Double Devolution – The Tory Plan For Scotland


David Mundell: Devolution in Scotland - the next great debate speech -  GOV.UK



10 Sep 2020: Reported in today’s “National” – Councillors in Shetland have passed a motion to explore options for “achieving political and financial self-determination”.

Leader of the council Steven Coutts proposed the motion, which was carried yesterday by 18 to 2 votes. The motion states there is concern that centralised decision-making “is seriously threatening the prosperity, and sustainability, of Shetland as a community”.

Unionist commentators and politicians leapt onto news of the motion, with Highlands and Islands Tory MSP Jamie Halcro Johnston saying it was “no wonder islanders have run out patience” with Holyrood.

He commented: “I believe it’s right that both of our governments work with the islands to help meet the aspirations and unique needs of their people. However, it is clear that the current arrangements, where so much power is centralised in Edinburgh and the needs of Shetland often ignored, is some distance from where Shetlanders want to be.”

Ahead of the 2014 independence referendum, there were reports the islands could become self-governing like the Isle of Man if the rest of Scotland voted Yes while they backed staying in the Union.

LibDem MP Alistair Carmichael said in that situation a “conversation about Shetland’s position and the options that might be open to it” could start.



The report might be dismissed as being not particularly interesting but taken with recent news about the intention of the UK Government it is entirely relevant in today’s politics in Scotland and possibly signals a start of a process bringing about the reduction of the devolved powers of the Scottish Government. And there is good reason to be concerned. I reviewed and compiled (see below) a record of political events, from 2014 to date, pertaining to the governance of the isles.


Scotland Bill: Alistair Carmichael takes on SNP as he demands devolution of  property | The Independent



The Three Islands Strategy

In the early months of the 2014 independence referendum campaign as the balance of probability switched from “no” to “yes” the Lib/Dems were forced to step away from their leading role in the mainland campaign by the other two Unionist Party’s.

The Lib/Dems retained their leadership role campaigning for a “no” vote in the Scottish Isles and formed three Unionist supporting campaign groups. “Our Islands Our Future”, “For Argyll” and “Wir Shetland”.

Tavish Scott, one-time leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland and then MSP for Orkney and Shetland, called on the islands to loosen their ties with Scotland. Saying he was in favour of the islands forming a crown dependency in their own right, with a similar status to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

The Unionist Party’s echoed and added support to Scott’s views and dropped a spoiler into the mix offering specific guarantees to the Islanders should they vote “no”.


A Time of Despair For Scots – Blessed With A Neutered Authority in Scotland  and Governed by a Bunch of Incompetent Tory Wide Boys In London – caltonjock



The New Deal for the Isles

the legislation would be put in place ensuring the account of island priorities. The UK Government in Scotland would appoint an islands representative dedicated to supporting the isles together with an oil and gas islands forum which would assist decision-making in the sector.

Renewable energy transmission links would be built linking the Isles to the mainland and island-specific challenges for transport, postal services, digital connectivity and fuel poverty would receive closer consideration, and measures would be taken to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Crown Estate, which manages Scotland’s seas and foreshore.

Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael said the proposals would “strengthen the voice of our islands at the heart of the UK government”. Adding: “It will mean their unique needs are considered across all UK government activity and legislation, tailoring our approach to ensure islands issues continue to get the attention they require. That is good news for the councils of the isles and will improve the economy, connectivity and lives of our people on our islands. It shows we are not only listening but acting – and in doing so we are strengthening the UK.”


The Case for the Scottish Parliament Learning Intentions By the end of this  set of lessons I will: Look at the structure of politics in the UK  Identify. - ppt download



The Future Governance of the Scottish Isles

Three weeks before the referendum the Unionists published their “Framework for the Islands” with the claim that it would embed the voice of the island at the heart of the UK Government reflecting the priorities of their communities more closely in decision making and policy.

It would provide the basis for joint working between the UK Government and Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles on a range of priorities and included a 10 point plan for the islands:

* Islands proofing: Including new arrangements to scrutinise UK Government policy and legislation to ensure they take account of islands priorities.

* Economic benefits: A new Islands Working Group supported by a dedicated position in the UK Government offices in Edinburgh with its agenda set by the islands, covering priorities like Islands Innovation Zones, construction costs and community benefit.

* A new Oil and Gas Islands forum: The UK Government will commit to working with the Islands Councils assisting strategic decision-making on future priorities for the oil and gas industry. This will allow the councils to work more closely with the UK Government and industry.

* Renewable energy: There will be a firm UK Government commitment to the “Renewable Energy Delivery Forum”, focussed on getting transmission links to the islands. The UK Government also shared the 3 Islands Councils’ ambitions for the deployment of renewable energy and for research and development activity, and we will ensure that obstacles to securing the necessary infrastructure are tackled effectively.

* The framework recognised the island groups faced particular challenges in the areas of transport, postal services, digital connectivity and fuel poverty. The UK Government will work with the councils on these areas.

* Transport: This includes seeking an extension to the Air Discount Scheme and a commitment to consider fiscal measures to support transport connectivity with the island groups.

* Postal services: The UK Government will work with retailers, consumer groups and enforcers to ensure parcel delivery charges to remote regions are fair and transparent, in line with the UK statement of principles for parcel deliveries.

* Connectivity: Digital connectivity is of great importance to local inhabitants and businesses on the islands and the UK Government will fund the “Mobile Infrastructure Project”, working to provide improved mobile coverage throughout the isles, aiming to address market failures in these areas. There will be a guarantee of parity in the minimum service level between the UK mainland and islands areas achieved by the delivery of superfast broadband to all premises in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles.

* Crown Estate: measures will be taken to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Crown Estate.

* There will be increased island representation on UK government bodies and a dedicated point of contact to offer advice and guidance to the islands.

Selling his vision of the future to the islanders, Carmichael said:

“Today’s announcement is a landmark for the relationship between the UK Government and OUR island communities in Scotland. It builds on a great deal of good work in the past and will strengthen the voice of our islands at the heart of the UK government. It will mean their unique needs are considered across all UK Government activity and legislation, tailoring our approach to ensure islands issues continue to get the attention they require. That is good news for the councils and for the whole of the UK and will improve the economy, connectivity and lives of people on our islands. It shows we are not only listening but acting and in doing so we are strengthening the Isles and their place in the UK. This is the start of the next part of our journey together, giving us a strong framework which will be reviewed and built on further in the future.


