Scottish Pensioners Need to Waken Up and Smell the Coffee – Remaining With the UK is Not an Option if You are Old





Image result for pensioner images

The vast majority of pensioners rely on the State pension for survival





Pension Payments are Unsustainable and Invite Radical Change

The cost of pension support to the UK exceeds £110bn annually. Expenditure will automatically uplift by at least 2.5% each year (up to 2020) meeting the Tory government “triple lock” commitment to pensioners. Overall expenditure will rise even further, as the percentage of the population grows older.

Projections are that £1 of each £6 of public expenditure will be on pensions against an optimal level of £1 of each £10. But how is a £45bn cut in cost to be achieved? Note the “triple lock” commitment ends in 2020, which may signal the introduction of radically revised pension arrangements including the end of the “triple lock” and a further qualifying age rise offsetting the increasing number of pensioners.

The influential, Taxpayers’ Alliance (no friend of state pensioners) is lobbying the government hard pursuing a reduction in the cost of pension support, to a level matching the economic reality of the UK’s financial situation and one that does not benefit pensioners to the financial detriment of the working population, many of whom have not had a pay rise for many years.

A Department of Work and Pensions spokesman said recently: “The government has protected the incomes of millions of pensioners with the triple lock and is committed to continuing this uprating mechanism for the state pension until 2020.” (note the cryptic qualification)

Scottish pensioners and anyone who might be over 60 years old should reflect on the facts that the financial care of pensioners within the UK is not encouraging and a careful study of projected arrangements in an independent Scotland is warranted before casting their vote in any future Scottish Referendum.



Image result for pensioner images

Fiscal policies of the UK government are adversely affecting pensioners




The Stanley and Ollie of Scottish Politics – But Stupid and Dangerous – Not at All Funny – The Mundell Dynasty Utter Tripe




Image result for mundell images

The Mundell political Dynasty






25 October 2016: Mundell’s son (the MSP) says that the SNP’s pursuit of a ‘Norway-style’ deal with the EU could force a Scottish English Border

He said: “This is yet more evidence that the SNP are only interested in breaking up our United Kingdom as the European Union are not interested in giving a separate deal for Scotland yet now we hear they want a ‘Norway style deal’ that would only succeed in creating a border between ourselves and England. This is hugely misguided from the SNP who know that the UK exports market is worth four times as much to the economy than our exports to the European Union. Instead of this grandstanding, they should be promoting the important links between ourselves and major cities in the North in a bid to boost economic growth in Scotland. The vote to leave the European Union was conducted as the United Kingdom and our interests will be best served by negotiating as the United Kingdom. People in Dumfries-shire voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the Union two years ago and will not be impressed by the SNP looking to put up borders between our friends a matter of miles away.”



Related image

Mundell’s and new wife Catherine- extending the political dynasty in Dumfriesshire





Border controls between England and Scotland will mirror those in place between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have functioned extremely well, (without a hard border,) for nearly 100 years. A clear statement of intent has been issued by Westminster stating that there will be no change in this arrangement after Brexit. The same ruling would be extended to the Scotland England border

However, a recent poll indicated that this fear scare, (much trumpeted by the 2 Mundell’s) no longer bothered around 47% of Scottish voters who would be happy to see the introduction of border controls which would inconvenience England much more than it would Scotland.



Related image

Mundell’s at the count in Dumfries




21 October 2016: Mundell gets an answer from his own electorate — Would you like another independence referendum? (The Cumnock Chronicle)

A consultation has been launched to reconsider the question of Scottish independence before the UK leaves the EU. Now, the Border Telegraph and Peeblesshire News want to find out if you’re in support of another referendum following the announcement from Holyrood. The Scottish Government claim the draft bill has been prepared to protect Scotland’s interests in light of the UK vote to leave the EU and the overwhelming vote across Scotland to remain. By having the bill available, the government says it will allow all options for the Scottish Parliament to protect Scotland’s continuing relationship with Europe. The draft bill proposes that any referendum would be run in a way similar to 2014, with technical adjustments to reflect recent changes in elections law and procedures such as individual registration.

Do you want another independence referendum? Readers voted: Yes: 82% No; 18%



Related image

Oh dear there are 3 of them




Another independence referendum holds no fear for Scots who believe in democracy.

The referendum will be conducted under the same rules as in 2014. This provides a voice (denied them in the recent EU referendum) for 16 and 17 year-olds and EU citizens residing in Scotland. This has the potential to add 150,000 more pro-European voters to the 1,811,911 remain voters that voted in the referendum.

An analysis of voting history in Scotland indicates another Scottish independence referendum will produce this result: Yes: 55% No: 45%

Throughout the 2014 referendum campaign Unionist supporters, press and media conditioned Scots to believe that the UK was a “family of equals” who would continue to enjoy the benefits of EU membership, but only if the vote was to remain with the UK. The fear tactic worked a treat.

Only 2 years after, in the 2016 EU referendum Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain with the EU but the big clunking fist of Westminster voted to leave. So tough on the Scots and Irish. The UK is to leave the EU. Yet again Westminster has said “jump” to the Scots. But will the reply be “how high?” or “get stuffed!!”



Related image

Just had to get her in





13 October 2016: Row brewing over new powers for Holyrood post Brexit

Scottish Secretary David Mundell has indicated Holyrood will not automatically be handed more powers when the UK leaves the EU. He said the devolution settlement would undoubtedly be changed as a result of Brexit, but insisted how would be “subject to debate and discussion”.

In the commons Mundell said: “It’s self-evident that, because the devolution settlements within the UK are predicated on the basis that the UK was a member of the EU, then those devolution settlements will be changed by the UK leaving.” But he added: “Those will be matters which will be subject to debate and discussion.” Asked by an SNP MP to “categorically rule out” the “re-reserving” of powers to Westminster. Mr Mundell did not.



Image result for mundell images

Unsure of their Loyalty





25 November 2016: Mundell’s suggestion more powers could be transferred to the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit a “smokescreen”

In a recent BBC interview he said: “What I think hasn’t been fully understood and is only just beginning to be debated – which is what I want to encourage – is that by leaving the EU that will have a fundamental change on the devolved settlement here in Scotland and indeed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. For example, and I think self-evidently, agriculture and fisheries are two of the issues currently exercised at European level. Both the NFU in Scotland and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation are coming forward with their views as to how these sort of powers should be taken forward post leaving the EU. But there will be significant powers in the area of the environment and there are also powers in relation to the criminal justice system as well.”



Image result for mundell images

Would you buy a used car from this man?




Scotland to be stripped of its devolved powers and powers returned to the UK post Brexit will not be transferred to Scotland

In the event Brexit is adopted Holyrood will lose a significant number of devolved powers due to the fact that there is no clearly defined UK single market at present and Westminster will need to establish one which operates in its favour. To achieve this the UK government will greatly expand the range of powers that are reserved to Westminster.

To facilitate this a review will be conducted encompassing (but not exhaustive): whisky, food and drink, fishing, farming, creative industries, manufacturing, construction,engineering, medical research, oil and gas, renewables, global transport, tourism, IT, financial services and education.

In addition as powers presently transferred to the EU in 1998 are transferred back to the UK they will not then be devolved to Scotland. E.G. fishing, agriculture. Scotland will lose out again when Westminster tightens its control of the political agenda.



Image result for mundell images

Like father?





Lucy Frazer – Tory MP – Destined for Greatness – Jewess – Strangely Seemingly an Admirer of Perpetrators of Shoahs – But Only if Scots Are on the Receiving End of the Brutality




Image result for lucy frazer mp images






Lucy Frazer (1972), is a Conservative Party politician.

Born and raised in Leeds, Yorkshire. She is the descendant of Russian Jewish immigrants. (Frazer is a common Jewish surname)

Her paternal Great Grandfather was Jewish immigrant: Barnet Frazer. ( A tailor to trade, Russian born (1880-1933) settled in Leeds (married Elizabeth (1870-1925) in 1897.
Her maternal Great Grandfather was Jewish immigrant: Soloman Leviten. (Russian born (1870 – 1923) settled in Leeds (married Elizabeth Perlston (1875-1940) in 1898.

Her paternal Grandfather was Hyman Frazer (1908-1985) (mathematician, barrister and educationalist, Headmaster of Gateway College in Leicester, married in Leeds in 1933.)
Her maternal Grandmother was Yetta Leviten (1913-1995) (Last born of 8 children)

Her father, Colin Peter Frazer, was a partner in the collapsed Leeds legal firm Fox Hayes. (see below)

Lucy was educated at Leeds Girls’ High School, an independent school in Headingley, a suburb of the City of Leeds, followed by Newnham College, Cambridge, where she was President of the Cambridge Union. She worked as a barrister in commercial law specialising in major insolvency and restructuring cases, including being a member of the legal team in the Fox Hayes v. Financial Services Authority court case in 2010, and went on to become a QC in 2013 at the age of forty.

She is married to millionaire businessman, David Bernard Leigh, (Levy?) Possessing an MA in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University and a post-graduate legal qualification from the College of Law, London he is a Director of a number of financially successful concerns.

Lucy successfully stood (after a bit of controversy. See below) for election to Westminster in 2015 and is the current Member of Parliament (MP) for South East Cambridgeshire.



Image result for boiler scheme scam images






2011: Lucy Frazer’s Father Guilty of “Boiler Room” Fraud Promoting Unauthorised Financial Promotions

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has found the Leeds-based law firm Fox Hayes partners to be personally liable for breaches of the “Conduct of Business” (COB) in relation to the approval of at least 20 financial promotions for five overseas unauthorised entities between February 2003 and June 2004. UK customers (670) purchased shares totalling approximately $20 million which are now of little or no value.

The FSA imposed a fine of £454,770 on the now defunct Fox Hayes partnership: comprising Mr John Robert Manning, Mr Stephen Maurice Coupland, Mr Ian David Coupland, Mr Philip Leigh Drazen, Mr Malcolm Richard Jones, Mr Richard Geraint Jones, Mr Colin Peter Frazer and Mr Ian Brill.



Image result for ponzi schemes images





2014: Two international share swindlers are starting lengthy jail sentences after being convicted in the biggest ‘boiler room’ investment case ever brought by the Serious Fraud Office.

Australian businessman Jeffrey Revell-Reade, 49, was sentenced on Friday to eight and a half years in prison, and his British accomplice Anthony May, 58, was jailed for seven years and four months after they were found guilty at South London’s Southwark Crown Court of conspiracy to defraud. The two men controlled a string of bogus stockbroking firms based in Spain that used false claims and high-pressure phone calls to persuade more than 1,000 investors to part with about £70million for shares that proved worthless.

A third man, Robert Manning, 63, formerly senior partner in Leeds solicitors Fox Hayes, was accused of pocketing several hundred thousand pounds in return for lending his firm’s name to promotional mailshots issued by the brokers and collecting payments from investors, but the jury cleared him on a charge of corruption.

Daniel Gooding, 39, of Brentwood, Essex, was sentenced to seven years after the court heard he was the manager who ran the telemarketing sales teams in Spain. Shaun Rumsey, 33 of Basildon, Essex, Philip Morris, 38, of Biddenden, Kent, and Jon Emery, 36, of Romford, Essex, were each jailed for five years.

Ian Hughes, 34, of Hainault, Essex, was sentenced to four years. Gooding’s sister Emma Farmer, 41, was jailed for three years. Her mother, Michelle Coleman, 62, was given a 21-month sentence, suspended for two years, after she admitted laundering £252,425, of which she kept £158,000.

The Serious Fraud Office investigation – codenamed Operation Steamroller – lasted seven years and involved enquiries in the US, Hong Kong and New Zealand. Revell-Reade was extradited from Australia in 2012, and May was arrested in Spain several months later.

Revell-Reade is believed to have made about £37million from the frauds. He bought three apartments in Marbella, Spain, and a £5million luxury home in Wimbledon, South-West London, as well as hiring private jets and spending £13,000 on Rolex and Cartier watches.

