Scottish Office – Works For Westminster But Against Scotland



Sir David Steel



21 November 2001: Scotland Act Not Fit For Purpose and Needs to be Changed Says Lib/Dem Lord Steel

Lord Steel, the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer, yesterday criticised the devolution settlement, claiming that Scotland’s institutions should have more power to act without seeking Westminster approval.

Lord Steel, who was giving evidence to a parliamentary committee for the first time, indicated that Holyrood was fettered by the Scotland Act.

He told the parliament’s procedures committee that the Act should be altered to allow Scottish institutions to be changed without the permission of Westminster.

His objection to the current position became clear when his attention was drawn to the provisions of the Scotland Act, which state that the number of MSPs at Holyrood should be reduced from the current level of 129.

Lord Steel has always disagreed with plans to cut the number of MSPs to keep the Scottish parliament in line with proposed changes in the number of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons.

He said: “There’s one problem with the position of the parliament and that’s that it is still set up under the Scotland Act and we have to go back to that if we want to introduce changes in our structure.

I don’t think in the long run that’s a sensible way to proceed. Even if we are all agreed on a sensible change here it means we have to persuade both Houses at Westminster that they have got to give up time.

I think the real answer lies in that if and when the Scotland Act is reviewed, one of the changes that should be made is that the constitution of our own proceedings should be transferred to us, full stop.”

Fiona Hyslop, the Scottish National Party spokesman for parliament, said: “Lord Steel has raised very real concerns over the shackles that are being imposed on the Scottish Parliament by Westminster.

It is absolutely essential that we reclaim control of the parts of the Scotland Act that affect the running of the Scottish Parliament.”




Lord Wallace



11 February 2002: Scotland’s Deputy First Minister Lib/Dem Jim Wallace Calls for Abolition of the Scottish Office

The Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, said last week that there was no longer any need for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.

The leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats said Scottish ministers were already working closely with their counterparts in London, bypassing the need for a Scottish Secretary.





George Foulkes attempts to justify retention of the Scottish office

“There was a great deal of work to do in representing Scotland’s interests at Westminster despite devolution, the Scotland Office minister George Foulkes said yesterday.”

Foulkes, who acts as deputy to the Scottish Secretary, Helen Liddell, was replying to critics who said his job had been made redundant.

Foulkes said: “The Scottish Secretary is a very strong voice in the Cabinet and we are on about 20 cabinet committees and sub-committees which are determining what happens not just in Scotland, but in the whole of the UK.

We have huge amounts of Government papers to go through to make sure that the Scottish Executive is consulted as appropriate.”








The Role of the Scottish Office (defined by David Mundell, Sir Andrew Dunlop (Mundell’s minder, unelected peer and personal friend of David Cameron) and the Tory party: 2015)

Ensure the smooth working of the devolution settlement in Scotland. Representing Scottish interests within the UK Government and representing the UK Government in Scotland and ensure that when it comes to reserved matters (the issues that the UK Government deals with in Scotland), the people of Scotland’s voice is heard at the highest level in UK Government.


To strengthen and sustain the union.
To act as a custodian of the devolution settlement.
To be Scotland’s voice in Whitehall.
To represent Scottish interests within Government and support the rest of Government on UK matters.
To champion the UK Government in Scotland
To represent and advocate for the UK Government’s policies and achievements in Scotland.






Report by the Scottish Affairs Committee (2009) – Scotland and the UK: Cooperation and Communication Between Governments

There is a striking disparity in the size of the Scotland and Wales Offices since in many ways the roles they play are similar.

Apart from the Scotland Office incorporating the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General (OSAG), which has no parallel for Wales since Westminster remains the sole legislature for Wales we would expect the staffing of the two offices to be similar. They are not.

The latest annual reports for the two show that, (excluding the OSAG) the Scotland Office has 85 staff and the Wales Office an average of 41.

