Categories
Uncategorized

The 1707 Incestuous Marriage of England To Scotland Was Against Natural Law and should be annulled

Related image

Opening narrative

In part one I outlined events from the introduction of the two crowns through to the period up to the imposition on Scots, by the English, of the 1707 Treaty of Union.

In the early part of the century, the English first tried to woo Scotland into entering an arrangement which would lead to an agreement to join the kingdoms in a union. But Scots who had endured many English invasions rejected all of the overtures.

The velvet glove approach being rejected England reverted to type and set about destroying the Scottish economy through the imposition of shipping blockades, the application of hefty import taxes on Scottish goods, destruction of Scottish commercial ventures in the Americas and Europe.

It was to be submission to English rule or destruction a process that took nearly 20 years to complete, but famine, English naval and land army blockades coupled with military and financial coercion of European countries into avoiding trade with Scotland brought hardship and death on Scots.

The final and most deplorable betrayal of Scotland was by its own King who approved the destruction of the Darien community in the Panama Isthmus aided greatly by the equally treacherous Spanish. This proved to be the straw that broke the camels back and brought the Scots to the negotiating table.

The English, well chuffed with their conquest declined to negotiate but tabled take it or leave it conditions, the signing of which would bind Scotland to England in a treaty of union. Scots may have been on their knees but they were unbowed and told the English to get stuffed. But Scots were betrayed yet again, this time by an unelected cabal of Scottish lords who sold their country out on the promise of the settlement of their personal debts.

Image result for bought and sold for english gold

In part two I am highlighting events of significance in the early years after the signing of the Acts of Union. Would the English honour their vows?? Dream on ! 

1707 Acts of Union – The Early years

Queen Anne was succeeded by her second cousin Sophia in 1714, then Sophia’s son, George I, Elector of Hanover. German “Geordie”, did not speak English and was not actively involved in the government of his new United Kingdom preferring to exercise physical control over his German kingdoms.

This resulted in a shift of power away from the monarch to his council of ministers, the head of which was Sir Robert Walpole who promoted himself as the first-ever Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Scotland’s economy declined markedly as a direct result of the union which brought about a major change in the marketing of goods including the removal of tariffs on goods moving between the countries.

Scottish industries such as linen manufacturing suffered badly because they were no longer shielded from English competition.

The Westminster government’s decision to equalize taxation across the United Kingdom increased taxes in Scotland fivefold and was a hammer blow to Scots who had always enjoyed much lower rates of taxation.

The increased taxation impacted adversely on key Scottish industries. The key Scottish fishing industry was subjected to debilitating new salt taxes.

But the English needed the money to pay for their expansionist policies and wars against France, Spain and other European nations, many of whom had been allied to Scotland for centuries.

Westminster also introduced customs and excise control which brought with it the employment of a huge number of customs and excise officers who enforced many new bureaucratic procedures. The result was a further marked increase in poverty as finance was taken away from Scotland to feed the gluttony of the English parliament at Westminster.

Adding insult to injury the Westminster government blatantly abused the terms of the Acts of Union in reneging on a written commitment to make payment of  a substantial manufacturing support payment to Scotland for seven years from 1707.

Westminster reluctantly agreed to make the payment, after nearly 20 years of political standoff. But only then when it was balanced against a removal of a number of tax exemptions. This type of behaviour added insult to injury and would be well-practiced in the years that followed.

In 1713 the Westminster Tory government decided, without consultation to flex it’s authority over the Scots and extend the English malt tax to Scotland provoking major public protests and noncompliance forcing the government to withdraw the tax.

The event was viewed as the culmination of many acts against the wellbeing of Scots and came very close to destroying already frosty relationships between Scotland and England. Indeed inter country relationships became so strained that a Scottish-led motion to commence proceedings to dissolve the Union came extremely close to passing in the House of Lords, failing by just four votes.

The 1707 Act of Union Handed Scotland Over To a Very Wealthy English Elite  Supported By Lickspittle Unionist Politicians Who Maintain Their Power  Through the Impositon of Oppression on Scots – caltonjock

The Earl of Mar rebelled against the Westminster Abuse of Power 

Although a Jacobite and against his better judgement he supported the signing of the Acts of Union and pledged his allegiance to German Geordie, but took umbrage when, on arrival in England, the king publicly snubbed him when he welcomed him to the United Kingdom on behalf of the Scottish nation.

The then “Third Secretary for Great Britain” responded to the insult to Scotland and proposed a resolution to have the Acts of Union repealed. When this failed he resigned and returned to Scotland where he continued to agitate for the repeal of the Union.

On 1 September 1715, he raised a standard for “King James VIII” at Braemar and gathered an army of around 10,000 men which gained some successes in the North and East of Scotland. But he made three strategic errors.

  1. James, who was resident in France had not been advised about the planned uprising.
  2. He failed to coordinate his challenge with similar uprisings occurring in England
  3. He was, as events proved, a poor tactician. At the Battle of Sheriffmuir, North of Dunblane on 13 November 1715, a large part of his army advancing from Perth met a much smaller government force under John Campbell, the 2nd Duke of Argyll. The Jacobite’s won the ensuing short battle but Mar failed to march on Glasgow and Edinburgh, a move that would have consolidated his position. Instead, he returned to Perth to regroup and lost the initiative.

Meantime James Stuart was only able to reach Scotland from France on 22 December, when he landed at Peterhead: he was too late, the uprising was all but over. The Jacobite’s abandoned Perth on 31 January 1716, and on 4 February James Stuart and John Erskine, 23rd Earl of Mar, sailed out of Montrose, bound for France. Neither would ever return.

John Erskine, Earl of Mar, raising the Pretender's standard, The Jacobite  rising of 1715 Stock Photo - Alamy

The Westminster government got lucky when it weathered the Jacobite uprising of 1715. A crisis generated by the avarice, greed and a flawed mindset of the victor basking in the glory of conquest. Its arrogant post-union behaviour towards Scotland inflicted extreme hardship on Scots’ through the imposition of hugely unfair taxes and many other oppressive acts.

October 2020 – caltonjock
Categories
Uncategorized

A confidential report on harassment within Holyrood was sent to Nicola Sturgeon at the beginning of March 2018. In it 67 women reported incidences of sexual harassment and said the perpetrator was an MSP. The report was buried and only Alex Salmond was put through the ringer. Why?

24 Mar 2021: Rape Crisis Scotland in Crisis

Women are facing delays of more than a year in getting support at some rape crisis centres and one hub has had to close its waiting list. Ten of 16 regional services reported waiting times getting longer over the past 12 months, according to information released by the Scottish Government. Victims are waiting too long for help and Edinburgh’s centre has stopped offering new appointments. Rape Crisis Scotland slammed the “agonising waits” women face, and called for all parties to commit to proper funding for services in their manifestos ahead of the Holyrood election in May.

The group’s chief executive Sandy Brindley said: “Rape crisis services should be available at the point of need but far too many survivors of sexual violence face agonising waits for support due to inadequate funding. We are asking all political parties going into the election to commit to sustainable funding for essential services like ours. Access to support when you need it should be the very least we can offer to anyone who has been raped or sexually abused.”

Central Scotland MSP Ms Lennon, whose parliamentary question uncovered the figures, added: “It beggars belief that Nicola Sturgeon’s own constituents in Glasgow are having to wait up to 12 months and in Edinburgh the year-long waiting list is currently closed. Rape survivors deserve better than these shocking delays. The SNP has had 14 years to deliver sustainable funding for rape crisis centres and has failed. We need bold action to fix this.”

Comment: The financial support to Rape Crisis Scotland and its sister organisations is hopelessly inadequate. Many “very real” incidents of rape and sexual assault on women in Scotland are not being investigated which galls many who regarded the unwarranted Alex Salmond debacle a travesty. (The Sun)

The blatant abuse of power by the SNP Government

Alex Salmond retired from the Scottish political scene in 2014 and was enjoying a new career as a political commentator with his own very succesful weekly show when, early in 2018, he was notified by an ex-colleague that he was under investigation by the Civil Service who were following up historical (2013) complaints against him from two former work associates. The sequence of events from that time until very recently caused great distress for Alex, his family and friends.

