Glasgow Council Female Staff To Take Their Equal Pay Battle to the Streets Causing Disruption and Despair – It is Important to be aware any blame must be placed at the Labour Party Front Door




Image result for equal pay women glasgow




Industrial Action in Glasgow

Indications are that women employed by Glasgow District Council will be taking industrial action very soon in pursuance of their long running campaign seeking equal pay with male workers as required by law.

It is important that the hard working people of Glasgow attribute fault for any disruption to their lifestyle to the previous council run by the Labour Party, who left a poisoned chalice for the SNP to sort out.

And many re-elected Labour Councillors are still blocking any move by the recently elected SNP Council to resolve the matter.

The remaining part of this blog provides an explanation of events to date.

It reveals the duplicity of the Unions who unconditionally supported the policies of their Labour Party Councillor colleagues assisting their efforts to deny women workers a fair wage. And who are now taking a different tack actively supporting the same women in their decision to take industrial action against the SNP run Council.


Image result for equal pay women glasgow

Susan Aitken



Equal Pay Claims Glasgow District Council Female Social Care staff

In May 2017, the SNP took control of Glasgow City Council. The party had fought the election with a commitment to sort out the long standing injustice, and new leader Susan Aitken, an “unashamed feminist”, was sincere about living up to her pledge.

“I could not have presided over the continued unequal treatment of women, knowing in my heart and my head it was happening, seeing the evidence in front of me: that the previous Labour Party council undervalued not just women, but the lowest paid women, doing vital jobs, these are the women who are washing and feeding our elderly grandparents and parents, they’re clearing up our weans’ sick. It’s hard physical work. It has been treated as lesser value for the same reasons women’s work has always been treated as lesser value. And previous leaders and Labour run administrations of Glasgow City Council have chosen not to redress it.”

Aitken knows there is a risk the issue will take up a large part of the SNP’s first ever term of office, and might jeopardize a second one, but she believes securing equal pay would be a legacy worth having. However,there are many obstacles in her way, not least a resistance from deeply entrenched veteran council officers, who – having defended the system for so long – are still struggling with the idea of conceding defeat.

Coupled with this is the challenge of finding additional finance in times of austerity and of the need to devise and implement new, improved pay and grading conditions essential if future equal pay claims are to be avoided.

The stakes are high: any new pay and grading scheme will involve winners and losers, creating a likelihood of industrial action. “There will be a bin strike in 2019. I don’t know this, but I know it,” says one union insider.

The women welcomed Aitken’s commitment, and were buoyed by the SNP council’s decision abandon the civil action case against them. Still, with so many previous disappointments, they were not holding their breath. They want to see deeds not words.


Related image



Union Inaction and Action 4 Equality (Scotland)

In Glasgow, women involved in the pre-2007 pay claims recall how the GMB union and the Labour Party council pressurized them into accepting low settlements by offering them cheques for a few thousand pounds just before Christmas so long as they signed quickly. Many signed.

But many more held out against the injustice and badly judged advice from their Unions and took their cases to another source of advice. Namely, Action 4 Equality – Scotland managed by Solicitor Stefan Cross.

In doing so they had to wait longer, but received far greater settlement sums. Not only did Cross take on Glasgow District Council, he sued the unions for failing to properly represent their female members, forcing them to up their game.

In so doing, he made himself hugely unpopular and many still regard him as an ambulance-chaser who got rich off the back of driving English councils to the brink of disaster.

To the women, however, he is a hero, which explains why – though Unison and the GMB are involved in Glasgow’s current equal pay dispute – Cross still has 80 per cent of the current claimants. “I will have to give him 10 per cent of the payout, but he deserves it,” one woman tells me. “He stuck with us when the unions couldn’t be bothered.”


Related image




Labour Party Glasgow District Council Responsible for the unresolved Dispute

The current Glasgow dispute relates to the pay and grading system the Labour Party council introduced in 2007 to rid the system of gender bias.

For reasons best known to itself (but possibly to do with cost), it rejected the “red book” scheme implemented by the other 31 Scottish authorities, opting instead for a bespoke system.

The new system is complicated, but the problems with it are two-fold. The first is that, at the behest of the unions, the council built in a three-year payment protection for those men who lost out on bonuses, without extending it to women, thus perpetuating the gender differential.

In May 2017, just after the SNP took control, the Court of Session ruled this payment  protection had been discriminatory and the council accepted its judgment.

The second area of contention is the design of the scheme itself. The point of the job evaluation exercise was to create transparency, so any worker could look across the council and compare their wage with that of other roles.

However, this is difficult to do in Glasgow, because – alone among Scottish councils – it introduced the concept of core and non-core pay.

Work done in relation to core pay is assessed using identifiable job evaluation techniques, even though the scores awarded to some jobs have been disputed.

But non-core pay is more difficult to understand because people are being rewarded for the “context” rather than the content of their work.

For non-core pay, Glasgow workers are awarded extra points (and extra points mean extra pay) for specific working conditions, many of which appear to be relevant only to jobs done predominantly by men.

For example, extra points are given to those with full-time contracts. Women are more likely than men to have part-time contracts (though those with two part-time contracts may still work more hours).

Action 4 Equality (Scotland) maintains the disparity was compounded by the creation of arms-length external organizations (ALEOs), such as Cordia (predominantly female workers) and City Building (predominantly male workers).

However, an Employment Appeal Tribunal later ruled the ALEOs were all still part of the Glasgow City Council family for the purposes of equal pay.

The new way of working has been attracting claims ever since it was introduced. Cross now has 10,900, Unison 2,100 and the GMB 2,000, with more coming in every day.

But while all political parties have signed up to achieving a negotiated settlement, the internal tensions are far from resolved.

In particular, the leadership is understood to be furious that no money was ever put aside by the Labour run council in case of a defeat, nor any work done to prepare for possible negotiations.


Related image




The Newly Elected SNP led Council Proposals

Council leader Aitken accepts the scheme is dead in the water and is creating a new pay and grading system, in conjunction with the negotiated settlements and in agreement with the unions.

She is also pressing for an early settlement on the payment protection element of the claims and to believe it could be dealt with on a sector-by-sector basis and resolved within 18 months.

But some long-standing Labour Party Councillors, with the support of a number of senior council officers remain reluctant to embrace a course of action that effectively concedes their past decisions were misguided.

They say that, while the Court of Session found there were grounds to suspect the scheme could not be relied upon in relation to the Equal Pay Act, it did not rule it was discriminatory, and are dragging their heels on a commitment to a new pay and grading scheme.

There are also important decisions to be made on where the money for the settlements will come from. Some sources still appear to be peddling the line that it will be devastating for jobs and services.

In a recent newspaper article, a former official was quoted as saying: “We all want women to get equal pay, but we also want children to be educated, we want secure jobs, our sick and vulnerable to be looked after and for potholes to be filled. Putting these things at risk is not progressive, it is an abdication of responsibility.”

Yet Aitken is understood to believe there are other ways the cash can be raised: options include a loan from the Scottish or UK government or securitising assets such as the SEC.

The continuing gulf between the leadership, Labour Councillors and council officers means negotiations are proceeding at a glacial pace. “We get the impression we are dealing with two warring camps: the political leadership have clearly crossed the Rubicon, but Labour Party Councillors and council officers are not subscribing to this process at all,” says Cross.

Aitken is working hard to bridge the gap; but Cross believes that unless the council gets its act together soon, the claimants could find themselves back at tribunals. “That would take five years and double the cost,” he says.


Related image



And What About the Women Workers?

In a room at Unison Glasgow branch office, a dozen or so women are tying suffragette ribbons to boater hats and are writing “Equal Pay Or We Walk Away” on placards ready for a march.

After the council meeting last month, they were buzzing, optimistic that at last their long fight for equality might be coming to an end. They had allowed themselves to dream about the things they might buy: a car to replace the one that won’t start; or a foreign holiday with the family to make up for all the time they missed out on when they were young.

Now, rattled by rumours of stalled negotiations, their heads have dropped; some say industrial action – which had been put on hold – is back on the cards.

When all this is over – if it is ever over – big questions will have to be asked. How could the council have believed this convoluted scheme – with payment protection for the men built in – would eradicate inequality and increase transparency?

And why wasn’t the previous Labour party administration willing to challenge their officers’ advice on fighting the claims?

The introduction of a new pay and grading system will probably bring more industrial strife, but as the women point out, the former Labour Party Council created the problem and refused to deal with it leaving the headache to the SNP council to resolve.

For more than a decade the council had their labour on the cheap and trying to hold them responsible for any industrial action is the worst kind of victim-blaming.

A Unison spokesperson commented: “If you think about the consequences it’s frightening – of course it is – just like the situation we have faced year upon year with the council cuts, but a lot of the impact of those cuts has been absorbed by the depreciation of the female workers’ pay and fighting it and imposing a pay and grading system which didn’t work. The responsibility  for this lies with the Labour Party politicians who took the decisions and the structures of the Labour government, both local and national that allowed the council to conduct itself in that manner.”

For the female workers, there is a broader frustration too; that 100 years after women got the vote, they are still having to fight for recognition.

One said: “I can’t believe that here we are celebrating the suffragettes and we still don’t have equality, but whatever happens, we will keep on fighting and if it takes that long, we will die fighting.”

(paraphrased from an article by Lucinda Cameron in the Scotsman 10 Feb 2018)


Related image

If the Unions really believed their rhetoric why did they support the labour run Glasgow District Council against their female staff?



And What About the Labour party?

The Scottish Labour leader, Richard Leonard said women workers employed by Glasgow City Council were owed an apology for “too much resistance” to their equal pay claims when the local authority was under Labour control.

Speaking to the Labour Party’s Women’s Conference in Glasgow he said there was “too much legal obstruction” when Labour was in power in Glasgow for decades before being ousted by the SNP in May 2017.

See my previous article:


Image result for equal pay women glasgow




The murky world of Westminster politics – big business protection – and the abuse of the electorate – Spies-lies and naked thighs



Image result for Hakluyt



A Murky World

In the article before this I provided a “through the keyhole report on the activities of Hayluyt.

It generated a bit of interest and begged the question. How deeply entrenched in the British state is this bunch of very rich individuals?

This article provides some answers and raises even more questions. Such as. Did they get involved in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum?


Image result for Hakluyt and the josephs


Opening Statement

Colin Joseph and his son operated a business, designing, providing and running scratch card competitions (out of Shell garages) for Shell UK. Without reasonable cause Shell terminated the contract and the Josephs could not remain in business.

Over an extended period Shell refused to provide good reason for their actions and the case ended up in the courts. But that was not all. Hakluyt got involved and a disinformation campaign ensued for many months.

When the case eventually reached the high court Shell dragged their evidence out milking what information it had to its full extent. But, just as Shell solicitors were about to apply the coup de grâce the Josephs produced irrefutable new evidence proving their case.

Shell settled out of court, including all of the Joseph’s trial expenses but the damage had been done. Joseph senior was bankrupt and his son had to remortgage his house. A bad day for British justice.

But we are able to benefit from the misfortunes of the Joseph’s. I commend their story to you.

John Donovan


Shell Transport & Hayluyt MI6 Spy Firm – One and the Same?

Dear Mr Joseph

You have written off my account of the cloak and dagger events leading up to the last settlement as being a “parody of the truth and characterized it generally as being “nonsensical” and based on “wider conspiracy theories”.

The problem you have Mr Joseph is that you cannot change what you and Shell director Richard Wiseman have already admitted in writing about undercover activity by Shell agents involving fraud and deception. Your letters are now a matter of historical fact.

I will deal directly with your accusations by separating fact from theory. However we must obviously reconsider the relevant past sinister events in the light of the latest revelations.

As I have indicated, I never imagined even in my “wider conspiracy theories that a shadowy corporate intelligence organization was at the time in question, led by Shell Transport directors and staffed by former MI6 Officers.

I refer of course to Hakluyt & Company Limited and The Hakluyt Foundation.

Sir William Purves was simultaneously a director (and shareholder) of Shell Transport, and the Chairman and major shareholder in Hakluyt & Company Limited.

The late Group Chairman of the Royal Dutch Shell Group, Sir Peter Holmes, was until 2002 simultaneously a director (and shareholder) of Shell Transport and also President of the Hakluyt Foundation – a “Supervisory” Board overseeing spying operations.

He took over the role from the late Brigadier Sir Fitzroy Maclean – the model for Ian Flemings “James Bond” character.

I note Mr Joseph that you ignored my comments and questions about Hakluyt. I wonder why?

For your information I now have in my possession a Hakluyt & Company Ltd document co-signed by Sir William Purves and Mr Christopher James, a co-founder of Hakluyt.

Christopher James is a former senior British Secret Intelligence Service MI6 officer and was in the SAS before leading a section of MI6 which liaised with British firms.

This applies to many of the staff at Hakluyt. So is his Hakluyt co-director, Mr Mike Reynolds.

Reynolds founded MI6’s counter terrorism Branch and was Head of Station in Berlin. Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6 is reportedly “a close friend”.

Sir David Spedding, the head of MI6 in 1995 when Hakluyt was launched “wished him luck with the venture”.

Shell/Hakluyt used freelance serving intelligence agents when deemed appropriate, as revealed in The Sunday Times article of 17 June 2001 entitled:  “MI6 Firm Spied on Green Groups”.

Hakluyt modus operandi is that when an assignment is received, it calls up to five associates to London (often from overseas) to be briefed and then re-deploys them.

Each agent works independently. No doubt other spy firms work on a similar basis.

Hakluyt is identified on a number of credible websites as being a front for the SIS; the commercial arm of MI6.

With the written permission of Jyoti Munsiff and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, our dossier complaining about the “cloak and dagger” activity directed against us was sent to all Shell Transport directors, including Sir Peter Holmes and Sir William Purves.

Of course we did not know that Sir Peter and Sir William were the Spymasters of Hakluyt which engaged in the type of sinister clandestine operations that we were drawing to their attention.

Evidence of corporate espionage on an epic scale on behalf of Shell is given in The Sunday Times article.

Perhaps as a lawyer you would argue that such conduct is unseemly but not illegal? But what if the same conduct occurred in connection with a pending High Court trial – the SMART trial for example? Would not everyone involved, including relevant Shell directors, the spy firm, relevant agents and any lawyers knowingly involved, be part of a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Of course it would make it harder to prove anything if the spies were called in from overseas.

As I have now set out some of the salient information which has recently emerged, I will, as promised, separate fact from theory.

I sold my house to pay legal fees; my son ended up having to sell his. This was all in the reasonable expectation of a fair trial.

Due to the undercover activities, some of which has been admitted in writing by you and your client, that was not what we ended up with.

It was more like going up against the Mafia. My son even faced outright deception during his cross examination by Geoffrey Hobbs QC.

The perceived reality at that time was of a highly reputable multinational – the public could be sure of Shell, its senior management GUARANTEED honesty, transparency and integrity in all of its dealings.

The actual reality was that Shell was secretly running sleazy covert operations against its perceived enemies including us (as has been admitted in writing).

The operations were directed against people and organizations campaigning against Shell for one reason and another.

We were in 1995 given a substantial consideration to close down one such organization – The Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group (another fact).

Another indication of the way in which our hard hitting campaign impacted on the reputation and competence of Shell’s most senior management was the eventual personal intervention of Lady Judy Moody Stuart. I have the correspondence to prove it.

Time has shown that our criticisms were well-founded in terms of Shell’s performance compared with its rivals and in regards to the deeply ingrained cover-up/subterfuge mentality which has led to the current difficulties which have made headlines around the world.

(I refer of course to the accusations of fraud and deception made in US class action suits currently underway, plus the investigations by regulatory bodies including the US Securities & Exchange Commission, and the criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice.)

The scale of the clandestine activity undertaken at the behest of Shell senior management at the time of our litigation against Shell was breathtaking.

(1) According to the Mail on Sunday article on 4 April 2004, headlined: “Shell Chief had a private army”: Sir Philip Watts helped to organize and pay for a 1400 strong private army of Police spies in Nigeria in conclusion with a murderous regime;

(2) Shell Transport directors were the Spymasters of Hakluyt, whose secret agents targeted groups campaigning against Shell, including human rights and environmental groups e.g. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Body Shop etc. Indeed any group whose campaigning activities might impact on the reputation of Shell.

The alleged activities of my son and I obviously fell within that definition, as alleged in the Counterclaim.

(3) And I should not forget the admitted undercover activities involving Mr Phillips and other agents you refused to name.

It is quite a collection of trickery and deception. And it involves so many titled people. A roll-call of establishment grandees are directors and shareholders in Hakluyt & Company Limited:

Sir Brian Cubbon, former permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office;

Lord Inge, former Chief of the Defence Staff;

Lord Trotman, former Chairman and Chief Executive of Ford and a director of the New York Stock Exchange;

Colonel Sir Piers Bengough;

Sir William Purves, formally a director of Shell Transport and Chairman of HSBC Bank;

Lord Renwick, Chairman of Robert Fleming Merchant Bank:

Sir John Weston;

Sir Anthony Hammond;

Sir Ralph Robins;

Sir John Jennings;

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart;

Sir Philip Watts;

Sir Peter Holmes;

The foregoing names are from the Annual Return filed at Companies House just a few months ago – 23 December 2003.

A number of them, including Sir William Purves, are also directors of The Hakluyt Foundation.

The following prominent people are also connected with Hakluyt:

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Former Foreign Secretary;

Ian Lang, former Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry;

Earl Jellicoe, President of the SAS Association;

Sir Peter Cazalet, former Deputy Chairman of BP;

Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill.

Hakluyt also has a strategic agreement with Henry Kissinger, the legendary former US Secretary of State and guru of realpolitik.

Mr Kissinger’s company, Kissinger Associates, apparently facilitates top-level introductions for Hakluyt. It must be good to have friends in high places.

Commonsense suggests that Shell Transport management was more likely to use what is in effect an in-house resource rather than taking their dirty washing outside of the company.

That ties in with what we were told at the time by the claimed “Shell insider” about an investigative resource.


Related image



Members of Parliament have accused MI6 of using Hakluyt as a front to spy on activists.

In the case of the Shell/Hakluyt agent featured in The Sunday Times story of 17 June 2001, it was reported that there seemed to be no boundaries between his activities working for state or business.

It was also stated in the same revealing article:

“MP’s believe the affair poses serious questions about the blurring of the divisions between the secret service, a private intelligence company and the interests of big companies.”

Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan

Earthquake damage in Holland due to fracking




Present Day

20 years after the names might have changed the system of privilege and protection of the wealth of the “in Crowd” continues to be fully protected by the state and the secret services cabal of Hakluyt.




A comprehensive record of events including the foregoing article, (in full) can be viewed at:




The Blog that reveals the news Shell Oil and the government would deny the public, if it could:







The umbrella group under which three subsidiary companies operate – The present day composition of Hakluyt.





Other articles exposing the extent of the Hakluyt network – TATA Steel?”



British Spymasters revealed




Image result for rifkind and straw




I am publishing the under-noted article which exposed the activities of the British Secret Services to the public in Scotland. Many of the principal characters involved went on to dominate Scottish politics and, operating out of London still do so. After reading the article you might wish to read some of my other articles which provide substance to briefing information I provide through my blog


Related image




Mon 20 Jan 2003: Intelligence firm with an air of mystery

It has all of the ingredients of a cold war spy thriller – with a cast of characters including former Cabinet ministers, diplomats, spies, a Scottish oil company, the widow of Labour leader John Smith, and sensational allegations of murder and corruption in the Czech Republic.

At its centre lies a British-based private intelligence firm, with close links to MI6 – and a distaste for any sort of publicity. But now Hakluyt is facing the spotlight as MPs called for its activities, and its connection to MI6, to be investigated following the company’s role in the collapse of a High Court libel trial.

“This is an extraordinary tale which appears to have mushroomed because of the involvement of a secret company, Hakluyt, said Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes.

“This is not the first time their fingerprints have been on strange matters. It would be helpful if a spotlight could be shone on them to show who they are, what their role was, what connection they have to MI6 and why they won’t answer questions about these particular events.

Set up by former MI6 executives after the end of the Cold War, Hakluyt has provided intelligence for 26 FTSE 100 companies and a number of US and European clients.

Its latest Companies House returns reveal a high calibre of directors, including Mike Reynolds, MI6’s former head of station in Germany, and Michael Maclay, a former journalist, diplomat and special adviser to former foreign secretary Douglas Hurd.

This is not the first time they have been tied to strange events.

Baroness Elizabeth Smith was, until recently, a member of the Hakluyt Foundation, the equivalent of the company’s board.

Little about the company finds its way into the public domain, but in a rare interview given to the Financial Times two years ago, managing director Christopher James, also ex-MI6, described his firm’s main commodity as “the truth”.

“We give focused, timely intelligence, he said. But following an extraordinary libel trial last month, in which former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind gave evidence, there were question marks over the quality of the intelligence Hakluyt provides.

In fact, a report produced by Hakluyt on Czech oil tycoon Karel Komarek and his father, which contained allegations of corruption and murder,led to Scottish oil company Ramco being sued for libel.

Ramco employed Hakluyt in good faith on the recommendation of one of its consultants, Mr Rifkind and Baroness Smith.

During the libel trial, brought against Ramco by Mr Komarek, the chairman of MND, a Moravian oil mining company, it emerged that the company was responsible for allegations of “the gravest kind”.

In a report produced by Hakluyt for Ramco, which cost £40,000, the company even claimed the involvement of a Ukranian hit-man to murder a European businessman.

The allegations, described in court as being akin to a James Bond plot, were then passed by Ramco to the British Ambassador in the Czech Republic and later discussed with several high-ranking members of the Czech and British governments, including the then foreign minister, Robin Cook. later, they found their way into a Czech newspaper and the internet.

During proceedings, the allegations were not tested. The legal argument was one of privilege, which acts as a defence to an action for libel or defamation, regardless of whether the allegations are true or false.

Following the collapse of the libel trial against Ramco, after the judge concluded that the case fell short of the legal standard, Mr Komarek said he was “disappointed” by the result and was aggrieved that no apology had been made.

“We came to Britain because we thought we could take our case to a jury, he said. “The defendants have never said any of the serious allegations they published about us in the Czech Republic and this country are true, but they have never been willing to apologize.

When contacted by The Scotsman, Hakluyt refused to answer any questions about its allegations, including where it got the information and whether it stood by its claims.

A company spokesman said: “We do not comment on any assignments we have undertaken, and therefore it would not be appropriate to say anything about the court case. The Komarek brothers have lost their libel case and we have nothing further to add.

Yesterday Baroness Smith who was until the end of 2000 a member of the Hakluyt Foundation, set up to ensure it abides by its code of practice, said she knew nothing of the report.

“As a member of the foundation I wouldn’t have access to that sort of information, she said. “Company reports and their activities were never discussed at meetings. The foundation was set up to provide “reassurance that we are not just a tearaway bunch of ex-governmental officials”, according to Mr James.

But when asked whether her former role included making sure the company abided by the rules, Baroness Smith replied: “Absolutely not. We were there to oversee general strategy. She left the foundation, she said, because “my period of office came to an end and she declined to comment further.

It is not the first time the publicity-shy company has found itself in hot water.

Last year MPs called on Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, to investigate the company following newspaper  revelations that Hakluyt spied on green pressure groups in order to pass information about them to oil production companies Shell and BP.

It emerged that Hakluyt had employed a German spy, who posed as a left-wing sympathizer and film-maker, in order to betray plans by Greenpeace against oil companies. The affair left MPs questioning whether secret intelligence services used the firm as a front to spy on green groups.

Hakluyt has denied claims by some in the intelligence community that it was started by MI6 officers to carry out “deniable” operations. (Karen McViegh, The Scotsman)


Related image




Skripal works for Hakluyt.

Provided mis-information greatly contributing to the subsequently discredited report on Donald Trump which started still on-going Trumpgate investigation

Rifkind: the architect behind “Better Together”. The Secret Services organizer


Image result for british spies



Transatlanticism drives UK politics- Scots need to get off the Bus Sharpish



Image result for labour party andcia and mi6 covert operations




The Political Ideology of “New Labour”

The political thinking of right wing “New Labour” politicians is closely aligned with their Tory “soft left” colleagues in Westminster and in political pressure groups in England, Wales and Scotland

The right wing faction opposes just about all of the economic policies of the labour unions, especially regarding nationalization and control of the economy for the benefit of union membership and its thinking repudiates the concept that socialism identity’s with public ownership as the only means of efficient production and service provision, and that such ownership is essential to achieve all major socialist objectives.

It actively promotes support of personal liberty, social welfare, and above all social equality and advances the argument that targets can be achieved through the use of appropriate fiscal and social policy policies within a market-oriented mixed economy.

Public ownership is not ignored but is regarded as  a tool to be used sparingly.

The thinking is termed “Transatlanticism” and is the belief in and support of a close relationship between the United States regarding political, economic and defense issues, coupled with the unquestionable belief that its support maintains security and prosperity and the protection of perceived values that unite the two nations.

It is fully supported financially and politically by the US and is monitored by the secret services of both countries.

Many politicians, peers, other public figures, agencies, news presenters, entertainers and media managers are recruited to the ranks of the secret services and their contribution to the cause is huge.

They are trusted and have the ear of the public.


Image result for labour party andcia and mi6 covert operations




The Corbynites

The rise of the left in the Labour Party is matched by a significant drop in the fortunes of “new Labour”.

A return to government by Labour is possible but not probable, if the US and the Secret Services get involved.

In Scotland the party under, the leadership of Leonard will pursue an agenda for change well to the left of the SNP government and might enjoy a small measure of success.

The tussle for control of Scottish politics will probably revert to a two party confrontation between the SNP and the Tories and the SNP would do well if they challenge the credibility of Ruth Davidson, the only political asset they possess.

Previous party manifesto’s contained little in the way of policies to be adopted by the Tories in Scotland and public awareness of the scarcity of any political thinking by Davidson and her personally selected bunch of cretins should be exploited.


Related image

Jack Cunningham, Labour MP, John Smith, Labour Party leader, Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Prime Minister, 1992.



Reds Under the Beds: The British Secret Service and the Labour Party

Labour politicians, including the late Donald Dewar, the late John Smith, Gordon Brown, Lord George Foulkes, Lord George Robertson, Lord Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair and the late Robin Cook were precisely the types the intelligence services longed to see take control of the Labour party and it is believed that contemporaries and acquaintances of these leading Scottish Labour figures took active roles in organizations sponsored and endorsed by MI6 and the CIA. (The Sunday Times)


Image result for John Smith Bilderberg




So who was John Smith?

The public persona was that he was a genial, whisky-drinking Scots lawyer from the traditional Labour right. Not so.

John Smith and his close friend and political ally Denis Healey were founders, with others, of the influential right wing, Bilderberg Group and were members of its Steering Committee.

It was Smith, then leader of the committee who arranged for his young protegee, Gordon Brown to be invited to the 1991 meeting of the group.

He also recruited Ed Balls, formerly a leader writer for the Financial Times as political advisor to his team. An ideologist for globalization, Balls had spent a year in America as a Kennedy Scholar at Harvard from where he adopted US economics ideology.

A trend embraced by other prominent Labour figures, such as, Yvette Cooper MP, (whom Balls later married). David Miliband, head of Blair’s policy unit and Gordon Brown, later to become the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Just about all of the “New Labour” people with influence had some connection to America and American money……Tony Blair took the US government’s free tour of the States and extended stay in 1986 with Gordon Brown and assured his hosts that, while officially members of CND they and the Labour Party under their leadership supported the nuclear deterrent and retention of Trident by the UK. Blair, and his team in 1983, all joined the CIA front, Labour Friends of Israel.


Image result for new labour vs old labour



The Role of the Secret Services in the Labour Party

An example of the British secret services infiltration into the “New Labour” party is Margaret “Meta” Ramsay, (who attended Glasgow University with John Smith) and was the President of the Scottish National Union of Students between 1959 and 1961.

From 1962 to 1967, she was secretary of the Fund for International Student Co-operation, (FISK) where the organizer was Lord George Foulkes.

In 1969 the Radical Student Alliance published a pamphlet alleging that (FISC) was a CIA front.

This was denied, but Ramsay, a life-long chum of the, “Smith’s” went on to join the British Secret Service where she was a specialist in the Scandinavian states.

She also became an active member of the Labour Party, attending conferences where party officials were apparently “unaware” of her intelligence connections and in August 1992, she was appointed to the position of foreign policy adviser to the Labour leader John Smith.

As well as raising a few eyebrows, the appointment begged the question:

“What was the leader of the Labour Party doing employing a known high-ranking MI6 agent in such a senior position?”

A fluent Russian speaker, she was also actively involved with the American backed and funded “Institute for Jewish Policy Research” and the “Zionist Labour Friends of Israel.”


Image result for baroness smith mi6

Elizabeth Smith, Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill



And Mrs Smith?

Elizabeth Margaret Bennett also attended Glasgow University with John Smith whom she later married.

A fluent Russian speaker she was recruited to the British Secret Services together with her friend Margaret Ramsey.

Her powerful role in the service was only revealed after the death of her husband when she was awarded the title of Baroness of Gilmorehill and elevated to the House of Lords.

She is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which provides parliamentary oversight of the Secret Intelligence Services and is an advisory council member of the foreign-policy think-tank, the Foreign Policy Centre.

She is also the Lords Chair of The Labour Friends of Israel and leads the London based “intelligence” company, Hakluyt, allegedly started by MI6 officers to carry out “deniable” operations in support of government policies.

Smith’s eldest daughter Sarah is the Scotland Editor for BBC Scotland, having joined in Spring 2014 for the run-up to the independence Referendum on 18 September 2014.

Her background and friends of the family does little to engender public confidence in her political impartiality (wikipedia)


Related image





The main political parties in the UK are tied financially and politically to Israel and the US.

European centralization was always a non-starter for the “Little Englanders” and the future of the UK will be tied to a steady process of assimilation by US markets and standards.

Scotland (before the 1707 Act of Union) maintained important trading and political links with many European countries and there is a desire to get back to those arrangements but this can only be achieved by an independent Scotland.

Another read:


Image result for cia and mi6 covert operations



The 1707 Act of Vandalism is not fit for purpose and should be binned without further delay




Image result for 1707 act of union and catholics

Massacre of the Macdonalds at Glencoe




Events that break the political union

The discredited Westminster political system of government is close to collapse and its welcome termination might be closer than the pundits would have you believe.

The press is increasingly headlining that a huge majority of little Englanders would be happy to let Scotland leave the alliance if it would provide a certainty of a successful Brexit for England, without the frills of remaining in the EU market.


Related image




Westminster’s House of Lords to rewrite the 1706 Act of Union

More pressure on the unsustainable union. Today, the little known  “Constitutional Reform Group” introduced a “Union Reform” bill to the House of Lords (with the support of a number of peers) , the content of which, if approved: “would re-balance and stabilize the constitutional relationships between the four nations of the United Kingdom”.

No input from the majority of Scots whose preference is to close the entire edifice down. It is no longer fit for purpose.


Image result for 1707 act of union and catholics




 Hamish McPherson – Scottish Historical Storyteller  and the “Act of Union”

Today, the best newspaper in Scotland, the “National” carried a historical record of the “Massacre of Glencoe”  written up by Hamish.

The murder of near one hundred Macdonald men, women and children by English “redcoats”  was yet another betrayal of trust by English military occupation forces who were jubilant in their celebrations destroying a large rebel force.

Hamish wrote: “Political machinations in Britain were now aimed at securing a Protestant heir for Queen Anne who had ascended to the throne after King William fell off his horse and died in 1702.

Anne herself was one of the main driving forces behind the movement for a union between Scotland and England and her principle motive was clearly the need for a Protestant heir, namely her cousin Sophia, the Electress of Hanover.

The real claimant to the throne, James Francis Edward Stuart had to be excluded. Hence the sentences, at the beginning of the “Act of Union” that:

“all Papists and persons marrying Papists shall be excluded from and forever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown.”

“Why any Catholic supports such a union is beyond me.”


Related image




Tony Blair – Prime Minister at any cost

Blair married a catholic girl and committed  under oath, to raise his children in the catholic faith.

A man forced by political necessity to observe the teaching of two widely different religious bodies. One of them in secret.

As a practicing catholic he would not be appointed to the highest political office of Prime Minister since the politically active bishops of the “Church of England” that sit in and vote in the House of Lords are recommended to the Queen by the Prime Minister and no catholic would ever be given authority over an Episcopalian Bishop.

So Tony swallowed his pride and denied his true faith witnessed by his acceptance into the Church of Rome by the Pope in a private ceremony in the Vatican a few days after he left office. The tribulations of politics.!!


Related image

Queen Anne



Conclusion: The Act of Union, in its present form denies the human rights of Catholics in Scotland, to equality under the law and should be referred to the European Court so that it can be removed from statute.



A brief history of the Rises and Falls of the Labour Party From 1945 and a close look at the Some of the Chancers that contributed to it: Part one




Image result for labour party 1945 -1997





The Labour Party 1945 -1997

Some voters may be unaware of the internal rivalry driving the politics of the Labour Party and make their judgements on the conduct of party officials and activists conducting its business acting on information provided by the media and press.

These platforms, in just about all cases concentrate on providing a biased presentation and comment on current and projected topics creating confusion in the minds of the public who rightly expect to be provided with honest unbiased information by news and current affairs presenters and journalists.

The purpose of this article is to attempt to right some of the wrongs of a hopelessly biased media and press, providing an honest briefing so that readers will be able to better decide the destination of their vote in any future election or referendum.

My knowledge of political history from 1944 has been acquired from living through it and 50 years of public service.


Image result for labour party 1945 -1997





The Labour Party won the 1945 general election and with Clement Attlee at the helm set about the difficult task of rebuilding a country decimated by WW2. 5 years of financial austerity, food rationing, and hard labour working for a pittance.  Improvements although slow, were achieved.

In October 1950, Hugh Gaitskell was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Government policies were then influenced by two factors. The Korean War which drained finance away from an already struggling economy and the further development of the Welfare State under the auspices of Aneurin Bevan.

Something had to give and in his first budget Gaitskell introduced charges for certain prescriptions on Bevan’s beloved National Health Service. Bevan resigned as did his junior minister, Harold Wilson.


Image result for bevan





The party became impossible to control effectively and in the 1951 general election it was booted out of office.

The Tory Party took up the reins of power and retaining all of Gaitskell’s financial policies brought economic stability to the country.

In opposition, the Gaitskellites and Bevanites continued to do battle, culminating in Gaitskell defeating Bevan in a bid for the position of Treasurer of the Labour Party, ( one step removed from the position of Party Leader).


Image result for gaitskell





The Tory’s won the 1955 general election and Attlee resigned.

The subsequent leadership election between Gaitskell, Bevan and Herbert Morrison was not well conducted, being memorable for the first political description of candidates as left and right wing.

Gaitskell won, with nearly sixty percent of the vote. But the ill feeling between the two groups did not subside.

The thorny subject of Britain’s participation in NATO and the adoption of a foreign policy, opposing the USSR Union, supporting the United States and nuclear weapons development, came to the fore.

The Gaitskellites supported the policies but the Bevanites were opposed to it.


Image result for gaitskell





In 1959 Labour was expected to win the election due to the unpopularity of the Tory Party after the Suez debacle. But the Tory’s confounded the pundits when they won the election with a much enhanced majority.

The Labour manifesto, drafted by the Bevanites, was the problem since it included a contradictory policy statement committing a future Labour government to much increased welfare spending, without tax increases.

A furious Gaitskell blamed the Bevanites for the defeat and decided to change the party’s charter’s removing Clause IV, which committed the Party to nationalization of public services.

The Bevanites defeated his attempt and the divisions continued. Bevan died in 1959 and the leaderless Bevanites first transferred their allegiance to Harold Wilson then to Anthony Greenwood, both of whom unsuccessfully challenged Gaitskell for the leadership of the party.

Gaitskell died in 1963 and in the leadership election that followed the lefty Wilson beat right wingers George Brown and James Callaghan who unwisely split the Gaitsellite vote.


Related image





In the 1964 election, on a promise to implement Gaitskellite policies, the Labour Party, led by Harold Wilson, was returned to government,

There was worldwide political turmoil in the period, dominated by the Vietnam War, promoted by the US as the defence of western civilization against the expansionist communist forces of the USSR.

Wilson refused to commit British forces to the support of the US in Vietnam, introducing the spectre of the political isolation of Britain by the US, in retaliation.

Wilson relented a bit, through the provision to US soldiers (before their deployment to the war zone) of British army led Jungle warfare training, and naval facilities in Singapore and Hong Kong.

An added never ending difficulty at the time, was the constant expansion of Israel, resulting in a massive displacement of Palestinians into Jordan, Syria and Palestine and the protestations of ever more militant oil producing countries, fed-up with the constant influx of refugees causing disruption in their societies culminating in the 6 day War in the middle East, resulting in the Israel capture of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan and the Golan Heights, from Syria.

The Labour government responded with the usual fudge, abandoning any responsibility for the unrest forcing the USSR, the US and the UN to negotiate peace between the warring former British colony’s.


Image result for ted heath





The Edward Heath led Tory Party won the 1970 election on a promise to take Britain into the safety of the European Common Market (EEC) leaving the hurly burly, world trade market which was in turmoil.

He achieved this in 1973 when Britain joined many other European countries in the trading pact (subject to confirmation) but the deal was mothballed after the Tory government was brought down following a long struggle with the National Union of Mine-workers (NUM) and the imposition of a 3 day working week and electricity cut-offs, introduced as part of a package of emergency measures needed to neutralize the effects of a slump in oil production and massive price increases by middle East oil producing countries in retaliation against the “West” who supported Israel against their less fortunate Arab neighbours.


Image result for scargill





1974 (2 general elections)

The new Labour government was, as usual, hopelessly divided over joining the EEC and peace was only achieved with the promise of a renegotiation of the terms of membership and a binding referendum.

The politics of the 1975 referendum campaign was heavily influenced by the fall of Saigon and defeat of American power in the far east.

Also on the minds of the British public was the scandal over Watergate, the impeachment of President Nixon and the growth of the American Civil Rights movement which was dividing US society.

Wilson’s message to the country was that American world leadership had gone and Europe would need to rely on its own resources against the Soviet Union.

Heath supported Wilson, claiming that a vote to leave the European Community would weaken Europe and leave Britain vulnerable to attack from the USSR.

Added political difficulties under consideration by the public included inflation, which was running at near to 25 per cent.

A balance of payments crisis, which was placing great strain on the pound.

In industry and public services, labour relations were falling apart.

In the period 1970 to 1974, over 70 million working days had been lost in strikes and increasing para-military activity in Northern Ireland was depressing.  The Nation was in despair.

The campaign for withdrawal was dominated by the Labour left, under the charismatic leadership of the secretary of state for industry, Tony Benn.

Newspapers and the televised media campaigned to keep Britain in Europe. Britain voted to join Europe and duly did so in 1975.

Wilson stepped down in 1976 and was replaced by the Gaitskellite, James (Sunny Jim) Callaghan.

Under his leadership the party struggled badly and the economic woes of the country worsened, culminating in a series of damaging strikes, during which bereaving families could not bury their dead, refuse was piled 20 feet high in the streets and firemen responded to calls for assistance, only where life and limb was at great risk.

Soldiers were deployed throughout the country, working 14 hour days, equipped with useless Green Goddess fire trucks and heavy duty gloves, to provide protection from rat bites, incurred when tasked to clear piles of rubbish from the streets of towns and cities throughout the country.


Image result for jim callaghan





Returning from a visit to the US, where he had been pleading for more financial assistance, Sunny Jim was asked by a reporter what he intended to do about the current crisis. He  answered: “crisis what crisis”.

The demise of Sunny Jim and his incompetent Labour government in 1979 ushered in a Tory government led by Margaret Thatcher.

In opposition, led by Michael Foot, the Bevanite followers gained power and the Labour Party lurched to the left supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from Europe.

At constituency party level party membership witnessed a growing number of Trotskyist factions whose views and behaviour were at odds with the Parliamentary Labour Party and Labour voters. Foot’s hard line left-wing political beliefs were not fully supported within the party and he was an unpopular leader.

This led to the break-up of the party when, in 1981, four senior Gaitskellite’s: Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rogers and Shirley Williams ended their party membership and formed the Social Democratic Party.

In the 1983 and 1987 General Elections, the SDP did not fair well and formed a political and electoral alliance with the Liberal Party finally then merging with it in 1988, creating the present day, Liberal and Democratic Party.


Image result for michael foot




In the 1983 general election, the Labour Party, led by Foot, achieved its lowest share of the popular vote since the 1918 general election and the fewest number of parliamentary seats at any time since before 1945.

Foot resigned soon after the election, and was succeeded as leader by yet another Bevanite, Neil Kinnock.

Surprisingly, under his leadership party politics was moved nearer to the centre ground and he battled hard against the pervading presence of Militant Tendency Trotskyist’s who damaged the reputation of the party with their disgraceful behaviour in office, in constituencies throughout the country.


Image result for labour party 1945 -1997

Sir Alistair Darling  – Edinburgh Militant Councillor




As leader, Kinnock bungled and lost the 1992 general election, when many opinion polls had the party well ahead.

He resigned soon after and was replaced as leader by the Gaitskellite John Smith who carried on the process of restructuring the party, abolishing the trade union block vote, replacing it with “one member, one vote” but implementing a cautious approach to reforms avoiding controversy so as to be sure of a Labour Party win over a very unpopular Tory government at the next general election.

Smith died suddenly in 1994 and was succeeded as party leader by the ultra modernizing partnership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who rebranded the party with the inspiring title, “New Labour”.

They retained Smith’s economics and defence policies and ended the party’s Clause IV commitment to nationalization.

Blair, formally a member of CND, abandoned his opposition to the retention of the Trident nuclear missile defence and actively supported the establishment of much closer links aligning Britain’s foreign policy with that of the US.



Labour won the 1997 general election by a landslide.


Related image



Tory troublemaker Adam Tomkins claims he stokes the fires of soccer sectarianism in Scotland in the interests of fairness Only those who button up the back believe him





Enlightened Tory politician Adam Tomkins speaks out against bigotry – Sectarian chant is a stupid relic of the past

Rangers Fan and Conservative MSP Adam Tomkins despairs at the anti-Catholic bigotry of some of his fellow supporters.

When I moved from England to Glasgow in 2003 there was little that surprised me about my new home, despite the fact that I’d not lived in Scotland before.

Even the rain and the shortness of the winter day were familiar. My sister had lived for a while near Killin, and we’d had several family holidays in Scotland whilst we were growing up.

But one weekend morning my wife and I were awakened from our lazy lie-in by a sound I’d never heard in my three and a half decades living south of the border.

From our city-centre flat we could hear the drums and pipes of an Orange Walk, en route from Blythswood Square, down St Vincent Street, and on into George Square.

I gawped dumbfounded from our bedroom window. I’d seen this on the television news—but only ever from Northern Ireland.

In my Sassenach naivety I had no idea that this occurrence took place in west central Scotland too.

In England I’d become obsessed by football. I had an Arsenal season ticket and had travelled all over Europe watching Dennis Bergkamp, Ian Wright and Thierry Henry.

In Glasgow, by contrast, I had no dog in the Old Firm fight. At least, not until my eldest son caught the football bug in his first year of primary school.

His new mates were Rangers fans, and he wanted a piece of the Ibrox action for himself. So off we trooped.

After years away it felt wonderful to be back in a proper football crowd again. The camaraderie. The insane anger at the referee. The frustration at a pass misplaced or a chance gone begging. The burst of joyous relief at a goal scored. And, of course, the singing.

Arsenal’s old ground, Highbury, had never been one of England’s noisiest stadiums, but my seats were near the away support and there was always plenty of banter.

At Ibrox, some of the songs were familiar but there were also a whole lot more that were not.

I cannot imagine what it is like to support a football team that does not have a bitter rival across town. The Arsenal v Tottenham North London rivalry dates back to the First World War. There were riots in the 1920s and one match between the sides was so vicious that subsequent fixtures had to be played behind closed doors.

There is a sectarian element to the North London rivalry. Tottenham is a club with a proud history of support from the local Jewish community, and ‘yid’ is a word which certain Spurs fans use to describe themselves and, in the hands of an angry Arsenal fan, an ugly racist insult.

One of my many frustrations with the Glasgow derby is that so many commentators in Scotland assume that the Rangers v Celtic rivalry is unique.

You need only listen to what Liverpool and Manchester City fans sing about Manchester United to know that it is not. Some of the songs are brutal, callous, and have as little connection with football as snowmen do with the desert.

But even if the Glasgow derby is not unique, in British terms at least it is distinct. Nowhere else in Britain does competition between football clubs collide with politics in the way Celtic v Rangers does in Glasgow.

There are other European examples (think of Castilian Real Madrid v Catalonia’s Barcelona, or of Ajax Amsterdam’s association with Dutch Jewry and resistance to the Nazis, for example).

Historically, as everyone—even a naive Sassenach!—knows, Celtic and Rangers fans often divided along sectarian lines.

And, again historically, this divide was reflected in matters far more serious than allegiance to one football club or another, with entrenched discrimination in the workplace taking decades to dissipate and leaving wounds which even now are not fully healed.

In the 21st century the Glasgow derby is important not because it represents a division that continues to tarnish west-central Scottish society generally, but because its worst elements stand out, as an artifact (or relic) of an age which, for the most part, we have moved on from.

Thus, when Rangers fans are caught on tape (as some were two weeks ago) drunkenly chanting about how much they hate Roman Catholics, my reaction is not despair at the grinding injustice of modern, discriminatory Scotland, but shock that even now there are people who find this bigotry acceptable.

Their singing is an embarrassing monument to the cruel stupidity of the past, not a sign of the times.

What worries me more, looking forward, is whether the new divide of Scottish politics is somehow being mapped onto (or hijacked by) the Glasgow football divide.

Not all Rangers fans voted No to independence, and not all Celtic fans voted Yes.

But you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise, especially if you spend too much time on Twitter.

There is more than enough for Rangers and Celtic fans to argue and to brag about on the pitch.

They really do not need political divisions, whether old or new, to add to their sound and fury. (sconews).




But the views expressed by Tomkins in the foregoing article were exposed as vote seeking tosh in a recent tweet, posted by himself

The unelected MSP for Glasgow (his claim), castigated the leader of GCC for denying Rangers FC the use of local community sports grounds adjacent to Ibrox stadium as a “fanzone” on match days.

But was his involvement activated by a genuine feeling of injustice or yet another blatant attempt, to add political coals to the fires of sectarianism?

His post certainly generated a deal of anger. Comments:

* You’re a politician and you don’t know the difference between the City Council and the Community Council?

* My issue here is an MSP jumping in clearly unaware it was an Ibrox & Cessnock Community Council decision and not Glasgow CC.

* Shockingly irresponsible remarks, wondering if u should be reported to the standards office at Scottish Parliament.

* How exactly are you serving the people of Glasgow?

* Adam, no-one demonstrates what “not a good look” actually looks like quite as well as you, with this irresponsible, deliberately inflammatory tweet.

* Adam, even for you this is f#ckwittery of the highest order. If your leader had an ounce of sense she would carpet you for stoking sectarianism.

* Jesus, you are playing the bigoted card…..the West of Scotland is a shithole because of bigotry, don’t add to it.

* You are a self serving twat of a man and, on reflection, you always have been. Who voted for you?

* Tory MSP goes fishing and catches loads of mugs. I’ll vote for you Adam” Waaahahahah, you suckers, you don’t actually think he gives a damn do you?

* You exude excrement. The land is not for Rangers to use. It was transferred to the control of the Ibrox Community Council who objected the proposal.

* The SNP have been in office for only a couple of years. The unionist parties controlled the GCC for over 50 years. An audit of their decisions in that period would throw up many truly controversial decision favouring each of the two major football clubs.

* Straight to the sectarian card Adam? You’ve sunk to your own personal low now.

* Adam, Nothing shrieks anti-partisan like linking your politics to your football colours.

* Did you read the part about “local objections” Adam? Maybe it had something to do with recent football violence (murder) in the area. The local people should have a voice Adam. But then again, why would you concentrate on the facts, it’s just like you and your party to produce a “political squirrel” and wave it about frantically in the hope or getting a favourable response. Hopeless, stick to Croquet Adam, maybe Theresa will notice you.


Related image

Rangers Fanzone Manchester May 2008



1 Sep 2018: I was particularly taken by the comments of “Clapper57” on the Wings Over Scotland blog and repeat them here:

Adam Tomkins, list MSP , whose party’s reason (not really) for not wanting another Indy Ref is apparently because of the DIVISION it creates.

Yet somehow Adam is not averse to generating a little bit of DIVISION himself by publicly nailing his (blue) colours firmly onto the WATP mast .

Adam does this while fully aware of the contentious rivalry and DIVISION that exists between his team and another well known Glasgow team…..a DIVISION that far exceeds mere sporting rivalry.

However the political benefits to be had via votes are worthy of his public display of loyalty to the Queens 11 and the resulting potential DIVISION that is surely guaranteed to ensue in those other fans from their main opposition team.

Yes tis obvious Adam is promoting the message that his party is THE natural political home for the Billy boys and his support is not from any natural exuberance from a fan’s perspective but tis a more devious and obvious enticement to those Billy boys easily influenced and willing to align with Adam’s party in return for his alignment to them .

However there is a something quite toxic and very worrying about a political figure who repeatedly publicly champions a specific football team to so obviously capitalize on ensuring future political support from a section of Scottish society ( but whose fan base is not exclusively within Scotland) renowned for their aggressive and unrelenting bigotry.

This is also very dangerous territory as it encourages and gives credence to unacceptable behaviour being condoned and supported instead of condemned and alienated .

It is not Adam Tomkins, list MSP, place to voice his opinion in this instance as he can hardly be called an impartial observer indeed his bias towards Rangers should invalidate his intervention and thus it should be disregarded and considered unwarranted .

His position, in this matter, may be one of NO SURRENDER and of blatant opportunism against what he sees as his main political rivals i.e. the SNP but that in itself is why he has no right to force his argument when it is obvious that it is he who is being partisan in this instance.

Why Adam feels this compulsion to perpetually promote his allegiance to the bigoted Billy boys when everyone knows that the very people he targets in order to win votes have no intention of ever supporting either Independence or the SNP as their British credentials are well known or rather shown in their many public displays in their waving and displaying of the union jack .

One can only surmise that he is not content at being simply a mere supporter of The Rangers but that he tactically recognizes his endorsement guarantees the Billy boys will , in return, support him and his party…which pretty much makes a strong case for supporting both the SNP and independence……….. as the alternative , in the form of supporting and voting for the Tories, surely ensures that we remain hindered in our quest to see the fruition of a more tolerant , vibrant and inclusive society in an independent Scotland.

I think more Scots should challenge why a Tory list MSP is intervening in such a forceful manner in a matter outwith his remit as an (unelected) member of the Scottish parliament and he should explain why he is abusing his position as a list MSP to benefit a football team that he supports while simultaneously attacking the SNP led Glasgow council.

Now that is the real issue here and one that the media should , if we had a proper media, question his involvement in .

A worrying trend indeed and one that in respect to Tory political candidates and elected members is becoming all too common .

It is also very much worth noting not ALL Rangers fans are drawn to the dark side in either their behaviour, , opinions, attitude or choice of political party.


Rangers Fanzone Manchester May 2008

Related image