Scottish Referendum

John (Wreck it and Run) Reid Warts & Plenty of Them

1. Opening Narrative

2. John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan former Labour MP for Airdrie & Shotts, former Home Secretary was made a life peer after the 2010 election. Following his stepping down as Home Secretary in 2007 he has worked in private sector security, including holding a position with G4S (until April 2013?).

3. In recent times he regularly Lobby’s fellow lords in the House of Lords and other movers and shakers in the corridors of power in Westminster seeking to use his influence, expanding counter intelligence and control over the UK citizenship mirroring the much detested, “Homeland Security” arrangements in place in the USA. He is committed to these, behind the scenes expensive measures through his employment with the, Chertoff Group, (founding member of the company and Ex Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2005 – 2009)

4. Member of the House of Lords- Outside Interests

a. Director, John Reid Advisory Ltd. (risk management; homeland security strategy).
b. Member to the Chertoff Group (strategic/security consultants).
c. Westcoast Ltd, Crest Advisory. (support to police and crime commissioners).
d. Glaysen Holdings Ltd (financial holdings) paid to John Reid Advisory Ltd.
e. John Reid Advisory Ltd (All income from the Member’s speaking engagements).
f. Institute for Security and Resilience Studies, (Chairman), University College, London.

5. Remunerated employment, (2 years) office, profession etc. Earning £5000-£10,000 plus accommodation & expenses each occasion. Approximate earnings £100,000 plus

a. Speaking engagement, 24 May 2012 , R3 Annual Dinner, Belfast
b. Speaking engagement, 8 November 2012, OSAC Cyber Intelligence and Security Conference, London
c. Speaking engagement, 27 November 2012, Global Cyber Security Summit, Dublin
d. Speaking engagement, 10 December 2012, Gulf International Cyber security Symposium, Dubai
e. Speaking engagement, 23 January 2013, HP Leadership Conference, Blackpool
f. Speaking engagement, 7 March 2013, EU Science and Research Conference, Brussels
g. Speaking engagement, 16 May 2013, British American Business Council (BABC), Birmingham
h. Speaking engagement, Edinburgh, 24 June 2013, KPMG I-4 Conference
i. Speaking engagement, Brussels, 27 June 2013, SDA SecDef13 Conference
j. Speaking engagement, 1-2 November 2013, University of Texas, Austin, Political History Symposium
k. Speaking Engagement, 25 February 2014, Cyber Risk Insights Conference, Advisen, London
l. Speaking Engagement, 27 February 2014, The Energy Institute, Aberdeen
m. Speaking Engagement, 31 March 2014, International Conference on Security Challenges 2014, Abu Dhabi
6. John Reid’s addresses to the House of Lords

a. 12th January 2012, “I know the controversy that surrounded this, but it was precisely that third element that lay behind voluntary ID cards. That is because online registration is now prevalent for bank accounts and necessary to receive benefits. The amount of information that one supplies to the Government which is sitting there in huge data banks will be added to by any form of electoral registration, particularly if national insurance numbers are added.

b. That electronic information, just like paper information, is going to be lost or stolen. When and if it is lost or stolen, it is not an argument against biometrically protected ID cards. It is an argument for having biometric identification, because in those circumstances, no one can access that information. No one can go into your bank account unless they happen to have your five fingers and your iris. It is precisely about the protection of the individual.

c. Therefore, I would suggest that at least some serious consideration is given to online registration and the introduction in the medium to longer term of some form of identification that protects the individual’s identity through their iris and fingerprints.

d. I do not entirely agree with my good and noble friend Lord Maxton; I have never been in favour of compulsory ID cards. However, I am in favour of compulsory registration. I believe that the future is having an ID card in your pocket. I have one and it was massively convenient in allowing me to walk into France and Germany without a passport, giving inviolable proof of my identity to anyone, unlike every smart card in my pocket.”

e. “Going back to the cyber question, it is a big problem. Is the Minister aware that the best protection against misuse or fraud on cyber issues is biometric protection? With identification by your own iris or fingerprints, no one else can pretend to be you.”

f. 14th October 2012 “On cyber, I welcome the £0.5 billion increase provided that it does not include money that is meant to be allocated to the intercept modernization programme. If it does, it will be grossly inadequate and will completely undermine our capacity to mount the surveillance of communications in and out of this country which has been the basis of our counter – terrorist intelligence efforts.”

g. 15th May 2013 “As I reach my conclusion, there is one point where I would criticize the Government. Historically, our intelligence services and police have depended for counter-terrorism and anti-crime activity in defending the people of this country on the ability to match the technology of our enemies, particularly in communications.