July 2003: Tresaderns & Partners, based in Madrid, was linked to an earlier boiler room scam, and Spanish company records showed it was posing as a credit checking business, not a stockbroker.  The information  was made known to solicitors Fox Hayes, together with the warning that it was putting its own reputation on the line in fronting for crooks. What was not known at the time was that, unknown to his partners, the law firm’s boss Mr John Robert Manning had done a secret deal with Revell-Reade that earned him 4 per cent of all the cash raised from victims.

In 2004, I investigated Atlantic Wine Agencies, an Australian vineyard company whose shares were marketed by Tresaderns and by the fully licensed – but disreputable – London broker Pacific Continental Securities. I named Revell-Reade as one of those behind the scam.

Much later, the Financial Services Authority found evidence that he virtually controlled the London firm behind the scenes. It was heavily fined and went bust in 2007. The fraud charges against the share crooks also involved two other offshore brokers, Price Stone and Anderson McCormack.

Evidence was given that Revell-Reade had held meetings with Fox Hayes to discuss how to respond to MoS revelations. And when too many awkward questions were raised, one firm would disappear and a new name would take over. I warned against the two new boiler rooms in 2006 and named Daniel Gooding as a main player.

But just as interesting as those in the dock are the names that cropped up in evidence but faced no charges. One man deeply involved in dealing with Fox Hayes was David Rycott. More than 20 years ago, he ran a rip-off commodity investment firm in London called DPR Futures. He was cleared of fraud charges at the Old Bailey and went on to run an unlicensed foreign exchange dealership before leaving the country.

Another was London lawyer Andrew Greystoke. He threatened to sue me when I reported in 2009 that his firm Atlantic Law had been fined for its links to Anderson McCormack and three other boiler rooms.

The case against Revell-Reade, May and their sales manager, Gooding, revolved around three scams, but there were more: Hoffman Philips, City Allied, Eagle Star International and others. They even took over a Berlin broking firm, Atlantic Capital, that was shut down after it was raided by police in 2007.



Image result for david bernard leigh

David Bernard Leigh




David Bernard Leigh (Levy) and Borderless Higher Education

Over the next decade it is anticipated upwards of 10 million students will be seeking university placements outside the country of their birth so that they will be able to gain enabling qualifications assuring a successful career in an ever increasing international market. The uncompetitive UK higher education system is not yet fully adjusted to the new reality.

Government and University authorities have been slow in recognising that the number of international students coming to Europe, embracing for-profit institutions is increasing steadily and a smaller number of UK based students are expressing interest in completing their first year of study enrolling with a for-profits institution (with lower fees than public funded universities.)

The progression of borderless education has introduced to the UK, the for profit, “Pathway Centre” meeting demands of an ever increasing number of international students. The emergence of these for-profit universities in England did attract comment in the national media, but the rapid growth of private study centres offering international students pre-degree “pathway” courses into higher education has remained below the radar. Yet thousands of international students now study at these for profit centres which offer courses linked to a guaranteed place on a degree course at a partner university.

The global leader the “Study Group” has, as it’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) David Bernard Leigh (Levy?) The Group operates its own colleges, preparing students for international academic success in collaboration with leading universities across the UK, Europe, North America and Australasia providing on and off-campus education through International Study Centres (ISCs). It’s global recruitment teams enrolled over 73,000 students from 145 countries in 2015.

And a number of UK universities have embraced the Pathway concept including, the “Northern Consortium” institution, (comprising the universities of Bradford, Huddersfield, Leeds, Leeds Metropolitan, Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores, Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan, Salford, Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam.)
Wife: Lucy Frazer MP, got herself elected onto the House of Commons, Education Select Committee. Hows that for blatant nepotism?


David Bernard Leigh also retains directorships with:

*The Hall School Charitable Trust. A fee paying private school for boys.

* The London Carlbach Shul Trust. Objectives: Advancement of the orthodox Jewish religion by the establishment continuance and support of an orthodox Jewish synagogue.

* International Entertainment Holdings Limited. Worlds largest performing arts group, operating theatres, producing, theatrical productions. Greg Dykes Chairman. Value £600million.

* EDU-UK Bondco PlC. Holding company and 3 subsidiaries.


More details at:




Image result for lucy fraser image





21 January 2014: Resignations follow Cambridgeshire Tory vote ‘shambles’

Members of the Conservative Party in Cambridgeshire have resigned over concerns about the selection of a general election candidate. Lucy Frazer had been selected by David Cameron to stand for selection in a primary for the safe seat of South East Cambridgeshire. The local party looked at the election again after allegations votes had been miscounted, but chose not to rerun it. The votes actually put another candidate in the lead.

At an emergency meeting of the local Conservative Party a majority of members voted to keep her as the candidate. Peter Johnson, Conservative councillor (who later resigned) said “If there is any doubt with an election, you should rerun it. We have become a laughing stock. We continue to compound that by trying to justify the decision. It is totally untenable. There are others I know who have resigned who are party workers. They work for the party at election time. They have gone and I don’t know how the party is going to replace them.”







2015: Lucy Frazer’s Sharon Stone Moment in the House of Commons

She flashed more than she bargained for in a short skirt at yesterday’s PMQs. She sent social media into a frenzy when she sat behind Prime Minister Theresa May and appeared to copy the seductive pose made famous in the 1990 film Basic Instinct.




Image result for cromwell images




2015: Lucy Frazer Praises Cromwell’s Purge of Scots after the Battle of Dunbar

In her maiden speech in the Commons at Westminster, Lucy Frazer, MP for Cambridgeshire South East, praised Oliver Cromwell, (who was born in her constituency) for his treatment of the Scots Covenanters after the “Battle of Dunbar” when he despatched over 5,000 captive soldiers into slavery. Amid much laughter on the Tory benches she went on to offer her colleagues a view that the answer to the “West Lothian Question”, might be to follow Cromwell’s lead and banish troublesome Scots to the colonies as slaves.

The speaker was invited, by public petition to rule that she should make a statement to the House apologising for the remarks which had caused great offence to Scots viewers of the Parliamentary Channel and many other UK residents He refused to intervene stating that she was free to say anything that she wished to in Parliament.

His support of Ms Frazer needs to be set against his rebuke of Scottish MP’s only a few days earlier when he told them that “clapping” was not allowed in the Commons. Clarification of the rules of the game regarding Scots. It is perfectly acceptable to propose that troublesome Scots MP’s should be clapped in irons to be sold as slaves and shipped to the colonies, but Honourable Members must not support the proposal by clapping.

Addressing the banality of her speech it might have been possible to dismiss it (and the conduct of her colleagues) had her comments been “off the cuff” but they had been carefully crafted, written and rehearsed beforehand indicating an undefined level of complicity revealing the patronising ambivalent attitude (towards Scots) of Unionist MP’s at Westminster.

That she felt able to make fun of so many young Scots, murdered and enslaved in only one of many Holocausts inflicted by the English on Scotland over many centuries is even more sickening when her own family background is revealed.








The Battle of Dunbar

Following defeat in the English Civil War, Charles I was executed in January 1649. After declaring the establishment of a Commonwealth in England Cromwell took his “New Model Army” over to Ireland and quelled any uprising in a number of victories over Irish supporters of the monarchy.

Charles II was forced to abandon his plans to use Ireland as a military base to win back the throne of England and turned his attention to Scotland, taking advantage of Scottish outrage at the presumption of the English Parliament in executing Charles I, who had been King of Scotland as well as England. Negotiations between Charles and a delegation from the Scottish government opened in the Netherlands in March 1650 which resulted in the signing of the “Treaty of Breda” in May and Charles’ arrival in Scotland in June 1650, where he was proclaimed King Charles II of Scotland

The Commonwealth Council of State in London was alarmed when the treaty was signed and resolved to mount an immediate invasion of Scotland to forestall the possibility of a Scottish attack on England and in July the English Parliament, expecting Charles to initiate a Scottish led campaign for the English crown, launched a pre-emptive invasion of Scotland.
















Oliver Cromwell was appointed commander-in-chief. His battle hardened army comprised seven regiments of horse, nine of foot and six companies of dragoons, numbering around 15,000 men in total. Marching north via York, Durham and Newcastle, Cromwell mustered his forces at Berwick-on-Tweed on 19 July 1650. He crossed the border on 22 July 1650. Crucially, the army was supported by a large supply fleet, which landed at Dunbar a few days before the battle.

The Scottish Parliament belatedly became aware of English preparations for an invasion and, on 25 June 1650, ordered that a new force comprising around 10,000 foot and 3,000 horse be recruited and trained to reinforce the Army of the Covenant which numbered around 1500 foot soldiers and a small cavalry force.

Whilst his ageing father the Earl of Leven took overall command, his son, Lieutenant-General David Leslie son of the Earl of Leven undertook day to day control of the Scottish army (reporting to a Kirk commission headed by Sir Archibald Johnston.) The commissioners insisted that drill or military operations would not be carried out on the Sabbath and attempted to purge the army of all Engagers and potential Royalist supporters and, as the campaign developed, the commissioners interfered in military decisions regarding strategy and tactics.

The summer of 1650 was extremely cold and wet and the Scottish army, (largely comprised of raw recruits aged between 12-18) was still mustering when Cromwell crossed the border from Berwick on 22 July 1650.



Image result for battle of dunbar images





Playing for time (to train his young soldiers) Lord Leven directed the construction of an extensive line of earthworks between Edinburgh and Leith which allowed the Scottish army to take up an impregnable defensive position. He also ordered the destruction of all crops and the removal of all livestock between Edinburgh and the border so that Cromwell’s army would have to get all its supplies from England.

The English army advanced to within a few miles of Edinburgh but Cromwell realised that the Scottish lines of defence were too strong to risk a direct assault and retreated to the port of Dunbar so that he could occupy its sheltered harbour, securing a sea-route for supplies. Then, under cover of his warships bombarding Leith, Cromwell deployed his troops in battle order in an attempt to draw the Scottish army out into the open.

The Covenanter committee were keen to attack the English force but the seasoned soldier, Lord Leven was equally determined to avoid a pitched battle with his inexperienced army and stayed stubbornly dug in behind the defences.

It rained heavily all week and Cromwell was forced to withdraw, (harassed by Scottish Lancers) first to Musselburgh then to Dunbar for shelter. His army was exhausted, many were sick from cold and flu and food rationing was severe since the supply ships had given priority to the carriage of munitions rather than food. The stand-off lasted throughout August.

The Scottish army had increased in number over the period, swelling to around 20,000 and Lieutenant-General David Leslie Sir Leslie, seized upon the opportunity to move his force around Cromwell cutting off his escape route south to Berwick. Cromwell now finally had Leslie offering battle, but his “New Model Army” was at a severe disadvantage. Cromwell was forced to meet the challenge, achieving what was arguably the most dramatic victory of the Civil Wars.



Related image





On 1 September 1650, Leslie took up a commanding position overlooking the English encampment at Dunbar. Trapped between the sea on one side, the Covenanters’ impregnable position on the other, and with the road back to England blockaded, it seemed that Cromwell had no option but to attempt to evacuate his troops by sea.

On the morning of 2 September, however, the Covenanters played into Cromwell’s hands by marching down from the commanding heights of Doon Hill. The decision to come down from the hill to attack the English army on level ground has traditionally been ascribed to the godly committee that accompanied the army, and is widely condemned as a tactical blunder.

However, the strength of the Scottish position precluded any possibility that Cromwell would attack up the steep slopes of Doon Hill. Lacking heavy artillery, the Scots could do nothing to hinder the English army. Furthermore, the bad weather was worsening and the Scottish army had no shelter from the wind and rain on the exposed hilltop.

During the morning and afternoon of 2 September, the Covenanter army moved down from the hill and drew up in an arc aligned with the course of a stream called the Broxburn, with the coast on the right flank. On the left of the Scottish position, the Broxburn passed through a deep ravine; on the right, towards the coast, the ground levelled out and the stream was crossed by the road from Dunbar to Berwick.

