Tory Fisheries Policy Towards Scotland is Decided in Consultation with the Scottish Fisheries Federation whose membership is dominated by Five North East Coast – Multi Millionaire Families – Whose Trawlers Dominate the Whitefish Industry. But the West Coast is Where the Money is Yet It is Ignored





Image result for scottish fisheries cartoons




Impact of the 2014 and 2016 referendums

In the 2014 referendum the affluent North East of Scotland constituencies voted to remain in the UK Union. In the 2016 referendum they voted to leave the EC.

In 2016 the Tory party concentrated their political campaigning in the North East of Scotland, on post Brexit fishing policy, arguing that the SNP was determined to keep Scotland in the EC, and the European Common Fisheries Policy and electoral success for the SNP would adversely affect many constituents who were dependent on fishing for their livelihood.

David Duguid, who would become the successful Tory candidate for Banff and Buchan, met with fishermen’ leaders, and said:

“I have signed and I will honour the Scottish Fishermen Federation’s Brexit pledge. I will be a strong and influential voice for our fishermen, who are rightly determined to make the most of the huge opportunity afforded by the Brexit vote. I do not believe that this industry should ever be considered expendable and I will ensure that the views of our fishermen are heard at the highest levels of government. I will stand up for the interests of our fishing and farming communities.”

Only a few weeks later Andrea Leadsom, the UK Secretary of State in charge of fisheries, in a letter to Bertie Armstrong, Chief Executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation wrote:

“No decision has yet been made on the extent to which the EU legislation governing the Common Fisheries Policy will be incorporated into domestic law. But a number of parts of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) will be retained as part of UK law. The Government will continue to champion sustainable fisheries and we are committed to ongoing cooperation with other countries over the management of shared stocks and ending discards.” ” a “bombshell” delivered.

Ruth Davidson was summoned to an urgent meeting in Peterhead, to answer Tory friendly fishing industry leaders’ call for Scotland’s fisheries not to be used as a bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiations. She failed.

In a statement after the meeting fishermens’ leader, Bertie Armstrong said:

“The whole industry, from those who go to sea through the processors to the hauliers, is united behind one simple aim: our coming out of the EU and the CFP. Brexit offers us a huge opportunity to re-assert control of our waters and to establish once and for all a sensible, practicable new fisheries management regime.”

Clear enough. but the Westminster government ignored him.

“The Government’s Brexit White Paper merely said:

“Given the heavy reliance on UK waters of the EU fishing industry and the importance of EU waters to the UK, it is in both our interests to reach a mutually beneficial deal that works for the UK and the EU’s fishing communities.”

A Churchillian gesture to Scottish fishermen.

Eilidh Whiteford, (SNP) commented:

“The letter is a bombshell which utterly demolishes the Tories’ bogus claims about fishing. The cat is now out of the bag. While Ruth Davidson is heading to the North East to pretend the Tories are the fishermens’ friends, her Westminster bosses are plotting a gigantic sell-out.  The letter couldn’t be clearer. For all their rhetoric, the Tories are planning to incorporate key parts of the CFP ‘into domestic law. And they are also committed to ongoing cooperation with other countries over the management of shared stocks. That means that they are planning to use Scottish waters and our fishing industry as a Brexit bargaining chip. In doing so, they are also taking an enormous gamble with the livelihoods of those fish processors that depend on European exports by jeopardizing our position within the single market.”


Only recently released, under the 30-year rule,(with other heavily redacted documents) was the Tory controlled Scottish Office statement, (made at the time the Common Fisheries Policy was being negotiated in the 1970’s), that:

“in the wider UK context the fishermen of Scotland must be regarded as expendable.”

So no change in policy between 1970 – 2017!!!!

Asked to comment David Duguid, Tory MP for Banff and Buchan, said:

“The Conservative Government at Westminster is following through on the democratic will of the British people to leave the EU.”

So much for his pledge to honour the pledge. Yet, the North East of Scotland electorate ignored all warnings of duplicity and elected Tory candidates to office at the General Election.


Related image

The family’s Klondyke Fishing Company is the UK’s third-largest quota holder.



19 Jul 2017: North Sea cod certified fully sustainable

North Sea cod has today been officially certified as fully sustainable and can be eaten freely. The green light was given by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) which has given the fishery its all important blue tick label. The decision will provide a major boost for the UK fishing industry and the Scottish fleet in particular.

The situation is a complete contrast from the situation a little over a decade ago when North Sea cod stocks were at a critically low level. The MSC said today the blue tick indicated that North Sea cod caught by Scottish and English boats is “sustainable and fully traceable”.

Cod stocks in the North Sea stood at around 280,000 tons just 40 years ago and then went into steep decline due to over-fishing when stock fell to under 40,000 tons. The EC Common Fisheries Policy instructed a ban on cod catches, until such time as stocks would be recovered. Forming part of the strategy to resolve the problem of over fishing the Grimsby fleet of more than 100

North Sea trawlers was reduced to a handful of local boats. The stock recovery plan was in place for around ten years and the policy brought long term dividends for Scottish fisheries.

The MSC said the announcement that cod was now sustainable was a “momentous achievement” for the industry. But the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), conservation body WWF has warned that historically, the population of North Sea cod was still at a low level and efficient control measures will need to kept in place.

Comment: Without the Common Fisheries Policy the North Sea would most likely be barren of cod so far as trawler fishing is concerned. The over fishing policies of the Grimsby trawler fleet operators was decided by the needs of the Grimsby fish processing industry which had in place many contracts with the EC and worldwide for the supply of processed fish.

Conversely, the Scottish North Sea trawler fleet was primarily deployed to catch fish for the “fresh fish markets” of the UK, EC and worldwide and did not impact on cod stocks to the same extreme as the Grimsby fleet.


Image result for scottish fisheries




26 Jul 2017: Brexit – Grimsby area MPs appointed to key fisheries posts

Grimsby MP, Melanie Onn has been elected to chair the House of Commons, All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fisheries. Her duties will ensure she discharges a leading role shaping the future of Britain’s post-Brexit fishing industry.  The influential cross-party group of MPs will meet regularly to take evidence from key players in the seafood industry and experts, and will be empowered to question Government Ministers on their policies towards fisheries. It will also be able to hold the government to account in the all important Brexit implications for the fishing industry.

She said:

“my appointment will give me more influence and a better chance to fight for Grimsby’s seafood industry. I’m delighted to be elected to this position. Thousands of people in Grimsby work in the seafood sector, and I will now have a bigger platform from which to pressure the Government into providing greater support for the industry. I said during the election campaign that I would fight for the best Brexit deal for Great Grimsby, which means holding the Government to the promises made to the fishing industry during the referendum, and protecting the seafood sector’s ability to trade with Europe. My new role will give me more opportunities to question the Ministers responsible for these areas, and to make sure they know how their actions will affect the livelihoods of workers in Grimsby.”

Other members of the committee are: Alistair Carmichael, Lib/Dem MP for Orkney and Shetland, Sheryll Murray, Tory MP for South East Cornwall, Peter Aldous, Tory MP for Waveney and David Duguid, Tory MP for Banff and Buchan

Meanwhile, Martin Vickers, the Tory MP for the neighbouring constituency of Cleethorpes has been appointed vice chairman of the Commons Iceland group. He said:

“Three quarters of all the fish processed in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area comes from Iceland and Icelandic investment supports hundreds of local jobs, so the country is very important to us.”



1. As an all-party committee the composition of 4 Conservative and 1 Lib Dem MP is disgraceful abuse of the electorate of Scotland. It is clear the Tory party intends protecting Grimsby, the main fish processing centre in the UK at the expense of all other outlets.

2. Pinney’s  (fish processors) of Annan closed in 2017, with the devastating loss to the small community of 450 jobs, following the transfer of all fish processing on the site to from Scotland to centres of excellence in England (Grimsby & Calisle).


Related image




6 Dec 2017: Scottish affairs discussion at Westminster

David Duguid:

“Fishing is a totemic industry in my constituency of Banff and Buchan, where there is real concern that the Scottish Government wish to take Scotland back into the common fisheries policy. Can my hon. friend, Mr Mundell reassure me that in all conversations and negotiations, he stands firm on taking Scotland’s fisherman out of the CFP, and keeping them out?”

David Mundell:

“My hon. friend, has already come to be seen as a champion for the fishing industry. I can give him an absolute guarantee: unlike the Scottish National Party, which would take us straight back into the common fisheries policy, this Government will take Scotland and the rest of the UK out of that discredited policy.”

Comment: A loaded question designed for effect rather than purpose. Duguid and Mundell are perpetuating the “boggie man” myth of the SNP in a blatant attempt to hide the truth from the electorate. The Tory government, as previously advised by Andrea Leadsom, the UK Secretary of State in charge of fisheries, will be unable to completely remove the UK from its commitment to the EC fisheries policy.


Related image



The EC Common fisheries Policy allocates two-thirds of the entire UK fishing quota to Scotland

In Scotland, five families on the “Sunday Times Rich List” own or control a third (33%) of the entire Scottish quota and when taking into account minority stakes, companies wholly or partly owned by these families hold close to half (45%) of all Scottish quota.

Rich List Families:

Alexander Buchan and family are ranked 804 in the 2018 Rich List, with an estimated net worth of £147m. The family’s Peterhead-based Lunar Fishing Company owns or controls 8.9% of the UK’s quota holdings, making it the biggest quota holder in the UK.

Jan Colam and family are ranked 882 on the Rich List (estimated worth: £130m). The Colam family-owned company Interfish is the second largest quota holder, with 7.8% of the UK total.

Robert Tait and family are ranked 980 on the Rich List (estimated worth: £115m). The family’s Klondyke Fishing Company is the UK’s third-largest quota holder, with 6.1% of the UK total.

Unearthed’s investigation reveals that the Tait family’s “Klondyke Fishing Company” is now the third-largest quota holder in the UK and has paid out dividends totalling £56m over the past five years. The owner,Peter Tait, 50, reportedly purchased Scotland’s most expensive house in 2014.

In 2012, four members of the Tait family, received fines and confiscation orders totalling more than £800,000 for their role in landing undeclared fish as part of the “black fish” scandal, (a large-scale fishing fraud reportedly worth £63m.)

Andrew Marr and family are ranked 567 on the Rich List (estimated worth: £209m).

The family’s Hull-based Andrew Marr International owns or controls 5.1% of UK quota holdings making it the UK’s 5th largest quota holder. It also has minority stakes in companies and vessel partnerships that hold a further 5.4% of UK quota.