This capability desperately needs updating. For the third year running, the Government have equivocated and postponed. Their fear of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Clegg, appears to be greater than their fear of the consequences of not acting in updating our intelligence-gathering capacity to include Skype, the internet and texts.

h. God forbid that a terrorist attack should be launched that would have been prevented if we had updated it. God help the Government if that should happen because I know from experience just how dependent we were on that capacity to save the lives of 2,500 people only six years ago in the liquid bomb plot.”
i. 19 August 2006 On Terrorism. John Reid is to deliver a daily message of terror after his frequent broadcasts during the recent “liquid on planes” crisis received critical acclaim. DeadBrain has learned that Dr Reid, who was recently voted Britain’s scariest man in a joint Women’s Institute/TV Quick poll, will take to the airwaves every morning from a specially-constructed studio 21 metres below the Home Office. His fear-inducing message will be carried live by every major television channel and ITV.

7. What Others Say about John Reid

a. The Godfather

John Reid is UK Home Secretary and MP for Airdrie and Shotts. “If we had a Politburo instead of a cabinet, Reid would probably be running the State Security Division.” – Kevin Toolis, Guardian 2 March 2002. Reid “is part of the Lanarkshire West Coast Labour mafia. It’s not about… making life better for the working class. It’s about looking after yourself and your mates and not being accountable to anyone.” – Dean Nelson, editor Scottish edition of the Sunday Times.

b. John Reid The Persistent Sex Predator

He is a drunken sex predator. the second incident, shortly before the death of then Labour leader John Smith in 1994, when Mr Reid was Shadow Defence Secretary, was witnessed by several people. One said: “John came lurching up and said to Dawn, “I want to have sex with you, I want to f*** you, you want it as well.” Ms Primarolo’s friend and neighboring Bristol Labour MP Jean Corston intervened and, according to a source, told Mr Reid: “You are a disgusting creature. Get away from her,” adding, “That’s it, I’m going to report him.” Ms Corston, who is now a Baroness, told colleagues she raised the matter with John Smith, commenting, “It won’t be happening again.” One Labour insider said: “Dawn was on the verge of tears. She said Reid had been harassing her over a period of years and had propositioned her in the bar. It was very painful for her.” When Mr Reid was summoned by the Labour leader, he gave Mr Smith a sealed envelope containing his resignation and told him that if he misbehaved again, Mr Smith should open it.–drank-again.html

c. John Reid Accuses Yes Campaign of Sex harassment

The Nationalists are running an offensive misogynistic campaign against female unionists such as J K Rowling, John Reid, the former Defence Secretary, accused the Yes side of employing the, “language of abuse” at women who speak up for the maintenance of the 300-year Union. Former Defence Secretary John Reid accused nationalists of using the, “language of abuse” to target women who came out against independence. Now this is rich coming from him

d. John Reid – The cloven hoof pops out.

The Home Secretary yesterday gave the think tank Demos his strongest hint yet that a new round of anti-terror legislation is on the way this autumn by warning that traditional civil liberty arguments were not so much wrong as just made for another age.

e. Home Secretary John (wreck it and run)

Reid is to visit the team hunting foreign criminals released without being considered for deportation. He will visit the nerve centre tackling the crisis which led to the sacking of his predecessor Charles Clarke. Less than two weeks ago, Mr Clarke revealed that 1,023 foreign prisoners had been freed without deportation action being considered between 1999 and March this year.

