plausible-paranoia-how-westminster-hoodwinked-the-scots-in-1707-and-2014-and-their-preparedness-to-do-so-again-part-9-The UK Parliament is sovereign, the Scottish Parliament is not.



Image result for scottish referendum



March 2015: Disinformation distribution continues

In a blatant misuse of taxpayers money a Con/Dem government leaflet promoting the “vow”, (production and distribution cost estimated at £3 million) was sent to every one of the 2.5 million households across Scotland promoting changes to be implemented over the next 2 years.

The 8-page “Scotland’s Changing” leaflet contained details of new powers together with the benefits people in Scotland retained as part of the UK.

Let’s have a closer look at the content of the leaflet:

Statement: “the “Vow” issued from Westminster a few days before the referendum promised, “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament to be “delivered by the process and to a timetable agreed” by the THREE Westminster parties.”


There is no mention, in the leaflet of Scots being consulted on the timetable for change or what will happen in the event Westminster MP’s return a “no” vote on the proposed new powers.

Therein lies the problem for Scotland post the 2015 General Election, the “no” vote removed all pressure from Westminster.

Scotland gave the Unionist parties, (Labour Tories and Liberals) the freedom to do as they wish with Scotland and they set about doing just that, with zeal.


Image result for scottish referendum



Westminster Statement

“Scots have chosen to remain citizens of the UK with its strong defences and global influence. The forces provide added security for families in Scotland in an uncertain world.”


UK defences are a joke since they have been dismantled beyond the point of safety in favour of retaining/replacing the Trident Nuclear missile system.

Conventional armed forces are in a perilous state having been reduced to unsafe levels, (with more cuts planned).

The navy is ill equipped and the surface fleet almost non-existent.

Fighter aircraft are in many cases incapable of completing operations.

An independent Scotland would have no desire to exert any global influence, except in the areas of trade.


“The UK’s large and diversified economy will continue to shield Scotland from sudden shocks like the recent fall in oil prices, or the need to rescue banks during the financial crisis.”


The UK’s large and diversified economy is a misnomer since it is carrying nearly £2trillion of debt, of which £1trillion has been added in the last 5 years of the Con/Dem government.

The remaining debt was incurred through the incompetence of the previous Labour government applying correcting measures bailing out banks caught up in the, “housing Bubble” fiasco of which Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown had 3 years advance notice and did nothing.

There are no “Scottish” banks since they all operate out of London. The reference to financial crisis and bank rescue is a red herring.

It is entirely possible, regardless of the outcome of the 2015 general election that any or all of the present party leaders might not be around, replaced with new leaders, who could be of a mind to abolish many of the powers presently devolved turning the Scottish parliament into a “talking shop” with very limited responsibility.

Scot’s should remember that Westminster is sovereign and can do as it pleases. What it gives it can take away.

Its called the “naughty step” punishment and  contributes to many Scots  suffering from the “Stockholm Syndrome”

Politicians are unable to pledge anything to the electorate until such time as they have a mandate to govern.

Anything pledged before the 2015 General Election is “tripe” and a clumsy attempt at sleight of hand tactics by the (three amigos) Unionist parties.

Incurring a spend of £3 million on political propaganda is a gross misuse of the nations finance but this is presented by Con/Dem politicians as the acceptable face of Unionism.

They underestimate Scot’s who are able to spot liars.


Image result for scottish referendum



The 2015 General Election, the “Vow” and matters arising.

Reflecting on the stance of the Unionist parties in Westminster at the start of the referendum discussions. With under 3 weeks before the start of the General Election “Purdah” period which curtails the activities of political parties. It will not be possible to get any of the proposed new powers, which will require a significant number of new Bills, to the statute stage.

Few MPs want extra powers for the Scottish Parliament, (including many Scottish Labour MP’s). They will rebel and vote against proposals for change submitted to the Commons. There will be a significant number of government defeats at the hands of rebels and whilst it might be possible to get proposed legislation through the Commons, (if all parties crack a 3 line whip) But they then go to the House of Lords and delays of up to a year that will bring to the process. So, no change this side of the General Election.


Related image


May 2015 – Tomkins embraces the Tories

Tomkins, who negotiated for the Tories alongside the new Tory peer, Annabel Goldie, on the cross-party Smith Commission, has been invited to advise David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland on constitutional matters.

He will provide advice on a range of constitutional matters, with a primary focus on the passage of the Scotland Bill through Parliament and the delivery of new powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Tomkins said: “It is a great privilege to have been asked to support the Secretary of State for Scotland through this crucial period for Scotland.

I look forward to working with the minister and his wider team to provide support for the Scotland Bill process.”

Mundell said: “he brings unparalleled expertise and depth of knowledge to further support the Scotland Office.

His advice and insight will be invaluable as we deliver new powers for the Scottish Parliament.”


Image result for scottish referendum



May 2015 – Study by Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law says UK has reached a constitutional crossroads

A report co-authored by Adam Tomkins recommended there should be English votes for English laws saying:

“The piecemeal development of devolution means that the overall constitutional fabric of the UK has been weakened.  The process should start with a new charter of the union to provide the framework for a fair and durable settlement between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

The report also pointedly stated that any further transfer of powers to the Scottish parliament at Holyrood could endanger relationships, saying:

“The SNP’s preferred extreme form of devolution would seem not designed to preserve the union with the rest of the United Kingdom but to break it”.

Tomkins called for the abolition of the Barnett formula, because:

“it does not offer a fair solution across the UK.”

The SNP Justice and Home Affairs spokesman commented:

“Westminster needs to deliver the additional powers which Scotland has been promised – and the recent election result is a huge mandate for further powers beyond those recommended by the Smith Commission. In terms of a second independence referendum, that is a matter for future Holyrood elections, and whether or not there will be one is ultimately a matter for the people of Scotland.”


Image result for scottish independence



Jun 2015: The SNP landslide

The SNP entered the General Election pledging to hold the Unionist parties to account.

Nicola Sturgeon spelt out clearly what the SNP would pursue on behalf of the Scottish people.

SNP MPs would seek to have the spirit of the Smith Commission honoured.

With even more austerity to be imposed by the Unionist Westminster government on an already suffering Scotland, the SNP would seek to obtain powers contained in the “vow”,  but subsequently removed after pressure from the Tories and Labour.

During the election campaign, there was much debate surrounding the pledge.

Unionists appeared across the media warning Scottish voters that a vote for the SNP would mean a loss of £7.6 billion to Scotland.

The message from Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems was hammered home in phone-ins, debates, interviews and news bulletins.

Accept our solemn undertaking that we will implement the full content of the “vow”.

There was worse to come when Ultra-Unionist Tomkins appeared on the Sunday Politics Show providing his views on the SNP’s proposals.

Tomkins’ Unionism is of the hard-line variety. The views he expressed on BBC Scotland were not surprising.

But why was he there at all? Tomkins is an advisor to Mundell, the sole Tory MP in Scotland.

Mundell is also the Secretary of State for Scotland. His mandate requires him to represent his local constituents , nothing more.

Tomkins doesn’t even have a mandate for anything. Yet here he was making pronouncements on how the UK Government would be responding to the SNP mandate.

During the interview, Tomkins stated that the SNP had not accepted the referendum result. Typical of BBC Scotland there was no challenge by lap-dog Brewer to the unsubstantiated assertion.

But the SNP seeking “full fiscal autonomy” (FFA) simply wished that the “Vow”  should be implemented in full.

The subsequent general election saw Scottish voters hand the SNP a whopping mandate. Scots gave the Unionist parties the shock of their lives.


Related image



Jun 2015: The 2015 General Election

Scottish voters would not be denied their say and public reaction towards the outcome of the referendum was clear and decisive six months after when, in the 2015 general election the Scottish National Party (SNP) won all but 3 of the 59 seats in Scotland in an unprecedented landslide.

The three seats which went to parties other than the SNP were held by very small majorities and local circumstances applied.

In winning by such a margin the SNP became the first political party in the UK, in sixty years to win 50% of the Scottish vote.

The mandate given to the SNP confirmed a majority of Scot’s wished to be independent and had the leaders of the Party the courage they would have advised Westminster that Scotland would be withdrawing from the 1707, Treaty of Union, quoting the political circumstances that had resulted in its signature, that a small majority of officers of parliament in Scotland had voted in 1707 in favour of the treaty.

This being a settled precedence the ruling would apply since the Scottish political system had returned a majority of MP’s in favour of abandoning the Treaty

But the SNP government decided to abide by the rules set out by Westminster and went off to England, bagpipes playing, photo opportunities galore and committed political “hari Kari” on national television.


Image result for scottish referendum



Jun 2015:  Tomkins tells Scots – You’ve never had it so good

He said:

“The Smith Commission promised and the new Scotland Bill delivers.

The First Minister and her team will have all the powers they need to take action to reverse their effects or to point Scotland in a different direction.

Scottish ministers will have the power to top up any welfare benefit.

They will also have the power to create new welfare benefits and they will have the power to raise taxes in Scotland to pay for this additional public spending.

The SNP will be enabled to bring budget’s forward, increasing taxes, spending as lavishly as they want.

At last, Scots will find out if the Scottish governments commitment to social justice really is of a better standard than the rest of the UK.

Will Scots vote for higher taxes?  This is what real, adult politics is about – not the gesture politics of nationalism, but the tough, grown-up questions of what public services we want and how do we propose to pay for them.

No longer will Scottish politics be dominated by bleating about the powers it doesn’t have.

Instead, it will focus on the ways in which the SNP Government are making a mess of the powers they already have.

The new Scotland Bill is important because it means the SNP can no longer pretend that governing requires no more than finger-pointing and childish blame-game politics.

It’s time for Scotland to come of age, for the Nationalists’ bluff to be called and for home rule.”


Image result for scottish referendum



Jun 2015: Swinney rebuts Tomkins

He said:

“Delivering the Smith Commission recommendations was the minimum the UK Government had to deliver – and they have failed miserably.

Backed by all parties in the Scottish Parliament, the report proposed new, limited powers for Holyrood in areas such as welfare, employment support and income tax.

The Scotland Bill serves Scotland badly and falls well short of fully implementing the Smith proposals.

With our existing powers, we have demonstrated we can make a difference for hard-pressed families – through boosting childcare, freezing the council tax, encouraging more employers to pay the living wage and spending more than £100million a year just to mitigate UK welfare cuts.

With new powers, we can make even more of a difference by using additional economic and welfare policies to protect vulnerable households but also to create jobs, boost investment and grow the economy.

Yet the Scotland Bill badly lets Scotland down.

The Bill restricts who the Scottish Government would be able to pay certain benefits to. It fails to devolve the full range of employment support services currently delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions.

It contains no powers to create new benefits in devolved areas, if we wanted to, having considered how new welfare powers will complement existing devolved services.

It is missing or restricts powers in areas of consumer protection, energy and the Crown Estate.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, the proposed Bill gives Westminster a veto over key policies.

That means myself or my Scottish Cabinet colleagues would still have to seek the explicit approval of the relevant Secretary of State before implementing new policies – such as scrapping the bedroom tax.

By any definition, that isn’t devolution and that is why the Scotland Bill must be improved, if it is to have any credibility, it must be changed to implement the Smith Commission recommendations in full.

Doing so should not be seen as some kind of concession from David Cameron’s Government.

It would only be delivering what they have already signed up to and already promised the people of Scotland.

This week, the Scotland Bill will be debated at Westminster – and the real work begins to get it into shape.

If the Westminster parties are not prepared to honour the promises they made to people of Scotland in the days before the referendum, then SNP MPs will seek to amend the Bill to do just that.

We want to remove the UK Government’s veto over key decisions, give the Scottish Parliament an explicit power to create new benefits in devolved areas and ensure that the Scottish Parliament cannot be abolished without the consent of the Scottish people.

These basic changes to the Bill will give future Scottish governments the freedom to exercise new powers without interference.

But going forward, we regard what is currently being proposed as the floor – not the ceiling.

That’s why we’ll also put forward proposals shortly for more powers to be devolved through the Scotland Bill including employment policy, the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes, national insurance and equality policy – the powers we need to create jobs, grow revenues and lift people out of poverty.”


