richards.

In her evidence to the inquiry, Allison summarised how, after the initial phone call she continued her involvement with Ms B and her “concerns”:

“I had early contact with Ms B. That contact was a series of texts. I also had, I think, three telephone calls with her, but no meetings. No written record was ever taken of any of her concerns.”

All but one of these contacts were in the period 08 November to 29 November 2017.

10 November 2017: Evans called Russell and Allison separately and assigned appointments, roles and responsibilities to each of them and advised Richards of the details.

Throughout that period Allison was Director of Communications for the Scottish Government, in addition to whatever responsibilities she had for Ministerial Support and Facilities.

Given a plethora of much more qualified support was already in place for someone in Ms B’s position, with even more about to be added, one might legitimately wonder how this came about.

Its boundaries were unambiguous:

“To keep this manageable the focus is on those who have had experiences of sexual harassment.”

And the line of communication of “issues” through HR to Evans was clearly defined:

Allison later told the Holyrood Inquiry that pastoral care was in place in case anyone wanted to say, “I am concerned that things are coming out. This feels tough, so where can I go for support?’ Trade unions, the welfare officer and the employee assistance programme and so on might be advised.”

But Allison’s real role was to cocoon Ms B and her “concerns” about Alex until hastily prepared unique procedures for investigating and deciding on historical harassment complaints was in place. She admitted to this when she told the Inquiry that: “I felt at times I was trying to hold a space open for her.”

And Russell was just as much in the dark on the matter. She told the Holyrood Inquiry: “To be honest, at the time, in November 2017 as the documentation will demonstrate, I was not aware of Allison having that role of pastoral care. I was only aware of the role that the permanent secretary asked me to do.”

And she was not alone in that respect given that Russell, in common with almost all of her Scottish Government colleagues, had no idea of the top secret role Allison was performing for Evans:

13 November 2017: Allison copied Evans office staff a message she had sent to Ms B containing Russell’s contact details and her role. She then told Russell that someone might be in touch with her, but provided no details.

Russell’s evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry is enlightening. She advised: “After I took on the role on 13 November 2017 there was an engagement with Barbara Allison, in which she advised me that somebody might want to come and speak to me.

I advised Barbara that the text number for that purpose had been made available to staff and that, if anyone wanted to contact me, I would obviously be happy to see what I could do to support them, as had been set out in the note…. She said that she had been approached by somebody who wanted to speak. That was all I knew.”

Russell was not contacted by Ms B. The entire process from “concerns” to formal complaint to ultimate decision, was handled exclusively by Evans through Allison, Richards and Mackinnon.

Indeed, even as late at the time she gave evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry Russell still assumed “wrongly” that the “somebody” Allison had been referring to on 13 November 2017 was Ms A.

A revelation that prompted a need for the Inquiry to ask Allison to write to them on 9 December 2020 to correct the misunderstanding, and point out that the “somebody” was actually Ms B.

About Allison:

Her appearance before the Holyrood Inquiry was a masterclass in the art of subterfuge. Uninformed observers were underwhelmed with the evidence of the well presented elderly lady who was clearly nearing the end of a long and distinguished career. Her contribution to events was minor and ended soon after she passed Ms B on to MacKinnon. But the truth is that Allison possessed presentation skills finely honed over many years. and she was able to disguise the level and influence of her input. She was in fact the lead officer of the Scottish Civil Service LBGTQ movement charged with the deemed urgent implementation of the policies of the discredited and defunct Stonewall organisation.

13 November 2017: Cabinet Secretary James Hynd wrote to senior civil servants about sexual harassment allegations against current Ministers:

“We would need to alert Sturgeon to the fact that a complaint had been received against one of her Ministers and to take her mind about how she wished it to be handled.”

15 November 2017: Hynd wrote a second email to Evans officet commenting on a suggestion that complaints against Ministers might be resolved by informal means without the need for Sturgeon to be involved:

“I am not at all sure that this … will be acceptable to Sturgeon either generally or in the specific context of sexual harassment. Especially for the latter I think she will want to know straightaway if a complaint against a Minister has been received and will want to decide how it should be treated.”

There is, then, no ambiguity cancelling out any plausible argument that Evans or any of her fellow civil servants could possibly have thought that it was acceptable for them to keep Sturgeon in the dark about any allegation of sexual harassment against any of her current Ministers.

Why then would any of them think it would be acceptable not to inform Sturgeon of allegations against her mentor and closest friend of thirty years? Just doesn’t add up !!!!