f. John Reid Censured by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

While he was Secretary of State for Scotland, John Reid became the first senior cabinet member ever to be severely censured by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin. Reid was accused of using parliamentary allowances, taxpayer’s money, to pay the salaries of his son and other staff working for Labour’s electoral campaign. In the course of the inquiry, it emerged that Reid had held, “discussions” with witnesses, “which in plain un-parliamentary language sounded a lot like threats”.,2763,659705,00.html

g. John Reid and the Medical Consultant’s Excessive Salary Increases

When he was Health Secretary, John Reid was responsible for the new national consultants’ contract. The cost of the new pay deal is said to be the cause of the large deficits now being run up by health boards.,,2090-2168976_2,00.html

h. Lobbygate

Kevin (my father is John Reid) Reid, boasted of his contacts, “I worked for Jack [McConnell] and for Wendy [Alexander—minister for communities] and for Henry [McCleish—Enterprise Minister] and for Donald [Dewar—First Minister] on a one-to-one basis. I worked with the Labour Party media monitoring in the press team and I briefed them every night.”

i. John Reid & War Criminal Karadic

During the 1990s Bosnian War, John Reid became friends with Serb rebel leader and indicted war-criminal Radovan Karadzic. Reid has admitted that he spent three days at a luxury Geneva lakeside hotel as a guest of Karadzic in 1993.,2763,659705,00.html

j. Other media Information about John Reid

John Reid exploits death of soldier-Security Salesman-Blatant sales pitches to the House of Lords

John Reid Pushes Cell Phone Security

John Reid Attacks Alex Salmond

John Reid Abuses Iraqis the Dtinks Camels Piss

John Reid War Criminal

John Reid Phonecall Satire

Say no to John Reid

John Reid Corrupt Politician

John Reid Blames Immigration on Gordon Brown

Scottish Referendum

Lord Dannat Speaks Out and Gets a Reply

1. Opening Statement

a. General Dannatt was a controversial Army leader who was rarely off the television screens of the nation at the time of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He was criticized by the press for the failure of the British troops to take their main objective, Basra in the Iraq invasion and again at the start of the Afghanistan war due to the very high casualty rates suffered by the army.

b. His pattern of behavior, leaking information about helicopter shortages etc (however justified) revealed that he saw himself as more of a politician than a soldier. The fact he didn’t resign and then go public says more about his moral, “courage”. Servicemen can only have authority with the public and the politicians so long as they are willing and trusted to criticize in private and are seen as above politics.
2. The New Scottish Defence Force (Lord Dannatts view)

a. I studied the, Scottish government’s, “White Paper” on Scottish defence requirements and formed the view that the future defence of Scotland seemed to be the weakest link. A fundamental requirement of government is to provide fully for the security and defence of the state and its citizens. However, when the SNP says it can do that for between £2 billion and £2.5 billion a year, it reveals that it has little or no understanding of the real costs of defence. The costs of the commitments that the SNP has made about the size of a future Scottish defence force and inheriting, “Scotland’s share” of current UK defence assets just do not add up.

b. Manning all current Scottish regiments and “restoring” former Scottish regiments, as pledged earlier in the campaign, plus providing appropriate combat support units and some Special Forces, would take up the majority of the 15,000 Scottish defence force posts budgeted for by Alex Salmond on her future army alone. What about an independent Scotland’s navy or air force? And what about command and control, intelligence, countering terrorist and cyber threats, let alone protecting Scotland’s 11,000 miles of coastline and her airspace?

c. Scotland’s “share” of current assets – argued by the SNP to be a “fair” allocation of the UK’s current defence assets  would give her: five Chinook helicopters, 10 Typhoon jets, two Hercules C-130 transports, just over one-and-a-half destroyers or frigates, half an Astute submarine, one-sixth of an aircraft carrier, and just under one Red Arrow! What nonsense. These capabilities make sense only within an integrated UK.

d. Furthermore, the SNP’s pledge to remove the UK nuclear-deterrent submarines from their Clyde base by 2020 puts Scotland outside the nuclear-deterrent umbrella. Does that matter? I don’t know, but equally – and far more importantly – I do not know how the future is going to unfold, and nor does Mr Salmond. He is wanting to take the Scottish people on a gambling trip – why? Is it pride, or is it prejudice? Neither motive makes much sense in defence and security terms.
3. The New Scottish Defence Force (My Reply)

a. Lord Dannatt’s approach to the task of creating a new Scottish Defence Force (SDF) is influenced heavily by his own torturous experiences in the UK Armed forces. Although always provided with a very generous financial budget the UK armed forces has always been hopelessly over committed financially due to a perpetual insidious inter-service rivalry and a long history of incompetent acquisition, which routinely ended up in massive overspending and/or stockpiling of useless equipment, clothing, footwear, weapons ammunition, vehicles etc on a truly enormous scale.