While the Scottish army re-deployed, Cromwell brought the English army forward from Dunbar to form a battle-line on the northern side of the Broxburn. Skirmishing broke out during the late afternoon of 2 September when an advance guard of lancers moved forward to cover the cumbersome manoeuvring as the Scots moved into their new positions.

By nightfall, the Berwick road was successfully blocked. Cromwell was left with a choice between evacuating his army by sea or forcing a way through the Scottish blockade to escape by land. However, while observing the new Scottish position, Cromwell and Lambert both identified a tactical flaw in the deployment.



Image result for dunbar martyrs





The Scottish line was awkwardly positioned between the Broxburn river and the slopes of Doon Hill, leaving the centre and left flank with little room for manoeuvre.

At a council of war that night, the English officers agreed to mount an all-out assault on the Scottish right flank early the next morning, with the objective of turning the flank and disrupting the whole position by driving the Scots into the constricted centre. During the night, while the Scots rested uncomfortably in rain-soaked fields, Cromwell used the darkness and heavy rain to cover the redeployment of his army.

The battle line along the Broxburn was abandoned and the English army stacked up, one brigade behind another, across the Berwick road. Around 7,500 infantry and 3,500 cavalry were fit to fight on the morning of 3 September.

The leading vanguard comprised six cavalry regiments comprising 9,000 men and an infantry brigade of around 2,000 men. The vanguard was supported by two more infantry brigades of around 2,500 men each. Cromwell’s own regiment of horse were held in reserve, brigaded with two companies of dragoons. The remaining dragoons mounted guard along the edge of the Broxburn to cover the English artillery, which was deployed on rising ground overlooking the Scottish left wing.

The disposition of the Scottish army is not exactly known, but most of the cavalry (numbering around 2,500 troopers) were stationed on the right wing between the Berwick road and the coast, facing the 16,000 strong English vanguard. A cavalry force, numbering around 1,500 was stationed on the left wing. Between the wings of cavalry, there were five brigades of infantry numbering around 10,000.



Image result for dunbar martyrs





The Battle of Dunbar began at about four o’clock on the morning of 3 September 1650, when the English vanguard, advanced in force securing the crossings of the Broxburn on the Scottish right flank. Scottish piquets were driven back but raised the alarm. An infantry brigade advanced in support the English cavalry, a fierce firefight and artillery exchange ensued. After nearly an hour, both sides stopped firing and waited for first light, which came at about 5.30 a.m.

Many of the senior Scottish officers had left their units during the night to seek shelter from the foul weather and by result the Scottish army had not fully regrouped by the time the English attack resumed at first light. The attack, spearheaded by a cavalry regiment advanced swiftly across the Broxburn and routed the first line of the Scottish Lancers on the Scottish right flank but the second line of Scottish Lancers fought back and forced the English cavalry to retreat back across the river.

Meantime an English infantry vanguard of 3,000 advanced across the Broxburn and attacked a Scottish brigade of 2,000 (made up almost entirely of raw recruits) on the extreme right of the Scottish infantry line. The Scottish line buckled but a second brigade first halted the English advance then forced it to retreat back across the river. Denied an early breakthrough Cromwell immediately ordered another infantry brigade into action in support of the retreating infantry force. The fall-back was reversed and the Scottish infantry brigades were engaged in a “push of pike” battle.

Cromwell then hit back deploying two regiments of cavalry 3,000 to attack the Scottish cavalry, (reduced through the earlier attrition to around 1,000.) The Scottish cavalry was put to flight leaving the infantry on the right flank of the Scottish army exposed. Cromwell seized the opportunity and ordered his own Regiment of Horse into battle attacking the exposed Scottish right flank

The routing of the Scottish cavalry opened the possibility of a decisive victory over the Scottish army, rather than simply breaking the blockade of the road back to England and Cromwell ordered his cavalry to attack the exposed Scottish infantry right flank. This forced the Scots infantry to fight on two fronts and pushed them into the forces to their left reducing their ability to manoeuvre effectively. After a desperate battle lasting two hours the heavily outnumbered Scots on the right flank were forced to fight a protracted withdrawal eventually conceding defeat in the village of Haddington. Scots forces on the left flank abandoned the battle and escaped to the North. Cromwell went onto ruthlessly ransack Edinburgh and other Scottish towns and cities and take control of the country south of the Highlands.



Image result for scots white slaves

descendants of Scottish soldiers sold as slaves by Cromwell after the battle of Dunbar




The battle left nearly 5,000 Scots dead. 6,000 Scottish soldiers (aged between 13 and 25) were taken prisoner. Of these about 1,000 sick and wounded were released to go home. The remaining 5,000 battle weary Scots prisoners were forced to complete a brutal 8-day, 118 miles forced march south to the English city of Durham with virtually no rest (the first 28 mile stage to Berwick being undertaken non-stop through the night) and with no food or water, other than what could be scavenged. About 1,000 prisoners died en route to Durham from a combination of hunger, exhaustion and probably dysentery. Others were executed and some escaped.

Around 3,000 Scottish soldiers were subsequently imprisoned in Durham Cathedral and Castle, (unoccupied since worship had been suppressed by order of Cromwell). The condition the Scots were kept in were utterly appalling. Records indicate that the Scots died at an average of 30 a day between 11 September and 31 October and it seems this reached over 100 a day with virtually no food, clean water or heat and the linked spread of disease and infection. In total a further 1,700 prisoners died. Their bodies were thrown into pits dug by the prisoners in and around Durham Cathedral and castle.

Of the 5,000 men who started the march from Dunbar only 1300 were still alive less than two months later. Nine hundred were sold as slaves and transported to the New World, (mainly Virginia, Massachusetts and the Barbados colony in the Caribbean.) 500 elected to fight with the French army against the Spanish. They were still fighting seven years later.

There is no memorial to these unknown Scottish soldiers (who died horrible deaths at the hands of their English captors in Durham Cathedral or Castle.) They lie in anonymity and without Christian burial (on foreign soil in the place they were imprisoned,) far from their homes and the graves of their loved ones.



Image result for battle of dunbar images

Remains of Scottish soldiers uncovered at Durham Cathedral



Related image

Skeletons of Scottish prisoners of war, from the Battle of Dunbar and subsequently murdered by Cromwell’s soldiers have been discovered in a mass grave close to Durham cathedral 




1919 – Westminster Removed Their Weapons and Locked-Down Scottish Soldiers in Their Barracks – Then Illegally Deployed An English Battle Group and Declared Martial Law Against the Scottish Public. What Will a No Deal Brexit Bring?




Image result for scotland independence images



Scotland’s – Claim of Right Act 1689 states: “That the sending of an army in a hostile manner upon any part of Scotland in peacetime is contrary to law”


Related image



The Birth of Red Clydeside

Before and during the First World War, there was no statutory standard working week in the UK although it was generally accepted that the norm was 54 hours.

In the course of the war the coalition government attempted to impose upon workers, ” the Munitions Act,” “the Dilution of Labour Act” and the “Defence of the Realm Act,” all giving government draconian powers to negate long-fought-for pay rates and conditions for skilled work, and to crack down on opposition.

The measures were resisted strongly by the Clyde Workers’ Committee (CWC) in Glasgow.

At the war end the armed forces were demobilized and returned home to the labour market.

The infusion of the large body of new workers seeking work in an rapidly shrinking economy base resulted in a steep rise in the unemployed and resultant hardship and discontent.

In the absence of any initiative from the government in Westminster a number of Trades Unions in Glasgow addressed the issue and brought forward proposals which if accepted by the government and employers would reduce the working week to 40 hours expanding the labour market and reducing unemployment.

After weeks of negotiations a provisional agreement was achieved, between government, employers and some Union officials, providing for the introduction of a 47 hour week, (applicable to shipbuilding and engineering trades only) at some time in 1919.

Shop Stewards of the (CWC) in Glasgow rejected the offer and tabled a counter bid supported by limiting the standard working week to 40 hours with paid tea-breaks (removed under the 47 hour week offer) restored.


Related image

The Battle of George Square 1919



A strike meeting (over 3,000 attended) was held at the St Andrews Halls on Monday 27 January 1919.

Immediately after the meeting 40,000 workers downed tools, answering the call to strike.

By Friday 31 January 1919 the number of workers on strike had risen to 60,000 plus.

United action by workers, (on this scale) had not been seen in Scotland since the Weavers of Glasgow’s Calton District had engaged their employers in a long and bitter dispute over wages and basic justice in 1787, which ended with the murder of a number of weavers by government forces.

A later insurrection in 1820 again ended in the death of protestors and deportation to the colonies of activists and their families.

On Friday 31 January the strikers were invited to a meeting in George Square at which it was intended that the Lord Provost Sir James Watson Stewart would issue the official response from the Westminster government to the unions’ request for government intervention in the dispute.

A large crowd of strikers (marshalled by a large police force) gathered in George Square to witness the statement. But faced with a noisy crowd the Lord Provost instead invited representatives of the CWC (led by David Kirkwood) and the Glasgow Trades Council (represented by Emanual Shinwell) into the Glasgow City Chambers for a briefing.


Image result for red clydeside images

Kirkwood knocked to the ground outside the Glasgow City Chambers

Image result for red clydeside images

Kirkwood and Shinwell under arrest outside the Glasgow City Chambers



Not long after the start of the briefing the Lord Provost was alerted to trouble outside the City Chambers and asked Kirkwood and Shinwell to intervene and establish order.

They agreed, left the meeting and ventured outside, to be immediately ambushed by a group of police who knocked Kirkwood to the ground and arrested the delegation on a charge of “instigating and inciting large crowds of persons to form part of a riotous mob.

What sparked the riot has never been formally established but many witnesses (independent of the incident) blamed the actions of mounted police, who it is alleged (acting on secret government orders) launched a baton wielding charge on the crowd without provocation.

What is fact is the impact of the confrontation between the protestors and the police.

The crowds attempts to get away from George Square were thwarted by “night stick” wielding police who had deployed forces at each of the potential escape routes effectively “Kettling” the protestors.

This resulted in pitched battles between armed police and unarmed demonstrators.

The folly of precipitating the confrontation dawned (to late) on the police as a riot then ensued, over which they had no control.

Iron Railings, cobble stones and bottles were used in defence against the police truncheons and dispersing the crowd proved to be beyond the police presence.

The fighting between the police and protestors spread to other parts of the city and throughout the day and well into the evening many men women and children suffered injury from the police.

There were many arrests and Duke Street Prison was filled to capacity.

Many strikers were later tried at the High Court in Edinburgh and sentenced to varying jail terms.


Image result for 1919 battle of george square

English soldiers posing with their tanks Glasgow 1919



An uneasy calm returned to Glasgow, over the weekend but the intervention of the “Scottish Secretary” who described the rioting as a “Bolshevist Uprising” proved to be the catalyst for deploying the armed forces to the streets of Glasgow.

The Coalition government (led by David Lloyd George) over-reacted, sending 10,000 English soldiers (heavily armed with heavy machine guns, howitzers and Tanks) to Glasgow.

The “Battle Group” (the largest deployment of English soldiers on Scottish soil since the Battle of Culloden) arrived on Friday 7 February 1919.


Image result for red clydeside images

Tanks at the Cattle Market  Glasgow 1919



Martial Law was imposed on Glasgow and this was strictly enforced on the public by the English soldiers who speedily took control of the City Centre positioning heavy machine guns on the top of the Post Office building and The North British Hotel.

A large howitzer was placed at the entrance to the City Chambers. City-wide English soldiers were deployed in force patrolling the streets, completing stop and search and ID checks on Glaswegians and guarding the docks, power stations and other key installations.

An eyewitness said ‘the whole city bristled with tanks and machine guns’.

The force was withdrawn from Glasgow on 16 February 1919 and located, for a time in barracks elsewhere in Scotland.

The government fearing that Scottish soldiers might not obey orders to take action against their countrymen issued orders that they would be confined to barracks for the duration of the deployment of the English force to Glasgow.

The Highland Light Infantry (almost exclusively Glaswegian) were disarmed and detained in Maryhill Barracks.


1919 – Westminster Placed Scottish Troops on Lock-Down in ...

