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.
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
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.
On the date of the hearing, a newspaper published the accusations made against Briggs as well as details of email conversations between Sandy Brindley, chief executive of the charity and the complainer’s representative.
The alleged incident:
Tory and SNP politicians had been mixing socially. The woman who accused Briggs said he had “draped himself” over her at the reception, pushed her against a wall and made lewd comments.
Briggs said that she had vigorously disagreed with him over welfare reform He called her a “crazy bitch” and left.
The SNP witness said: “the complainer was very aggressive and confrontational towards Briggs.”
She followed up saying: “my boss and SNP colleagues agreed with my actions telling me I did the right thing in standing up and telling the truth. The actions of Brindley will deter people from coming forward over rape allegations and sexual harassment cases. Had I read the press allegations without first hand knowledge of the events, I would have assumed him to be guilty. Anonymity for both sides should be honoured until there has been an investigation, a hearing and a decision.”
“Rape Crisis and [the complainer] turned this into a huge, big media circus and a political thing. How is that going to encourage women to come forward? They’re sending a message that women aren’t going to be believed. I don’t understand why they’ve done this.
Comment: The SNP witness is to be congratulated. In defending Briggs against the malicious complainant she saved his political career. It is to the eternal shame of the SNP membership of the SNP that the names of those who participated in the political destruction of Alex Samond have not yet surfaced.
Paisley born in 1994 she was educated at Lourdes Secondary School, Glasgow, and the University of Glasgow, where she was awarded a first-class honours degree in Politics and Public Policy in June 2015.
Formerly a Labour Party supporter she said she was a “traditional socialist”, citing Tony Benn as her enduring political hero despite his opposition to Scottish independence.
A member of the Scottish National Party (SNP), she has been the MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South since 2015.
Her defeat of Douglas Alexander, a Labour MP and Shadow Foreign Secretary, was unexpected and entirely due to the collapse in popularity of the Labour Party in Scotland.
Worked in a local chippie before entering politics.
Only a few days after her election to parliament, on 1 July 2015, it was announced that she had been appointed to the Work and Pensions Select Committee.
She made her maiden speech on 14 July 2015 and criticised the Tory government’s approach to unemployment and the growing need for food banks. She said: “Food banks are not part of the Welfare State. They are a symbol that the welfare state is failing.” She also took the government to task over cuts to housing benefit and State Pension Inequality (WASPI).
In a 2016 interview, while expressing concern about displays of arrogance and sexism towards her from other MPs, she labelled Westminster an “old boys club totally excluded from reality”.
And in 2017, she considered not standing for a second term expressing her frustration that: “so little gets done and it is a pain to travel to and from London every week”.
But despite her lack of enthusiasm she decided to stand again at the 2017 general election. And in a controversial campaign she was heckled by protestors who were angry at the decision of the SNP Government to close the sick children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in her constituency.
But she was re-elected albeit with a much reduced majority. She stood again in the 2019 general election and was elected.
She is a strong critic of the Tory government’s rollout of Universal Credit, maintaining that delays in payments have serious negative effects on claimants and she is critical of how loans must be paid back later.
She said in Parliament that the government was like a: “pious loan shark except that instead of coming through your front door they are coming after your mental health, your physical well-being, your stability, your sense of security that is what the experience is for all of our constituents. Plunging people into debt and hunger causes anxiety and distress and the eviction of families from their homes does not incentivise work.’
21 Jul 2018 Black admits to health issues
Elected MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South in 2015, and re-elected in June 2017 she said that the long hours, frequent travelling and stress of three years working as Paisley’s MP had taken its toll on her health and well-being and the pressure of being a public figure was something she was still adjusting to.
She said: “It’s absolutely horrendous. I hate it. But I will strive to help the people in my community who have fallen through the cracks. I have no desire to be famous or to be the face of something, or have a profile. I just want to do a good job. If that means shining a spotlight on something then I’ll do it but I don’t want it shone on me. The whole reason I’m in this job is to try and help the people I feel weren’t getting enough help before we were elected.”
On issues affecting her own personal life, she said: ” it is not something I plan to open the door on. I’ll talk to anyone about politics or whatever but my life’s my business. I suppose it’s the kind of thing where one day, maybe, but right now I’m an MP.