Related image



Jun 2015: Swinney calls for devolved full fiscal autonomy

The Deputy First Minister called for extra powers to give Holyrood:

“the levers to grow our economy and tackle inequality.

The Scottish Government believes we should move towards full fiscal autonomy as the best route to fulfill Scotland’s potential.

In the meantime, we are prioritizing the transfer of additional powers to incentivize key sectors, raise productivity and attract investment.

Powers over the minimum wage, employment policy and benefits would allow us to build a coherent approach to training, education and support for people out of work or experiencing in-work poverty.”


Related image



Jun 2015: Tomkins rejects SNP call for full fiscal autonomy

The UK Government rejected the SNP’s call for full fiscal autonomy.

Whilst accepting the controversial UK policy was a shambolic mess Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, said ministers would not accept an SNP amendment on the issue when the Scotland Bill is debated in the House of Commons.

Tomkins, adviser to Mundell, stated that allowing fiscal autonomy would effectively reverse the result of the independence referendum.

“full fiscal autonomy isn’t devolution max, it is independence light,” he said.

Tomkins then told the BBC’s Sunday Politics programme it would be irresponsible of the Westminster government to “devolve the national minimum wage, or employers’ national insurance contributions or corporation tax”.  Saying: “the Smith Commission did not reject them because of unionist intransigence, it did so because they significantly undercut the reason why we have the Union.”


Related image



Jun 2015: The BBC is a major problem for Scotland

Only days before the independence referendum senior BBC Scotland news presenters openly assisted the “Better Together” campaign rabbiting on endlessly, telling Scots viewers that Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA) was on offer (the pledge) in the event of a “No” vote.

This turned out to be utter garbage, not one of the three London based Unionist parties had any intention of handing over Devo Max or anything like it.


Image result for scottish referendum



Jun 2015: JK Rowling in Twitter row

Humbled by the general election result – the English-born author, who lives in Edinburgh – spoke out about the abuse she had received after Labour’s crushing defeat.

She claimed she was being described as “Blairite scum”,  a traitor to Scotland and urged to leave the country.

She also said that she had SNP friends for whom it was “all about self-determination” and she respected their view, and said she hoped the overwhelming majority of the SNP were not anti-English.

Independence supporters told her to “grow up” and claimed they were tired of her using her influence to “mislead the public”.

An SNP spokesman said:

” the party counts  many thousands of English people resident in Scotland in its rapidly increasing membership which is indicative of membership support for the SNP policy that it will tolerate no personal abuse of any kind on any side of the debate.”


Related image



August 2015 – Joining us now is North Britain’s most impartial Tory.

Trotting out Tomkins “whit aboot the constitution?” Tomkins the tory as an “impartial expert” when he was confirmed as a special adviser to Mundell confirmed the duplicity of the Tory Party.

On his conversion to “toryness” he related a story which in summary was:

“I offered my services to all the unionist parties, and it was the Tories who wanted me unconditionally, so clearly their instincts are correct.”

He is planning to stand as a Tory candidate in next years Scottish election with his only chance of success being to find favour with Ruth Davidson and get onto the “list” as a high priority.


Related image



2016: The Westminster Debacle – 2015 – 2017

To say Scottish MP’s were mocked would be an understatement.

The corrupt Westminster system brutally ridiculed then destroyed them.

At every turn the English dominated House of Commons imposed its will over the Scottish opposition.

The one single claim to fame by the SNP at Westminster in 2016 was the acceptance of a one day motion removing VAT from ladies sanitary towels.


Related image



2016: Scottish Parliament Election – 2016

The failure of the SNP at Westminster influenced the outcome of the 2016 Scottish Parliament election in which the party in which the SNP won a third term in government but failed to secure an overall majority.

In the election the Scottish Labour Party vote collapsed, to the benefit of the Scottish Conservative Party which increased their number of MSPs, overtaking Labour as the largest opposition party.


Image result for scottish referendum




2016: The Brexit Referendum – 2016

Just one month later, yet again, the Scottish public confirmed their wish to be independent of Westminster when at the 2016 EU referendum they voted 62.0% to remain with the EU.

But, as was the case many times before Scotland’s wishes were consumed by English voters and their decision to leave the EU.

Intention to withdraw from the Treaty of European Union was notified to the EU in March 2017.


Related image



2017 General Election – 2017

From the beginning of 2017, facing growing opposition to Brexit, the Tory Government decided to “cut and run” and called a snap General Election on 7 May 2017.

The expectation, if polls were to be believed, guaranteed the Tory Party a working majority at Westminster.

But, from an opening 20-point lead, the Tory’s lead diminished in the final weeks of the campaign.

In a result that stunned Westminster, the Tory party enjoyed a net loss of 13 seats, while Labour made a net gain of 30 seats.

Other parties performed badly as England returned to the much discredited “ping-pong” two party voting patterns of the past.

In Scotland, the election resulted in the SNP remaining the largest party, retaining 35 of the 56 seats It had won two years before.

The Scottish Tory Party won 13 seats while Labour and the Liberal Democrats took 7 and 4 seats respectively.

The result provided ammunition for the opposition parties which they duly used in a sustained “fear” campaign against the SNP, orchestrated by the Red Tory Alliance claiming Scot’s had lost their appetite for independence.

The SNP hierarchy responded by abandoning a fundraiser for a possible referendum sometime after the conclusion of the 2 year Brexit negotiation period at the end of March 2019.


Related image



2017 Scottish Independence Referendum – Post Brexit – 2019

Looking forward to the post Brexit period it is entirely possible that Scottish politicians will seek to hold another referendum on Scotland’s independence.

It is imperative that lessons are learned from the much discredited 2014 referendum and events since and changes applied.

Postal voting to be permitted but only if secured by a “failsafe” system.

The usual caveats would be applicable in the case of service personnel.

Voting by proxy to be permitted but birth certificates or other form of acceptable proof of identity to be produced by a named proxy at the time of placing a vote.

Adoption of the foregoing as policy would provide an opportunity for Scot’s and only Scot’s to express their wish for the future of their country.


Image result for scottish law



Jan 2014: Richard Keen QC appointed Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party.

A delighted Ruth Davidson said the appointment of one of Scotland’s highest earners, Richard Keen showed that the Scottish Conservatives were committed to recruiting the brightest and the best people in Scotland, adding:

“As one of the UK’s leading legal brains, he brings a wealth of external experience to the party, and I am looking forward to working closely with him as we lead the team at a critical time in the politics of our country.”

Keen added:

“As we face the potential break-up of Britain, there are many in Scotland who will be reminded of the values of our party and its role in maintaining what is so much more than just the political union of the UK.”


Related image



May 2015: Just over a year later Tory supporter Richard Keen is appointed Advocate general-the most powerful legal position in Scotland

Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act requires that the Advocate General be provided with notice of all ‘devolution issues’ raised before courts or tribunals in Scotland.

Devolution issues include challenges to the legislative competence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament and to whether a member of the Scottish government has complied with the EU Convention on Human Rights or EU Community law.

The Advocate General may choose, intervene, on behalf of the UK government, in proceedings in which devolution issues have been raised if he so decides.

The Office of the Advocate General considers all Scottish Parliament Bills as they progress, in consultation with interested UK government departments, to assess their legislative competency.

Under section 33 of the Scotland Act, the Advocate General has the power to refer Scottish Parliament Bills to the Supreme Court for decisions on their legislative competence.

Their man at the very centre of any anyting to do with devolution or independence


Image result for scottish law



Jul 2016: And only a year Richard Keen is appointed to be the spokesman for Ministry of Justice business in the House of Lords.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesperson for the Lords is responsible for all departmental business in the Lords.

He also advises the Secretary of State for Justice on the following policy areas:

1. Civil justice (including discount rate and whiplash)

2. legal services

3. Global Britain

4. Relationship with the legal profession

5. Claims management regulation

6. Crown dependencies

Couldn’t get any worse for Scots. It’s called “tying up the loose ends.”


Image result for scottish law




Dec 2016: Bella Caledonia reported on Richard Keen’s performance, presenting Westminster’s Brexit case before the Supreme Court

“Watching the Tory government’s lead advocate for Scotland, Lord Keen, in his performance in the Brexit case before the Supreme Court, was to see the Scottish Unionist establishment in its fullest pomp.

But also, it seems to me, in its self-subverting arrogance too.

In order to do the Tory Brexiteers bidding, Keen ripped to pieces the rags of the “respect” agenda towards the Scottish parliament – by making brutally clear that Westminster command will always take ultimate precedence over any determinations coming from Holyrood.

There are signs that the Supreme Court has seen this.

When Keen noted that the Sewel Convention, requiring that Holyrood gives legislative consent to any changes in its constitution, was merely a “self-denying ordinance,” Lord Sumption pointedly asked how it could be merely so, if it was written into the law of the Scotland Act?

Added comments:

1. “The preening and word-splitting thereafter from Keen could only have been improved on with a full periwig from 1707.”

2. “During his long submission to the UK Supreme Court, the former chairman of the Scottish Conservatives and now Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Richard Sanderson Keen, Baron Keen of Elie, showed the court Westminster’s teeth with his snarled version of the truth in his statement:

“The UK Parliament is sovereign, the Scottish Parliament is not.” Heed and learn Scots!!!


Image result for scottish law



The brutal subjugation of Scots after Culloden is remembered with deep bitterness by many who hold dear to the memories of the many thousands of heroes who sacrificed their freedom in the cause of independence






After Culloden

The Angus Jacobite’s who rose up in 1745 were led by twenty year old Lord David Ogilvy, whose force of around 600 men came from his father’s estates.

His father and Sir David Kinloch later managed to raise another 400 men from Angus and the Mearns.

Following the disaster of the Battle of Culloden, Ogilvy captured a ship in the River Tay off Broughty Ferry and managed to escape to Norway.

He was eventually pardoned and returned to Scotland in 1778.

His sword, still preserved in the family castle at Cortachy, is inscribed with this legend: ‘The man who feels no delight in a gallant steed, a bright sword, and a fair ladye, has not in his breast the heart of a soldier.’

Those Jacobite rebels who were lucky enough to escape the carnage at Culloden were hounded by the Kirk.

The Westminster government’s list of rebels from the districts of Brechin, Arbroath and Montrose came to 338 men.

When the Duke of Cumberland arrived in Montrose, in February 1746, he issued an order demanding that all rebels ‘lurking in the Country’ should deliver themselves to a magistrate or a minister, ‘and submit entirely to His Majesties Mercy’.

He also threatened to have certain townsfolk whipped at the Cross because they had allowed their children to light bonfires to celebrate the birthday of the Pretender.

Some bold Jacobite ladies on that occasion had donned white dresses adorned wit white roses and marched through the streets.

The questions put to suspected rebels by the kirk sessions within the Presbytery of Forfar were as follows:

1. Was you in ye Rebellion by bearing arms in the service of the Pretender?

2. Do you contribue men or moe to ye rebels, and in what inducement?

3. Did you in your conversation or talking with your neighbours say anything to encourage ye Rebellion, or against His Majesty and ye great establishment?

4. Did you attend a non-juring meeting-house during ye time of ye Rebellion?

Among the 72 Brechiners to be interrogated was one Peter Logie, a crippled tailor from Tigerton of Balnamoon, who fought at Preston, Falkirk and Culloden.

When he was asked about what position he had held in the Jacobite army he glanced at his club foot and replied, ‘I had the honour to be his royal highness’s dancing master.’ He was subsequently freed.

Peter Logie’s laird was mentioned in the lists compiled by the Montrose excise: James Carnegie of Findourie, Brechin, acted as Lord Lieutenant Deput of the County of Angus, appointed Governors of towns and factors upon the forfeited estates…[he] raised himself men and money out of these estates.

Carnegie, better known from his official estate of Balnamoon (Bonnymun), collected the cess – or land tax – on behalf of the exiled Stuart ‘king’.

Balnamoon arrived home from Culloden the day after Peter Logie.

The redcoats were extremely anxious to discover this important outlaw, so he went into hiding in the wilds of Glen Mark and Glen Esk.