What I wrote in September 2014 – Scottish Parliament to be Emasculated –  Vote “No” and Powers Will Be Returned to Westminster Post Brexit – And  Another Independence Referendum Ruled Out. – caltonjock



The Smith Commission

The Leaders of Scotland’s three Islands Councils have welcomed the findings of the Smith Commission as a major landmark for the “Our Islands Our Future” campaign. The Commission was set up following the Referendum. Its recommendations formed the basis of legislation on more powers for Scotland and the 3 Isles. In his report, Lord Smith said:

“There is a strong desire to see the principle of devolution extended further, with the transfer of powers from Holyrood to local communities. The Scottish Government should work with the UK Parliament, civic Scotland and local authorities to set out ways in which local areas can benefit from the powers of the Scottish Parliament.”

A key aspiration of “Our Islands Our Future” is for the three Islands Councils to take over the Crown Estate’s current responsibility for the foreshore and seabed around their islands. And responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland – including the seabed and foreshore – should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament.

“Following this transfer, responsibility for the management of those assets will be further devolved to local authority areas such as Orkney, Shetland, Na h-Eilean Siar.”


Devolution in Scotland - ppt download



After the Referendum

Steeled the “No” vote majority and backed by the Unionist Government in Westminster the Scottish Secretary (Mundell) saw no reason to maintain a low key approach to implementation of his plans for the future governance of the isles and any masking of his activities was abandoned in the knowledge that the Westminster government had taken charge of the agenda to the exclusion of the Scottish Government.

Mundell attended a meeting with the “Islands Working Group” attended by each of the islands leaders and other persons closely involved in the campaign taking forward the commitments detailed in the Islands Framework and confirmed the UK Government’s unqualified commitment to the major decentralisation in decision making across Scotland. He said:

“I confirm my on-going commitment to the Islands framework, placing power in the hands of communities making sure opportunity and prosperity reach every part of the United Kingdom. It shows how the Western Isles coming together with Orkney and Shetland has created an example for other parts of Scotland to follow. I’m keen for the Islands Councils to play a full part in the on-going debate on how the substantial powers in the Scotland Bill are used to directly benefit island communities. Over the past few years there has been a process of centralisation from the Scottish Government but taking forward legislation such as the devolution of management over the Crown Estate, this is an imbalance that will be redressed.”

Commenting, Isles MP Angus MacNeil claimed that in endorsing more power to island communities, Mundell had performed a remarkable’ u-turn, saying:

“Hopefully Mr Mundell has become a belated convert to decentralisation. If he had listened when I put this forward at the last Scotland Bill in 2011 we would be a lot further forward. He opposed moves for decentralisation and resisted a push to devolve the Crown Estate to Scotland. His position on this issue has now changed due to the strength Scotland has with the SNP making Tory Westminster listen a little more. I hope Mundell will see for himself during his visit to the islands what real benefits could come from more decentralisation of powers from London and that he will, from now on, be supporting me in fighting to ensure the islands voice is heard at Westminster.”


Boris Johnson vows to keep the United Kingdom together on visit to Scotland  | UK | News |



Mundell and Double Devolution

Mundell called for a debate on what new powers Scottish local government should be given by Holyrood in order to take greater control over their own affairs, saying:

“The issue of devolution to local communities is now an urgent one for Scotland. There is a revolution going on in local government across the rest of the United Kingdom, with local areas regaining power and responsibility at an unprecedented rate. Scotland cannot afford to be left behind as the rest of the UK revolutionises how it governs itself, giving towns, cities and counties more of the autonomy which our international competitors enjoy. It’s time we had a proper debate about devolution within Scotland. Councils need to make their voices heard on what powers and responsibilities they want to have to shape their futures. Devolution is not worthy of the name if it stops at the gates of Holyrood. It has been argued by some that the UK Government should legislate to devolve these and other things directly to Scotland’s local authorities: so-called ‘double devolution’. That is the right intention, but the wrong approach. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are responsible for local government in Scotland and it is their responsibility to drive that devolution onwards.”

Mundell’s views not supported by this UK Government. who intend to introduce Double Devolution with a vengeance.


Boris Johnson says coronavirus response shows 'might of UK union' - YouTube


The Alex Salmond Inquiry A Can of Worms is Being Exposed But Who Will Break Ranks and Blow the Whistle


Holyrood's inquiry into Alex Salmond harassment saga on hold until court  case ends | Scotland | The Times




An update – The Alex Salmond debacle

Judith Mackinnon left her post in July 2017 and took up employment in a newly created post as “Head of People Advice for The Scottish Government”.

She reported to Nicola Richards, who had been appointed to her new role as “Director of People”. It was she who appointed MacKinnon to be the “Investigating Officer”

An early priority was to assist the process of drafting a complaint procedure and McKinnon would surely have been guided by urgent recommendations contained in the January 2017 Police Authority audit report of a similar complaint procedure she had introduced when employed in a senior personnel role by the Authority.

One particular recommendation comes to mind.

“Misconduct Regulations state that the subject officer must receive immediate formal notification of the misconduct allegation once it has been determined that an investigation is required and an investigator has been appointed but before the start of an investigation so that the subject officer can be provided with an opportunity to address it if it is their wish.”

But recent revelations are uncovering a “can of worms”

It has been revealed that on 29 November 2017, Richards and MacKinnon discussed with “Ms. A”, (one of the women who went on to make a formal complaint of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond in January 2018) the content of a draft procedure they were proposing to introduce so that harassment complaints could be actioned against former Ministers, in retrospect.

The document was sent to the Cabinet Secretariat to be retyped.

On 1 December 2017, Richards, emailed James Hynd, the Head of the Cabinet Secretariat;

“Would you be able to send me the latest version of the process? I agreed with “Perm Sec” that I would test it with some key individuals.”

Hynd, replied within the day, attaching the latest version of the draft procedure as requested. He wrote;

“Here you are.”

Richards and MacKinnon met again with “Ms. A” on 5 December 2017 and again discussed the content of the draft procedure then sought “Ms. A” confirmation that the procedures would have helped her at the time and how to put in place safeguards for the future.

Helped her with what??

Later, on 5 December 2017, Richards met with Permanent Secretary, Evans following which she worked late into the evening making changes to the document.

Just before midnight that day, she distributed the revamped document to James Hynd, “Head of the Cabinet secretariat”, MacKinnon and an unnamed lawyer. Her email stated;

“As discussed today, I’ve made some revisions to the process”

There was evidently some urgency in moving the matter forward to a conclusion, confirmed in yet another email in which Richards wrote;

“I’ve updated the timeline – and this is the final version of the policy I’ve sent to Perm Sec.”