You only need to know what my political opinions are, you don’t need to know about my personal life. Asked about her decision to “come out”, she replied “I’ve never been in”.
Comment: But even allowing for the impact of stress which might be attributed to the foregoing, which incidentally can be applied to to all Scottish MPs, her attendance record at parliament is poor.
And her staff back in Glasgow are clearly also adversely affected by the stress their MP suffers from since she/they seem incapable of providing an acceptable level of services to her/their constituents.
Her/their letter response rates to constituent requests for assistance has been measured at just 27% in contrast her colleague Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) who achieved an 81% response rate, Ian Blackford 80%, Michael Weir 77%, and so on.
Attendance 2017- Mhairi Black 57.7% Ian Blackford 88.5% Kirsty Blackman 92.3% David Linden 91.0% Stewart McDonald 80.8% Joanna Cherry 89.7% Deidre Brock 85.9% Alan Brown 89.7%
18 Dec 2017: I need a life of my own
In an interview with the “Holyrood” magazine she said: “People need to recognise that I have a life of my own and I have responsibilities to the people in it.
They’ve looked after me and supported me because they recognise that I’m fighting a political battle that needs fought just now but no one has the energy to keep going forever.
I’m tired of sitting in constituency surgeries and despite what’s been said, I have been doing them from the very start having people coming to me with all these problems, and saying to me this is horrible, I can’t live, I can’t survive, it’s terrible, and I’m agreeing with them but when they ask me what I can do about it, I’m like, ‘well, we can raise it in parliament’.
I can press, I can twist arms but fundamentally, they [the UK Government] don’t need to give a thing.
21 Feb 2020: Black promotes the LBBTQ cause with a visit to a Primary School with drag act “Flowjob”
Flowjob was introduced to the children at Glencoats Primary in Paisley by Black, as “Flow” and read pupils a story in drag. After revelations in the press that Flojob’s social media profile contained sexually explicit material Education Secretary John Swinney said the “Flowjob” visit should not have happened.
Concerned parents and Renfrewshire Council apologised for the “concern the incident had caused”. Black took to social media later and accused concerned parents of “homophobia”.
25 Feb 2020: Black and an unfortunate incident at a Paisley primary school
What on earth is going on in my old home town of Paisley?
Mhairi Black, local MP and the SNP’s Scottish spokesperson at Westminster, is at the centre of an extraordinary row. She took a drag queen a character who travels under the name “Flowjob” apparently to read a story at a school in the town. Incredibly, the children were in Primary One, that is they are just starting out on the journey of life.
Those who have scrutinised Mr Flowjob’s online accounts tell me that they feature all manner of highly sexualised material. Saying that there is fury from parents and the wider community is putting it mildly. The Scottish media is reporting a tidal wave of outrage.
Black further inflamed the situation lashing out at critics, accusing them of homophobia.
The SNP’s top new spindoctor become embroiled after musing in a late-night tweet that he couldn’t see what the fuss is about when parents take their children to the pantomime featuring drag acts. Sometimes in Glasgow panto, I’m told, the Krankies are involved. Foote tweeted: “I could be wrong but do thousands of parents not voluntarily take their primary age kids along to see drag acts in pantomime every Christmas?” It turned out Foote could be wrong.
The following morning he clarified his position, stating: “In hindsight this tweet lacked the necessary qualification around some of the legitimate parental concerns about social media posts. I was attempting to make too broad a point.”
Attempting to make too broad a point. That’s one way of putting it. Recent convert to the cause of Scottish Independence and immediately appointed by Sturgeon, to the post of Party spin-doctor.
Foote, a former editor of The Daily Record, needs to watch out with the ever suspicious Nats. He is credited as one of the original authors of “The Vow” – the devolutionist pledge promising Scotland more powers to which Gordon Brown put his name in the final days of the 2014 referendum campaign when the Unionist side needed help.
The Vow was, it is said, literally drawn up on the back of a beermat by Foote and a Unionist associate. They then had it done up like a mock scroll and put on the front page of the tabloid Daily Record, to the fury of the Nats who saw it as a last minute attempt to hoodwink the voters.
