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

 

 

Fulton and Cameron  (Thatchers cronies)

 

 

Sep 2011: Davidson and Fraser Slugging match

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Adam Tomkins

 

 

2011: Tomkins and Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

2012 Scottish Independence Referendum early discussions – Tomkins shows his Colours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Mar 2013 – Adam Tomkins: A West Lothian Answer?

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

For Government the key issues remaining open are:

1. The funding of devolution.

2. The future of the Barnett formula.

2. The West Lothian question.

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

Davidson and her Glasgow Unversity backers for the leadership

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

Jun 2014: Tories Experimented on the Scots

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

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

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

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

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

 

Cameron and (Dark money) Cook 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Plausible Paranoia – How Westminster hoodwinked the Scots in 1707 and 2014 and their Preparedness to Do So Again – Part 4 – Tories in Complete Meltdown

 

 

 

 

 

May 2008: Increasing Nationalist support in Scotland alerts and alarms Westminster and the US.

The Labour Party in Scotland was in meltdown and it was entirely possible a majority SNP government would be in place in 2011 which would bring with it calls for Scottish independence and a referendum.

There were also on-going problems within the Scottish Tory Party, which had suffered yet another bad election and voices within the Party raised the spectre of a split from Westminster control so that the Party in Scotland would be able to decide upon policy.

A strategy, designed to deal with the potential problems was rapidly evolved and put into action by Tory grandee Sir Malcolm Rifkind, other high ranking politicians and the Secret Service.

In a surprise move, former high ranking MI6 intelligence officer, Andrew Fulton whose last post was “head of station” in the MI6 office, in Washington was appointed Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party by David Cameron replacing Peter Duncan who had stood down after the 2007 election.

The appointment of a senior intelligence officer to the post of Party Chairman, was viewed by many Scottish Tory supporters as a Westminster hatchet job with David Mundell at its core, pulling the strings.

Fulton, with extensive physical resources assistance and Mundell, applied himself and his team over a period of 18 months, to the task of completing a root and branch reorganisation of the party in Scotland, removing any person, (no matter how senior) who did not promise full compliance with the Westminster Party ideal.

He also designed and put in place a long term strategy, with the support of unionist supporting media and press outlets with the purpose of undermining the SNP government ensuring any referendum for independence would fail in the belief that the SNP would fall apart in the aftermath of a failure to gain independence.

 

Annabel Goldie & Richard Cook

 

 

2008: Tomkins has an Epiphany and Converts from Roundhead to cavalier

No longer having a need for his erstwhile political friends Tomkins abandoned the SSP and gave up his rejection of the Queen as head of state. Then, having hitched his reputation to the unionist cause.

All that remained to be decided was the political party to which he would commit his future.

After a period of flipping and flopping between Tory and Labour he finally opted to support the Tory Party.

Former colleague, SSP Leader, Colin Fox, who spoke alongside Tomkins at the 2004 Declaration of Independence, on Calton Hill, said: “He’s gone from Cromwell’s side to the Cavaliers.

He should be ashamed of giving up on democracy in favour of the divine right of kings and hereditary privileges. Although that does make him pretty much at home in the Tory Party.”

 

Tony Blair

 

 

2009: House of Lords Constitution Committee contracts a special adviser

Tomkins was formally appointed adviser to the peers of the realm, Constitution Committee.

Not a bad result for a chap who firmly rejected the concept of majesty only a few short months before.

He also cultivated political alliances in Westminster providing political guidance in support of the Union as the UK constitution came under increasing scrutiny from nationalist activists.

His evidence on the sovereignty of Parliament was extensively cited in the House of Commons during the legislative passage of the European Union Bill (2010-11).

 

Annabel Goldie canvassing

 

 

May 2010 – Tomkins – Protecting Individual Liberty

Tomkins based his defence of parliamentary democracy in his book: “Our Republican Constitution”.

In it he sought to persuade the reader that that a “Bill of Rights” and a “written constitution” would fail to provide effect in the way that the Westminster parliamentary democracy does.

Questions to be asked and answered:

1. With whom should power ultimately reside?

2. Should the Courts have the power to strike down Acts of Parliament that are incompatible with an individuals fundamental rights or should elected representatives have the final say on where the balance between liberty and security lies?

Answers:

Believers in the judicial protection of human rights, would enhance the power of the Courts with a “Bill of Rights”, along with a “written constitution” that would, confine the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament to the dustbin of history.

But Tomkins presented a profound challenge to the belief that protection of liberty is best ensured by weakening the power of parliament in relation to the Courts, rather than strengthening the power of Parliament in relation to government. So the state is paramount thinks Tomkins.

Comment:

Tomkins, a constitutional lawyer, was on the Smith Commission, and is currently an advisor to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

His selection by the Scottish Conservatives may be due to the Conservatives policy for a UK Bill of Rights. That requires the repeal of the Human Rights Act.