The “air” of finality clearly suggested that the civil servant team, supported by legal opinion were confident it would be signed off and introduced.

Nicola Sturgeon approved the introduction of the procedure on 20 December 2017.



The decision to appoint an “investigating officer” should not have been instructed by Richards on her own!!!!  But did she?  Assuming the procedures had been adjusted following the Police Authority recommendations she would have been required to sign off the investigation process with one other, a more senior officer. That would be Evans.

And yet another titbit: On 25 August 2020, in evidence given, on oath, to the Salmond inquiry, James Hynd, “Head of the Cabinet Secretariat” stated:

“To be clear – if I was not earlier – the first that I heard about any allegations was, I think, on 24 August 2018, when there were press reports. I knew nothing before then about any complainer or anybody raising concerns. I knew nothing about the appointment of any investigating officer or about any sharing of the draft procedure with any individuals.”

Well, well, well !!!!!!!!! The worm turns!!!


Scotland's papers: Alex Salmond police probe - BBC News



The Police Authority and Judith Mackinnon

MacKinnon was Head of Human Resources governance for the Scottish Police Authority between 2015 & 2017.

Her prime responsibility was to provide assurance to the Authority that they were a responsible employer and a sustainable organization, achieving this goal through the introduction of efficient personnel policies aiding the professional development of management and staff.

The first years following the formation of the Authority were plagued by complaints of harassment and wrongdoing in the force, primarily led by the Unionist Press who seized on every incident, no matter the rights and wrongs of it to undermine the SNP Government.

The Government was forced to order an independent audit of the Authority’s human resources and other departments that had been subject to criticism.

In January 2017 the Scottish Police Authority Complaints Audit was published: (


The Undernoted concerns were recorded

A lack of transparency and clarity surrounding the complaints processes.

The length of time taken to deal with complaints and to undertake preliminary assessments in misconduct allegations.

A lack of communication between the Authority and senior officers who were the subjects of complaint.

Communication between the Authority and senior officers was inconsistent. In some instances, subject officers had been invited to address allegations/complaints whilst in others, an invitation had not been extended.

On a number of occasions, the first officers became aware complaints had been made about them was through media coverage.

Responsibility for ordering a preliminary assessment of misconduct allegations rested with a manager who had little or no relevant knowledge or experience and expertise.



The complaint handling procedure in place is neither effective nor efficient and lacks transparency and unclear guidance resulted in organizational confusion as to whether a matter should be dealt with as a “relevant”.

The average time taken to conclude complaints and preliminary misconduct assessments is excessive and disproportionate to the level of inquiry undertaken or required of the Authority.

Decisions of the Authority lacked clarity and transparency and in many cases did not contain sufficient explanation to demonstrate how a decision had been reached.

Notifying senior officers about misconduct allegations and ‘relevant complaints’ made about them was inconsistent. In some instances, senior officers were not notified but in other cases, they were notified but sometimes at the beginning or on occasions at the end of the process.

Whilst there is no statutory requirement to notify a senior officer about an allegation or to ask him/her to comment on an allegation until after an assessment has been carried out and an appropriate investigator has been appointed.

But the subject officer must receive formal notification of a misconduct allegation once it has been determined that an investigation is required and an investigator has been appointed and before the start of any investigation.


A Diary of Justice & Injustice - Scotland: THE COP FACTOR: Scottish Police  Authority refuse to release documents on sex assault case top cop who wants  to be Chief Constable - now,


Chairpersons Statement:

Susan Deacon, (SPA chair), said the report identified a “number of important areas” requiring the authority’s attention. And it was essential that the Authority’s systems and practices were robust and worked effectively to maintain public confidence and trust.

Addressing the concerns of senior officers, procedures would be revised requiring more than one “deciding” officer to ensure key decisions were taken ensuring better oversight of the complaints process.


Claim civil servant who led Salmond probe is UK govt controlled is False

Scotland Under the Cosh!! You Ain’t seen Nuthin’ yet – Be Afraid – Be very Afraid!!!!


Intelligence and security services: GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - BBC Academy


The United Kingdom National Security Council

Created by the Tory Government on 12 May 2010, the (NSC) of the United Kingdom is an inner Cabinet Committee gifted with the authority to oversee all issues relating to national security, intelligence coordination, and defence strategy.

The Secretary to the National Security Council (NSC) and the Cabinet Office is the Government’s most senior adviser on strategy, policy and implementation and is responsible only to the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the propriety and effectiveness of government. As head of the UK Civil Service the secretary also leads over 400,000 civil servants in the UK Government and in the Devolved Administrations.

At a stroke the new systems of government increased the powers of the Prime Minister, who chairs the Council, and brought senior Cabinet ministers into national security policymaking, giving them access to the highest levels of intelligence.

From 1 April 2015, the council widened its authority through the creation of a Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, (CSSF) financed annually with a £1m annual budget.



Careers at the National Cyber Security Centre - NCSC.GOV.UK



UK National Intelligence

Headquartered in Whitehall in the City of Westminster the intelligence agencies are at the heart of the national intelligence machinery. There are three Intelligence and Security Agencies, SIS, GCHQ and MI5 at its heart, with important work also carried out by Defence Intelligence and the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre.



GCHQ - Wikipedia



The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)

The (JIC), operates within the Cabinet Office and is responsible for assessments and intelligence briefings that look at both tactical and strategic issues of importance to national interests, primarily in the fields of security, defence and foreign affairs.

The JIC’s permanent members are senior officials from the Cabinet Office, including the JIC Chairman, the Chief of the Assessments Staff and the National Security Advisor, as well as officials from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Department for International Development, HM Treasury and the agency heads.

The JIC also feeds their assessments into the NSC which is the main forum for the collective discussion of the government’s objectives for national security, in which a range of relevant departments participates.

It is charged with examining more specific national security areas and overseeing and coordinating all aspects of Britain’s security.

The Prime Minister is advised by the head of the NSC secretariat, the National Security Adviser, who is responsible for coordinating and delivering the government’s security agenda.


UK security services knew of Manchester suicide bomber's ISIS connections |  Defend Democracy Press



The United Kingdom Stabilisation Unit

The Unit has at its disposal a 1,000-strong civilian force remitted to ensure greatly enhanced capacity for planning and rapid reaction including the deployment of military reservists in a civilian capacity and police deployment. The unit’s responsibilities were expanded in 2015, (post the Scottish Referendum) to include crisis response, conflict prevention and control.

Control of the unit was transferred to the (NSC) in 2016 and its management team, located in Whitehall is allocated £1bn annually. It is now a much enlarged and more powerful cross-government team tasked with ensuring all departments of government have unfettered access to specialist support and resources when dealing with some of the trickiest policy challenges.