English soldiers being transported to Glasgow  1919



After the Riot

Manny Shinwell, William Gallacher and David Kirkwood were jailed for several months.

The striking workers returned to work with the guarantee of a 47-hour week, ten hours less than they were working beforehand.

Three years later, in the 1922 GE, Scotland elected 29 Labour MPs, (including the 40 Hour Strike organizers and Independent Labour Party members Manny Shinwell and David Kirkwood.).

The epithet of Red Clydeside was established.


Related image



100 years later – Are there parallels to be drawn?

Scottish society has changed little in the last 100 years. Much of the poverty that existed at the time of the riot is still present today.

Unionist governments in Westminster have taken Scotland’s young men to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Serbia and other countries, without justification, spending obscene amounts of money whilst imposing massive cuts in key services such as education, welfare, infrastructure, and the NHS.

Social housing building in Scotland was stagnant under successive Unionist Tory & Labour) governments and this has placed many families, (struggling to cope) at the mercy of greedy landlords who raise rents without justification.

In Glasgow at 2019 there are many hundreds of newly refurbished flats lying empty, the cost of purchase being well beyond that of the typical Glaswegian.  A situation that forces many families onto the streets.

Where is the affordable housing promised by the Tories and Labour governments?

The banking crash of 2007/8 brought with it many job redundancies and house repossessions as the resultant depression impacted on the economy.

Yet not one UK banker went to jail for participating in the biggest banking frauds in history.

Instead they were rewarded for their efforts,being allowed to operate much as before including awarding themselves and their fraudulent colleagues with undeserved massive multi-million pound bonuses whilst many thousands of Scots were thrown of society’s scrapheap never to work again.

Ten years later the Unionist government in Westminster is still intent on asset stripping the poor using as excuse the “Austerity Plan” put in place by the Tory Party.

A plan which took on a debt from Labour of around £800 billion and increased it to nearly £2 Trillion and rising.

Iceland meantime jailed the bankers, imposed massive restrictions and returned their economy to balance within 5 years.


Image result for red clydeside images






Good News -The Pervasive Influence of the Labour Party in Scotland Over BBC News and Current Affairs Is To Be Curtailed – Bad news – Broadcasting Policy Content and Control Has Been Transferred to London




Image result for gary smith BBC scotland images

Gary Smith (the grey man)




Gary Smith – BBC in Scotland’s Head of News and Current Affairs

The new Head of News at BBC in Scotland, (succeeding “bully boy” John Boothman) is a 54-year-old Scot who grew up in Glasgow and attended Kelvin-side Academy.

He went on to study English at Glasgow University and did a post-graduate journalism course at Cardiff University.

He is a London based Scot who has been with the BBC news and current affairs team in England for over 17 years.

In that time he has been the, Political Editor of BBC News, Assistant Editor BBC Nine O’clock News and UK News Editor at the Television Centre in London.

A company man whose loyalty to the corporate body of the BBC is unquestionable he will strengthen the already strong links between London and Scotland.

The chain of command will start and end in London.

It is rumoured Gary was not the choice of senior managers at the BBC in Scotland, their preference being to promote from within.

To that end a well established fiery, female journalist and news presenter was encouraged to believe she was a “shoo in” applied and had been interviewed for the post and rejected by the London based selection panel.

If true portents for the future are not good.

But Gary is a proven team leader possessing excellent communication skills and it expected he will soon win the team over. (BBC Speak)

The infusion of “new blood” is also touted to be the start of a process leading to the elimination of the invidious influence on the present News and Current affairs team of the Labour Party in Scotland replacing it with the political dogma of a more reliable Unionist minded party.

The introduction of Gary will be followed by journalists, selected from approved sources outwith BBC Scotland.

The coup will not be bloodless but  career conscious incumbent personnel will be sifted out silently without protest, over time.



At interview Gary won over the interview panel by offering this vision;

“I’ve a passion and commitment for providing accurate, clear, informative, honest journalism with integrity and impartiality.

After 30 years in broadcast journalism, this is the job I’ve always wanted.

The story of Scotland in a devolved UK is one of the most important themes of this decade.

Reporting and analysing this with insight, accuracy and impartiality for audiences both in Scotland and the rest of the UK is one of the biggest challenges faced by the BBC now and in the coming years.

I am very keen to focus on not just one platform ahead of others but to share content across the different platforms we provide our news on, whether that is TV, radio, the web or social media.

Content is at the centre of what we do and the best journalism has to be spread across all our platforms as much as possible to ensure we reach the biggest audience.

We also have to ensure our journalism is relevant to our entire audience.

That means different content in different places.

Younger people get their news differently from the way we have traditionally delivered news in the BBC.

So connecting with a younger audience through social media is crucial.

We have to keep abreast of developing platforms.”


Image result for BBC scotland images

BBC Management




BBC in Scotland Management – Realistic or Wishy Washy?

Managers at the BBC in Scotland have been pressing the executive in London to commission a flagship “Scottish Six” news programme to help answer ever growing complaints about its weak coverage of Scottish affairs.

They have also been seeking a substantial expansion of the BBC in Scotland’s news and programme-making budget, including funding a third national radio service for Scotland.

Ambitious plans adding an extra digital television channel and new online programming have been abandoned in the wake of swingeing spending cuts.

But their proposals are encountering substantial resistance from BBC executives in London.

It is also rumoured that any extra funds for news and current affairs are being ear-marked towards other projects, including a beefed up Korean service.

Questioned by the media, Smith said that no decisions had been taken on what BBC news output for audiences in Scotland will look like in future.

But a BBC news review is underway and, forming part of that different programme formats and audience research will be conducted before any conclusions are arrived at.

A core essential will be the ambition to deliver the best possible news offering for the audience in Scotland.

Announcing big changes in the corporation’s coverage of public life in Scotland Smith said, “the news is to be sharper in style, tougher and more analytic.

The BBC has become “overstretched” in recent years, with reductions in staffing but no fall off in output.

It’s time now to live within our means, time to focus on our core programmes”.


Image result for BBC scotland images




The Infamous “Scottish Six”

Under media pressure in Scotland the BBC executive in London confirmed it is pressing ahead with controversial plans for a Scottish Six flagship news programme.

Corporation bosses said they would soon begin trialling a new hour-long news programme that could replace both Reporting Scotland and the Six O’clock News north of the Border.

Three options for a new format, are under consideration but no decision had yet been taken on which, if any, would be introduced.

Some staff in the BBC in Scotland, News and Current Affairs team are said to be angry that they presently do not have the manpower or resources to handle new programmes and have threatened to boycott the project unless senior management agree to a full consultation.

BBC Scotland’s head of news Gary Smith is understood to have spoken to staff yesterday in a bid to allay fears.

Critics fear the change is likely to lead to more parochial programming and Scottish Labour culture spokeswoman Claire Baker MSP said: “Whilst I have welcomed the review of news coverage in Scotland as a result of new powers coming to Holyrood, I have always said that any change must strike a balance between Scottish news coverage and the continuing demand for quality international and relevant UK wide reporting.

A Scottish Six must be fully consulted with staff and more importantly the general public, with focus groups showing a clear desire for a UK perspective on UK and international stories.

Any changes to BBC news coverage must be made for the right reasons and quality must always be maintained.”

A BBC Scotland spokesman said: “We’ve said very publicly that we are conducting a news review at present and we’ll be looking at various different programme formats and carrying out audience research as part of that process.

We have told our news teams that we will be carrying out some non-broadcast pilots and we’ll obviously talk to staff as we proceed with this work and discuss fully any implications on them.

No decisions on our future output will be taken until that work is concluded, but ultimately our aim is to deliver the very best news for our audiences here in Scotland.”


Image result for BBC scotland images

Extract from: Prof John Robertson Expose of BBC bias



The Scottish Six – An Insiders Comments

Proposals for a “Scottish Six” submitted for consideration and approval, by the BBC in Scotland management were met with derision by executives in London.

But accepting political reality required a debate, draft proposals were not rejected but were “put out to the long grass” with a loose commitment to arrive at a final decision towards the end of 2016.

Difficulties to be resolved are associated with implementation and how content from overseas will be gathered and shared with material from the UK network.

It was suggested that Scottish correspondents employed as foreign correspondents or as specialists in London might routinely contribute to the presentation of the new programming.

Overall control of direction and editorial decision needs to be firmly established together with lines of responsibility between staff based in Scotland and management, journalists and presenters in London.

An option to be given consideration is the introduction of a direct replacement for the BBC1 Six O’clock news or a stand-alone programme which might air on BBC2 Scotland mid-evening, possibly replacing the nine-o-clock news..

But, regardless of whichever option is finally chosen the BBC’s current regional news programme “Reporting Scotland” on BBC1 will be scrapped after less than three years on air.

The competition from the S.T.V. news programme, “Scotland Tonight” has rendered the flagship current affairs show Scotland 2016 (anchored by Sarah Smith) unviable with less than 30,000 viewers and reducing.

Staff associated with the programme will be redeployed to other projects.

News night will be resurrected and broadcast nightly throughout the BBC network, (including Scotland).

Radio Scotland’s The Big Debate with Gordon Brewer and Douglas Fraser’s Business Scotland weekend slots will also be shut down.

Sarah Smith will be given yet another chance to succeed at something justifying her huge salary transferring to the newly created non-job post of “Scotland Editor.”

Her role will reflect the re-alignment of UK politics following the 2015 General Election.

The key purpose of the new look service is to provide greatly enhanced UK coverage and analysis of significant stories for the pan-UK audience across all network output, including the Six and Ten O’clock News, the Today programme, the radio bulletins and the BBC News website.

Seems to be simply an input of news content, (with a slightly Scottish bent from time to time) from the BBC in London.



Image result for BBC scotland images

Disgraceful broadcast by the BBC



Gary Smith Recruits two new managers to the BBC in Scotland team in Glasgow

The reorganisation of the News and Current Affairs team is underway with a vengeance.

As projected Gary Smith is determined to stamp his authority and style on the weak team he inherited.

He has recruited (S.T.V.’s) Howard Simpson to be the team’s News Editor.

Simpson was instrumental in the launch of “Scotland Tonight” the S.T.V. programme that wiped the floor with the poor BBC offering chaired by Sarah Smith.(now shut down)




Simpson, in a public statement said:

I am a strategic, creative thinker and a journalistic leader who inspires strong teamwork.

I have over fifteen years experience in TV production and nearly ten years in senior management.

I have an exceptional record in change management and in the discipline of meeting financial targets that serve business requirements.

Above all I am a great communicator who creates opportunities and delivers results.

I have managed and adapted the S.T.V news team for the best part of the last decade.

This has meant leading change through licence renewal, the onset of a bespoke Edinburgh 30 minute daily news programme, the conceptualisation, launch and ongoing success of Scotland Tonight, as well as the genesis of a multi platform news-gathering model.

I have worked with I.T.V. Sport in discussing our opt outs for U.E F.A.  Champions League and International Friendlies and the S.P.F.L for securing unique S.T.V. content.

I maintain that a news division can only ever be as good as its people.

I have found that newsrooms work best from the bottom up.

I believe that a news assistant is as important as a senior editor.

They all have to be facing the same way and believe in the project.

In conclusion, I can lead and react to an ever changing news agenda.

I led S.T.V. news to an R.T.S. Scotland award for news programming last year for our coverage of the Clutha tragedy.

I am a programme maker – one of the most successful is Scotland Tonight which is superior to its rivals in tone, style and depth.

I think strategically and want to play a part in shaping Scotland’s news and current affairs output within the wider changing political and technological culture.

I am a leader – I have an unblemished record in change management; building and crucially, rebuilding team cultures that are highly motivated and results focussed. In short, people like to work for me.




Matt Roper has also been recruited from ST.V. to the News and Current Affairs team and appointed to the newly created post “Editor of Mobile and Online.”

Roper was formally digital editor of S.T.V. with responsibility. for online news, current affairs and sport output.

He was also involved in the launch of S.T.V.’s “News App.” and was a key player in the successful launch of Scotland Tonight’s online presence.