This latest Paisley-rooted row follows the resignation of Gay MSP, Derek Mackay, over a sexting scandal. The disgraced Mackay used to run the local council and is MSP – still – for a seat which takes in part of Paisley.
What is happening to the place and its politicians? Paisley has actually been doing rather better with a long-running programme of regeneration. The SNP seems more interested in degeneration.
As a Paisley person, albeit one in exile, I am flabbergasted. One half of the town was until 2015 represented by the cerebral son of the manse Douglas Alexander for Labour. While I can imagine Douglas opting to take a Nobel Prize-winning economist in to tell Primary One pupils an improving story about income redistribution and regional policy, he would never for a second think it a remotely good idea to do what Black has done.
A seasoned observer of the Scottish scene says that Paisley’s other MSP George Adam, the straight-laced SNP chief whip (no jokes about whips here), will not like any of this either: “George is an old-fashioned guy who thinks the local electorate think the party should be getting on with the day job rather than the flowjob.”
But then perhaps some of the voters in my home town prefer the Black approach. Sufficient numbers of Paisley persons adore Black and they made her MP. The self-defined working class hero Black is actually from a nice part of Paisley, called Ralston, overlooking the golf course, incidentally. But this is rarely mentioned. (Iain Martin-reaction.life)
Flowjob
26 Feb 2022: Black under fire from feminist campaigners
Current 2004 GRA legislation requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria in order to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. Labour MP Angela Eagle submitted a motion calling for the current act to be scrapped in favour of a self-identification system.
Speaking in a Commons debate Black pointed out that one to two per cent of the world’s population are born with sex characteristics that don’t match the binary of male and female. She Added: “People often think that we have male and female but the truth is that one to two percent of the global population is born intersex which means they represent characteristics of both sexes. To put that in perspective, one to two per cent of the population are ginger.
Also in the debate SNP MP Joanna Cherry said clashes over trans rights have become so toxic that MPs are “afraid” to debate the issue. she said: “I have received death and rape threats for raising concerns about calls for people to be able to obtain legal recognition more easily if they want to change gender and I have been vilified for speaking out about the impact reforms could have.
But if we lose clarity over what the words male and female mean it will make it more difficult to set and enforce clear and simple rules for female-only services and women’s sport. And women should not be expected to share their intimate spaces, such as public toilets, with men”. She added: “MPs are afraid to engage in this debate because of the potential backlash from campaigners”
But “For Women Scotland” blasted Black’s comments as ignorant and offensive and in a follow up Twitter post they said: “She recycles old, misinformed nonsense about “intersex” being as prevalent as red-heads. And she is clearly unaware that most people with differences in sex development (DSDs) are unambiguously male or female.
Natalie Don is resident in Bridge of Weir. This event occured in the town in July 2010. Is this the same Robert Innes?
Resident of Bridge of Weir harassed at home by a group of yobs
Kenneth Horn of the Bridge of Weir snapped after months of harassment when yobs armed with weapons laid siege to his home. In the ensuing melee he was hit over the head with a baseball bat. Paisley Sheriff Court heard how Horn and his family had been forced to endure a relentless campaign of terror and torment. He had previously reported numerous incidents to police and was “at the end of his tether” when a group armed with weapons appeared outside his home in Bridge of Weir’s Mimosa Road at 3.50am on March 28.
Horn left his home at around 0400 hours to confront his attackers. Innes was present at the disturbance, claiming his intention was to take on a self-appointed role as “peacemaker”.
But 22-year-old Innes ended up in a face-to-face confrontation with Horn, who had been knocked to the ground earlier in the disturbance but had recovered and was seen brandishing a small knife. Innes closed on Horn, who, defensively, prodded him on the left side of his chest with the knife, then escaped from the confrontation.
An ambulance was summoned. Innes was taken to Paisley’s Royal Alexandra Hospital with a one-centimetre puncture wound. The injury was dressed but did not require further treatment.
Horn’s lawyer told Sheriff Susan Sinclair that he hoped to put the episode in perspective and revealed that his client’s house had been
“laid siege to and there had been numerous reports to the police of harassment and efforts were being made to have his family re-housed when the flashpoint occurred. He was acting under extreme provocation where armed youths had been hammering at his door and sincerely believed that his life was in danger that night and that Innes was part of the attacking group.”
The lawyer further stressed that Horn had not gone out into the street armed but had been hit with the knife in question and had then been struck on the head with a baseball bat. The knife ended up on the ground after it had been discarded by one of the attackers, and he had retrieved it.
Horn was found guilty of assault and locked up for eight months after stabbing one of his tormentors.
From Innes Twitter posts:
On education: I didn’t get any standard grades at school (an ‘affluent’ school). I worked in retail and call centres for years after school and gained some great experiences. Decided to go back to college and then uni and graduated at the age of 28. Schools not for everybody.
As a youth I joined the army at 16. I personally hated it and left. It’s not for everyone and other guys I was in with loved it. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone. This talk of forcing national service on young people should be nipped in the bud now.
Comment: His linkedin profile only states he attended college. No mention of any qualification.Even providing that he did gain a qualification of sorts it is difficult to accept he would be experienced enough politically to provide advice and assistance to Mhari Black the holder of a distinction in politics from a grade 1 universsity.
On illegal drug taking:
17 Jun 2019: RossThomson tweeted: I’ve visited a drug consumption room to see it in operation for myself. Opening them in the UK will be the thin end of the wedge. We need to ensure people end their addiction not simply manage it. Consumption rooms won’t cut heroin abuse and deaths.
Innes commented: Meanwhile back in reality. Like many people I had a family member who used heroin outside of a DCR in front of me as a child. I have kept edgy in alleys and sat in drug dens while people o.d. These safe spaces would mean other youngsters wouldn’t have these kind of experiences.
On nepotism
Innes tweeted: You know you can be pro independence and also be against transphobia, homophobia, racism and bigotry while at the same time be against blatant careerism taking over your party. Comment: Ironic surely!!
Robert Innes worked as one of Mhari Black’s Research Assistants at Westminster since around the beginning of 2016.
He was elected as a councillor for Houston, Crosslee and Linwood. His campaign was heavily promoted on Twitter and other media, with Mhari Black and Natalie Don, the local MSP, gushing that he was a local stalwart and potentially a wonderful servant of the people. She didn’t mention that he was her live-in lover and father of her children
His promotion matrial stated he was employed at Westminster and resided in London, not Renfrewshire, from 2016, nearly 6 years.
Before his appointment, he was a student studying politics and psychology at the University of the West of Scotland between 2011 and 2016, meaning that he has never been in paid employment from the time of his birth until selected by Mhari Black and appointed by her to the post of Research Assistant at Westminster on a salary between £35 and £55 plus expenses.
His profile lists him as the father of two children. Nicola Sturgeon enjoyed an extensive photo opportunity with a child, Alisa Innes, and it is evident from the publicity that Sturgeon was promoting the Renfrew MSP candidacy of Natalie Don, who, the accompanying article said, was the child’s mother.
Robert Innes is Alisa’s father. The public needs to know since their combined financial income from the state, courtesy of the SNP, exceeds £130,000 per annum.
Innes has had his troubles
A Renfrewshire councillor, Robert Innes, who was the victim of a glassing attack when he was just 15 years old, called for greater support for people with facial scars.
Innes was a 15-year-old teenager when he was hit in the face with a pint glass after a disturbance inside a pub spilled out onto the street. The attack left him with 27 stitches across his face and the inside of his mouth.
The councillor for Houston, Crosslee and Linwood said that the permanent scarring he was left with has had a lasting impact on his daily life.
In a pub aged 15?
Don was mentored by Sturgeon and promoted to a ministerial post in which she failed to impress
Natalie Don (now Natalie Don-Innes), the SNP MSP and Scottish Government Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, faced scrutiny regarding her ministerial portfolio:
Handling of Child Protection Failings (2025): In January 2025, Don-Innes faced criticism from opposition MSPs for her response to a case where child sex abuse victims in Glasgow were “failed” by authorities. She was accused of only committing to a review that would take a year to report, rather than immediate actions, following the conviction of a grooming gang.
Refusal on Grooming Gang Probes (2025): She was confronted at Holyrood regarding the SNP’s record on child sexual exploitation and faced criticism for refusing to say whether there were ongoing grooming gang probes in Scotland during a period of heightened concern about the issue.
Husband’s Conduct Controversy (2025): Her husband, SNP Councillor Robert Innes, was urged to apologize after calling critics of trans policy in changing rooms “weirdo” in May 2025, following a council debate.
November 2017: 1315-1400: Lloyd, Somers, Hynd and a member of Evan’s office, attended a meeting to further discuss the content of Sturgeon’s” instruction and to establish and agree on clear lines of responsibility between Sturgeon and Evans.
A second purpose was to reword the second draft procedure, inserting changes designed to prevent Sturgeon from stopping Evans, who had a duty of care to civil servants, from investigating a sexual harassment complaint made by a civil servant against a minister if Evans judged there was something to investigate.
Additional input from Lloyd included the view that Sturgeon needed to be made aware of an investigation or allegation into a serving minister, before the event, to determine if, under the ministerial code, that minister could remain in post whilst an investigation was conducted.
Yet she later stipulated that on that date, she did not know of any of the allegations against Alex Salmond that were subsequently investigated under the new procedure.
24 November 2017: Lloyd’s input to the process was understated by Evans. They couldn’t fart without her permission!!!!
27 November 2017: Hynd to Richards. Have a looksee at the next draft procedure. All hands to the deck!!! Why so much urgency over one man??
29 November 2017: Russell wrote to Ms A, “as agreed, I sent your narrative on in confidence to Nicky (Richards) and Judith (Mackinnon). I have now been asked by Nicky and Judith if you would be prepared to speak to them following receipt of your narrative.
As part of this discussion, Nicky would like to share with you the developing policy for handling complaints against former and current ministers.
This would allow you to test whether this would have helped at the time and also to consider the next steps.
Later that day, Ms A agreed to do so but reiterated she wished to speak personally with Sturgeon.
29 November 2017: Richards met with Evans, who then went on to have a “summit meeting with Sturgeon, “to discuss the new harassment procedure against former ministers.”
Conclusion: Hynd inadvertently revealed that the new procedure was being put in place, targeting Alex Salmond, and those involved in its compilation were fully aware of it.
The dispute settled on a case that could allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for another independence referendum.
UK law officers argued that the constitution was reserved for Westminster.
The Scottish Government argued that the referendum would be “advisory” and have no legal effect on the union.
In seeking to refer the question of the Scottish Parliament’s competence to hold a referendum to the Supreme Court, the Scottish Government’s Lord Advocate advanced arguments both for and against.
But her unconvincing submission omitted the most powerful and most obvious arguments.
The SNP were forced to intervene and present the case for the SNP replacing Bain’s pathetic unionist-biased drivel with a proper brief.
Quoting a rule of the court, which states that “any official body or non-governmental organisation seeking to make submissions in the public interest” may apply to intervene the SNP, (not the Scottish Government)presented its case to the court through Claire Mitchell, KC, who argued that – as a public body – it would be “fair, just and reasonable” for the SNP to make arguments to the Court.
Her submission raised genuine, powerful and internationally accepted legal arguments which Bain had omitted, including the party’s past manifesto commitments, which were made before the elections that it won. It also argued that the right to self-determination was “fundamental and inalienable”.
“The right to self-determination emerges again in Bain’s conclusion. Here she makes her view crystal clear, that self-determination is part of the “political context” and not a legal matter, it has no legal effect.”
This explains why Bain nowhere mentions self-determination as a legal argument justifying Scotland’s right to hold a referendum.
An explanation: The Independence of a country is not a matter of domestic law it is a matter of international law. The right of the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence may not be restricted by UK domestic law or by purported limitations on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The legal position is set out very clearly here:
5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor State”s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.
5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State. Otherwise, the international legality of secession would be predetermined by the very system of internal law called into question by the circumstances in which the secession is occurring.
5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim independence within the predecessor State is not determined as a matter of international law. In most cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative institutions may legitimately act and seek to reflect the views of their constituents beyond the scope of already conferred power.
That is a commendably concise and accurate description of the legal position. Of major relevance, it is the legal opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, as submitted to the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case. The International Court of Justice endorsed this view, so it is both established law and follows from the stated legal opinion of the British Government that the Scottish Government has the right to declare Independence without the agreement or permission of London and completely irrespective of the London Supreme Court.
The SNP brief argued as Bain failed to argue, that:
“The right to self-determination is a fundamental and inalienable right, among the most fundamental of all rights.”
The SNP brief used many of the same sources in its argument – the UN judgement, the UK submission to the International Court of Justice on Kosovo, and the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec – that Craig used in his article and has been using to argue the case for the last ten years.
The SNP brief and Claire Mitchell KC did not use the same arguments and even the same sources that Craig used because they were following him, or because he is especially brilliant. The fact is that any experienced diplomat and any public international lawyer would be expected to know exactly the law, arguments and cases which apply.
What Claire Mitchell KC produced for the SNP is precisely what any decent lawyer or any good diplomat would produce to support the case for Scotland’s self-determination.
So why did the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, fail to produce it? Well, there are several possibilities. Dorothy Bain could be a truly, spectacularly, ignorant, stupid and incompetent lawyer. Or, she could have been cleverly and deliberately failing the Scottish Government on whose behalf she was supposed to be acting, which would be an act of dreadful professional wrongdoing. Or she could have been asked by Sturgeon to present a case to the Supreme Court that was sure to fail.
Questions arise. Namely:
The Lord Advocate is a ministerial position in Scotland, making it a political appointment. Why did Nicola Sturgeon appoint the unionist supporting Dorothy Bain to the position?
At the time of her appointment last year, it was already known that the certification of the Referendum Bill as legal would be a crucial task for the new Lord Advocate.
Nicola Sturgeon’s failure to appoint a nationalist-leaning person provides evidence that she was much more interested in identity politics than in Independence.
Bain’s mission is to guide the justice system through the under-noted changes, all of which are the highest priority on Sturgeon’s agenda:
1) Abolition of jury trials in sex assault cases 2) Establishment of misogyny as a hate crime and prosecution of sexist speech as a criminal offence 3) Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 4) Abolition of “Not proven” verdict and conforming the Scottish system to the English model 5) Continued clampdown prosecutions on “extremist” independence supporters and republicans, using a breach of the peace, harassment, threatening communication, contempt, etc
No mention of a referendum
The second question is how it happened that the SNP (not the government) came to decide to put in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to try to make up for Bain’s glaring omissions.
There were reasons to be a little hopeful. Some worms seemed to be finally turning. Senior lawyers in the SNP were outraged at Bain’s fake attempt, and there was a near-open revolt among some Westminster MPs. At least 20 were outraged.
It is possibly not chance that the only senior SNP figure who put out the SNP’s, (not the government’s brief to the public was Joanna Cherry. It is still her pinned tweet.
The revolt caused angst in Casa Murrell. For once Sturgeon was forced to give some ground.
The compromise agreed upon was that Sturgeon accepted that the SNP could submit a brief arguing for the universal right of self-determination, but she only agreed on the condition that it was made explicit that the SNP was not arguing that Scotland could secede without Westminster’s permission. The SNP brief therefore, contained this disclaimer:
2.3. The Intervener emphasises that it is not advocating for a direct exercise or implementation of the right to self-determination in these proceedings.
Notes the “emphasises”. This is daft because it contradicts the entire meaning of the Kosovo and Chagos judgments which it goes on to quote. Nicola Sturgeon’s position remained however that Scotland could only become independent with Westminster’s agreement.
Sturgeon’s representative on earth is her election agent, constituency minder and long-term confidante Mhairi Hunter who recently spelt the position out very clearly indeed:
This gives an absolute and unequivocal veto to Westminster on Scottish independence and revealed Sturgeon’s “plebiscitary election” to be a total fraud.
It explained why Bain submitted her reference to the Supreme Court, dismissing Scotland’s international right to self-determination as of no legal force, and why the SNP brief undermined all the sources it quoted by stating it was not making a case for the right to implement self-determination.
The British Establishment will never willingly surrender Scotland’s massive resources. The leaders and Members of the SNP Government who believe Westminster has a veto are against Independence, whatever lies they spout.
caltonjock 