The Scotland Office therefore has more than twice as many officials as the Wales Office, even though the devolution settlement for Scotland is rather more straight forward from a UK Government point of view than the Wales one. We were offered no cogent explanation for this staffing discrepancy and do not understand how it has arisen.

It is recommended that the UK Government consider with care how to deal with devolution matters at an early date, so that the machinery of government relating to devolution can cope not just with inter-governmental relations as they stand but as they are likely to become in the medium term.





Scottish Affairs Committee Meeting – 2015 – Scottish Office – Financial matters – Francesca Osowska OBE, Director, Scotland Office, and Michael Chalmers, Director and Solicitor to the Advocate General were in attendance

Chair: Welcome to the Scottish Affairs Committee; we are very grateful for you both coming along today. If you would like to introduce yourselves and say what you do, and if there are any initial statements that you want to make to the Committee, please feel free to use that time.

Francesca Osowska: Thank you very much. I am Francesca Osowska. 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 have no opening statement, other than that I am very pleased to appear before the Committee to answer questions on the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate General Annual Report and Accounts for 2014-15.

Michael Chalmers: Thank you. My name is Michael Chalmers. I am the Director of the Office of the Advocate General and the Solicitor to the Advocate General. Similarly, I have no opening statement to make but am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Chair: Thank you very much. Obviously, we are here to talk about the Annual Report, which we have all digested and know inside out and back to forward, and so on. We are grateful that we are able to ask you a few questions about what is included in the Annual Report.

One of the things that struck me, perhaps you could explain to me how this works is that there are 100 staff currently employed within the Scotland Office. Is that correct, roughly 100 staff?

Francesca Osowska: Across the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate General, yes.

Chair: Across the estate that is operating the Scotland Office. None of them are permanent. Does that create any difficulties or problems or issues for you? I would imagine it must, and why has the decision been taken that they have no permanent staff in the Scotland Office?

Francesca Osowska: Maybe I will kick off on that and I will ask Michael to comment and give a perspective from the Office of the Advocate General. Since devolution and since the creation of the Scotland Office this has been the case: that the Scotland Office does not itself directly employ staff, but we second or take staff on loan from other Departments.

Part of that is pure economics, efficiency and practicality; to run a full scale HR system for such a small office would be inefficient. By tapping into the resources of other Government Departments for example, in the Scotland Office in London most of our staff are on loan, but we also benefit from arrangements with the Cabinet Office we can access external expertise and indeed access external HR expertise, which is effective and efficient for us.

Members of staff, once they are in post within the Scotland Office, I feel are fully part of the Scotland Office team, so if the question is about allegiance, there are no difficulties there. Michael, do you want to say something?

Chair: Just before Michael comes in, if you don’t mind, it is not about allegiance and I don’t think that is the issue. It is just being able to build up a staff capacity when none of them are permanent and most of them seem part-time.

Are they shared with other Ministry Departments or are they exclusive to the Scotland Office?

Francesca Osowska: They are exclusive to the Scotland Office.

Chair: Seconded from other Departments?

Francesca Osowska: They are seconded or on loan from other Departments. They have direct line management throughout the Scotland Office in the case of my staff, and for Michael in the case of OAG staff and they are answerable to Scotland Office Ministers, so that line of accountability is very direct.

Chair: Are there any plans to get permanent staff in place, given you have significant and substantial pieces of work to consider as we go forward in the session? Are you happy and relaxed about the current arrangements with the….

Francesca Osowska: Yes, I believe the current arrangements work very well, because we are able to bring in staff from other Departments and benefit from their expertise.

Michael Chalmers: Yes. It is similar for the Office of the Advocate General, in that what I require to run my office is staff that have public law expertise and Scots-qualified lawyers. It is a relatively small office. We have about 36 lawyers.

It helps the resilience of my office to able to draw from a larger pool. So, the Office of the Advocate General is part of an association of Government legal offices, together with the Scottish Government Legal Directorate, Scottish Parliament lawyers and Scottish Law Commission lawyers.