Although, the SNP are signatories to the Smith Agreement they say they would withhold legislative consent with regard to the Human Rights Act.

I don’t know what the other parties position is, but the Conservative plans for a UK Bill of Rights and the impact on the Human Rights Act in Scotland could play a big part in next years elections.

 

 

 

2010: The UK General Election

The election was held against the background of the world banking disaster.

The failure of the Labour government to bring greedy bankers to account.

A betrayal by politicians that had approved the banking bailout resulting in a financial deficit of nearly £1 trillion, repayment of which would imposed on every individual voter in the UK bringing with it the imposition of 20+ years of financial austerity and accompanying hardship on the electorate.

The bankers continued to enjoy unjustified benefits of obscene financial bonus schemes which exceeded the limits of reason or necessity.

The witnessing of 20-30 year old bankers swanning around london in flash new motors, spending wads of cash in nightclubs and purchasing ever more expensive houses was galling to the poorer members of society who had to struggle to survive saddled with an unfair monetary system driven by governments whose ideology was to get the financial debt down to sustainable levels whatever the consequence.

The foregoing resulted in a polarisation of voting driving voters back to the arms of the two parties capable of forming a government.

In Scotland this manifested in the traditional return of a large number of Labour MP’s who promised to fight for Scots in the Westminster parliament.

The fortunes of the Tory Party in Scotland did not improve, when it asked the Scottish electorate to support a manifesto formulated in Westminster containing nothing of note for Scotland’s economy.

The result was at odds with the rest of the UK where the Tory Party did well enough to join with the Liberals forming a UK government taking control for 5 years.

And the accompanying brutal austerity measures that were imposed by Cameron/ Osborne and the Liberals led by Clegg.

Blame for the poor performance of the Tory Party in Scotland fell upon Goldie, but in truth the damage was done by Thatcher who had dumped “one nation” Toryism a long time before turning it into a London and South East England party.

In the years that followed Thatchers demise the pattern intensified but the Tory Party in Scotland learned nothing and stumbled from crisis to crisis surviving on the electoral support of older voters.

These older voters expired over time but were never fully replaced resulting in the terminal decline of the party..

But Cameron snookered Goldie before the election, adding her to his cabinet,  with result that she was bound by party rules to accept and implement Shadow Cabinet decisions.

In cabinet she advised, without success that a number of proposals contained in the manifesto were wrong for Scotland and rumours were circulated widely throughout the period of the campaign that Cameron and his advisors had scant regard for the abilities of Goldie and her team and moves were afoot to replace her regardless of the outcome of the election.

Goldie’s nemesis, Mundell, the sole Scottish Tory MP at Westminster, held on to his seat in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale by a whisker.

At interview he made a telling statement: “It wasn’t my intention five years ago to be the only Conservative MP in Scotland and it certainly wasn’t my intention tonight.

I’m not complacently brushing aside the fact that we haven’t made progress in the number of seats of Scotland, we haven’t and I accept that’s something we have to look at very seriously in the aftermath of this election.”

Cameron speedily commissioned the anticipated investigation (without reference to Goldie) into the poor performance of the party in Scotland and fully supported recommendations contained in the “Sanderson Report” which advised a radical leadership and party structure overhaul forming part of a battle plan implementation of which would improve its future electoral prospects.

Power would be transferred to a group of Thatcherite driven slick Young Turks in Glasgow University, (that place again) a number of whom would work out of Goldie’s office with immediate effect.

This included Ruth Davidson who had only recently returned to Scotland having failed to gain a seat in an English constituency.

The die had been cast against Goldie. Cameron’s long held plans for Scotland did not include her as leader of Scotland’s Tory Party.

The word “Union” was dropped from the Scottish Tory Party title. One wonders why!!!!

 

 

 

2010 – 2011: Scottish Tories strike back at Cameron and Westminster

The ever growing dysfunctional nature of relationships between Westminster and Scotland became public knowledge as the party in Scotland attempted to divorce itself from its London masters.

On at least two occasions, major policy decisions impacting Scotland were implemented by Conservative leaders in London in direct contradiction to Scottish Tory policy.

On both occasions sources said the Scottish branch had no idea what was going on before the decisions were taken and had no chance to influence policy direction.

A party insider said: “There is no communication between the party leadership in London and the leadership in Scotland.”

Before the election, Annabelle Goldie used to sit in the Shadow Cabinet. She doesn’t now. There is a Cabinet but she is not part of it. She has been cast adrift.”

The revelation that it had been cut loose by its parent body in London plunged the Tory Party in Scotland into a fresh crisis since from the time of the general election senior figures in the UK Conservative Party no longer consulted or communicated with their Scottish colleagues.