Alex was hounded from pillar to post, day-after-day, week-after-week, month-after-month, year-after-year, by “establishment” figures including those from the civil service, former colleagues, (many of whom owed their political careers to Alex) solicitors, law officers, the police, unscrupulous journalists, government funded Rape Crisis organisations, whose persistent warped press announcements on events as they unravelled caused the complainers great distress.

The attacks on his integrity and behaviour were aired in the highest court of the land and anyone who wished to be heard was given the opportunity to state their case against him to a judge and jury (primarily female). Every charge levelled against Alex was dismissed, a number scathingly commented upon by the judge as being far fetched and short on truth.

The court case and high profile inquiry’s all fully vindicated Alex and should have seen an end to the snide comments and the political and personal smears and innuendo’s but they persist, primarily fanned by persons whom Alex counted as friends.

Cost estimates to the taxpayer attributed to the vindictive and shambolic government pursuit of Alex Salmond vary between £5-£7m. Money which would have been better spent by Rape Crisis Scotland clearing up a massive backlog of genuine sexual assaults on women in Scotland

02 Mar 2018: Sex scandals in Scottish parliament under Nicola Sturgeon’s watch

Of significance is Alex Salmond’s retiral from Scottish politics in 2014.

Events recorded in this part of the article refer to the period when the Scottish Government was led by Nicola Sturgeon.

This is her and her party’s disgraceful legacy and reveals the cynicism behind the pursuit of Alex Salmond.

It was to divert attention away from the on-going harassment of women in Holyrood.

The publication date, early March 2018, is also very relevant. This was a Scottish Government survey conducted right at the start of the efforts to destroy the reputation of Alex Salmond. The report was a political bombshell and yet it does not feature in any of the copious senior management text correspondence. Nicola Sturgeon maintains she knew nothing about anything which is impossible to believe since she read and commented on the document.

The October 2017, “Me2” campaign and the Westminster sex scandal arising from it prompted the completion of a confidential survey of people employed at Holyrood, including MSPs, their staff, parliamentary workers, and news reporters. Over 1000 individuals responded and the results were shocking.

The report sent to Nicola Sturgeon at the beginning of March 2018 listed more than 200 allegations of harassment, most dating from 2016. Of the 137 women who said they had been sexually harassed, 67 reported that the perpetrator was an MSP. The report was quickly buried and only Alex Salmond was put through the ringer. Why?

The findings showed that Holyrood perpetrators were nearly always male, regardless of the gender of the victim and in the majority of cases, the alleged perpetrator was in a position of authority. Reports included 5 instances where the perpetrator had attempted to pinch or grope the victim’s bottom, and 10 where they had tried to kiss their victim. There was even 1 attempt to grope the breast of a woman, and another attempt to grab at a victim’s crotch.

The report also indicated that victims and their perpetrators were “most likely” to come from the same group of people. Nine of the 13 MSPs who had reported sexual harassment said their abuser had been another MSP. Some 40 percent of respondents said they had been targeted by a parliamentary worker, and a further 20 percent by a member of MSPs’ staff. The total percentage exceeds 100 percent, as some respondents reported more than one case of harassment.

A total of 29 percent of respondents – which is approximately 300 people – said they had witnessed sexual harassment. One-in-five women said they had received sexist comments, 16 percent reported unwanted looks or leers, and another nine percent reported unwanted physical contact.

Of concern was that 11 people who had reported harassment said their cases were not taken seriously or acted on by their managers, while four said their complaints had caused problems for them at work. Most had taken no action at all, and a quarter of respondents said they didn’t feel confident that they knew how to report such incidents. (Sputnik)

The Scottish National party (SNP) is the only party in Scotland that cannot provide evidence of overhauling its sexual harassment policy following the #MeToo revelations of November 2017. This after a confidential survey conducted on 01 March 2018 found that one in 10 staff had experienced sexual harassment, 45% of whom said that the perpetrator was an MSP.

Afternote: All political parties, apart from the SNP, introduced revised procedures after 2017. Asked for comment the SNP said it “continually looks to improve [its] policies and processes” and plans to introduce in time, trained sexual harassment advisers. The SNP is the only party which does not display a code of conduct and relevant harassment policy on its website, or offer an easily searchable contact phone numbers or email to make a complaint. Indeed the SNP code of conduct makes no mention of sexual harassment specifically. (The Guardian)

Categories
Uncategorized

The Betrayal of Tommy Sheridan

Wings Over Scotland | The angriest man in Scotland

Professor Adam Tomkins (Later Tory MSP)

Tomkins, with little known family links to very senior officers in the Foreign Affairs branch of the US State Department, is an intellectual and political genius, (but perhaps only in his own mind). He is a leading constitutional scholar and latter day hard-line republican who relocated to Scotland from England in 2003, and took up employment with Glasgow University as a lecturer in constitutional law. The appointment to a prestigious post of a republican minded professor created disquiet in the minds of some and raised the question. Is this guy for real or is he a British Secret Service plant? His behaviour since confirms the latter assertion.

Getting to know you

But Tomkins new employment was gifted to him by design and it provided him with a safe passage right into the heart of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) enabling his influence on policy, report rumours, weaknesses and anyinternal strife.

2004: The Calton Hill Independence Rally

The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) arranged a rally for independence at Calton Hill in October 2004 at which the “Declaration of Calton Hill” setting out a vision of an inclusive and outward-looking Scottish republic was presented. The case advanced was for a Scottish socialist republic without a monarchy or nuclear weapons, with a currency independent of England, a much-reduced level of military spending and a relationship with the European Union safeguarding Scotland’s independence.

Addressing a cheering crowd, Law Professor, Adam Tompkins of Glasgow University, reminded them of the Queen’s previous reluctance to pay tax despite her massive income. He said that the queen had special powers or `prerogatives`, which included being able to appoint anyone she liked as Prime Minister. He continued saying “Tony Blair used these special powers to attack Iraq and there would have been no Iraq war without the support of the crown. In a democracy it is the people who are sovereign and not the crown. I strongly urge the abolition of the monarchy. If you want democracy down with the crown!” (paraphrased a wee bit)

2003: The rise and fall of Solidarity and the Scottish Socialist Party

Left wing activists Tommy Sheridan and Colin Fox set aside their political differences and formed the Scottish Socialist Party. Its arrival on the scene was immediate and the Party made significant in-roads into Scottish politics. This gave cause for concern in Westminster and triggered long-established correcting measures the implementation of which was charged to the British Secret Services.

Not long after his arrival in Scotland Tomkins established friendships with Colin Fox and other officers of the fast expanding Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and in the 2003 Holyrood election, the SSP increased their MSP representation from one to six and a number of independent MSP’s also entered the new “rainbow parliament”.

In the first year of the new parliament, the SSP fought, without success for policies such as free school meals and an end to prescription charges (both introduced in a later parliament by SNP) and campaigned against Home Office dawn raids to remove failed asylum seekers.

But the outward show of unity within the SSP was deceiving all was not well. The Unionist supporting press started to undermine the Party through the publication of rumours of leadership rivalries and misuse of funds which had placed the Party in debt. Tommy Sheridan stood down as leader in 2004. Colin Fox took over and in Parliament under his leadership, the SSP continued to pursue socialist policies, frequently disrupting parliamentary business by way of volatile protest.

News of the World to close, ending 168-year history

Rupert Murdoch Enters the Fray

A few months after the shake up of the SSP, Rupert Murdoch’s, “News of the World” destroyed Sheridan’s political career exposing his hedonistic lifestyle using information gained from his colleagues, other secret intelligence gathering and illegal phone tapping of Sheridan and his close friends and political and legal advisors.

The editor of the News of the World in Scotland was Bob Bird, then the husband of a recently appointed BBC news-reader Jackie Bird who had returned to Scotland from London.

Sheridan fought back alleging he had been defamed and took legal action against the News of the World winning £200,000 for defamation and costs. A remarkable victory given that eleven of his former SSP officers, including Fox, gave evidence against him. A disillusioned Sheridan left the Party in 2006 and set up a new left-wing party, “Solidarity.”

The MI5 sting hastened the demise of the SSP and Solidarity who never recovered from the catastrophe and folded not long after.

Sex scandal former MSP Tommy Sheridan says he's 'supremely confident' his  'unsafe' conviction for perjury will be quashed - Daily Record

With friends like his who needs enemies

The News of the World refused to give up its attacks on Sheridan and tit for tat revelations rumbled on between 2004 – 2010.

Events came to a head in 2010 with “Operation Rubicon” an inquiry into alleged criminal behaviour within the News of the World in London and Scotland. Strathclyde Police triggered a separate investigation which ran in parallel with the London inquiry.

The fall out from Operation Rubicon was devastating for the News of the World which was shut down by Rupert Murdoch as a result of being found guilty of illegal phone tapping, harassment, fraud and other charges.

The defamation case against Tommy Sheridan was reopened in response to allegations from ex-colleagues of Tommy that he had lied in court.

Tommy was jailed for perjury after a 12-week trial at Glasgow’s High Court and sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Setback for News Group in Tommy Sheridan defamation case | The Scotsman

Sheridan’s allegations against the News Of the World vindicated

Tommy Sheridan’s victory over Murdoch and the News of the World was confirmed when he was allowed to keep the £200,000 libel damage settlement.

Appeal court judges ruled that a civil jury were “judges of fact” and they were “entitled to believe parts of what a witness said, and to disbelieve other parts”. The jury clearly believed Tommy Sheridan had been wronged and his erstwhile colleagues were settling old scores. The judges also felt they “should not ignore” Sheridan’s proved allegations of phone-hacking by Murdoch’s empire and its “disregard for proper journalistic conduct” and “wilful contempt” of the criminal process also fed into their decision.

Many years later despite being in the forefront of campaigning for independence he is still trying to live down allegations of infidelity in his private life that if true occurred 18 years ago. His wife stood by him throughout the ordeal and their marriage is a strong as it was at the outset. I believe he deserves another chance at the highest level of politics. He would be an asset to Alba on the campaign trail

Judge puts an end to Sheridan affair in six short words | The Times

Categories
Uncategorized

Scots are entitled to a judiciary free of political interference – Time for the SNP to butt out

English Scottish Law - ACID - Anti Copying In Design

Dismantling Scotland’s judicial system by stealth

The 1707 Act of Union guaranteed the independence of the judiciary and Scottish law in perpetuity. But Westminster Unionist politicians and the House of Lords have rendered Scottish law impotent through the illegal imposition of the laws of “Greater England” on Scots for their own nefarious purposes. The insidious determination of the unionists to wipe out Scottish Law was further advanced in 1999 when the “Crown Office of Scotland” which had been independent from political interference for near 500 years was transferred lock, stock, and barrel to the control of the then Unionist supporting Scottish government. From that time the Scottish Judiciary has been subject to continuous pressure to remove from statute, trial by jury, not proven and other laws.

Scotland's Lord Advocate: The top law officer with a dual role - BBC News

Removal of the judiciary system free from political control

Recent events in Holyrood have exposed the folly of transferring the administration of the laws of Scotland to the political control of the Scottish Government. The decision must be reversed without delay re-establishing the independence of the judiciary from political interference.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service – The NEN – North Edinburgh News

William Gordon Chalmers – the last truly independent Procurator Fiscal of Scotland

Aberdonian William Gordon Chalmers was the permanent head of the procurator-fiscal service from 1974 to 1984 and zealously guarded the power of the Scots over their fiscal service.

He was a man of traditional values but was endowed with great vision to build a service to meet the challenges of the future and cope with an increase in serious crime at a time of economic stringency.

He was proud of his Aberdeen roots, having attended both Robert Gordon’s College and Aberdeen University. And served as an officer with the Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders, in the Second World War in which he was awarded the Military Cross.

After hostilities ceased he became a solicitor and practiced in Aberdeen before joining the procurator-fiscal service as a depute-fiscal in Dunfermline in 1950.

During this period he gained a reputation as a fiscal who was prepared to take on a difficult case and work on it to secure the best possible result.

Although he enjoyed good relations with the police and politicians, he was always careful to ensure his and the fiscal’s independence in the process of investigating and prosecuting crime.

In 1959 he was promoted to Senior Depute Fiscal at Edinburgh then, in 1963, entered the Crown Office as an assistant to the Crown agent before becoming Deputy Crown Agent in 1967 and Crown Agent and Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer in 1974.

In the 1960s the fiscal service was relatively small comprising 80 lawyers throughout Scotland and significant level of backlogged cases was an accepted norm. But not for William Chalmers.

Within a year of taking office he introduced the National Prosecution Service which would deal with sheriff and prepared high court cases while retaining responsibility for the prosecution of cases from government departments and local authorities.

In those early years he identified a distinct lack of alternatives to prosecution and introduced fiscal fines and fixed penalties for less serious offences. He went further and developed a system of warnings to alleged offenders and encouraged the introduction of schemes for certain offenders to be directed to social work and where applicable to make the prompt compensation for their crimes. The latter initiative was appreciated by victims who often became forgotten in the criminal process. During his tenure, the fiscal service went from strength to strength despite in latter years having to cope with a Westminster government intent on reducing public spending.

About the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

Retention of a Fiscal Service independent of Government

In his tenure he ensured the “Crown Office” would operate separate from the Scottish Office and achieved this by insisting on being directly funded by the UK treasury.

He was greatly saddened in his retirement, by changes in the fiscal service following devolution, in 1999 which he perceived weakened its independence.

He was was known to many people who had served with him as the “Real Crown Agent” and a fitting memorial to him would be for the “Fiscal Service” to recover its independence in a devolved Scotland.

William Gordon Chalmers, Crown Agent, born 4 June 1922, died 28 May 2003 (The Scotsman-Obituaries)

April 2020 – caltonjock

Categories
Uncategorized

The Obnoxious Trial of Alex Salmond is a Battle For the Soul of the Party Between the Authoritarian Regime of Sturgeon and the Democratic Aspirations of Alex Salmond

Salmond and Sturgeon: What is the controversy all about? - BBC News

Timeline-Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry-Conspiracy against Alex Salmond

Late October 2017: Aamer Anwar alleged the existence of a ‘ticking time bomb catalogue of sexual harassment at Holyrood. Ms H allegedly disclosed to her friend, an SNP politician, details of an alleged sexual assault upon her by Alex Salmond.

30 Oct: Nicola Sturgeon wrote to the Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh, asking what additional steps might be taken to protect staff from harassment.

31 Oct: Daily Record/David Clegg received a heads up message from an unnamed source in the Scottish Government regarding sexual offences allegedly committed by Alex Salmond during his time in office. Clegg is friend of Liz Lloyd who is a senior Spad working for Nicola Sturgeon.

31 Oct: A senior SNP officer, Ms Anne Harvey, based in Westminster was inundated with telephone text messages asking for information about Alex Salmond. suggesting that a fishing expedition had started in earnest well before the involvement of Ms A, Ms B or Ms H. Anne worked with Alex Salmond for many years and was an important witness for the defence, (until her evidence was redacted by the Crown). She was also at the time, a close friend of at least one of the complainers.

31 Oct: Holyrood civil service chiefs excluding the Special Advisor to the First Minister, Liz Lloyd, but including senior civil servant, John Somers, the First Ministers “gatekeeper” were in attendance together with other civil servants at a meeting convened by Nicola Sturgeon with the purpose of reviewing civil service procedures for the handling of workplace complaints. Nicola Sturgeon asked the permanent secretary to undertake a review of government policies and processes to ensure that they were fit for purpose.

31 Oct: James Hynd, Head of Cabinet, Parliament, and Governance, for the Scottish Government was tasked by Leslie Evans on 31 Oct 2017 to update long-standing civil service procedures on sexual harassment covering serving ministers. Instead, acting on his own initiative and without any political direction, he decided to make former ministers the focus of his first draft of the policy, partly because he was in charge of the Scottish government’s ministerial code and there was a “gap” that needed to be closed.

He conceded he was aware of gossip about alleged misconduct involving former First Minister, Alex Salmond, which Salmond had repeatedly denied, before choosing to include former ministers in the new anti-harassment policy. He insisted he alone decided to make former ministers the focus of his first draft of the policy, partly because he was in charge of the Scottish government’s ministerial code. He said he thought it was a “gap” that needed to be closed.

Beginning of Nov: Around this time (possibly earlier) Angus Robertson drafted and introduced new NEC procedures removing candidate selection from Party members centralising the process on Party headquarters officials. Shortly after a number of GRA supporters were installed as candidates for the May 2021 General Election.

02 Nov: MSP and minister Mark McDonald, was taken in to speak to John Swinney and the First Minister’s chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, and was told his name had come up in “chatter” around “MeToo”.

03 Nov: McDonald met Ms Lloyd, who revealed a complaint had been made against him about the offensive content of a social media message he had sent. Lloyd told him he would need to resign from the Government.

There were strong rumours that Alex Salmond was unhappy at the lack of progress on independence given the strong polling figures in favour of this and was considering a return to front line politics, possibly through the Aberdeen seat vacated by Mark McDonald when he was denied the Party whip in Holyrood. It was also rumoured that Alex would soon be installed as the editor of the Scotsman.

04 Nov: McDonald said Nicola Sturgeon phoned him in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign that evening.

04 Nov: McDonald resigned from his role as children’s minister in the Scottish Government.

04 Nov: In the evening, Sky News contacted the SNP Government parliamentary media office enquiring about Alex Salmond’s alleged misconduct with women at Edinburgh Airport. Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans and Liz Lloyd were informed. Both of them briefed the First Minister of events the morning after.

Afternote: Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government, told the Inquiry that on 5 Mar 2017 she warned the first minister that Alex Salmond had been calling civil servants in connection with a Sky News investigation into an alleged incident at Edinburgh airport in 2007. The officials were a bit bewildered and unhappy about it and she advised the First Minister of her concerns. She was also worried that it could become a story and the Scottish Government needed to be ready because the media was very volatile reporting on everything.

She went on to say that a whole range of people inside the Scottish government had been raising concerns about alleged sexual misconduct involving ministers and the former First Minister and the rumours had began surfacing in early November 2017 at the height of the MeToo movement and soon after John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, announced a new zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct.

The briefing by Evans that rumours of misconduct included the former First Minister concentrated the minds of members of the Inquiry on the context of the closing statement of Ms Evans to suggest that the “new” sexual harassment policy had been “targeted at and designed to get Alex Salmond”.

Ms Evans denied that was the case. But in late 2018, Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament that she first learned Salmond was being investigated “when he told her” during a meeting at her home on 2 April 2018. But the government was forced to admit that she actually met one of Salmond’s closest former aides, Geoff Aberdein, in connection with the matter in her ministerial office on 29 March 2018.

05 Nov: Ms H said she informed Ian McCann, a senior officer at SNP Headquarters of the details of an alleged assault by Alex Salmond, well before the receipt of formal complaints from Ms A and Ms B.

Mr McCann responded saying: “We’ll sit on that and hope we never need to deploy it.” Peter Murrell, CEO of the SNP maintains he was not informed of the allegations notified to Mr McCann.

06 Nov: Liz Lloyd was approached by several civil servants who raised concerns that Mr Salmond and his representatives were reportedly contacting other civil servants to ask that they provide supportive statements to his legal representatives relating to the matters raised by Sky News The civil servants indicated that the approaches were unwelcome. Lloyd was asked if she or some other Special Adviser could ask Alex Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct. She was informed shortly after that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached by the same staff and was taking their request forward, so she made no approach to Alex Salmond.

Afternote-1 : In the 2018 trail of Alex Salmond, Ms H was questioned by the QC for defence as to her reasons for not timeously notifying the police of the alleged attempted rape, she said she only wanted the SNP to know, “so they could use it for vetting purposes should Alex Salmond return to the political front line.” The QC followed up asking Ms H, if was a “coincidence” she’d contacted Mr McCann only a day after an SNP, MSP had ben forced to resign and suggested “You didn’t want Alex Salmond to pass any future vetting process, did you” Ms H responded “I don’t think I linked the two events together. I wasn’t aware he (Mr Salmond) wanted to stand for the Scottish Parliament again. It was not a coincidence in terms of the #MeToo movement and the whole issue of women basically being abused by people in positions of power.”

Afternote-2: The Criminal Trial of Alex Salmond: Ms McCall challenged Ms H on her contacts with a senior SNP official, Ian McCann, and three other women after the Daily Record reported on August 23rd, 2018, that a Scottish government internal inquiry had upheld complaints from two women of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond. Ms H told the court she first approached Mr McCann after the Harvey Weinstein allegations surfaced in the US and the #MeToo movement had gained momentum. She did not specify what Mr Salmond had allegedly done to her but warned Mr McCann there had been incidents involving the former party leader.

Ms McCall pressed Ms H to explain why she quickly made contact with other accusers after the Record story and after Mr Salmond disclosed he was suing the Scottish government over its inquiry. She asked Ms H whether two other accusers encouraged her to contact the police. In a text to another accuser two days after the Record story, Ms H wrote: “I’m mulling too. But I have a plan. And means we can be anonymous but see strong repercussions.” Challenged on what she meant, Ms H said she and the other accuser “had discussed in the past issues around Mr Salmond’s behaviour”. Ms McCall asked why she contacted another accuser who was a participant in a “ring around” of people who had worked with Mr Salmond. Ms H said she was trying to find out what was happening. “I was trying to figure out what the party and police process was, so I could figure out our path forward,” Ms H said.

08 Nov: 1233. The first draft of a new harassment policy “Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints Against Former Ministers.” written by top official James Hynd was circulated, It stated that if a complaint was lodged against a former minister and he/she was a member of the party in power, the First Minister should be informed immediately.

10 Nov: Leslie Evans appointed Gillian Russell, Scottish Government, Director of Safer Communities as the “confidential sounding board” for complainers.

10 Nov: Ms A told Gillian Russell of an incident involving herself and Alex Salmond following which Russell, with the consent of Ms A, updated Ms Richards, who in turn alerted Leslie Evans and through her Judith Mackinnon.

The essence of the experience Miss A related was: At the end of a long evening, in Bute House, after dealing with “Chinese business” Alex Salmond suggested to her that they could share share some “Maotai”, a highly potent Chinese “rice” drink, a few bottles of which had been gifted to him. She accepted the invitation. There was no central heating in the lower floors of Bute House at the time and they retired upstairs to Alex’s bedroom where after indulging more than a few drinks they ended up quite tipsy. They both dozed off on a bed, fully dressed and enjoyed a “sleepy cuddle”. After a short period they both awakened. Ms A collected her papers. Alex kissed her on the cheek and she left to go downstairs. There was no intention of any non-consensual sex. Not long after, Ms A lodged a complaint against Alex. The matter was resolved to her satisfaction, using approved Civil Service procedures, following an unreserved apology from Alex. Ms A was also offered a transfer away from Alex’s office without loss of rank or earnings but declined stating a preference to retain her employment and close working relationship with Alex, which they subsequently enjoyed for a number of years after. The complaint surfaced again at the criminal complaints trial of Alex and the jury decided the allegation was “not proven”.

08-10 Nov: Ms B, related to Barbara Allison details of an alleged incident involving herself and Alex Salmond. Ms Richards and Ms Evans were notified.

Details of the alleged incident related by Ms B: A “photoshoot” session had been arranged at Stirling Castle attended by Alex Salmond and a number of his close working colleagues, including Miss B. The session required Alex Salmond to be photographed with one other person at his side on a small balcony. Time, as ever, was a constraint and a rotating routine was in place requiring four people to be present on the small balcony throughout the shoot. Ms B said that Alex had fondled her “bum” at the time she stood next to him on the balcony. There were no witnesses to the event and Ms B had never reported it previously. At the criminal trial called witnesses to his defence who were present on the balcony at the time of the alleged incident who said they had not witnessed any such incident. Alex was found by the jury to be innocent of the charge.

08-10 Nov: Both Ms A and Ms B were determined that they were not interested in making any formal complaint against Alex Salmond and expressed this to Gillian Russell and Barbara Allison at the time. Their express wish was to be provided with a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. On both counts the civil service failed them and they paid the price of failure.

13-15 Nov: In an exchange of emails with senior civil servants, Mr Hynd advised, “officials will also need to alert the First Minister if a complaint is lodged against a minister because she’d “want to know straight away”.

16 Nov: McDonald suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him.

16 Nov: 1205. Hynd emailed (Private Secretary 1 to Leslie Evans). (Policy on Complaints Against Ministers.” As requested”. James.

16 Nov: Hynd sent a copy of the proposed policy to the UK Government’s Cabinet Office seeking “thoughts/advice”.

17 Nov: Hynd circulated to the Scottish Government civil service senior management team, and Liz Lloyd (first sight, at her request) a second draft procedure titled “Handling of sexual harassment complaints involving current or former ministers.”

17 Nov 1048: A senior Cabinet Office official in London responded saying: “This feels very uncomfortable to be highlighting a process for complaints about ministers and former ministers”. And went on to ask if the policy could wait until they had conducted their own review, and also questioned whether the policy for ministers was “more than you have in place” for civil servants. “Might be getting Nicky’s take on the question about Civil Servants.”

17 Nov: Hynd forwarded the Cabinet Office in London response to an unnamed private secretary in the Scottish Government, (possibly Somers) who replied: “Oh dear, I did wonder if that would be their reaction. Not sure how long their review will take but the First Minister and Leslie Evans are keen to resolve quickly and discuss on Tuesday. I suspect we don’t have a policy on former civil servants. But we are looking at this in the context of the overall review of policies and the justification for having something about Ministers is the action that Parliament is taking in light of allegations about MSP conduct which includes a recent SG Minister?”.

Afternote 1: Questioned by the Inquiry Hynd said: “Given the commission from the Cabinet and given that Nicola Sturgeon had written to the Presiding Officer and was keen to take national leadership on the matter and given that Leslie Evans was keen that her duty of care to staff was full and comprehensive, delaying implementation of the new procedure was not an option for consideration.”

Comment: But of note was that the procedure for civil servants was not updated to include retrospective consideration of harassment allegations.

Afternote 2: Lloyd stated that the inclusion of herself in the circulation of the draft procedure created a requirement to identify and amend the ministerial code, if necessary since the code was the responsibility of the First Minister.

Comment: But the Ministerial Code and the proposed complaints procedure were the business of the Civil Service and Miss Lloyd had no legitimate input.

Afternote 3: Ignoring the protocols Lloyd and the First Minister’s, Principal Private Secretary (PPS) John Somers, decided to compile an “instruction from the First Minister” which would be sent to Ms Evans providing clarity that implementation of a policy relating to ministers and former ministers was within the scope of the original cabinet commission and they compiled a “final draft” note and forwarded it to the First Minister for her consideration over the weekend and signature ensuring work on the procedure would continue without delay.

20 Nov: Somers said  complainer, Ms A, arranged a meeting with him at which she told him of her past experiences in a way that would improve the organization and make sure that no one else would have to go through that sort of thing again. She stressed she was not making a complaint, she simply wanted to assess her options for how she could best share the information. Her wish was to be allowed to speak to the First Minister which was why she had approached him.

Somers said he felt “overwhelmed” by the disclosure and  informed his line manager Barbara Allison and the Director of Safer Communities, Gillian Russell.

21 Nov: Somers and two unnamed officers met with Ms A and advised she would need to further discuss the matter with his line manager Barbara Allison, with a proviso that if she felt she was not being taken seriously or no one was listening to her, she should get back in touch with Somers who would set-up a personal meeting for her with the First Minister. He never heard from her. He went on to say that he did not tell the First Minister that Ms A had confided in him because it wasn’t his experience to share and had he done so he would have put the First Minister in a state of knowledge about something she could not have taken action upon at that point?”

Afternote 1: This is weird. Ms A advised Gillian Russell on 10 November.  His decision not to inform the First Minister denied Miss A the informal meeting she had asked for and escalated events from informal to formal. His reasoning was flawed since it was based on a rebuttable assumption. His choice of words is also significant. “at that point” could be a reference to the draft policy which he was working on with Lloyd. He fine well knew what he was doing.

Afternote 2: In her statement to the inquiry the Scottish Government’s Director for Communications, Ministerial Support & Facilities, Barbara Allison, who was Director of People from 2009 to 2016, said that Alex Salmond was a “visionary and dynamic” and although demanding and difficult to work for people also expressed that they enjoyed working for him. She had never heard of sexual misconduct concerns about him while he was the First Minister. Nor had she heard of any concerns being escalated to the status of formal complaints while she was in charge of human resources.

Afternote 3: Allison said she had not raised any issues of bullying or harassment with either Evans or Nicola Sturgeon and for clarity, she emphasized to the inquiry that she was not aware of any issues about sexual harassment” and added that she was a “huge advocate” for informal resolution, stating that if a matter could be resolved through this process, then “absolutely people must have recourse to a formal process”. She went on to tell the Inquiry that she was first notified of concerns in November 2017 when two unnamed female civil servants, (Ms A and Ms B) raised them with her.

22 Nov: Somers emailed the First Minister’s “instruction from the First Minister” to Leslie Evans, the Head of the Civil Service in Scotland. It read:

“As is clear from the continued media focus on cases of sexual harassment, in many instances, people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago. I wanted to make clear that in taking forward your review, and the new arrangements being developed, you should not be constrained by the passage of time. I would like you to consider ways in which we are able to address if necessary any concerns from staff, should any be raised, about the conduct of current Scottish Government ministers and also former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party. While I appreciate that the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code, I think it fair and reasonable that any complaints raised about their actions while they held office are considered against the standards expected of Ministers. I would be grateful for confirmation that this particular aspect is being included as part of the review you are leading.”

Note: The letter of instruction makes no sense since the newly written draft procedure was already in place and circulated within the senior Civil Servant management team. And James Hynd, the person who wrote the new procedure was not copied into the correspondence.

24 Nov: A fifth draft of Hynd’s, policy delegates authority to the Permanent Secretary to investigate complaints but makes clear the First Minister should also be alerted. A copy was also sent to the First Minister.

23 Nov: Nicola Richards sent an e-mail to Leslie Evans, copied to Judith Mackinnon “we would need to consult with the individual before disclosing to another party or the Police because of the risk of the matter getting into the press and the individuals being identified. We have a duty of care for our staff which means we shouldn’t do something that puts them at risk, so if they don’t want us to share information or go to the police, it would be very difficult to justify (sic) doing so (without putting them at risk of being identified and wider impacts.) This was subsequently changed on 9th January 2018 to read “SG as employer will not refer specific cases to police without the knowledge/consent of the employee.”

24 Nov: Lloyd, Somers, Hynd and a member of the Permanent Secretary’s office, attended a meeting to further discuss the content of the “instruction from the First Minister” and to establish and agree clear lines of responsibility between the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary. A second purpose was to reword the second draft procedure inserting changes designed to prevent the First Minister from stopping the Permanent Secretary, who has a duty of care to civil servants, from investigating a sexual harassment complaint made by a civil servant against a minister if the Permanent Secretary judged there was something to investigate.

Additional input from Liz Lloyd included the view that it was essential that the First Minister should be made aware of an investigation or allegation into a serving minister, before the event, in order to determine if, under the ministerial code, that minister could remain in post whilst an investigation was conducted. Yet she later stipulated that on that date she had no knowledge, of any of the allegations against Alex Salmond that were subsequently investigated under the new procedure.

29 Nov: Gillian Russell wrote to Ms A “as agreed, I sent your narrative on in confidence to Nicky (Richards) and Judith (Mackinnon). I have now been asked by Nicky and Judith if you would be prepared to speak to them following receipt of your narrative. As part of this discussion Nicky would like to share with you the developing policy for handling complaints against former and current ministers. This would give you an opportunity to test whether this would have helped at the time and also to consider next steps.” Later that day Ms A agreed to do so but reiterated her wish to speak first personally with Nicola Sturgeon.

29 Nov: Ms Richards, met with Ms Evans, who then went on to have a “summit meeting with the First Minister, “to discuss the development of the proposed procedure”.

30 Nov: Richards emailed Hynd, the Head of the Cabinet Secretariat: “Would you be able to send me the latest version of the process I agreed with Leslie Evans that I would test against some key individuals?”

01 Dec: Hynd sent the “eighth” harassment policy draft to Ms Richards.

04/05 Dec: Richards, redrafted parts of the “eighth” draft procedure completing her work 2334 hours on the evening of 5 Dec. She then forwarded it under cover of an email, to Evans, Hynd, MacKinnon, and an unnamed lawyer. The email stated: “As discussed earlier today, I’ve made some revisions to the process.”

06 Dec: Richards, met with Ms B and shared with her the content of the revised 8th draft procedure, seeking and gaining from Ms B confirmation that had the procedures been in place at the time she claimed she had been sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.

06 Dec: Mackinnon, met with Ms A and after sharing the draft procedures gained from her confirmation that had the new procedures been in place at the time she was sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.

06 Dec: At 0528 hours Evans emailed Richards, Hynd, and a third person writing, “Spoke with John S (Swinney?) last night. We agreed you would send up tweaked codes in draft without any letters just now. and as discussed, info on the steps and touchpoints involved in the process also useful. Keep me posted back in the office tomorrow but happy to talk. John (Swinney?) also I’m sure.”

Afternote 1: Evans told the inquiry team that she did not see a “natural role” for Special Advisor (Liz Lloyd) in the Scottish Government response to the judicial review brought by Alex Salmond. But a freedom of information response listed 17 meetings at which lawyers involved in the judicial review met with Nicola Sturgeon or senior staff, with Liz Lloyd present at three meetings in Oct and Nov 2018. Evans, faced with the facts, was forced to correct her evidence to confirm that Nicola Sturgeon’s political special advisor, Liz Lloyd, did fully participate in meetings at which the allegations against Alex Salmond were discussed.

Afternote 2: Somers told the inquiry that he had no involvement in the development of the procedure used against Alex Salmond. This is not true. Somers, in his capacity as Sturgeon’s Principal Private Secretary, had a key role in developing the policy at a critical time.

5 Dec 2017: The “letters” that Somers was subsequently instructed “not” to send to Sturgeon were the “tweaked codes” which Somers and Hynd had been instructed by Evans to draft in line with the procedure as it had existed prior to her discussion with Somers, and for the purpose of intimating the new procedure to former Ministers and former First Ministers when it would be approved by the First Minister in due course. The “letters” disappeared from the development process after the discussions and the Scottish Government has persistently refused to disclose the contents.

Exactly what comprised the “steps and touchpoints involved in the process” was discussed by Evans and Somers but the content remains guesswork since no-one at the Inquiry asked Somers, or has ever asked Evans, what was meant by these terms. But what is clear is that both Evans herself and Somers were “happy to talk” to Richards, Hynd, and the third person about these “steps and touchpoints” in the radically recast procedure.

There is a hugely significant context of the very obvious involvement of Somers, acting on behalf of Sturgeon, in the development, actually, in the complete recast of the procedure. For now, it is worth noting that Somers’s evidence on affirmation was given, as Somers himself pointed out, with the specific advance endorsement of the Scottish Government. Civil Service jargon for “not my words govn’r!!””

05 Dec: First contact between the SG and Police Scotland was initiated by the Deputy Director of People, Ms Judith McKinnon, who on 5th December emailed the Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS), Head of Public Protection at Police Scotland.

An email response was sent on the same date and a physical meeting was arranged, which took place on 6th December, attended by the Deputy Director of People, Ms Judith MacKinnon, the DCS, the Chief Superintendent (CS), Local Policing Commander for Edinburgh Division and Detective Superintendent (DSU) for Edinburgh Division.

In addition to the email contact between Ms Judith McKinnon and the DCS and latterly to the DSU on the dates above, a number of telephone conversations and email exchanges took place between McKinnon, and the DSU on 30th January 2018; 31st January 2018; 18th April 2018; 19th April 2018; 1st August 2018; 2nd August 2018 and 3rd August 2018. The initial email contact indicated that advice was being sought on the SG approach to sexual harassment procedures responding to the #metoo movement, and, SG obligations in response to allegations made by staff or former staff which may constitute a criminal offence.

06 Dec: McKinnon, was provided with information in respect of the existing reporting mechanism within the Scottish Parliament. The mechanism had been established in response to UK wide media reporting of alleged inappropriate conduct involving members of the UK Parliament.

The mechanism had been established in response to UK wide media reporting of alleged inappropriate conduct involving members of the UK Parliament. A ‘hotline’ number had been launched by the Scottish Parliament that day which directed callers to support agencies and, where appropriate, the police. The ‘hotline’ did not report matters directly to the police but would instead direct callers to contact ‘101’ or ‘999’ in an emergency. McKinnon, was also provided with the advice that any potential victim or complainer should be provided with details of support and advocacy services. which would allow concerns to be discussed with an experienced advocacy worker with knowledge of the criminal justice process and to support the individual to report matters to the police. Advice was also given that where criminality was suspected, individuals should be directed to support and advocacy services, to enable them to make informed decisions about whether or not to report matters to the police. This advice was reiterated on several occasions throughout the ongoing contact between December 2017 and August 2018.

A number of hypothetical questions were posed during email and telephone contact around the criminal justice process. Police Scotland advised that, without specific details, no appropriate response could be given and no assessment of risk could be made. It was further emphasised that individuals should be directed to the relevant support services as it appeared that the hypothetical questions were predicated upon a specific set of circumstances and the SG response to that set of circumstances, rather than development of a generic procedure. The hypothetical questions also suggested more than one victim of potential criminality and as such, it was stressed that, without knowledge of the detail, any risk that a suspect might present, could not be properly assessed or mitigated. It was highlighted that SG staff were not trained to undertake such investigations, or to engage with victims. No details of potential victims or perpetrators were provided by SG and, throughout the contact, Police Scotland encouraged SG to refer victims to appropriate support services. Police Scotland was not invited to provide comment in relation to a draft ‘procedure’ or framework for the handling of harassment complaints, nor was any draft or final document shared with Police Scotland.

On Tuesday 21st August 2018, complaints against the former First minister were formally referred to Police Scotland by the Crown Agent. This took place during a meeting at the Crown Office, Edinburgh, involving the Crown Agent, the Chief Constable and the DCS, Head of Public Protection. The SG did not refer matters directly to Police Scotland.

Afternote 1:

Evidently the Scottish Government had no interest in developing a comprehensive procedure covering harassment in the workplace. Discussions between Scottish Government representatives and the police centred on a number of hypothetical incidents each of which provided indication that a particular former senior politician was the subject under discussion. The police backed off and raised warning signals about the SG methodology. Police Scotland went on to advise that the Scottish Government was not qualified or trained to undertake investigations on its own and any alleged victims should be directed to “support and advocacy services” who could help them decide what to do and whether to involve the police. The Scottish Government, ignored the advice and went on to conduct its own illegal and biased investigations and found Salmond guilty, and then when that illegality was about to be exposed it reported the complaints to the police AGAINST the express wishes of the complainers, and also against the rules it had itself written after taking the advice of the employees’ trade union.

Afternote 2:

Procedure: Para 19: Throughout the process, all available steps will be taken to support the staff member and ensure they are protected from any harmful behaviour. However, if at any point it becomes apparent to the SG that criminal behaviour might have occurred the SG may bring the matter directly to the attention of the Police. Also, if it became apparent that the matter being raised formed part of a wider pattern of behaviour, it may be necessary for the SG to consider involving the Police in light of the information provided. SG, as employer will not refer specific cases to the police without the knowledge/consent of the employee. Should either of these steps be necessary the staff member would be advised and supported throughout.

07 Dec: MacKinnon met with complainant Ms B.

10 Dec: Evidently there was a deadline for the submission of the procedure for the signature of the First minster and this was confirmed in yet another email and document enclosure and to the same people in which Richards wrote: “I’ve updated the timeline and this is the final version of the policy I’ve sent to Evans.” The “air” of finality clearly suggested that the civil service team, supported by legal opinion were confident it would be signed off and introduced.

12 Dec: Leslie Evans and Nicola Sturgeon met and discussed the “new” procedures.

12 Dec: Evans wrote to Sturgeon: “You wrote me on 22 Nov regarding the review of the Scottish Government’s policies and processes on sexual harassment. As we have discussed, we have a shared commitment to ensure that the arrangements that are in place are effective and contribute to the work already in hand to promote an inclusive and respectful culture across the Scottish Government.

Your letter, in particular, asked me to consider as part of the review, ways in which any concerns raised by staff about the conduct of current or former Ministers could be addressed. I have developed, for your agreement, a process for how complaints of harassment, including sexual harassment, might be taken forward.

This new process aims to ensure that I am able to fulfil my duty of care to staff by taking the necessary steps to support the member of staff and to put in train any further action that might be required within the civil service as a result of the issues raised.

As far as current Ministers are concerned, the process will also assist you in taking forward your responsibilities under the Scottish Ministerial Code.

It also sets out how complaints against former Ministers will be handled. Given that the process engages the responsibility of the First Minister for the application of the Ministerial Code, we will seek approval for the ongoing application of the process on each occasion the Ministerial Code is updated.

I should be grateful to learn if you are content to adopt the process set out in the annex. As you have requested, I am happy to update the Cabinet about the outcome of the review whenever you wish.

14 Dec: 0841. Richards emailed Private Secretary (2) to Evans, Hynd, Mackinnon, and the Head of Branch, Peoples Directorate: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. I’ve amended the letter and policy in line with our exchange. If this looks OK I’d like first for us to run this past the unions before the final exchange with the First Minister.

I think I would just share the part about current ministers because that is what would form part of our revised F@W policy. I think the former minister’s process is more for us to know what we would do rather than to have out there as a published policy. Although we would share it if asked.

I copied in Head of Branch, People Directorate (1) and Judith because I’ll be on leave from close today. It would be good to get this tied up quickly. Head of Branch, People Directorate (1) – in preparation for sharing this with the unions could you abstract the current ministers part? cheers Nicky.

14 Dec: 1043. Hynd emailed Richards, Private Secretary 2, Mackinnon and, Head of Branch Peoples Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. Thanks for this. Some formatting wrinkles had crept in which I have now sorted in the attached version (‘final’). Other than the removal of references to ‘sexual’, the text remains the same as that which went to the First Minister and on which she commented.

14 Dec: 1120. Private Secretary 2 to Evans emailed Hynd, Richards, MacKinnon, and Head of Branch, Peoples Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. I’ve just spoken with Hynd about another few small adjustments – just to ensure using consistent terms throughout. Nothing substantive. Hynd is kindly making those adjustments and will circulate the final version shortly so Head of Branch, People Directorate 1 you may wish to hold off your preparation of the version for Unions meantime.

In terms of timing to the First Minister, we will put the procedure to the First Minister once we have the green light from Richards. If we want to appraise the Permanent Secretary of timings and sharing with Unions, she is tied up in interviews today till 15:00 and then on leave until Tuesday – but contactable.

14 Dec: 11:32. Hynd emailed Private Secretary 2 to Evans, Richards, Mackinnon, and Head of Branch, People Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. Dear all. With sincere and deepest thanks to Private Secretary 2 to Evans, here is yet another ‘final’ version.

20 Dec: The First minister signed off the new procedure.

Alex Salmond torments Nicola Sturgeon over what she knew of assault claims | News | The Times

Categories
Uncategorized

Gender Bendering – Why No Debate For Scots?

 

 

 

Gender Bendering

The views of the vast majority of Scots have been bypassed by politicians at Holyrood who are determined to impose gender neutralism on the nation. It appears other governments in the UK are ready to embrace and legislate in the same way. The portents for the future health and wellbeing of our nation are unhealthy. But there is a better solution. Ask the people to decide the way forward in a referendum. Thank goodness the Australians have seen sense.

Gender Bender - The EYE

 

 

18 March 2021: Use of Distorted Gender Neutral language Banned in Australia

The Australian Senate passed a motion banning the use of “distorted” gender-neutral language in official government materials. It stated:

“Fundamental biology and relationships are represented through the following descriptors – mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, boy, girl, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, female, male, man, woman, lady, gentleman, Mr, Mrs, Ms, sir, madam, dad, mum, husband, wife broad scale genuine inclusion cannot be achieved through distortions of biological and relational descriptors.

An individual’s right to choose their descriptors and pronouns for personal use must not dehumanise the human race and undermine gender.

The use of distorted language such as gestational/non-gestational parent, chest-feeding, human milk, lactating parent, menstruators, birthing/non-birthing parent is deprecated and all federal government and federal government funded agencies are not to include these terms in their material, including legislation, websites, employee documentation and training materials”.

The motion was debated in Parliament following a furore over the 2020 publication by the “Gender Institute” of the “Australian National University”, of its “Gender-Inclusive Handbook”, which said that the terms “mother” and “father” should be replaced with “gestational” and “nongestational” parent.

Meanwhile, a UK hospital last month issued similar “gender-inclusive” language guidelines, telling staff to use terms like “birthing parents”, “human milk” rather than “mother’s milk”, “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” to avoid offending transgender people.

Gender Bender Intro 2013-2014 - YouTube

 

Green Party Senator Janet Rice slammed the government for voting in favour of the “bigoted” motion which denied the identity of trans and non binary people. Adding. “What happened to governing for all Australians? Scumbags!” (paraphrased: Frank Chung, News Australia)

Top 5 Gender Bender Outfits for your #GradTrip ...

 

Australia Speaks (The response from news readers was overwhelmingly in favour of the actions of the Government. Examples below:

So to not offend the 0.005% of the population, we demean and offend 99.5% of the population? seldom heard anything wackier in my 65 yrs…selfish, self-centred, distorted and unnatural.

Finally the tide is starting to turn against this madness. How did it even get to this, where our children worry that calling a biological female a girl or woman might offend someone?????

The Greens (extreme left wing Marxists) are a very dangerous group. Their goal is to destroy western society and cause anarchy, so they can set up their own government and be dictators. They want to control everyone and not allow freedom of thought, freedom of expression or free speech. They want to fine and jail everyone who does not agree with them. The book ‘1984’ comes to mind. The Greens want censorship of books, to ban films and ban anything they don’t like (reminds me of another time in history history in Germany). They want to “cancel” (destroy the lives) of everyone who disagrees with them. I’m surprised the Greens are not formally declared a terrorist organisation and banned.

Thank goodness it passed. Political correctness to appease minority’s ideas will create a generation of confused people when these kids grow up. Chest milk, gestational parents are all bullshit terms.

Last time I looked it was still called breast cancer, not chest cancer, but that would also be correct as men get chest cancer.

Time to take a stand against PC rubbish. Well done. Shame on Janet Rice for her language. Oh, that’s right, she’s left so it’s ok. Not.

The “inclusive language” leftists champion is just woke speak for the leftist elite and is solely used to exclude others who don’t agree with their ideology. It has zero to do with protecting people’s feelings.

That’s interesting, because one can’t get the truth from a Liberal or National party politician and you agree with them ….. best you have a rethink on your standards in life very quickly.

Just who is furious at common sense prevailing. We need to push back against stupidity

Good to hear some common-sense finally! PC has gone too far & it is confusing for our children to work it out.

About time someone stood up to this leftist woke bulldust! And also, calling other party members scumbags is Absolute hypocrisy!

Typical of the left. We must respect their version of normal but they can insult us when we stand up for ours.

Ok so Janet Rice has gone through the experience of her husband Peter transitioning to Penny. He/she died 2 years ago, so no negative comments from me. They have 2 sons. She is definitely qualified to talk about the thoughts and feelings of trans people and put forth their opinions. However, just because she has strong opinions, that should not overshadow the very vast majority of the population. For her to put forth the idea of removing everyday terminology because of her small circle of family/friends, is as selfish and irrational as someone asking that society stop reading and writing and only use braille as they think their blind friends will feel better about themselves.

All must be made to suffer to meet their demands. That is the twisted world they live in.

It is great individuals can still be protected in a society for their human right lawful way. A contributing foundation of a civil environment is protection from annihilation of the primary basics of humankind.

When I was in high school, a few decades ago, we were taught that there are only 2 biological genders, and to create a new life requires one of each. No matter how you ‘slice and dice it’, there are only 2 biological genders. How people want to be known throughout their life is up to them, but for goodness sake, stop trying to erase the majority who identify with their biological gender just to appease the minority.

All this talk of violence against women lately, and here you have Janet Rice trying to cancel and erase them entirely.

The next logical step is for the Federal government to mandate that everyone must use the toilets and changing rooms that correspond to their birth sex, and that transgender people must only compete in sports in events that correspond to their birth sex. That’s something I want to see.

Gender bender branding: male, female or both?

 

Categories
Uncategorized

Scotland-North Britain in all but name Under the Unionists

 

How Boris Johnson became Britain's most powerful prime minister since Tony Blair

 

Holyrood to be side-lined then shut down

The May 2021 Scottish General Election is a critical moment in time since the outcome will decide the survival or closure of Holyrood and it is imperative that Scots elect politicians with fire in their bellies taking forward the fight for independence. The established SNP is well able to provide good government but there are reservations about its lack of drive and a growing disenchantment with long serving politicians who appear to be content with arrangements for devolved government as they are and a wake-up call is needed. This would best be delivered by the election of hard-line pro-independence MSP’s through the “list” system. But with only a few weeks left before the election the portents are not favourable to Scots who desire change and progress.

General election LIVE: Boris Johnson promises to 'forge a new Britain' at manifesto launch | Politics News | Sky News

 

Rule Britannia – Never trust a Unionist

Post Brexit the Unionist parties continue to “sing” from the same despised constitutional hymn sheet defying the aspirations of many Scots who wish to withdraw from a “Treaty of Union” forced upon their forebears. The Unionists are aware that England’s hold over Scotland is only political, in their hearts and minds Scots will never hand over their nationality to another State.

Mindful of the need to keep the natives in North Britain happy the Unionist Parties issued a statement saying: “The Scottish Parliament is a fact and it will remain in place, and it will be able to legislate and implement policies for the newly reduced devolved responsibilities. A Tory government will not interfere with that. It will continue to govern Scotland with respect. Scots will see that and that will consolidate our support in the medium to longer term”.

The key words to note in the statement are “newly reduced devolved responsibilities” since they expose the duplicity of Unionist politicians, of all political persuasions. The Tory Government has been evolving strategies for the removal of devolved government from Scotland from May 2010.

SNP poster uncannily similar to Thatcher's | Scotland | The Times

 

The man behind the strategy is anglicised Scotsman Andrew Dunlop

The quiet man of UK politics. He has been closely associated with the Conservative Party for most of his adult life. He was a special adviser to the Defence Secretary (1986–88) and a member of Margaret Thatcher’s Policy Unit (1988–1990).

The demise of Thatcher brought his budding career to a halt and he moved away from active politics to found and develop his own strategic communications consultancy business. Over 20 years later he sold the business, for a very tidy sum of money, to the Brussels-based Interel Group (lobbyists).

The return to power of the Tory Party in 2010 sparked his interest in politics once again and he linked up with his friend and former colleague David Cameron, in his former role of special advisor, with specific responsibility as the principal adviser on Scotland and devolution.

He was elevated to the House of Lords in 2015 allowing Cameron to take him into government, where he served as a minister in the UK Government as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland between 2015 and 2017.

He is a member of the UK Constitution Committee and an Expert Member of the UK Civilian Stabilisation Group and retaining close contact with Scottish affairs he is currently a Board member of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

An avid supporter of Boris Johnson he is the brains behind Tory Government policies in Scotland. In this respect, he revealed his thinking in a speech, in the Lords, during a debate on the “possible effects of Brexit on the stability of the Union of the parts of the United Kingdom”.

He said:

“Attention should be paid to the machinery of intergovernmental relations, which needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at the cross-UK synergies, weakened since devolution, which need to be reinvigorated.”

“We need to pursue a decentralised, pan-UK strategy for rebalancing the economy, driven by city regions across the country. This means moving away from seeing everything through a four-nation prism.”

“Many of the problems confronting Glasgow, for example, are similar to those of Manchester or Birmingham. They provide embryonic structures which can be built upon.

“There are two years until the next Holyrood elections. Strengthening our union must be an urgent priority whatever our post-Brexit future.”

https://caltonjock.com/2015/05/26/andrew-dunlop-the-murky-world-of-the-lobbyists ( This is a long but very enlightening read)

Andrew Dunlop, Baron Dunlop - Wikipedia

 

The 2014 Independence Referendum campaign – A lookback at the lies of the Unionist “you’ve never had it so good” strategy

“Better Together”: “Scots enjoy membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.” “The process for removing Scotland’s EU citizenship is? Voting “Yes.”

Ruth Davidson: “I think it is disingenuous of the Nationalists to say that “No” means out and “Yes” means in, when actually the opposite is true, “No” means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

David Cameron, Unionist Party Leaders & Ruth Davidson: “Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how Scotland is governed.”

The illegal promises of the Unionists in the purdah period. The Party Leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament, but the award was predicated by a “No” vote on 18 September 2014. Which they got. The subsequent legislation retained 70% of Scottish taxes and 85% of Scottish welfare spending in the hands of the Westminster government.

The cross-party Devolution (Further Powers) Committee said: “The Scotland Bill falls short in critical areas.”

A “YouGov” poll found that only 9 per cent of Scots believed that the promise of “extensive new powers” had been delivered. The passage through Westminster of the 2015 Scotland Bill was torturous. 56 Scottish MP’s, representing a majority of Scots, tabled in excess of 100 suggested amendments to the Scottish Bill. Mundell, then Scottish Secretary of State, rejected every proposal. The entire process was a joke.

Ruth Davidson's rapid rise from ex-journalist to Scottish Tory leader

 

Shipbuilding

Before the referendum, the “No” campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a “Yes” vote. The propoganda included the wide distribution of a leaflet saying “Separation Shuts Shipyards” and promising that only a “No” vote would ensure Govan and Scotstoun would get the order for thirteen Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

In November 2015, the media reported that the programme would be slashed because funding needed to be diverted from ship building to fund the aged and obsolete nuclear submarine fleet and trident weaponry. Later that month the UK government announced that the number of frigates to be built was reduced from thirteen to eight. 800 clydeside workers were subsequently made redundant. From that time the project has been repeatedly delayed and the number of ships to be built further reduced.

Ruth Davidson to resign as leader of Ruth Davidson Party – Business for Scotland

 

Energy

David Cameron heavily promoted a referendum “No” vote on the basis that: “when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.

Before the referendum Edward Davey the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs -generating energy and generating jobs”.

In June 2015 the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned. The report also advised that Siemens, a German “clean energy” company had announced it would not invest in any further renewables projects in the UK until the UK Government had decided whether energy generation would be through investment in nuclear energy or wind and hydro. Sotland hammered again!!!

What a mess Douglas Ross has made for himself - Euan McColm | The Scotsman

 

HMRC Employment

Before the referendum it was claimed that HMRC delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland and that this would be at risk by a “Yes” vote. In 2015 the UK Government announced the closure of many HMRC offices – 2,000 Scottish jobs went.

Douglas Ross is not well-liked, whatever the Tories say | The National

 

Civil service jobs

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that only the UK Government protected civil service jobs in Scotland. But information in “SPICe” exposed the lie. Between 2011 and 2015, there was a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland, 17.5% than in any other UK nation. The rate in England was 12.4%, Wales 9.3% and Northern Ireland 16.1%.

EXCL Top grassroots Tory says Michael Gove likely to lose leadership race over Brexit extension pledge

 

Carbon capture

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as the programme to support the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage.” The commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.

Deciding on a nuclear energy future the Westminster Government abruptly cancelled the investment. Peterhead and Longannet, the front runners lost out. Canada didn’t hang about and developed the technology.

Michael Gove will SURVIVE Boris Johnson's New Year reshuffle | Daily Mail Online

 

Social security

Before the referendum, Better Together suggested that independence would be a threat to the welfare state saying: “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland ” with a “No” vote.

Less than a year later the UK Government Chancellor announced £12bn cuts in welfare and benefits. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”. The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

Michael Gove says Dominic Cummings is 'a man of honour and integrity' | Metro News

 

EVEL

In the weeks before the Referendum Scots were “love bombed” by tv personalities, pop music performers, politicians and heads of state of other countries with the heart tugging message that Scots were an integral and equal part of the UK “family of nations” and a tearful pleas of “please don’t go, we love you.

Only eight hours after after the referendum result was published Cameron announced the Unionist Party’s answer to the “West Lothian” question. Acts of parliament would be implemented, without delay, introducing English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) forming two tiers of parliamentarians in the House of Commons. The ill-judged changes created a myriad of potential political strife situations where Scottish MPs would not be able to properly consider and vote on legislation relevant to Scotland such as the Barnett formula or Barnett consequentials since this would be classified as English only.

A very British betrayal – POLITICO

 

Barnett Formula

The Vow, which was signed up to by each of the three main parties at Westminster clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory MEP David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” – raising the spectre of Tory government at Westminster initiating a systematic and cynical erosion of Scotland’s finances. One time Tory leadership candidate Michael Gove again raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

Petition · Veto your party leader's pledge to preserve Scotland's Barnett Formula funding advantage · Change.org