Day: December 12, 2021

24 Mar 2021: Rape Crisis Scotland in Crisis

Women are facing delays of more than a year in getting support at some rape crisis centres, and one hub has had to close its waiting list. Ten of 16 regional services reported waiting times getting longer over the past 12 months, according to information released by the Scottish Government. Victims are waiting too long for help, and Edinburgh’s centre has stopped offering new appointments.

Rape Crisis Scotland slammed the “agonizing waits” women face, and called for all parties to commit to proper funding for services in their manifestos ahead of the Holyrood election in May.

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

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

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

The blatant abuse of power by the SNP Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

The publication date, early March 2018, is very relevant. This was a Scottish Government survey conducted right at the start of the efforts to destroy the reputation of Alex Salmond.

The report was a political bombshell, and yet it never appeared in any of the copious senior management texting correspondence. Nicola Sturgeon maintained she knew nothing about anything, which is impossible to believe since she read and commented on the document.

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

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

The findings showed that Holyrood perpetrators were nearly always male, regardless of the gender of the victim and in the majority of cases, the alleged perpetrator was in a position of authority.

Reports included 5 instances where the perpetrator had attempted to pinch or grope the victim’s bottom, and 10 where they had tried to kiss their victim. There was even 1 attempt to grope the breast of a woman, and another attempt to grab at a victim’s crotch.

The report also indicated that victims and their perpetrators were “most likely” to come from the same group of people. Nine of the 13 MSPs who had reported sexual harassment said their abuser had been another MSP.

Some 40 percent of respondents said they had been targeted by a parliamentary worker, and a further 20 percent by a member of MSPs’ staff. The total percentage exceeds 100 percent, as some respondents reported more than one case of harassment.

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

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

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

After note: All political parties, apart from the SNP, introduced revised procedures after 2017. Asked for comment, the SNP said it “continually looks to improve [its] policies and processes” and planned to introduce, in time, trained sexual harassment advisers.

The SNP is the only party which did not at the time display a code of conduct and relevant harassment policy on its website, or offer an easily searchable contact phone numbers or email to make a complaint. Indeed, the SNP code of conduct made no mention of sexual harassment specifically. (Guardian)

Opening narrative

A previous article outlined events from the introduction of the two crowns through to the period up to the imposition of the 1707 Treaty of Union by England, on Scotland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1707 Acts of Union – The Early years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Earl of Mar rebelled against the Westminster Abuse of Power 

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

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

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

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

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

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