Scotland Office minister Lord Dunlop denies poll tax accusation - BBC News

Dunlop on the left of picture


Tory Peer – Sir Andrew Dunlop

Never elected, yet a persistent thorn in the side of Scots for the 40 years he has been associated with the Conservative Party he was a special adviser to the Defence Secretary (1986–88) then a member of Thatcher’s Policy Unit (remember the Poll Tax) between (1988–1990).

The demise of Thatcher brought his budding career to a halt and he moved away from active politics to found and develop his own strategic communications consultancy business. Over 20 years later he sold the business, for a very tidy sum of money, to the Brussels-based Interel Group (lobbyists).

The return to power of the Tory Party in 2010 sparked his interest in politics once again and he linked up with his friend and former colleague David Cameron, taking on his former role of special advisor, (2012 to 2015), with specific responsibility as the principal adviser on Scotland and devolution.

He was elevated to the House of Lords in 2015 allowing Cameron to take him into his government where he served as an unelected minister in the UK Government as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, 2015-2017.

In the Lords, he is a member of the UK Constitution Committee and an expert member of the UK Civilian Stabilisation Group. Retaining close involvement with Scottish affairs he is currently a Board member of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

An avowed supporter of Boris Johnson he is reputed to be formulating and implementing Tory government policies for Scotland and in this respect, he revealed his thinking on the future of Scotland, in a speech he made in the course of a debate on the “possible effects of Brexit on the stability of the Union of the parts of the United Kingdom”. He said:

“Attention should be paid to the machinery of intergovernmental relations, which needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at the cross-UK synergies, weakened since devolution, which need to be reinvigorated.

We need to pursue a decentralised, pan-UK strategy for rebalancing the economy, driven by city regions across the country. This means moving away from seeing everything through a four-nation prism.

Many of the problems confronting Glasgow, for example, are similar to those of Manchester or Birmingham. They provide embryonic structures which can be built upon. There are two years until the next Holyrood elections. Strengthening our union must be an urgent priority whatever our post-Brexit future.”

Check this chappie out a very long but enlightening read:


Boris Johnson: The Anti-Prime Minister – Byline Times




This then is the direction Boris Johnson is headed. So far as Scotland is concerned there will be no further independence referendums and devolution is to be rendered impotent being bypassed by UK government agencies working within but not responsible to the Scottish government.

The UK Stabilisation Unit is also closely monitoring Scottish politics, events and personalities and has resources available to deal with any disruption or attempts at destabilisation of the UK.


It's Brexit, stupid: the appeal of Boris Johnson



Francesca Osowska – A Well Earned OBE – You Be The Judge


The Unashamed Unionist Civil Servant – Francesca Osowska A Master In the  Art Of Obfuscation Denies Scots Their Freedom From the Tyranical  Westminster Elite Fulfilling Its Political Agenda at Every Juncture –  caltonjock


Scottish Affairs Committee Meeting – 2015 – Scottish Office – Financial matters – Francesca Osowska OBE, Director, Scotland Office in attendance


The minutes were very long and tedious to read so I summarised the content


We are very grateful for you coming along today. If you would like to say what you do, and if there are any initial statements that you want to make to the Committee, please feel free to do so.


I am Director for the Scotland Office and I am also Principal Accounting Officer for the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate General. I am very pleased to appear before the Committee to answer questions on the Annual Report and Accounts for 2014-15.


We have digested the report and wish to ask some questions about the content. Firstly. Could you explain how it is that there are 100 WTE staff currently employed in the Scotland Office but none of them are permanent.?  Does this create any difficulties or problems or issues?  I would imagine it must, and why was the decision taken not to employ permanent staff?


The Scotland Office does not directly employ staff. We utilize the staff of other Government Departments. This results in the bulk of our staff being seconded for specific purposes.  We also benefit from arrangements with the Cabinet Office which provides access to external expertise. When these dual-purpose staff are in post within the Scotland Office, they are considered to be fully part of the Scotland Office team, so if the question is about allegiance, there are no difficulties there.


It is not about allegiance. I don’t think that is the issue. It is about being able to build up a staff capacity when most of them are part-time and none permanent. Are they shared with other Ministry Departments or are they exclusive to the Scotland Office?


They are exclusive to the Scotland Office.


But are they are seconded from other Departments?


They are seconded or on loan from other Departments. When seconded they have direct line management throughout the Scotland Office and are answerable to Scotland Office Ministers, so that line of accountability is very direct.


Are there any plans to get permanent staff in place, given there are significant and substantial pieces of work to consider as we go forward?


I believe the current arrangements work very well.


The last year has been particularly trying, with the referendum and the Smith Commission. What do you see as the main issues and challenges and the main thrust of your work as you go forward over the next year or two years in the parliamentary term?


We have a strong constitutional role, primarily in relation to the Scotland Bill, which, as you are aware, is passing through Westminster at the moment.  In addition, we continue to be the voice of Scotland in Whitehall, so our work with other Government Departments will continue. Similarly, we are the voice of the UK Government of Scotland and we work co-operatively with other Government Departments who have reserved responsibilities in Scotland to ensure that the UK government can operate effectively in Scotland.


Do you see yourself primarily as the voice of Scotland in Whitehall or do you see more of a role as being the voice of the UK Government of Scotland? How would you characterize the effort that is put on to each of those very laudable aims and objectives?


I think we treat them equally. If I were to take those objectives along with our constitutional objectives which, as I mentioned, include the Scotland Bill, but also include responsibilities in terms of Scotland Act orders and LCMs then I would say that we give those equal weight.


Mundell and the Tory Party – Actively Aided by the Scottish Office Are the  Legal Government of Scotland – Holyrood Politicians Need to be Mindful of  this or Westminster will shut it



The Scottish Referendum – Finance and Use of Civil Servants from the Cabinet Office and Treasury in support of the “Better Together” campaign

Margaret Ferrier:

The 2013 spending round allocated a budget of £6m to the Scotland Office for 2015-16 but Westminster has recently been asked to increase the financial allocation by £3m for “capability enhancements”. What are these unspecified enhancements?


Explained by referring to 2014-15. The original budget was set in the 2010 spending round. At that time a referendum had not been anticipated. Much of the excessive financial expenditure of the Scotland Office in 2014/15 was attributed to the temporary employment of additional staff in the run-up to the referendum and an extensive contribution to the Scotland analysis papers, eg. Supporting public Ministers in the preparation and distribution of information (leaflet drops) to the Scottish public informing them of the implications of independence. The result was a spend of £7.7m. Much in excess of the original budget.

Margaret Ferrier:

These public Ministers. Do you mean UK Ministers?



Margaret Ferrier:

Not Scottish Government ministers?



Margaret Ferrier:

The report shows that administration costs rose by about 8% from £7.2 million in 2013-14 to £7.7 million in 2014-15. Why are these general administration costs rising? Is there any reason, other than the referendum debate?


The entire increase represents the resources dedicated by the Scotland Office to support the work of the UK Government informing the referendum debate.

Kirsty Blackman:

So the Scotland Office had allocated to it and spent an extra £3 million helping UK Government Ministers with information about the referendum, mainly?


In terms of what the money delivered and the outcomes that the Scotland Office delivered, part of and a focus of the work in 2014-15 was in direct relation to the run-up and then the after-events—including the Smith Commission—of the referendum.


What we are being told is that the money had been set aside to be used in support of the “No” campaign, and was used by UK Government Ministers to participate in the referendum. Would that be roughly a correct characterization of the spending?


Not in the context of the assertion: “that this was a way of the Government funding the ‘No’ campaign?” It was to fund the activities of UK ministerial departments and Whitehall civil servants who discharged their duties in line with the Civil Service Code. All activities undertaken by Whitehall civil servants would meet that propriety test.


Francesca Osowska – C.E.O. – Scottish Natural Heritage – The Lowest Point  Of My Career Was Working as Principal Private Secretary to Alex Salmond –  Et Tu eck! – caltonjock


Her assertion was later debunked as utter tosh. See:

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

The award, in recognition of the team’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 commented afterward;

Paul Doyle;

“This award is not just for the Treasury, it’s for all the hard work that was done by all government departments on the Scotland agenda. The reality was in all my experience of the civil service, I have never seen the civil service pull together in the way they did behind supporting the UK government in maintaining the United Kingdom. It was a very special event for all of us.”

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

“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.”

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 the line of what is appropriate, but it’s possible to find your way through and to make a difference.

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

“In the Treasury, everyone hates you. We don’t get thanks for anything. This is one occasion where we’ve worked with the rest of Whitehall. We all had something in common, we’re trying to save the Union here, and it was close. We just kept it 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.”



I Don't Want To Appear Evasive But!!!!!! – Francesca Osowska Director of  the Scottish Office Runs Rings Around the Scottish Affairs Committee in  Defence of her Boss David Mundell – caltonjock


Damm, Damm and Double Damm – What a con – The civil service and their Janus-faced illegal political behaviour

Osowska, in a number of evasive statements to the Scottish Affairs Committee, represented them misleadingly glossing over the expensive and extensive work of a large group of (supposedly politically neutral) Civil Servants who actively supported the objectives of the “Better Together” campaign. Gross misuse of public finances and Civil Servants presumably authorized by David Cameron and Sir Jeremy Heywood.

The political slush fund created is an ever-increasing Unionist Party financial nest egg, skimmed off Scotland’s block financial grant and abused by the Scotland Office for questionable purposes, such as Westminster Government anti-devolution leaflet production, printing, and distribution.  And/or hiring Special Advisors (SpAds), often sons, daughters, other relations, friends of ministers or other MP’s.


The 1707 Act of Union Handed Scotland Over To a Very Wealthy English Elite  Supported By Lickspittle Unionist Politicians Who Maintain Their Power  Through the Impositon of Oppression on Scots – caltonjock


Scotland Office – The Gobble Gobble Monster –  Rapidly Increasing Financial Allocations

The cost of maintaining the Scotland Office is extortionately high and is ever increasing year on year without justification or satisfactory explanation.

A House of Commons report submitted in 2005/2006 recorded that the Scotland Office was hopelessly overstaffed and recommended a 50 percent establishment reduction. In the years that followed salary costs were indeed reduced.

But from the time the Tory Government took up the reins of government salary costs increased year on year, but it only recently that the method in the apparent madness of the Tory Government surfaced.

The Scotland Office is no longer a team existing to assist Scotland and it’s devolved government.

Mundell siphoned nearly £4.5million from the Scottish financial allocation and directed it into a Unionist political slush fund providing very generous finance for schemes designed to enhance his and the Tory Party profile in Scotland.


Mundell and the Tory Party – Actively Aided by the Scottish Office Are the  Legal Government of Scotland – Holyrood Politicians Need to be Mindful of  this or Westminster will shut it


Lets Unleash the BBC’s Potential – Addressing the Nation – The Words and Not the Words of the BBC Director General

Fake news endangers democracy and lives, says BBC boss - The National



23 Jul 2020: Lets Unleash the BBC’s Potential and Help Global Britain

BBC Director General – Tony Hall addressed the nation with an article he first sent to The Telegraph then reproduced it in the BBC blog.

The content reveals the stupeyfying insensibility of the BBC Corporation which seeks to greatly expand its investment in services that have sod all to do with the provision of entertainment and news to the British taxpayer who is required by law to purchase an annual licence.  The BBC should reverse its expansionist eegime and divert money saved to the provision of free viewing of all BBC programming to pensioners aged over 75.  Full article here: Well worth a read


A Comment: 100% of the news produced by the BBC is not fake it is just economical with the truth.


Former BBC Newsnight and Panorama journalist claims the BBC are ...




I spoofed the article redrafting it, in part, providing a more jaundiced view of the activities of the BBC,

The BBC Wha’s Like Us? (not the words of the BBC Director General)

By acting now, we can ensure biased and free news – along with Britain’s voice and values – continue to resonate powerfully around the world

The past few months have proved just how priceless are the values of the ‘fake news’ age.The growing use of disinformation is a most useful tool for democratic disruption.

This week’s report into Russia’s activity in the UK laid the stakes bare. Tory MP’s, in embracing the influence of state-backed persons of Russia and China, confirms the provision of news to be first and foremost an extension of state influence.

Audiences are flocking to the BBC in their millions in search of fake news and information. And not just at home, but right around the world.

Recently released figures show that the BBC audience has soared to a record 468 million people outside the UK every week. Whatever your views on the BBC, it’s a reminder that it is without question one of Britain’s strongest and best-known brands, synonymous with distortion of the truth worldwide.

Its international news services rank first for selective briefing and unreliablity. The World Service remains a beacon of undemocratic values and a forlon lifeline for millions living in fear, captivity or uncertainty. This is Britain’s gift to the world.

Through their pervading influence the BBC will forge new relationships with the world, built on the ambitious vision of a ‘Global Britain’. Success will only be guaranteed by unleashing the full global potential of the BBC.