Image result for BBC scotland images



Where are we now?

Scotland’s relationship with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has travelled full circle and we are effectively back at 1926.

Scottish broadcasting autonomy is a duck that never flew under the strict corporate governance of a State controlled entity.

The introduction of Gary “the grey man” Smith and his centralised policy driven agenda to the Glasgow News and Current Affairs Team is the ultimate betrayal of Scotland. It is now a dead duck.



Image result for BBC scotland images





The Scottish Holocaust – Murderers and Thieves Should Not Be Allowed to Benefit From Their Crimes Against the Scots – Confiscate Their Ill-gotten Gains



A young Duchess of Sutherland: Between 1811 and 1820, about 15,000 crofters were forcibly removed from their Sutherland-shire homes, opening up thousands of profitable sheep-farming acres. The statue of the 1st Duke near Golspie – “The Mannie” – is regularly vandalised to this day.

Image result for scottish land clearances images






Scotland’s Holocaust

Throughout the 17th and 18th century’s a huge part of Scotland, to the South, North and West of Glasgow and to the North, West and South of Edinburgh was divided into large estates and formally given over to the ownership of a rich elite group of English Baron’s, Earl’s and Scottish Lairds who swore an oath of fealty to the the throne of England.

Similar loyalty was not assured of Scots whose presence on the estates pre-dated the new ownership by many centuries and remedial measures designed to eliminate the problem were approved. The remedy selected by the Westminster Unionist government was the removal from the land of many thousands of Scots families.

This would be coupled with transportation of those affected to Canada, Australia and other parts of the “new world”.

A consequence of the brutally enforced forced removal of entire families from their homes meant that those affected had to live rough in the open over many months. In consequence many thousands of Scots died of starvation, disease and cold. To ensure there would be no return their homes were destroyed leaving tens of thousands to an uncertain but hazardous fate.

Survivors were later transported, (many in bondage) to Canada, Australia and other parts of the “new world” never to return to the land of their birth. A substantial number failed to survive the voyages being forced to remain below the decks in the squalor of hopelessly overcrowded, unseaworthy ships. The, “clearances” as they were later called were Scotland’s holocaust.

Buoyed by the success of their measures the Unionist government in Westminster went on to inflict similar policies on countries large and small in the course of expanding the Empire.




An image of an evicted Scottish family circa 1895 photographed on the ruins of their house

Image result for scottish land clearances images






Over Half of Scotland Is Owned by Just 500 Individuals and They are Primarily Foreigners

Starting just after the end of WW2 the wealth of England’s great land-owning aristocratic families rapidly declined and a new breed of foreign laird exploited Scotland’s arcane land laws to buy up huge tracts of the Highlands and islands.

At the beginning of the twenty first century a majority of lairds no longer hail from England’s tweed-clad huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ classes. These days the local feudal overlord is more likely to be a self-made continental millionaire or an entrepreneur from Dubai, Egypt, Malaysia, Hong Kong or plain old America. Sad events indeed in Europe’s last great wilderness.

All over Scotland there are now glens and peaks that are forever Swiss, Danish, Malaysian, Middle-Eastern and American. A small selection:

* The owner of the 50,000-acre, Strath Conon estate in Ross-shire, is Kjeld Kirk-Christiansen, who runs the huge Danish Lego corporation.

* The Hebridean island of Eigg, was recently sold (as part of a divorce settlement) by Keith Schellenberg, (the fantastically wealthy former captain of Britain’s Olympic bobsleigh team) who once described “his” islanders as “drunken, ungrateful, lawless, barmy revolutionaries”. The new laird is the chain-smoking, beret-wearing “fire” painter, “Professor” Marlin Eckhard Maruma from Stuttgart.

* The 40,000-acre Queen’s View estate in Glen Avon was recently purchased (for £6m), by a mysterious businessman, (Mr Salleh) reputedly behind the Kuala Lumpur-based Andras conglomerate.

* The 30,000-acre Braulen estate around Glen Strathfarrar in the North-west Highlands in Inverness-shire is owned by non-Scot of no name. It was the scene of a legal battle over land access. The owner took Scottish Natural Heritage to court to prevent the agency sending in nature conservation inspectors on parts of its land.

* The Dunecht Estates, spread over 77,000 acres, in Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire are owned by the Hon Charles Pearson who resides in England on Shotters Farm, Lickfold from which he spends a deal of his time managing a large Estate in Sussex.

* Blackford Estate, home of Highland Spring mineral water is owned by, His Excellency Mahdi Mohammed Al Tajir, from the United Arab Emirates. He stands accused of abandoning farms on the slopes of the Ochil Hills.




          Scottish Lairds enjoying their land                                                            Destruction of Scottish society in favour of wool and mutton,

Image result for scottish land clearances imagesImage result for scottish land clearances images





The findings sparked a political row in Scotland. Nationalist politicians saying Scotland’s free market in land, (it is one of the few countries in Europe which allows wealthy foreigners to buy up unlimited amounts of land with no questions asked) had created a “land lottery” and new measures should be introduced limiting the size of holdings, coupled with a policy of removing ownership from absentee land-owners found guilty of neglecting their land. But Westminster politicians repeatedly refused to abolish feudal structures regulating land use since this would be to the disadvantage of an ultra-rich Westminster backed elite.

Following a transfer of control of land use to Holyrood a frustrated SNP government acted and set up an independent land commission determined upon introducing legislation designed to limit foreign land ownership. A comprehensive public land registry needed to be compiled to facilitate the legislation.

The wind of change has unsettled the rich landowners who are campaigning hard to counter reformers’ demands. The convenor of the Scottish Landowners’ Federation, which represents 4,000 estate owners north of the border, who manage some seven million acres, are claiming that the debate over land ownership is based on “dangerous generalisations and misleading assertions”.

The argument they are advancing in defence of retaining the “feudal System” purport that the majority of landowners are committed custodians of natural heritage who provide jobs, housing and security for remote communities often at a personal financial loss.

Meanwhile the Scottish Crofters’ Commission is encouraging crofting communities to raise money to take over their marginal plots as the potential of a reforming Scottish parliament looms, the battle for the Highlands is only just beginning. It would be a bold move but entirely justified if the Scottish government confiscated all estates without recompense with a commitment to return Scots to the land of their fathers.








The era of the Highland Clearances is one of  the most controversial times in Scotland’s history. The fallout after the Jacobite rising of 1745 had led to a hammering of Highland culture, including determined efforts to wipe out the tartan dress and Gaelic language of the north.

Clan chieftains, who’d held lands in trust for their extended family, were advised that under the laws of the United Kingdom they actually owned the land themselves – and it could make them rich.

With the Empire expanding and troops engaged in wars across the world, there was more money to be made from sheep’s wool than from the clansmen the chiefs had formerly protected.

The clearances saw thousands of people dispossessed, and many left to die of poverty. And one of the darkest characters to oversee the driving out of men, women and children was lawyer Patrick Sellar.

After a particularly vicious eviction, which led to the slow and painful death of 67-year-old Margaret McKay, he was called to answer for the crime of murder.

But a jury of his peers quickly found him innocent – and the judge apologised to Sellar for having taken up his time.

In a bar in Glasgow Sellar’s name is engraved in a urinal in the gents’ toilet… so that modern Scots may do to him what he did to their ancestors 200 years ago.




Image result for lowland clearances images




Indications are Germany and France are Planning to Take the E.U. into the B.R.I.C.S. Group Dumping the US Dollar – President Trump Will Retaliate. But How?



Image result for us eavesdropping on germany images






EU summit confronts US surveillance scandal after claims that Merkel mobile was tapped and French calls were intercepted

The spiralling scandal over mass US surveillance of digital communications was recently moved to the top of European politics for the first time, with the EU’s two key leaders, Angela Merkel and François Hollande, seeking a joint response to the spying claims.

With Germany and France reeling from allegations that the US National Security Agency tapped Merkel’s mobile phone and intercepted the calls and text messages of millions in France, a EU summit in Brussels was forced to grapple with the issue.

The Germans made plain that they were unhappy with the White House cavalier response to the tapping allegations following a 20-minute phone call between Merkel and Barack Obama. “Spying on friends is not on at all,” Merkel said going into the summit in her first public comment on the row.

The EU acted quickly fast-tracking draft rules regulating how digital data would be transferred between Europe and America, aimed at curbing the ability of big US internet providers and social media corporations to retain European data and make it freely available to the NSA.

France and the European commission led the push for an introduction of the new European legislation on data protection by the spring of 2015, but, true to form Britain dragged its heels, arguing that it was more important to get the complex legislation right than to rush it through. “The UK is leading the charge against it,” a senior EU official said. “The UK position is bewildering. They’re trying to delay it.”



Image result for brics images






The US Conducted Surveillance Against its European Allies Because They Thought Germany was Secretly Planning to Join BRICS

NSA surveillance controversy centred on U.S. fear that Europe’s economic powerhouse intended to dump the dollar in favour of joining the BRICS nations, and that this is why the NSA was caught spying on Angela Merkel and other EU leaders.

The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), recently announced the creation of a new $100 billion dollar anti-dollar alternative IMF bank to be based in Shanghai and chaired by Moscow.

Putin launched the new system by saying it was designed to, “help prevent the harassment of countries that do not agree with some foreign policy decisions made by the United States and their allies,” a clear signal that Russia and other BRICS countries are moving to create a new economic system which is adversarial to the IMF and the World Bank.

In another sign that BRICS nations are moving to create an entirely new multi-polar model adversarial to the west, the five countries are also constructing an alternative Internet backbone which will circumvent the United States in order to avoid NSA spying.



Image result for brics images

BRICS Keeps on expanding






BRICS is an acronym for: (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.)

In the last 20 years the US, in it’s self appointed role as the World’s policeman has (aided by Britain) invaded or bombed into submission Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria. The level of destruction and death exceeds that of WW2 and there is no sign of an end to it

In this same period President Putin worked hard, studiously avoiding armed conflict with any other country. His efforts were rewarded since he is now the accepted leader of over half of the worlds largest economies including, (China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, India, Argentina, South Africa, many emerging African nations, much of South and Central America and South East Asia.)

In November 2010 Russia and China agreed a free trade deal using an electronic currency which translates the value of each currency at the time of transaction allowing financial business to be completed without the need to use the US dollar as a world reserve currency. The group of countries is expanding rapidly and now includes well over half of the World’s nations.

The US dollar is largely marginalised by result and is in deep trouble. Prospects for the US economy are not bright unless the Federal Bank of America adjusts to the new reality. Many millions of US citizens presently struggling to survive on a fixed income will suffer increasing hardship.



Image result for brics images





Dumping the US Dollar

There is disquiet in Europe about the constant pressure of the U.S. and Britain pushing for ever increasing stringent sanctions on Russia despite the fact that they have had little effect so far and only appear to be harming the trade interests of countries in mainland Europe.

The EU is “caught between a rock and a hard place.” and confronted with the reality of a prolonged recession it will need to act soon, either retaining the policy of backing the American dollar or opting to join the BRICS nations.

If Germany and France opt to join the BRICS countries and the rest of the EU follows there is a distinct possibility that the American dollar will crash and the US would then be forced to join BRICS as an equal member.

It appears that the aggressive policies of the President Bush and Obama administrations over the last 20 years may have sealed the fate of the US as the leader of the free world. There is a growing consensus that the US is the “rogue” nation and not Russia.



Image result for brics images





Is the American Led Globalisation Agenda Defunct?

Social and philosophical beliefs and structures cannot be forced on people with result that the American concept of “Globalisation” was never going to succeed. since in order for it to become universal it had to be accepted and it wasn’t.

BRICS countries now wield much more power and the policy makers of the world will need to give urgent attention to addressing the new world order.

The abandonment, by the world’s nations, of American leadership and moral values coupled with the introduction of a new order will take time to evolve. In the best case scenario the US President Trump led administration will accept it’s new place in the World order concentrating its efforts on domestic issues and trade.

