Month: April 2023

The LBGTQ attack on Scotland

Stonewall, Equality Network, Scottish Trans Alliance, Engender and a growing number of other groups such as the LGBTQ Trend and Rape Crisis, are discredited organisations provided with around £3 million annually and rising, from the public purse by the SNP Scottish Government. The SNP leadership seeks to justify the expenditure and promotion of the groups saying they exist to “promote equality and tackle discrimination and prejudice.” But their nebulous ideology imposes a toxic influence over social policy and Scottish law and has no place in Scottish society.

Leslie Evans – Stonewaller

The discredited former Permanent Secretary of the Civil Service in Scotland, who recently retired with a £2 million perks and pension package, launched a crusade in the summer of 2017 determined that the Civil Service would conform with and fully adopt the “Stonewall” agenda for change.. She was assisted in this by her colleague, Barbara Allison and the Scottish Government led by Nicola Sturgeon. This is what she wrote and circulated to all civil servants and Scottish Government employees on 12 February 2018:

Stonewall – Workplace Equality Index (WEI)

Equality for LGBTI colleagues in our workplace is something I am passionate about. The latest Stonewall WEI ranked SG at 101 out of 439 participating employers – a drop from last year when we ranked firmly within the top 100 at position 50. We can do better than this – and we must. I welcome Stonewall’s challenge for continual improvement and a strong focus on transgender policies and practice. Colleagues are meeting with Stonewall this week to receive detailed feedback on our performance and this will inform future work. We will continue to engage with Stonewall and our LGBTI networks to ensure a supportive and positive workplace for our trans, non-binary and intersex colleagues. This issue is firmly on my radar. I want to see the SG demonstrate our unwavering commitment to equality for all.

Harassment in the workplace

The new guidance on harassment I wrote to you all in November following media reports of alleged sexual harassment in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, referring to work I had commissioned to ensure SG internal policies and procedures in this area were sufficiently robust and effective. As part of the ongoing review of our Fairness at Work policy a new process has been created to support colleagues raising sexual harassment complaints, including where these involve ministers. This is designed to ensure we listen to, take seriously and support anyone with a harassment complaint and provide clear routes for taking action. Of course, policies and procedures can only be effective in an open, inclusive and positive workplace culture. That’s why it’s vital for us to talk about this issue, and for each of us to feel confident to challenge unacceptable behaviour – ‘what you permit, you promote’. If you have any questions about the new guidance or suggestions for further improvement please contact our HR Professional Adviser team. I also encourage you to submit your views on tackling harassment via the UK wide civil service survey this week.

SNP -Policy on the hoof

All political parties, apart from the SNP introduced revised procedures in response to the late summer of 2017 “Metoo” campaign. The SNP was 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. Responding to questioning the SNP Chief Executive said the Party “continually looks to improve [its] policies and processes” and planned to introduce, in time, trained sexual harassment advisers.

By whom the first are tried

Within the week the Scottish Government, led by Evans launched it attack on the integrity of Alex Salmond. After a year of mind and body destroying attrition the SNP government was belatedly ordered to cease its harassment and was then judged to have conducted an unlawful war on Alex. Alex was awarded £512,250 costs. Immediately after the verdict Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans sent an email message to Barbara Allison, who was away on holiday sunning herself in the Middle East. It read: “We may have lost the battle but we will win the war.” She was of course referring to their crusade with with Stonewall. Nasty people.

MacKinnon was Head of Human Resources governance for the Scottish Police Authority between 2015 & 2017.

Her prime responsibility was to provide assurance to the Authority that they were a responsible employer and a sustainable organization, achieving this goal through the introduction of efficient personnel policies aiding the professional development of management and staff.

The first years following the formation of the Authority were plagued by complaints of harassment and wrongdoing in the force and the SNP Government ordered an independent audit of the Authority’s human resources and other departments that had been subject to criticism.

In January 2017 the Scottish Police Authority Complaints Audit was published: (https://pirc.scot/media/4447/spa-audit-report-2017.pdf)

The Undernoted concerns were recorded

A lack of transparency and clarity surrounding the complaints processes.

The length of time taken to deal with complaints and to undertake preliminary assessments in misconduct allegations.

A lack of communication between the Authority and senior officers who were the subjects of complaint.

Communication between the Authority and senior officers was inconsistent. In some instances, subject officers had been invited to address allegations/complaints whilst in others, an invitation had not been extended.

On a number of occasions, the first officers became aware complaints had been made about them was through media coverage.

Responsibility for ordering a preliminary assessment of misconduct allegations rested with a manager who had little or no relevant knowledge or experience and expertise.

Conclusions

The complaint handling procedure in place is neither effective nor efficient and lacks transparency and unclear guidance resulted in organizational confusion as to whether a matter should be dealt with as a “relevant”.

The average time taken to conclude complaints and preliminary misconduct assessments is excessive and disproportionate to the level of inquiry undertaken or required of the Authority.

Decisions of the Authority lacked clarity and transparency and in many cases did not contain sufficient explanation to demonstrate how a decision had been reached.

Notifying senior officers about misconduct allegations and ‘relevant complaints’ made about them was inconsistent. In some instances, senior officers were not notified but in other cases, they were notified but sometimes at the beginning or on occasions at the end of the process.

The subject officer must receive formal notification of a misconduct allegation once it has been determined that an investigation is required and before an investigator has been appointed and before the start of any investigation.

Chairpersons Statement:

Susan Deacon, (SPA chair), said the report identified a “number of important areas” requiring the authority’s attention. And it was essential that the Authority’s systems and practices were robust and worked effectively to maintain public confidence and trust.