The British Government has long recognised the BBC’s vital role in helping maintaining Britain’s authority influencing the political agenda of nations worldwide. Which is why, four years ago, it agreed to make its largest-ever increase in investment in the BBC World Service.

That funding of £86 million a year allowed the BBC to complete the World Service’s biggest expansion since the Second World War. Operations have been expanded and include the opening of many new and expanded bureaux further enhancing broadcast misinformation and and current affairs in 42 languages.

The result is that the BBC has been able to step up the production of fake news worldwide supporting the British Government’s version of democracy.

The BBC has also deployed many journalists to countries like Nigeria and India, where they were tasked to ensure the political agenda of the British Government remained paramount.

All this takes place against the backdrop of a growing battle for global influence, in which news provision has emerged as the key weapon. The first years of the new decade will decide which competing vision of the future of news will triumph: the fake, or the fair and free.

This is a race that Britain is well-placed to win. The BBC is its priceless asset; the pre-eminent provider to the world of facts you can’t trust. What the BBC as achieved with the massive additional financial investment has proved how far it can extend the reach of Britain’s undemocratic influence and global voice.

When Hall became BBC Director General in 2013, he set the challenge of doubling the global audience of the BBC, to reach 500 million people by its centenary in 2022. It is now firmly on track to achieve that goal. But ambition is only rstricted by lack of vision amd forward planning and the target for the end of the decade is a staggering worldwide audience of one billion people by the end of the decade.

To achieve this the BBC is now in negotiation with the British Government seeking greatly increased financial investment so that these new goals can be achieved further strengthening Britain’s undemocratic influence worldwide.



“The pot calling the kettle black” – The Hypocrisy of the British Government’s Interference in the US Presidential Election




Russian Interference in the US Presidential elections


March 2019 Congressional inquiry declares no evidence of Russian interference in the US Presidential election

Following 22 months of torturous investigation US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, chairman of a committee comprised mainly of Democrats hand-picked by himself, concluded that Russia had not interfered in the US election.

The investigation did reveal however that the British Secret Services had been actively involved, plotting together with the FBI and other parties, funded by “dark money” and had implemented a programme of spurious disinformation in support of Hillary Clinton.

But the remit of Muller’s investigation was restricted to claims against Russia and the final report made no mention of the involvement of MI6 and its associates.


Trump dismisses reports of Russian interference in 2020 election ...




British Secret Services interference in the US Presidential Election

Q: Why was the Service tasked to assist Clinton?

A: Because Clinton supported Britain’s continued membership of the EC. But Trump wanted it out so that he could extend the influence of the US bringing back the “old alliance” heavily promoted in the Reagan-Thatcher era.


SPYGATE British government Steele Halper MI Obama passport fixer ...




Where’s the evidence?

Allegations of British Secret Service and other agencies were referred to the US Justice Department for further investigation.

Of special interest is the so-called “Steele Dossier” an investigation commissioned at the request (allegedly) of the Democratic Party and/or President Obama.

The report is a collection of claims supposedly proving the existence of a conspiracy between Trump’s team and the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favour, and which reportedly served to justify the wiretapping by the FBI of Trump’s campaign managers.

The company contracted to complete the work was “Orbis”, a British company since revealed to be a front for the MI6 organization. So, in effect, the British government organized a dirty campaign to discredit Trump. Wholly unjustified, illegal interference in another country’s elections.


Ex MI6 Spy Christopher Steele Told FBI Clinton Knew He Was ...



And the Steele Report?

Just last week the US Senate Judiciary Committee released newly declassified documents on the FBI’s interview with ex-UK intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s “primary sub-source” claiming that the Steele dossier about the alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump was “unsubstantiated and unreliable”.

In summary:

It revealed that “Orbis” tasked (former) MI6 agent Christopher Steele, to gather evidence confirming collusion between Trump’s team and the Russians and to compile a dossier for submission to the FBI.

Steele was not permitted to enter Russia due to his previous activities as an MI6 agent and his contacts within Russia had long since departed the scene so his reliance on gossip and innuendo was absolute.

Starved of current intelligence, Steele established contact with former “Brookings Institution” * researcher Igor Danchenko, a Russian-trained lawyer who had earned degrees at the University of Louisville and Georgetown University.

* A left-wing think tank firmly in the pocket of President Obama and the Democratic Party

Danchenko’s experience of Russian politics was limited to identifying risks associated with doing business with Russian companies. He had no history of working with Russian intelligence operatives or bringing to light their covert activities. But he became the main source of information to Steele. A damming revelation adding confirmation to the lack of credibility of the “Steele dossier.


The FBI Informant Who Monitored the Trump Campaign, Stefan Halper ...



And the plot thickens

The New York Times reported just last week that Danchenko had, in 1997, agreed with the FBI to collaborate with the agency on condition that his identity would be kept secret so he could protect himself.

So, in 2017 the FBI was fully aware that the content of the “Steele dossier” was “unsubstantiated and unreliable” and that the information Danchenko had given to Steele was “second and third-hand information and rumours at best”.

Yet the FBI still approved, only a week before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, the publication of the “Steele dossier” alleging that Russian intelligence had compromising information on the US president and that Moscow and POTUS had “extensive” secret backchannels,

The content of the “dossier” became the central part of the Democratic Party’s efforts to tarnish Trump’s political image accusing him of colluding with Russia. A charge which he has repeatedly rejected as a “witch hunt”.

In April 2029, Robert Muller’s 22-month investigation, led by a Democratic Party majority committee confirmed the truth of Trump’s many denials of wrongdoing.


Russian Oligarchs File Lawsuit Against Ex-MI6 Spy Over His 'Dirty ...


But its not over yet!!

Trump will have his day in court very soon. His campaign for re-election might well contain explosive allegations against a number of the nation’s security agencies, senior politicians, so-called independent think tanks, and the “dark money” sources that cause so much damage to the political processes in many countries including the Uk.


How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia ...



And Westminster’s role?

Revelations in this and a number of my other recently compiled reports confirm the “City of London” to be the driving force behind all that is wrong with the conduct of the world’s political and financial affairs.

Dismantling the UK would do much to correct matters since it would expose the “City of London” to the world as it really is. The crime-hub of the world.


The Russians Did Try to Steal US Democracy. If by 'Russians' You ...

Will History Award the Dubious Accolade of the Most Expansionist Brutal and Repressive Regimes the World has Ever Known to England?




