plausible-paranoia-how-westminster-hoodwinked-the-scots-in-1707-and-2014-and-their-preparedness-to-do-so-again-part-8- The Aftermath of the Referendum




Sep 2014: Tomkins and Goldie – Addressing the the Strathclyde proposals

A letter from Tomkins and Tory constitution spokeswoman Annabel Goldie MSP stated:

“We stand by the recommendations and analysis of the Strathclyde Commission.

We regard its recommendations as a starting point for further discussion – as a floor rather than a ceiling.

It remains our clear policy that the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for setting the rates and bands of personal income tax for Scottish taxpayers and that a share of VAT receipts should be assigned to the Scottish Parliament.

Any plans for further devolution which undermine the Union would run counter to the clearly expressed, settled and sovereign will of the Scottish people.

Further, a new constitutional settlement for the Union must accommodate not only the interests and aspirations of Scots, but also the legitimate interests and aspirations of our fellow citizens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It would be mistaken to imagine that further devolution for Scotland is of no consequence to the other nations of the United Kingdom.”



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

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Sir Bob Kerslake and Sir Nicholas McPherson, the three amigo’s who ran the UK, collaborated and plotted against Scotland, marshalling the full might of the British State, attacking the Scottish government and supporters of the “Yes” campaign.

In the months after the referendum they publically expressed great satisfaction that their “Campaign of fear” had generated “fearties” in sufficient numbers so as to win the day for the Unionist coalition.

An award, in recognition of the civil servant’s outstanding achievement in making a difference on an issue of national significance, (the Referendum) was presented by the ”Cabinet Secretary and civil service head Sir Jeremy Heywood.

The proud team of strictly impartial, very senior civil servants commented afterwards;

* Paul Doyle;

“This award is for all the hard work that was done by all British government departments on the Scotland independence agenda. In all my experience of the civil service, I have never seen the civil service pull together in the way they did supporting the UK government, maintaining the United Kingdom.”

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

“As civil servants you don’t get involved in politics. But for the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications.

I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognized [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.”

* Shannon Cochrane;

“We’ve learned that it is possible for civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult, and you’re very close to crosssing the line of what is allowable, but it’s possible to find your way through and to make a difference.”

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

“We all had something in common, we were fighting to save the Union, and it came so close. We just kept the UK intact by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in.  After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award. As civil servants you don’t get involved in politics. For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognized [at the Civil Service Awards], makes me feel just incredibly proud.” (civilserviceworld)


The outcome of the 2014 “Scottish Independence Referendum” confirmed that the Tory government utilised every weapon in its formidable arsenal of civil servants and other bodies of state in its determined action against Scots who simply wished to be free of the brutal Westminster control which has bound Scotland to England in an illegal “Treaty of union” for over 300 years.

Alert to the trickery and deviousness of the British State, Scots should ensure counter measures are in place before the next referendum preventing a similar outcome.



May 2014: The Electoral Commission (EC) for Scotland

A supposedly impartial organisation, the EC was formed in 2001, with a mandate that included, increasing public participation in democracy and regulating political donations.

This was strengthened adding security arrangements for postal voting and a number of investigatory responsibilities.

The guarantee of a strictly impartial Commissioner and support team is crucial to the success of the organisation and John McCormick, employed by the strictly unbiased BBC for 34 years, as Secretary then Controller of BBC Scotland, 1992-2004 was appointed to the post of Commissioner in 2008.

His good friend, John Boothman, Head of BBC Scotland News and Current Affairs, and a former apparatchik in Scottish Labour’s high command, and the Herald’s one-time business correspondent refused to appear before the Scottish Education and Culture Committee at Holyrood stating that the BBC Scotland was not accountable to the Scottish Government or any other regularity body.

They were subsequently ordered to appear by the Chairman of the BBC Trust and finally did so but stonewalled every question put to them.

Boothman (finally exposed as a bully) was later removed from his post as Head of News and Current Affairs after a protracted struggle with staff and trade unions and transferred his employment to the private sector.

But the failings of the EC were exposed following a number of Scottish elections in which there were tens of thousands of claims of electoral fraud, voters being turned away from polling stations and an insufficient number ballot forms.

The Glenrothes by-election of 2008 fiasco where the boxes containing the counted votes went missing, preventing a recount, where the by-election victor held his seat.

In the 2014 referendum Clackmannanshire voted “no” which was a body blow to the “yes” campaign since it had been accepted the electorate was pro- independence.

Its recently appointed Counting Officer and Council Chief Executive, Elaine McPherson, who surprisingly resides in Cheshire, England, is a former business partner of the master of shady deals, Sir Philip Green, the notorious British tycoon and die-hard Zionist-for-Empire-and-Austerity.

Mary Pitcaithly, Chief Counting Officer, of the independence referendum , is a qualified corporate lawyer and was second chair of the “Queen’s High Commissioner” Arbuthnot Commission which considered and recommended constituency controversial boundary changes and voting systems in Scotland.

She then joined the Tory/Labour coalition in 2012 and played a major role in the organisation of the anti SNP “spoiler” Unionist biased Bannockburn 700 celebrations.

In her referendum brief to the public she stated that there would be no national recount even if the result was close.

The referendum held in September 2014 wasn’t so much an electoral process as an unfettered festival of jiggery-pokery and gerrymandering Conspiracy!!!!!. It is most likely believable and true. This BBC (Alba) documentary amplifies the assertion:

Comment: Christian Wright – DYSTOPIA wrote:

“On 18th September 2014, for the first time in the long history of the world, a country committed national suicide in front of a live global audience. The voters of Scotland, a land with a thousand years provenance, and seven centuries a nation, declined to take responsibility for their own governance, and instead, entrusted it to a cabal of elitists from whom they can expect naught but sneering contempt.”



Oct 2014: As predicted by Yes voters the backsliding begins

The Smith Commission, boasted all of the talent of Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott, alongside the egregious Tomkins who managed to squeeze in the most contorted and bizarre nonsense about ‘ethnicity’ into his commentary.

His blog ‘Notes from North Britain’ railed against the idea that Scotland – with 1% of the population and 60% of the oil / 25% of the renewable resource – would be allowed to stay within the EU.

Tomkins, who nobody elected to sit on a commission to decide the constitutional future of Scotland,  wrote on May 26:  “I am of the view that political differences between Scotland and her southern neighbour are much exaggerated; that it suits those who seek the break-up of Britain to perpetuate such exaggeration; and that arguments seeking to set Scotland up as if it is some sort of northern cure for English diseases are both deluded and dangerous.”

But, as predicted, he proved to be wide of the mark after The Times reported:

“The results of academic research suggest that an in/out referendum on EU membership would generate a different result on either side of the border — which the first minister has said could trigger a fresh bid for Scottish independence. (bellacaledonia)




Nov 2014: The Smith Commission – Hokey cokey and a naked Tory…welcome to Scotland’s future.

So it didn’t go down to the wire. One negotiator at last week’s Smith Commission talks offered a wry smile: “The wire was eight o’clock, we walked out of the room at 10 to eight.”

But after weeks of bargaining behind closed doors and, frustratingly for the media, with barely a leak about what was going on, the story of what went on is beginning to be told.

The SNP were first to break the consensus with John Swinney criticising the package agreed very shortly after putting his name to it.

And that has brought forth a tide of niggles, nuggets and naked Annabel Goldie stories as each party jostled to claim credit for what was produced.

It’s worth looking first at whether the Smith Commission proposals are worth claiming credit for.

Hogging the headlines are the steps on income tax and welfare. Scotland will get the power to set income tax bands and will collect what’s raised in Scotland.

The power to set the tax-free allowance remains with Westminster, though Holyrood can vary it upwards by setting a 0% band which would have the same effect.

For all that it looks like a grand gesture handing Scotland control of income tax, there are sceptics.

Professor David Bell of Stirling University and part of the Centre for Constitutional Change explained:

“The most likely outcome is Scottish income tax rates will mirror those set at Westminster in the short-term and not move significantly away.”

He says a 1p increase in income tax would raise around £400 million.  In the grand scheme of things that won’t pay for a lot but it will lose a lot of voters.

Professor Bell added: “Politically, it’s become very difficult to change the rate of income tax. It has only reduced over many years. And you have to ask how different the Scottish electorate really is to the rest of the UK. The losers from any tax change make more fuss than the winners.”

However, Professor Bell believes the welfare changes are significant. And that part of the agreement was one of the most hotly-contested. The power to create new benefits has been dubbed the “hokey cokey clause” as it was often in the agreement and then back out again.




Nov 2014: Smith Commission-George  Osborne and Ian Duncan Smith dictate by proxy from London

Goldie and Tomkins infuriated their fellow commissioners by constantly shifting position, at the behest of Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne in Westminster. One opponent called them The Grand Old Duke and Duchess of York.

As negotiations became increasingly heated in the final days a break was called at one point in order to try and pin down the Conservative position on whether all elements of the new Universal Credit including unemployment benefits were up for discussion.

A so-called “coffee break compromise” was drawn up, only for the Conservatives to trash it soon after on the orders of the two amigo’s at Westminster.  That then left them with no room for manoeuvre when it came to granting Scotland the power to create its own benefits.

The Westminster influencers finally baked off,  granting Holyrood the power to create a separate Scottish welfare system so long as it was able raise all of the money to pay for it.  A Unionist negotiator sneered. Nice one: “The nationalists hate the idea there’s a power but no money with it.”

Tory, Tomkins got up the nose of some negotiators with a many deriding him as a hot shot constitutional lawyer wholly devoid of practical politics. One person who was in the room said: “One of his contributions saw the whole room laughing. But we weren’t laughing with Adam.”




Nov 2014: No Country in History has ever rejected Independence – Until Scotland in 2014

The biggest study yet of how Scotland made its historic decision on 18 September 2014,  found that the votes of people born outside Scotland were crucial to the result.

Whilst 52.7 per cent of native-born Scots voted Yes, a massive 72.1 per cent of voters from England, Wales or Northern Ireland backed the Union.

There were more than 420,000 Britons from elsewhere in the UK living in Scotland when the last census was taken and if they cast their ballots in line with the findings of the Edinburgh University study, more than 300,000 of them will have voted No.

That’s a significant number in a contest that ended with 2,001,926 votes for No and 1,617,989 for Yes. Voters born outside the UK also rejected independence, with 57.1 per cent voting No.

SNP, MSP, Christian Allard, who was himself born in France, said:

“Scotland is the country of everyone who lives here, regardless of where they were born, and we take decisions on our future together. The diversity of Scotland’s population is a matter for celebration. While we were disappointed with the result of the referendum, this study shows that a clear legacy has been greater political involvement, particularly among young people. And that is something to be proud of.”

Political scientist Professor Ailsa Henderson, who wrote the study said it showed the influence of “Britishness” among voters born elsewhere in the UK in deciding the result.

She said: “Scottish-born people were more likely to vote Yes and those born outside Scotland were more likely to vote No. But the least sympathetic to Yes were the people born in the UK, but outside Scotland. We think they are more likely to feel British. They are more likely to feel a continued tie to the UK as a whole – because that’s where they are from.”

She added that it was different for voters who originally came from outside the UK. and explained: “They have made a conscious decision to move to the UK, and the part of the UK they have chosen to move to is Scotland.”

She continued, saying that the trend she found was similar to those seen in other independence votes in places such as Quebec in Canada.

The study, which recorded the attitudes of several thousand voters in a series of surveys, also confirmed that women and older people were more likely to vote No while men and the young were more in favour of Yes.

Researchers found that 56.6 per cent of women voted No while 53.2 per cent of men voted Yes.

he divide was even wider when it came to age. More than 62 per cent of voters aged 16 to 19 backed independence.

The Yes side also had a majority among voters aged 20 to 24, 25 to 29 and 30-39, while voters aged 40 to 49 were split almost exactly down the middle.

But 50 to 59-year-olds, 60 to 69-year-olds and voters aged 70 or older were all in the No camp, with the pro-Union majority getting bigger the older they were. Nearly two thirds of 70-something Scots voted No.

Wealth and social status also played their part in deciding how the nation voted. Yes had majorities among people who classed themselves as working class, people at the bottom of the earnings scale and people in rented social housing.

By contrast, the highest earners, home owners and people who described themselves as middle class were more likely to vote No.

Ailsa also found a “stark difference” between the voting patterns of protestants at Catholics, with Catholic voters far more likely to be Yes supporters.



Dec 2014: The 2014 Referendum

In the Scottish Independence referendum the voter list included anyone over the age of 16, entered on the current electoral roll, whose place of residence was in Scotland, regardless of nationality.

The usual caveats about Service personnel also applied.

Voter turnout was 84.59%. The result: Yes, 1,617,989, 44.70%. No, 2,001,926, 55.30%

There is an acceptance within Scotland that in the referendum a majority of the 240,000 EU and Non EU Immigrant voters and many voters of Scottish birth and residence had been persuaded to vote “No” frightened into submission by an incessant campaign of disinformation orchestrated by the UK Civil Service, Westminster politicians, the UK government and opposition Parties and their organs of abuse, the BBC and all other media outlets serving Scotland.

Indeed not long after the referendum Unionists “crowed from the rooftops” fighting each other for media space each claiming their disinformation output had been the most influential in gaining the “No” vote.

But the award should go to the Civil Service anti-independence team working out of Downing Street under the guidance of Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service.

790,000 postal voting forms were issued, completed and returned within the notified time period.

But the novel and as yet unproven voting procedure, heavily promoted by the governing authority, was sullied when, just after voting closed, Ruth Davidson, and other influential supporters of the “No” campaign boasted they had known well before 18 September 2014 that postal votes indicated a win for their campaign.

An incredible claim since the public had witnessed sealed postal votes being added to the other votes to be counted in at the counting stations.

There was a police investigation into the matter but the findings were never notified to the Scottish public who are still waiting for answers, with result many Scot’s believe the outcome of the referendum had been fixed in favour of the “No” campaign.