Scottish party leaders had been shut off from decision-making and were no longer invited to top-level strategy and policy meetings.

Indeed, the isolation of the Scottish branch reached scandalous levels when it was revealed Goldie had not spoken to David Cameron since the election. This when SNP First Minister Alex Salmond had five conversations with the Prime Minister since he took office.

Presented with a poisoned chalice to hold close to her chest the ever loyal Goldie put a brave face on the situation but admitted she had not spoken to the Prime Minister since the election, then denied there was any “disconnect” between the Scottish and London parties, insisting that she had a “line of communication” to No 10 which she could use at any time.

She said: “there is not a disconnect. We retain very good communications. I am in the position where I can communicate with him in his office any time I want and, obviously, I am not going to be on the phone every five minutes to the Prime Minister, he has an important job to do. The important thing is that I have a line to communication to him if I need to use it.”

She then emphasised that David Cameron had, at the 2010 general election taken on leadership of the Tory Party with his manifesto, not that of the Tory Party in Scotland.

The implication being: “It wasn’t my fault we only got one seat, it was David Cameron’s.” She also pointed out that the Tory vote in Scotland had increased over her time in office as leader citing a rise in the number of members, councillor’s and MSP’s as evidence of progress.

In issuing a statement critical of Cameron and his Westminster team Annabelle had effectively sealed her fate and Mundell, acting on instructions from Westminster orchestrated her removal from office ensuring the promotion of Ruth Davidson who had been waiting in the wings, (working out of Annabelle’s office for nearly a year.)

 

 

 

29 Mar 2011: Tory Party’s Holyrood election campaign in disarray

The gerrymandering of the party candidate list, orchestrated by the new party chairman, agent, Andrew Fulton was implemented with increasing haste forcing previously nominated individuals to step down.

One hopeful, David Meikle withdrew his nomination for the Rutherglen seat, in Glasgow because he was upset that his allegations of vote rigging on the list for Glasgow had not been investigated properly.

His complaints centred on the Conservative Rutherglen Association, whose membership shot up by around 150 members, from a starting point of 17 in the months before the selection of persons for the Conservative list in Glasgow.

Malcolm Macaskill, a Glasgow businessman, justice of the peace and a Tory of long standing in the West of Scotland was removed from the top of the Glasgow list and replaced by the former BBC journalist, Ruth Davidson a newcomer to the party with less than 2 years political experience.

Goldie admitted that she did not have any say in the deselection of MacAskill who subsequently resigned from the party and sued it.

But the Tory hierarchy in London, who were directing the changes were quoted to be “delighted” with the way it was being conducted.

Party Chairman, Fulton made no mention of the reason for McCasskill’s dismissal, merely saying he had been dropped “following discussions between the candidate and the party’s candidates’ board”.

The Tory leadership in London also insisted the budget for the 5 May 2011 Scottish election was in place despite many reports that wealthy donors, including former Dundee FC footballer and property magnate Tom Coakley and airport car park magnate John McGlynn, had withdrawn their party funding, protesting against the Westminster “putch”.

An SNP spokesman said it was the “worst possible” start to the Tory campaign, adding: “The first day and they have lost three of their top candidates, amid party infighting and internal allegations of malpractice. The Tories are not fit for purpose, fit for Glasgow, or fit for Scotland.”

 

 

 

May 2011: The Scottish General Election

Scottish politics was transformed when the SNP won a previously unthinkable overall majority in the Scottish parliament, taking 69 out of the 129 seats.

The impact of the victory was devasting for the three other political parties and resulted in the forced resignation of the Labour leader, the hapless Iain Gray, Tavish Scott, the discredited leader of the Lib/Dem’s and the gallant Annabel Goldie, despite her party doing better than Labour and the Lib Dems, losing only two of its 17 seats in the landslide SNP victory.

It was Goldie that had established a successful working relationship with Salmond during the SNP minority government the SNP, relied on the support of the Tories to pass their financial budgets, in return, Goldie was able to claim responsibility for ensuring shops and small businesses did not pay business rates, increasing frontline police numbers by 1,000 and reforming the drugs rehabilitation policy in Scotland, fuelling speculation of a power-sharing deal if the SNP had failed to win a majority.

In her resignation speech Goldie said “The Scottish election result was seismic. Nobody thought that the SNP would win an overall majority at Holyrood.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives are returning to the parliament with fewer MSPs than last time, but I am heartened by the observations of many independent commentators that our result was, by comparison to the other opposition parties, credible.

As a party I believe that we ran the right campaign. We focused on trying to maximise our votes on the regional list. Unlike others, we had a narrative of common sense, telling it like it is, and a record of delivering for Scotland. But being the least worst was, in the end, not good enough.”

The stage was set for a round of Party leadership contests.