His principal hiding place and refuge was Balnamoon’s Cave, near the foot of Cannaud Hill. (Those searching for the cave can find it about a mile and a half beyond the Queen’s Well, 75 feet above the river bank.)

Although the kirk elders of Lochlee parish smugly reported that their parishoners ‘ had behaved themselves very well during the unnatural rebellion’, most people here were still sympathetic to the Jacobite cause and did not reveal Balnamoon’s bolt hole.

The glens filled up with government troops looking for the laird.

A large reward was offered for Carnegie’s capture, but he was secretly welcomed at many upland farms.

One cold and miserable night he arrived at James Mill’s home at Auchronie and was well settled by the hearth when a group of soldiers arrived.

While they were asking Mill if he had any knowledge of the fugitive, the man himself was too terrified to move.

Fortunately he was disguised as a hind (farm labourer), so he did not immediately attract the search party’s attention.

The farmer declared that he had not caught sight of Balnamoon for a considerable time.

Then he gruffly ordered his ‘servant’ to go and attend to the cattle in the byre.

Balnamoon hurried out and ran the four miles back to his cave.

He was later betrayed by a Presbyterian minister and imprisoned in the Tower of London.

But his luck held good and he was freed because of a ‘misnomer’.

He returned to Balnamoon and often entertained James Mill when the farmer ventured south.




An occupation force comprising many thousands of soldiers was deployed to Scotland after Culloden .

Forts, barracks and roads were built over a period of 12 years enabling the imposition of brutal martial law, hunting down and jailing or transporting of anyone favouring the Jacobite  cause.

That is the truth of the “Treaty of Union” It is now and always has been a lie perpetuated by the Unionists
























misuse of voters personal data for political gain is unacceptable and should be criminalized to protect the outcome of elections




Latest Royal News | Emmas Diary



August 9 2018: Emma’s Diary Data Used to Get Mums in Labour

The “Diary”, a subsidiary of “Lifecycle Marketing”, is one of the UK’s leading baby clubs for mums-to-be, providing expert advice on every aspect of pregnancy and childcare.

It claims to be the best UK new born baby club for taking mothers through every stage of pregnancy, from pre-conception up to labour and beyond.

Its database contains personal details of many millions of women in the UK.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) recently fined the “Diary” £140k for illegally collecting and selling personal information to “Experian Marketing Services”, belonging to more than one million people.

Experian created a database, to be used used to profile the new mums in the run up to the 2017 General Election.

To achieve this the information was sold on to the Labour Party, who used it for political campaigning purposes sending targeted direct mail to mums advising them of party policy to protect “Sure Start Children’s Centres”.

A sure fire vote influencer!!!!

The ICO investigation also discovered that the “Diary” privacy policy failed to disclose in advance that personal information provided would be used for political marketing or by political parties, which is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

The Information Commissioner, said: “the democratic process must be transparent”.

The ICO has put the UK’s eleven main political parties on notice to have their data-sharing practices audited later this year, and that there are outstanding enquiries with a number of data brokers, including Experian.

The ICO judgement:

But there is more to the story

The “Diary”, is owned by Nick Wells, who has over twenty years experience in the direct mail industry and is a past “Chair of the Institute of Sales Promotion”, and has been a member of the board of Directors of the UK’s leading direct marketing trade body.

So you would think he would know the rules applicable to Data protection.


Whistl :: Whistl Open Scottish Super Depot




Whistl UK Ltd –  holds data on all 26 million UK households

In 2014, Nick and his, (Tnt Post Uk Ltd) team completed a management buyout and created a new company, “Whistl UK Ltd” after securing a £65million asset based lending facility from the Royal Bank of Scotland, enabling further investment across all of its business divisions.

Whistl is the largest postal operator in the UK, after the “Royal mail”.

Its business divisions include downstream access (DSA), doordrop media, international, packets and parcels and logistics.

It has expanded from a greenfield operation in 2004 to collecting, sorting and transporting nearly 4 billion items a year to 26 million UK residences.

It employs around 1,700 people.

A list of Nicks Companies:

Nicholas Mark Wells PARCELHUB LIMITED Director 2018-06-01 CURRENT 2010-03-12 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL FULFILMENT (FARNBOROUGH) LIMITED Director 2017-07-31 CURRENT 2003-08-20 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL FULFILMENT (RUSHDEN) LIMITED Director 2017-07-31 CURRENT 2004-02-27 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL FULFILMENT LTD Director 2017-07-31 CURRENT 2015-02-03 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells FAMILIES PRINT LIMITED Director 2017-06-20 CURRENT 2017-06-20 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED Director 2015-09-25 CURRENT 2015-09-16 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells NOMINEE 71 LIMITED Director 2015-09-25 CURRENT 2015-09-25 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells LIFECYCLE MARKETING (M & B) LIMITED Director 2012-04-06 CURRENT 1990-11-08 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL LONDON LIMITED Director 2008-02-05 CURRENT 2008-02-05 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL MIDLANDS LIMITED Director 2007-12-20 CURRENT 2007-12-20 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL SOUTH WEST LIMITED Director 2006-10-31 CURRENT 2006-10-31 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL NORTH LIMITED Director 2006-04-20 CURRENT 2006-02-08 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL GROUP LIMITED Director 2003-07-21 CURRENT 1974-03-12 Active
Nicholas Mark Wells WHISTL LIMITED Director 2003-07-21 CURRENT 2001-07-30 Active




But there is even more to digest: Many moons ago I exposed the illegal database sharing activities of the “Better Together” campaign team and “Experian”.

30 January 2011: Credit check giant “Experian” is accused of ‘ripping off’ its customers

Britain’s biggest credit reference agency has been accused of misleading customers who sign up for a supposedly free service to check their financial records.

Experian advertises the service on its website, stating: ‘Get your free Experian credit report.  The UK’s No1 credit report!’

Those who take up the offer are then required to provide a range of personal information, including their address and credit-card details.

But after receiving their online credit report, customers are automatically signed up to a full service charging them £14.99 a month – and many claim that it is extremely difficult to opt out of the payments.

The full service includes a £6.40 identity fraud insurance and email alerts telling customers about any changes in their financial circumstances.

One customer said: ‘I searched for hours on the Experian website to get out of paying any money.

I couldn’t even locate the free-phone number which they say you have to ring to unsubscribe.

Even when I said I didn’t want to pay I was offered another service costing £7.99 a month.’

Within hours of being approached “Experian” admitted that the wording on the website, saying that the customer had been charged immediately, was misleading and promised to remove it.

A spokesman said: “we re grateful for you drawing this to our attention and we will immediately update the website to stop the wording from appearing.” However, he denied that the system for opting out of Experian’s premium service was unfair, insisting that it was transparent to all users adding: “There is a balance to be struck here. We don’t want to be so helpful that we encourage people to leave our service. After all, you don’t go into a supermarket and see signs for how to get a refund.”

Experian has seen its profits soar as consumers use its online service to check their credit-worthiness during the economic downturn.

It has also seen rising numbers of users checking their profiles after having their debit or credit card cloned.

Credit reports are one of the main sources used by financial institutions when deciding whether to offer loans.

Experian, with twice as much credit report business as its nearest rival in the UK. recently reported that it’s profits increased from £297m in 2007 to £436m in 2010.(Daily Mail)




Better Together” gains unfettered access to Experian’s database

The credit-checking group “Experian” was contracted by “Better Together” to devise a new data management tool.

The company created a software package from it’s extensive database titled “Patriot” which stored all consumer data obtained from lenders and companies who voters had contracts with.

This allowed “Better Together” to identify lifestyle indicators, categorise voters and link them with activists of a similar age or with similar social media friends in order to improve voter targeting and canvassing.

The initiative is yet another damming example of the hard-hearted, ill advised “Better Together,” appointment of the US media company “Blue State Digital,” the agency that managed the successful first election campaign for US President Obama.

And he said the US would not get involved in the referendum campaign. Liar.

The drive, manipulating information on social media and UTube was launched with the purpose of recruiting volunteers who were then provided with the personal details of members of the electorate given the task of cold-calling canvassing their support.

The information gleaned was also stored in the campaign database and provided to the three parties involved with “Better Together.”

The initiative was a follow on from the controversial April 2013 “Better Together.” campaign which included the widespread unauthorised distribution of unsolicited text messages releasing people’s personal details and information.

A campaign which was successful recruiting over 3,500, “cold-call” volunteers.

Afternote: The Scottish electorate should be concerned:

“Anyone with a credit card, bank account, loan, mortgage, store card or monthly/quarterly mobile phone will most likely have an Experian profile.

The company conducts millions of credit checks each year on many hundreds of thousands of UK citizens.

The level of data they collect and hold is frankly staggering. Making matters worse, the information “Experian” retain is very often gathered without the knowledge of the subscriber.

Companies run credit checks on potential customers whenever a new application for credit is made, yet it is rarely explained what “doing a credit check” actually entails.

In fact, the consumer has little to no choice over which company actually undertakes the credit check. They are chosen by the bank, estate agent, mobile phone network or any other commercial organization.

Not engaging with a credit reference agency is almost impossible. It would entail not having a bank account, not having any direct debits, not having a credit card, not renting or owning a property. We have to, whether we like it or not, engage with these companies.

The consumer needs to be able to trust companies such as “Experian” that handle massive levels of personal data, more acute when we have little to no say over what data they hold.”


Wings Over Scotland | Better Together leaked posters #5



19 July 2014: Scottish independence: “Better Together” targets voter ‘Tribes’

The group campaigning for a “no” vote in Scotland’s independence referendum has said it is conducting the most sophisticated targeting of voters seen in British political history.

Pro-union “Better Together” has launched its new “Patriot” system which divides Scotland’s four million voters into 40 different tribes. This allows the campaign team to contact undecided voters, using letters, emails and face-to-face discussions.

The technology, said “Better Together,” had been developed, cost £500k, using information provided by the “Experian” credit rating agency.

Input from “Blue State Digital,” former media advisers to President Obama, now working for “Better Together” allowed the identification of lifestyle indicators, such as the number of cars a family had and local house prices.

Voters are then “linked” to activists of a similar age or with similar social media friends.

In a statement, “Better Together” campaign director Blair McDougall said: “We are on the doorsteps and high streets and also on peoples smartphones, tablets and PCs. This new tool greatly helps our campaign bring thousands of volunteers together with voters who will decide the outcome of the referendum.”

Estimates are that “Better Together” had 10,000 volunteers, many with useful IT experience, resident in universities, colleges in England, signed up before the start of the campaign.

Social media had an important role as an enabling factor assisting “Better Together” to effectively mobilize volunteers, disseminating information using the “Patriot” software. (BBC)


plausible-paranoia-how-westminster-hoodwinked-the-scots-in-1707-and-2014-and-their-preparedness-to-do-so-again-part-8- The Aftermath of the Referendum




Sep 2014: Tomkins and Goldie – Addressing the the Strathclyde proposals

A letter from Tomkins and Tory constitution spokeswoman Annabel Goldie MSP stated:

“We stand by the recommendations and analysis of the Strathclyde Commission.

We regard its recommendations as a starting point for further discussion – as a floor rather than a ceiling.

It remains our clear policy that the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for setting the rates and bands of personal income tax for Scottish taxpayers and that a share of VAT receipts should be assigned to the Scottish Parliament.

Any plans for further devolution which undermine the Union would run counter to the clearly expressed, settled and sovereign will of the Scottish people.

Further, a new constitutional settlement for the Union must accommodate not only the interests and aspirations of Scots, but also the legitimate interests and aspirations of our fellow citizens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It would be mistaken to imagine that further devolution for Scotland is of no consequence to the other nations of the United Kingdom.”



Sep 2014: Westminster Civil Service, “Devolved Countries Unit” (Dirty Tricks) campaign team wins “special” Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Sir Bob Kerslake and Sir Nicholas McPherson, the three amigo’s who ran the UK, collaborated and plotted against Scotland, marshalling the full might of the British State, attacking the Scottish government and supporters of the “Yes” campaign.

In the months after the referendum they publically expressed great satisfaction that their “Campaign of fear” had generated “fearties” in sufficient numbers so as to win the day for the Unionist coalition.