  

Timeline-Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry-Alleged Government Conspiracy against Alex Salmond

Late October 2017: Aamer Anwar alleged the existence of a ‘ticking time bomb” catalogue of sexual harassment at Holyrood.

Ms H allegedly disclosed to an SNP official, details of an alleged sexual assault upon her by Alex Salmond.

31 Oct: 2017: Daily Record/David Clegg received a heads up message from an unnamed source in the Scottish Government regarding sexual offences allegedly committed by Alex Salmond during his time in office. Clegg was a known associate of Liz Lloyd, a senior Spad working for Nicola Sturgeon.

31 Oct: A senior SNP officer, Ms Anne Harvey, based in Westminster was inundated with telephone text messages asking for information about Alex Salmond. suggesting that the fishing expedition had started in earnest well before the involvement of Ms A, Ms B or Ms H.

Anne worked with Alex Salmond for many years and was an important witness for the defence, (but her evidence was redacted by the Crown). She was also at the time, a close friend of at more than one of the complainers.

31 Oct 2017: Holyrood civil service chiefs including senior civil servant, John Somers, the First Ministers “gatekeeper” were in attendance together with other civil servants at a meeting convened by Nicola Sturgeon with the purpose of reviewing civil service procedures for the handling of workplace complaints.

31 Oct 2017: James Hynd, Head of Cabinet, Parliament, and Governance, for the Scottish Government was tasked by Leslie Evans, at the meeting, to update long-standing civil service procedures on sexual harassment covering serving ministers.

Instead, apparently acting on his own initiative and without any political direction, he decided to make former ministers the focus of his first draft of the policy, partly because he was in charge of the Scottish government’s ministerial code and there was a “gap” that needed to be closed.

He conceded he was aware of gossip about alleged misconduct involving former First Minister, Alex Salmond, which Salmond had repeatedly denied, before choosing to include former ministers in a new anti-harassment policy.

He insisted he alone decided to make former ministers the focus of his first draft of the policy, partly because he was in charge of the Scottish government’s ministerial code. He said he thought it was a “gap” that needed to be closed.

04 Nov: MSP Mark McDonald was forced to resign from his role as children’s minister in the Scottish Government.

04 Nov: Rumours surfaced that Alex Salmond was unhappy at the lack of progress on independence given the strong polling figures in favour of this and was considering a return to front line politics, possibly through the Aberdeen seat recently vacated by Mark McDonald .

04 Nov 2017: In the evening, Sky News contacted the SNP Government parliamentary media office enquiring about Alex Salmond’s alleged misconduct with a woman at Edinburgh Airport, over 10 years before. Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans and Liz Lloyd had been informed and had briefed the First Minister of events separately.

Afternote: In her evidence to the Holyrood Inquiry, in Jan 2021, Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government, said that on 5 Mar 2017 she had warned the first minister that Alex Salmond had been calling civil servants in connection with a Sky News investigation into an alleged incident at Edinburgh airport in 2007.

The officials were bewildered and unhappy about it and she raised the issue with the First Minister advising her of her concerns because the staff were anxious about it. She was also concerned that it could become a story and she was convinced that the Scottish Government would need to be ready, in whatever form that a story might blow because the media was very volatile at that time in reporting on everything.

She went on to add that a whole range of people inside the Scottish government had been raising concerns about alleged sexual misconduct involving ministers and former First Ministers and the rumours had began surfacing in early November 2017 at the height of the #MeToo movement and soon after John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, had announced a new zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct.

The briefing by Ms Evans that rumours of misconduct included former First Ministers concentrated the minds of members of the Inquiry as to the relevance of her closing statement  which strongly suggested that the “new” sexual harassment policy had been “targeted at and designed to get Alex Salmond”. Ms Evans denied that was the case.

In late 2018, Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament that she first learned Salmond was being investigated “when he told her” during a meeting at her home on 2 April 2018.

But she was forced to admit that she actually met one of Salmond’s closest former aides, Geoff Aberdein, in connection with the matter in her ministerial office on 29 March 2018. The meeting had been arranged by her Special Advisor, Liz Lloyd and Geoff Aberfein at a private meeting, requested by Miss Lloyd in the first week of March 2018

05 Nov: Ms H said she informed Ian McCann, a senior officer at SNP Headquarters of the details of an alleged assault by Alex Salmond, well before the receipt of formal complaints from Ms A and Ms B. Mr McCann responded saying: “We’ll sit on that and hope we never need to deploy it.”