Brexit Flotilla: the “Christina-S” trawler was a flagship in the “Brexit Flotilla” of boats which sailed up the Thames with Nigel Farage in 2016, calling for Britain to leave the EU to improve access to fish.

Ernest Simpson (71) and his son Allan Simpson (49), who are partners in the partnership that operates the vessel, were ordered to pay more than £850,000 in fines and confiscation orders for their role in the black fish scam. (The Christina-S) vessel partnership, in which English “Rich List” fishing baron Andrew Marr also has a stake, is the sixth-largest quota holder in Scotland.

Sir Ian Wood and family are ranked 77 on the Rich List, with an estimated worth of £1.7bn (a fortune built largely on oil and gas services). Sir Ian’s fishing business, JW Holdings, holds 1% of the UK’s fishing quota and has minority investments in businesses/partnerships that hold a further 2.3%.


Image result for scottish fisheries




Many thousands of Scottish fishermen have been forced out of business and entire fishing communities have collapsed directly due to the hi-jacking of fishing quotas by the “big 5” which would be distributed more efficiently and fairly among single boat and small fleet fishermen whose impact on the environment is much reduced over the “big 5”. Fishing villages, lost over time could be rebuilt throughout Scotland and freshly caught fish would become widely available to customers, at a decent price.





Post Brexit fishing: the facts:

Many of the important to the UK fishing stocks are shared and straddle maritime boundaries and the UK and its future fisheries neighbours (the remaining EU27, Norway and the Faroe Islands) will be obliged to prepare new fisheries agreements which set a Total Allowable Catch (TACs) for each species and allocate it between the parties.

In determining the allocation of quotas to each party the EU will seek to maintain the Common Fisheries Policy’s relative stability keys, whilst the UK will seek leverage from a claimed greater zonal attachment of stocks to its waters.

Whilst there is no comprehensive data on spatial distribution of fish stocks in current EU waters, it has estimated this for a Brexit scenario on the basis of 2014 catches reported for each sea area defined by ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas.

The estimate is that the potential UK catch arising from the threatened post-Brexit exclusion of EU vessels from UK waters could increase by as much as 671,000 tonnes (representing a gain of 90 per cent of current catches).

However, since much of this would be lower value species such as blue whiting, the benefit would fall to 387,000 tonnes in cod equivalents.

The ICES areas in which the UK would gain the most would be the sectors West of Scotland and the northern parts of the North Sea.

UK operators would however lose important access to fishing grounds to the West of Ireland.

It is expected the UK will hope to retain access to important fish stocks in Norwegian waters of the North Sea, which it currently enjoys via the bilateral EU- Norway Fisheries Agreement.

But that access, which involves almost half of the EU quota of cod, is linked to the European Economic Area ( EEA) Treaty, and the British Government has all but ruled out retaining membership of this body.

The fear is the current UK quota of these Norwegian stocks might then be lost in a post-Brexit scenario (for example the quotas could be retained by the EU and divided among the remaining  27 states, or revert it back to Norway).

Even if access is not lost, the UK will have to come up with the quotas to exchange. All of these factors reduce the likely benefit to the UK from the attachment of European fish stocks to the UK zone.

Furthermore, the UK exports approximately 80 per cent of its wild caught seafood, with 66 per cent going to 27 EU states, so UK fishers have a strong interest in maintaining tariff-free access to that market.

However, the EU will most likely seek quota and access to fish in the UK zone in return as it did with Norway and Greenland so the waters ahead for the UK fleet may not be the plain sailing it had anticipated.






Fishing policy, post Brexit will be decided by the Westminster government. Nothing of substance is in the public domain as yet, although the ever productive Michael Gove compiled and issued a briefing document so full of excessive gobbledygook as to render it very difficult to full understand.

But the gist of it indicates that:

1. Bulk processing of fish stocks is to be centralized in Grimsby, which will be the single British processed fishery producer and distributor to the EC and Worldwide.
2. Deep sea fishing fleets will be encouraged by contract, to offload fishing catches at Grimsby achieving significant reduction in the industries carbon footprint (transportation).
3. Allocation of fishing quota’s by country is to cease. The fishing industry is to be classified as a “National” resource.
4. Inshore fishing is to be downscaled concentrating catches providing support to local communities.
5. Demographic changes are to be anticipated as work and boat harbouring transfers to England

I have to conclude with congratulations to the North East of Scotland fishermen who, in voting in compliance with their rich bosses orders have succeeded only in cutting the throats of themselves and their families.


Image result for scottish fisheries cartoons









Truth Will Out

The wall of silence may not be able endure much longer.

Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan ordered an official investigation into the Institute, and Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry, a target of the Initiative’s critical tweets, seized the issue with some gusto.

In a parliamentary debate December 12, she noted the “Integrity Initiative’s” use of “Twitter” as a tool for disseminating information had “not been a fringe activity”, but “an integral part of its applications for Foreign Office funding over the past two years”, a period in which it had been funded to the tune of £2.2 million by the British state. She went on to say:

“The budget for its agreed objectives of increasing reporting in the media and expanding the impact of its website and “Twitter” account amounted to £275,000 in this financial year.

In the list of key deliverables the Foreign Office promised in 2018, it stated explicitly that one of its instruments of delivery will be ‘600-plus “Twitter” followers, including influential players”.

​She asked further:

  1. “Whether Foreign Office officials were monitoring the Initiative’s “Twitter” output, and if so why they didn’t flag concerns to ministers about the dissemination of personal attacks. If not, why was this misuse of public funds going unchecked?”

2. “Does the funding agreement governing the integrity initiative make clear that its use of funds and its public statements must comply with Cabinet Office rules? “

3. “If the Government intend to renew that funding for the next financial year, what arrangements and agreements will be put in place to ensure that nothing of this sort ever happens again?”


Duncan, Minister of State for Europe and the Americas reported back to the Commons and said he had “established the facts” concerning the NGO and was “satisfied that our money does not go towards funding any kind of UK domestic activity.” Absolute twaddle!!!!

It is shocking that the disinformation activities of the “Integrity Initiative” have been barely mentioned, much less criticized, by the mainstream media and extremely troubling that after so long, it’s still not clear what the “Institute of Statecraft” actually is or does, and who or what funds and supports it.

With such vast sums flowing from the Treasury straight into its shadowy coffers, British citizens — and those of all countries in the organization’s cluster cross-hairs need to be told.


'Yellow Vests' protesters in London



16 Dec 2018: Old Reliable BBC Gives Support to “Integrity Initiative”

The BBC press service confirmed the authenticity of correspondence between a BBC journalist in London and a fellow correspondent covering the “Yellow Vest” demonstrations in Paris.

The London correspondent was seeking to know if Russia had something to do with the protests in the French capital.

In reply, the BBC correspondent explained that she had not seen any Russians at the protests.

Her colleague in London was not satisfied with the answer and conjectured live on air:

“Well, maybe some Russian businesses are capitalizing quite well on  the protests. Maybe, the protesters are eating cutlets en masse”.

Her colleague in Paris laughed in response.

The BBC journalist  in London further explained that she was “looking for various angles” since the broadcaster was “out for blood.”

Chris Hernon of the BBC is a Senior Fellow of the “Institute”: tasked with (Disinformation, Media & Technology) and is responsible for the digital development of the BBC media monitoring department.
Employed by the BBC his remit should be of interest to Scots since the corporation claims its news and current affairs content is impartial, but not where the UK is perceived to be under threat. A statement applicable to the desire of Scots to gain independence from Westminster.



Chatham House Involvement and Counter Intelligence

Chatham House is a world-leading policy institute. Its mission:

“To help governments and societies build a sustainability secure, prosperous and just world.”

“A key part of its work is producing high quality, independent commentary from its extensive network of experts”

John Lough and James Sherr, (Fellows of  the “Institute of Statecraft”)  provided an example of its so called expert “independent” analysis.








The “Institute For Statecraft” and Brexit

It is of concern that there are proposals in place suggesting that Chris Donnelly, the Director of the “Institute for Statecraft” should take charge of the Foreign Office.

The attached report: “The Challenge of Brexit to the UK: Case study – The Foreign and Commonwealth Office” is required reading:


18 Dec 2018:  Anonymous and the Third Leak – UK-government funded “Integrity Initiative” planned to infiltrate European media.
Required reading:
It’s been over a month since hackers began exposing the Scotland based ‘Integrity Initiative’ as a UK government funded propaganda outfit.
More details of the organization’s clandestine activities have been leaked by a group claiming to be associated with the Anonymous hackers.
Documents have been released in three batches, to date:
Batch 1. Revealed that the “Integrity Initiative” was stealthily operating “clusters” of influencers across Europe working to ensure pro-UK narratives dominated the media.
Batch 2. Showed that the organization was also running disinformation campaigns domestically, (specifically a smear campaign against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.)  All done under the guise of combatting “Russian propaganda.”
Batch 3. Exposes the make up and delivery of the overall project to be similar to “Operation Mockingbird”, ( a secretive 1950s project whereby the CIA worked hand-in-glove with willing journalists in major media outlets to ensure certain narratives were adhered to.)
But this time, it’s a UK-funded organization with deep links to the intelligence services and military passing itself off as a non-partisan “charity.”


(Https:// , List of  Uk members

(   (List of all  anonymous exposures to date.)(


22 Dec 2018: Cui Bono? David Leask, Ben Nimmo and the Attack on Ordinary Scottish nationalists

Ben Nimmo works for the Atlantic Council, funded inter alia by NATO.

He is also on a retainer of £2,500 per month from the Integrity Initiative, in addition to payments for individual pieces of work.

For his attack on Scottish Nationalists Nimmo was therefore paid by the Atlantic Council (your taxes through NATO), by the Integrity Initiative (your taxes) and by the Herald (thankfully shortly going bankrupt).

Leask claims to have received nothing but a cheese sandwich from the Integrity Initiative, but has briefed them in detail on Scottish nationalism, attended their seminars, and they have included Leask’s output in their “outcomes” reports to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I took apart Leask and Nimmo’s horrendous attack at the time, revealing among other things that one of Nimmo’s criteria for spotting a Russian bot or troll was use of the phrase cui bono.

Nimmo’s role as witchfinder-general for Russian Bots appears very remunerative.

His August 2016 invoice to The Institute for Statecraft, apparently the 71st invoice he had issued to various neo-con bodies that year, was for £5,000.