An award, in recognition of the civil servant’s outstanding achievement in making a difference on an issue of national significance, (the Referendum) was presented by the ”Cabinet Secretary and civil service head Sir Jeremy Heywood.

The proud team of strictly impartial, very senior civil servants commented afterwards;

* Paul Doyle;

“This award is for all the hard work that was done by all British government departments on the Scotland independence agenda. In all my experience of the civil service, I have never seen the civil service pull together in the way they did supporting the UK government, maintaining the United Kingdom.”

* William MacFarlane, Deputy Director at HM Treasury, (Budget and Tax Strategy);

“As civil servants you don’t get involved in politics. But for the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications.

I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognized [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”

* Shannon Cochrane;

“We’ve learned that it is possible for civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult, and you’re very close to crosssing the line of what is allowable, but it’s possible to find your way through and to make a difference.”

* Mario Pisani Deputy Director at HM Treasury, (Public Policy);

“We all had something in common, we were fighting to save the Union, and it came so close. We just kept the UK intact by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in.  After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award. As civil servants you don’t get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognized [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.” (civilserviceworld)


The outcome of the 2014 “Scottish Independence Referendum” confirmed that the Tory government utilised every weapon in its formidable arsenal of civil servants and other bodies of state in its determined action against Scots who simply wished to be free of the brutal Westminster control which has bound Scotland to England in an illegal “Treaty of union” for over 300 years.

Alert to the trickery and deviousness of the British State, Scots should ensure counter measures are in place before the next referendum preventing a similar outcome.



May 2014: The Electoral Commission (EC) for Scotland

A supposedly impartial organisation, the EC was formed in 2001, with a mandate that included, increasing public participation in democracy and regulating political donations.

This was strengthened adding security arrangements for postal voting and a number of investigatory responsibilities.

The guarantee of a strictly impartial Commissioner and support team is crucial to the success of the organisation and John McCormick, employed by the strictly unbiased BBC for 34 years, as Secretary then Controller of BBC Scotland, 1992-2004 was appointed to the post of Commissioner in 2008.

His good friend, John Boothman, Head of BBC Scotland News and Current Affairs, and a former apparatchik in Scottish Labour’s high command, and the Herald’s one-time business correspondent refused to appear before the Scottish Education and Culture Committee at Holyrood stating that the BBC Scotland was not accountable to the Scottish Government or any other regularity body.

They were subsequently ordered to appear by the Chairman of the BBC Trust and finally did so but stonewalled every question put to them.

Boothman (finally exposed as a bully) was later removed from his post as Head of News and Current Affairs after a protracted struggle with staff and trade unions and transferred his employment to the private sector.

But the failings of the EC were exposed following a number of Scottish elections in which there were tens of thousands of claims of electoral fraud, voters being turned away from polling stations and an insufficient number ballot forms.

The Glenrothes by-election of 2008 fiasco where the boxes containing the counted votes went missing, preventing a recount, where the by-election victor held his seat.

In the 2014 referendum Clackmannanshire voted “no” which was a body blow to the “yes” campaign since it had been accepted the electorate was pro- independence.

Its recently appointed Counting Officer and Council Chief Executive, Elaine McPherson, who surprisingly resides in Cheshire, England, is a former business partner of the master of shady deals, Sir Philip Green, the notorious British tycoon and die-hard Zionist-for-Empire-and-Austerity.

Mary Pitcaithly, Chief Counting Officer, of the independence referendum , is a qualified corporate lawyer and was second chair of the “Queen’s High Commissioner” Arbuthnot Commission which considered and recommended constituency controversial boundary changes and voting systems in Scotland.

She then joined the Tory/Labour coalition in 2012 and played a major role in the organisation of the anti SNP “spoiler” Unionist biased Bannockburn 700 celebrations.

In her referendum brief to the public she stated that there would be no national recount even if the result was close.

The referendum held in September 2014 wasn’t so much an electoral process as an unfettered festival of jiggery-pokery and gerrymandering Conspiracy!!!!!. It is most likely believable and true. This BBC (Alba) documentary amplifies the assertion:

Comment: Christian Wright – DYSTOPIA wrote:

“On 18th September 2014, for the first time in the long history of the world, a country committed national suicide in front of a live global audience. The voters of Scotland, a land with a thousand years provenance, and seven centuries a nation, declined to take responsibility for their own governance, and instead, entrusted it to a cabal of elitists from whom they can expect naught but sneering contempt.”



Oct 2014: As predicted by Yes voters the backsliding begins

The Smith Commission, boasted all of the talent of Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott, alongside the egregious Tomkins who managed to squeeze in the most contorted and bizarre nonsense about ‘ethnicity’ into his commentary.

His blog ‘Notes from North Britain’ railed against the idea that Scotland – with 1% of the population and 60% of the oil / 25% of the renewable resource – would be allowed to stay within the EU.

Tomkins, who nobody elected to sit on a commission to decide the constitutional future of Scotland,  wrote on May 26:  “I am of the view that political differences between Scotland and her southern neighbour are much exaggerated; that it suits those who seek the break-up of Britain to perpetuate such exaggeration; and that arguments seeking to set Scotland up as if it is some sort of northern cure for English diseases are both deluded and dangerous.”

But, as predicted, he proved to be wide of the mark after The Times reported:

“The results of academic research suggest that an in/out referendum on EU membership would generate a different result on either side of the border — which the first minister has said could trigger a fresh bid for Scottish independence. (bellacaledonia)




Nov 2014: The Smith Commission – Hokey cokey and a naked Tory…welcome to Scotland’s future.

So it didn’t go down to the wire. One negotiator at last week’s Smith Commission talks offered a wry smile: “The wire was eight o’clock, we walked out of the room at 10 to eight.”

But after weeks of bargaining behind closed doors and, frustratingly for the media, with barely a leak about what was going on, the story of what went on is beginning to be told.

The SNP were first to break the consensus with John Swinney criticising the package agreed very shortly after putting his name to it.

And that has brought forth a tide of niggles, nuggets and naked Annabel Goldie stories as each party jostled to claim credit for what was produced.

It’s worth looking first at whether the Smith Commission proposals are worth claiming credit for.

Hogging the headlines are the steps on income tax and welfare. Scotland will get the power to set income tax bands and will collect what’s raised in Scotland.

The power to set the tax-free allowance remains with Westminster, though Holyrood can vary it upwards by setting a 0% band which would have the same effect.

For all that it looks like a grand gesture handing Scotland control of income tax, there are sceptics.

Professor David Bell of Stirling University and part of the Centre for Constitutional Change explained:

“The most likely outcome is Scottish income tax rates will mirror those set at Westminster in the short-term and not move significantly away.”

He says a 1p increase in income tax would raise around £400 million.  In the grand scheme of things that won’t pay for a lot but it will lose a lot of voters.

Professor Bell added: “Politically, it’s become very difficult to change the rate of income tax. It has only reduced over many years. And you have to ask how different the Scottish electorate really is to the rest of the UK. The losers from any tax change make more fuss than the winners.”

However, Professor Bell believes the welfare changes are significant. And that part of the agreement was one of the most hotly-contested. The power to create new benefits has been dubbed the “hokey cokey clause” as it was often in the agreement and then back out again.




Nov 2014: Smith Commission-George  Osborne and Ian Duncan Smith dictate by proxy from London

Goldie and Tomkins infuriated their fellow commissioners by constantly shifting position, at the behest of Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne in Westminster. One opponent called them The Grand Old Duke and Duchess of York.

As negotiations became increasingly heated in the final days a break was called at one point in order to try and pin down the Conservative position on whether all elements of the new Universal Credit including unemployment benefits were up for discussion.

A so-called “coffee break compromise” was drawn up, only for the Conservatives to trash it soon after on the orders of the two amigo’s at Westminster.  That then left them with no room for manoeuvre when it came to granting Scotland the power to create its own benefits.

The Westminster influencers finally baked off,  granting Holyrood the power to create a separate Scottish welfare system so long as it was able raise all of the money to pay for it.  A Unionist negotiator sneered. Nice one: “The nationalists hate the idea there’s a power but no money with it.”

Tory, Tomkins got up the nose of some negotiators with a many deriding him as a hot shot constitutional lawyer wholly devoid of practical politics. One person who was in the room said: “One of his contributions saw the whole room laughing. But we weren’t laughing with Adam.”




Nov 2014: No Country in History has ever rejected Independence – Until Scotland in 2014

The biggest study yet of how Scotland made its historic decision on 18 September 2014,  found that the votes of people born outside Scotland were crucial to the result.

Whilst 52.7 per cent of native-born Scots voted Yes, a massive 72.1 per cent of voters from England, Wales or Northern Ireland backed the Union.

There were more than 420,000 Britons from elsewhere in the UK living in Scotland when the last census was taken and if they cast their ballots in line with the findings of the Edinburgh University study, more than 300,000 of them will have voted No.

That’s a significant number in a contest that ended with 2,001,926 votes for No and 1,617,989 for Yes. Voters born outside the UK also rejected independence, with 57.1 per cent voting No.

SNP, MSP, Christian Allard, who was himself born in France, said:

“Scotland is the country of everyone who lives here, regardless of where they were born, and we take decisions on our future together. The diversity of Scotland’s population is a matter for celebration. While we were disappointed with the result of the referendum, this study shows that a clear legacy has been greater political involvement, particularly among young people. And that is something to be proud of.”

Political scientist Professor Ailsa Henderson, who wrote the study said it showed the influence of “Britishness” among voters born elsewhere in the UK in deciding the result.

She said: “Scottish-born people were more likely to vote Yes and those born outside Scotland were more likely to vote No. But the least sympathetic to Yes were the people born in the UK, but outside Scotland. We think they are more likely to feel British. They are more likely to feel a continued tie to the UK as a whole – because that’s where they are from.”

She added that it was different for voters who originally came from outside the UK. and explained: “They have made a conscious decision to move to the UK, and the part of the UK they have chosen to move to is Scotland.”

She continued, saying that the trend she found was similar to those seen in other independence votes in places such as Quebec in Canada.

The study, which recorded the attitudes of several thousand voters in a series of surveys, also confirmed that women and older people were more likely to vote No while men and the young were more in favour of Yes.

Researchers found that 56.6 per cent of women voted No while 53.2 per cent of men voted Yes.

he divide was even wider when it came to age. More than 62 per cent of voters aged 16 to 19 backed independence.

The Yes side also had a majority among voters aged 20 to 24, 25 to 29 and 30-39, while voters aged 40 to 49 were split almost exactly down the middle.

But 50 to 59-year-olds, 60 to 69-year-olds and voters aged 70 or older were all in the No camp, with the pro-Union majority getting bigger the older they were. Nearly two thirds of 70-something Scots voted No.

Wealth and social status also played their part in deciding how the nation voted. Yes had majorities among people who classed themselves as working class, people at the bottom of the earnings scale and people in rented social housing.

By contrast, the highest earners, home owners and people who described themselves as middle class were more likely to vote No.

Ailsa also found a “stark difference” between the voting patterns of protestants at Catholics, with Catholic voters far more likely to be Yes supporters.



Dec 2014: The 2014 Referendum

In the Scottish Independence referendum the voter list included anyone over the age of 16, entered on the current electoral roll, whose place of residence was in Scotland, regardless of nationality.

The usual caveats about Service personnel also applied.

Voter turnout was 84.59%. The result: Yes, 1,617,989, 44.70%. No, 2,001,926, 55.30%

There is an acceptance within Scotland that in the referendum a majority of the 240,000 EU and Non EU Immigrant voters and many voters of Scottish birth and residence had been persuaded to vote “No” frightened into submission by an incessant campaign of disinformation orchestrated by the UK Civil Service, Westminster politicians, the UK government and opposition Parties and their organs of abuse, the BBC and all other media outlets serving Scotland.

Indeed not long after the referendum Unionists “crowed from the rooftops” fighting each other for media space each claiming their disinformation output had been the most influential in gaining the “No” vote.

But the award should go to the Civil Service anti-independence team working out of Downing Street under the guidance of Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service.