All of these offices together draw from the same pool of staff but, yes, as Francesca has outlined for the Scotland Office, we have staff fully dedicated to working in our office. They do not move between offices day to day; they are on a reasonably long-term secondment and that operates as quite a successful model for us because it helps the resilience of not just our office but the other legal offices I mentioned.

It also means that staff interchange and it helps their development of legal skills. In fact, adding the perspective of working for another administration is helpful as well.

Chair: How many staff does the Office of the Advocate General have then?

Michael Chalmers: We have 36 legal staff and I think it is 46 in total.

Chair: The last year, as I think we touched on, has been a particularly trying year, with lots of pieces of significant and substantial work, particularly 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?

Francesca Osowska: Thank you for the question. Again, I will speak for the Scotland Office and allow Michael to speak for the Office of the Advocate General.

In terms of the Annual Report, obviously that sets out five objectives for 2014-15. For the Scotland Office, I think our work continues in that vein. We have a strong constitutional role, primarily in relation to the Scotland Bill, which, as you are aware, is passing through these Houses at the moment.

That is a key priority for the Scotland Office. In addition we continue to be the voice of Scotland in Whitehall, so our work with other Government Departments across Whitehall, in terms of ensuring that they appreciate the devolution settlement and that they are conscious of the Scottish context, will continue.

Similarly, we are the voice of the UK Government in Scotland and, again, we work co-operatively with other Government Departments who have reserved responsibilities in Scotland to ensure that the UK government can work effectively in Scotland.

Chair: Just before we go to Mr Chalmers, do you have any sense of the balance? I am quite intrigued by seeing that you are the voice of Scotland and Whitehall and the voice of the UK Government in Scotland.

How would you see that balancing out in terms of the commitment to either of those fine offices?

Francesca Osowska: In terms of numbers of staff?

Chair: No, not in terms of numbers of staff but about how much time or effort. 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 in Scotland? How would you characterise the effort that is put on to each of those very laudable aims and objectives?

Francesca Osowska: 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.

Chair: Mr Chalmers?

Michael Chalmers: Yes. The role of our office is to provide Scots law advice to the whole of the UK Government. Our objectives reflect that, so that includes litigation for UK Government Departments in Scotland.

It includes giving Scots legal advice to all UK Government Departments, particularly on Westminster Bills, for example but not restricted to that and also supporting the constitutional objectives that the Scotland Office shares.

Obviously that would include the Scotland Bill and legal work on the Scotland Bill but it also includes a lot of the stuff that goes on below the radar.

Francesca mentioned Scotland Act orders; so, lawyers from my office will work closely with lawyers in the Scottish Government to make sure those orders proceed smoothly through each of the Parliaments.

I suppose an example would be the section 30 order that we put through in the early part of this year to change the competence of the Scottish Parliament to allow legislation for 16 and 17 year olds to vote at next year’s Holyrood elections, so there is a lot of that sort of working below the radar that we continue to do and we see ourselves as part of the good operation of devolution and government for Scotland.

Chair: Thank you.


Financial matters – The Scottish referendum – Use of the Civil Service in support of the “Better Together” campaign

Margaret Ferrier: Looking at the 2015-16 budget for the Scotland Office it was set at £5.8 million in the 2013 spending round, but the most recent main estimate asked Parliament to approve an additional £3 million for capability enhancement. What are these additional funds for?

Francesca Osowska: In terms of the out turn for 2014-15 the total combined out turn for the Office of the Advocate General and the Scotland Office was £7.7 million. You will appreciate that that did include an uplift from the original budget setting process that occurred in 2010.

At that point, a referendum was not anticipated; a lot of the work in terms of 2014-15 has been the follow through or was related to the referendum, so the work in the run up to the referendum, contributing to the Scotland analysis papers for example, supporting Ministers as they gave public information to inform the debate about the referendum, and that explains the increase in that provision.

Margaret Ferrier: These public Ministers, are you meaning UK Ministers?

Francesca Osowska: Yes.

Margaret Ferrier: Not Scottish Government?

Francesca Osowska: No.

Margaret Ferrier: The Annual Report and Accounts show that general administration costs rose by about 8% from £7.2 million in 2013-14 to £7.7 million in 2014-15. Why do you feel the general administration costs are rising? Is there another reason, other than the referendum debate that was taking place?

Francesca Osowska: No. As I said earlier, the very initial budget was set in 2010 as part of that spending review. The referendum was not anticipated at that point and this increase represents the resources dedicated by the Scotland Office to supporting the work of the UK Government, overall, in informing the referendum debate.

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

Francesca Osowska: In terms of the increase, there are a number of different figures being talked about here. It might be helpful if I wrote to the Committee after this hearing to set out the sequence of events, because there were uplifts granted and changes in the Budget made from the original 2010 provision at different periods, including during the course of 2013-14, so I do not think it is entirely correct to say it was a single jump of £3 million.

In terms of what that money delivered and the outcomes that the Scotland Office delivered, I would refer the Committee to chapter 3 of the report. That sets out quite a detailed analysis of the outcomes and the outputs from the five objectives set by the Scotland Office, and certainly part of that work and a focus of that work in 2014-15 was in relation to the run-up and then the after-events—including the Smith Commission—of the referendum.

Chair: It would be helpful if you write to the Committee to explain properly what that £3.3 million did account for. What we are hearing is that this might have been the figure that was used for the referendum campaign, for the “No” campaign, and used by UK Ministers to take part in the referendum. Would that be roughly a correct characterisation of that spending?

Francesca Osowska: I don’t think it would be, if you don’t mind. What I am saying is that, if we look at page 54 of the Annual Report and Accounts, then you see the trajectory of the Scotland Office and Office of the Advocate General accounts.

You can see, in terms of general administration costs, that they have more or less been around the £7 million. That is why I feel it is important that I write and set out the explanation of the £3 million figure.

Chair: Please do.

Francesca Osowska: However, in answer to your question, Mr Chairman in relation to “Was this a way of the Government funding the ‘No’ campaign?” this was to fund the activities of UK Government civil servants, in line with the civil service code.

All activities undertaken by civil servants in my Department would meet a propriety test, yet I think you would agree that in the run-up to a referendum, obviously when Ministers want to be more visible, when we need to ensure that there is a good flow of public information for example, via the Scotland analysis papers that increases our activity and that is why there was an increase between the 2013-14 out turn and 2014-15 out turn.



Francesca Osowska OBE, Director, Scotland Office,




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

Francesca Osowska in a number of her 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. A gross misuse of public finances and Civil Servants presumably authorised by David Cameron and Sir Jeremy Heywood.

The matter of the Scottish Office staffing establishment drew comment but did not address the previously advised 50+ excess staffing of the Scottish Office over the Welsh Office.

So the Scottish Office has retained 50+ unjustified posts the costs of which are charged to Scotland’s block grant at a cost of around 2.5million each year.

The annual slush fund is a never reducing financial nest egg ( it is skimmed off Scotland’s block financial grant) and used, abused by the Scottish Office for purposes such as the UK government anti-devolution leaflet production, printing and distribution. Hiring of Special Advisors (SpAds), usually sons, daughters, other relations, friends of ministers or other MP’s. Temporary secondment of Civil Servants from other Government Departments.

Sir Jeremy Heywood and David Cameron




November 2014: Public Statement from the office of the head of the Civil Service Sir Jeremy Heywood (not long after the referendum)

The Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award 2014: Presented by Sir Jeremy Heywood to an individual or team who deserving of particular recognition for outstanding achievements in making a marked difference on an issue of national importance – Awarded to a group of impartial UK Civil Servants (The Scottish Referendum Dirty Tricks campaign).
Speaking for the 20+ strong Civil Service Team, Mario Pisani Deputy Director at HM Treasury said:

“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 came so 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 recognised (at the Civil Service Awards), makes me feel just incredibly proud.”

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.”

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.”

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 recognised (at the Civil Service Awards), makes me feel just incredibly proud.”




Labour Party in Government in Scotland – Incompetence or criminal deception



The Late Donald Dewar and the First lady of the UK


McConnell with his pal Donald





Labour Party Accused of Cheating the Scottish Electorate

The Labour Party, assisted by the Lib/Dem’s formed the government in Scotland from the start of devolution until 2007. In that time Donald Dewar, Henry Mcleish then Jack McConnell held the office of First Minister. In this period the Labour Party in Scotland was found to be wanting in honesty and integrity. The right wing press attacked Labour questioning it’s fitness for government.

Mcleish resigned and handed over to McConnell who despite being nominated by no-one within the Party was elected to lead the Scottish government, ( a coronation). McConnell resigned in 2007, following electoral defeat by the SNP. From that time the party has been led by: Wendy Alexander, Ian Gray (twice), Johann Lamont, Anas Sarwar (twice), Jim Murphy and Kezia Dugdale.



Wendy Alexander

Johann Lamont

Ian Gray

Jim Murphy

Anas Sarwar

Kezia Dugdale





15 November 2001: The sorry saga of devolution under a Labour Government

Before we start talking about the hopes and dreams of new First Ministers, before we begin to talk about reshuffles, let us get one thing straight. And that is that some of us warned against taking the devolution road. Not once, not twice – but consistently.

That we are entitled to say “We told you so” is beyond peradventure. But I feel provoked into saying it now because everyone seems to be trying to get in on the act. By this I mean everyone who insisted that devolution would bring sunshine and light to the land. Instead, what it has brought is:

  • One First Minister’s (Mcleish) resignation because of irregularities – to say the least – about his office expenses, dating back 14 years.
  • That same First Minister, having served less than 12 no doubt arduous months, is in receipt of a pension for the rest of his life of £34,000 a year – courtesy of a grateful taxpayer.
  • His resignation unearthed a plethora of sweetheart deals between a constituency Labour Party and a melange of public authorities, charities, blue chip law firms and office equipment suppliers, all of whom appeared only too happy to make sizeable contributions towards the running of a Labour MP’s office.
  • The confession of the man who would be First Minister, (McConnell) that he had cheated (with a close working colleague) and lied to his wife.
  • The succession for the post of First Minister has been reduced to a coronation, with Labour failing dismally to arrange anything remotely resembling democracy for the nation’s pre-eminent political post.
  • Such is the strength of the lickspittle tendency within Scottish Labour that in spite of the fact that not a single Cabinet minister signed McConnell’s nomination papers, neither did even one of them have the guts to stand against him.


In spite of acres of guff about recent events proving the worth of devolution and of the Scottish Parliament, the bald truth – accepted by everyone who thinks seriously about it – is that the whole project has been besmirched and undermined to an incredible degree. “We are taking on the appearance of a banana republic,” said one senior nationalist who fears that devolution, never mind independence, is holed below the waterline.

He is right. Scotland has become a laughing stock. If you don’t believe me, ask a friend or relative elsewhere in the United Kingdom who witnessed Henry McLeish’s Question Time performance, or his resignation saga, or who saw Mr McConnell’s “confessional”.  The rest of Britain thinks we’re nuts. And just in case anyone should be in any doubt about it there is no joy, only worry, here even for those of us who might have wished that devolution had never been born. After all, we live here. And outsiders hold us all – however we voted in the 1997 referendum – to be equally guilty for the farce that now engulfs us.

All of which makes it all the more galling, as I said at the start, that some of those who were the most vociferous in advocating devolution as a cure-all are now trying to claim that they had always opposed it and that they had warned that home rule would see us run by second-rate no-hopers. It fairly takes the breath away.  Still, this is a minor irritant when compared to the main job in hand, which must be to restore some of this country’s battered pride and dignity.


It’s not over!!