History lesson: British imperialism not only destroyed India's economy, it  wrecked China's as well



The British Empire

In 1911 the Royal Navy was comprised of 660 fighting vessels, manned by 137,500 personnel. In comparison, the next largest world seapower was Germany which had 336 ships and 67,000 sailors.

The huge fleet was maintained to ensure England’s dominance of the seaways protecting the largest fleet of merchant marine shipping in the world. And the operation of a “gunboat” policy ensuring English dominance over their empire and its inexhaustible supply of valuable resources.

The Empire had been established over a period of around 350 years and was achieved primarily by military conquest.

But England could not have created its empire without the Scots. The English army was not, (and still isn’t) renowned for its soldiers fighting ability. Indeed England has only ever defeated a Scottish army in battle when they were assisted by German, Dutch, Belgian, and Irish soldiers and heavily outnumbered and outgunned the Scots.

So England’s expansionist dreams needed to be delayed until it had achieved, “by fair means or foul” its long-coveted aim of absorbing Scotland and its resources and fighting men.

England finally accepted it could not permanently defeat the Scots in land battles without sustaining great losses and used its naval power to blockade Scotland, forcing the nation’s rulers, but not the populace into accepting a Treaty of Union in 1707.

England then imposed a 50-year “lockdown” on Scotland facilitated through the use of a standing army of English, Irish and Dutch soldiers, (paid for through extra taxation on Scots) who brutally suppressed Scots,  selling many thousands into slavery, clearing clansmen from their legally owned lands, transferring millions of acres of Scotland to the illegal ownership of English Lords who had found favour in the eyes of the King of England for their assistance in destroying the will of the Scots.

The success of the 1680-1707 campaign in Scotland got England the soldiers it needed to ensure the successful achievement of its ever avaricious desire to expand the authority of England throughout the world.

listed next are the countries of the empire, in 1911 and how they were absorbed. Almost all have since gained their independence from England, but invariably only after many years of political and armed struggle.

Scotland was one of the first nations to be absorbed and its peoples thought processes reprogrammed. And we are still captured. The United Nations organization should instruct England to set Scotland free.


The British Empire strikes back



Countries and how they were acquired by England

The United Kingdom:

Wales: Conquest 1282
Scotland: Conquest/forced treaty 1707
Ireland: Conquest 1172


Gibraltar: Conquest 1704
Malta: Conquest 1812
Cyprus: Conquest/Turkey 1878


Indian Empire: Conquest 1757
Ceylon: Conquest 1801
Aden: Conquest 1839
Hong Kong: Conquest/Treaty 1842/1906
Borneo: Conquest 1877
Sarawak: Conquest 1877
Malay States: Conquest 1874
Johore: Conquest 1885
Brunei: Conquest 1888
Wet Hai Wei: Conquest 1888
Terengganu: Conquest 1909
Kedah: Conquest 1909
Perlis: Conquest 1909
Kelantan: Conquest 1909


Capetown: Conquest 1588
Natal: Annexed 1843
Transvaal: Conquest 1900
Orange State: Conquest 1900
St Helena: Conquest 1673
Ascension: Annexed 1787
Sierra Leone: Settlement 1787
Gold Coast: Conquest 1872
Mauritius: Conquest 1810
Swaziland: Conquest 1900
Rhodesia: Annexed 1889
Nyasaland: Conquest 1891
East Africa: Conquest 1888
Uganda: Conquest 1894
Somaliland: Conquest 1884
Tristan Da Cuna: Annexed 1815
Seychelles: Conquest 1814
Basutoland: Annexed 1807
Gambia: Conquest 1807
Nigeria: Conquest 1807
Zanzibar: Conquest 1890

The Americas

Dominion of Canada:
Alberta: Settlement 1670
British Columbia: Settlement 1670
Manitoba: Settlement 1813
New Brunswick: Conquest 1763
Nova Scotia: Conquest 1627
Ontario: Conquest 1759
Prince Ed Island: Conquest 1745
Quebec: Conquest 1759
North W Territories: Settlement 1670
Saskatchewan: Settlement 1670
Yukon: Settlement 1670
Newfoundland: Conquest 1583
Labrador: Conquest 1759

Other Countries:

Leeward Islands: Settlement 1623
Windward Islands: Conquest 1763
Falkland Islands: Conquest 1771
British Guiana: Conquest 1803
Jamaica: Conquest 1655
British Honduras: Conquest 1798
Trinidad & Tobago: Conquest 1797
Barbados: Settlement 1605
Bahamas: Settlement 1629
Bermuda: Settlement 1612


New South Wales: Settlement 1788
Victoria: Settlement 1832
Queensland: Settlement 1824
South Australia: Settlement 1824
Western Australia: Settlement 1828
Tasmania: Settlement 1803
Northern Territories: Settlement 1836

Other Countries

New Zealand: Purchased 1845
Fiji: Conquest 1874
British New Guinea: Conquest 1884
Pacific Islands: Annexed 1893


Teaching Resources on the British Empire |


The Brazen Cheek of the Scottish Tory’s – Confirmation Putin’s Russia Pulls the Strings and the Tory Party Dances to their tune






Putin’s Russia pulls the strings and the Tory Party Dances to their tune

In the past ten years, approximately 10,000 super-wealthy Chinese and Russian business investors and entrepreneurs have been issued with “golden visas” by the Tory government providing them with a right of residence in the UK.

So many of Putin’s oligarchs and their wider families have gained the advantage of the scheme that the UK capital is now known as “Londongrad”.

Assertions that Tory’s welcome inward investment regardless of source is well-founded.

The “tier one” investor visa, requires only that the applicant operate a UK bank account with a balance of not less than £2m. This permits investors full residence in the UK for up to five years.

But eligibility for extensions and permanent residence is guaranteed after making further investments.


Putin's invitation is an early test for post-Brexit Britain ...



Scottish Torys have the affrontery to demand a Public Inquiry into Russian interference in Scottish politics

The Westminster “Intelligence & Security Committee” (ISC) only this week released its politically delayed Russia report warning that the UK is at risk of Russian exploitation because of the Tory Partys acceptance of large amounts of political donations, establishing inappropriate relationships with Russian oligarchs. The report read:

“In brief, Russian influence in the UK is “the new normal”, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth. This level of integration London, in particular, means any measures now being taken by the Government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation.”

And information released to the public today revealed that 14 of the present Tory government ministers,(including six Cabinet members) have accepted tens of thousands of pounds in donations from Russian oligarchs.

A public inquiry should be conducted without delay so that UK citizens can be assured all measures necessary will be introduced urgently bringing an end to external interference in the nation’s politics. Including banning the practice of politicians taking money from foreigners.