The contribution of David Leask

There is a very important aspect of the detailed minute of David Leask’s briefing for the Integrity Initiative, which CommonSpace cut out of the extracts which they published.

Leask says that the Integrity Initiative are “pushing at an open door” with the SNP leadership and the editors of The National, who he characterises as reliably anti-Russian and pro-NATO:

I am afraid Leask is not wrong. The continual willingness of the SNP leadership to endorse Britnat anti-Russian rhetoric without question is a nagging worry for many nationalists.

Precisely the same department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which funds the Integrity Initiative, funds the Westminster Foundation for Democracy which paid for a joint Britnat/SNP leadership group event at the last SNP Conference, featuring a Ukrainian politician also used by the Integrity Initiative.

Full articles here:

Cui Bono? David Leask, Ben Nimmo and the Attack on Ordinary Scottish Nationalists




23 Dec 2018: Inegrity Initiative is the biggest story of 2018 – but not because of anything it did

Exposing a sinister state-funded underhand influence network is a scoop.
Yet the real conspiracy is the blind eye turned by the Western establishment, which appears fine with subterfuge, as long as it doesn’t come from Russia.

From the start, the unmasking of the smugly Orwellian ‘Integrity Initiative’, progressed like a post-Assange spy thriller.

The first tranche of insider files is uploaded on November 5 to a niche Anonymous server.

There it lays broadly unnoticed for a fortnight among the anarchist tracts and hubristic threats to remake the world from behind a monitor.

But this leak is substantive, and once opened and disseminated – first through Twitter, then Russian media, then other alternative media sources – explosive.

Internal documents talk of creating a “network of networks” to fight “malign” Russian influence.

Applications for funding from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) promise to set up over a dozen undercover “clusters” of “competent, committed and well-connected individuals, ideally with a suitable institute affiliation” from Canada to Germany to Georgia that would be deployed in the service of specific anti-Russian “goals.”

Full story, to date:




Other Relevant links:








The “Institute For Statecraft” and “Shared Outcomes Initiatives”  

In a summary of a “private discussion” between Chris Donnelly, the Director of the “Institute for Statecraft” and retired British Army officer Gen. Sir Richard Barron, the British Army’s Twitter and Facebook wing, the 77th Brigade is praised for its “exploitation of social media.”

In a document published on the IfS website, Donnelly also suggested special training programs to instill “moral and ethical values” into children as young as eight-years-old, in what appears to be some kind of 1984 Orwell-style effort to indoctrinate children with a pro-government bias.


A number of fully funded and supported charitable organizations are operating within the UK under the umbrella of the above noted organization.


Aims and Objectives

  • They are charitable programmes run by the charity “The Institute for Statecraft.”
  • They work with young people from minority communities who live in areas facing economic and social challenge.
  • They offer free activities that develop employability skills, build confidence and provide accredited qualifications.
  • They are funded by The Dulverton Trust, The Ellerman Foundation and The Armed Forces Covenant Fund (under their community integration scheme).
  • Their programmes have strong links with the Army and a range of activities are run by them.




The Initiative Network

  • Activities are delivered to local community groups and schools across the
  • UK.
  • Local community groups and schools reach out to young people within their communities offering the opportunity to participate in the activities of the Institute.
  • Mentors from  community groups and schools accompany young people on their activities.
  • Participants are encouraged to volunteer within and outside their communities widening the scope of the Initiative.




The Indian Muslim Welfare Society

Lotus Life, based in Brent Cross.

Huddersfield Pakistani Community Alliance

The Karimia Institute. Based in Nottingham.


Scottish Communities Initiative One of our partner community groups based in Scotland.


Scottish Communities Initiative:  Based in Scotland, (primarily Glasgow, where the largest group of immigrants are located)

Not to be confused with:

The Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative funded by the the Scottish Government.











13 Dec: 2018:  British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft

Craig Murray published his take on events in his blog:



“Having been told where the “Institute for Statecraft” skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically check it out. Kit did so and was aggressively ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane.

It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing hero is deeply embedded in an organization that launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign.

He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.

But one of the activities the “Integrity Initiative” sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that there are repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant.

The “Integrity Initiative” offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day.

As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.

You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply “the enemy”, as both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with increasing frequency and audacity.”

More Info:


Reader Comments:

“So yes, they are already in our schools and targeting the vulnerable. I agree with educating people, but when the culprits are the ones doing the educating??!

“Why the cloak and dagger? If it were open, transparent, accountable and unbiased I would probably support it but it is clearly none of these things.”

“I saw a picture of them presenting a PowerPoint to a school, where they were teaching children how to pick out the fake news/tweets next to “true” ones. I keep deleting what I want to write next. Lets just say it makes me extremely angry to think what they are doing to our kids.”

“Is Avisa the French version of Institute for Statecraft? I believe titled “combatting-russian-disinformation.pdf” is a proposal from them. In the document they give a list of partners and also “The strategic committee of the group, includes, Lynton Crosby, Boris Johnson and David Cameron’s election strategist, Joe Trippi… it goes on.”
“I read the slideshow and reminds me of the bell Pottinger fiasco. I didn’t realize all those politicians were involved in the company. The first duty of the Government is to protect the public. That is what we are told all the time when yet another war has to be fought or laws passed to curtail our freedoms.”

“The Secret Services are a law unto themselves, with unaccountable budgets. They smear, blackmail, overthrow and kill. All in the name of National Interest. This is a big lie.”

“If the government and its agents were doing their job, we would not be in the mess we are in or the chaos we have inflicted on other countries. Blow Back and bad consequences are the result of their actions. Far from protecting the public all they have done is to make us and the whole world less safe.”



Recruiting and Organising Project Teams

A leaked briefing note, prepared by Simon Bracey-Lane,  the “Institute for Statecraft” research fellow documents how new “Integrity Initiative” associates were enlisted in the Balkans.

Noteworthy is the  active  courting of persons critical of Russian foreign policy.

There’s no indication Lane has a background in the intelligence services, but his professional resume is nonetheless somewhat puzzling.

He has been in the media spotlight before, in 2016 appearing in several articles tracking Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigning efforts.

For example, in a BuzzFeed piece published in February that year, he is referred to as a “recent university graduate”, who was “inspired” to join the Labour party in September 2015 after Corbyn was elected leader.

At that point he was holidaying in the US, “so he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.

He said:

“I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, f*** it, I’ll make some calls for Bernie Sanders.

I just sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully-fledged field organizer,”


Simon Bracey-Lane



In May the next year, evidently having returned to the UK, Lane established Campaign Together, an organization offering training to door-to-door political activists supporting progressive candidates during the 2017 General Election, and facilitated ‘vote swaps’ — a role which would’ve potentially granted him significant insight into the internal workings, strategy and tactics of the election campaigns of several political parties, as well as personal voting intentions.

Once the effort ended, he swiftly moved on to the “Institute for Statecraft”, in October hosting an event for the organization — “Cold War Then and Now” — at which a panel comprised of Ukrainian nationalists, British military staff and NATO officials discussed, among other things, the “threat posed to European values and security” by Russia.



Read This:


It’s extremely curious an avowedly impassioned Corbyn supporter of extremely progressive ideological sympathies became so quickly and intimately involved with an organization that has disseminated anti-Corbyn material, sought to enlist harsh critics of Corbyn to its efforts, and worked to discredit left-leaning political figures abroad.

Requests for clarity on this seeming incongruity submitted to Simon via the “Institute for Statecraft” web form are as yet unanswered.

likewise, neither the Institute nor “Integrity Initiative” have responded to any of many put to them over the past few weeks.




Reds Under the Beds – McCarthyism at Fever Pitch Yet again – Democracy in Danger yet again part 2





10 Dec 2018: “Anonymous”  Exposes UK’s Cyber Warfare Project

On 5 November 2018,  The international hacktivist group “Anonymous” exposed the UK’s “Integrity Initiative” to be an offshoot of the “Institute for Statecraft”.

The “Institute”, backed by the secret service was created by London to meddle in other states’ domestic affairs.  More details here :





Aims and Aspirations:
The “Institute” employs a wide network of researchers, contributors and associates from government, academia and the corporate world.
The “Institute” appoints “Fellows” for a three-year term and, with their permission their names and the topics of their particular interest are published publicly. See: (



It’s a Secret

On November 5, international hacking syndicate “Anonymous” published a series of internal files it had appropriated from “Integrity Initiative,” an off-shoot of the “Institute for Statecraft.”

The material was explosive, revealing the organization, which claimed to be concerned with defending democratic institutions from Russian “destabilization campaigns”, to be an international “information war effort” run by British military intelligence specialists, which has disrupted the domestic politics of other countries.

As part of this enterprise, the organization has amassed  “projects” the world over, which comprise lists of politicians, business people, military officials, academics and journalists, who  can be mobilized to influence policy.

Files suggest “projects” to be operational in France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Spain and the UK, and there are plans to extend the scheme to every corner of the globe.

Read this:




The senior manager of “Integrity Initiative” appears to be Chris Donnelly, a reserve officer in the Army Intelligence Corps who once led the military’s Soviet Studies Research Center at Sandhurst, and was appointed an “Honorary Colonel in Military Intelligence” in 2015, the same year the “Integrity Initiative” was launched.

Between 1989 — 2003, he was also the NATO Secretary General’s Special Adviser for Central and Eastern Europe.

Another senor manager is Dan Lafayeedney, who was previously in the SAS and attached to a regiment running spy cells in Russia.

Read this:



The UK “project” team includes Ben Nimmo, a fellow at the “Atlantic Council”, who has repeatedly claimed Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is being supported by the Russian state through various means, including a “twisted cyber campaign”, without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

The “Integrity Initiative’s” official “Twitter” account has also posted numerous tweets and links to articles attacking Labour, Corbyn — one post said he was a “useful idiot” in service of the Kremlin — and other prominent party figures.

Documents, published by “Anonymous”, showed that the “Integrity Initiative’s” costs for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2019, were estimated at £1.96 million pounds.




Searching for Answers

Learning anything about the “Institute for Statecraft”, let alone contacting the organization, isn’t easy.

Its minimalist website provides no contact information or address, a webform being the sole means of getting in touch, and likewise offers little clue as to its raison d’etre or services.

A section titled ‘activities’ being entirely comprised of laconic and virtually impenetrable bursts of corporate jargon.