b. The final make up and financing of the (SDF) is yet to be finalized but there would be a unified single command structure ensuring elimination of the wasteful practices of the UK armed forces. Detailed planning could only reasonably begin AFTER the outcome of the referendum is known and competent senior military personnel are in place. But £2Billion of the £20Billion, set aside for the purchase of the much mooted replacement Trident System would be transferred to Scotland, together with 10% of the overall defence budget. Clearly it would be in the best interests of Scotland and UKr if the initial transfer of finance would be in kind not money, (perhaps being set against the initial agreed budgetary transfer.

4. The Emotional Argument (Lord Dannatt)

a. And what about the Scottish people serving in the UK Armed Forces today? Those currently serving joined a fully professional set of UK Armed Forces committed to the defence of the entire United Kingdom and its wider interests. They swore a personal allegiance to the Queen, and not to any government of any political party or any particular part of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that as professional military people, Scotland’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are far better off within our current UK Armed Forces. Do the Scottish members of those highly professional Armed Forces really want now to be part of a local home defence force, outside Nato and the EU, along the lines of Denmark and Norway?

b. Between 1969 and 2007, Scottish soldiers fought and died to keep Northern Ireland within the overall United Kingdom. The IRA fought a 38-year campaign to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and join the six northern counties of the island of Ireland to the Republic in the South of Ireland as one sovereign state. Do the families of Scottish soldiers who lost their lives between 1969 and 2007 to preserve the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom now just say, “Well, it no longer matters”? I cannot speak for them, but I wonder just how much thought, appreciation and recognition is given to the memory of those who have fought and brought this United Kingdom of ours to where it is today, and where it could be in the future.

c. Scottish soldiers have fought over several centuries and in so many campaigns to preserve the territorial integrity of their country from external threat, but in the Northern Ireland campaign more recently, they fought against internal threat, but what about today? I worry particularly about the extent that we will be letting them down if Scotland disappears from our country, just on the whim of a few thousand voters willing to gamble on an uncertain future rather than staying within the United Kingdom, whose track record is second to none in Europe. The United Kingdom is what it is today because of the common commitment of the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Northern Irish – is it really right that a few thousand Scots should change the destiny of us all? And in the context of the Scottish soldiers who died to preserve the Union in the face of an armed challenge in Northern Ireland, is there not a democratic opportunity now to preserve the country we love in a better way? Just five million Scots resident in Scotland – or about 50 per cent of them – seem to want to redefine the identity of more than 60 million of the rest of us, and that of another couple of million Scots living outside Scotland who, like the rest of us, have no vote in this history-changing decision. Do they really have the moral right to do so?
5. The Emotional Argument (My Reply)

a. Any member of the existing UK armed forces would be allowed to elect to remain with the UKr armed forces. But all aspects and title of Regiments/units identified with Scotland would transfer to the newly formed (SDF). Recruitment and training off any shortfall in numbers would be achieved over time without undue difficulty since there are many thousands of ex-forces now looking for jobs due to the massive early redundancy programme, visited upon these loyal armed forces by the Con/Dem government. Scotland will join NATO at the outset and play a full part in the defence of the alliance, including, (as is the case for just about all other members) a nuclear shelter provided by the USA.

b. Raising the past troubles of Northern Ireland is jingoism and has no place in any discussion regarding the Scottish referendum on independence the rules of which have been discussed at length and agreed between Westminster and Holyrood. History will judge events and sometime in the future praise or dam the actions of UK governments in the period 1969-2005. The armed forces, being instruments of politicians and Westminster will be exempt from the foregoing.

c. In terms of other conflicts that Scottish forces have been drawn into by Westminster politicians I have attached references so that my views on the past are clear. In 1707 England stole a nation and hijacked the youth of Scotland to fight England’s wars of expansion.

A Heap of references for study so that a full picture of Lord Dannatt can be gathered.–A-honest-General.html#ixzz0TFtx5YV1