790,000 postal voting forms were issued, completed and returned within the notified time period.

But the novel and as yet unproven voting procedure, heavily promoted by the governing authority, was sullied when, just after voting closed, Ruth Davidson, and other influential supporters of the “No” campaign boasted they had known well before 18 September 2014 that postal votes indicated a win for their campaign.

An incredible claim since the public had witnessed sealed postal votes being added to the other votes to be counted in at the counting stations.

There was a police investigation into the matter but the findings were never notified to the Scottish public who are still waiting for answers, with result many Scot’s believe the outcome of the referendum had been fixed in favour of the “No” campaign.

plausible-paranoia-how-westminster-hoodwinked-the-scots-in-1707-and-2014-and-their-preparedness-to-do-so-again-part-7-Conduct of the-Referendum



Scotland referendum: Live Report





May 2014: Tomkins – Reasons to be Cheerful

The mood music in much of the Scottish press is that it’s all doom and gloom for the “No” campaign, and that “momentum” is building in favour of a “Yes” vote in September.

Some of my Nationalist friends are making the basic political mistake of believing their own propaganda and are beginning to lose their heads.

One even wrote to me last weekend suggesting that it was time I self-administered some Hemlock.

Such a lovely thought, that even one’s friends wish upon their political opponents the curse of suicide.

Never has it been more important to remember that we Unionists will win this referendum campaign by being the reasonable ones.

Let the petty Nationalists trade in poison. The one thing we won’t do is to win the argument by descending to their gutter level.


EU referendum: Could a Brexit vote lead to a second ...



Jun 2014 Not getting involved Obama gets involved

Speaking alongside David Cameron, Obama publically stated that the interest of the US in the Scottish independence referendum was to ensure it retained a “strong, robust, united and effective partner”.

But the decision was “up to the people of Scotland”.

Obama was asked what the decisions on Scottish independence meant to him and the American people.

He replied: “There is a referendum process in place and it is up to the people of Scotland.

But the United Kingdom has been an extraordinary partner to us. From the outside at least, it looks like things have worked pretty well.

And we obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner.”

Lord Malloch-Brown, former deputy secretary-general of the United Nations expressed “surprise” at Obama’s comments.

Once a foreign office minister in Gordon Brown’s Labour government, he said the US would be wise to keep out of the Scottish independence debate claiming: “foreign, unsolicited advice is only going to anger Scots. I’m surprised that Cameron has got him involved. I don’t think it will be very helpful for anybody.”


Independent Scotland? Both Sides Make Their Cases Before ...



Jun 2014: Tomkins – An independent Scotland has no claim to a share of the UK’s assets

Tomkins, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland. Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.

He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.

First Minister Alex Salmond claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.

Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state.

Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas. International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).

The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”  The UK Government backed the claims, saying: “A vote to leave the UK is a vote to leave its institutions.”

But a Scottish Government spokesman said: “Scottish taxpayers have contributed to funding all the assets owned by the UK state over many years. It is only fair and reasonable that Scotland should receive a fair share of the value of these assets on independence.”


Tomkins quoted: “International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).”

But if the UK splits into its constituent parts then Scotland and England are the result (as the UK is a treaty joining the countries), no treaty, no UK . No Continuator State.

At the ending of the treaty England and Scotland, the new countries would be entitled to a fair share of the former UK’s assets.

If Westminster persisted on insisting Scotland had been extinguished when the UK was formed (but England was not), then how could Scotland continue to have its own laws, courts, borders etc?  In fact how can there be a border if Scotland is no more?

Will the EU recognize the former UK government as representing the English? They are neither elected nor recognized as such. Or will the non-existent Scotland walk away from any residual debt held by the Bank of England as they are fully entitled to do?


Scottish independence live: Scotland gives a clear 'No' in ...



Jul 2014: Tomkins-I am being forced to choose … would I want to stay in an independent Scotland as a No voter?

It is not difficult to tell which side Adam Tomkins is taking in the independence debate. The professor of public law at Glasgow University is sporting a wristband from the pro-union campaign “Vote No Borders”, while his office in the university’s law school is adorned with a “No thanks” postcard and large Team GB union flag.

On his website he describes himself as one of the leading constitutional law scholars in the UK and he’s certainly one of the leading voices arguing the union’s case on the internet.

He does so under his own name on Twitter and in various blogs, and he is the force behind “Notes From North Britain,” the website which bears the tagline: “Confessions of a Justified Unionist”.

That said, the pro-union space on the internet is not exactly crowded. There are no pro-union campaigns on the web to rival those of independence supporters such as “Wings over Scotland.”

Tomkins had 3385 followers on Twitter. “Wings Over Scotland” had 15,200, and fellow independence supporter “Bella Caledonia” had 16,300.

Tomkins says he could have decided not to take part in the referendum debate, a decision he describes as perfectly valid.

Instead, he declared as a “No” voter early on in the debate as he did not want to “just be an observer”.

“I decided I cared so much about this particular issue I was not going to approach it from the position of independent neutrality,” he explains.

“Although I hope I have been objective, fair and accurate in my assessment of the legal issues. “I am not a partisan, in the sense I don’t toe anybody’s line.”

Tomkins has been involved in various aspects of the independence debate, including advising the Tory Government on legal issues surrounding independence as part of an informal group of lawyers put together by Advocate General Jim Wallace.

He was one of two supposedly independent advisers to the Strathclyde Commission – the Conservative review of how Scottish devolution should work – and has written a series of blogs for “Vote No Borders” tackling topics such as such as the legal and political “realities” of what independence would mean.

But his views on the issue have a personal basis. Tomkins was born in England and spent the first 33 years of his life south of the Border, before moving to Scotland in 2003.

”I am English and British, but I live in Scotland,” he said. “My wife is Jewish and American, but lives in Britain as she would see it. My kids have dual US and UK nationality and they are Jewish: so multiple identities feel natural and normal.

“For me, that is what the independence referendum is all about – it is forcing me to choose, would I want to stay in an independent Scotland as a no supporter? I really don’t want to have to choose between staying in an independent Scotland and returning to the much diminished rump of the UK.”  Why would he say that? An admission England would be poorer without Scotland.

His best result for Scotland? A win for the “No” campaign – an outcome he argues would trigger much-needed discussion where devolution should go.

He says devolving income tax to the Scottish Parliament would transform politics in the country by triggering a “grown-up” argument about tax and spend.

He would like to see unionists and nationalists work together to develop devolution further, arguing there has been a “silo” approach to constitutional politics for too long.

“The independence referendum has been divisive – it is necessarily divisive because it is a very emotive issue and because it is a binary question of yes or no – so it is necessarily polarising.

Once we have moved on from that polarising nature of the referendum, we need to move on to something we have never had – an all-party conversation about where we take Scotland’s constitution next.”


Scottish referendum: Queen urges referendum 'respect ...




Aug 2014 – Tomkins – My Country is Britain

“For me Scottish independence means putting an international border across my country. My country is Britain.’ And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the definitive statement of Unionism in this whole campaign.

It comes, not from a BNP online nutter, but from one of the most esteemed Unionist commentators in the debate, the Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University, Adam Tomkins.

Tomkins was hailed as the best brain on the subject when he opined against Holyrood having the powers to stage a referendum. He was chosen as the key adviser on the constitution by Ruth Davidson when she set up her devolution commission.

He is adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

He is commentator of choice for the BBC on legal issues surrounding independence.

He is the definitive Unionist, happily domiciled in Scotland and totally committed to the retention of the United Kingdom.

He makes his declaration at the very top not of a pro Union production but in the intro to Scotland Yet, a documentary on the referendum story from the “Yes” perspective featuring many faces from the campaign.




Aug 2014:William Hague – Scotland is not a Country

Prior to the 1997 referendum William Hague said the official position of a UK government was to retain a right to reverse any or all aspects of power that might be devolved to a Scottish parliament.

The Scottish nation should heed the warnings of history.

A, “no” vote in the forthcoming referendum will send a resounding message to Westminster that Scotland wished to embrace all “National” aspects of UK government policy.

This will lead to a creeping reverse of, “devolution” in respect of a number of powers at odds with and giving difficulty to a Westminster government. As a start health, social, transport, agriculture, fisheries and the environment services are at risk of being taken back to Westminster control.

This will result in the re-introduction of prescription charges.

Extortionate car parking charges would be re-introduced at hospitals. Major restructuring, (privatisation) of health services will ensue so that there is a truly UK national approach to the delivery of health services.

Pensioners will be very badly affected being obliged to sell off their homes to meet the cost of care in the community since existing policies are not in compliance with Westminster.

University education will take a major financial hit, students will need to finance their attendance in further education.

There are many other aspects of Scottish life that will be adversely affected by the reversal of devolution but the Westminster government will simply refer moaners to the, “no” vote in the referendum.




Aug 2014: Crawford Beveridge, Chairman of Scotland’s Fiscal Commission and Council of Economic Advisers speaks out

Beveridge said Scotland could refuse to accept any UK debt and comfortably use sterling without a formal deal.

But Tomkins, a pro-UK constitutional lawyer and adviser to the Tories, said that Sterlingisation would raise significant problems for Scotland’s entry to the European Union, because currency stability is an essential requirement for new member states.

He said any doubts about Scotland’s long term currency and its failure to have its own central bank would raise significant questions about its ability to meet the EU’s legal tests for new member states.

“This doesn’t mean that an independent Scotland can’t become a member of the EU; it means that an independent Scotland’s negotiations would be more difficult,” Tomkins said.

He claimed that using sterling informally, a policy known as “sterlingisation”, would require Scotland to have its own financial authorities, use international banks to lend, and to have its own central bank rich enough to bail out Scottish financial institutions in an emergency.

Beveridge insisted that Scotland had several viable options for its currency, and could refuse to carry forward any of the Bank of England’s debt after independence, if UK ministers vetod a sterling pact after a yes vote.

He said the country could comfortably use sterling without a formal deal, or move to set up its own currency as an alternative after independence.

He added that if “politics trumped economics” and the UK rejected a formal sterling pact, an independent Scotland would have the right to pay much less of the UK’s historic debt – or none at all.

“There are many other viable options so I’m not that worried about currency, because every other country has one and we’re going to have one too,” Beveridge said, accusing UK ministers of “posturing” over a currency deal.

Fuelling the controversy that Scotland would favour using sterling without a currency union as an alternative “plan B”, Beveridge said sterlingisation could clearly work, as could a new Scottish currency.

Pressed during a question and answer session on why the Scottish Fiscal Commission said last year that sterlingisation was only a temporary, transitory option and not a permanent solution.

Beveridge agreed that was still the position. “It would be an unwanted transition issue,” he said. “It could last a short period or it could last a long period, I don’t have a specific number of years in my mind.




August 2014 – Tomkins – Scotland and the EU

I have no doubt that, were there to be a “Yes” vote in next month’s referendum, an independent Scotland would accede to membership of the EU.

But how this would be done, how quickly it could be done, and on what terms it should be done are three of the “known unknowns” of the independence debate.

To pretend otherwise – by insisting that there would be a straightforward, smooth and seamless transition – lacks all credibility. What is clear, however, is that were Scots to vote “Yes”, Scotland would not be a full member state of the European Union by the SNP’s projected independence day in March 2016.

An independent Scotland would start life outside the EU; even thereafter Scotland would enjoy EU membership on terms far less beneficial and generous than those enjoyed now by the Union.


Tomkins view of Scotland and the EU demeans his status as an expert in contitutional Law. The European view would take precedence.


Scottish referendum: Salmond to quit after Scots vote No ...




Aug 2014: French Minister for European Affairs destroys Tomkins the EU will back an independent Scotland for EU membership

The former Chief of Staff of the French Minister for European Affairs, argued that the independence of Scotland would not cause their immediate expulsion from the European Union

He said: “the most reasonable solution” would be to negotiate independence and the EU membership at the same time. This way implementation of EU Treaties would not be interrupted.

He argued that, according to European jurisdiction, the EU is also a union of citizens underlining that there are legal and political arguments to defend that an independent Scotland would not be expelled from the EU.

He also discussed the founding principles of the EU (such as freedom and democracy), the obligation to negotiate a Member State’s withdrawal from the EU and the “interior enlargement” concept.

In this study, the French expert in EU affairs analysed the succession of states and their effect on international treaties.

He assumed that the United Kingdom would be the “continuing state”, while Scotland would be the “successor state”.

However, the United Kingdom has not signed the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties.

He concluded that, while Scotland would have to be recognised by the United Nations, he believed that, regarding the EU, the issue had to be resolved following the EU’s own rules.

However, there are no precedents of such case within the EU, since the withdrawal of Greenland from the Union, which continued to be part of Denmark, is not applicable.

He highlighted that EU Treaties do not explicitly deal with the issue of secession within a Member State and the membership status of such part. Therefore, the matter is open to interpretation.

He admitted there are arguments to defend the necessity to reapply for membership but he also stated they weree neither “realistic” nor followed “common sense”.

He pointed out that “Brussels” is traditionally not in favour of “state implosions” and that the European Commission has publicly stated that “if a part of a territory of a Member State is no longer part of this State, the [EU] treaties would no longer be applicable”.

However, he stated: “this legal argument is not absolute, since there are other legal and political arguments to be taken into account.”

He cited the report drafted by David Edward, who used to be the British Judge within the Court of Justice of the European Union between 1992 and 2004.

Edward rejected Scotland’s automatic expulsion from the EU and advised a negotiated independence and EU membership at the same time.

The negotiations would be held between the referendum day and the day independence would be effective, having more than a year to amend EU Treaties accordingly. “A good will negotiation would be in everybody’s interest”

The French expert also firmly rejected the idea of placing Scotland in the accession queue. “Common sense prohibits assimilating Scotland to Moldavia, Montenegro or Turkey regarding their right to (re-)accessing the Union”.

He argued that is “not realistic” to imagine the return of border controls, the cancellation of EU fundamental rights for citizens or abandoning the Euro.

In this vein, he backed the concept of “interior enlargement”, although he acknowledged that this concept is not defined in the treaties.

However, this idea makes a clear distinction between states that are not part of the EU and therefore might not have their legislation in line with the EU and territories that are currently part of the Union, whose citizens are EU citizens and their laws follow European legislation.

In addition, he highlighted the legal argument resulting from article 50 of the EU Treaty, which deals with the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union.

The Treaties clearly say that the withdrawal is not automatic and has to be negotiated, specifically regarding the relationship of the State with the EU. Therefore, automatically excluding Scotland, without a negotiation, would be quite problematic regarding Article 50.

A third argument he presented, refers to “the founding principles of the Union: freedom, democracy, equality and rule of law”.

He emphasised that it would be “a paradox for the EU to deny the people of Scotland the right to self-determination or, to be more precise, by linking this right to the automatic expulsion from the Union, [which] decreases its effectiveness to zero”.

On top of this, he pointed out that by doing so, the EU would in fact be interfering with the Member States’ interior policy, something it wants to avoid.

In “vetoing” Scotland’s continuity within the EU, Brussels would completely interfere with the self-determination debate.

Finally, “the strongest argument” to support the continuity of Scotland within the EU is that referring to the link between the Union and its citizens.

The Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the EU is “a new” international law entity where “subjects are not only the States but also their people”.

This makes the EU a completely different international organisation, since there is a European citizenry.

In closing he pointed out that this dimension has been strengthened over time by numerous treaties and charters. “Even though the European citizenship is added to the national” one and “it does not replace it”.

The French expert argued that Scottish citizens could not have their EU rights taken away without seriously “harming” the case-law issued by the Court of Justice of  the European Union and therefore damaging the EU’s legal and democratic principles.


33 best images about YES! Artwork from the Scottish ...




Sep 2014: Scotland might vote no, but the key question is ‘what happens next?’

If there is a Yes vote in September, everything changes.

The shock to the rest of the UK will be profound and the asymmetries of the country will be even more pronounced: England would constitute 92 per cent of the rest of the UK instead of its current 85 per cent.

If there is a “No” vote this will mark Scots’ collective recommitment to the Union. But the Union would be foolish to react by breathing a sigh of relief and carrying on as if nothing had happened.

The United Kingdom needs a sustainable solution to its territorial constitution: one that works for each of the four nations comprising the state, and one that works for the centre, too.

At the moment we do not even have the institutional architecture through which such a solution may found.

We need to build it and we need to set it to work. It should aim at nothing less than a new Act of Union: a framework for the coming generations that will set the nations of the UK at ease with one another.

Something extraordinary is happening in Scotland, but it may yet be that its result will be extraordinary for the whole of the United Kingdom.




Sep 2014: Gordon Brown makes an appearance

Labour sources admitted David Cameron had “played a blinder” in his measured interventions.

But the campaign was faltering and the three Unionist parties, agreed to announce a timetable to further devolution in the final full week of campaigning.

It was late in the day, but if presented well it could look statesmanlike. And then the wobble:

On the evening of 6 September, the Sunday Times released details of its next day’s splash: a YouGov poll had given yes its first lead. “It was 48 hours of chaos,” admitted a senior Liberal Democrat adviser.

George Osborne, appearing on Sunday morning’s Andrew Marr show, gave the impression that a package of powers was soon to be announced, rather than a mere timetable.

Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael, speaking at lunchtime on the BBC, chuckled and looked evasive when asked what was coming down the line, “with a wire coming out of his head that gave him a Mickey Mouse ear”, said one Labour source.

Miliband sent more staff to Scotland get a grip of “Better Together” in the final stages then spoke with Cameron, in his Commons office, where they agreed to cancel prime minister’s questions to travel to Scotland.

And then Gordon Brown pounced. Handed free lengthy, BBC Scotland prime-time television slots and hand picked audiences he took it upon himself to announce that there would be home rule for Scotland.

Indeed he not only promised a timetable, but sketched one out. “It looked very much like an attempt to steal the glory. He completely jumped the gun,” said a Downing Street source.

Whether that was the former prime minister’s intention, or not, Cameron, Miliband and Nick Clegg could only endorse it, no doubt grimacing at the emotive and potentially problematic issue of what home rule meant for Scotland – and the rest of the UK.

Brown had certainly “hit the mark”, as he did again in another barnstorming speech before the referendum. In his mind he savedthe union in its darkest hour.


Here's How Scottish Independence Could Indirectly Lead To ...




September 2014 – Tomkins – A shattered union: the final days of the Scottish referendum campaign

“My view is that the Union can be saved once,” Tomkins, adviser to the No campaign, said. “If No win narrowly, the British state must reinvigorate itself – and that means more devolution.

If circumstances require a second referendum in a parliament or two’s time, (5-10 years) “Yes” will win by a country mile.”

Cameron’s greatest fear was that he would go down in history as the man who lost the Union.

However, the concessions he had to make to save it irritated many Tory back benchers.


Could Scotland Seek Independence Again if Britain Leaves ...




Sep 2014: What the Hell is the point of a referendum when the outcome is decided before the vote???

Willie Rennie’s health and wellbeing reached its lowest ebb on September 7, when a Sunday Times YouGov poll put “Yes” ahead for the first time, on 51 per cent – a month earlier “No” had been 22 points in front.

But Tory Leader Ruth Davidson arranged a Unionist party conference call later that afternoon in which Rennie and Labour’s Johann Lamont participated.

Davidson and Lamont were evidently in the information loop informing Rennie that “Better Together” would win 55/45.  How could they know that?? before the voting had started.

Bit weird that Rennie and the Lib/Dem Party were not kept informed by Labour and the Tories.


Is Scotland a Nation? Inform your opinion! – Red Youth



Sep 2014: Adam Tomkins – What Better Together learned too late

I suspect that when the history of the Scottish independence referendum campaign is written neither of the official “designated lead organisations” will come out of it shining.

“Yes” Scotland’s relationship with the Scottish National Party government in Edinburgh was too closeand their attempts to make the argument for “Yes” into a cross-party affair failed.

In the final weeks of the campaign, “Yes” Scotland disappeared from the airwaves almost entirely, as SNP minister after minister dominated the TV debates.

Patrick Harvie MSP,  co-convenor of the Scottish Greens was, more or less the only non-SNP Yesser on prominent display.

Away from the official “Yes” Scotland outfit, it is certainly true that the broader “Yes” movement has been cross-party, but that has had much more to do with the plethora of unofficial grass-roots groups (Women for Independence, National Collective, Common Weal, Bella Caledonia, etc) than it had to do with the “Yes” Scotland leader, Blair Jenkins, and his team on Hope Street.

Only 200 metres away, on another of the main arteries in Glasgow city centre, Sauchiehall Street, was the headquarters of “Better Together”. They had to bear a far greater load than their counterparts in Yes Scotland, for two reasons.

First, the government backing them was 400 miles away and led by English Tories.

And secondly, the “No” side of the argument never produced anything close to the range of the grass-roots groups that so galvanised, energised and, indeed, mobilised the campaign for independence.

Vote No Borders played its part, as did Working for Scotland and George Galloway’s “Just Say Naw” tour, but their contributions were neither designed nor able to match what was happening on the other side.

There are some things “Better Together” did brilliantly and some others where, as they say, lessons may be learned.

Let’s do the opposite of how the campaign was so often perceived, and start with the positives. First, it should never be overlooked just how unusual a beast in British politics was the “Better Together” campaign.

Even in this era of coalition government in London, can there have been co-operation in peacetime between Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats of the kind we have seen here?

Of course it was sometimes a bit rough. There were disagreements along the way. Yet these occurred as much within the parties as between them.

When it was stormy, the calm authority of Alistair Darling anchored the campaign. He may not be the most florid orator, but he had a steady determination and no little steel and, in private, he showed warmth and remarkable generosity.

There are few in the No camp more deserving of our admiration than he, whatever the result.

What Better Together did well was to identify the problems with the independence proposals that were put forward by the SNP.

Not that this was always very difficult. The No camp’s campaign was about: “What state do you want to live in?” It won that argument hands down.

We want to live in a state that keeps the Queen, that keeps the pound, that keeps the UK’s EU membership (opt-outs and all), that stays in Nato and that retains a social union across the whole of Britain.

But the “Yes” camp wasn’t too bothered if “Better Together” won all those arguments, because, it turned out, that was not the terrain on which it wanted to fight.

For the “Yes” camp, particularly in the closing weeks, the campaign question was something else entirely:  “What kind of Scotland do you want to build, and why do we need to vote “Yes” in order to build it?”

The nearer polling day drew close, the less the campaign became about statehood and the more it became about policy, from child poverty to social justice, from Gaza to Iraq, and from health service “privatisation” to the bedroom tax and welfare reform.

The idea of “Yes” became a rhetorical vessel into which you could pour all your hopes and aspirations, all your fears and frustrations.

What do you want? Vote Yes and you can have it. What’s wrong? Vote Yes and it will go away.

“Better Together” was slow to see that this was the ground that the “Yes” campaign found so fertile.

Only in the last few weeks of the campaign did it finally realise that it had to do more than explain what was wrong with the other side’s proposals, and that we needed to say something ourselves about the better Scotland we wanted to build, and why we needed to vote No in order to build it. (newstatesman)

Comment:  This letter was published one day before the referendum vote.





Sep 2014: The Quebec Tactic tricks gullible Scots

An English punter placed bet of £900K on No Vote and won £193k

He said he had studied the Quebec referendum in 1995, when the yes vote spiked sharply close to polling day. and decided the Scottish referendum was following the same cycle.

He admitted that the final polls showing a brief “yes” lead and then a very tight advantage to “no” had made him nervous.

But as in Quebec, the “no” campaign made a STRONG OFFER OF NEW POWERS at the final stage of the campaign, enough to cement their lead and too late to allow the “yes” campaign to respond.

Then the Unionists released “The kraken,” a Norse mythic god called Gordon Brown, who came with exactly the “political presence” the “no” campaign needed.

All of the new proposals were illegal since they were made well within the “purda” period but the Electoral Commission failed Scotland taking no action to declare the referendum null and void (Guardian)


Scottish Independence Issue Won't End With Referendum



Sep 2014: Britain is on borrowed time: the future of Scottish independence

Scotland voted No to independence.