Foreign policy no longer requires the US to act as judge, jury and executioner in disputes between countries and/or within regimes, the conduct of which might not be agreeable with the standards of the US.

There are many issues between and within countries needing addressing and resolving without the influence of external agencies and there are concerns that the US may refuse to accept a future in which it is no longer the leader in which case portents of disaster should be heeded.




Image result for brics images






The Impact of a Trump Presidency

Donald Trump’s successful 18 month campaign for the presidency of the US was a battle of conflicting ideologies and his bombastic style and abrasive conduct earned him the open animosity of much of the Western establishment, something no U.S. President has ever had to face before taking office.

The British tabloid press lampooned Trump portraying the “Statue of Liberty” on their front pages one with her head in her hands, smoke rising over the New York City skyline behind her another with Trump’s hands up her skirt. The Germans were also complicit in the attacks, Der Spiegel magazine cartooning Trump as a flaming orange asteroid hurtling open-mouthed toward Earth accompanied with the caption. “The end of the world (as we know it).”



Image result for trump images






The World Leaders Congratulate Trump on his Victory Or Do They?

Angela Merkel  issued a critical statement making clear Germany’s intention to hold Trump to account for his behaviour in office. She said “Germany and America are tied by values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and human dignity, independent of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views. I offer the next President of the United States, Donald Trump, close co-operation on the basis of these values.”

The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau was more succinct confining his comments to saying that he looked forward to working with Trump, indicating his willingness to renegotiate the North American Free-Trade Agreement, which Mr. Trump had been critical of on many occasions in the course of the campaign.

President Putin and many other World leaders enthusiastically welcomed Trump’s victory, or at worst wisely offered no comment. Middle East countries cautiously welcomed the outcome hoping US foreign policy would bring about a speedy withdrawal of their armed forces from countries such as Syria, Iraq and Libya.

On 20 January 2017 President Trump, a business man with no experience of governance or diplomacy will take up office in an unstable World, similar to that preceding the two World wars of the previous century.  Will Germany and France take the EU into the BRICS camp? We live in interesting times.




Image result for merkel images




The UK Supreme Court – An Illegal Pseudo Body Tasked with Ensuring the Protection of Westminster – Sod the Scots and their “Claim of Right”



Image result for supreme court uk scotland images



Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876

The House of Lords historically has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the lower courts.

Theoretically, the appeals are to the Sovereign-in-Parliament, but the House of Commons does not participate in judicial matters.

The House of Lords does not necessarily include judges, but it was formerly attended by several judges who gave their opinions when the Lords desired.

They did not, however, have the power to vote in the House and “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,” commonly known as Law Lords, were appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to the House of Lords of the United Kingdom in order to exercise its judicial functions, which included acting as the highest court of appeal for most domestic matters.

To be appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the 1876 Act, an individual is required to have been a practicing barrister for a period of fifteen years or to have held a high judicial office (Lord Chancellor (before 2005) or judge of the Court of Appeal, High Court or Court of Session) for a period of two years.

They are required to retire from judicial office at 70 or 75 years of age, though as peers under the style of Baron they continue to serve as members of the House of Lords in its legislative capacity for life.


Image result for supreme court uk scotland images



The Constitutional Reform Bill – A duplicitous “New Labour” designed to subjugate Scots

In 2003 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer brought forward the “Constitutional Reform Bill” which contained proposals for reforming the powers of the Lord Chancellor and the dismantling of his office.

The argument advanced in support of his initiative was that this would formally separate the powers of law makers from the judicial authorities.

A major part of the reformation was the repeal of existing legislation replacing it with a “Supreme Court.”

At that time the, “Appellgate Jurisdiction Act 1876” acted as the final court on points of law for all UK jurisdictions in civil cases (and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases.)

In debate the Lords perceived there to be no need for a “Supreme Court” to replace the House of Lords as the final court of appeal.

They were also discontented about a lack of adequate warning of the proposed changes to remove the Law Lords from the upper house to a new court and the absence of public debate.

Warning was also given that the legislation, as drafted threatened the independence of Scots law which was guaranteed in perpetuity by the, “Claim of Right.”

The government was defeated and the matter was remitted to the “Constitutional Affairs Committee” for discussion and amendment.

The committee interviewed a number of eminent figures from the political and judicial system, including Scotland’s most senior judge Lord Cullen.

An amended bill was finally introduced into law in 2009 (roughly 5 years after). 

From that time there has been an amount of controversy in regard to the operation of the court and the matter of the Scots “Claim of Right” , that pre-dates the 1707 “Act of Union” and dictates that the “Independence of Scots law” is guaranteed, in perpetuity and remains extant.

Afternote: On 4 July 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland’s needs.


Image result for supreme court uk scotland images



Tuesday 9 December 2003: Constitutional Affairs Committee – Examination of Witness – Rt Hon Lord Cullen, (Lord Justice General of Scotland and Lord President of the Court of Session)

Chairman: We are particularly pleased to have the head of judiciary in Scotland.

Lord Cullen: we have met before when we were carrying out our inquiry into the judicial appointments in Scotland before the Government announced its plans for England and Wales.

What we thought we might do is start by looking at the Supreme Court issue and initially looking at it in general terms before coming on to those aspects which are particular to Scotland.

Lord Cullen: It all depends what kind of Supreme Court we are talking about.

We seem to be talking about one which is simply taking over lock, stock and barrel the existing functions of the Appellate Committee and perhaps also the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, so what is happening is to happen somewhere else in a different atmosphere and I do not quite see how that takes you any further.

There may be opportunities possibly for making pronouncements which would be of use to the whole of the United Kingdom, but one has to remember that the existing civil jurisdiction as far as Scotland is concerned is that the Appellate Committee functions as a Scottish court (with a wall, as it were) between it and its functioning as an English court.

Q: Could I address my comments to you, Lord Cullen. I understand from your evidence that you are not wildly enthusiastic about the proposed changes?

Lord Cullen: That is right.

Q: Many of us were astounded that the Government could come up with proposals to reorganize our court of final appeals without consulting the outgoing Lord Chancellor, the incoming Lord Chancellor, the present members of the Judicial Committee of the Lords, and I think we would do better to discuss this in terms of a court of final appeal and leave the title to be chosen afterwards. Referring to perceptions. What would be the minimal changes that might meet the perception point?

Lord Cullen: I am not sure what you mean by “minimal changes”.

Q: Largely that the Lord Chancellor should not be able to sit as a law lord.

The minimal change is the Lord Chancellor saying “I will not sit as a law lord” rather than throwing the whole system in the air.

People argue that having the law lords meeting in the House of Lords is somehow the executive interfering, forgetting of course that Parliament is not the executive and that any arrangements are likely to be more expensive. Could they be cheaper than the present arrangements?

Lord Cullen: I cannot say because I do not sit as a Lord of Appeal but my impression is that it would be cheaper to leave things as they are than to create something free-standing outside, and there also is the advantage at the moment, as I understand it, that the Appellate Committee is funded through the House of Lords whereas if it is to be exported to some other place it would then be funded by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, hence you get a closer association or greater association with the executive which did not previously exist. Now that itself raises a problem of independence.

Chairman: Turning, Lord Cullen, to the Scottish aspects of this, are the Government’s proposals compatible with the Act of Union, Article 19 and the “Claim of Right” and, if not, what would have to be done to them to make them compatible?

Article 19 of the Act of Union states “… that the Court of Justiciary do also after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges as before the Union, subject nevertheless to such Regulations as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain, and without Prejudice of other Rights of Justiciary…”

Lord Cullen: I venture this matter in my response really in order to make the point that this aspect ought to be considered by the Government.

Before the “Act of Union” there is the “Claim of Right”, which was a Scottish provision at the time when the monarchy was returning to Scotland in 1689 and there was then a declaration by the Scottish Parliament as to the right of subjects to protest for remede of law to the King and Parliament and that is the ancestor, so far as Scotland is concerned, of the hearing of civil appeals from the Court of Session to the House of Lords.

The “Act of Union” was silent on the question of appeal from the “Court of Session” or, indeed, the “High Court of Justiciary” but it was later, much later, interpreted in such a way as to indicate that the “Court of Session” and its decisions should be subject to review whereas the “High Court”, the criminal court, would sit its decisions to be regarded as final and conclusive, so what you have, firstly, is an interpretation of the “Act of Union.”

The second point is that, until now, it has been recognized that there are some situations, not easy to define, where certain elements in our constitution may be unalterable – that is a possible view.

It arises from time to time, most recently in the case involving Lord Gray’s Motion where certain members of the “Committee for Privileges” reserved their view on that matter.

So however strange it may seem there is an argument that Parliament might not be able to alter or undo certain elements of a constitutional nature. That is a sketch of the argument: whether it is good or not I do not propose to advance, but simply say it is there to be considered.

Chairman: Are you proposing any way in which the Government’s proposals might be modified to avoid collision with that argument?

Lord Cullen: I am inclined to think that it may very well be that so far as civil appeals are concerned there is not a problem, but it is simply something that ought to be looked at. Therefore my answer to that is probably that no alteration is, in fact, required.

Chairman: Do you agree that legislative competence so far as any changes to leave to appeal and things of that kind are concerned does not lie with Westminster under the devolution settlement but with the Scottish Parliament?

Lord Cullen: That is quite a difficult matter. If you look at the Scotland Act you will find that what is reserved is the continued existence of the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.

The way that the Scotland Act is constructed certain matters are specifically reserved: the rest is not, and therefore it appears on the face of it that matters other than the continued existence of these courts is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Nobody is entirely clear as to that being the case but that seems to be the position, in which case there seems to be a role here for the Scottish Parliament.

Now I would hope that the matter was not, so to speak, nodded through in Scotland but given serious consideration, but that is the position, as I understand it.

Chairman: Lord Hope expressed the view that the Scottish Parliament would need time to deal with this matter before it proceeded at Westminster?

Lord Cullen: I would agree with that and the consultation paper, whereas it makes clear what the executive’s attitude is and we have seen the executive’s response since then, so far as I know as yet there has not been a considered discussion in the Scottish Parliament.

Chairman: There is a phrase which I think you may have challenged already which the Government use in respect of constitutional issues where they say that the establishment of the new court “accordingly gives us the opportunity to restore a single apex to the United Kingdom’s judicial system where all the constitutional issues can be considered”.

That is in the consultation paper. Is it your view that, leaving aside the devolution issues, there ever was or should be a single apex which combines the judicial systems of England and Scotland?

Lord Cullen: I do not think that is correct. The position until now is that the Appellate Committee functions sometimes as an English court and sometimes as a Scottish court, and I say that because what is binding in England is not binding in Scotland.

You have two completely separate jurisdictions so that whatever decision the House of Lords reaches in regard to a civil matter it does not bind in Scotland, and vice versa, so you really have two apices rather than one apex and, if the position is that that is to be taken over by the Supreme Court, it will have those two high points, whereas the paper tends to talk as if this is the opportunity for the United Kingdom court.

Well, I say that is obscuring the point: that you have two separate jurisdictions each with its own head happening to be administered under one device, namely the Appellate Committee.

That is what we have: it is a result of the separate growth of two legal systems, and it is preserved, of course, by the Act of Union.


Image result for supreme court uk scotland images




1 October 2009: The Introduction of the UK Supreme Court

A new United Kingdom Supreme Court, separating the judicial function from Parliament (those who make the law from those who interpret it in courts).

It will be based in the Middlesex Guildhall, (opposite the Houses of Parliament in Parliament Square.)

From 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed jurisdiction on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the Law Lords) are the first justices of the 12-member Supreme Court and are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords.

When they retire from the Supreme Court they can return to the House of Lords as full Members but newly-appointed Justices of the Supreme Court will not have seats in the House of Lords.


Image result for scottish justice court system images


15 April 2015: Lord Carloway attacks Supreme Court and its ‘depressing influence’ on the Scottish legal system

The lord justice clerk has attacked the UK Supreme Court, calling it remote and “far removed” from the realities of Scots law.

Lord Carloway said the court had a “depressing influence” on the legal system in Scotland.

The remarks came in a speech made by the judge at a conference of Commonwealth Law Reform Agencies in Edinburgh.

He said: “The Supreme Court, which has hitherto sat only in London, may be deemed to exercise greater autonomy in the selection of topics for the reform of Scots civil law than the Scottish Law Commission itself.

While the criminal law court hierarchy in Scotland ends with the High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Court can deal with particular questions relating to devolution and arising from civil or criminal proceedings.

In some respects, the oversight of Scots Law from a position that is relatively remote, far removed from the practical realities of operating the Scottish legal system and of Scots society as a whole, is apt to have a depressing influence on the efforts of those operating positively within the jurisdiction.”


Image result for lord carloway scottish justice images

Lord Carloway Blasted Supreme Court Interference in Scottish law


28 November 2015: UK Supreme Court overrules Scottish judges on two human rights cases

The UK Supreme Court has today over-ruled Scotland’s highest appeal court in two important human rights cases.

In both, judgements passed in Edinburgh were unanimously overruled by a five-judge panel sitting in London on fundamental legal issues.

Their decisions raise the possibility of another judicial and political cross-border row.

Senior political figures such as First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have already raised concerns about what they see as the Supreme Court interfering in Scottish legal affairs.

The Supreme Court bench in both cases was headed by Lord Hope, deputy president of the London-based court and former Lord President of the Court of Session in Edinburgh who has previously spoken out against the “corrosive anti-English sentiment” in Scotland’s courts, describing it as an obstacle to legal progress, and has been the subject of biting criticism by Mr Salmond, who accused Lord Hope of allowing “some of the vilest people on the planet” to win compensation from the taxpayer.


Supreme Court judgement

UK Supreme Court in London


8 November 2016: Scotland applies to join Brexit triggers court battle

Scotland is to apply to the Supreme Court to be allowed to table a legal challenge at the Court on 5 December 2016, against the UK Government as it tries to overturn a Brexit court ruling.

The attempt is to make sure MPs and Scotland’s parliament have a say on triggering Article 50.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said “it simply cannot be right” that European Union membership “can be removed by the UK Government on the say-so of a Prime Minister without parliamentary debate, scrutiny or consent”.

She added: “So legislation should be required at Westminster and the consent of the Scottish Parliament should be sought before Article 50 is triggered.

Let me be clear – I recognize and respect the right of England and Wales to leave the European Union. This is not an attempt to veto that process.

But the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland and the national Parliament of Scotland cannot be brushed aside as if they do not matter.”


Image result for uk supreme court images




13 Dec 2018: Brexit Legislation – UK Supreme Court Upholds  Scottish Parliament – But its ruling is thwarted by the Westminster Government’s Introduction of Counter Legislation, (with Royal Assent) before the Supreme Court Judged the Westminster Government Appeal.



Brexit legislation was drafted as an alternative to Westminster’s EU Withdrawal Bill, which MSPs refused to give their consent to following a row over how powers currently exercised from Brussels will be used after Brexit.

Holyrood Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh wrote an official memo saying the bill was “not within the legislative competence of the parliament”.

His assertions were denied by the Scottish government’s legal advisers.

But the delay paved the way for UK law officers to apply to the Supreme Court to provide “legal certainty” about whether the Holyrood vote was valid. A two-day hearing was held in London in July, with the UK government arguing that the bill should be struck down.

“On 4 July 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland’s needs.”


Lord Keen

Lord Keen Advocate General argued the case for the Westminster government.


The Supreme Court judgement

Lady Hale said the judges had unanimously rejected all but one section of the UK government’s arguments.

She said “the whole of the Scottish bill would not be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”, but that one section – relating to MSPs having to give consent for UK Brexit laws – was not within Holyrood’s remit.

The judges explained in their ruling that changes had been made to the UK legislation, (before the appeal hearing) adding a special schedule of protected legislation which MSPs could not modify , returning to Westminster authority over 21 previously devolved provisions.

This meant that the bill was entirely competent when it was passed by MSPs in March 2018.


Lady Hale

Lady Hale Supreme Court Judge



Review the disgraceful series of events, from March-December 2018

The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – known as the “continuity bill” – was passed under emergency procedures

Only the Tory’s and a single Lib Dem MSP voted against it.


Lord Advocate James Wolffe

Lord Advocate James Wolffe



What will happen now?

The ruling means that the EU Withdrawal Act remains the basis on which Scotland’s statute book will be prepared for Brexit.

MSPs could potentially bring the continuity bill back for reconsideration at Holyrood, provided they take action on the areas highlighted by the Supreme Court.

Lord Advocate, Mr James Wolffe said ministers would seek talks with all opposition parties about “whether that’s the right way forward”.


Supreme Court




Teddy Bear Supporters Embraced the Unionist Fear Campaign in the 2014 Referendum – The Tory Party is Hi-Jacking the Club to Its Cause – Rangers Fans Beware





Image result for adam tomkins images







2014 Scottish Independence Referendum Analysis

An academic study into the independence referendum was conducted by Professor Ailsa Henderson of the University of Edinburgh. The research, which surveyed 4,849 voters, examined how voting linked to demographics, risk aversion, national identity, and attitudes to change. It interviewed people before and after the referendum result and assessed why people voted the way they did. Findings:

* The typical “yes” voter was male, Roman Catholic, and living in social housing.

* The typical “no” voter was more likely to be female, Presbyterian and more well-off.

* The gender gap played out with 53% of men voting yes, and 56% of women voting no.

* Religion was a factor, most Roman Catholics supporting independence and most of those identifying with Church of Scotland favouring the union.

* A narrow majority of native Scots were yes voters.

* Voters qualified through residence in Scotland but born elsewhere in the UK overwhelmingly backed the union.
The analysis indicated that a minority of Presbyterian voters supported an Independent Scotland. This was attributed to the influence of the “Orange Order and “Rangers Football Club” supporters.

Assuming there will be another referendum it is crucial that “Yes” campaigners work hard to get the Rangers support onside. Failure to achieve this might well bring about a similar result. What follows is an informed treatise on the Rangers Football Club.



Image result for rangers images





Glasgow Rangers: How an illustrious football club became the emblem of a faltering belief in the United Kingdom and lost its identity. The Start of  the Downfall – Rangers V Maribor

Rangers FC, the Scottish club that is one of the most famous names in world football, were 15 minutes away from being knocked out of Europe by the champions of Slovenia. The team needed one more goal to take the game into extra time. This was the moment that, traditionally, a home team would be rallied by its fans bellowing, baying, singing a rousing song. Instead, the Glasgow crowd struck up a weary chorus of the British national anthem, “God Save the Queen”. Rangers failed to score.

Soon, the whole club was in need of divine intervention. Without the funds from lucrative European cup competition, years of hubris and inept leadership caught up with Rangers. In February 2012, it entered administration. Four months later, it was liquidated. Following votes by other clubs, a new incarnation of the club that had been champions a record 54 times started the 2012/13 season in Scottish football’s fourth tier.

Three years on, the sense of crisis persisted. Administration left a void in the boardroom, through which passed a procession of businessmen, many claiming to be “Rangers men”. No one ever took full control of the club, which remained in desperate, monthly need of cash to pay its high wage bill. According to Harry Reid, an author of books on Scottish football and religion, “Rangers became a magnet for every chancer in town.”

Many football fans like to think that their team is “more than a club”. In Rangers’ case, the claim was true. For much of its 143-year history, its successes were a source of pride for fans throughout Scotland, if not for supporters of Celtic, Glasgow’s other big club. “Rangers were the unofficial sporting champions of a different Scotland,” said Alasdair McKillop, the co-editor of “Born Under a Union Flag”, an anthology about the club’s place in the UK.

The club, like the nation, had a comfortable dual identity as both Scottish and British. At its most famous game, the 1972 European Cup Winners’ Cup victory over FC Dynamo Moscow, fans sporting kilts and Robert Burns T-shirts waved the Union Jack alongside the Lion Rampant, Scotland’s royal flag. “There was then an unquestioning acceptance of a strong Scotland within an overarching Britishness,” said Graham Walker, a renowned historian of politics in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as a life-long Rangers fan.

Off the pitch, Rangers was run in unspectacular fashion. It exemplified traditional Scottish Protestant virtues such as “strength, solidity, pride, decency and probity”, said Harry Reid. “This was turned on its head.”

For many fans, it was the European game against Maribor which foreshadowed the subsequent decline. Only three years previously, Rangers had reached the final of the same competition, but it wasn’t just the bad result that stayed in people’s minds.

Rangers drew much of its support from working-class fans in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, many of whom identified themselves as Protestant unionists. Graham Walker, who saw the game that night, said: “It seemed to me that too many fans are more concerned about defending Britishness than supporting Rangers.”

Today Rangers is a faded emblem of a faltering belief in the UK: a Scottish institution in Britain and a British institution in Scotland. Its rise and fall reflects not only how a football club lost sense of financial reality but much of its identity, too. Its story represents an imperfect microcosm of contemporary Scottish and British history.



Image result for rangers images






Success – Arrogance and – Unionism – The modern transformation of Rangers was dominated by two men

* Graeme Souness, the cocksure, moustachioed Scottish football legend who was appointed player-manager in 1986 after the club had gone eight years without a league title.
* Sir David Murray, an industrialist who in 1988, encouraged by Souness, bought a controlling stake in the club for £6m.

Rangers — and Scottish football — would never be the same again. Murray’s money bought star players on high wages, including the England midfielder Paul Gascoigne and Mo Johnston, the first openly Roman Catholic player signed by Rangers since the end of the first world war. Between 1989 and 1997, Rangers won nine league titles in a row. Sustained success on the pitch set the club apart, and the arrogance that accompanies serial winning undoubtedly alienated other football fans in Scotland.

But changes in society also threatened the sense of a dual Scottish and British identity that Rangers represented. Memories of the British empire and the second world war — both of which encouraged a pro-union sentiment — were growing distant. And falling church attendances, especially Protestant, spoke of Scotland’s rising secularism. According to the historian Sir Tom Devine, the “centralising drive of Margaret Thatcher eroded Scotland’s distinctiveness”, too, and provoked today’s left-wing Scottish nationalism.

Partly in response, a growing minority of Rangers fans displayed a more defiant type of Britishness. Religious sectarianism ran through the clubs fierce rivalry with its city neighbours Celtic, formed by an Irish Catholic priest in 1887. And, influenced by the deepening “Troubles” in Northern Ireland, fans sung “Rule Britannia” alongside rejoicing in the deaths of popes. The strident unionism that Rangers fans displayed was anomalous.” It wasn’t that Britishness was dead .. . …… but the kind of flag-waving unionism that some Rangers fans indulged in was exposed as a minority taste in contemporary Scotland, and it robbed [the club] of a lot of sympathy in the country.



Image result for rangers images






Financial Disaster

Yet the ordinary Rangers fan was deserving of sympathy. “Rangers suffered from every financial calamity imaginable,” said Henry McLeish, Scotland’s former first minister, who in 2009 conducted a review into the state of the country’s football. “It is the longest running business saga in football history.”

Despite its footballing success, spending on star players in the absence of stellar revenues meant that, by 2002, Rangers were £80m in debt. Murray appeared to have adopted the right strategy in the wrong country. Satellite television had turned the English Premier League into a big business. Rangers indicated a wish to join the English league but the entity enthusiastically embraced by the Rangers supporters rejected the approach. The United Kingdom was disunited when it came to soccer. The inevitable result was that the club became over-leveraged within the smaller market of Scottish football. By 2006, Murray was ready to sell. A situation which became critical when the financial crisis hit in 2008. when Murray International Holdings (MIH), suffered severe losses to its property portfolio.

Rangers had indeed spent beyond its means in a time of easy credit — and fans paid the price. “As far as I’m concerned, the bank is running Rangers,” Walter Smith, then the club’s manager, said in 2009. Two years later it was revealed that Rangers had used Employee Benefit Trusts, a tax avoidance vehicle, to reward staff. HMRC launched an investigation which is still not fully resolved at 2016.

