Month: April 2021

 

The Harassment Inquiry

Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance before the Inquiry lasted just short of eight hours and at it’s end the knowledge and understanding of events that gave title to the debacle that cost the Scottish taxpayer in excess of £1.5m had not been added to one bit.

Sturgeon showboated with a vengeance seizing the narrative and delivering a carefully choreographed display of ostentatious behaviour designed to divert the attention of the Inquiry and television viewers away from the abject performance of herself, her Spad’s and senior civil servants.

Her cavalier “devil may care” attitude most certainly attracted attention but any admiration for her faded in consequence of her persistent blatant, inaccurate and unwarranted attacks on the character of Alex Salmond. A tactic not employed by Alex Salmond at the time he gave evidence to the Inquiry.

Her stubborn defence of the indefensible was breath-taking in its insolence in her dismissal of a senior judge’s opinion that the hastily compiled ill judged and badly botched “lookback” disciplinary procedures were “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair” and “tainted with apparent bias”.

Conversely her “Shirley Temple” act was excruciatingly bad. Her quivering bottom lip as she described the many benefits, professional and personal, her close working relationship with her “Bestie” friend had brought her.

Only in the next breath to castigate Alex for his detestable behaviour towards women. A wholly unfair judgement by herself and people with “axes to grind” against Alex. And one which led to him being hounded by accusers bearing false witness against him.

 

Alex Salmond’s Day in Court

Salmond took the stand and told the court “there was no policy” which would stop women from working with him alone, as suggested to the court earlier in the trial.

He went on to say that his private office was like a family environment but subject to “extreme political pressure” and there was no “9-5” working pattern.

Asked about an alleged assault a complainer had brought to the court he said: “over the passage of time I think the incident is misremembered…it was a joke. Hi jinks, a piece of fun.”

Asked about an alleged knee touch in the first minister’s private car, he told the court he would have had to have stretched over a seat and a wide armrest which would have been seen by others in the car. Adding, “It would be impossible not to have been seen”.

On another charge he said he would gently tug the hair of one of the complainers from time to time “but there was no sexual element to it.”

Asked if he stroked the face of another complainer, in a car during a foreign visit, Salmond said, “yes I did. She had fallen asleep and rather than shake her I stroked her cheek to wake her up. Asked if it was “sexual”, he told the court “absolutely not I stroked her face with the sole intention of waking her up.”

Asked about an alleged touching in a restaurant against a woman, he said, “I gave the woman a gentle shove to get her moving when her group kept pausing for no good reason” he gave a woman a “gentle shove” to “get her moving” when their group had paused while moving.

Salmond told the court he did not kiss a woman on the lips, as alleged, because of the “public” nature of where the alleged incident occurred, (prize giving at a gala) it would have been “insane” for him to have acted as alleged.

He told the court he had received as a gift, a few bottles of Maotai, a potent Chinese “rice” drink. At the end of a long evening, in Bute House, after dealing with “Chinese business” he suggested to one of the complainers that they share a few glasses and she agreed. They overindulged, underestimated the potency of the alcohol and ended up quite drunk. They both dozed off on a bed enjoying a “sleepy cuddle”.

Asked why they behaved so he said. “I don’t know. It should not have happened. It was only a cuddle. My left arm was around her shoulder. But we were both fully dressed. I woke up with a start and stood up. She got to her feet and collected a folder. I kissed her on the cheek. She left to go downstairs. That was the end of the encounter. I had no intention whatsoever of having non-consensual sex,”

The court was shown entries from Salmond’s diary from 2014, in relation to an allegation made against him by Woman H. He launched an alibi of not being in the location at the time of the alleged offence. His QC suggested to him that: “Your position is that the allegation is a lie.” He replied: “That’s correct”

Asked repeatedly if he gave any consideration to an accuser’s feelings when he took hold of her hands and said “let’s recreate this Christmas card?” he repeatedly told the court it was a “joke”, “hijinks” and added: “I assumed she would find the circumstances as funny as I did.” His QC, suggested to him that “innocent events” had been turned “into sexual offences” and Salmond agreed.

Salmond admitted to the court that there had been a “blurring of boundaries” between staff in his private office and civil servants but “nothing sexual” and went on to say that he wished he had been more careful about people’s personal space but the accusations against him were “fabrications.”

 

The entire case was created with malice aforethought

In his closing speech Gordon Jackson QC, said one alleged victim, a senior official in the Scottish government, had not told anyone that Alex Salmond groped her until the elapse of many years after the alleged incident. “This stinks, absolutely stinks,” And the accusations showed a distinct pattern whereby incidents that nobody had, at the time or since, until now, considered reporting to the police were now being aired in the High Court.

“There is something that doesn’t smell right about the whole thing,” he said. Addressing an allegation that Alex Salmond had assaulted, with intent to rape, a civil servant, as an example of the pattern, the QC said that the woman had sought and received an apology from the former First Minister over the incident which was then considered closed. And at the time “there was no thought of any kind of the police being involved”.

Gordon Jackson QC, went on to say “every single complainer who’s been brought to this trial worked in Alex Salmond’s high pressure political bubble And these accusations emanated from it without any independent confirmation of support of any kind.”

Senior prosecutor Alex Prentice QC told the court that the evidence against Alex Salmond added up to a “cohesive, compelling and convincing course of conduct” that showed him to be a sexual predator of “escalating gravity”.

Gordon Jackson QC, said that despite Mr Prentice’s use of “emotive language” like “abuse” and “predator”, the evidence showed a very different picture of minor incidents that had “grown arms and legs”. “There’s a pattern all right, but it’s not that suggested by the prosecution”.

He went on to say that one charge of sexual assault making claim that Alex Salmond “touched” a much younger female civil servant had “without doubt” been introduced by the prosecution to add weight to the two more serious allegations of attempted rape and assault with intent to rape that “in themselves were rubbish”.

Gordon Jackson acknowledged that Alex Salmond had acted inappropriately on occasion, but allegations of sexual assault with intent to rape, against a total of nine women against him stemmed from the “political bubble” he operated in and some of the cases against him were “absolute stinkers”. Adding, “the issues before this court is not whether he should have been a better man, because he certainly could have been.

We are dealing with whether or not it has been established that he is guilty of serious, sometimes very serious, criminal charges. This has gone far enough, gone on long enough, too long maybe, it is time, I say to you quite bluntly, to bring this travesty to an end.”

 

The verdict of the jury

Alex Salmond was found not guilty of 12 charges and not proven on a single charge.

 

Another “Hi-Jinks” working environment

The culmination of a decade-long campaign against racist and misogynistic culture in the Caithness office of Marine Scotland occurred in 2010 when DeeAnn Fitzpatrick complained for the umpteenth time about harassment.

She said she had been taped to a chair and gagged by colleagues and had a photograph to substantiate her allegation of bullying. An internal investigation by Marine Scotland managers found the men had “no case to answer” and dismissed the incidences as forming part of a “high jinks” culture.

During the inquiry, staff claimed that one of a number of pranks involved wrapping colleagues in sticky tape if they fell asleep during night or late shifts. Ms Fitzpatrick denied she had been a willing participant, but soon found herself under investigation for alleged gross misconduct. She was dismissed from the service.

Comment:

The “hi-jinks” working environment was common-place in many divisions and offices throughout the Civil Service in Scotland up to the time of the 2017 “Me2” campaign which encouraged management to get serious about equal rights in the workplace and move away from the male dominated culture so prevalent within the Service. Change has been achieved resulting in much improved harmonious workplaces.

Wise heads ruled at the top of the Civil Service and remedial measures have been agreed and implemented without the imposition of any divisive and unlawful “lookback” procedures.

Well done the Civil Service senior management. But the badly flawed and unlawful “lookback” procedure developed for former Government Minsters remains in place, but unused, at the insistence of Nicola Sturgeon who appears determined to save face.

 

 

The SNP Membership and Disciplinary Procedures

Peter Murrell, the Chief Executive of the SNP is married to Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of the Scottish Government. An arrangement unique and deprecated in Western democracies since it blurs the division of responsibility and in consequence can lead to a form of Government detrimental to the health and well being of the electorate.

In January 2021, in a statement to the Holyrood Harassment Inquiry, Peter Murrell categorically stated that Party policy dictated the policing of complaints within the Party was the responsibility of the Party Executive and it did not share case details with any other organisation unless the complaint highlighted a “clear act of criminality”, and at no time in the Autumn of 2017 did the Party inform any Scottish Government civil servant or special advisor of a complaint by a Party member against a minister of the Government.

 

Except when she who must be obeyed says otherwise

02 Nov 2017: Mark Macdonald, MSP and Government Minister, was invited to attend a meeting with Deputy First Minister, John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, at which he was informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “MeToo” movement.

03 Nov 2017: The rules of conduct pertaining to Special Advisers created a conflict of interest when Liz Lloyd, Special Advisor and Chief of Staff to the First Minister convened a second meeting with Mark at which she briefed him about a sexual harassment complaint that had been lodged against him by a Party member. She went on to advise his position as a minister of the government was no longer tolerable and he would need to resign. The conduct of Liz Lloyd breeched the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors and should have resulted in her immediate dismissal.

 

It also begged the questions?

Why was the complaint not dealt with by Peter Murrell, since it had been lodged by a Party member to a Party official and was therefore a Party matter?

Who authorised her actions?

Where did she get her information from?

The questions remain unanswered at the beginning of March 2021.

04 November 2017: Nicola Sturgeon phoned Mark in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign from the Government that evening, which he did.

16 Nov 2017: Mark was suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him. Both events were investigated and decided on by the SNP without reference to the Scottish Government.

Comments: Why is Liz Lloyd still in post? The sequence of events provided a template that should have been applied to complaints against Alex Salmond by Ms A and MS B.

 

Nicola Sturgeon’s commitments in Office

In relation to ensuring that there is a clear distinction between my role as First Minister and my role in the SNP, I have regard to the terms of both the MSP and Ministerial Codes of Conduct. My Special Advisers abide by the terms of the Special Advisers’ Code of Conduct and the Civil Service Code. In relation to the question about Scottish Government communication and records, this is covered by Scottish Government procedures on the recording and retention of information. The SNP communicates with its post holders in the normal ways – including meetings, emails and phone calls. The safeguard to ensure this is distinct from government communications are the relevant Codes that MSPs, Ministers and Special Advisers are bound by. To be clear, members of the public often email my SNP or MSP accounts about government business and I forward these to my ministerial private office. On any other occasions when I email my ministerial private office or special advisers from my personal email – eg with diary queries or information requests – these will be to a Scottish Government email account and retained in line with standard procedures. And all government business, no matter the platform/medium it is conducted
on/through, is subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

 

 

The gathering storm

The Westminster Government’s underhand decision to further emasculate the government of Scotland through the establishment of a UK Government in Scotland, right in the heart of Edinburgh, presents new challenges for Scottish supporters of the devolved Scottish Government and its already limited powers.

Powers greatly reduced from January 2021 after Brexit are in breach of the “Vow” signed by Prime Minister David Cameron, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband, which was published only two days before the 2014 referendum warping the outcome, leading to a “no” vote, the creation of the Smith Commission and devolution of significant new powers to Scotland.

The Westminster government’s betrayal of the principles of the “Vow” might yet be the catalyst that drives Scots to pursue through the UN a unilateral withdrawal from the 1707 Treaty of Union and full independence or at the very least another referendum and Scots must learn from the mistakes of the past before that time.

There needs to be an acceptance by the Scottish Government and the electorate that there is an in-built majority of voters who favour remaining with the Union, a situation created through the immigration of people who favour retaining the status quo and the emigration of Scots  disadvantaged by living in Scotland.

Around 550,000 foreigners have chosen to live and raise their families in Scotland, but their political and personal ties remain with their country of origin as was evidenced in the 2014 referendum when a very significant majority of the group voted to remain with the Union, thwarting the will of Scots born nationals.

A future independence referendum would be similarly handicapped and action needs to be taken to nullify the adverse influence of the foreign born voting bloc.

Measures might include voting qualification to be dependent upon: Being a Scottish income taxpayer and permanently resident (not a second or holiday home) in Scotland for a minimum of 2 years.

Many Scots have been forced to move away from their homes by the punitive living conditions created through the imposition of never ending austerity policies by criminally incompetent Westminster Governments.

It is estimated that there  are approximately 750,000 Scottish born people living in England and many others worldwide.

It would be to the betterment of the cause of independence if they would be included in any future referendum a change that could be inexpensively and speedily facilitated through the creation and maintenance of an expatriate (ex-pat) register.

“Will ye no come back again” seems to be a fitting slogan for a new referendum conducted with the foregoing changes in place.

 

 

Two matters of concern (not complaints) involving Alex Salmond surface

08 Nov 2017: 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 minster or former minister and he/she was a member of the party in power, the First Minister should be informed immediately.

Afternote: At an inquiry meeting in January 2021 Hynd was questioned about his awareness of the “Meto” campaign at the time he wrote the “new” procedure and rumours about Alex Salmond’s previous behaviour. He guardedly answered: “yes, things were said”.

At the same meeting the inquiry heard from Nicola Richards, the Scottish Government, Director of People, that the “new” draft harassment policy had been provided to a woman who had gone on to lodge a complaint of sexual harassment against Mr Salmond. She said the draft policy was shared with the woman in part so she could make an “informed decision” about whether to make a formal complaint against Alex Salmond.

10 Nov 2017: Leslie Evans appointed Gillian Russell, Scottish Government, Director of Safer Communities as the “confidential sounding board” for complainers.

08–10 Nov 2017: Ms A told Gillian Russell of an incident involving herself and Alex Salmond. With the consent of Ms A, Russell updated Richards, who in turn alerted Evans and through her Mackinnon.

On the same day Ms B, advised Allison of a incident involving herself and Alex Salmond. Richards and Evans were notified.

Ms A and Ms B were determined that they were not interested in making a formal complaint about Alex Salmond, They expressed in the strongest terms that they wished only to be allowed a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. On both counts the civil service failed them and they paid the price of failure.

This is what the “new” procedure offered. Handling of Harassment Complaints Involving Current or Former Ministers:

“A civil servant may choose to raise an issue involving a current or former Minister. It is important to support the officer to achieve the outcome they seek. If may be their intention is to simply ask that their concern be acknowledged and in recognition of their experience and to assist the service, so that similar circumstances can be prevented from occurring, without proceeding to a formal complaint.”

13-15 Nov 2017: In an exchange of emails with senior civil servants, Mr Hynd reminded them that: “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”.

Afternote: It beggars belief that just about every senior civil servant in the Scottish government knew of the concerns (but not yet complaints) registered by Ms A and Ms B and their express wish to be allowed a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. And ignoring two separate warnings from Mr Hynd the day before and the one after, that Nicola Sturgeon would need to be advised promptly of any negative issue involving a minister, not one of the senior civil servants informed her. That there is no record of any disciplinary action against any of the senior managers is indicative that Nicola Sturgeon was fully advised of the wishes of Ms A and Ms B and the actions of her senior managers thereafter.

What is fact and not conjecture is that two women who never intended to make allegations against Alex Salmond were denied access to Nicola Sturgeon and instead subjected to intense pressure from senior civil service managers and other senior political and legal persons to register complaints with the assurance that they would be resolved to their satisfaction through use of the “new” all-encompassing procedures, which they had a hand in compiling. In this regard they placed their trust in and were used by the Scottish government as sacrificial lambs in a political vendetta against Alex Salmond.

 

 

 

 

 

 17 December 2018:  Joint Note by , Roddy Dunlop & Christine O’Neill, senior and Junior Counsel  for the Respondents in the Petition of Alex Salmond, Petitioner, for Judicial Review

We have drafted this note for the eyes of the Lord Advocate and Paul Cackette only.

It has been prepared in response to a series of events in the week of 10 December 2018 which led us to consider very seriously whether we were bound to withdraw from acting for the respondents in this matter.

Having given the question anxious consideration we concluded that we would be entitled to so withdraw but at this stage are not bound to do so. We introduce matters in this way to convey the seriousness of matters from our perspective. It is a matter for the recipients of this note to decide on its wider circulation but our own preference is that the note itself is not circulated more widely.

We would wish to avoid damaging working relations with the wider SGLD and Scottish Government team involved in instructing us. We also do not wish to add to any perception there may be that we are not committed to the case. We have prepared a separate note dealing with practical matters that need to be attended to and have no difficulty with that being circulated more widely.

Disclosure of documents

On Tuesday 11 December we met with counsel for the petitioner to discuss their specification of documents with a view to narrowing the scope of any order to be sought. In the course of that meeting, counsel for the petitioner were told that the redactions made to documents already disclosed had been made on the instruction of junior counsel for the respondents. We understood that to be the case.

On Wednesday 12 December, in the course of preparation for the hearing fixed for 14 December, junior counsel identified a redaction that had not been instructed by her.

The document redacted was an email chain involving Nicky Richards, [Redacted] and Gillian Russell. Two emails in the chain had been copied to a [Redacted]. We understand that the inclusion of [Redacted] in the email chain was an error arising out of a predictive email address function: [Redacted] intended to copy in Nicky Richards but [Redacted] was copied instead. [Redacted] is a former colleague of [Redacted]. Instead of the unredacted email being supplied to the petitioner’s agents and an explanation
provided for the error, the email was redacted.

The petitioner’s agents subsequently sought an explanation for the redaction and they were told that the email had been sent to a recipient in error. The issue had not been specifically flagged with counsel at the time of original disclosure or subsequently (albeit junior counsel had been copied into a draft of an email to the petitioner’s agents that answered a long list of queries about redacted documents and which made reference to an email having been wrongly addressed).

When this issue was identified on Wednesday 12 December an immediate and clear direction was given that the unredacted email should be disclosed to, the petitioner’s agents in advance of the hearing on Friday 14 December. It was intended that the disclosure should be made at the same time as a small number of additional documents, identified in the course of further searches and including an email that we had not previously seen from Ms A to the Permanent Secretary of 3 November 2018 indicating support for the Permanent Secretary’s. announcement of the review of harassment policies and expressing views on the content of that review; were also to be disclosed.

Disclosure was thought to be essential not only on grounds of candour but to try to defuse what we eared would be the reaction of the petitioner to the unredacted email. It is an email chain in which Gillian Russell asks questions of Judith Mackinnon about the circumstances in which complaints of harassment should be reported to the Police and is in the context of wider exchanges about the developing policy for handling complaints against ministers and former ministers.

We were (and remain) concerned that it will add fuel to the fire of the petitioner’s ‘conspiracy theory’.

We were both committed to other matters on Thursday 13 December (junior counsel being engaged in a debate in another matter for Scottish Government).

On the evening of 13 December, having reviewed emails that had been sent in the course of the day, junior counsel asked for confirmation that (as it appeared) the unredacted email had not been disclosed.

That confirmation was given together with an explanation that there was a concern about the GDPR implications of releasing an email with an addressee outside of the Scottish Government.

No advice had been sought from us about this issue and we had not been told proactively about the non-disclosure. After considerable discussion on Friday morning, we reached the view that we could not properly advise the Court that the Scottish Government had discharged its duty of candour. We sought and received instructions that the motion for commission and diligence should be conceded.

In advance of the hearing, and in an effort to minimise any damaging comment that might be made by counsel for the petitioner, we disclosed the unredacted email to counsel for the petitioners, tendered the explanation that had been given to us about the error and agreed to ‘lead’ in the hearing.

In the event senior counsel for the petitioner did not make reference in open court to the further disclosure. However, in relation to the motion more generally, senior counsel for the respondents felt bound to make the early concession that the petitioner was justifiably able to say that he was not satisfied that searches are exhausted.

Lord Pentland asked senior counsel for the petitioner
whether the petitioner’s concern that essentially for whatever reason the Scottish Government may not have carried out an entirely comprehensive search of any possible place where documents may be held.

Senior counsel for the petitioner, of course, concurred. It is envisaged that there will be an open commission in the course of the week of 17 December. We trust it will be obvious why this matter has given rise to such concern on our part about our ability to continue to act. Assurances had been given on a counsel to counsel basis about the reasons for redaction of documents. Counsel for the petitioner withdrew their application to have the commissioner consider redactions that had been made on grounds of legal professional privilege because they were prepared to accept the assurances given that such redactions had been made on the instruction of junior counsel.

Having identified that the assurances that had been given required qualification, we expected that our direction as to disclosure of the unredacted email would have been acted upon timeously. That it was not so disclosed left us in an extremely difficult position professionally. The way in which this has been dealt with has also been damaging to the respondents’ interests.

It is clear that the Lord Ordinary is unimpressed at being faced with a situation in which it appears that the Scottish Government has not acted with full candour and in which a commissioner has had to be appointed.

It seems inevitable that parties will now be put to expense and inconvenience of a commission. It is not yet clear whether the petitioner will accept the presence at that commission of a senior civil servant such as [Redacted] rather than, for example, the Permanent Secretary herself (as was adverted to by senior counsel for the petitioner as a possibility).

All of this is extremely frustrating because it seems to us it was entirely avoidable. Had the email been disclosed in full at the outset any questions about the circumstances in which the error was made could have been addressed at that time.

 

 

The Permanent Secretary

As was discussed at the consultation on Monday 10 November, the petitioner’s most recent adjustments have introduced a case of apparent bias against the Permanent Secretary based on her knowledge in November and December 2017 of the complaints being made by Ms A and Ms B and her knowledge of the involvement of Judith Mackinnon in the management of those complaints.

We had understood from the consultation that a full statement was to be taken from the Permanent
Secretary to allow those adjustments to be answered. After the consultation junior counsel indicated to those instructing us that the Permanent Secretary should, in particular, be taken through the documents that had been disclosed and that indicated knowledge on her part. Junior counsel asked for that statement to be available by the morning of Thursday 13 December at the latest to enable adjustments to be prepared and intimated in the course of Thursday.

By email around noon on Thursday we received a note concerning the Permanent Secretary’s position. It was not a precognition: it comprises 4 short paragraphs and it is not clear to us that it is in the Permanent Secretary’s own words.

Junior counsel prepared very limited adjustments for intimation. They do not in our view answer fully the issue of apparent bias put by the petitioner in his pleadings.

The respondents’ position on record is weaker than it might be. It is not clear to us why a full precognition has not been taken.

We have the ‘advantage’ that the Court has allowed further adjustment of the petition and answers until the week before the substantive hearing and so further adjustment is possible.

However it ought to be possible for us to put the Permanent Secretary’s position fully and clearly in early course.

We would wish to have the precognition previously discussed. As with the disclosure of documents, the approach to this aspect of matters is making it unnecessarily) difficult for us to put the respondents’ best foot forward.

Resources

We hesitate to raise matters that are not properly our province. We are concerned, however, that the difficulties that have arisen particularly (but not exclusively) in the last week have been contributed to by limitations on the resources available for management of the case at solicitor level.

We would emphasise that this is not intended as a criticism of any individual (and hence our desire to limit the circulation of this note). We are conscious that there is one principal solicitor with responsibility for management of the case. [Redacted] was previously supported by a second solicitor [Redacted] but we understand that solicitor is [Redacted]. It seems clear to us that the further preparations that will be needed particularly in the organisation of documents requires additional resource dedicated to this case.

 

17 Dec 2018: Scottish government advised by legal counsel that action against Alex Salmond is indefensible

The Legal Advisors to the Scottish government, Roddy Dunlop QC and Christine O’Neill, Solicitor Advocate, wrote a joint letter outlining Alex Salmond’s approach to the hearing, saying:

It has become increasingly clear that the approach of Alex Salmond in this matter is one which may appropriately be described as a “scorched earth” one. It is clear that there is no concern on his part as to who might be criticised, or harmed, as a result of these proceedings and we understand that this is well understood by those, in the crosshairs most obviously the Permanent Secretary and the First Minister. If instructions are to proceed notwithstanding then so be it.

We are not yet in a position where we are professionally unable to mount a defence. We are, however, perilously close to such a situation and are firmly of the view that at least one of the challenges mounted by Alex Salmond will be successful.

We have been told that other legal opinion (the Lord Advocate) available to the government advises that there are other aspects to the case which justify the running of a defence and that, accordingly, there is no prospect of the petition being conceded. That decision is not for us to take and as long as informed consent is given the decision to proceed is one which we must obey.

Afternote: So Ms A and Ms B, the complainers were never more than vehicles to which Sturgeon and her government hitched their campaign. They were expendable. Sad but true!!

We are, however, entirely unconvinced as to what benefit that might arise from the hearing in January that might outweigh the potentially disastrous repercussions thereof.

Leaving aside the large expenses bill that would inevitably arise, the personal and political fallout of an adverse decision especially if, as may be the case, it is attended by judicial criticism seems to us to be something which eclipses by some way the possibility of helpful judicial comments.

A way out would be to accept (as is our genuine advice as a matter of law) that the appointment of Julia McKinnon as Investigating Officer was, whilst made in bona fide, on reflection indefensible. That would render nugatory all of the other, potentially more harmful, aspects to the challenge.

Accepting that a technical error was made could not sensibly be criticised and would protect those that might otherwise be harmed by the vigorous nature of the challenge that is to be mounted and it might help to stem the substantial expenses bill that we have no doubt is presently being incurred. Given that we genuinely cannot see the defence prevailing in any event, that seems to us to be the only sensible approach.

We are acutely aware that much of the foregoing advice has already been given by us and discounted and the decision to proceed has been taken by very experienced legal and political minds, who are entitled to proceed as they wish.

However, we are independently but also mutually unable to see that the benefits in proceeding come close to meeting the potential detriments in so doing.

Given the potential for harm we simply wish all concerned and we include the First Minister in this to be absolutely certain that they wish us to plough on regardless notwithstanding the concerns which we have outlined.

 

Panic button activated for a second time by legal counsel

19 December 2018: Joint note by Roddy Dunlop QC and Christine O’Neill (senior and Junior counsel) for the Respondents in the Petition of Alex Salmond, Petitioner, for Judicial Review

We write further to recent events. With regret, our dismay at this case deepens yet further. We will not rehearse the regrettable way in which document disclosure has unfolded. Suffice to say that we have each experienced extreme professional embarrassment as a result of assurances which we have given, both to our opponents and to the court, which assurances have been given on instructions, turning out to be false as a result of the revelation of further
documents, highly relevant yet undisclosed.

We, of course, required to consult at 9.15pm last night to discuss the ramifications thereof. This morning, the first part of the commission began. The inevitable result of the last minute disclosure of the additional documents was that the commission required to be adjourned.

The havers now cited for Friday can expect a torrid time in the witness box given the late disclosures. That comment applies in particular to Julia MacKinnon, for the reasons which follow. All of that is bad enough. However, it pales beside the revelation in the course of this morning of two further documents from Julia MacKinnon. These give rise to concerns we discussed in the last night’s consultation about the late nature of the revelation and the content.

As to the late nature of the revelation, this is unexplained, and frankly inexplicable. Given the nature of the searches described by as having been undertaken, we regret that we simply cannot understand why these documents have been made available only now. Julia MacKinnon should be warned that she will be pressed on why these documents, and indeed the OneNote extracts provided yesterday, were not both discovered and disclosed long before now.

As to their content, the two documents now made available cause us both real concern. The first is a letter from Julia MacKinnon to Ms A. It is dated 17 January 2018. It begins as follows:

“Ms A. Following this meeting you submitted a  letter dated 17 January 2018 at 2pm.”

This letter gives rise to various concerns, which we set out on an escalating basis as follows:

“The letter is dated the same day as the meeting, this must have been sent by email. Where is the email?”

This letter suggests that there must have been other communications with Ms A in advance of the meeting of 16 January 2018 or how would the meeting have been arranged? No documents in this regard have been forthcoming.

It will be recalled that at 12.19pm, Julia MacKinnon was appointed as such by email of the same date at 12.45pm. The email reads as follows:

“Julia would you be able to review this and get the investigation underway? ”

There is little doubt that it will be contended that the email is disingenuous.  The revelation causes acute difficulties regarding the way in which we have, again on instructions, pled this case.

Looking to the Record as it stands:

Ms A emailed Julia MacKinnon on 19 December 2017 informing her that she was minded to pursue a formal complaint against the petitioner. The complainer requested a meeting to discuss the practicalities of this. The respondents are called upon to aver whether and if so when that meeting took place and if it did what was discussed and/or agreed.

The respondents are called upon to aver the full extent of the instructions, we have answered those averments as follows:

“Emailed Ms A on 19 December 2017 in response to queries raised by her about the implications of making a complaint That email is produced.”

There was no further meeting with Ms A prior to 16 January 2018 when she made her formal complaint.

We cannot suggest that the highlighted averment in the answers discloses a meeting on 16 January, before the complaint was submitted. That is not what the averment says. Rather, in order to address the complaint of prior involvement, we have averred that there was no further meeting with Ms A before she made her complaint. That is, it would now appear, plainly and demonstrably SP untrue.

We have been given two draft affidavits from Julia MacKinnon. Mercifully, neither has yet been lodged.

The first (13 December 2019) contains the following:

“On 16 January 2018 Ms Richards emailed to inform me that she had received an official complaint from Ms A, with the written complaint attached. In the email she stated that she was appointing me Investigating Officer (IO). She informed me that she had told Ms A that I had been appointed and that I would be in touch. I contacted Ms A to arrange the next steps.”

The lack of any mention of the meeting of 16 January 2018 in what is meant to be a sworn affidavit for use in Court is, frankly, alarming.  The letter indicates that Julia MacKinnnon met with Ms A immediately before the complaint was submitted, and that immediately thereafter she was appointed to  investigate the complaint when she had met with Ms A only 30 minutes before to discuss it. We trust that we do not need to say any more about how that appears.

The second document now disclosed is an email chain, some of which has been seen before.

An email of 24 January 2018 at 1:56pm, from complainer Ms B to Julia MacKinnon, making her complaint. Thus far, we have seen these emails. What is yet more alarming, however, is what follows in the email chain.

By response of the same date at 2.23pm i.e. less than half an hour later Julia McKinnon responds saying that she has and will be meeting her the following day. Allowing for a need for haste, questions will inevitably arise from this.

Plainly there must have been further undocumented contact in which Julia MacKinnon agreed to meet Ms B. It is unclear whether this preceded or post dated the making of the complaint. The complaint had only just been made. No one had appointed an IO for this complaint. Julia MacKinnon effectively appointed herself in that regard.

All of this gives rise to two concerns:

1. We are now in a position where we think that maintaining a defence of the appointment of Julia MacKinnon may be unstatable (undefendable). Given the timescales we are reluctant to take a final view on this, but there is a real risk that we so conclude.

2. We are each in a position which is, so far as dealings with the other side and the court are concerned, close to untenable. Again, given the timescales we are reluctant to take a final view on this, but there is a real risk that we so conclude.

We are to meet with the Lord Advocate at 4pm and this note has been prepared in haste to allow him to consider same in advance thereof. We will leave further comment to that meeting.

 

8 January 2019: Sturgeon reluctantly accepted legal counsel advice, conceded the case and the Scottish taxpayer paid the penalty

The Scottish government admitted acting unlawfully while investigating sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond. The government admitted it breached its own guidelines by appointing an investigating officer who had “prior involvement” in the case. As a result, it conceded defeat in its legal fight. Judge Lord Pentland subsequently said that the government’s actions had been “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair” and had been “tainted with apparent bias”.

Afternote: So there it is. Sturgeon was well aware that her much vaunted “new” procedure was full of holes and had the potential to do great harm to the government and a number of senior officers in it and at the very last minute just before the start of the judicial review  she belatedly took the advice of counsel and conceded the case on one of the least damaging of the many failings highlighted to her by legal counsel. She threw Julia MacKinnon under a bus. What was particularly unedifying was the conduct of Sturgeon and Evans after losing the case when they publicly announced that Alex Salmond had got lucky, winning the case on a minor technicality, well knowing the “new” procedure had been created with the single purpose of destroying Alex Salmond was riddled with many serious errors

 

Alex Salmond

Speaking outside the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Alex Salmond said the case had resulted in “abject humiliation” for the Scottish government. Adding: “The last time I was in that court was to be sworn in as first minister of Scotland. I never thought it possible that at any point I would be taking the Scottish government to court.

Therefore while I am glad about the victory which has been achieved today, I am sad that it was necessary to take this action. This case will cost the Scottish Government in excess of £500,000 and the Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary should consider her position”

 

Roddy Dunlop QC

The Lawyer for the Scottish government, Roddy Dunlop QC, told the court:

“The investigating officer is a dedicated HR professional who acted in good faith, but she did have some contact with the complainers before being appointed to the case and this has led the government to accept there has been a failure in one aspect of the investigation, which could give the impression that they were not acting impartially. The government does not accept claims that the investigating officer assisted the complainers and provide encouragement to them to make the complaints.

 

Nicola Sturgeon

Nicola Sturgeon, arranged an early appearance on BBC television and said:

“Only in one particular aspect of the application of the procedure did the Scottish government get it wrong. There was no suggestion of any partiality in the process. and it is not my view that the Scottish government’s permanent secretary, should resign. I asked Ms Evans to draw up the new procedures for handling sexual harassment claims, which I signed off shortly before the complaints against Alex Salmond were made in January of last year.

It is deeply regrettable that we are in the situation we are in today, not least for the two complainers who had a right to expect that the process would be in every respect robust. I think the permanent secretary was absolutely right when these complaints came forward to subject them to an investigation and not to sweep them under the carpet because of the identity of the person complained about. I had no role in the process and I did not seek to intervene in it at any stage, nor indeed did I feel under any pressure to do so.

 

Leslie Evans

In a statement released immediately after the case folded, she said:

“I want to apologise to all involved for the failure in the proper application of this one particular part of the procedure, and in particular the two complainers. There is nothing to suggest that the investigating officers did not conduct their duties in an impartial way.

Unfortunately, the interactions with the complainers in advance of the complaints being made meant that the process was flawed, however impartially and fairly the investigating officer conducted the investigation.

It was right and proper that these complaints were investigated and the one procedural flaw in the investigation does not have implications, one way or the other, for the substance of the complaints or the credibility of the complainers.

It remains open to the Scottish government to re-investigate the complaints and subject to the views of the complainers it would be our intention to consider this. But only be once ongoing police inquiries have concluded”.

 

 

 

Nicola Sturgeon’s adherence to the Ministerial code of conduct

In relation to ensuring that there is a clear distinction between my role as First Minister and my role in the SNP, I have regard to the terms of both the MSP and Ministerial Codes of Conduct.

My Special Advisers abide by the terms of the Special Advisers’ Code of Conduct and the Civil Service Code.

In relation to the question about Scottish Government communication and records, this is covered by Scottish Government procedures on the recording and retention of information.

The SNP communicates with its post holders in the normal ways including meetings, emails and phone calls.

The safeguard to ensure this is distinct from government communications are the relevant Codes that MSPs, Ministers and Special Advisers are bound by.

To be clear, members of the public often email my SNP or MSP accounts about government business and I forward these to my ministerial private office.

On any other occasions when I email my ministerial private office or special advisers from my personal email eg with diary queries or information requests these will be to a Scottish Government email account and retained in line with standard procedures.

And all government business, no matter the platform/medium it is conducted on/through, is subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

 

Status and conduct of Special Advisers as temporary civil servants

Special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995.

They are exempt from the general requirement that civil servants should be appointed on merit and behave with impartiality and objectivity. But they are otherwise required to conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service Code.

As set out in the Ministerial Code, all appointments of special advisers require the prior written approval of the First Minister, and no commitments to make such appointments should be entered into in the absence of such approval.

Their appointment ends at the end of the Administration which appointed them or when the appointing Minister leaves the Government or moves to another appointment.

The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment. It is, of course, also open to the First Minister to terminate employment by withdrawing his consent to an individual appointment.

Special advisers should conduct themselves with integrity and honesty. They should not deceive or knowingly mislead Parliament or the public.

They should not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or the private interests of others.

They should not receive benefits of any kind which others might reasonably see as compromising their personal judgement or integrity.

They should not without authority disclose official information which has been communicated in confidence in Government or received in confidence from others.

The principles of public life set down by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, at Annex B, provide a framework for all public servants.

Special advisers should not use official resources for party political activity. They are employed to serve the objectives of the Government and the Department in which they work. It is this which justifies their being paid from public funds and being able to use public resources, and explains why their participation in party politics is carefully limited.

They should act in a way which upholds the political impartiality of civil servants and does not conflict with the Civil Service Code.

They should avoid anything which might reasonably lead to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes.

The highest standards of conduct are expected of special advisers and, specifically, the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks has no part to play in the job of being a special adviser as it has no part to play in the conduct of public life.

Any special adviser ever found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing Minister.

 

Extracts from the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers

As set out in the Ministerial Code, the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.

Special advisers are employed to help Ministers on matters where the work of Government and the work of the Government Party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved. They are an additional resource for the Minister providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available to a Minister from the permanent Civil Service.

 

Duties and responsibilities of Special Advisers

The sorts of work a special adviser may be called upon to do if their Minister wishes it comprise:

Reviewing papers, drawing attention to any aspect which they think has party political implications and ensuring that sensitive political points are handled properly.

Giving assistance on all aspects of departmental business, providing advice when matters arising are party political in nature.

Checking facts and research findings from a party political viewpoint.

Preparing speculative policy papers reflecting the political viewpoint of the Party.

Contributing to policy planning including ideas which extend the existing range of options available with a political viewpoint in mind.

Liaising with Party officials ensuring that policy reviews and analysis take full advantage of ideas from the Party.

Encouraging presentational activities from the Party which contribute to the Government’s and Department’s objectives.

Helping to brief Party MPs and officials on issues of Government policy.

Liaising with outside interest groups including groups with a political allegiance assisting their contribution.

Speechwriting and related research, including adding party political content to material prepared by permanent civil servants.

Representing the views of the First Minister to the media from a Party viewpoint, where they have been authorised by the Minister to do so.

Providing expert advice as a specialist in the political field.

Attending Party functions (although they may not speak publicly at the Party Conference) maintaining contact with Party members.

Taking part in policy reviews organised by the Party, or officially in conjunction with it, for the purpose of ensuring that those undertaking the review are fully aware of the Government’s views and the First Minister’s thinking and policy.

 

SNP disciplinary procedures complaints handling and the cynical dismissal of government minister Mark Macdonald

The Chief Executive of the SNP, Peter Murrell, is married to Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of the Scottish Government. An arrangement unique and universally deprecated in Western democracies since it blurs the division of responsibilities and in consequence can lead to a form of Government detrimental to the well being of the electorate.

In January 2021, in a statement to the Holyrood Harassment Inquiry, Peter Murrell categorically stated that Party policy dictated the policing of complaints within the Party was the responsibility of the Party Executive and it did not share case details with any other organisation unless the complaint highlighted a “clear act of criminality”, and at no time in the Autumn of 2017 did the Party inform any Scottish Government civil servant or special advisor of a complaint by a Party member against a minister of the Government.

02 Nov 2017: Mark Macdonald, MSP and Government Minister, was invited to attend a meeting with Deputy First Minister, John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, at which he was informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “MeToo” movement.

03 Nov 2017: The rules of conduct pertaining to Special Advisers created a conflict of interest when Liz Lloyd, Special Advisor and Chief of Staff to the First Minister convened a second meeting with Mark at which she briefed him about a sexual harassment complaint that had been lodged against him by a Party member. She went on to advise him that his position as a minister of the government was no longer tolerable and he would need to resign. The conduct of Liz Lloyd breeched the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors and should have resulted in her immediate dismissal.

It also begged the questions? Why was the complaint not dealt with by Peter Murrell, since it had been lodged by a Party member to a Party official and was therefore a Party matter? Who authorised her actions? and Where did she get her information from? The questions remain unanswered in March 2021.

04 Nov: Nicola Sturgeon phoned Mark in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign from the Government that evening, which he did.

16 Nov 2017: Mark was suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him. The entire event was investigated and concluded by the SNP without reference to the Scottish Government.

Comments: Why is Liz Lloyd still in post? The sequence of events provided a template that should have been applied to complaints against Alex Salmond but didn’t. Why?

 

Scottish Politics

Unravelling and reporting on the many plots and subterfuges of politicians is an impossible task. It is sadly often the case that they enjoy long and successful political careers within which the finger of fate may be pointed in their direction but never sticks.

This article highlights some of the players who’s influence and machinations have shaped Scottish politics to the advantage of Unionists but to the detriment of Scotland.

Malcolm Rifkind, (the leader) :

Architect of the hated “Poll Tax” 1986.

As Minister of Defence decimated the regular army transferring responsibility for the defence of the nation to “Cruise missiles” and the Territorial Army 1994.

As Foreign Secretary had charge of Britain’s secret services 1995-2000

Founder of Better Together 1998.

Out of government. Took up executive roles in a number of Security, Defence, medical companies outside parliament 2002-2004.

Armour Group, (Rifkind, Executive Director) awarded multi-million security contract in Iraq, by Jack Straw, Labour government Foreign Secretary 2004.

Recruited Andrew Fulton, ( ex MI6 senior spook) to the Armour Group in 2007.

Returned to Westminster, ( retained and expanded a number of executive roles in private companies). Appointed Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee of the House of Commons 2005-2010

Appointed, Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee (actively involved in the work of Britain’s Secret Services). Supported military action against Iraq, Libya and Syria 2010 -2015. 

Chairman of the British Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), overseeing MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – (the most important position in the UK intelligence community) has charge of the disinformation campaign.

Politicians for hire? Jack Straw & Sir Malcolm Rifkind embroiled in “cash for access” scandal. Rifkind forced to retire from politics. Straw denied place in the House of Lords.

Andrew Fulton ( ex MI6 senior spook) was sent to Scotland to assess the political situation and report back to Westminster 2008-9. Subsequently appointed Chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland. 

April 1998: Rifkind Calls for Pact to Block Nationalists

Rifkind called for the formation of a cross- party movement to protect the Union and prevent the SNP taking power. The former foreign secretary’s comments were the first clear indication that the Tory party north of the Border believed that Labour, the Tory’s and the Liberal Democrats needed to make common cause in an attempt to halt the rise of the SNP. He said: “I think there will be a need for a non-party movement in Scotland to support the Union.”

Scotland got that when “Better Together” was sent into action at the time of the 2014 Scottish Referendum. Planning had been in place from 1998!!

He also accused Labour of fostering the mood of nationalism within Scotland by exploiting “nationalist language” during its spell in opposition: “The genie is out of the bottle and, like all genies, once they are out of the bottle they are difficult to put back in.” (Highbeam)

 
2004: Former Foreign Minister Malcolm Rifkind Cashes in on Iraq Invasion

A private security company headed by former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind is making millions from a contract to protect Foreign Office staff working in Iraq, it emerged last night.

Armor Group, the biggest ‘mercenary’ security firm working in Iraq, is one of two companies that have raked in a total of £15m between them for providing round-the-clock cover in the treacherous environment of post-war Iraq during the past year.

Rifkind, the Tory candidate for Kensington and Chelsea, sparked protests from political opponents last month when he took over the chairmanship of Armor Group, which has 700 employees in Iraq. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted the UK government is financing the company to the tune of £50K each and every day providing protection to British bureaucrats stationed in Iraq.

Furious MPs condemned the outlay as “appalling value for money”, and claimed the Labour government should not be ploughing money into a controversial industry that is making huge profits as part of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. (Scotsman)

2007: Andrew Fulton (formerly MI6) became the first high-profile former spy to join a listed British company when he was appointed adviser to the Armor Group.

Early 2008: Increasing Strength of the SNP in Scotland Attracts the Attention of the Secret Services

The continued growth in nationalist support in Scotland alarmed the US and Westminster. The Labour Party was in meltdown and it was entirely possible an SNP government would be in place at Holyrood in 2009. This would bring with it calls for Scottish independence and a referendum. An anti-nationalist strategy was needed designed to neutralise any potential problems.

There were also on-going problems within the Scottish Tory Party, which had suffered yet another bad election defeat. Voices within the Party in Scotland had begun to raise the spectre of a split from Westminster control so that the Party in Scotland would revert to its former Unionist Party status forming its own distinctly Scottish policies whilst retaining a more hands off relationship with the Conservative Party at Westminster.

Andrew Fulton, (former MI6 senior agent and close colleague of Rifkind’s for many years) was identified as the most effective “agent for change” available. It was agreed he would apply himself and his extensive resources to the tasks of completing a root and branch reorganisation of the Tory party in Scotland, removing any person, (no matter how senior) who did not fully commit to Westminster Conservative Party ideals.

He would also design a long term strategy undermining the SNP government ensuring any referendum for independence would fail.

An informed insider wrote;

Fulton is a major player in the military corporate nexus. He has been placed in an overtly political position because the UK government is extremely worried about Scottish secession. He is there to coordinate the destabilisation of the SNP government. Golf and cappuccinos are just distractions, he is a very dangerous individual.

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/andrew-fulton-is-he-professor.html

Autumn 2008: Former spy Takes top Scottish Tory Job

Former high ranking MI6 intelligence officer, Prof Andrew Fulton. An MI6 spy who served behind the Iron Curtain at the height of the Cold War is in line to become chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party in a surprise move agreed by David Cameron and Annabel Goldie, the Scottish leader.

Fulton, whose last posting was “Head of Station” in Washington, has emerged as one of the favourites for the post that fell vacant when Peter Duncan, the former MP for Dumfries, stood down last summer. The appointment of the former intelligence officer, will be seen as an attempt by senior Tories to inject fresh blood and new thinking into the Scottish party, which has struggled to recover from its 1997 wipe-out when it lost all its Scottish MPs.

Fulton has operated in Scotland before. He was unmasked as a former spy in 2000 when he was forced to step down as a member of the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit which provided media briefings on the trial in Holland of the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing.

His cover was blown soon after he was included in a list of MI6 officers published on the internet by a disaffected agent in 1999. The revelation raised concerns that he may have been in a position to influence the way the Lockerbie trial was being reported to ensure the minimum of criticism of the British and American intelligence services.

In his MI6 days, Fulton reportedly had been posted in East Berlin, Saigon, and New York. He had served as “Head of Station” in Washington, D.C., and at the peak of his career he was the sixth-most powerful official in the organization.

In 1992, Fulton became the security officer who headed up European operations: “He was one of the MI6 chiefs handed the plans to kill Serb President Slobodan Milosevic.”

He is presently the Senior adviser to the (All-Party Parliamentary MENA* Group at Westminster)

*The term MENA is an English-language acronym referring to an extensive region, extending from Morocco to Iran, including all Middle Eastern and Maghreb countries. Fulton is the senior intelligence person advising the most senior political group in Westminster on all matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/1578128/Former-spy-in-line-for-top-Scottish-Tory-job.html

June 2009: Is Andrew Fulton, Tory Chairman still an MI6 Spy or Asset?

The former MI6 Station Chief, is currently Chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland. He is also listed as an advisor to a number of organisations involved in intelligence matters. He has history in Scotland. He was placed by the UK government with the Glasgow University Lockerbie Briefing Unit. The title, “Visiting Professor” was awarded to him by then Glasgow University Principal, Graeme Davis. Davis held membership of, “The Scottish North American Business Council” (SNABC), chaired by Fulton.

The unusual thing about Fulton’s Professorship was that he had never worked in the legal profession in any capacity, had never taught classes and did no research at Glasgow University. So it beggars belief how he qualified as a Visiting Professor of Law? Did Graham Davis permit MI6 to plant Fulton in the University Media unit. The American ambassador to the UK, Philip Lader was also a member of the (SNABC) at the same time. Useful front for meetings to discuss Lockerbie without attracting the attention of the UK press.

http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/is-andrew-fulton-tory-chairman-still.html

The (SNABC) is a little known but well connected atlanticist body aimed at fostering closer relations between business in Scotland and the US. It is the Scottish chapter of the British-American Business Council. It has interesting intelligence connections.

The current Chairman is former MI6 man Andrew Fulton, who was exposed as having been a former MI6 agent whilst working inside Glasgow University based Lockerbie Commission. The former US ambassador to the UK Philip Lader (also chair of the board of spin conglomerate WPP) is also on board.

The Council retains Media House International for PR and its executive chairman Jack Irvine is a former board member.

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Scottish_North_American_Business_Council

July 2010: Veteran Rifkind to Lead MPs’ Watchdog

Former foreign secretary and defence secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind is perhaps the best-placed MP to chair the Commons committee on intelligence and security.

For five years until 24 February 2015 he was responsible for the security service MI6. He fully supported NATO military intervention in Libya and supplying arms to the Libyan rebels. (highbeam)

July 2011: Top Scots Tories fire broadside at Ex MI6 Spy Andrew Fulton over denial of natural justice

Ex MI6 Spy Andrew Fulton, isn’t the flavour of the month with senior Tory stalwarts with decades of service under their belt. They are rightly upset regarding the disgraceful treatment of Malcolm Macaskill who was removed as a candidate to make way for publicly unelectable Ruth Davidson. Davidson is now a Glasgow list MSP although she lives in Edinburgh.

http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/top-scots-tories-fire-broadside-at-ex.html

November, 2011: Scottish Tory Party duly elect Andrew Fulton’s protégé as new leader.

Order is restored in Scotland. The threat of a Scottish Unionist Party breakaway is extinguished. Conservatives on-side with Cameron have been placed in all key posts. Scottish Unionists told behave or to get on their bikes. A joyous new party leader Davidson said, “This is the first time that our members have been asked to elect a leader for the whole party in Scotland and I’ve met our members from Selkirk to Shetland and all points in between. They’ve been engaged, they’ve been enthusiastic, they’ve been welcoming and they’re excited about our bright future too.”

 
2013: Margo Macdonald wrote to the Head of the UK’s Security Service and asked for but never got an assurance that MI5 Spies would not interfere in the Independence Referendum.

In a letter to MI5’s director general, Andrew Parker, Margo MacDonald wrote: “I will be obliged if you can give me an assurance that UK Security Services will not be used in any respect in the lead-up to the Scottish referendum on sovereignty, unless, of course, the Scottish police have sufficient evidence to justify normal responses to potentially overtly criminal acts. I do understand that the Security Services are vital to all the countries and regions of the British Isles and the potential for law-breaking may be heightened during the forthcoming campaign. As action on the Security Services’ part is calculated to keep communities safe and aid cohesion, I would welcome an assurance from you that this will continue, and that no other consideration will inform your Department’s work.”

At interview Margo said the recent comments of former chancellor Denis Healey, who said the Labour Government of the 1970s had underplayed the value of oil revenues, underlined her concerns. She said: “The influence of the security services was insidious. If the opportunity came up to depress the self-confidence of Scots, then the opportunity was taken.” Asked if she believed the SNP and the wider Yes movement was currently infiltrated, she said: “Of course the security services have people in the SNP.”

A former intelligence adviser to the Joint Intelligence Committee, said he believed MI5 would monitor the independence debate. There’s definitely a national security angle to Scottish independence that the security services would be aware of and the agency would have a concern about the knock-on effect of independence on Northern Ireland.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13108551.MI5_spies_told__stay_out_of_referendum/

Early 2013: Rifkind Controlled the Secret Services Throughout the Scottish Referendum Campaign (ex MI6 senior spook)

”Sir Malcolm Rifkind known as “Malcolm the poof” is ( ex MI6 senior spook) chairman of the British parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which oversees MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – the most important position in the UK intelligence community. The ISC reports first to the prime minister, who retains – and uses – the right to censor material in ISC reports before parliament views them”.

https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/leon-brittan-nick-clegg-malcolm-rifkind-william-hague-dolphin-square-missing-dossiers-and-the-vip-child-abuse-connection/

 

2015: Craig Murray Provides an Informed Insight of MI5 Activities

Is it not strange that such a broad spectrum of the mainstream media react with instant vitriol to the very notion that the security services are active against the Scottish independence movement, when we know for certain that environmental campaign groups have been heavily penetrated by agents and agents provocateurs? When such tactics have been used against the Irish Republican movement for decades? When our intelligence services were up to their ears in torture and extraordinary rendition and repeatedly lied about it? When Edward Snowden has revealed the massive scale of surveillance by GCHQ?

In the days when the corporate media had a monopoly on the dissemination of information, simply shouting “conspiracy theorist”, “tinfoil hat” and “lizards” at somebody, excluding them from corporate media access, would be enough essentially to prevent anybody from reaching the public with information. But that no longer works in the age of new media, and especially it doesn’t work in Scotland after the referendum experience.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me spell this out. I have certain knowledge from an inside source that disruption of separatist activity in Scotland now features in MI5 tasking. The “tasking” of the security services – and that is what it is officially called – is a very formal written exercise conducted by the Joint Intelligence Committee on an annual basis, though it is possible (but very difficult) to insert new tasks in-year.

I have personally taken part – often – in Cabinet Office meetings of JIC sub-committees determining tasking, though in my case more for MI6 than MI5. It is a system I know very well. None of the “journalists” abusing me above has ever sat on a JIC committee. None of them actually know anything about it. None has contacted me to ask me why I have stated there is an MI5 anti-SNP operation. It is so much easier to collect your pay packet, quaff another Merlot and drunkenly catcall “zoooomer!”

2015: Julian Assange says SNP right to be concerned about MI5 spying

Speaking via video link from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, he said that Scottish nationalists were not paranoid to be concerned that they were under surveillance. He told the Commonwealth Law Conference in Glasgow, “They are correct for a number of reasons.The attitude of the UK government is that this is a national security issue, that Scottish independence is, in effect, a threat to the state. This means that the full capacities of the GCHQ, for example, will be deployed. There is also the conduct of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office communicating secretly and extensively across the world lobbying other States to get involved influencing the Referendum result against the nationalists.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/julian-assange-says-snp-right-be-concerned-about-mi5-spying-1496574?

Devolved Government in Scotland

The 1999 introduction of a Scottish parliament, with devolved powers (forced on the UK government by the EC) should have been a game changer. For the first time in 300 years Scots had a forum allowing discussion of matters local to Scotland over which their elected representatives would be able to bring about change. But the established political parties simply rubber stamped the wishes of the Westminster parliament on the electorate. The Labour and Liberal Democratic coalition government, (elected to office in 1999 at the start of the new parliament) proved to be incompetent at all levels of government and voters transferred their support to the Scottish National Party (SNP) who, (with the allowance of operating as a minority government) provided progressive, efficient and enlightened government.

In 2010 the SNP were rewarded for their achievements gaining a stunning victory taking over government with an overall majority (turning the Westminster gerrymandered electoral system on its head). This period of government was very successful, even when confronted with the implementation of destructive financial austerity measures brought about by failed Westminster politics. The party was rewarded with a return to government in 2015.

The Scottish Voter

In the period up to 2005 the majority of voters in Scotland voted as their family and neighbours did. Voting was largely tribal and class driven. Workers backed Labour whilst the rural communities, white collar workers and upper classes supported the Tory party. But the impact of the Scottish Parliament, Illegal wars in Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. And the rapid expansion of the internet challenged the old ways and political party’s experienced the impact of declining voter bases as vast amounts of new information, previously denied the public became wide spread through internet driven social networking. From 2014 enlightened Scots became increasingly more independent thinking and a new class of voter was born. One which demanded from politicians information and policies relevant to their individual needs. 

The 2017 General Election and the Tories

The 2017 General Election in Scotland exposed Scottish voters to “data mining” a new form of politics providing tools and profiling information allowing Conservative candidates to communicate personally with their prospective constituents. The benefits were astounding. The Tories gained a stunning result, increasing their MP’s from 1 to 13 in total. Pollsters were flabbergasted at the turnaround in the voting since the SNP appeared to be invulnerable. But Tory candidates had been well briefed about the individual targets within their constituencies. It was a voting strategy, new to UK politics which, using predictive data models identified, engaged and persuaded voters to turnout. This was achieved through the use of internet, phone and personal surveys combined with many other data sets, created by teams of contracted data scientists, psychologists and political consultants allowing the campaign to map the Scottish electorate based on ideology, demographics, religious beliefs, strongly held opinions on key issues e.g. Independence, The Orange Lodge, Celtic, Rangers, The SNP and or political personalities.

The information gathered provided Tory campaign strategists with a predictive analysis based on thousands of data points on just about every voter in Scotland. From that teams of political consultants and psychologists, hired by the Party directed the campaign and candidates on what and how to say it to selected groups of voters. Other voter targeting, included use of Facebook adverts, one to one scripted phone calls and provision of the content of messages for door-to-door canvassers ensuring consistent communication with voters on any issue. What won the day for the Tory party in 2017 was that they utilised “data mining” to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Scottish electorate and then used every communication aid available facilitating discussions with voters about matters important to them as individuals. Throughout the campaign the Tory tactic was to constantly broadcast the “no new referendum” message stressing that this was an important major difference between the Tory and any other candidates firmly imprinting this in the electorate’s minds. In contrast the SNP campaign lacked inspiration was poorly directed and failed to get the voters out. Information is power and the laid back approach of Peter Murrell, the SNP strategist allowed the Tory Party to outwit him. He failed the Party. Had Murrell been the Chief strategist of any political party other than the SNP he would have been given his marching orders. Incredulously he was given a huge pay rise and a pat on the back.

Personal data on Facebook – Tory Strategy

The “My-Personality” app was launched in 2007. In excess of six million people completed the questionnaire, allowing psychometric centres to access their Facebook profiles. This permitted an algorithm trawl through the persons likes and social media posts. The information gathered allowed the creation of statistical models which used “digital-foot-printing” to predict personality types. The Tory Party contracted  analysts who dipped into the large database of anonymized information, and targeted the Scottish electorate.

Mar 2017: Data Mining – a Tory strategy – The Petition Against a Second Scottish Independence Referendum

A petition stating; “We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely. The majority of Scottish voters wish to remain in the British union, despite Nicola Sturgeon’s latest demands for a Scottish referendum, according to the latest polling from YouGov.”

The petition was a “data mining ploy” prepared and added to the internet by the Tory media team. The tactic worked since it succeeded in raising the public profile of the possibility of another Independence referendum, which (at the time) had not been given mention by anyone other than the Tory Party.

Apr 2017: Use of Gathered Data – Analysis of Petition Outcome

I was aware of the Tory tactic and compiled an analysis from publicly issued data which allowed me to produce a predictive 2017 election outcome. Electorate totals were included and a percentage signatory total was established for each constituency. From that I used the mean figure of 3.75% to forward project the outcome of an Independence referendum, should one be held after Brexit.

The figures suggested that from an electorate of 4,021,203 the outcome of another referendum would result in a: 48.00% “Yes” vote in favour of independence with 52.00% preferring to remain with the Union. The information would be best used to forward plan strategy. Edinburgh, Aberdeen, East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire recorded higher than average figures favouring remaining with the Union. Other regions were less fixed.

The 2017 General Election Forecast Outcome

The General Election in Scotland will not be a re-run of the 2015 General Election and the landslide victory achieved by the SNP cannot realistically be achieved. My analysis suggests 25 seats might change hands with the Tory Party being the main benefactor and SNP financial resources and teams of activists will need to get out in force in the under-noted constituencies otherwise they may be lost.

This group of seats are marginals – Risk decreases as the % number drops:

71749: Edinburgh West, Michelle Thomson MP : 4388-6.12% Lost

69982: East Renfrewshire, Kirsten Oswald MP: 4241-6.06% Lost

66966: East Dunbartonshire, John Nicolson MP: 3977-5.94% Lost

65846: Edinburgh South, Ian Murray MP: 3579-5.44% Labour hold

73445: West Abdn, Stuart Blair Donaldson MP: 3961-5.40% Lost

80978: Edinburgh North & Leith, Deidre Brock MP: 4280-5.29% Held

66208: Paisley & Renfrew, Gavin Newlands MP: 3158-4.77% Held

68875: Argyll & Bute, Brendan O’Hara MP: 3277-4.75% Held

62003: North East Fife, Stephen Gethins MP: 2937-4.74% Held

67236: Stirling, Steven Paterson MP: 3175-4.72% Lost

77379: Ochil & Perth, Tasmina-A-Sheikh MP: 3645-4.71% Lost

79393: Gordon, Rt. Hon Alex Salmond MP: 3711-4.68% Lost

68056: Aberdeen South, Callum McCaig MP: 3618-4.65% Lost

79481: East Lothian, George Kerevan MP: 3676-4.63% Lost

72178: Edinburgh S-West, Joanna Cherry QC: 3283-4.55% ) Held

72447: Perth & N-Perthshire, Pete Wishart MP: 3033-4.19% Held

71685: Moray, Rt. Hon Angus Robertson MP: 2995-4.18% Lost

78037: Lanark & Hamilton-E, Angela Crawley MP: 3272-4.19% Held

68483: Dumfries, Clydesdale, David Mundell MP:2816-4.11% Held

74179: Berwick, Roxburgh, Selkirk: Calum Kerr MP: 3026-4.08% Lost

86955: Linlithgow, East Falkirk, Martyn Day MP:3570-4.11% Held

68609: Banff & Buchan, Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP: 2772-4.04% Lost

73445: W. Abdn,  Stuart-B-Donaldson MP: 3961-5.40% Lost

71685: Moray, Rt. Hon Angus Robertson MP: 2995-4.18% Lost

68056: Aberdeen South, Callum McCaig MP: 3618-4.65% Lost

Changing society norms – Stonewall Youth (Scotland)

LGBT Youth Scotland was formerly called the Stonewall Youth Project and is mainly funded by the state (in other words us), with over 75% its annual income coming from the Scottish Government, local councils and the National Health Service. (Scottish schools to get updated guidance on supporting transgender pupils).

Bear in mind that the co-founder of Stonewall, Simon Fanshawe, broke away from the organisation and condemned its “extreme” position on transgender rights. Yet we have the Scottish Government determined to change the Gender Reform Act (GRA) and to continue to permit children to be given permanently damaging puberty blockers, despite a ruling in the English courts that this has to stop. (Letters to the Times)

Freedom of expression amendments to hate crime bill put on hold

The Scottish Government and opposition parties have agreed to continue talks about freedom of expression elements of the hate crime bill.

It follows concern about the impact of some of the amendments proposed to the legislation on the transgender community.

The Justice Committee considered stage two amendments to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill’.

Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf had originally proposed an amendment seeking to protect “discussion or criticism of matters relating to transgender identity”, provided the behaviour was not threatening or abusive.

Green MSP John Finnie warned getting this section of the bill wrong would “embolden would-be perpetrators”. He said:

“Words are important. They’re important because we want to see robust provision of freedom of expression, but we also want to see clarity about hate crime. We want there to be no dubiety as to what constitutes that. There’s no doubt that if we get this wrong, there’s a danger that we embolden would-be perpetrators, reinforcing the idea that LGBTI people are, for some reason, less valuable”. (Letters to the Times)

Controversial policies for the SG dictated by “Stonewall”

People are questioning the influence of “Stonewall” on Scotland’s civil service after it emerged that controversial policies have been introduced in alignment with Stonewall’s political aims. These include a compulsory “Diversity Objective” for all staff to make the Scottish Government “a more diverse and inclusive place to work”, training on “intersectionality” and “unconscious bias”, and the use of gender-neutral language. The Civil Service is also included on Stonewall’s “Diversity Champions Index”.

Lobby groups

Transgender and non-binary policies have been revised with the collaboration of Stonewall Scotland and the Scottish Trans Alliance (STA).

And guidance has been co-produced by controversial lobby group “Mermaids” for SG employees who have a child who is transitioning or who identifies as non-binary.

Politically impartial?

The Deputy Director for Public Affairs at The Christian Institute, said:

“The extent of Stonewall’s influence on the Civil Service is alarming, particularly given the controversial nature of some of its political aims. Stonewall’s stance on trans issues is strongly opposed by women’s organisations, medics and faith groups. Yet, the Civil Service appears to endorse it wholesale. How does this fit with the Service’s duty to remain politically impartial? Staff are encouraged to attend training sessions on “intersectionality” and “unconscious bias”. These controversial ideas are disputed in wider society. So it’s concerning that they are written into the training schedule for Civil Service employees. The compulsory “Diversity Objective” also raises questions. What happens to staff members who hold religious beliefs which differ from those championed by Stonewall? Are they marked down? This could constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.”

The Civil Service response – Diversity Objective

“All staff have mandatory diversity objectives and those who participate in the network use this work as evidence of meeting their objective. Performance is assessed their line manager at their in year review and end year review.

Progress is also discussed at monthly conversations. We also set out on our performance appraisal intranet page guidance on diversity objectives for individuals including ‘support, participate and be an effective member of one of our staff diversity networks or committees.

The guidance for managers states that they should “ensure that staff who participate in our staff networks are recognized through the performance management process, ensuring that this activity supports the outcome that the Scottish Government is to become a more diverse and inclusive place to work”.

Gender awareness training

An example of employee recognition in an appraisal might record: “A” is very aware of and committed to raising the profile of diversity issues. He is active on the committee of the LGBTI Allies network and has also:

• completed the Stonewall Allies Follow-up Training.
• participated in the Diversity Networks Workshop.
• attended an Intersectionality seminar.
• presented at a team meeting on diversity issues and circulated guidance material afterwards.
• attended an unconscious bias training event.

Gender-neutral language

policies have been updated to increase inclusion of gender identities and same-sex couples.

Paternity leave policy

The policy applies to all employees and a reference to ‘partner’ or ‘spouse’ includes same-sex partners and spouses. The policy now states: “Paternity leave is available to you where you are the father, partner or spouse of the child’s mother (or, in the case of adoption, you are the adopter’s spouse or partner); changed ‘adoptive father’ to ‘adoptive parent’.” ‘non-binary’ employees are enabled to use the title ‘Mx’.

Revised trans/non-binary policies

The project reviewed all intertwining aspects of trans and non-binary activity in the Scottish Government and produced six core projects:

1. A data set on staff experiences comprised from Stonewall questionnaires.
2. A revised HR policy on trans/non-binary for the Scottish Government (SG). It is intended that this policy is co-produced with key stakeholders (including but not limited to Stonewall Scotland).
3. Guidance for line managers underpinning the HR policy
4. Guidance for members of staff who have a child who is transitioning or who identifies as non-binary. The intention is for this to be co-produced by “Mermaid”, who specialise in advice to parents and families on trans/non-binary enquiries.
5. A communications and engagement plan to ensure knowledge of the policy and accompanying parental guidance is widespread throughout the organisation. The core aspect of this work will be developing a training offer for Scottish Government staff.
6. Frequently Asked Questions documents. These will be comprised of three brief and accessible documents: (1) for those who are transitioning within SG; (2) for colleagues; (3) for line managers on how best to support a trans/non-binary member of staff”.

Other views and concerns

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000083724 (includes two comprehensive reports the content of which gives cause for concern)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/public-bodies-pay-thousands-to-join-stonewalls-lgbt-diversity-champion-scheme-qhtm5b6c6

https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/06/27/i-am-suing-stonewall-stop-policing-free-speech/ (Alison Bailey’s story. Worth a careful read)

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4071477-Mridul-Wadhwa-and-Rape-Crisis-Scotland (woman talk about the gender issue)

https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,dani-garavelli-gender-equality-needed-among-political-advisers_12725.htm

https://gids.nhs.uk/ (gender confusion)

Jan 2014; The Office of Sarah and Gordon Brown

Investigation of declarations made in Brown’s parliamentary register of interests provided a picture of the until now private accounts of the company, the “Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown” is not a registered charity, it is a private limited company set up by Brown and his wife Sarah in 2010.

It allows for money raised through publications, speeches and public appearances to be invested into charitable work. Brownn is currently the United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education. 

Brown declared to parliament that the total amount paid into the company since 2010 was £3,605,197.

According to a recent announcement on the company’s website £912,702 has so far been given to charity.

This leaves over £2 million to be accounted for when according to the latest available records the company had only £160,978 in cash at the bank. You can see an itemised spreadsheet compiled from Guido’s investigations here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m06erj5LpOktUV3g95ePimcArREmJWR8VZhQxxKXmOo/edit?pli=1#gid=0

The company admits it budgets £550k-a-year for expenses to meet salaries, accommodation costs and staff expenses.

Brown can be paid as much as $100k for a single speech to investors at finance conferences in the US. In funnelling his speaker fees through the company he avoids tax on his income, even though it covers the £10k a week expenses for Gordon and Sarah to maintain the jet-set premier lifestyle they were accustomed to when in Downing Street, travelling first class around the world and staying in top five star hotels attended to by flunkies. Something Gordon would not be able to do on his backbench MP’s salary…http://order-order.com/tag/wheres-gordon/page/2/

Jan 2014; Sarah Brown’s (Gordons Wife) unpatriotic office

“The old tax havens have no place in this new world. We now call on all countries to apply international standards,” said Gordon Brown back in 2009 when he was Prime Minister.

This is only mentioned because Brown’s philanthropist wife Sarah had made an odd choice of home for her charity.

Sarah Brown is the founder and Executive Chair of the Global Business Coalition for Education – a charitable organisation whose members include heavyweights such as Accenture, Chevron and Tata.

The organisation admirably aims to bring ‘the business community together to accelerate progress in delivering quality education for all of the world’s children and youth.’

But the GBCfE is based in one of the most secretive tax jurisdictions in the world – Delaware, a state affectionately known by tax lawyers as “the Cayman Islands of North America”. The charity’s registered office is 1209 North Orange Street, a single story building which is the legal address of 285,000 businesses according to the New York Times.

The New York Times profile said that 1209 North Orange Street is home to “big corporations, small-time businesses, rogues, scoundrels and worse”.

What might have drawn Sarah Brown to such an infamous site in so controversial a state? And is there enough desk-space at 1209 to house more than a quarter of a million tenants? 

Besides, Sarah Brown should be more patriotic and back the British tax system, which treats recognised charities very generously indeed.  More here: https://www.ieyenews.com/sarah-browns-unpatriotic-office/

Q. Why, if it is a charity would it need to be registered in a tax haven ?

A. Perhaps it is not actually registered as a charity – at least not in the UK.

Many celebs register their “charities” in Delaware because their annual filings are kept confidential and there is little or no oversight. So if saving the planet requires travel via private jet, luxury accommodations, staff of well-paid flunkies and so on, no-one’s the wiser.

UK Charities risk having their operations and accounts scrutinised by the Charity Commissioner and Delaware is even dodgier than the Dutch Antilles or Panama for funny money.