Addressing the concerns of senior officers, procedures would be revised requiring more than one “deciding” officer to ensure key decisions were taken ensuring better oversight of the complaints process.

BBC News & current affairs presenters are biased against Scottish Independence

A video was released on UTube casting significant doubt on the willingness and ability of the BBC to cover Scottish independence campaigners in an impartial manner. 

The leaked videos featured in-house presentations by four senior BBC presenters giving explanatory background briefings to an audience of junior BBC staff.

The presenters, including BBC Scotland’s political editor Brian Taylor, are shown attacking the SNP’s proposed referendum question while claiming that Alex Salmond is ‘not impregnable’.

He is also accused of wanting a devo-max option on the ballot paper in order to ensure a parachute would be in place should Scots fail to back independence.

In the presentations, Scotland is mockingly described as being in financial deficit and requiring subsidy. 

Taylor claims that Alex Salmond wished to delay a referendum in order to ‘sow dissent’ among Unionist parties, stating:

“Salmond wants a contest as close as possible to the next UK general election because he believes that by then his Unionist opponents will be fighting each other rather than fighting independence and Alex Salmond. He wants to sow dissent among them”.

Taylor further claimed that the Scottish government’s proposed referendum question was not straightforward and simple suggesting that it was designed to elicit a positive response.

On the proposed question: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”

Taylor said: “Straight forward, simple – except it’s not. The word ‘agree’ according to psephologists is a welcoming word, it draws people in.

People like to agree, they don’t like to disagree so the word there is good. Adding: “Why does Alex Salmond favour a second question, Devo max, and Devo plus, why not just go for independence, which is the one he has the mandate for?

Because he wants a fall-back, he wants a parachute should independence fail to win”.

Also featured on the videos is BBC TV political commentator, Andrew Neil, a former editor of The Scotsman and the Sunday Times, BBC TV’s UK political editor, Nick Robinson, and BBC TV’s economics editor.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IepO9cnIk-w) (The Drum)

Scots have their say on the video

Proof of institutionalized BBC bias against Scottish Independence. The BBC purports to be even-handed this. This proves otherwise.

I find this to be genuinely disturbing. Any doubters that the staff of the BBC are past-masters in deception and double-speak watch this video and learn!

The sole message of the seminar is: “Scottish nationalists are the enemies of the BBC. This is how we will misrepresent them.”

I am delighted that this is being picked up by the wider media community, having found this and other material including the Andrew Neil briefing while searching for BBC footage on other issues.

I was struck by the impression that this event was nothing short of a Ministry of Propaganda meeting to discuss State TV strategy. Taylor is fully dependent on maintaining the union.

Neil. An exiled Scot with very few ties to Scotland. He supports the union so that he can keep pretending London is the same country as Scotland. The current arrangement works for him and he will fight tooth and nail to retain it.

The usual BBC propaganda and Scots sellouts trying to save their high salary, low effort jobs.

Interesting that most of the facts here are positive for an Independent Scotland, the economy for example. Almost like ok guys how do we make all this stuff look bad. Also, the UK can’t exist with the Kingdom of Scotland. Wales and Ireland (Northern) didn’t join the UK they were already part of the Kingdom of England.

Where is the part where they tell the audience of journalists from the BBC how to be impartial when dealing with the facts? I must have missed that bit. Can you imagine some of the other meetings which take place well behind closed doors?

The “How to Stop the Scots” seminar.

The BBC shows its true red white and blue colours and its inability to provide the impartial reporting its own charter declares is its founding principle. Basically, when it comes to anything anti-Westminster establishment the BBC are full of bile.

At 30:00 a really key admission. For the UK it’s a ‘deficit’ (which nearly all countries big and small are dealing with), however. For Scotland, it’s a ‘subsidy’ (which we generously receive from London- even though the English are sick of paying it). Ladies and gentlemen of the BBC, there’s yer bias.

Who attended this presentation? Are we now to assume that all BBC presenters, producers & editorial staff will follow the lead of Brian Taylor & Andrew Neil?

Andrew Neil has been Westminster based since the ’80s, he probably won’t even be eligible to vote (assuming he doesn’t have a rarely used Scottish residence). Remember, we pay for this ex Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece and his oversized friend.

Hey if Scotland isn’t a successor state to the UK we don’t have to inherit their debt. Yay for us.

They closed down comments contributions to conceal the real tenor of public opinion. Perhaps the upcoming vote is going to be jiggered with fake votes. In Quebec in 1995, the unconstitutional and illegal referendum was NOT about “secession” or “independence.” It was an attempt to blackmail Canadians into accepting the EU system for ALL of Canada, as the basis of the North American Union. Some quarter million FAKE citizenship ID’s were created in the half-decade prior: 217,000+ people ALL now UNTRACEABLE.

My response to this… I’m not paying your license tax for this Pravda bias!  Stick your BBC up your backside! As for Andrew Neil…

I’m not sure whether to like this, ’cause it proves how biased the BBC is, or dislike it, because of the content.

Taylor gets paid too much by the BBC and he spends his wages on steaks and chips. What a waste of our TV license fee!

BBC Scotland’s online department is coming under increasing pressure, (without response) to explain their decision to suspend comments from political blogs.

Alone among BBC broadcast regions, the blogs of veteran editor Brian Taylor and Douglas Fraser have been closed down to comments from the general public for months.

The Union of the UK is between two countries Scotland and England. Scotland leaving ends that and creates two new states. If Scotland has to re-apply to the EU then so must England/rUK. Schengen and the Euro are not preconditions of membership.