Visitors are told the Institute:

  1. ” Promotes peace and security through the skillful use of state power.”
  2. ” Seeks to grow the capacity for strategic thinking and developing a national competitive advantage.”
  3. ” Combines its experience and capabilities to enable its people to devise and implement solutions to challenges which [it] has been commissioned to address.”
  4. ” Is distinguished from “Think Tanks” in that its research is primarily focused on enabling it to deliver effective projects and programs.”

Read This: Defamation Impossible: Hackers Leak More Details on UK’s Info War in Europe

Moreover, the organization is registered as a charity in Scotland, listing its principal office address as Gateside Mills, in the small Scottish town of Cupar, Fife — the same is true of its Companies House records .

Gateside Mills is a crumbling, derelict building, with no indication the Institute ever operated there.

Providing false information to the “Scottish Charity Regulator” is illegal, and a spokesperson for the body has confirmed an inquiry into the Institute has been launched.


All you need to know about Unionist rudeboy Andrew Skinner – The guy from Haghill who made it good then cocked it up by joining Scotland-in-Union


Andrew Skinner



5 Mar 2015: The 2015 General Election

Unionist supporters strategy for the 2015 General Election included tactical voting in 30  constituencies aimed at defeating the SNP and stemming the nationalist tide.

A group of young Labour party activists, led by Andrew Skinner, spent a morning distributing Tory election campaign leaflets in the Labour stronghold of North Muirton, in Perth, trying to persuade people to vote Tory.

Victor Clements, Director of “Forward Together”, a local tactical voting campaign said, “they did really well and the Tory’s bought them lunch afterwards, it’s quite surreal when it comes down to it.”

Skinner said, “One of our main motto’s is country before party.” His group, “United Against Separation”, were also very busy in Gordon, delivering thousands of leaflets urging Labour and Tory voters to back the incumbent Liberal Democrat, Christine Jardine.

Skinner said, “We got Tory voters galore in Gordon. We hit the Tory areas pretty hard and we saw nothing of the SNP. They can try painting us as Tories or Lib Dems and we can show them the areas we’ve hit for Labour. We are of every party and no party.”

Edinburgh South West is Edinburgh’s most middle and upper class suburb, with a strong core of Tory and Lib Dem voters (42 per cent of the vote in 2010). If sufficient numbers switched to labour they would be able to hold onto the seat. The same argument apply’s to Oxgangs and Wester Hailes.

Former army officer, Alastair Cameron, one of the leaders of “Scotland-in-Union” another pro-UK group said: “They were massively over confident in the week before the 2014 referendum, but if people who are positive about Scotland in the UK vote sensibly, they will be proved over confident again.”

“I’ve resigned as a member of the Lib Dems to vote tactically. I know a Lib Dem who is a party member and has been out campaigning for Labour and I’ve spoken to a few party organizer types who are going round delivering leaflets, but will vote tactically.”

The Lib Dems openly advocate tactical voting in the seats they hold whilst other Unionist parties are officially hostile but at local level quite the opposite.

Skinner said, “I totally get that they have to distance themselves from us. But we’ve had full support from a number of candidates. We’ve delivered their material, they’ve fed us, given us maps for the right places to hit for the tactical vote.”

One interesting feature of the 2014 independence referendum was that many long-standing rural SNP heartlands – Aberdeenshire, Angus and Perthshire – voted heavily “No”, perhaps turned off by the SNP’s shift to the left and the “Yes” pitch to the urban Labour vote.

In Perth and North Perthshire, the SNP’s Pete Wishart was in the unusual position of being challenged by the Tories.

The tactical voting group, “Forward Together” claimed to have delivered 55,000 leaflets in his seat, advising people to vote Conservative, and a similar amount of leaflets in the adjoining South Perthshire constituency, where the advice was to vote Labour.

Leader Victor Clements said, “We’re mindful not to be too forceful about it, all we’re doing is putting the information in people’s hands.” (Andrew Gilligan)


Skinner & his Haghill friends




The outcome of the subsequent general election was an SNP landslide in which the party just failed to achieve a clean sweep of Scotland.

Tactical voting had failed to make an impact. But the seeds of this form of voting had been sewn in many marginal seats and the multi-faction unionist supporting groups, (having gained valuable experience in the promotion of tactical voting) realized there was a need for change and merged the groups forming “Scotland-in-Union” under the leadership of Alastair Cameron.

The newly formed, well financed, Unionist propaganda group made significant inroads in the next Scottish general election and its value to the Unionist cause should not be underestimated.

Its management team (except Alastair Cameron) is comprised of a number of flawed characters, some with dodgy political backgrounds and these weaknesses need to be continuously brought to the attention of the Scottish electorate.

Mass leaflet distribution favoured by the group is also worthy of comment.

Targeting 30 constituencies for a blanket distribution of leaflets incurs a need to print upwards of 1m at a cost of around £40 @ 1000. Total cost £25,000. Add distribution costs:

30 teams of 10 persons (assuming volunteers) plus transport and expenses = 300 * £8,000. Also to be added is the cost of doorstepping constituents , around £20,000.

Total cost active support (marginal constituencies only) incurred by “Scotland-in-Union” £53,000.

The formal position of mainline Unionist Party’s deprecated any promotion of tactical voting and raises the question so just who is funding Scotland-in-Union?

The involvement of Alistair Cameron, a highly qualified professional director and leader lends the view that the Secret Service might well have an interest in the organization.


Alastair Cameron and his team of staunch Nationalist supporters



Alastair Cameron

I recently published articles providing information about Cameron. See:


Skinner future intentions

Skinner claims that the Saltire belongs to the nationalist. But there is little evidence of its use.



Andrew Malcolm Skinner

Skinner is well worthy of a write up. Born 1985, and raised in the Haghill area of Glasgow, he attended Glasgow Caledonia University between 2010-2014 and gained a degree in politics.

His biography contains no reference to employment before attendance at University, (at the age of 22y) and no indication of employment since, which if correct would mean that he has lived off the state his entire life. But he may have served a few years with HM Forces since he often posts information pertaining to the military.

From that time he has devoted his efforts to the support of Unionist causes in Scotland, to which end he conducted a number of ineffectual campaigns, each of which was noteworthy for the pervasive use of vile propaganda and insult aimed at warping the will of a vacillating Scottish electorate who wavered between supporting the Unionist and Nationalist causes.

Vote Naw: 2011-2014: (he was enjoying studies free of any charges at Caledonia University courtesy of the government that was funding his attendance)

United Against Separation: 2014-2015

Scotland-in-Union: 2015-to date

His thuggish behaviour, from the time he first arrived on the political scene in Scotland, is completely at odds with the conduct of the leader of Scotland-in-Union, Alastair Cameron and it is surprising Cameron has retained him in an important role.

But it might be Scottish politics will need to accept Skinner, warts and all.

He intends to stand for election, as a Labour MSP, in Paisley in 2021.

To be to be fair Skinner enjoys the backing of many of his Glasgow Rangers and Ulster Loyalist supporters who heavily promote the benefits and history of the notorious “Haghill Powery”




Logisrock Blog – Expose of Andrew Skinner

It makes me feel all nostalgic for Art Deco, Hercule Poirot and the 1930s.

This time it isn’t Rothermere cosying up to and supporting Moseley’s Blackshirt’s, but Graham Grant, self-appointed Witch finder-General for Scotland, (officially Home Affairs editor) cosying up to and working hand in glove with a Britnazi thug and internet troll by the name of Andrew Skinner with links to the fascist English Defence League and other right-wing nutjobs.



Graham Grant published the results of a Scottish Daily Mail week-long “Probe” into “vile” Cybernats, which actually turned out to be an excuse to doorstep, photograph in the street and published prurient details about ordinary Scots who happen to support independence and most of whom have never tweeted anything remotely offensive in their lives.


Who is Andrew Skinner?

Andrew Skinner ran a Facebook page entitled “Vote No to Scottish Independence and Protect the Union”. However, it wasn’t always called that. He re-branded it, prior to that it was called “British Unity”.

You didn’t need to look far down the page before you find foul language and puerile insults against leading pro-independence politicians and any ordinary Facebook user who posted a pro-independence comment.

Skinner tried to clean up his act and to distance his “Vote No” page from its English Defence League (EDL) Neo-Nazi past.

However, not being that bright traces remain, such as an old advert for his “BritishUnity” Twitter account which he opened on September 2013:

Let’s have a wee look at that Twitter account. ( Oh, surprise, surprise!

He or his colleagues were in conversation with former (EDL) leader and convicted fraudster Tommy Robinson and posted some “vile abuse” to boot. Here they were having a go at Muslims, a favourite (EDL) pastime.

Here they tweeted a friend, KevC57 asking him to support a petition.

Who was he? Only Kevin Carroll, Ex-leader and Co-founder of the (EDL).


Here they asked for support from Mark Caine, another right wing, Muslim-hating nutjob with a blog and “UKPrideMedia”.  Well, click the link.


Somewhat incongruously, they also had links to the “Nationalist Review”. Innocent enough until you click the link and find it’s a Neo-Nazi Britnat review. (

Since Graham Grant took over as “Homophobe-in-Chief” at the “Daily Hate” from “Wee Free” John MacLeod, after MacLeod had been outed as a self-loathing closet queen in the late 1990s.

Now that poof-hating is considered impolite poor Graham has thrashed around looking for another easily-identifiable group to bully.

His need to bully someone and landing on the “Cybernats” left him holding the baby for clearly identifying the “Daily Mail” with a “Nazi” thug for the first time since the 1930s.  A final piece of 1930s nostalgia for you:

So Graham Grant enjoyed the plaudits from vile people who seem incapable of acknowledging irony.

This is the same Ian Alexander who posted:


We have verified that he DID NOT eat the child.

Are we surprised that he too maintains links to Andrew Skinner @Askinner2011.

Not to fond of Nelson Mandela either.


Threats of Violence.


So Graham Grant from the Daily Mail recruited some of Scotland’s finest Bigots, Nazi sympathizers, Foulmouthed, Trolling, Anti Muslim, Anti Catholic citizens to help portray others as Foulmouthed etc. etc.

The foregoing details confirm that the Daily Mail had links to right wing extremists and brought them into the Independence debate.

But just what drove these people to so fervently defend the union?  Darling, Cameron and Co wanted to save it, since their highly paid jobs and excessive lifestyles to protect but what about the 3 amigo’s mentioned above?

The Union has not been kind to them and the cartoon sums it up pretty well.

Haghill might well be a fine place to live but that is for others to judge. A couple of photographs may assist viewers.

Ian Alexander: Haghill

Andrew Skinner: Haghill

It is impossible to guess the “normal” demographic of those who voted “Yes” but polls suggest that those in low rental housing, council housing or housing agency tenants polled more likely to vote “Yes” (possibly due to wishing improve their living conditions or perhaps fed up seeing the gap between them and the rich become so wide).

Without ambition or drive it must be assumed that there are other as yet unidentified reasons they love the union so much….

It was also unfair that the power of the Daily Mail’s extensive financial resources were used against Scots by harassing them on their own doorstep, then eviscerating their character:


The Daily Mail & Graham Grant need to be advised that they will not be allowed to get away with it.


Gilligan and his pal on holiday


14 Oct 2016: Wings over Scotland – expose of the Ultra-Yoons

Hardcore nutter collective Scotland In Union are already the de facto unofficial “No” campaign group for the second independence referendum.

Evidently very well-connected and already flush with cash from sources unknown, the limited company recently raised a reported £300,000 for itself at a “charity” dinner attended by such luminaries of the great and the good as Lord Alistair Darling, Lord Dunlop and (um) Willie Rennie, auctioning off exotic high-end goodies like hunting trips to Africa, polo parties with the Maharajah of Jodhpur and Alpine holidays described in the lavish 60-page auction catalogue as featuring:

“A fabulous chalet and a family home, with six bedrooms sleeping 12, all en suite. Although the chalet does not come with a chalet girl, we will provide one for you.”

(There were also some signed JK Rowling books for the paupers.)

So that’s nice. Extremely wealthy people – just getting into the dinner was £250 – who are doing very well out of the way things are, donating big wads of money to some other people trying to ensure that the rich folk stay that way. No law against it. But just who are the true believers rushing bravely to the defence of the Union’s elites?

The organization puts on small and secretive speaking events featuring lunatics like Jill Stephenson and Tom Gallagher for elderly audiences of Unionists, and its directors and advisory board include the likes of perpetually-furious social media mad-case Neil Lovatt (below left with Archie MacPerson) and all-round nasty piece of work Andrew Skinner (below right, and above cuddling super-rich BBC posh boy Dan Snow).


Skinner is a man who regularly wipes his Twitter history so that no record of his more intemperate and distasteful raging’s can be found, unless people have fortuitously had the foresight to take screenshots of them.


Another advisory-board member is Jim Gallagher, a former Whitehall civil servant who was Director Of Research for “Better Together” during the referendum, and appeared in numerous newspapers this week as author of a deranged fantasy piece about how wonderful life would be for Scotland inside a unicorns-and-kittens post-Brexit UK, with no mention made of his positions in either BT or SIU.



But relatively little is known of the group’s “Executive Director”, Alistair Cameron, other than that he successfully menaced a £10,000 charity donation out of troubled Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry with a threat of legal action, after she accidentally confused him with Holocaust-denying super-Unionist loonjob Alistair McConnachie. (Despite her deleting the inaccurate tweet within hours and issuing an apology)






In 2014 Scots Committed National Suicide in Front of a Live Global Audience in Declining to Take Responsibility for Their Own Governance, Instead, Entrusting It to a Cabal of Elitists From Whom They Received Naught but sneering contempt -This is How to Win Next Time



Yes and No supporters in Edinburgh



Nov 2014: The 2014 Referendum

In the Scottish Independence referendum, the voter list included anyone entered on the current electoral roll, over the age of 16,, 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 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 Party’s,  the BBC and all other media outlets and their organs of abuse of Scots in the guise of serving Scotland.

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

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




Postal Voting

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.

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 the result that many Scot’s believe the outcome of the referendum had been fixed ensuring a win for the “no” campaign.


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

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.”




Edinburgh University 2014 Referendum Analysis

The biggest study 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.

52.7 percent of native-born Scots voted Yes.

72.1 percent 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 no votes and 1,617,989 for yes.

Voters born outside the UK also rejected independence, with 57.1 percent voting no.

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.”


How the electorate voted (by place of birth) - [Blue = YES] [Green = NO]



How the electorate voted (by place of birth) – [Blue = YES] [Green = NO]

52.7 percent of native-born Scots voted Yes

But, a massive 72.1 percent of voters from England, Wales or Northern Ireland voted No.

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.



How the electorate voted (by sex) - [Blue = YES] [Green = NO]


How the electorate voted (by sex) – [Blue = YES] [Green = NO]

56.6 percent of women voted No

53.2 percent of men voted Yes.



How the electorate voted (by age)



How the electorate voted (by age) – [Blue = YES] [Green = NO]

62 percent of voters aged 16-19 voted Yes.

A majority of voters aged 20-39 voted Yes.

Voters aged 40-49 were split 50/50.

Voters aged 50-70 or older primarily voted No with the majority increasing by age.


How the electorate voted (by social status) - [Blue = YES] [Green = NO]



How the electorate voted (by social status) – [Blue = YES] [Green = NO]

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.

The highest earners, homeowners, and people who described themselves as middle class were more likely to vote No.




Recommendations for the Next Referendum

It is a fact that Westminster will use every trick in the book and many not yet identified to deny Scots an independence referendum free of external influences and the Scottish government will need to be alert to state-sponsored shenanigans. Experience before, during and after the 2014 referendum supports the need for major changes to procedures in any future referendum. To ensure a level playing field the following changes are recommended:

1. Voting is to be restricted to Scottish income taxpayers whose main place of residence is and has been in Scotland continuously from the beginning of January 2015.

2. Voting rights are to be extended to persons aged sixteen on the date of the referendum,

3. Qualified proxy voting is to be permitted.

4. Completed proxy returns are to be retained, unopened, in a secure location in Scotland under the control of the Scottish Police Force.

5. Proxy votes are to be delivered to counting officers between 2000-2200 on the day of voting, to be opened from 2200 hours, verified for correctness and counted.

6. Exit polling at voter venues is to be permitted.

7. State-funded (Westminster or Scottish governments) production or distribution of literature to households, in the course of the campaign is deprecated.

8. The Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament, Scottish public authorities and (by agreement) the UK Government are to strictly observe a 28 day, “pre-vote period” of restriction on publications, (including those which might be published on their behalf, by public media outlets by proxy) relating to the referendum.

8. A media monitoring panel, (authorized to review and instruct amendments to BBC and independent radio and television content before broadcasting) is to be appointed. It is to comprise two “Yes”, two “no” supporters and an independent chair and vice-chair, (recruited from The Republic of Ireland and France). The panel’s decisions are final.





Scotland in Union – Intent On Keeping Scotland Prisoners of An Enforced Union – Further Revelations To Ponder





Alistair Cameron – Scotland in Union – Change Management Network

In part two of my recent briefing article I alluded to an obvious experience mismatch between members of Scotland-in-Union and Alastair Cameron.

I am also inclined to the view that his family heritage is at odds with his outspoken support of an anti Scottish independence group staffed by failed individuals.

If something isn’t right it must be wrong and this group raises many question but very few answers.

Alastair is an experienced “change Agent” with many successful projects to his name and it might be he has been contracted by a third party organization to mentor the group’s employee’s.

In this respect I raised the probability of his agenda being secretly driven by Westminster a conclusion arrived at by his revelation that he had given up a military career, in which he was fast tracked for promotion to a very senior rank, for the uncertainty of life as a civilian.

But I forgot to inform readers that a few persons, from within the top ten percent of Military Staff Training Course, (Alastair finished top of his course) are awarded a fully funded leave of absence, funded by Westminster, enabling their attendance, at Cranford Business School.

The two year re-educational period covers, Programme Management; Operations Management, Strategic Marketing; Management of Strategic Change; Corporate Restructuring; Finance and Accounting; Business Process Transformation; Organizational Behaviour and Business Start-up and is how the Government invests in its future leaders.




A recent “Wings” article “Know your enemy” asked questions which remain unanswered:

“Hardcore nutter collective Scotland In Union are already the de facto unofficial No campaign group for the second independence referendum.

Evidently very well-connected and already flush with cash from sources unknown, the limited company recently raised a reported £300,000 for itself at a “charity” dinner attended by such luminaries of the great and the good as Lord Alistair Darling, Lord Dunlop and (um) Willie Rennie, auctioning off exotic high-end goodies like hunting trips to Africa, polo parties with the Maharajah of Jodhpur and Alpine holidays described in the lavish 60-page auction catalogue as featuring:

“A fabulous chalet and a family home, with six bedrooms sleeping 12, all en suite. Although the chalet does not come with a chalet girl, we will provide one for you.”

(There were also some signed JK Rowling books for the paupers.)

So that’s nice. Extremely wealthy people – just getting into the dinner was £250 – who are doing very well out of the way things are, donating big wads of money to some other people trying to ensure that the rich folk stay that way. No law against it. But just who are the true believers rushing bravely to the defence of the Union’s elites?”



Alastair Cameron’s, Change Agent, Management Network lists around 50 individuals successful in the business of organizational change at corporate level

Ian Hutchison: London, Greater London, United Kingdom
Director Service Transformation at BT Global Services

Waters, Karen: Falkirk, United Kingdom
senior business analyst

Clare Parry: United Kingdom
Project Manager, Business Change

Melissa Corkhill: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Manager at GreySpark Partners

Charles Spencer: London, United Kingdom
Experienced capital markets professional

Penny Munro: Wiltshire, United Kingdom
Senior Associate Solicitor, Farnfields LLP

Ram Narayanaswamy: Greater New York City Area
Business Transformation at Lloyds Bank, North America

Jamie Wishart: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Director, Client Solutions at Concentrix

Nigel MacGillivray: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
ACO at The Scottish Parliament

Kieron Potts: United States
Lieutenant Colonel, ABCA Programme at British Army

Alex McEvoy: United States
Partner at Gate One, Business & Digital Transformation

Paul Arbuckle: United States
Currently trying out an early retirement role

Eve Mitchell: Surrey, United Kingdom
Healthcare Professional

Brian Ross: Inverness, United Kingdom
Logistics and Contracts Officer

Ali Ross: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
RBSgroup. Private Banking Strategy

Callum Lane: Talmine, Highland, United Kingdom
Operational Planner at Government Exchange Programme

Michael Gormley: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Barclays Wealth and Investment Management

Brian Morris: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Head of Programme Management-Student Loans Company

Fraser Scobie: United Kingdom
Financial systems and business processes

David Rees: London, United Kingdom
PA Consulting

Paul McNulty: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Deputy Director at The Scottish Government

Jamie Campbell: London, United Kingdom
Army International Branch, Whitehall, London

Sunchana Johnston: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
PMO Planning Consultant, BREXIT

Anthony Mason: United Kingdom
Housing commissioner, Hammersmith & Fulham Council

Catharine Trustram Eve: Hampshire, United Kingdom
Nutritional Therapist & Market Analyst in Health

Crispin Morton: Wiltshire, United Kingdom
Experienced manager, multidisciplinary teams

Afzal Mahmood: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Business Transformation Executive

Peter Short MBE: Nottingham, United Kingdom
Independant Consultant

Philip Carr: London, United Kingdom

Peter Fennah: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Executive leadership & career coach

Noel Lock: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Managing Director at VRS Ltd

Barry Sless: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Director at BSB Analytics Ltd

Charles Strick: London, United Kingdom
Leader of transformation programmes

Hugh Eaton OBE: London, United Kingdom
Head of Public Sector, EMEAR

Andy Cox: Salisbury, United Kingdom
Officer at HM Forces

Lee P: London, United Kingdom
Senior Investigating Officer, The Met.

Chris Irving: Dumfries, United Kingdom
Director at PKL Group (UK) Limited

Dom Moorhouse: Bath, United Kingdom
Helping service firms grow business value.

Might go so way towards providing answers to questions raised by “Wings”





Exposing – Yet Another Westminster Conspiracy – Scotland in Union – Part Two of Two – Alastair James Cameron – Just who the Hell Is He?





Kinloch Rannoch




The Camerons of Rannoch

Clan Cameron is a West Highland  Scottish clan whose boundaries range from Aberfeldy to Locaber.

Alastair Cameron’s family are from Rannoch. Excellent review here: (




The lineage of Captain Alastair James Cameron

7th Grandfather: Donald Cameron: b1700. Born: Dull, Perthshire Residence: Dull Occupation: Shepherd. Elizabeth Deer: b1700.

6th Grandfather: Duncan Cameron: b1724 Born: Dull, Perthshire Residence: Dull Occupation: Shepherd. Christian Stewart: b1720.

5th Grandfather:  Angus Cameron: b1740 Born: Fortingall, Perthshire Residence: Auchtarsin Occupation: Crofter. Events: Culloden.  Janet Stewart: b1740.

4th Grandfather: John Cameron: b1798. Born: Fortingall, Perthshire Residence: Auchtarsin Occupation: Crofter. Events: Forced out. Clearances. See; ( Lily Macpherson: b1795-d1845.

3rd Grandfather:  Angus Cameron b1822-d1890. Born: Rannoch, Perthshire Residence: Balintinie Cottage. Occupation: Crofter Of 4 Acres. Events: Land useless. Margaret Clark: b1835.

2nd Grandfather: Malcolm Clark Cameron: b1872-d1917. Born: Rannoch, Perthshire Residence: Sealsbank, Perthshire: Occupation: Police Constable.
Grace Clark: b1879-d1963.


Rannoch moor


Grandfather: James Clark Cameron: b1905-d1991. Born: Perth, Perthshire Residence: London, England Occupation: Doctor. Irene M Ferguson: b1905-d1966.




Father: Hamish Clark Cameron: b1935. Born: Surrey, England: Residence: London, England. Occupation: Doctor (retd).  Anthea Newsom Davis: b1938.

Eminent doctor: Foremost authority in the UK on child psychology. Advises government and many professional bodies and expert witness on many occasions over the past 40 years. Not yet knighted for a lifetime of service, which is disgraceful when set against the peerage award to Michelle Mone.





Alastair James Cameron: b1970. Born: Devon, England. Residence, Edinburgh, Midlothian. Occupation: Management Consultant.
Claire Eydes: b1972.

University: St. Andrews. Degree: MA (Hons). Modern History. Grade 2:1. Period: 1989 – 1993. Upper Second. Honours.

1991: Purchased flat St George’s Square, London. Held as residence while at university at St Andrews.  Present value £950,000. Residence of girlfriend Claire, (wife from May 2004).

British Army: 2nd Lt – Captain, The Highlanders.  Sep 1993 – Jun 1999. Various demanding leadership and project appointments, including: Responsibility for troops on operations in Northern Ireland. Organizing and running training for 600 soldiers. Planned and delivered innovative training courses. Led a specialist platoon of 50 experienced soldiers to the top award in a national assessment.  Top of approximately 130 officers on Army Junior Staff Course.

University: Cranfield. Degree: MBA. Period: 2002 – 2003.

1999 – Apr 2000: Team Leader: Chalet holiday company, meet and greet team.

2000 – 2004 : Deloitte: Consultant: Risk, issue and plan management for IT programme at Vodafone UK. Design Authority for an asset management project. Market analysis of the corporate banking market, for a major oil and gas firm.

2004-2005: Deloitte: Manager: Advice and support for an international bank’s Finance Transformation Programme.  Client-side advisory work for an IT outsourcing project. Redesigned reporting processes for a major transport infrastructure project.

2005-2008: Capgemini Consulting: Executive Consultant: Programme Manager for a £4.5m procurement transformation programme, including e-procurement. Programme Manager for the mobilization of a programme to create a new shared service.

2008-2012: Price Waterhouse Coopers: Senior Manager: Managed a portfolio of ten pilot projects for the Scottish Government.  Provided portfolio management advice to a London council.

2012-Present: Braeburn Consulting Ltd: Sole Director: Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Contracts completed:

Programme management advice and support to senior clients at major financial services businesses, with a focus on risk and regulation.

Leading a £5m Financial Crime change programme for a household-name bank.
Supported a challenger bank’s Credit Risk team during a major change programme.

Led an IFRS9 regulatory programme at a challenger bank.

Managed the creation of a Conduct, Regulatory Risk and Financial Crime function for a new bank, while leading the implementation of a Senior Managers Regime, Certification.

2015-Present: Scotland in Union: Unpaid Director. Location: Glasgow, United Kingdom: A non-party movement which unites people around a positive view of Scotland in the UK. His twitter page. Worth a view. Provides a peek into what drives him.(


Alastair Cameron


Observations on Captain Alastair Cameron

Gifted academically. Possesses well developed  and tested project management skills. An excellent social media and business community networker with a wide range of well used and well connected contacts. He is  an experienced “change agent” who will relish the challenges presented by his support of Scotland in Union. A formidable opponent who should not be underestimated.

But he has problems  which may be insurmountable. The “in union” team presently in place  are a bunch of nambie pambies , proven failures in Scottish politics.

His support base is narrow, being drawn from English or Irish students and academics of other Universities in Scotland.

It is surprising that he supports the “Union” given his family pedigree. The Cameron’s suffered greatly at the hands of “Butcher Cumberland” at and for many years after Culloden.

It is possible things are not as they appear (to persons not versed in the ways of working of the British Secret Service). Cameron excelled in the military, finishing top of a “staff training course” attended by 120 officers.

Captains are required to attend and pass the “staff training course” within a set period. Failure prevents promotion any substantive promotion  beyond the rank of Major. Many leave the service at this time.

But Cameron finished “top” of the course he attended and would be fast tracked promoted through the ranks to command his regiment and then on to the position of General.

Cameron leaving the army makes no sense except that another, more satisfying career beckoned.

It may be he has been contracted by other sources to project manage the activities of “Union in Scotland” and this is worthy of a read through: (

MI6 plan careers long term.



Related image




Exposing – Yet Another Westminster Conspiracy – Scotland in Union – Part One of Two






Scotland in Union

This is a two part article the content of which will expose the recently formed organization for what it is. A Westminster State supported attack on the right of Scots to be independent from England.

Part one provides information pertaining to events in Scotland that resulted in the annexation of Scotland by a hostile country followed with three hundred plus years of brutality and suppression of the human rights of Scots.

Readers should note instances of the “Cameron” name. It will feature greatly in part two.


The Clearances



17 Jan 1707: The Union with England

There were no doubt sound economic arguments to be made in favour of a Union between Scotland and England. There were military arguments too (The possibilities of permanent peace between the two countries was a big attraction for the English who were embroiled in continental wars.)

But these reasons did little to persuade the people of Scotland of the merits of a Union, particularly the idea of an incorporating Union (that is a single parliament).

There were riots in many parts of Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Daniel Defoe, who was a tireless worker for the English cause, in one of his letters to the English government complained of a great noise, and looking out saw ” a terrible multitude come up the High Street with a drum at the head of them shouting and swearing and crying out ‘All Scotland would stand together. No Union, No Union. English dogs’ and the like.”

Addresses against the Union poured into Parliament from all over the country.

From the town council of Perth “We, after mature deliberation are fully convinced that such a Union as is proposed is contrary to the honour, interest and fundamental laws and conditions of this Kingdom and to the Claim of Right––” That from the General Convention of Royal Burghs encompassed many of the fears of the Scottish people.

They were “not against an honourable and safe Union with England consisting with the Being of the Kingdom and Parliament thereof,” what moved them to passionate opposition was the idea of an incorporating Union “by which our Monarchy is supprest, our Parliament is extinguished and in consequence our Religion, Church, Government, Claim of Right, Laws, Liberties, Trade and all that is dear to us daily in danger of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English, in a British Parliament, wherein the mean representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the Interest reserved by us, or granted to us by the English.”

In point of fact, the Scots with about a fifth of the population of England were allocated only 45 M.P.s against England’s 513.

These addresses were seized upon by the Duke of Atholl. “There is not one address from any part of the Kingdom in favour of this Union,” he claimed in Parliament and demanded a dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament “to have the immediate sentiments of the Nation since these articles have been made public.”

His motion was defeated on January 7th 1707 and on January 17th the treaty was finally ratified by 110 votes to 67.

Whatever might be the advantages of a Union with England, the manner in which it was encompassed reflected little credit upon the Scottish Parliament.

Daniel Defoe. “The great men are posting to London for places and honours, every man full of his own merit and afraid of everyone near him; I never saw so much trick, sham, pride, jealousy and cutting of friend’s throats as there is among the noblemen.”

Sir Walter Scott. “It may be doubted whether the descendants of the noble lords and honourable gentlemen who accepted this gratification would be more shocked at the general fact of their ancestors being corrupted or scandalized at the paltry amount of the bribe”

Finally, from an anonymous pamphlet circulating at the time. “Can anything be more Treacherous and Mean than for men to degrade their own Country and has not the majority of the Scotch Parliament done this effectively?” (


  The Clearances




3 Sep 1707: Protesting the Militia Act

When the posters were put up explaining the provisions of the Militia Act at Dull, the immediate and decisive reaction by the large and boisterous crowd was for the posters to be torn down and the Duke of Atholl’s men driven away.

The same thing happened at Fortingall and Kenmore and all over Atholl and Breadalbane groups of men gathered.

There was a feeling of anger and excitement but it was not until the next day that the crowd began to exhibit a common purpose. Two thousand of them marched towards Castle Menzies where Sir John Menzies, a deputy lieutenant of the county,lived. The men had now found leaders, Angus Cameron from Weem and James Menzies.

When they reached the Castle they sent in the factor with a message that if Sir John wished to preserve his Castle he would be advised to come outside and sign a declaration promising not to execute the provisions of the Act.

Wisely he obeyed the summons and wrote at Angus Cameron’s dictation. “We hereby solemnly declare that we shall use no forcible means to apprehend, confine or imprison any person assistant whatever who has appeared at Castle Menzies or elsewhere, or in any part of Perth on prior days; further that we shall petition government for an abolition nullifying of the foresaid Act from the records of British parliament; that the members of parliament of this county shall present this petition, or any annexed thereto to the two Houses of Parliament, to the Privy Council during the prorogation of parliament. This we shall do of our own free will and accord, as we shall answer to God.”

Afterwards the declaration was signed by the Stewarts of Garth and the ministers of Weem and Dull.

The people left Castle Menzies led by Cameron and close by it was said that he did “most seditiously and wickedly administer an oath to the people thus riotously assembled, to stand by one another in their illegal endeavours to resist the authority of the established law of the country.”

More and more people were joining the crowd as they made their way across the Tay to Alexander Menzies of Bolfrocks. He also signed the declaration. The crowd now divided, with Cameron taking the north bank and James Menzies (“The east Indian” ) the south.

As they made their way eastwards the lairds and gentry were all forced to sign the declaration. By the time the two factions had met up again near Ballechin it was dark and the crowd had swelled to perhaps ten thousand people.

Hope Stewart of Ballechin refused but after he was seriously manhandled he wisely changed his mind. Later he was to ride to Perth where he wrote to the Duke of Atholl “I am not at liberty to take any concern in carrying the Militia Act into execution.” It was not an attitude reflected by many of the gentlemen who had signed the declaration.

The next day there was another march upon Blair Castle. The Duke had already signed the declaration, but fearing for his safety, had raised some 400 tenants and gentry to defend the Castle.

Although the crowd outnumbered the defenders by twenty to one there was no attempt to storm the Castle.

Already there was evidence that the people were in two minds as to what to do next. Many wished to return home believing that they had achieved their objects. Others, with Cameron, had more revolutionary aims in view, but as was to appear all to soon, they were not too sure what these aims actually were and in any case they lacked the expertise and discipline necessary to carry them out.

When Cameron told them that they should assemble in small parties so that they would not be dealt with as a mob under the Riot Act, the suggestion inspired fear and dismay.

They had but sticks and clubs with which to defend themselves and it was only the security they felt in their great numbers that gave them the courage to meet the expected threat of being attacked by English dragoons sent north from Perth.

There was talk of raiding the armoury at Taymouth Castle (Lord Breadalbane was in London as usual) but nothing came of it. Though the people still gathered in large numbers and still paraded with their burning torches at night, no one quite knew what they were expected to do next.

There was talk of the men from Rannoch and Glenlyon joining the demonstrations and even those from further afield, but for the moment all seemed content to wait. When the stalemate was finally broken it was the army that provided the means.

Very early on the morning of Thursday September 14th Captain Colberg of the Windsor Foresters with eighteen men arrived in Weem, broke down Cameron’s door and arrested James Menzies and himself without any resistance.

They were bundled into a coach and the party made their way towards Grantully. In his report Colberg states “We observed hundreds of people with forks, fowling pieces, pikes and scythes fixed on poles, pouring from the mountains and water side and the road covered with men women and children.” The crowds followed the coach but made no attempt to rescue the prisoners.

Their lack of revolutionary expertise and secondary leadership was all too clearly demonstrated. There was indeed an attempt to prevent the coach crossing the bridge at Grantully but it was unsuccessful and before evening the prisoners were lodged at Perth.

The lack of leadership now became even more apparent. There were threats to burn Castle Menzies and other grandiose projects but nothing happened and the revolt was to all intent and purposes over. Later, a detachment of Sutherland Fencibles came to the district and more alleged ringleaders were arrested.

It was commonly believed by those in authority that the revolt had been brought about by outside causes and to some extent this might be true, but no one thought to look to reasons closer to home.

The Highlander’s hatred of compulsory military service, of schoolmasters who forbade the speaking of Gaelic, of ministers appointed by the heritors rather than by the congregation and of lairds who thought more of increasing their rents and less and less of the well-being of their tenants.

The people sullenly accepted the Militia Act but their grievances and sense of betrayal remained.

It was January 15th 1798 before Cameron and Menzies were brought before the court in Edinburgh. Both pleaded Not Guilty to the charges of sedition, mobbing and rioting. The next day,

Cameron applied for bail and incredibly this was granted. He did not appear the next day and was in fact never seen again.

Menzies also received bail and also disappeared. The minor players in the drama, the eight men arrested by the Sutherland Fencibles, were a little less lucky. They were all sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. Later they were offered a remission of their sentences upon their willingness to join the army or navy. (



1300 -1460: The Camerons (Sons of the Hound) and the Wars of Scottish Independence

The Camerons fought for King Robert the Bruce in the Wars for Scottish Independence.

Led by Chief VII John de Cameron against the English at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 and later by Chief VIII John de Cameron at the Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333.




1746: Culloden

The Camerons supported the Jackobite cause in 1745 and fought bravely at Culloden. (Extracts):

As the Hanoverian army advanced onto Culloden Moor they were greeted by Camerons in nearly every Jacobite regiment.

Progressing down the front line, past the aforementioned right wing, one would next come upon the 300 men of Clan Fraser.

The Camerons among this battalion were mostly tenants on Lord Lovat’s lands centered just east of nearby Beauly.

To their immediate left were the 500 men of Clan Chattan, a confederation of clans made up mostly of Mackintoshes.

Among these men, who had yet to see action in the uprising, were Camerons from Nairn and other towns near the battlefield.

Their leader, lieutenant-colonel Alexander MacGillivray of Dunmaglass, seems also to have commanded the next regiment on the front line, the Farquharsons; Camerons were among them as well.

Moving ahead one would encounter the numerous MacDonald regiments, under the command of Lord James Drummond, The Duke of Perth.

Among these 1,000 angry soldiers were Cameron farmers from Glen Urquhart.

Cameron men were also dispersed among the second line of the Jacobite army, providing, when considered along with the front line, that the clan would participate in every aspect of the upcoming battle.

At about 1 p.m., with the sky darkening and rain “driving” into the Highlander’s faces, the first shot was fired.

It came from one of the 12 “ill-manned” Jacobite four and six pounder cannons which were dispersed among the right, left and center of the front line, 500 yards from the enemy. “The Rebel ball passed over Lord Bury’s indifferent head…and came down somewhere in the rear, cutting a soldier in half.

The Jacobite guns were not to improve upon that.” The numerous field pieces of Cumberland’s Royal Artillery responded. “The high moor shuddered, the Highlanders lines were at once hidden by the smoke, and the gunners could see their black shot passing smoothly into the fog.” Less than ten minutes later, whether from lack of ammunition or skilled gunners, the ineffective Jacobite cannons fell silent.

The Hanoverian barrage continued. “Above the rolling, rumbling discharge, and the screams of those who had been hit, officers of the clans shouted desperately `Close up! Close up!…’ And the clansmen closed the gaps the round-shot made, but they looked over their shoulders to the rear, or cried back at their officers, demanding the order to charge.” The Highlanders endured this attack for twenty to twenty-five minutes, during which they lost an estimated one-third of their men.

The Cameron men threw down their firearms in disgust, grasped their trusted swords and Lochaber axes tightly, pulled their tartan kilts high to the groin and with the unearthly snarl of a Highland yell coming deep from within disappeared into the black gunpowder smoke. The sons of the hound had come to get meat.

The Hanoverian Royal Artillery heard the Highland charge and immediately changed from ball to grape-shot. “No powder was ladled into the barrels this time, but a paper case rammed home and containing charge, leaden balls, nails and old iron.” The charge was halted by the first murderous discharge of grape, the balls and the iron whispering and whistling their killing way.

Father stumbled over son, brother over brother in the sudden slaughter. Then the charge came on, but now the Cameron’s swung to the right like animals shying in alarm, and they drove for the left of the Royal line.”

The Hanoverian regiments held their fire until the bobbing, yelling faces of the Highlanders were within twenty yards of them, and then there was time for one volley only from each rank.”

One Hanoverian soldier later remarked “We had some hundreds of them breathless on the ground. They rallied, and before our left could load (they) came again like lions to the charge, sword in hand…” The furious “leaping, kilted” Highlanders were then upon them.

First and foremost the nearby artillery units were taken out of action.

“Sergeant Bristow, at his guns between these battalions, fired grape from both, one discharge and then he was chopped down by a Cameron sword, as were Bombardier Paterson and Gunner Edward Hust. All three crawled beneath the wheels of their guns, with terrible wounds from which they were not to die until two months later.”

Even their new bayonet training, a technique in which thrusts were directed not at the Highlander in front of them, rather at the one to the right, did not adequately prepare the Hanoverian soldiers for such an onslaught.

“They climbed over their dead, which soon lay four deep, and they hacked at the muskets with such maniacal fury that far down the line men could hear the iron clang of sword on barrel.”

“The fight was confused and bitter and the (Hanoverian) line swayed, Barrell’s lion standard of blue dipping at the center. Lord Robert Kerr, captain of the grenadiers, received the first charging Cameron on the point of his spontoon, but then a second cut him through the head to chin. Stewarts and Camerons flooded through the gap of the guns and cut at the grenadiers of Munro’s as well as Barrell’s. Some ran to the rear where Lieutenant-Colonel Rich of Barrell’s was standing on foot. He held out his slender sword to parry the swing of a broadsword and both hand and sword were cut from his wrist.”

Based upon reported casualties of the other clans on the Jacobite right wing it is conservatively estimated that out of the 700 Camerons who were on the field that day approximately 225 were killed and 150 wounded.

Prisoner records indicate that only 17 Camerons were taken from the field alive and as prisoners. The other 133 “estimated” wounded were bayoneted or shot where they lay, or would soon die in confinement.

From this, it may be surmised that at least 358 Cameron,s, over one-half of Lochiel’s regiment, perished on Culloden Moor.

Throughout the entire Jacobite right wing’s front line, the gentility of the Highlands, hardly a man survived the charge.

The highlanders were forced back under a heavy bombardment of grape shot and it was then that Campbell’s Argyll regiment struck their treacherous blow.

From their hiding place behind a dry stane wall they stood up and fired a volley into the flank of the exhausted, staggering retreating Highlanders. Then loaded calmly and fired three more volleys, and then drew their broadswords.

Yelling `Cruachan!’ they climbed over the wall and rushed upon the Cameron,s, but they did not have it all their own way.”

Citing extremely reduced numbers among Lochiel’s regiment and severity of their preceding action the Campbell,s thought it safe enough to risk direct confrontation with one of their immortal enemies.

In regard to the physical engagement with Clan Cameron it may be said with certainty that the Highlanders exchanged even amounts of casualties, ending with the Cameron’s demoralizing the “malicious” Campbell,s by killing their Commander, Colin Campbell of Ballimore.

But, as was their fate at Culloden, they would soon find that nowhere in Scotland was there a safe haven for true Highlanders.

Read the full description of the battle here: (





1746-1800: Duke of Cumberland Rapes Scotland

Conceiving that the only effectual mode of suppressing the rebellion was to march into the Highlands with the whole army, the Duke of Cumberland began, about the middle of May, to make preparations for his journey.

He had in the beginning of that month issued a proclamation, ordering the insurgent clans to deliver up their arms; but little attention was paid to this mandate, and the continuance of considerable armed parties convinced him that the Highlands could never be reduced without the presence of a considerable army stationed in a central district.

Having pitched upon Fort Augustus for his new head-quarters, the duke left Inverness, on the 23d of May, with eleven battalions of foot and Kingston’s horse, and reached Fort Augustus next day.

Charles had intended to make this place a rallying point in case of a defeat; but his plan was rejected by the chiefs, and, that it might not be serviceable to the royal troops, the buildings had been blown up.

No accommodation being therefore found for the duke’s army, a camp was formed in the neighbourhood, and a turf hut with doors and windows, and covered with green sods and boughs, was erected by Lord Loudon’s Highlanders for the use of his royal highness.

Resolving to inflict a signal chastisement upon the rebels, the duke sent, from his camp at Fort Augustus, detachments of his troops in all directions, which devastated the country with fire and sword, and committed excesses scarcely paralleled in history.

Resembling, though perhaps on a lesser scale scale, those committed by Hitler’s “Sondecommando” in the 1942 invasion of Russia.

The seats of Lochiel, Glengarry, Kinlochmoidart, Keppoch, Cluny, Glengyle, and others, were plundered and burnt to the ground, and great numbers of the houses of the common people shared the same fate.

Major Lockhart, whose name, by his cruelties on this occasion, has obtained an infamous notoriety, marched with a detachment into the country of the Macdonalds of Barisdale, and laid waste and destroyed their dwellings.

Some of these poor people had obtained written protections from Lord Loudon; but the major disregarded them, and told the people who had them, that not even a warrant from heaven should prevent him from executing his orders.

Another corps, under Lord George Sackville, ravaged the country about the glens of Moidart, while others carried fire and desolation through other districts.

Not contented with destroying the country, these bloodhounds either shot the men upon the mountains, or murdered them in cold blood.

The women, after witnessing their husbands, fathers, and brothers murdered before their eyes, were subjected to brutal violence, and then turned out naked, with their children, to starve on the barren heaths.

So alert were these ministers of vengeance, that in a few days, according to the testimony of a volunteer who served in the expedition, neither house, cottage, man, nor beast, was to be seen with the compass of fifty miles: all was ruin, silence and desolation.

Deprived of their cattle and their small stock of provisions by the rapacious soldiery, the hoary-headed matron and sire, the widowed mother and her helpless offspring, were to be seen dying of hunger, stretched upon the bare ground, and within view of the smoking ruins of their dwellings.

It may seem surprising that the Highlanders did not avenge themselves upon their oppressors, by assassinating such stragglers as fell in their way.

It cannot be supposed that men in whose bosoms the spirit of revenge must have taken deep root, would have spared their relentless adversaries from any scruple as to the mode of dispatching them; nor can it be imagined that the Highlanders could not have selected fit occasions when they might have inflicted vengeance upon individuals.

The reason of their forbearance probably was, that such a system of warfare, if adopted, would lead to acts of retaliation on the part of the military, and thus increase their calamities.

Of the immense quantity of cattle carried off by Cumberland’s troops, some idea may be formed from the fact mentioned in a journal of the period, that there were sometimes 2,000 in one drove.

Intelligence of such a vast accumulation of live stock, reaching the ears of the graziers of the south, numbers of them went to Fort Augustus well provided with money, which they laid out to great advantage.

Some of the people, impelled by starvation, repaired to the camp to solicit from the spoilers some of their flocks, to preserve an existence; but their supplications were unheeded, and they were doomed to behold their cattle sold and driven away, while famine stared them in the face.

The enormities of the lawless soldiery were not confined to the Highlands, but extended to all the adjoining lowland districts where the spirit of disaffection was known to exist.

The houses of the low country Jacobite gentry were plundered and destroyed, and the chapels of the nonjurant episcopal clergy, as well as the more humble and secluded places of worship belonging to the Catholics, were either razed or burnt to the ground.

“Rebel-hunting” was the term adopted by the ruffians of the British army to designate their bloody occupation.

To complete the work of extermination, the duke issued a proclamation, denouncing the punishment of death, by hanging, against every person who should harbour the insurgents, and a similar fate was declared to await such as should conceal arms, ammunition, or any other thing belonging to them, or should not immediately deliver up to persons authorized by the duke to receive the same, any property or effects in their possession belonging to the rebels.

In compliance with a requisition made by the duke, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, about the end of May, enjoined the ministers of the different parishes to read a proclamation from the pulpits, in which they themselves, and every well affected person, were ordered by his royal highness to use every exertion to discover and seize the unfortunate fugitives; and to facilitate their discovery and apprehension, the clergy were required to furnish lists of the names of all persons in their respective parishes who had had any share in the insurrection.

Many clergymen, including those of Edinburgh, with feelings of humanity and independence which did them honour, refused to head this proclamation, or to comply with the order requiring them to give in the names of such of their parishioners as had been engaged in the rebellion.

The government, equally intent with its sanguinary general upon the destruction of the unfortunate adherents of the house of Stuart, offered rewards for apprehending such of the fugitives as might land in Ireland, and instructions were sent to the British ministers at foreign courts in alliance with George II, to seize all who might seek refuge in the territories of such powers.

The guilt of all these acts of bloodshed and rapine has been laid to the charge of the Duke of Cumberland, and the single fact that he issued no orders to put an end to the enormities which were daily committed, often under his own eyes, and with his perfect knowledge, seems of itself sufficient to justify the charge.

The tyrannical Duke and his accomplices gloried in the miseries they inflicted upon the Scots and revelled amidst the ruin and desolation which they spread around; and when their occupation of “rebel-hunting” had been achieved by the destruction of their victims, they endeavored to relieve the boredom of inactivity by ludicrous and indecent diversions, including forcing young women to compete in “naked foot racing” as a betting spectacle for the English soldiers.

Vast quantities of livestock such as cattle, oxen, horses, sheep, and goats were stolen from the Scots, and sold for a pittance to farmers from Yorkshire. The money accrued was divided amongst the soldiers that brought the livestock in and many of these soldiers grew rich by their share of spoil.

When taken in connection with Cumberland’s sanguinary order not to take prisoners, the proofs of his criminality, or rather unconstitutional severity, are evident. Though the foul stain of wanton cruelty must ever attach to the British army on the present occasion, from the commander down to the private.





27 Jan 1793: Compulsory Service for the Scots

The fifty years after Culloden were not happy times in the Highlands.

The wearing of Highland dress was forbidden, the carrying of arms was proscribed and the Gaelic language was denigrated.

At the same time the population increased and this created new problems. One solution, and it was a popular one, was to enlist into the army.

In the last decade of the 18th Century nearly 40% of the British battalions of fencibles were raised in the Highlands.

This from an area with no more than 3% of the United Kingdom population.

In the beginning recruiting proved easy enough, but as time went on it became progressively more difficult to persuade young men to enlist.




18 Oct 1848: The Landowner privilege

Robert Somers was a journalist for the North British Daily Mail who, in 1848 visited Blair Atholl and in particular Glen Tilt.

He sent his observations, in the form of a series of weekly ‘letters’ to the paper.

The picture that he painted was of a land where landowners, in many cases absentee landlords, deliberately and systematically removed the indigenous population to make way for sheep farms and later sporting estates. An extract from his letter:

“An event occurred at this period which afforded a pretext to the Duke for the heartless extirpation of his people.

Highland chiefs were exhibiting their patriotism by raising regiments to serve in the American war; and the Duke of Atholl could not be indifferent to such a cause.

Great efforts were made to enlist the Glen Tilt people, who are still remembered in the district as a strong athletic race.

Perpetual possession of their lands, at the then existing rates, was promised them if they would only raise a contingent equal to a man from each family.

Some consented, but the majority with a praiseworthy resolution not to be dragged at the tail of a Chief into a war of which they knew neither the beginning nor the end, refused.

The Duke flew into a rage; and press gangs were sent up the glen to carry off the young men by force.

By impressment and violence the regiment was at last raised; and when peace was proclaimed, instead of restoring the soldiers to their friends and their homes, the Duke, as if he had been a trafficker in slaves, was only prevented from selling them to the East India Company by the rising mutiny of the regiment!

He afterwards pretended great offence at the Glen Tilt people for their obstinacy in refusing to enlist and – it may now be added – to be sold; and their conduct in this affair was given out as the reason why he cleared them from the Glen – an excuse which, in the present day, may increase our admiration of the people, but can never palliate the heartlessness of his conduct.

His ireful policy, however has taken full effect. The romantic Glen Tilt, with its fertile holms and verdant steeps is little better than a desert.

The very deer rarely visit it and the wasted grass is burned like heather at the beginning of the year to make room for new verdure.

In the meantime it serves no better purpose than the occasional playground of a Duke.”

Such criticisms of the Duke of Atholl were matched by similar censures of both the big landowners and the large tenant farmers, who having reduced the indigenous population to a state of pauperism grudged even paying the meagre poor rate   . (


Butcher Cumberland

%d bloggers like this: