This incident involving Mark Macdonald was offered to Hamilton as the driving factor forcing the decision to compile new procedures in regard to harassment of staff by government minsters. He accepted the concoction without comment or investigation. If he had established the truth the allegations of breaching the code conduct for minsters of the government would have been been confirmed
Extract from Hamilton’s report.
“On 4 November 2017, during the review process, a Scottish Government Minister resigned his Ministerial post, following allegations made from outside the Scottish Government about his personal conduct. This example reinforced for the Scottish Government the importance of making sure that it had policies and procedures in place which were capable of responding appropriately to such allegations should they arise within the Scottish Government.”
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 summoned 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 immediately. 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 emphasises 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 authorised 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 emphasised 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 behaviour 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 harassment 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 unnecessary 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.
Equality Network Ltd: The aim of the Equality Network project is to create lasting improvement in the situation of LGBTIQ people in Scotland. Director, Peter Hope-Jones, (also employed by the Scottish Government).
2024 Scottish Government grants : £576,316 of which approx £450,000 was spent on staff costs, (14-16).
LEAP Sports Scotland: Scotland’s LGBTIQ+ sports charity campaigning for equality, visibility and greater participation for LGBTIQ+ people in all areas of sport.
2024 Scottish & Local Government grants : £126,000: Total funding all organisations £550,000 of which approx £320,000 was spent on staff costs.
LGBT Youth Scotland: Scotland’s national charity for LGBTQ+ young people, aged 13-25. Supports young people in all aspects of their lives through the provision of youth work, supporting them to use their voice to create change in equality and human rights.
2024 Scottish Government grants: £1,871,046 of which £1,500,000 was spent on staff costs (17 Operational 32 Project work)
Stonewall Equality Ltd: Over the past 35 years, Stonewall has primarily focused its activity in two key domains – influencing legislation and policy, and creating change through research, programming and leadership development.
Stonewall has played a very significant and important role in changing the law to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ people. This includes:
The repeal of Section 28: We were founded in direct response to Section 28, the homophobic legislation that prevented young people learning about homosexuality in schools.
Equalising the age of consent: The Sexual Offences Amendment Act (2001) lowered the age of consent for gay and bi men to 16, aligning the age of consent with heterosexuals.
Lifting the ban on military service: Until 2000, LGBTQ+ people were banned from the British military, often dismissed or stripped of medals. Stonewall campaigned to end this discrimination, leading to the ban’s repeal in 2000.
The right for LGBTQ+ couples to adopt: The Adoption and Children Act came into effect in 2002 and allowed unmarried couples, including LGBTQ+ couples, to apply for joint adoption.
Marriage equality: The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act made history by legalising same-sex marriage in Scotland 2014,
2024 Scottish Government grant: Around £110,000 of which £3000 was SG membership fees. Note Company folded but S.G. maintained the funding support.
LGBT Healthy Living Centre: LGBT Health and Wellbeing was set up in 2003 to improve the health, wellbeing, and equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT+) people in Scotland. It provides responsive support services, a social programme for the community to connect with each other in sober and safer spaces, and supports mainstream services to become more inclusive.
2024 Scottish Government grants: £895,000 of which £870,000 was spent on staff costs.
2024: Total Government grants to LGBTIQ+ Equality support organisations: £3,578,000. Staff costs around 60%
Inspiring Scotland Fund: The £28 million funds key themes and challenges of the under noted E&HR funded organisations.
Autism 2023/2024 Autism ATLAS Ltd. £6,276 Autism Understanding Scotland £28,344 Central Advocacy Partners £9,249 HOPE for Autism £8,425 Inspired Community Enterprise Trust Ltd £26,443 Into Work £28,349 IWORK4ME £5,528 Perth Autism Support SCIO £14,174 SWAN Autism Scotland £13,104 Autism Initiatives £36,363 Cosgrove Care £14,351 Home-Start Caithness £14,590 Home-Start East Highland Ltd. £14,604 HOPE for Autism £7,518 Networking Key Service Limited £12,280 Perth Autism Support SCIO £13,537 Salvesen Mindroom Centre £10,115 SensationALL £10,325 SWAN Autism Scotland £28,482 The Autism Network £9,070 The National Autistic Society £30,116 Aberdeen Foyer £26,381 Callander Youth Project Trust £21,480 FARE Scotland £30,000 Grassmarket Community Project £25,193 Inspired Community Trust Ltd £23,941 Move On £22,658 Ando Glaso £26,052 Common Wheel £15,815 Glasgow Disability Alliance £26,666 Govanhill Baths Community Trust £17,602 Impact Arts (Projects) Ltd £11,101 LGBT Youth Scotland £23,429 Refuweegee £15,258 The Sound Lab £19,991 The Village Storytelling Centre £26,644 Toonspeak Young People’s Theatre £24,839 Delivering Equally Safe £50,341 Aberdeen Cyrenians Ltd £36,578 Aberlour Child Care Trust £49,759 Action for Children £24,764.42 Muslim Women’s Resource Centre £20,589 Angus Women’s Aid £52,386. Argyll & Bute Rape Crisis £46,195 Argyll & Bute Violence against Women and Girls £8,606 Argyll & Bute Women’s Aid SCIO £82,521 ASSIST, Glasgow City Council £69,047 Barnardo’s £44,000 Border Women’s Aid Ltd £8,368 British Red Cross Society £13,461 Caithness & Sutherland Women’s Aid £36,134 CEA Committed To Ending Abuse £18,978 Central Advocacy Partners £36,625 Children 1st £55,700 Clackmannanshire Women’s Aid £28,073 Close the Gap (SCIO) £40,261 Cumbernauld & District Women’s Aid SCIO £26,250 Deaf Links £30,633 Dumbarton District Women’s Aid £29,900 Dumfries & Galloway Council £16,006 Dumfries & Galloway Rape Crisis Support Centre £48,282 Dumfriesshire & Stewartry Women’s Aid £22,076 Dundee City Council £33,552 Dundee International Women’s Centre £6,044 Dundee Women’s Aid £54,982 East Ayrshire Health & Social Care Partnership £12,865 East Ayrshire Women’s Aid £27,924 East Dunbartonshire Assn For Mental Health 24,375.00 East Dunbartonshire Women’s Aid SCIO £22,678 East & Midlothian Public Protection Committee £28,784 Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre £101,474 Edinburgh Women’s Aid Ltd £52,164 EmilyTest £15,614 Engender £25,884 FENIKS Counselling, & Support Service Ltd £31,794 Fife Council £33,941 Fife Rape and Sexual Assault Centre £46,069 Fife Women’s Aid £38,500 Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre £63,756 GEMAP Scotland Ltd £60,043 Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis £121,894 Glasgow East Women’s Aid Ltd £38,454 Glasgow Women’s Aid £107,078 Grampian Women’s Aid £48,506 Hemat Gryffe Women’s Aid Limited £57,12 INVERCLYDE WOMEN’S AID SCIO £48,750 Just Right Scotland SCIO £9,267 Kenyan Women in Scotland Association (CIC) £7,683 Kibble Education and Care Centre £14,020 Kingdom Abuse Survivors Project £10,424 Lanarkshire Rape Crisis Centre £62,380 LGBT Youth Scotland £12,372 Liber8 (Lanarkshire) Ltd £114,905 Lochaber Women’s Aid £47,358 Monklands Women’s Aid £56,078 Moray Rape Crisis £59,978 Moray Women’s Aid £41,324 Motherwell & District Women’s Aid £53,449 Multi-Cultural Family Base £23,386 North Ayrshire Women’s Aid £21,869 North Lanarkshire Council £35,505 Orkney Rape Assault Service (ORSAS) £28,432 Perth & Kinross Council £10,606 Perthshire Women’s Aid £60,500 Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, Perth & Kinross £58,229 Rape and Sexual Abuse Service Highland £62,965 Rape Crisis Grampian £44,805 Rape Crisis Scotland £234,000 Renfrewshire Council £30,000 Renfrewshire Council, Children, Women Children £40,008 Renfrewshire Women’s Aid SCIO £24,191 Respect £8,839 Ross-Shire Women’s Aid £58,947 Rowan Alba Ltd £16,976 Sacro £34,549 Safe Lives £20,123 Saheliya £37,688 Sandyford– NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde £4,391 SAY Women £13,002 Scottish Borders Council £11,175 Scottish Borders Rape Crisis Centre (SBRCC) £42,327 Scottish Commission for Learning Disability £24,502 Scottish Women’s Aid £135,000 Shakti Women’s Aid £75,000 Shetland Rape Crisis £43,274 Shetland Women’s Aid (SCIO) £47,820 South Ayrshire Women’s Aid £41,496 South Lanarkshire Council £9,456 South West Grid for Learning Trust Ltd £14,533 Stirling & District Women’s Aid £43,461 The Highland Council £46,550 The Improvement Service £48,467 The Star Centre £32,632 University of Glasgow Court £16,171.88 Venture Trust £17,273.88 West Dunbartonshire Council £23,439.88 Western Isles Rape Crisis Centre £21,007.94 Western Isles Women’s Aid SCIO £13,000.00 West Lothian Council £45,184.94 West Lothian Women’s Aid (WLWA) £18,707.63 White Ribbon Scotland £18,750.00 Wigtownshire Women’s Aid £22,500.00 Women’s Aid East and Midlothian Ltd £113,084.25 Women’s Aid Orkney £63,466.41 Women’s Aid South Lanark & East Renfrew £100,000.00 Women’s Rape & Sexual Abuse Dundee and Angus £96,879.88 Women’s Support Project £52,656.00 Young Women’s Movement £6,754.46 Zero Tolerance £75,621.75 EMDR – Supervision Survivors Unite £600.00 EMDR – Travel Grant Survivors Unite £365.00 Equality & Human Rights – 028 Age Scotland £101,685.88 Amina – the Muslim Women’s Resource Centre £51,754.75 BEMIS Scotland £53,750.00 Boots and Beards £18,915.13 British Deaf Association £57,545.63 Central Scotland Regional Equality Council £18,769.25 Civil Rights First £17,640.00 Close the Gap (SCIO) £56,634.88 Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights £36,119.88 Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations £49,775.00 Deaf blind Scotland £18,744.75 Disability Equality Scotland £41,205.25 Disability Information Scotland £41,934.38 Equate Scotland £90,935.75 Elect Her £25,011.88 Engender £89,951.63 Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) £13,203.25 Equality Network Limited £125,816.25 Ethnic Minorities Law Centre £47,678.38 FENIKS Counselling, Development Service Ltd £20,370.50 Friends of Romano Lav £18,399.38 Generations Working Together £51,732.69 Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector £61,486.25 Glasgow Disability Alliance £83,334.38 Glasgow Women’s Library Ltd £31,264.00 Grampian Regional Equality Council Ltd. £7,111.25 Inclusion Scotland £206,250.00 Intercultural Youth Scotland (IYS) £54,023.93 Just Right Scotland SCIO £24,360.50 Kairos Women+ £11,611.13 (LEAP) in Sports Scotland £17,850.63 Legal Services Agency Ltd. £34,289.13 LGBT Healthy Living Centre £47,483.00 LGBT Youth Scotland £72,717.63 Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project £38,102.25 Multi-Cultural Family Base £11,429.25 Neighbourhood Networks £23,489.13 Outside the Box Development Support £14,756.75 Scottish Ethnic Minority Deaf Charity £19,663.75 Scottish TUC (Scottish Pensioners’ Forum) £12,228.25 Scottish Women’s Budget Group £18,595.75 Scottish Women’s Convention £49,166.75 STEP £42,784.38 Stonewall Equality Limited £26,626.25 The Poverty Alliance £33,497.13 The Scottish Older People’s Assembly £12,275.00 West of Scotland Regional Equality Council £36,915.13 Young Women’s Movement £36,163.00 Aberlour Child Care Trust £12,186.00 Action for Children £9,157.00 Barnardo’s £8,5941.00 Befriend a Child £8,459.00 COVEY £9,411.00 Kirkcaldy YMCA £9,366.00 Move On £8,325.00 Quarriers £9,962.00 Right There £9,697.00 Volunteer Glasgow £6,424.00 YMCA Edinburgh £10,735.00 Y Sort It £5,340.00 Crowd funder 2023 Aberlour Child Care Trust £980.00 Action for Children £1,541.00 Barnardo’s £1,401.00 Befriend a Child £1,401.00 COVEY £840.00 Kirkcaldy YMCA £1,401.00 Move On £840.00 Quarriers £840.00 Right There £3,221.00 Volunteer Glasgow £980.00 YMCA Edinburgh SCIO £3,222.00 Y Sort It £840.00 2025 Action for Children £10,012.00 Barnardo’s £5538.00 Befriend a Child £10,088.00 Right There £15,951.00 YMCA Edinburgh £13,966.00 Y Sort It £1,624.00 Values Into Action Scotland £75,000.00 Learning Disabilities get2gether £13,500.00 Inspired Community Enterprise Trust Ltd £25,000.00 music ALL £22,500.00 People First (Scotland) £85,348.00 Promoting a More Inclusive Society £112,500.00 Values Into Action Scotland (VIAS) £64,800.00 Link Up Kirkcaldy YMCA £46,667.00 North Edinburgh Arts £11,872.00 The Ayrshire Community Trust £41,395.00 Aberdeen Foyer £25,964.00 Action for Children £130,351 Calman Trust £9,625 East Ayrshire Carers Centre £13,375 ENABLE Scotland £59,784 FARE Scotland £82,344 Hot Chocolate Trust £7,780 Move On £31,324 RUTS £52,750 Street League £144,318 Tullochan £23,324 yipworld £13,000 Enterprise Queen Margaret University £7,000 Human Development Scotland £4,015 3D Drumchapel £4,000 Aberlour Child Care Trust £20,000 Home-Start East Highland Ltd. £15,000 Home-Start East Lothian £4,000 Home-Start Glasgow North & North Lanarkshire £19,956 Home-Start Glasgow South £4,000 Home-Start Levenmouth £3,633 Home-Start Renfrewshire and Inverclyde £3,679 Let’s All Talk North East Mums £3,997 Mellow Parenting £3,803 Midlothian Sure Start £19,976 Mind Mosaic Counselling & Therapy £4,000 Multi-Cultural Family Base £4,000 Nurture the Borders £3,873 PMH Borders £11,250 Pregnancy Counselling and Care (Scotland) £4,00 Quarriers £19,874 Starcatchers Productions Ltd £3,333 Stepping Stones North Edinburgh £13,314 With Kids £3,960 Advocacy Orkney £7,565 Advocacy Aberdeen £16,454 Advocacy Western Isles £24,902 Ayrshire Independent Living Network £22,296 Borders Direct Payment Agency £14,780 Braemar Care £3,250 Capability Scotland £25,430 Carr Gomm £68,006 Circles Network £28,522 Clyde Shopmobility £5,547 Cornerstone Community Care £17,890 Disabled Person’s Housing Service Fife £17,309 East Ayrshire Carers Centre £18,495 ENABLE Scotland £24,964 Equal Say Limited £20,080 Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living £58,697 Improving Lives £15,291 Independent Living Association Forth Valley £12,833 Lothian Centre for Inclusive Living £39,751 Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project £18,504 Perth & Kinross Association of Voluntary Service £10,678 Self -Directed Support, East Renfrewshire £34,041 Shetland Community Connections SCIO £26,075 Support Choices £18,305 The Advisory Group £16,548 The Advocacy Project £21,313 The Community Brokerage Network £43,268 Thistle Foundation £27,277. VOCAL – Voice of Carers Across Lothian £26,411. Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire £26,487 Award 2023 Ayrshire Independent Living Network £3,563 Capability Scotland £1,781 Circles Network £3,563 Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living £3,563 Self-Directed Support Forum East Renfrewshire £1,781 STAND £1,781 Support Choices £1,781 The Community Brokerage Network CIC £403 Voice of Carers Across Lothian £1,781 Survivors 2023/2024 The Body Mind Studio £3,754 3D Drumchapel £5,820 Belville Community Garden Trust £6,211 Bridgend Farmhouse £7,770 Canongate Youth £4,726 Children 1st £7,791 Concrete Garden £6,801 Earthtime for All Ltd £2,541 East Lothian Play Association SCIO £7,785 Family and Community Development West Lothian £4,522 Getting Better Together Ltd £5,176 Include Us £7,737 Jeely Piece Club £7,744 Kingsway Community Connections £9,591 Kirkcaldy YMCA £7,700 MADE4U IN ML2 £7,770 North Edinburgh Arts £7,252 OutLET Play Resource £6,847 Parent Action for Safe Play £7,643 PEEK- Possibilities For Each and Every Kid £7,791 Play Scotland £7,545 Project 31 £7,633 Renfrew YMCA £7,684 Royston Youth Action £7,772 Smart Play Network £7,187 The Ecology Centre £4,855 The Urban Roots Initiative £7,576 The Venchie Children and Young People’s Project £7,712 Under The Trees £6,381 YMCA Edinburgh £6,805 East Lothian Play Association £8,137 Include Me 2 Club £9,450 Scotland Yard Adventure Centre £9,450 Under The Trees £9,450 Thrive Outdoors Active Play £7,500 FARE Scotland £15,000 Jeely Piece Club £15,000 Possibilities For Each and Every Kid £15,000 FARE Scotland £1,850 Jeely Piece Club £1,850 Possibilities For Each and Every Kid £1,850 Care and Learning Alliance £36,157 FARE Scotland £12,875 Jeely Piece Club £12,875 Possibilities For Each and Every Kid £12,875 Scottish Sports Futures £12,000 Care Antonine Care Ltd £10,000 Beyond Limits Dumfries & Galloway £1,000 Bhart Ltd Trading £1,000 Carers Scotland Ltd £2,126 Clacks & Stirling (Stirling Adult Social Care Team) £5,000 Clece Care Services £5,000 Drylaw Rainbow Club Day Centre £786 East Dunbartonshire Assoc For Mental Health £2,100 ENABLE Scotland £9,950 Falkirk Council (Burnbrae Home) £4,200 Greencross Care Home £5,000 Hillview Care Home £6,980 Lancefield Care Home £5,200 Marchglen Care Centre £5,000 Norwood Care Home £2,000 Park Homes Carlingwark House Care Home £1,850 Parklands Limited (Burnbank Care Home) £2,500 Parklands Limited (Parklands Care Home) £5,000 Perth & Kinross Council (LD and Autism social work £560 Quality Care Scotland Ltd £3,600 Shetland Islands Council Outreach, £1,600 Shetland Islands Council Outreach, flexi workers £700 Shetland Islands Council,Outreach, St Sunniva £1,600 Summerdale Care Home £2,700 Turning Point Scotland (Ayr) £3,500 Turning Point Scotland (Dundee) £6,550 Turning Point Scotland (Prestwick) £3,300 Turning Point Scotland (Renfrewshire) £8,868 Aberdeen Foyer £25,000 Action for Children £62,500 ENABLE Scotland £46,250 FARE Scotland £40,000 Street League £59,829 The Talk About Trust £12,088
1 March 2000: The constitutional position of the Lord Advocate
The position of the Lord Advocate and the criticism being meted out by the media and public generally on the resignation of Lord Hardie
Lord Hardie’s resignation as Lord Advocate has come at a bad time – and not just for the First Minister and his beleaguered Cabinet. For if following the progress of the new legislature on the Mound and coping with the increasing importance of the European Convention on Human Rights were not enough to keep the legal profession in Scotland sufficiently occupied, there is now added the task of attempting to answer the non-lawyer who cares to ask, “What’s all this fuss about?”
In providing an explanation, it seems fair to say that the strident response which the resignation has provoked has its roots in the recent developments referred to above. Lord Advocates have been elevated to the Bench in the past (and have suffered stinging criticism as a result) yet the flavour of the recent criticisms seems slightly different, rolling together worries over the Lockerbie trial, the ECHR, judicial appointments and underlying disquiet at the Lord Advocate’s position in the Scottish Cabinet.
Taken as a whole, these criticisms go further than the issue of judicial appointments per se to a more fundamental concern with the constitutional position of the Lord Advocate and his combined roles of politician, prosecutor, and judge-maker. Certainly, this seems an unnecessary number of responsibilities for any one individual and are cause for alarm in those with even a passing interest in the notion of separation of powers. In untangling the various strands of recent comment it may be useful, then, to explore these different combinations of functions and assess them individually.
The Lord Advocate as prosecutor and politician
Public prosecution of crime is the historical raison d’etre of the Lord Advocate, his responsibility for prosecution being formalised by an Act of Parliament of 1587. Having been given the right to instigate proceedings regardless of the wishes of the party injured by an offence, the last 400 or so years have seen prosecution of crime become – in all but the most exceptional case – the exclusive province of the Crown. That there are good reasons for an Office of State devoted to prosecution is undisputed. More difficult to reconcile is the embodiment of that Office in an individual who has grown to be such a significant figure in the Scottish “political hierarchy”1. As adviser to the government on Scots law (and as occasional counsel for the government in litigation), the Lord Advocate became intimately associated with the government of the day, an association made all the stronger when – as happened for most of the 20th Century – he sat as an MP or in the Lords. This dual role has given rise to two competing impulses: that the Lord Advocate should be both independent in his prosecutorial capacity and politically accountable as a law officer.
This desire for political accountability has been given weight even where the question involves the prosecutorial rather than governmental role. For though in the Lord Advocate is placed “a constitutional trust”2 there must be a glaring breach of that trust before the courts will intervene. Lord President Clyde’s3 view that, whilst the law officer could be subject to, “the constitutional safeguards of Parliamentary action,” there was no remedy at law for a party aggrieved by the exercise of his prosecutorial power, has been slightly modified by later cases. Nonetheless, the “hands-off” approach prevails, justified by reference to the public interest in the efficient administration of justice: it is undesirable to see the decisions of the prosecutor challenged on a regular basis in the courts.
This traditional compromise has been formalised by the Scotland Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”). Section 48 requires prosecutorial decisions (and decisions as to the investigation of deaths) to be taken by the Lord Advocate, “independently of any other person”. Yet the same section requires the Scottish Parliament to approve nominations for the post, thereby enhancing – at least on paper – the political dimensions of the appointment. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are to be accountable to the legislature in Edinburgh rather than London.
Even prior to 1998 there were difficulties with this compromise. One is the reliance on Parliament to ensure that the Lord Advocate is accountable for his prosecutorial activities. In practice, at Westminster, a convention operated that the Lord Advocate would not be required to give reasons for a particular prosecutorial decision, the danger being that parliamentary accountability is more a matter of form than of substance. It is too early to say how strong a stance the Holyrood Parliament will take but already the ECHR has had some impact in obliging the courts play a more active role. As an “act” of the Executive, a decision to prosecute will be reviewable where some aspect of that decision breaches “Convention rights”, for example where there has been undue delay in bringing a prosecution4.
Secondly, whilst it may be desirable that the Lord Advocate be answerable to Parliament it is not so clear that he should have an overtly political role within the Executive. Of course it is entirely proper that there should be parliamentary oversight of, for example, the Lord Advocate’s “strategic plan” which places increased emphasis on the prosecution of violent crime, child abuse and drug trafficking and his “review” of racially motivated crime5.
Whilst the final assessment of the public interest in prosecutions may be for the Lord Advocate alone, no democratic system should leave the policies adopted by the public prosecutor entirely unexamined. This, though, is quite different from participating directly in the formation of wider governmental policy – the opportunity for which is provided where the Lord Advocate attains membership of the Cabinet. The legitimacy which the Lord Advocate derives from his accountability to Parliament is necessarily undermined by suggestions that he uses this position to influence policy for which he has no mandate. The key issue is one of public faith in the political system.
One radical reform would be the separation of the public prosecution responsibility from the Lord Advocate’s role of legal adviser to the Executive, a move which would not only mark a fundamental break with tradition but would require Westminster legislation. This separation of functions was the route taken by the Republic of Ireland in 1974 when the Attorney General’s prosecuting functions were transferred to the newly created Director of Public Prosecutions6. Of course one much more straightforward change could be made immediately – the removal of the Lord Advocate from the Scottish Cabinet.
The Lord Advocate as prosecutor and judge-maker
It is the Lord Advocate’s role in selecting new members of the judiciary combined with his prosecutorial function which has caused so much disarray in the Scottish courts over the past six months or so. The Lord Advocate’s influence in the judicial appointments process has long been the cause of disquiet and negative comment7 but the partial incorporation of the ECHR has been the immediate catalyst for change. The Lord Advocate’s role in the selection of candidates for the Bench was judicially recognised in Starrs v Ruxton8. However, despite acknowledging that the prosecutor’s participation in the selection and reappointment of temporary sheriffs amounted to his being both party and judge in the same cause (and thereby breached the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the ECHR), their Lordships were satisfied that the security of tenure which marks permanent appointments was a sufficient safeguard against any threat to their independence posed by the involvement of the Lord Advocate. It remains to be seen whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council take the same view if, as is at least possible, Robbie the Pict’s challenge to Lord Wheatley’s appointment becomes one of the first “devolution issues” to be considered by that court.
There is, though, at least one specific appointment which leaves a Lord Advocate open to almost unanswerable criticism – his own. Whilst, ironically, it might be possible to defend former Lord Advocates from challenge under Article 6 of the ECHR – employing the argument that once elevated the prosecutorial role is relinquished – it seems increasingly untenable to maintain a system which is perceived to allow unparalleled opportunity for self-promotion. That the system involves the public prosecutor and the promotion in question is to the Bench undoubtedly adds to unease. At a time when public faith in the courts cannot be taken for granted – undermined as it may be by reports of crises and chaos caused by devolution and the ECHR – it is essential that those involved in judicial appointments seriously address this anomaly.
The incoming Lord Advocate appears to have accepted the need for general reform of judicial appointments9 but in the interim, he might consider repeating Lord Wylie’s “self-denying ordinance” of 1972. Whilst the then Lord Advocate undertook not to appoint himself to either of the chairs of the Inner House, public confidence might be bolstered by extending such an undertaking to any judicial role.
The Lord Advocate as politician and judge-maker
It is not an original observation that this kind of self-regulation does not address the more fundamental question of judicial appointments, an issue which has received much oxygen recently. One aspect of this question is, leaving aside the Lord Advocate’s prosecutorial responsibilities, whether he – wearing his Scottish Executive hat – should have any role in the appointments process. This depends on a satisfactory solution to the more general matter of the extent to which the selection of judges should be left in the hands of professional politicians – an issue becoming more urgent given the perception that the determination of human rights and other constitutional issues thrown up by devolution necessarily involve the making of a greater number of “value judgments” by the judiciary.
The indications are that the Scottish Executive is considering reform in the medium term. Its legislative powers in this area are, however, circumscribed. The 1998 Act protects the Prime Minister’s right to recommend the appointments of the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk, in consultation with the First Minister who himself is empowered to recommend appointments to other judicial vacancies. These provisions cannot be changed by the Scottish Parliament although they would not prevent the Parliament establishing an “advisory” appointments commission if that is the preferred option.
Particularly interesting in this area are the implications of change for the Law Officers. It could be that their Executive role proves an additional obstacle to their appointment to the Bench. Some guidance may be drawn from the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in McGonnell10 involving a challenge to the Island of Guernsey’s “Bailiff”. The Bailiff’s position entailed legislative and executive as well as judicial functions. The Court held that where a judge presided over a case which required him to interpret legislation, if he had prior direct involvement in the passage of that legislation or of related executive rules, such involvement was likely to cast doubt on his impartiality and could constitute a breach of Article 6(1) of the Convention.
Whilst the logic of the Court might extend to the position of the Lord Chancellor it is more debatable how far it could affect the Lord Advocate who has no formal role in the legislature. No doubt on a broad interpretation of the McGonnell decision, it might be argued that the Lord Advocate’s position in the Executive constituted direct involvement in the passage of legislation or executive rules. Further, might it be argued that the prosecution policies adopted by the Lord Advocate also fall into this latter category?
The future
Undoubtedly, many Lord Advocates have been strong candidates for judicial promotion, and probably because of their prosecutorial experience rather than in spite of it. Similarly, it seems likely that holding the public prosecutor to account will be achieved more easily where he is a member of the Executive. Finally, it is unquestionable that the Executive should have the benefit of the advice of a Law Officer. Nonetheless, any one of the various combinations of functions currently exercised by the Lord Advocate might be subjected to criticism, and currently those criticisms are coming thick and fast. Whilst wholesale rejection of tradition in favour of reform at all costs rightly invites scepticism, waning public confidence is sufficient justification for a thorough examination of the office of Lord Advocate.
Normand concluded that the Lord Advocate’s powers and freedoms depended, in the end, on what he believed to be the well-informed and interested Scottish public. In the face of perceived unfairness, he claimed, the public would be “swift to condemn”. He was not wrong.
Christine M O’Neill LLB LLM, Lecturer in Law, Edinburgh Law School
SNP: Held onto 6 seats. Lost 39 seats. Reduced to a bare rump reminiscent of the Party’s standing before Holyrood was established. The SNP is a nonentity at Westminster where the real politics is conducted.
Alyn Smith: SNP MEP apologises over Brexit Party ‘money laundering’ claim
17 June 2019
Alyn Smith has agreed to pay some of Mr Tice’s legal costs as well as making a donation to charity
SNP MEP Alyn Smith has issued an “unreserved” apology over his allegation that the Brexit Party is a “money laundering front”.
Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice threatened to sue Mr Smith over the claim, which he made in a TV interview.
Mr Smith has now admitted he did not have any evidence to support his claim.
He has agreed to pay a “significant” contribution to Mr Tice’s legal costs, and will also make a donation to the Help for Heroes charity.
Mr Smith was being interviewed on Sky News following last month’s European Elections when he claimed that the Brexit Party – which is led by Nigel Farage – was “a shell company that’s a money laundering front”.
He went on to claim that “the only question about the Brexit Party now is which laws they’ve broken and where their campaign finances have come from”.
Mr Tice instructed his lawyers to demand an apology from Mr Smith for his “utterly false and highly damaging” comments.
Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice (right) with party leader Nigel Farage
Mr Smith initially attempted to mount a defence on the legal precedent that political parties do not have the power to sue in defamation proceedings.
He also said he wanted to see a “full, open and transparent inquiry into the funding of Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party”.
But after further legal letters were exchanged, Mr Smith agreed to issue an apology and to withdraw his allegations.
In a statement published by his solicitors, he said it was “not my intention” to make allegations against Mr Tice personally, but said that “having reflected upon this” he would “apologise unreservedly to him and withdraw my allegation”.
He said: “I am happy to state clearly that I do not have any evidence to support such an allegation. I spoke in the heat of the moment and am happy to set the record straight.”
Mr Tice – who was also elected to the European Parliament in May’s elections – said he was pleased that Mr Smith had apologised and “withdrawn these wholly unfounded and damaging allegations”.
He added: “People are entitled to take a different view of Brexit and I respect their right to do so. But I will not hesitate to take action against those who make false claims about the Brexit Party, and by implication those of us who run it.”
The two sides agreed to keep their full financial settlement confidential, but the Brexit Party said Mr Smith had contributed “significantly” to Mr Tice’s legal costs as well as making a charity donation to Help For Heroes.
Protestant, John Swinney, leader of the SNP, has had his first marriage annulled in order to marry in the Roman Catholic Church. Swinney has said that any children he might have with his new wife, Elizabeth Quigley, the BBC journalist, would be brought up as Catholics.
As a sign of his commitment to the woman he describes as ”my rock”, Mr Swinney, a practising member of the Church of Scotland, went to the Roman Catholic Scottish National Tribunal to have his first marriage annulled. The Church of Scotland marriage, which took place in 1991, was legally dissolved in 2000.
Mr Swinney, who is fighting a leadership challenge in September, attends Catholic mass regularly with Ms Quigley. He said he was ”very pleased” to receive the letter from the tribunal telling him he was free to marry in the Catholic Church.
It is not clear whether this came directly from Rome, but it will certainly have been granted with the consent of the Vatican authorities.
Mr Swinney also spoke of his overwhelming love for his wife-to-be. ”She is the most joyous person to be with,” he said. ”She is my rock, and I am extremely grateful to have met her.”
His application to have his first marriage annulled, lodged after the couple met in 2001, has taken less than two years to reach its positive conclusion. However, suspicions that Mr Swinney’s case was helped by the fact that his divorce was the result of his first wife’s infidelity, or even that it was rushed through because of his high public profile, have been strongly rejected by the Catholic Church.
Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said: ”Neither scenario would have been a factor. It is the state of the marriage when it was entered into that is taken into account. Pre-existing grounds allowing it to be set aside would have to be present from the very beginning.
”Any breakdown that develops after a marriage, be it as a result of drunkenness, violence, or adultery, has little bearing on the process, even if the petitioner is the injured party.
”However, these can be indicators of a pre-existing defect that was present at the beginning of the marriage. It is the function of the tribunal to satisfy itself, through interviews with parties to and witnesses of that marriage, that the pre-existing defects were always there.”
A senior member of the Church of Scotland last night said there was ”general unease” in the Kirk with the concept of annulment.
The Very Rev Finlay Macdonald, former moderator and principal clerk of the Church of Scotland, said: ”The general trouble we would have with the concept of annulment would be that annulment presumes that the marriage never took place.
In canon law, “lack of due discretion” (specifically covered under Canon 1095 of the Catholic Church) is a technical legal category, not a personal insult.
It generally covers situations where, at the exact moment of the wedding one or more factors existed
Immaturity:
One or both partners did not possess the psychological or emotional maturity required to understand the lifelong commitment of marriage.
Lack of Internal Freedom:
A person faced heavy external pressure, anxiety, or circumstances that impaired their ability to make a completely free, unforced choice.
Inability to Fulfill Vows:
A hidden emotional or behavioral condition existed that made it impossible for a partner to actually carry out the essential duties of marriage, regardless of what they promised at the altar.
The Catholic Church publicly emphasized that the tribunal did not rule based on his first wife’s subsequent infidelity. They only looked at the psychological state of the couple in 1991 to determine that a valid spiritual bond was never formed.
The reasons for the decision to annul the marriage have never been revealed. But there was a confirmed measure of compatibiliy. Two children were born in the marriage. that never existed. They stayed with their mum.
01 Nov 2017: Miss A, (who was also an elected local counselllor for the Labour Party) said that James Dornan MSP, her boss, had been contacted by someone, possibly McCann, from SNP Party headquarters. Without consulting her Dornan copied MCann her private Twitter messages of 26 September 2016, which he had retained for over a year without her knowledge or permission. His actions well fit the profile of senior officials of the SNP whose practice is to retain information which they use later to bring to account officers and/or staff who might fall foul of the Party hierarchy.
02 Nov 2017: Mark was ordered to attend a meeting with John Swinney at which Liz Lloyd was present, and was informed that there was on-going “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “MeToo” movement.
03 Nov 2017: Liz Lloyd convened a second meeting with Mark at which she showed him copies of his messages to Miss A. She said that a complaint that had been lodged against him by an SNP Party member, James Dornan and informed 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 have been forced to resign claiming that “Some may well have thought it was not serious enough to resign for.”
Swinney and Lloyd had acted without first gaining the authority of Sturgeon begging the question. Who was running the Party?
Murrell told the Holyrood Inquiry 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 at no time in the Autumn of 2017 did the Party inform any Scottish Government civil servant or special advisor of a complaint by a Party member against a minister of the Government.
Swinney and Lloyd had acted without first gaining the authority of Sturgeon begging the question. Who was running the Party?
Swinney and Lloyd contravened the ministerial code and should have been dismissed by Sturgeon.
Jan 2017: The million plus Unionist Petition demanded an end to Indepenence electioneering
I compiled an analysis using information from the petition and produced a predictive 2017 election outcome.
Electorate totals were included and a percentage signatory total was established for each constituency. From that the mean figure of 3.75% was used to project the outcome of a second Independence referendum.
The figures suggested that from an electorate of 4,021,203 the outcome of another referendum would result in a: 48.00% “Yes” vote in favour of independence with 52.00% preferring to remain with the Union.
This important information should have allowed Murrell to forward plan the SNP May 2017 electioneering strategy.
As expected Edinburgh, Aberdeen, East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire recorded higher than average figures favouring remaining with the Union.
Jan 2017: The Calton Jock 2017 General Election forecast
The General Election in Scotland will not be a re-run of the 2015 General Election and the landslide victory achieved by the SNP cannot realistically be achieved.
The analysis suggests 25 seats might be lost to the Tory Party and significant SNP financial resources and additional teams of activists will need to be deployed in force in the under-noted constituencies otherwise they may be lost.
This group of seats are marginals – risk decreases as the % number drops:
71749: Edinburgh West, Michelle Thomson MP : 4388-6.12% Lost
69982: East Renfrewshire, Kirsten Oswald MP: 4241-6.06% Lost
66966: East Dunbartonshire, John Nicolson MP: 3977-5.94% Lost
73445: West Abdn, Stuart Blair Donaldson MP: 3961-5.40% Lost
80978: Edinburgh North & Leith, Deidre Brock MP: 4280-5.29% Held
66208: Paisley & Renfrew, Gavin Newlands MP: 3158-4.77% Held
68875: Argyll & Bute, Brendan O’Hara MP: 3277-4.75% Held
62003: North East Fife, Stephen Gethins MP: 2937-4.74% Held
67236: Stirling, Steven Paterson MP: 3175-4.72% Lost
77379: Ochil & Perth, Tasmina-A-Sheikh MP: 3645-4.71% Lost
79393: Gordon, Rt. Hon Alex Salmond MP: 3711-4.68% Lost
68056: Aberdeen South, Callum McCaig MP: 3618-4.65% Lost
79481: East Lothian, George Kerevan MP: 3676-4.63% Lost
72178: Edinburgh S-West, Joanna Cherry QC: 3283-4.55% ) Held
72447: Perth & N-Perthshire, Pete Wishart MP: 3033-4.19% Held
71685: Moray, Rt. Hon Angus Robertson MP: 2995-4.18% Lost
78037: Lanark & Hamilton-E, Angela Crawley MP: 3272-4.19% Held
74179: Berwick, Roxburgh, Selkirk: Calum Kerr MP: 3026-4.08% Lost
86955: Linlithgow, East Falkirk, Martyn Day MP:3570-4.11% Held
68609: Banff & Buchan, Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP: 2772-4.04% Lost
73445: W. Abdn, Stuart-B-Donaldson MP: 3961-5.40% Lost
71685: Moray, Rt. Hon Angus Robertson MP: 2995-4.18% Lost
68056: Aberdeen South, Callum McCaig MP: 3618-4.65% Lost
The 2017 General Election and the resurgence of the Tory Party in Scotland
The 2017 General Election in Scotland first exposed Scottish voters to “data mining”. A new form of politics imported from the USA, providing tools and profiling information allowing Tory candidates to communicate personally with their prospective constituents.
The benefits were astounding. The Tories gained a stunning result, increasing their MP’s from 1 to 13 in total.
Pollsters were flabbergasted at the turnaround in the voting since the SNP appeared to be invulnerable.
But Tory candidates had been well briefed about the individual targets within their constituencies. The new voting strategy used predictive data models which identified, engaged and persuaded swing voters to turnout.
This was achieved through the use of internet, phone and personal surveys combined with many other data sets, created by teams of contracted data scientists, psychologists and political consultants allowing the campaign to map the Scottish electorate based on ideology, demographics, religious beliefs, strongly held opinions on key issues e.g. Independence, the Orange Lodge, Celtic, Rangers, The SNP and or political personalities.
The information gathered provided Tory campaign strategists with a predictive analysis based on thousands of data points on just about every voter in Scotland.
From that teams of political consultants and psychologists, hired by the Party directed the campaign and candidates on what and how to say it to selected groups of voters.
Other voter targeting, included use of Facebook adverts, one to one scripted phone calls and provision of the content of messages for door-to-door canvassers ensuring consistent communication with voters on any issue.
What won the day for the Tory party in 2017 was that they utilised “data mining” to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Scottish electorate and then used every communication aid available facilitating discussions with voters about matters important to them as individuals.
Throughout the campaign the Tory tactic was to constantly broadcast the “no new referendum” message in the “no” constituencies stressing the major difference between the Tory and any other candidates firmly imprinting this in the electorate’s minds.
In contrast the SNP campaign lacked inspiration. Murrell starved “at risk” constituencies of financial resources and failed to get the SNP voters out. Had he been the chief strategist of any political party other than the SNP he would have been given his marching orders.
Incredulously the First Minister, (his wife), supported by other members of the SNP executive Swinney, Robertson, awarded him a massive pay rise and extended his contract of employment.
Recent revelations indicate that Murrell’s systematic misappropriation of SNP finances traces back to around 2010 revealing the possibility that SNP finances my have been insufficient to meet the demands of the 2017 General Election campaign by design.
caltonjock 