In May 2011, Murray sold Rangers to Craig Whyte, another Scottish businessman, for the sum of £1. At first, Whyte appeared to be like Murray but with even more money. Yet promises of investment proved hollow and worse was to follow. Whyte failed to comply with tax obligations, ran the club without proper reference to the board, and caused the club to effectively fund the purchase of its own shares, according to a UK court verdict in 2014.

Under Whyte’s ownership, the club ran up a tax bill of £9m. This was the direct cause of Rangers entering administration in February 2012. Four months later, the club’s creditors, owed £124m, voted to liquidate the old company. That same day in June 2012, a consortium bought Rangers ’ remaining assets for £5.5m. But this new incarnation of the club has, said Henry McLeish, “been unable to attract stable finance backed by stable personalities”. In April 2013, yet another consortium leader Charles Green resigned as chief executive and the two men that followed him lasted only a combined total of 18 months.

The most recent power struggle featured Mike Ashley, a retail billionaire who owns English Premier League club Newcastle United, as well as a 9 per cent shareholding in Rangers. In 2012, the enigmatic sportswear mogul entered a joint venture to sell the team’s merchandise. It was a deal that led to a boycott of official gear by some fans, who claimed that the club only received 75p from every £10 spent on kit. Ashley wielded power disproportionate to his holding by acting as Rangers’s short-term creditor. He reportedly offered the club a further £10m loan, in exchange for taking Ibrox and Rangers’ training ground as security. The Scottish FA prevented him from increasing his stake in the club, citing rules on dual ownership

Sandy Easdale, a businessman convicted of non-payment of VAT in 1997, controlled 26 per cent of the shares in Rangers, mostly via the proxies of mysterious institutional investors. In December he loaned the club £500,000 to avoid a winding-up order by HMRC, an amount repaid after Rangers sold its best player to an English Championship club. Dougie Wright of the website Rangers Media forum, puts it this way: “Twenty years ago we were buying players from Barcelona, now we’re selling them to Brentford!”

At the start of 2015, several groups emerged as potential opponents to the combined control of Ashley and Easdale. These included:

* Dave King, a businessman, guilty of contravening South African tax laws.

* Robert Sarver, an Arizona billionaire who also owned the Phoenix Suns basketball team.

* A trio of rich Rangers fans who go by the name of the “Three Bears” (one of Rangers’ nicknames is the “Teddy Bears”).

The “Three Bears and Dave King emerged the winners after a corporate goalmouth scramble, but the question “why are we still in crisis? remained on the lips of many Rangers fans.




Image result for scottish independence images







The 2014 Independence Referendum and Rangers Supporters

In the course of the 2014 independence referendum campaign in Scotland “Better Together” campaigners used the term “silent majority” to describe pragmatic voters who cared little for romantic Britishness but ultimately saved the union, which was preserved by a 55 to 45 per cent vote.

In consequence parallels are drawn between the referendum vote and the club’s supporters continued state of angst. This was manifest in the unacceptable anti-social behaviour of some Rangers fans (witnessed throughout the referendum campaign) who repeatedly taunted other fans by singing, “You can shove your independence up your arse.”

But Glasgow was one of the few Scottish cities where a majority voted “Yes.” Given the class divide in votes (the poor are more likely to vote “Yes”), pollsters said, it would be surprising if an institution in Govan, a large working-class area, did not reflect that in some way. It follows that some Rangers fans must have voted “yes.”

It is accepted that Scots reluctantly affirmed the union. But it is a different sort of unionism to that of the past. For the majority a quieter, contingent belief in the UK has replaced the default bellicose Britishness of the past and it is expected (not with confidence) that the public behaviour of Rangers supporters will reflect the new reality. Extracted from:



Image result for scottish independence images








Westminster Behind the On-Going Gerrymandering of the Scottish Parliamentary Electoral System – The SNP needs to Wise Up and Sort Them Out



Image result for scottish parliament images

The first parliament





Gerrymandering the Newly devolved Scottish Parliamentary Electoral System

In recent times Unionist party MSP and activists have been constantly bleating about the unfair electoral system in Scotland which they allege has allowed the establishment of an SNP one party state. But they had been hoisted on their own petard plotting and scheming for many months under cover of the Calman Commission, working in secret designing a voting system which (they delightfully assured themselves) would prevent the election to office of an SNP majority. Having guaranteed their supporters a Labour/ Lib/Dem government would be elected in Scotland in perpetuity they committed their efforts to backing the successful devolution process.



Image result for scottish parliament images







The 1999 Election

Predictably, as planned, the election of the first devolved government to Holyrood in 1999 returned a Labour/LibDem  government.  A secret, secure future, free of the influence of the SNP had been delivered. Self satisfied and smug, members of the new government went about their business with breathtaking incompetence. Scandals, graft, nepotism, fraud and in fighting were prevalent. All the vices of unaccountable, dismissive despotic governance were deployed to the detriment of Scots.



Image result for scottish parliament images




The 2003 Election

Reflecting increasing dis-satisfaction with the Labour/LibDem government a number of new parties, Greens, SSP and Independent candidates were elected reducing the number of SNP and Unionist supporting parties. The timely warning from the electorate was ignored by the government and the level of largesse, waste and incompetence increased.

The SSP imploded with the leader and membership bickering endlessly. The Greens appeared to be overwhelmed by the election of MSP’s which required them to give up protesting, substituting the loss with constructive dialogue, which did not suit the agenda of the Party.

The SNP completed a root and branch analysis of the party which had not gained the seats projected in the campaign period. This brought about a party reorganisation. Senior officers were appointed to posts more complimenting their abilities. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon took on leadership roles together with John Swinney. The fightback had begun.




Image result for scottish parliament images

2007/2011 elections







The 2007 Election

Attempts at gerrymandering the 2007 election in favour of the Labour party were made by the Labour Party Secretary of State for Scotland, Douglas Alexander who employed the most complicated set of voting papers ever presented to an electorate combining two totally different elections on the same day.

The resulting debacle exposed the weakness of an electoral system put in place by Westminster civil servants and the Labour/ Lib Dem leaders to thwart the electorate. Scots, (fed up with the incompetence) returned SNP MSP’s in a majority.

With no overall control the SNP Party formed a minority government which (if defeat in parliament was to be avoided) would require the employment of first class political skills. Alex Salmond and his leadership team were up to the challenge and provided effective government in Scotland despite the odds being stacked in the favour of the unionist parties who resorted to spoiling tactics throughout the duration of the parliament.

Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, believing he had all the power refused to acknowledge or meet with Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond in any capacity whilst enjoying friendly relationships with the leaders of other devolved governments. Hardly the behaviour of a statesman.





Image result for scottish parliament images


2011 Election





The 2011 Election

The 2011 election delivered the first majority government since the opening of Holyrood, which was truly remarkable since the “mixed member proportional representation system” used to elect MSPs had been implemented by Westminster with the purpose of preventing the SNP achieving an overall parliamentary majority.




Image result for scottish parliament images


2016 election






The 2016 Election

The outcome of the election was manipulated by the Unionist Press and Media who in the course of the campaign, relentlessly promoted the concept of “tactical voting” seeking to persuade the electorate to give their votes to the new girl on the block: Ruthie (put in place by MI6) Davidson (no mention of the Tory Party).

The tactics worked and the Tory alternate vote increased at the expense of the Labour and Lib/Dem vote which was significantly reduced but not transferred to the SNP.

The SNP was still returned to government in another landslide victory. but an increase in the Green Party vote meant that the SNP did not enjoy an overall majority in parliament.

This was construed by the Unionist Tory Party to be a signal from the electorate that their manifesto had been approved by Scots and the days of the SNP in government in Scotland were numbered.

The Unionist press, media and Tories, emboldened by a new found confidence that they are the next government of Scotland (in waiting) attacked the electoral system that in their view had failed, yet again to deliver the government it had been designed for. But the voting system had in fact saved the Unionist parties from electoral oblivion.

However, true to form the selective arguments they advanced in support of their whining conveniently failed to mention that, (had the election been conducted under the much vaunted “First Past the Post” voting system strongly supported by the Unionist parties in Westminster) the SNP with 42% of the overall vote would have swept the board and the unionist parties would have been wiped out. Indeed in the 2015 UK general election the Tory Party formed the next government with only 37% of the vote.

Scotland has been lumbered with an electoral system proven to favour poorly performing political parties with many more MSP’s than deserved. It is also evident that there is a democratic deficit in Scotland which needs to be urgently addressed. Wise counsel recently proposed the introduction of transferable voting and open lists, (allowing voters freedom of choice in their selection of transfer candidates) abandoning regional weighting which has been widely abused by the Unionist parties who persist in nominating questionable, poorly performing characters previously rejected by the electorate.

But the Unionist parties continue to deny Scots the benefits of progressive policy changes which would do much to improve the performance of Scottish parliamentarians, preferring to reward self interested party nobodies nominated through nepotism, with seats in Holyrood.



Image result for scottish parliament images





Parliamentary Committees

The 2015 election brought Prof Tomkins to Holyrood (as a Tory list MSP). Proclaimed by the Unionist Media and Press to be an expert in constitutional affairs they widely broadcast to the Scottish electorate that he had a deal of input, through the Secretary of State for Scotland’s office, to the 2015 Scotland Act which delivered a limited range of newly devolved powers.

The Holyrood parliamentary committee system of political accountability, (through which the views of the electorate, media, business and opposition political parties can be fed back to government ensuring good governance) works well. But it is under attack by the Media Press and Unionist parties who constantly disrupt and frustrate the good work of committees.

The foregoing gives credence to reports that Prof Tomkin (with not at lot to do for his large salary) had been tasked to create alarm and despondency at Holyrood, undermining and discrediting the committee system so that he would be able to bring forward proposals for change which, if implemented as planned would weaken SNP control in committees, increasing the second placed opposition Tory party membership. A form of job creation for Unionist party MSP’s who would have nothing to do otherwise. This he has duly done. He doesn’t hang about this chap.



Image result for scottish parliament images

Deputy Leader of the Tory Party in Scotland






28 October 2016: Tories set out proposals for Holyrood reform

A review, announced by presiding officer Ken Macintosh, follows concern that Holyrood is failing in its task of effectively holding the Government to account.

Backbenchers who represent the governing party at Holyrood should be banned from holding the key jobs on major committees, the Scottish Tories have said. The party also set out preliminary proposals that they said would ensure Scotland had a “parliament with real teeth” following the announcement that structures at Holyrood are to be reviewed.

If the measures are accepted SNP politicians such as James Dornan, convenor of the education committee and Local Government convenor Bob Doris would be stripped of their roles. The Conservatives also said that ministers should be quizzed by their opposition counterparts more regularly and that MSPs should serve on committees for the full parliamentary term.

Scottish Conservative chief whip John Lamont said: “The last parliament, when the SNP had a majority, exposed the flaws in our democracy. SNP MSPs toed the party line, put party before parliament, with the result that bad laws were railroaded through.”

* He conveniently forgets to refer to the Westminster, House of Commons legislative committees who’s membership also reflects the proportion of MP’s at Westminster.

He went on: “The Scottish public ended the SNP’s majority, and we now have a more balanced parliament. So we welcome the Presiding Officer’s plan to ensure we get a parliament with real teeth. We don’t need yet more politicians in Scotland. We do need a parliament with more clout which can hold this Government to account. Our proposals will help do that – and we hope they will attract cross-party support.”

* But this example of the 2015 Holyrood election reveals the inadequacies of the existing system. North East Scotland:

Tories: 85,848 votes returned 4 additional Regional member MSP’s ( 21462 votes per MSP)

Lib/Dem: 18,000 votes returned Mike Rumbles as a Regional member MSP.

SNP: 137,085 votes returned 0 additional Regional member MSP’s (effectively disenfranchising a very significant number of voters).

The Commission on Parliamentary Reform will study the role of Holyrood in scrutinising legislation, the committee system and parliament’s independence from the Scottish government. The study will be led by the outgoing Electoral Commissioner John McCormick.




Image result for scottish parliament images