THE RUSSIA REPORT Puts Johnson on the Spot – Byline Times



But a 2018 Tory government inquiry giving a warning about Russian influence has been blatantly ignored

The report, published by Theresa May’s Tory government, “Foreign Affairs Committee”, accused government ministers of risking national security by “turning a blind eye” to Russian, “dirty money” flowing through the City of London.

Concerns were also raised about “golden visas” being issued in ever-increasing numbers despite the alleged involvement of Russia in the Salisbury Novichok nerve agent attack.

In its conclusion, the report demanded that the Government get tough on foreign nationals by tightening the rules of the scheme making it more secure.

But interestingly, the one voice of dissent from his own committee was from the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson who suggested that “there was no real role for Government in the process”.


Boris-Johnson-Donald-Trump-and-Vladimir-Putin - Dispatches Europe

Boris Johnson – London Mayor – Promises to his Rich Backers in the City Honoured – For the Plebs Who Fell For the Rhetoric – Nothing



Was Boris Johnson as successful as London mayor as he claims ...



Boris Johnson – Mayor of London – 2008 to 2016

His success in gaining the position of mayor was not unsurprising since the campaign came right at the start of the banking crisis which was part-attributed to mishandling the economy by the financial sector and the Labour Party and orchestrated “right-wing” attacks by the Tory dominated media on the integrity of the incumbent Mayor Ken Livingstone.

A campaign dominated by dirty tricks, smears and innuendo atypical of Johnson.

True to form Johnson stuffed his team with “can-do” decision-makers allowing him the luxury of removing himself from direct involvement in anything that went wrong while brazenly claiming maximum media coverage for himself on any success. His title of  “the Lovejoy” of British politics was well earned.

Jonson views politics as a game and his mastery of misinformation was confirmed by his claims of many unsubstantiated successes while in office. But the reverse is true.

He was an abject failure who failed the London electorate, frittering away well over £1.5billion on vanity schemes. Some but not all:

The Garden Bridge. Write off £50m.

Feasibility study for his “Island in the Stream” project for a new £100m London airport. Write off £6m.

Routemaster buses. Ovens on wheels, heavily polluting, useless. Purchase £300M (double that of a normal double-decker) Discontinued.

Water cannons. Riot control measures for subduing protestors. Banned by the government. Never used. Bought for £350K. Sold for £10K

The Olympic Stadium. Boris decided to convert it for uses other than athletics., Projected cost £190M. The actual cost of conversion was £325M. An overrun of £135M. Adding insult to injury the taxpayer has to meet the £20M annual running costs.


The RCP's long march from anti-imperialist outsiders to the doors ...



The Royal Albert Dock tender that never was

Johnson set up an agency, London and Partners, within his administration with a remit to attract foreign investment to London.

In 2011, the agency established an office in Beijing and shared the cost of the lease and working space, (70/30) with a major Chinese company, Advanced Business Park, (APB).

And there’s more!! Tongbo Liu, departed the agency early 2012, to work for ABP.

What’s the problem?

She was the head of London and Partners and Johnson’s personal representative in China.

Even more!!!

Between 2010 and 2012 Xuelin Black an Anglo-Chinese businesswoman gave donations totalling around £162,000 to the Conservative Party.

Donations that dried up after APB was awarded the contract.

The lady is married to the then Tory, Home office minister, Lord (Michael) Bates.

And she was also instrumental in putting a business arrangement in place with her suggestion of a bid for the Royal Dock site development to Xu Weiping, the head of APB.

She even registered a company called ABP London (China) and acted as an adviser, to help push the project forward.

In May 2013 the Greater London Authority granted Advanced Business Park (APB) the tender to develop the publicly-owned 35-acre site at the Royal Albert Dock, a derelict site opposite London’s City Airport.

The project is to include 3.2 million square feet of office space, leisure facilities, and 845 residential flats. China’s largest property investment, over £1bn, in the UK.

Critics say that his effort to attract significant foreign investment to London was praiseworthy but the closeness of his management team and the Tory Party with ABP suggested that the entire tendering procedure was not conducted on a level playing field, and as such, it was grossly unfair on the dozen or more bidders many of whom were British.

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, suggested that there should be an independent investigation into the tendering process for the development. He said: “If, in fact, somebody is going through a sham process to ensure that someone they want to be successful in the process, but it’s not a level playing field for UK companies, and there have been some financial transactions of an intimate nature then that smells to me of a semi corrupt arrangement.”

The development of the massive derelict dockland site in the centre of the city is/was a blatant abuse of public office. It was a classic Tory Party fiddle ensuring, regardless of due process, the award of a major building contract to a favoured contractor.

View the video: (


FactCheck: Boris Johnson's broken promises as London mayor ...

Ultra Right Wing Tory Policy Exchange Heavily Influenced by the Revolutionary Communist Party



Laura Kuenssberg wins 'journalist of the year' - Counterfire



Entryism – The RCP flexes its political Muscle

“Entryism is a political strategy in which an organization or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, the organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. If the organization being “entered” is hostile to entrism, the entrists may engage in a degree of subterfuge and subversion to hide the fact that they are an organization in their own right.” (Wikipedia)


LibDemFightBack #Rejoin #JailJohnson #Stayhome on Twitter: "The ...



Policy Exchange

“Policy Exchange” was formed in 2002 by Michael Gove and others of the same ilk.

Its purpose was to “seek local, volunteer and free-market solutions to the public policy problem”.

It succeeded in its mission shifting Conservative Party thinking towards progressive policies through the creation of the “Big Society”.

And the UK public was sold on the big idea of a liberal society free of New Labours” centralizing control of anything that moved.

And who most espoused libertarianism? The ever happy go lucky Boris Johnson, journalist, and TV personality and Mayor of London, no less.

Not long after taking the office of Mayor, Johnson, appointed from “Policy Exchange” a number of untried free-thinking RCP individuals to key positions within his administration.

His successful campaign for office had been masterminded by Dan Ritterband, former director of “Policy Exchange”.

Immediately after taking office, Johnson appointed Nick Boles, the founder of “Policy Exchange”, to be his Chief of Staff.

Boles primary task was to find the right staff for the administration.

Of note is that under his editorship of “The Spectator” Boris routinely gave extensive print space to RCP writers and true to form his first senior appointments as London Mayor included Anthony Browne, “Policy Director” and Munira Mirza, (ex RCP) as “Cultural Adviser”.


Michael Gove at Policy Exchange delivering his keynote spe… | Flickr

%d bloggers like this: