“As a nation, the Scots have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.” (Margaret Thatcher)
In 1954, A Royal Commission described the UK as a “multi-national” or “multi-nation” state and acknowledged that it had been one ever since its foundation in 1707.
The recognition of the multinational character of the British State and Scotland’s status as a nation within it further acknowledged that “Scotland was a nation that had voluntarily entered into union with England as a partner and not as a dependency”.
Scotland’s right to self-determination:
“That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.” (Westminster Parliament, Wednesday 4 July 2018)
Self-determination has also been codified in the fundamental and universal documents of international systems, such as the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 and becoming an independent country would be an act of self-determination by the people of Scotland.
The precedence of the doctrine of the mandate
Before 2011, the Unionist attitude to independence referendums was that politicians should not support referendums on policies that they did not back. But their opposition changed after the 2011 General Election when they agreed to the holding of an independence referendum because of the concurrence of Westminster politicians who believed that in winning an overall majority of seats, the SNP had won the right to see that particular promise implemented. What was significant was that the agreement to hold the independence referendum established precedence through the preference for the belief in the doctrine of the mandate, rather than by the upholding of a constitutional rule. Although not tested the support of the doctrine of the mandate extended to a straightforward declaration of independence if that was the preference of the electorate.
The organisation of the referendum
The Scotland Act does not explicitly reserve the organisation of referendums to the Westminster Parliament, though it does reserve to Westminster “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England”. It can therefore be argued that a referendum on ending that Union is also a matter reserved to Westminster. The potential difficulty was resolved through a political deal, the Edinburgh Agreement of October 2012. The opening lines of the Edinburgh Agreement, stated: “The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.”
A Scottish independence referendum was allowed by the British Government even though it could have blocked it by legal and constitutional means. The reason for this is enshrined in Scotland’s right to self-determination that has long been acknowledged, as has its status as a nation within the UK State. a simple “50% plus one” majority would have been enough to launch independence negotiations. In Scotlands case, the main obstacle on the road to secession was the composition of the electorate which comprised many thousands of voters not truly Scottish an anomaly that produced a majority that remained unconvinced of the merits of independence. This hurdle would be overcome in any future referendum with the stipulation that residence in Scotland is not an automatic qualification. A Scot is an individual born and wholly resident in Scotland at the date of an election.
2019: Sociology student Adnan Ahmed was the subject of a nationwide media scandal
Adnan was a Criminal Justice Practitioner for Turning Point focusing on human/men’s rights. His job was supporting ex-cons and drug addicts to reform and integrate into society. He was planning to study criminology for a BA (Hons) in Criminology (at Abertay University in Dundee). in his 4th year.
In his 1st year, he gained an HNC in Social Services (at the City of Glasgow College). In his 2nd he gained an HND in Additional Support Needs (at Glasgow Clyde college). At the time of his arrest, he was halfway through his 3rd doing a BA in Learning Difficulties/Disabilities (between Fife college and Abertay university).
He also gained a BA in Business Studies (From Glasgow Caledonian University) and in his own time, he produced a blog through which he taught a mix of mindfulness and human behaviour.
No complaints had ever been registered against Ahmed until a “BBC Social” video was aired on national television portraying him as a sexual deviant who sexually harassed women on the streets of Glasgow and other places creating a media backlash against him.
In his defence Ahmed said that all of his approaches were made and videoed, in the daytime on busy streets and in well-populated areas, there was nothing sinister or hidden. Interactions were limited to less than 10 minutes and at no time were women made to feel uncomfortable or with the aim of exchanging contact details.
It was his contention that daytime dating was a safe way to talk to females. Men do the same thing in nightclubs, often under the influence of alcohol and this is deemed to be socially acceptable.
Initially, the police said there was no criminal behaviour but the public was misled into thinking Ahmed’s conduct was criminal and he was accused of being a sexual predator on social media and in the newspapers.
The police canvassed for complainants after an MSP and Rape Crisis Scotland got involved, through the placement of a “Me2” type incident report number in the national press
Those that came forward with complaints did so after colluding and speaking to each other on Twitter and Facebook feeds, and through contact with the BBC.
They were further encouraged by an American social media troll, who fuelled the unsubstantiated allegations through a number of fake social media accounts he maintained for the express purpose of adding credibility to the mischief.
Sandy Brinkley – Rape Crisis Scotland – Exerts her Power
Brindley from Rape Crisis Scotland took it upon herself to approach the police with concerns about the predatory behaviour of Ahmed. A man who had never raped anyone, nor had ever been accused or linked with a horrible word like rape.
Even after viewing Ahmed’s online “game” videos, it was clear that he simply engaged in short flirty conversations with females who were willing participants, ending at most, with an exchange of contact details.
The real predatory stalker behaviour was displayed by Brindley who contacted the police, seeking to justify the existence of the Scottish Government-funded quango, “Rape Crisis Scotland”.
Ahmed was not the inventor of online YouTube dating videos, which is a global concept, especially in Western nations.
Social media uploads from massive multi-million-pound dating companies occur daily and Ahmed’s videos were tame compared to his counterparts in London and the States.
Brindley’s overreaction exposed the venom within “Rape Crisis Scotland” when compared to open-minded independent thinking women in London and the U.S.A who view the practice as a non-issue.
Brindley’s misogyny is not a crime but to publicly state “I think a number of behaviours shown in the videos were arguably caught by criminal law,” is utter nonsense.
But Brindley was right about one thing – misogyny is not a crime, but labelling an innocent man misogynist (when he was clearly not) was slander and reporting it to the police was an act of malice unbecoming of a Scottish Government funded organization.
Jan 2019: BBC Investigation Production Aired
Journalists, pursuing a sleaze story, hounded Ahmed for months forcing him to reach out to them responding with a detailed explanation of his business model and background to his client base as well as the scientific reasoning behind this method of face-to-face daytime speed dating.
They ignored his explanation preferring to warp his responses creating controversy demonising an innocent man.
BBC-The Social’s video went viral on the internet prompting Police Scotland to issue a statement saying “we cannot follow up on this as there is no actual crime to investigate, no crime has been committed.”
But they were forced to change their tune in response to a public witch hunt generated by the BBC portrayal of Adnan Ahmed as a demonic sexual predator.
It was truly bizarre and shocking that Scotland’s police force could be manipulated so easily. They were fully aware of Ahmed’s dating business nearly 3 years before the BBC The Social’s hate-fuelled video falsely demonised him. Indeed they spoke to Mr Ahmed about it on a number of occasions in casual conversation and both male and female officers approved of it. There are phone calls and written police reports to confirm this.
Ahmed also worked extensively in conjunction with the police in his job as a Criminal Justice Practitioner. His behaviour was never “predatory”. He ran an online dating business on YouTube for all to see. His clients, video demonstrations and spontaneous conversations with women were conducted in the daytime, on well-populated busy city centre streets. He hid nothing, so how could his actions be described as predatory, shameful or dangerous?
Police Scotland are mandated to investigate matters neutrally and without prejudice. Instead, they contributed to the media mayhem by making comments defaming a man who although innocent of any crime was arrested and charged with 18 incidents of “threatening and abusive behaviour.” He was then taken into and held in custody, untried and without the option of bail.
13 charges were subsequently dropped but the prosecutor pursued 5 charges, via a little-used Scottish legal technicality called Moorov’s Law, well knowing the jury would be heavily influenced by the widespread negative press (radio, TV, newspapers, internet) against Ahmed before and every day of his trial.
The Sheriff’s Court indictment was framed to convict Ahmed without evidence because there was none.
The importance of corroboration is unique to Scots criminal law. The requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before a defendant can be convicted of a crime.
Corroboration is required in Scots law as the evidence of a single witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact. There are two prime facts that are deemed to be crucial; the first being that the crime was committed and the second being that it was committed by the accused. Crucial facts must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by corroborative evidence.
The Moorov doctrine is a doctrine that deals with similar faulty evidence in Scots law, arising from the case of Moorov v HM Advocate in 1930. The Moorov doctrine is used where a series of supposed crimes have been committed and are closely linked by time, character, circumstance and place of commission to constitute a course of conduct by the accused. The accused must be positively identified in each case. There may only be one witness to each individual crime who can identify the accused but where the offences are sufficiently similar the witness for one offence can corroborate the account of a witness for another offence. A legal technicality that is being abused by corrupt Scottish judges and the police.
2019: Glasgow Sherriff Court
Ahmed was not permitted to present vital evidence proving his innocence because Scottish court laws protect prosecution witnesses, even if they are lying.
The worst part is that the Scottish Justice System is designed in such a way that females who make false accusations face limited punishment for their lies if there are any legal repercussions at all.
Ahmed was found guilty in a jury trial and given a two-year custodial sentence and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for ten years.
Sep 2019: Ahmed’s defence team lodged an appeal stating that their client had been denied a fair and impartial trial.
One year later, in September 2020 Ahmed’s legal team told the appeal court that Sheriff Wood had conducted an inappropriate cross-examination of Ahmed when he finished giving evidence and that he failed to properly explain the rules of corroboration to jurors in the case and he was wrong when he rejected a defence motion to have some of the charges thrown out on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to allow jurors to return guilty verdicts. In his report to the appeal court, Sheriff Wood said he believed there was enough evidence on these charges to be considered by the jurors.
The appeal court disagreed and said the evidence did not show Ahmed to be guilty of threatening behaviour. Lord Turnbull – who delivered the judgement, wrote:
“It does not seem to us that a polite conversational request or compliment can be construed as threatening merely because it is uninvited or unwelcome and there was nothing in the appellant’s behaviour as spoken to by the complainers in charges 5, 6 and 18 which was overtly threatening or which could reasonably be construed as threatening. There was nothing in the appellant’s conduct in the city centre encounter as spoken to by the complainer in charge 16 which constituted threatening behaviour. He told her that she looked like Kim Kardashian, which the witness described as a compliment, although she asked him if he was joking. He subsequently sent her a text which was abusive. This was the only aspect of this charge which could have constituted an offence. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the doctrine of mutual corroboration would not have been available as between charge 4 and this aspect of charge 16. Accordingly, we are also persuaded that the sheriff erred in failing to give effect to the no case to answer submissions presented on the appellant’s behalf in respect of these charges also. In the present case, counsel was correct to object to the sheriff’s questioning when she did. The exercise which the sheriff was engaged in had already lacked any element of clarification and at the point when she rose to her feet the sheriff appeared to be in the process of arguing with the appellant. It is unacceptable for a judicial office holder to address a responsible practitioner by telling her to sit down. Such behaviour carries the risk of demeaning the standing of the judiciary in the eyes of both the legal profession and of the public.” Ahmed was officially acquitted.
The Scottish legal system thoroughly crushes any sane notion of justice under the weight of legal loopholes and strategies exploited by radical feminist politicians and “Rape Crisis Scotland” who shamelessly exploit vulnerable women in their constant posturing for the media. And the public is unconsciously making things worse because of its apparent contentment with a social media cultural circus!
This is a brief summary of the report of a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the BBC, Scottish media, Rape Crisis Scotland and other Government-funded organisations against Glaswegian, sociology student, Ahmed. The original article (a must-read) was first published at https://www.addyagame.com)
Ukraine. A country plundered by oligarchs determined to control its wealth with willful disregard to the fate of its people. The pursuit of a New World Order has seen death and destruction visited upon: The Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and other so-called third world countries in Africa. And the wars many of them proxy are without end.
Political leaders in the West are broadcasting propaganda about the adverse influence on Putin by Russian oligarchs and their determination to bring Russia to heel through the imposition of punitive sanctions. But will the tactic work? The outcome must be in doubt since the measures are only pitting one set of oligarchs against another and retention and continued growth in wealth is what drives elite groups which from ancient times to the geopolitical world powers of today have controlled society making every effort to ensure their families, friends, associates and networks of influential people retain control.
Recent analysis has determined those countries that are tightly controlled oligarchies. Out of 43,000 multi-national corporations, 40% of the wealth rests in the hands of only 147 of the entities able to exert their influence over the rest. These 147 corporations are further controlled by sovereign wealth funds of the elite which serve as vehicles hiding the true ownership as they participate on the geopolitical stage. The term oligarchy is fitting as it describes the type of government where all power is vested in a dominant class or group of individuals i.e. the top one per cent. The following list of the Worlds top 5 oligarch controlled governments provides evidence that over time many legitimate forms of government eventually succumb to oligarchical control.
Many Americans still believe that they still live within a democracy. But the term oligarchy has begun to be used in order to describe who and how the U.S. is led. A recent study supported the view by concluding that elitist business groups have a greater impact on U.S. policies when compared to average citizens. To make matters worse, in 2010 the Supreme Court gave corporations and elitists free reign as they are now allowed to put as much of their money into federal campaigns as they wish. This leaves the United States to be controlled by a small group of wealthy citizens while the average citizen’s voice remains unheard. This is why Biden is President.
The country’s Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party is made up of members that show China is more of an oligarchy when it comes to the country’s political dogma. The committee is made up of China’s elite in order to promote capitalism within the country and it has pursued an agenda of increasing global capital within the economy by privatizing many of the state enterprises. This type of leadership classifies China as an oligarchy.
Russian oligarchs are a product of what was left after the fall of the Soviet Union. State companies had to turn to privatization where Russian banks lent the government money in exchange for temporary stakes in state-owned companies. When the government defaulted on the loans, the banks were able to keep their stakes, which is where the rich became the elite. Currently, only 110 people control 35 per cent of Russia’s household wealth and it has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world. President Putin works with the oligarchs, balancing their needs maintaining control of the nation.
Britain is another country that has taken on the label of becoming an oligarchy. Income and wages within Britain have become highly unequal and the gap continues to enlarge. The poor have become poorer the rich have become richer. Inequality has been able to grow in Britain due to oligarchs. Britain maintains the appearance of a “corroded type of liberal democracy,” but greed and power have enabled the oligarchs and provided them protection throughout the decades while at the same time stripping power away from the people of Britain making them feel disconnected from society.
A growing increase in awareness of social issues such as great social inequality, high illiteracy and poverty rates, has revealed that a small circle of oligarchs are controlling the government and failing the nation.
Set up by former MI6 executives after the end of the Cold War, Hakluyt provides intelligence for many FTSE 100 companies and a number of UK, US and European clients. The calibre of directors is high and includes many ex MI6 agents, diplomats, journalists and former special advisers to government ministers.
Baroness Elizabeth Smith was a member of the Hakluyt Foundation of which a former employee said: “the firm’s main commodity is the provision of focused, timely intelligence.” But following an extraordinary libel trial in which former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind gave evidence, there were question marks over the quality of the intelligence Hakluyt provides. In fact, a report produced by Hakluyt on Czech oil tycoon Karel Komarek and his father, which contained allegations of corruption and murder, led to Scottish oil company Ramco being sued for libel. Ramco had employed Hakluyt in good faith on the recommendation of its consultants, Mr Rifkind and Baroness Smith.
The John Smith Foundation
Founder member, Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: MI6 agent of long-standing and very influential politically. Widow of the late John Smith, Labour Party Leader. Board member of a number of organisations with interests in Russia and FSU countries.
The activities of the Foundation are overseen by a Board comprising members of the Smith family, University of Glasgow alumni, public service practitioners and academic staff and is accountable for the conduct, leadership and management of the Centre. It sets the priorities; benchmarks best practices, and reviews performance to enable the Centre to achieve its aim to promote trust in politics and public service and to empower and attract more people to contribute to public life.
The Board of Management
Catherine Smith: An Advocate. Daughter of Baroness Smith. Vice-Chair of JUSTICE Scotland, the Scottish arm of the London NGO. Involved in work promoting the rule of law and human rights in developing democracies and sustainable development in societies in transition.
Stephen Gethins: Former SNP MP for North East Fife and shadow SNP Spokesperson, Foreign affairs. Worked with Craig Oliphant in Eastern Europe before entering politics for the SNP.
David Charters: Former diplomat. Particular personal interests include cyber security and evolving forms of conflict.
Alex Just: Transitioned from law to high-level strategic communications.
Prof. Lord Alderdice: Liberal Democrat member of the Lords since 1996. Currently Director of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Harris Manchester College, Oxford.
Craig Oliphant: A senior member of the Integrity Initiative.
Other political persons associated with members of the foundation include:
Alyn Smith Stewart McDonald Jenny Gilruth Nicola Sturgeon Peter Murrell Liz Lloyd David Clegg
The John Smith Trust (JST)
The sales pitch
The Trust runs intensive, four-week Fellowship Programmes twice a year in the UK for emerging leaders from 12 of the countries of the former Soviet Union. The Programmes are built around three pillars – unique insight into UK institutions, personalized meetings and leadership skills development – which together offer both a broad picture and an individual focus.
The political psychology programmes delivered by the Trust are designed to influence the thought processes of individuals confronted with a wide range of political situations so that they select options that most reflect the political system chosen by the Trust. Achieving success means that it has imprinted on the minds of course participants that the ideal is the western-style democracy, with its human rights legislation protecting individual and minority rights and good governance. Shades of “The Manchurian Candidate”.
Members and Associates
Catherine Smith (Chair): John Smith’s youngest daughter.
Professor Anne Anderson OBE: multidisciplinary educational activist.
Rt Hon Ed Balls: Hard right rich boy and “new Labour” politician
Dr Matt Carter: Blair’s man. Right-wing “New Labour” political strategist.
Ruth Davidson: Baroness Ruth. Her rise from nowhere is being guided by
David Muir: Ultra right-wing “New Labour” strategist. Gordon Brown’s man.
The Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: Very influential politically has had a very long career near the top of the British secret services. Widow of the late John Smith, Labour Party Leader.
Andrew Wilson: Held a number of posts, including Deputy Chief Economist and Head of Group Communications. at the financially incompetent and ultimately disgraced RBS Group. Founder of the increasingly influential political media company, Charlotte Street Partners.
Kezia Dugdale: Former leader of the Labour Party in Scotland is the Director of the Centre.
Organisations closely linked to the Trust
The Integrity Initiative:
In 2006, NATO Special Advisor Chris Donnelly co-founded a fake charity, the “Institute for Statecraft and Governance” (IFS) together with Daniel Lafayeedney, previously condemned as untrustworthy in business matters by a judge. The IFS which authored and published articles on threats to NATO imperialism, the biggest being Russia, was registered to a semi-derelict mill in the Fife constituency of Board member and ex-SNP MP Stephen Gethins.
In 2015, the IFS established the Integrity Initiative, an organization described by the British government as a counter-Russia-disinformation campaign that received many £millions from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In typically language a U.S.-British disinformation campaign.
This is what the Scottish Charity Regulator thought of the organisation:
The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator conducted an inquiry into the activities of the Institute for Statecraft and found that “its most significant activity the project “Integrity Initiative” did not provide public benefit in furtherance of the charity’s purposes”.
It also found that trustees had “breached their trustee duties to act with care and diligence in the interest of the charity, some of them to a serious extent”.
The 77th (CYOPS Brigade
A Black Watch soldier, Brigadier Alastair Aitken, formed the 77th (CYOPS Brigade, referred to in the media as ‘Twitter troops‘ or ‘Facebook warriors‘, which he described as the largest integrated government communications organisation in Europe. Additional links to Scotland include Scottish Labour Party candidate and former “Better Together” boss Kate Watson who refused to explain her links to the “military propaganda unit” within the British Army.
A Scottish government official commented: “In any future Scottish independence referendum will the 77th Brigade be neutral or see the yes campaign as a threat to national security and conduct a campaign to protect the constitutional status quo? The SNP leadership needs to ask these questions and get answers before it’s too late.”
Ethnic cleansing enacted by the political policies of Westminster governments commenced not long after the Treaty of Union of 1707 was signed and over the past 300 years it has been implemented first through the ruthless efficiency of a standing English Army garrison and after by political programmes put in place designed to asset strip Scotland of industry and commerce transferring control of all aspects of society and the environment to England ensuring the perpetual subservience of Scots to their divine masters in England. Informed commentators interpret the actions as ethnic cleansing.
It is a fact that there are more descendants of Scots living outside Scotland than there are inside and the population north of the central belt and some places in the lowlands were forced off the land which provided their homes for thousands of years, only to be permitted permanent residence in villages and towns near to the east coast with result that the area denied Scots, larger than Holland or Belgium, is the most sparsely populated in Europe. The land, viewed as one of Europe’s last great natural wilderness areas was given over to sporting estates becoming the playgrounds of English aristocracy and nouveau riche and became one of Europe’s great human wastelands.
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (December 1948) Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
What happened in Scotland in the past 300 years constitutes acts of genocide as defined by the Convention. The background of the Convention was the Nazi genocide of the 1930s and 40s and was expressly intended to address historical crimes, depending not on mere written law, but on the universality of Natural Law in which certain acts are seen as so repugnant to reason that the conscience along serves to condemn the perpetrator.
English politicians conditioned by a belief in Scots racial and ethnic inferiority and impurity evicted tens of thousands by “bayonet, truncheon or fire.”
A historical reality that meets the first three of the five conditions of genocide (bearing in mind the 1948 Convention stipulates that when “any” of the conditions are met genocide has been committed).
The sham devolution of powers to a Scottish Parliament is being dismantled and the colonisation of Scotland by England is being reinstated in response to the determination of Scots to re-establish Scotland’s independence. (summarised from: randompublicjournal)
The dictatorial powers of the BBC decide the daily agenda for the Queen’s subjects, how they talk to each other and what about but Scots are unable to trust the output of the BBC and feel they have no personal investment in it.
BBC Bias against Scottish Independence
Before, during and after the 2014 independence referendum the public perception was and still is that there was/is an ongoing agenda within BBC Scotland providing support to Unionist ideals and policies to the exclusion of other political opinions in Scotland.
The evidence was the huge number of unresolved complaints and public demonstrations all voicing concern and anger about the blatant lack of impartiality of the news and current affairs division based in Glasgow.
Scottish opinion was marginalised by the very media that Scots were compelled to pay an annual subscription for. And that is an insult added to injury.
Protection of the Scottish Culture
In denying Scots their right to the active promotion of cultural diversity, through broadcasting the government in Westminster and its Whitehall controlled BBC is in breach of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – Article 11 – Freedom of expression and information.
Indeed a well respected and truly impartial BBC journalist was asked if the perception that BBC Scotland was anti-nationalist was, in his view, justified said: “Put it this way, it probably comes more naturally to them to attack the nationalists than to attack the union.”
The Smith Commission
There were nine cross-party meetings over seven weeks prior to the publication of an agreed draft of “Heads of Agreement” proposals on 21 November 2014.
It emerged that Unionist panel members and MSPs of political parties incorporated in Scotland and allegedly independent of Westminster were frequently on the phone taking instructions from their Party leaders in London.
The Unionist backing Commission chairman, Lord Smith of Kelvin, also gave the impression he added weight to the views of the three main Westminster parties over panel members.
A source said: “The position that Lord Smith took was that if the parties who were either in the current UK government or might be in the next refused to budge on something, he went with it. The Unionist votes counted for more.”
Nov 2014: Devolution deal for Scotland
Lord Smith of Kelvin, praised Scottish political leaders for coming together after a “bruising” referendum, with a reminder that the cross-party commission had been set up after the unionist parties promised greater powers for Scotland in the event of a no vote in the independence referendum, in a pledge known as “The Vow”.
The deal was promoted by Unionist “no” campaigners as the greatest transfer of powers to Scotland since the Scottish Parliament was set up 15 before.
Drawn up in little over two months it included the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of broadcasting:
Control of broadcasting policy remitted to Scotland for near 70 years before being taken away in 1991 by the government in Westminster, without consultation would be returned to Scotland. The “Broadcasting Council for Scotland” would be established providing Scotland with the longstanding broadcasting governance arrangements which had been in place between 1946-1991.
But the foregoing new arrangements were axed without explanation, on the final day, at the instigation of Unionist parties in London and in Scotland and replaced with:
“Scottish Government is to have a role in reviewing the BBC’s charter and the BBC management in Scotland will be expected to report to the Scottish Parliament’s committees”.
Up Yours – BBC Scotland senior managers refuse to meet with the MSP committee
Ken MacQuarrie, Head of BBC Scotland and his enforcer, Head of News and Current Affairs and Labour Party supporter bully boy Boothman refused to appear before the Scottish Education and Culture Committee at Holyrood stating that BBC management in Scotland was not accountable to the Scottish Government.
They were subsequently ordered to appear by the Chairman of the BBC Trust and finally did so but stonewalled every question put to them. Boothman, (later exposed as a bully left the BBC soon after and transferred his employment to the private sector after a protracted struggle with staff and trade unions.
The Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron asked President Putin and other world leaders to speak out against Scottish independence
In 2014 Russia retained the role of the presidency of the influential G8 group of industrial nations placing President Putin in a position of increased influence over world affairs.
Tass, Kremlin’s mouthpiece reported that David Cameron had written and warned Putin and many other nations that Scottish independence would “send shockwaves across the whole of Europe”.
The news was released a few days after reports of the creation of an anti-separatist alliance between Cameron and the Spanish government.
The Westminster government’s anti-independence civil service team also bragged that they had employed underhand tactics and orchestrated the “Project Fear Campaign” globally.
Asked to comment Alex Salmond said,
“It is shameful that Cameron refuses to debate in front of the people of Scotland, but is perfectly willing to lobby against Scotland’s interests around the world adding credibility to reports that he lobbied the Spanish prime minister to speak out against Scottish independence and this after their foreign minister had already made perfectly clear that Scotland’s referendum was a matter for the people of Scotland.
This kind of behaviour shows exactly why Scotland should represent our own interests as an independent nation. Scotland will be a responsible global citizen and a good friend to our neighbours in the rest of the UK.” (The Herald)
2016: Defence Minister, Philip Hammond ‘tried to court-martial senior general
General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as Nato’s deputy supreme allied commander for Europe until 2014, said before standing down from the post that the Government was taking “one hell of a risk” in cutting the regular army.
In his book ‘2017: The War with Russia’, Sir Richard claims he was summoned by the head of the Army who told him the Foreign Secretary wanted disciplinary action against him.
Formal action would have involved a court-martial and, fortunately for (Mr Hammond’s) political reputation — “it also seems he had not appreciated that I reported to Nato and not to him, wiser counsel prevailed. But the damage to our armed forces… had already been done. It’s the duty of senior soldiers engaged with politicians not to think like politicians, not to make life easier for politicians, but to be prepared to lay out the military consequences of political decisions, and I sense that is something that has got blurred in recent years.”
Sir Richard, who was the army’s third most senior officer, said the level of cutbacks to the British military means the armed forces might not be able to deploy an effective force for war. There has been a hollowing out, a cutting away at muscle and damn nearly every bone in UK defences.
I would question whether the UK could deploy a division for war — I think that’s highly unlikely. The notion of deploying a division for war as the UK did in Iraq in 2003 and Iraq in 1991 is frankly almost inconceivable.” (Politics Home)
2016: Scandalous splurge – Ministry of Defence doubles spending on on ‘experts’ and cuts fighting forces to the bone
Whitehall defence chiefs employ over 2,395 pen-pushers (many on salaries over £60K) in its Finance Department, at an annual cost in excess of £75million. It also employs 282 lawyers at a cost to the taxpayer of £26 million.
But last year it still spent another £17.8 million on legal consultants. And £57million on other experts in areas such as “change management.”
In recent years, the Army has axed 18,000 personnel, the RAF 6,000 and the Navy 3,000.
The MoD announced it was closing 10 sites across the UK reducing the size of its built estate by 30 per cent.
The chief of the UK National Defence Association said: “For the MOD to be lavishing so much public money on “consultancy” is scandalous and an insult to all the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have lost their jobs in the last few years in wave after wave of penny-pinching Defence cuts.” (the Sun)
2016: Gen Sir Richard Barrons, Senior General of the British Armed Forces accuses the government of leaving the UK vulnerable to a military attack
General Sir Richard Barrons served as Commander Joint Forces Command, one of the six ‘Chiefs of Staff” leading the UK Armed Forces until April 2016.
He was responsible for 23000 people worldwide and a budget of £4.3Bn, delivering intelligence, Special Forces, operational command and control, information systems and communications, logistics, medical support, and advanced education and training across the Armed Forces.
His military career includes leadership from Captain to General on military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan – often as part of US-led coalitions.
He continued: “Counter-terrorism is the limit of up-to-date plans and preparations to secure our airspace, waters and territory. Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort. The army has grown used to operating from safe bases in the middle of its operating area, against opponents who do not manoeuvre at scale.”
He further warned that crucial manpower in all three armed services is “dangerously squeezed and there is a sense that modern conflict is ordained to be only as small and as short term as the UK wishes and is able to afford which is absurd. The failure to come to terms with this will not matter at all if we are lucky in the way the world happens to turn out, but it could matter a very great deal if even a few of the risks now at large conspire against the UK.”
The memo was sent to the Defence Secretary, following the government’s decision to increase defence spending by nearly £5bn ($6.5bn) by 2020-21, reaching Nato’s target to spend 2% of GDP on defence until 2020.
But the vast bulk of the projected increase in defence spending includes the purchase of “big ticket” items, New type 26 destroyers, 2 aircraft carriers (without aircraft or crews), 48 x F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft (not available from the USA for some years yet). Replacement of the Trident nuclear missile systems and accompanying nuclear submarines. Conventional forces are reduced to their lowest level ever, including reservists and recruitment is stagnant.
The US-built F35 joint strike aircraft is the most expensive combat aircraft ever. But payloads are restricted and with a complement of 48, the RAF will only be able to place 6 in the air in any combat situation. In any event, the aircraft will not be available much before 2023.
Plans are to deploy the new carriers equipped with complements of US aircraft and flyers but the logistics of joint deployment of forces has yet to be discussed and may never get off the ground in which case the carriers will be mothballed for a few years.
Britain has 6 x type 45 destroyers. 4 are tasked to protect the new carriers. The remaining 2 destroyers are needed for the defence of the UK mainland & islands. And the foregoing provides no time for maintenance.
The Type 45 destroyers are unable to operate in warm climates for any length of time due to design faults and this restricts their deployment to the North Atlantic. So the navy will need to confine deployment of the new carriers to the same area. Hardly inspiring.
The army has not deployed forces for training in tank warfare since 2003 and skills have been lost or waned. Plans are to upgrade the remaining ageing Challenger tanks but not until other higher priority items are completed.
Russia’s new “Armata” tanks outspeed and outgun the Challenger and are equipped with an active protection system that further reduces the efficacy of existing UK anti-tank weapons by over 50%.
The UK operates a fleet of 6 x AWACS planes, (providing long-range radar coverage and command hubs for deployed forces). They are hopelessly outdated and require ever-increasing downtime for maintenance. It is known that only 1 aircraft is guaranteed to be airworthy at any time.
1 Nov 2016: Army’s new £3.5bn mini-tanks are ‘DEATH traps’ that are only useful against ‘incompetent enemies’ who cannot hit them with heavy artillery
Hundreds of Ajax mini-tanks are due to be supplied to the Army next year with the full order of 600 delivered to the Ministry of Defence by 2024.
But sources have claimed the delivery could be delayed due to complications with a revolutionary weapons system fitted onboard each tank, although the MoD has insisted the project will be completed on time and will provide the ‘best’ tanks.
Critics claim the ‘lightly armoured’ tanks cannot stand up to heavy artillery and say the weaponry on board is not sufficient – with the gun having already ‘stopped working’ during foreign trials. Raising concerns about the new tanks, one former defence official told The Times: ‘It is fine if you are operating against incompetent enemies, but if you are up against a peer enemy this thing is useless, it’s a death trap.’
The Ajax armoured vehicles will travel at speeds of up to 40mph and have been touted as the first-ever fully digital armoured fighting vehicle in UK military history.
The 589 tanks are said to become the ‘eyes and ears’ of the British Army on the battlefields of the future. The new vehicle will allegedly give the army enhanced intelligence, surveillance, protection, target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities, and it will be able to defend itself with a highly effective 40-millimetre cannon, which was developed jointly with France.
However, critics claim the cannon has already encountered problems during routine testing in overseas trials and say it is simply not up to the job of defending rival power from countries such as Russia. Referring to an alleged complication with the cannon’s turret – a section attached to the weapon to feed ammunition to the barrel – a source claimed: ‘As soon as the turret was subject to vibration and bumps the [feeding] mechanism failed. ‘My understanding is that there are quite a few reasons why the programme has been delayed’.
In addition, there are reported concerns that the barrel life of the weapon system is too short to function adequately – although the MoD says the new technology ‘can’t be compared to previous technology’. The turret and feeding mechanism on the cannon is being supplied and tested by defence firm Lockheed Martin, while the cannon and ammunition are being developed by BAE Systems and Nexter.
The Ajax tanks are being supplied to the MoD by US defence company General Dynamics, as part of a £3.5bn deal. A spokesman for Lockheed Martin admitted ‘issues did arise in recent trials’ on the weaponry but said ‘early indications point to a component failure and not a design flaw’.
The Times reported. BAE systems said the cannon had passed ‘stringent qualification trials’ and said there were no issues with its performance or when it will be delivered. ‘Deliveries to date to the UK Ministry of Defence are ahead of schedule,’ a spokesman said.
The MoD said the project is ‘running to time and cost expectations’ and insisted the tanks were ‘the best in class. delivering internationally best-in-class standards of scalable protection, reliability, mobility, lethality, and all-weather surveillance. Prototype vehicles are currently being put through the process of a rigorous trial, with successful live firings taking place in April and more to come. ‘As planned, the Army will take delivery of the first production vehicles in Spring 17.
July 2017: The Army is set to scrap the £5.5billion ‘light tank’ before it has entered service.
In tests, the Ajax armoured vehicle could not be fired on the move or go faster than 20mph. It also caused crews to suffer acute hearing loss, nausea and spinal injuries. The Ministry of Defence has already spent £4billion on Ajax but only 26 of the 589 ordered in 2014 have been delivered.
Malcolm Muggeridge the last honest political commentator
“In the eyes of posterity it will inevitably seem that, in safeguarding our freedom, we destroyed it. The vast clandestine apparatus we built up to prove our enemies’ resources and intentions only served in the end to confuse our own purposes; that practice of deceiving others for the good of the state-led infallibly to our deceiving ourselves; and that vast army of clandestine personnel built up to execute these purposes were soon caught up in the web of their own sick fantasies, with disastrous consequences for them and us.”
12 Aug 2015: The British Army is to train the Ukraine Defence Forces
The United Kingdom Secretary of State for Stoking up conflict said, during a visit to Kyiv that the British Army will be investing more UK taxpayers’ money into training the Ukrainian army by, increasing the number of soldiers in the programme from just over 1,000 to around 2,000 Yet another Battalion of the Highlanders Regiment is being deployed
But Article 10 of the Minsk II Accord states; “There will be a pull-out of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under OSCE supervision. Disarmament of all illegal groups.“
Judge for yourselves: Is this in compliance with Minsk II? Or is it a flagrant violation of it?
During his visit, he told the Ukrainian Prime Minister that the visit “reaffirmed the UK’s support”. and went on to say: “Seven thousand people have already died in Ukraine, right on the doorstep of Europe … This is not a frozen conflict, it’s still red hot. We are not going to turn our back on Ukraine.”
Of course, he conveniently forgot to mention that the majority of the 7,000 or so dead people were civilians in the South East of Ukraine (they are Ukrainians too), who died at the hands of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, or the so-called volunteer battalions such as the one led by arch Nazi Stepan Bandera.
Three questions the UK needs to answer
1. Is the UK Government going to sanction itself for violating the Minsk II Accords?
2. In reaffirming the UK Government’s support for “Ukraine”, do we include those “Ukrainians” who have been shelled relentlessly by the “Ukrainian” Government?
3. Are we going to be training any of those nice chaps with the SS runes?
Who forged papers falsely linking Saddam Hussein to yellow-cake uranium produced in “Nigeria” (in fact it is from Niger and the document was forged by guess who?)
Who provided “concrete intelligence” to the UK’s bed-master about Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (in fact a thesis copied and pasted from the Net and sexed up by Blair and his spin doctors)?
Who was it that invaded Iraq based on shamefaced lies?
Who supported terrorists inLibya that they had listed as proscribed?
Who lied about Syria, claiming that the elected government was using chemical weapons against their own soldiers?
Who supported terrorist groups in Syria who cut the heads off small boys?
Who Staged an illegal coup in Ukraine, backing a motley bunch of fascists, terrorists and murderers.
Who perpetrated massacres of Russian speaking Ukrainians and threatened to clear the Ukraine of Jews?
Who copied and posted photographs from the Net from two decades before and relating to another country claiming President Assad was murdering civilians (when the photography pertained to a NATO massacre in Iraq two decades before)?
Who conducts 24-hour-a-day cyber-terrorist attacks against western publications?
The international community is fast losing patience with the UK and its partner in crime across the Atlantic. It is a fact that the world does not need the UK or USA. They need the World.
Putin’s Russia pulls the strings and the Tory Party Dances to their tune
In the past ten years, approximately 10,000 super-wealthy Chinese and Russian business investors and entrepreneurs have been issued with “golden visas” by the Tory government providing them with a right of residence in the UK.
So many of Putin’s oligarchs and their wider families have gained the advantage of the scheme that the UK capital is now known as “Londongrad”.
Assertions that Tory’s welcome inward investment regardless of source is well-founded.
The “tier one” investor visa, requires only that the applicant operate a UK bank account with a balance of not less than £2m. This permits investors full residence in the UK for up to five years.
But eligibility for extensions and permanent residence is guaranteed after making further investments.
Scottish Torys have the affrontery to demand a Public Inquiry into Russian interference in Scottish politics
The Westminster “Intelligence & Security Committee” (ISC) only this week released its politically delayed Russia report warning that the UK is at risk of Russian exploitation because of the Tory Party’s acceptance of large amounts of political donations, establishing inappropriate relationships with Russian oligarchs. The report read:
“In brief, Russian influence in the UK is “the new normal”, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth. This level of integration London, in particular, means any measures now being taken by the Government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation.”
And information released to the public today revealed that 14 of the present Tory government ministers,(including six Cabinet members) have accepted tens of thousands of pounds in donations from Russian oligarchs.
A public inquiry should be conducted without delay so that UK citizens can be assured all measures necessary will be introduced urgently bringing an end to external interference in the nation’s politics. Including banning the practice of politicians taking money from foreigners.
But a 2018 Tory government inquiry giving a warning about Russian influence has been blatantly ignored
The report, published by Theresa May’s Tory government, “Foreign Affairs Committee”, accused government ministers of risking national security by “turning a blind eye” to Russian, “dirty money” flowing through the City of London.
Concerns were also raised about “golden visas” being issued in ever-increasing numbers despite the alleged involvement of Russia in the Salisbury Novichok nerve agent attack.
In its conclusion, the report demanded that the Government get tough on foreign nationals by tightening the rules of the scheme making it more secure.
But interestingly, the one voice of dissent from his own committee was from the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson who suggested that “there was no real role for Government in the process”.
Scottish 2014 Independence Referendum: Guidance for the UK and Scottish Governments and Civil Servants
Departments need to take particular care in approaching activity during this period and civil servants must ensure that they conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code. In particular, civil servants are under an obligation: not to undertake any activity which could call into question their political impartiality; and, to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes.
In addition, the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 (‘the Act’) sets out the legal framework for the referendum, including restrictions on Scottish Government publicity. The Act provides a 28-day restricted period from 22 August 2014 to 18 September 2014. During this period, the Scottish Government and Scottish public authorities will operate under statutory restrictions on the publication of information. Under the Edinburgh Agreement, the UK Government committed to act according to these same restrictions.
25 Aug 2014: Scottish Independence Referendum – The underhand conduct of the CBI and the UK Government
There was panic in the ranks of the UK government-led “Better Together” campaign following the second TV and final debate on Scottish independence when Alex Salmond emerged victoriously.
The Westminster Civil Service “defence of the Union” team, led by the most corrupt cabinet secretary in British political history, Sir Jeremy Heywood decided that something of significance needed to be thrown into the mix and this was manifest with the publication of a letter canvassed and organised by Amanda Harvie, leader of the Tory Party in Scotland, Media Response Unit.
Harvie, on being questioned about the spontaneity of the response to her canvassing activities admitted that many Business Leaders had refused to sign the letter or had failed to respond.
The letter devalued by the narrowness of its contributors and its political bias was signed by 133 business leaders from banking, mining, engineering, food, whisky and technology was published on the front page of every major newspaper and given repeated exposure over 3 days on a number of Scottish television programmes, stated that vital issues including currency, regulation, tax, pensions and support for exports around the world had not been resolved and a ‘Yes’ vote would be “bad for business”.
But supporters of an independent Scotland had their champions in Sir George Mathewson the former chairman of The Royal Bank of Scotland, who said: “Scotland’s vital financial services sector would flourish if Scotland voted “yes”. There is nothing to suggest that being part of a smaller country hinders a financial services industry. Switzerland, for example, has in Geneva and Zurich not one, but two of the world’s top 10 financial centres. Singapore, with 5 million people, is ranked 4th. Investment is an increasingly global business, where success depends much more on people than on borders.”
The economist and former head of Scottish Enterprise, Sir Donald MacKay, argued that an independent Scotland would be in better fiscal shape than the UK saying: “An independent Scotland should use that financial advantage to invest in re-engineering our economy towards industrial, manufacturing and tradeable services development.”
Jim McColl, one of Scotland’s richest men and head of the engineering investment business, Clyde Blowers Capital, was enthusiastic about Scottish independence and said he would consider returning home to Scotland from Monaco in the event of the “Yes” vote prevailed.
Willie Walsh, the chief executive of IAG, owner of British Airways, also said that independence would be good for Scotland.
Business for Scotland hit back with the statement: “Business for Scotland has 2,500 members who run businesses in Scotland, employ people across the country in a range of industries, and all believe that Scottish independence is in the best interests of Scotland and Scottish business. It’s a position reached after looking at the facts and figures and realising that, from a simple balance sheet point of view as well as other considerations, our best interests lie in becoming an independent country.”
27 Aug 2014: Scottish Independence Referendum – The CBI Dinner in Glasgow
Early in 2014, the CBI registered as a formal “Better Together” campaign group in the referendum but withdrew its registration after it prompted more than a dozen members to resign or suspend their membership. In an attempt to limit damage and save its membership base the CBI formally adopted a policy of strict neutrality in all matters pertaining to the referendum. It came as a bit of a bombshell therefore when the London based organisation betrayed its membership and convened a quasi impromptu dinner/business meeting in Glasgow on Thursday 27 August 2014.
The Electoral Commission had previously been formally advised of the CBI position of neutrality and asked the organisers for additional information, including the cost of the dinner then ruled that proposals did not constitute campaigning stating that it had received assurances that the cost would be within the spending limit of £10,000.
Subsequent inquiry revealed that the CBI had originally planned to host a much larger event but this had been greatly reduced to meet campaigning rules.
A revelation that confirmed, in the minds of many Scots, an act of collusion between the Electoral Commission and the UK government promoting the “No” campaign.
The lobbying event which was was promoted as a pro-Union ‘Better Together’ get together confirmed the falsity of the BBC’s much-hyped neutrality on the referendum following revelations that the corporation had been secretly paying the CBI tens of thousands of pounds membership fees each year.
Prime Minister Cameron who had cancelled all plans and meetings and rushed up to Glasgow to attend the dinner was humiliated when the CBI president Sir Mike Rake used the occasion to warn that the real danger to Scotland’s and Britain’s businesses came not from a “Yes” vote but from the Prime Minister’s promise to hold an in-out referendum on EU membership.
Not long after his address arch unionist supporting BBC reporter Nick Robinson interviewed Cameron and failed to challenge his wildly inaccurate assertions about a number of matters including a claim without foundation that the billions of pounds of deficit incurred the Bank of Scotland at the time of the World financial crash would need to be accounted for by an independent Scottish Government.
Alex Salmond later commented: “The dinner was a humiliating experience for Cameron since it exposed the powerful Eurosceptic seam within the Tory Party which is dragging Scotland ever nearer to the exit door of Europe. For Cameron to be lectured by one of the UK’s most senior business figures about the dangers of his in-out referendum shows just how worried companies are about the prospect of the UK being taken out of Europe. For Scotland, the choice is clear. A “Yes” vote which will protect our place in the EU as an independent member, or a “No” vote which results in us being dragged out of Europe against our will, shutting us off from a single market of more than 500 million people with potentially devastating consequences for jobs and investment. He wants his Unionist Government to continue to run Scotland from London with an occasional ministerial public eye visit just to keep an eye on things. Alistair Darling seems to have been shoved aside he’s not even allowed on to the phone-ins, he was replaced by (Labour MP) Douglas Alexander just a few hours ago and he has since been replaced by David Cameron. When is David Cameron going to have the guts to do what Alistair Darling did. Have a debate with me on Scotlands future.