In answer to the question, ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’, 1,617,989 voted Yes (44.7%) and 2,001,926 voted No (55.3%) in a massively impressive turnout of 84.6%: the highest ever anywhere in the UK in post-war times.

The result, and campaign, will be rightly mulled over and analysed for years, but in the fast moving aftermath it is important to lay down some thoughts and calm-headed thinking.

Scotland has changed and shifted in how it sees itself and its future, as a political community, society and nation. Crucially, how others in the rest of the UK and internationally see Scotland, has also dramatically and permanently moved.


Scottish referendum result: Gordon Brown's place in ...


plausible-paranoia-how-westminster-hoodwinked-the-scots-in-1707-and-2014-and-their-preparedness-to-do-so-again-part-6-The Secret Service Implements its Denial StrategyPlan






2012:  The Independence Referendum

The Scottish government’s offer to include, “Devo Max” in the questions, to be put to the Scottish electorate was firmly rejected.

It had to be “all or nothing.” and there was no intention on the part of any of the Unionist parties, to give Scotland any new powers.

What will be devolved will be “tiny titbits”, giving the appearance of power but without substance.





2012: The gathering at Abbotsford

The, “Yes” campaign faced the might of, The Abbotsford Team, backed by the entire UK political system, the civil service, media barons, commercial and financial institutions, The City of London, Heads of State and senior politicians of countries world wide and just about anyone or anything that David Cameron and Sir Jeremy Heywood could muster in their mission to deny Scotland it’s rightful place in the world as an independent country.

At the beginning of 2012,(at his house in Edinburgh) former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling, David McLetchie, late Scottish Tory Leader, David Cameron’s, Director of Political Strategy, Andrew Cooper, Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, Shadow Defence Secretary, Jim Murphy and special adviser to Alistair Carmichael, Euan Roddin: “That’s right the same person that “leaked” the infamous “Frenchgate” memo the week before the 2015 General Election,” met in secret to “prepare a battle plan” which when enacted would, “kill off, Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party once and for all time”,

Those in attendance readily agreed that the only way to defeat Alex Salmond was to put their party political differences aside and to join forces so that he would be faced with the full might of the, “Union”.  The, “Abbotsford Agreement” was born.

It was agreed the campaign would be coordinated through the Prime Ministers Office in London, but Mr Cameron would be kept clear of any overt campaign activities.

Darling, considered to be more than a match for Alex Salmond would front the tri-party campaign and it would be run by Scottish based politicians.

It was further agreed each political party would also be free to run their own pro-union campaign.

The meeting was then briefed that former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, had declined an invitation to join the, “Better Together” campaign.

He would restrict his role to the Labour Party’s own anti-independence campaign, being reluctant to share a platform with the Tories and Lib Dems.

JK Rowling, (author) had committed significant funds to Gordon Brown’s campaign.

Unlimited finance was available, £4 million plus including significant donations from Tory backers and senior financiers.





2012: Better Together Officers

Blair McDougall. Campaign Director. Went on to become Head of Policy and Strategy for the Labour Party in Scotland, (reporting to Jim Murphy). Jobless after the 2015 General Election debacle.

Treasurer-Peter Dunphy: Lib/Dem activist for over 20 years, served as a Councillor, Parliamentary Candidate and Chair of both the Parliamentary Candidates Association and the party youth section. A member of the National Secular Society and CEO of an international recruitment business.

Craig Harrow; Convener and Vice President of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Bags of lobbying experience. His P.R. company hit the headlines in Scotland when it emerged the Coalition government had handed a £30,000 contract to it for “communications support” on the referendum.

Nosheena Mobarik: Formerly, Chair of CBI Scotland, Director of Better Together. Co-founder of Glasgow software company M Computer Technologies stirred up a considerable hornets’ nest for the then Labour-controlled Scottish Government when she, along with others, publicly criticized its procurement processes in a speech at a Business in Parliament conference. Got her reward.  Elevated to the Lords as Baroness of Mearns in recognition of her efforts blocking independence.

Richard Baker: Labour member of the Scottish Parliament (List – MSP) for the North East Scotland region. Labour Party in Scotland losing candidate in the 2015 General Election. Unsuccessful bid for the vacant post of Deputy Leader of the labour party in Scotland.  An unmitigated disaster, his election to the post of deputy would have been a gift to the SNP but he left politics.

Jackie Baillie.  A Labour party in Scotland MSP from the date Parliament first convened in 1999. An opportunist who sits in the background until an opening provides her an opportunity to claim other peoples work as her own. Not a nice person.





2013: British Army Media and Psychops Elite Unit Formed

Headquartered near Newbury, in Berkshire. Numbers around 1,500 personnel (including regulars and reservists) recruited from military units across the army.

The force influences the narrative against a background of 24-hour news, smartphones and social media and has gained excellent working skills from expertise acquired by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) which is presently active on 30 internet platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Instagram.





2013: Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) – The Mission

It’s declared mission is to provide behavioral research and change programmes, strategic communication “data, analytics and strategy to governments, the UK armed forces and military organizations worldwide.

In 2005, the company, went public at the UK’s largest weapons conference, a showcase for military technology, with an impressive demonstration of how the UK government could use a sophisticated media campaign of mass deception.

A freedom of information request from August 2016, recorded that the MOD twice bought services from SCL in recent years. Namely:

1. In 2010/11, the MOD paid £40,000 to SCL for the “provision of external training.”

2. In 2014/2015, the MOD paid SCL £150,000 for the “procurement of a “target audience analysis.” The MOD refused to provide an explanation of the use of the large summ of money.

It was further confirmed that SCL had also been granted “Top secret” clearance as a “list X” contractor for the MOD which allowed the company commercial access to and use of highly classified UK government information.


2014: The only significant single political event requiring an expenditure of £150,000 with SCL by the MOD for the “procurement of a “target audience analysis,”  was the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum.

And, as evidenced by the dubious activities of the Civil Service in England (see below), it is entirely possible the newly formed British Army Media and Psychops Elite Unit made use of the comprehensive “target audience analysis” provided.





Jun 2013: Better Together” Gains Unfettered access to Experian’s Database

Experian is one of the largest data collection companies in the world, and provides credit worthiness reports for its subscribers.

Blue State Digital, a US data-mining agency that had worked for US President Obama on his successful election campaigns was asked by “Better Together” to devise an enhanced data management tool further developing its “Patriot” software which had contributed so much to Obama’a election.

Experian extracted extensive personal data of millions of Scots from its database and supplied it to Blue State Digital who then developed a data-mining software programme which they titled, “Mosaic” and sold it to the UK government supported “Better Together” campaign for use in the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. Cost £500,000.

“Mosaic” allowed “Better Together” to identify lifestyle indicators, categorize voters and link them with activists of a similar age or with similar social media friends in order to greatly enhance voter targeting and canvassing.

The data was used on, Facebook and UTube with the purpose of recruiting volunteers who were subsequently provided with the personal details of Scots and asked to cold-call them in order to canvass them for support. All information gleaned by the calls was then stored in the campaign database and transmitted to the three parties involved in Better Together.


The Scottish electorate should be concerned about the abuse of personal information by State supported bodies:

“Anyone with a credit card, bank account, loan, mortgage, store card or monthly/quarterly mobile phone will likely have an Experian profile.  The company conducts millions of credit checks each year on many hundreds of thousands of UK citizens.

The level of data they collect and hold is frankly staggering.  Making matters worse, the information Experian retain is very often gathered without our knowledge.

Companies run credit checks on potential customers whenever a new application for credit is made, yet it is rarely explained what “doing a credit check” actually entails. In fact, the consumer has little to no choice over which company actually undertakes the credit check. They are chosen by the bank, estate agent, mobile phone network or any other commercial organization.

Not engaging with a credit reference agency is almost impossible. It would entail not having a bank account, not having any direct debits, not having a credit card, not renting or owning a property. We have to, whether we like it or not, engage with these companies.

The consumer needs to be able to trust companies such as Experian that handle massive levels of personal data, more acute when we have little to no say over what data they hold.





Jul 2013: Scottish independence: “Better Together” Targets Voter ‘Tribes’

The group campaigning for a “no” vote in Scotland’s Independence Referendum has said it will embark on the most sophisticated targeting of voters seen in British political history.

Pro-union “Better Together” has launched its new “Mosaic” system.

It will divide Scotland’s four million voters into 40 different tribes.

This will then allow the campaign to speak directly to undecided voters using letters, emails and face-to-face discussions.

Better Together said the technology, developed with information purchased from credit rating agency Experian at a cost of £500,000 and further improved by additional input from political and strategy advisers of the successful President Obama campaign will allow it to identify lifestyle indicators such as, the number of cars a family owns and other personal information.

Voters will then be “linked” to activists of a similar age or with similar social media friends.





2014: Better Together Campaign Director Blair McDougall

“We have to make sure that we are on the doorsteps and high streets, but also that we are also on peoples’ smartphones, tablets and PCs.

This new tool will help bring our thousands of volunteers together with the key voters who will decide the outcome of the referendum.”

It is estimated “Better Together” had 10,000 volunteers signed up by the start of the campaign. IT expertise was utilized through the on-line presence of a significant number, including UK government staff based in England.

Social media (Facebook) played an important role in local campaigning especially as it enabled “Better Together” to more effectively mobilize more volunteers and disseminate information using the “Patriot” software.





2014: Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) – The Board

In a scandal that cuts to the heart of British society Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers, defense contractors, the Tory Party and the military establishment. Including:

Mark Turnbull:

Provides the “Atlantic Alliance” link. Spent 18 years at Bell Pottinger, heading up a Pentagon funded PR drive in occupied Iraq which included the production of fake al-Qaeda videos. He is the head of SCL Elections and Cambridge Analytica Political Global.

His profile at the University of Exeter Strategy and Security Institute boasts of his record in achieving “campaign success via measurable behavioural change” in “over 100 campaigns in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean”.

Nigel Oakes:

An old Etonian, he is the head of the group. According to the website “PowerBase” and has links to the British royal family. Rumoured to be an Mi5 spy. In 1992 he described his work in a trade journal as using the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. … “We appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level.”

Sir Geoffrey Pattie:

Former Tory MP and Defence Minister in Thatcher’s government. He is the President of SCL. He also co-founded “Terrington Management” which lists BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin amongst its clients.

Roger Gabb:

A former British special forces officer in Borneo and Kenya the wine millionaire is a company director. In 2006 he donated £500,000 to the Tory Party. He was fined by the Electoral Commission for failing to include his name on an advert in a number of local newspapers arguing for a Leave.EU vote in the Brexit referendum.

Julian Wheatland:

A venture capitalist, he is the company’s chairman. He is also the chairman of Oxfordshire Conservatives Association.

Jonathan Marland:

The former Conservative Party Treasurer, was a trade envoy under David Cameron, and a close friend of Tory election strategist Lynton Crosby.He provides financial support to the company

Vincent Tchenguiz:

A property tycoon and Conservative party donor he was also the single largest SCL shareholder for a decade.

Gavin McNicoll:

Director. Founded counter-terrorism “Eden Intelligence” a firm who, at the behest of the British government, ran a G8 Plus meeting on Financial Intelligence Cooperation

Sir James Allen Mitchell:

A retired board member, he is the former Prime Minister of the previous British colony St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He is also a privy counsellor on the Queen’s advisory board.

Rear Admiral John Tolhurst:

A former assistant director of naval warfare in the Ministry of Defence and aide de camp to the Queen.

Lord Ivar Mountbatten:

The Queen’s third cousin, was also named as a member of SCL’s advisory board but it’s unclear if he still holds that role.





2014: President Obama campaign contractors, awarded, “Better Together” exclusive media strategy contract.

Blue State Digital, a USA media strategy and technology company specializes in online fundraising, social networking and constituency development. The Company provided digital strategy and  technology services for the Obama presidential campaign.

Directed by co-founders, Joe Rospars and Jascha Franklin-Hodge. The mission statement of the Company states:

“Blue State Digital develops and executes multi-platform digital marketing and online engagement campaigns for non-profit and advocacy organizations, political candidates, causes, brands and businesses. Our work inspires and mobilizes people, increases revenue, and cements lasting support and loyalty.”

The UK Director of Blue state Digital is Falkirk born, Gregor Poynton, a former Labour party election strategy manager and Scottish Labour Party organiser. He is married to Labour MP, Gemma Doyle.


Gregor Poynton, UK political director of American firm Blue State Digital

Gregor Poynton


Jan 2014: Tory government protects the nation

Sir Jeremy Heywood, cabinet secretary to David Cameron also leads the UK’s civil service and wields immense power exercising it in defence of government and in furtherance of his own agenda.

Edward Snowden became disillusioned with President Obama’s NSA judging it’s policies to be counter productive, invasive and illegal. Having gathered sensitive information he disappeared, surfacing in HongKong from where he leaked copious amounts of information to “the Guardian” newspaper, who in turn released much of it to the UK public, revealing that the British spy agency (GCHQ) monitored, collected and stored vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook data, internet histories and calls, and shared it with the NSA.

Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, the UK’s senior civil servant went to the offices of the Guardian and explicitly warned the Guardian’s editor, to return the Snowden documents. He also told the editor to stop publishing articles based on leaked material from American’s National Security Agency and GCHQ.  he pointedly said: “We can do this nicely or we can go to law” adding: “A lot of people in government think you should be closed down.”

Some time later, acting on instuctions from David Cameron, Heywood, visited the Guardian offices again this time accompanied by secret service officers and ordered the destruction of all information, computers, hard drives and all other equipment used in the storage of information/data.

Footage was later released of Guardian editors destroying Snowden hard drives – GCHQ technicians watched as journalists took angle grinders and drills to computers. See video:





plausible-paranoia-how-westminster-hoodwinked-the-scots-in-1707-and-2014-and-their-preparedness-to-do-so-again-part-5-Davidson and Tomkins Surface



Fulton and Cameron  (Thatchers cronies)



Sep 2011: Davidson and Fraser Slugging match

The loss of Annabel Goldie, to the “House of Lords” created a leadership vacancy and the application of Murdo Fraser, supported by a majority of Scottish Tory Party members and officials and Ruth Davidson, the hopelessly inexperienced choice of David Cameron and Andrew Fulton.

Fraser, in his bid for the leadership of the party said that if elected, he would disband the party in favour of setting up a new centre-right party that would be fully autonomous of the UK Conservative Party, but it would take the Conservative whip at Westminster.

Fraser stated that this would be carried out in order to ‘de-toxify’ the party in Scotland, stating that it would have a distinct Scottish identity, represent Scottish values, support devolution and decentralisation, and fight to maintain Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom. He also suggested the name “Conservative and Unionist” should be ditched.

His proposals represented a major challenge to the “Union” and London based Tory leaders and the secret services decided it would have no truck with him and decided Davidson, whose supporters included Thatcher-era grandees such as Lord Forsyth, Lord Sanderson, and the party’s biggest Scottish donor, Sir Jack Harvie and Prime Minister David Cameron would win the leadership vote, no matter the cost. She duly won the day.

But many party members objected to the outcome of the contest and Davidson faced an inquiry after it was revealed that her campaign team had illegally used the private email addresses of party members.

A Tory councillor and dozens of Tory party activists complained to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that Davidson’s team had sent unsolicited material to their personal accounts.

If the allegations were confirmed this would be an illegal extraction and inappropriate use of data secured with Party membership records.

The Scottish Conservative Party is registered with the ICO as “data controllers”, and must keep their data secure and leadership candidates are not registered to view the data.

Under Tory leadership rules, candidates were allowed to send a single “election communication” to the party’s 8500 members.

But the Davidson campaign team sent regular emails over and above the permitted level blanketing members via a commercial marketing service called Mail-Chimp. One, sent September 12, only four days after her campaign launch, claimed there was “a real groundswell of opinion” behind her.  Another, sent a week before, highlighted her national tour of constituencies and a third said she had secured the 100 signatures needed to be a formal candidate. “I promise I won’t let you down,” she wrote.

A friend of the unnamed councillor who lodged the ICO complaint said: “He was concerned because there was not a level playing field for candidates. “Where did Ruth’s campaign team get his email address ? He has never ever met Davidson.”

Another Tory source said there were “widespread concerns” about her campaign and a third said several activists had complained to the party HQ in Edinburgh and received “incredibly defensive” responses.

A spokesman for the Scottish Tories confirmed a “query” had been received by Central Office about the issue of Davidson’s team and personal email, adding: “The member was told to complain to the relevant campaign team” Hows that for a brush off ???

The Assistant Commissioner for Scotland for the ICO, said: “All organisations that handle personal data, including political parties, have a legal obligation to keep it secure.

It is also important to understand that marketing emails require the consent of the recipient.

We have received a complaint about this matter and will now make enquiries.”

Nothing ever came of the complaints and the outcome of the ICO investigations was never published.

Michael Crow, Director of Strategy for the Scottish Tory Party, (later identified as the person that had recruited Davidson to the party) was accused of inappropriate behaviour by his attendance at clandestine strategy meetings in support of Davidson’s leadership challenge.

He was censured about his behaviour and lost his job with Tory Party in Scotland only to be hired shortly after, by David Cameronon on an increased £100k+ salary. Fingers up!! to the Scottish Tories!!


Adam Tomkins



2011: Tomkins and Israel

Tomkins married into an American Jewish family. His children are raised and schooled in the Jewish faith in Glasgow and he is very public about his support of the state of Israel.

In 2011, he won the Hebrew University’s Hailsham Scholarship for his work promoting links between the UK and Israel. In his acceptance speech he spoke of his desire to “strengthen ties between Glasgow Law School and legal scholars in Israel”.

In the period up to 2015 he actively developed a close working relationship with prominent Israeli’s culminating in a formal visit to the University by the Israeli Ambassador with the purpose of signing an concorde formally linking the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to Glasgow University.

The visit was disrupted by protests from pro-Palestine groups, including the Glasgow University Palestine society who called on the University not to allow the use of their platform to legitimise the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Protestors also claimed that the agreement would convince the Israeli Government to continue its illegal practices of occupation and the legal framework to deny Palestinian people’s rights to freedom and for return of their lands.

They further claimed the visit to be a propaganda drive by Israel to improve its image in Scotland assisted by the Conservative Friends of Israel. Favouring an aggessor over the oppressed…. et tu, Adam!!



2012 Scottish Independence Referendum early discussions – Tomkins shows his Colours

On the Good Morning Scotland, hosted by Derek Bateman, Tomkins claimed that the law was clear and insisted that the Scottish Parliament could not hold a referendum without Westminster permission.

Another guest, Aileen McHarg of Strathclyde University disagreed and said that the debate was a matter of interpretation and it was possible for the referendum to be held by Holyrood.

Tomkins, irked and angry that someone would dare challenge his understanding of the constitution argued back saying that: “the Scottish Parliament was created by the Scotland Act 1998, and the Scotland Act 1998 is the instrument which delivered devolution for Scotland, it created the Scottish parliament and it provided for the powers that the Scottish parliament has.”

He went on to say: “the Scottish Parliament’s legislative power is limited to that which was devolved to it and as the Constitution is a reserved matter, it has no power to hold a referendum on independence and any attempt to try to take on more powers would be in breach of law and would be liable to end up in court.”

Ms McHarg hit back pointing out that there was a difference between a consultative referendum, which was what the SNP were proposing and would have no power to bind the Westminster parliament and a legally binding referendum which would compel Westminster to act on the result.

Arguing that the Scottish Parliament had the power to hold the former, she said: “There is an argument that there is a difference.” and explained that if the Scottish Parliament legislated to hold a referendum then it had first to be determined what the purpose of the legislation was.

The academic explained that this was the key in determining legality.

The debate became heated as Mr Tomkins angrily tried to talk over McHarg and Derek Bateman asserted that he would conduct the interview and not Tomkins. An irritated Tomkins insisted that the proposed referendum was not about consulting the Scottish people calling it a “myth that’s got to be scotched”.

Tomkins claimed that referendums were formal decision making devices which were about making decisions and not about being consulted. “The Scottish parliament does not have the power to make decisions” he insisted.

However when pressed on whether the Scottish Parliament had the power to hold a consultative referendum, Tomkins conceded that such a power was within the Scottish government’s competence answering, “I didn’t say it couldn’t consult, I said it does not have the legislative power to pass an act providing for a referendum on Scottish independence.”

Tomkins behaviour exposed Westminster thinking when set against the behaviour of Labour MP Ian Davidson, who in an angry exchange with the BBC presenter Isabel Fraser made it clear the Unionist intention was for London to take control of the referendum and to apply conditions on the ballot that related to the timing and the question posed.

He further stated that anti-independence supporters believed a rushed referendum would ensure a win for the No campaign.

He said: “we want to have a speedy referendum… We want to have a referendum because we’re going to win quite frankly”.



Feb 2013 – Adam Tomkins in the Scotsman – An independent Scotland will fail

He wrote: “In contrast with the SNP’s deliberate obfuscation, we can be clear about what it would mean in legal terms for Scotland to leave the UK. The rest of the UK would continue and, legally, it would continue as the UK.

It would need a new name (the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and a new flag (there would be no blue on it anymore) but, in international law, it would be the continuing state.

Scotland, by contrast, would be a brand new state. The continuing UK would inherit all of the international legal obligations currently in place in respect of the UK, including its EU membership, its UN and NATO memberships, its seat at the Security Council, as well as treaty obligations under 14,000 different instruments of international law.




Mar 2013 – Adam Tomkins: A West Lothian Answer?

As the House of Lords Constitution Committee pointed out in a recent bill whilst the devolutionary principle of home rule is now accepted and embraced by all three of the UK’s main political parties, the consequences of devolution for Whitehall and Westminster continue to be unresolved.

For Government the key issues remaining open are:

1. The funding of devolution.

2. The future of the Barnett formula.

2. The West Lothian question.

In a recent speech Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Tories gave the Tory game away saying: “the much-derided and little understood Barnett formula is in its death throes as it stands”. The future is decided. But when??

Davidson and her Glasgow Unversity backers for the leadership


Sep 2013: Adam Tomkins in the Scotsman – backing the Union

Tomkins: “I regard my country as Britain. I feel neither English nor Scottish. I was born in England and I lived there for 33 years. I know I am in a minority but I don’t regard myself as English or Scottish.

If Scotland were no longer to be part of the rest of the UK I don’t know if I would feel comfortable staying. I totally buy the core message of the pro-UK campaign that Scotland gets the best of both worlds.”

Comment: Because the people of Scotland prefer to extend devolution to its optimum Tomkins thinks he may not wish to live here. Quite incredible.

He enjoys life in Scotland, it benefits him and his family, he believes that limited government has been successful…but feels that he might have to give this all up and all because Scots choose self determination?!

His “reasons” for voting against Scottish self-determination do not add up, indeed, they are clear examples of muddled thinking probably created by the anti independence alliance’s “Project Fear” and its constant dissembling and misinformation.



Sep 2013 – Tomkins in the Sun The rural lords own Scotland?

Tomkins predicted that a vote for independence could spark a bitter tug-of-war between Scotland and England over property rights since, under international law, all government buildings, institutions and organisations in Scotland could be up for grabs.




Jun 2014: Tories Experimented on the Scots

Secret files released under the 30 year rule confirmed that senior Tories plotted to “experiment” on Scotland by introducing the Poll Tax.

Oliver Letwin – who was then part of Margaret Thatcher’s Policy Unit – wrote a letter in which he suggested using Scotland as an “experiment”, to avoid accusations of “being rash” by proposing it for England and Wales at the same time.

The letter concludes “we therefore recommend that, if you are not willing to move to a pure residence charge in England and Wales immediately, you should introduce a mixture of taxes but should rather use the Scots as a trailblazer for the real thing.”

Meanwhile his colleague David Willetts – who was part of the same Policy Unit – wrote a memo stating “Scotland and Northern Ireland have their snouts well and truly in the public expenditure trough.

The challenge is to find a politically acceptable way of putting them on the same diet as the English.”


Cameron and (Dark money) Cook