Peter Murrell, CEO of the SNP maintained he had not been informed of the allegations.

Afternote-1 : In the 2018 trial of Alex Salmond, Ms H was questioned by the QC for defence as to her reasons for not timeously notifying the police of the alleged attempted rape.

she said she only wanted the SNP to know, “so they could use it for vetting purposes should Alex Salmond return to the political front line.”

The QC followed up asking Ms H, if was a “coincidence” she’d contacted Mr McCann only a day after an SNP, MSP Minister had been forced to resign and suggested “You didn’t want Alex Salmond to pass any future vetting process, did you.”

Ms H responded “I don’t think I linked the two events together. I wasn’t aware he (Mr Salmond) wanted to stand for the Scottish Parliament again. It was not a coincidence in terms of the #MeToo movement and the whole issue of women basically being abused by people in positions of power.”

Afternote-2: The Criminal Trial of Alex Salmond: Ms McCall challenged Ms H on her contacts with a senior SNP official, Ian McCann, and three other women after the Daily Record reported on August 23rd, 2018, that a Scottish government internal inquiry had upheld complaints from two women of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond.

Ms H told the court she first approached Mr McCann after the Harvey Weinstein allegations surfaced in the US and the #MeToo movement had gained momentum. She did not specify what Mr Salmond had allegedly done to her but warned Mr McCann there had been other incidents involving the former party leader. McCann was required by SNP procedures to inform Miss Sturgeon and Mr Murrell of his conversation with Ms H but failed to do so.

Ms McCall pressed Ms H to explain why she quickly made contact with other accusers after the Daily Record story and after Mr Salmond disclosed he was suing the Scottish government over its inquiry. She asked Ms H whether two other accusers encouraged her to contact the police.

In a text to another accuser two days after the Record story, Ms H wrote: “I’m mulling too. But I have a plan. And means we can be anonymous but see strong repercussions.” Challenged on what she meant, Ms H said she and the other accuser “had discussed in the past issues around Mr Salmond’s behaviour”.

Ms McCall asked why she contacted another accuser who was a participant in a “ring around” of people who had worked with Mr Salmond. Ms H said she was trying to find out what was happening. “I was trying to figure out what the party and police process was, so I could figure out our path forward,” Ms H said.

06 Nov: Liz Lloyd was approached by several civil servants who raised concerns that Mr Salmond and his representatives were reportedly contacting other civil servants to ask that they provide supportive statements in relation to the matters raised by Sky News to his legal representatives.

The civil servants indicated that the approaches were unwelcome. She was asked if she or some other Special Advisers could ask Mr Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct. She was informed shortly after that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached by the same staff and were taking their request forward, so she made no approach to Mr Salmond.

08 Nov: Complainer, Ms B made allegations (by telephone) against Mr Salmond to Barbara Allison, the Government’s Director of Communications who informed Ms Richards and Ms Evans, the next morning.

08 Nov: 1233. The first draft of a new harassment policy “Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints Against Former Ministers.” written by top official James Hynd, was circulated, It stated that if a complaint is lodged against a former minister and he/she was a member of the party in power, the First Minister should be informed immediately.

Scotland would thrive on its own

The views of one of the best economists in the UK in the last 100 years, the late Denis Healey, former Chancellor of the Exchequer in Labour governments 1970-1979 are as relevant today as they were in the past.

He was asked if he supported the cause of those who wished Scotland to become an independent nation once again given that the Scots were overly financially subsidized by England and the oil & gas resources were the property of the UK.

His answer was surprisingly blunt but not widely reported. He said:

“I think England would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil and gas and renewable energy stopped but if the Scots want independence they should have it and England would just need to adjust.

Asked if he expected an independent Scotland would survive, economically. he said:

“Yes, I would think so… and they have the oil, gas and renewable energy”.

Asked about his thoughts about claims that Scotland was being subsidized by England he reminded the questioner that Joel Barnett, (he of the Barnett formula), was his deputy at the Treasury at the time the share of the national income pot Scotland should receive was decided.

He added:

” Scotland pays more than its fair share and these myths are simply perpetuated to cloud the issue by those that are opposed to independence.”

On Scotland keeping the pound, he said:

“I don’t see why Westminster could say the Scots couldn’t share it. Scotland would gain from the arrangement but so would the rest of the UK”.