An £8 million investment will restore peatlands and help reduce carbon emissions, Climate Change Secretary Roseanna Cunningham has revealed as she opened the funding for applications today.
Communities and land managers can apply for the Peatlands Action Fund which will help the Scottish Government deliver on its proposals to restore 250,000 hectares of peatlands by 2032.
Around 1.7 million hectares of Scotland is covered in peatlands and keeping them well-maintained mitigates against climate change by locking in carbon.
If left in a degraded condition they produce greenhouse gas emissions rather than act as a sink for soaking up carbon.
Andrew McBride, SNH Peatland Action Manager said: “This is wonderful news for our peatlands and our wildlife, as well as for tourism and rural jobs.
The extra investment will almost double the amount of peatlands we can restore, and also get more people aware and involved in taking care of this valuable natural resource.
Peatland Action is one of our key projects in the delivery of the 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity Peatland Action has worked closely with a wide range of land managers and communities.
From this working relationship, we’ve seen the importance of healthy peatlands, not only to wildlife but also to many industries, including tourism, fisheries and the water industry.
We look forward to continuing work with existing partners, and also meeting new faces interested in restoring our degraded peatlands.”
Lorna Slater, Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity announces no support for fossil extraction
On the adoption of the policy position, she said: ”Right now, the UK Government is considering opening a major new coal mine in Cumbria. They have even issued a coal licence in South Scotland.
Make no mistake, this is Westminster climate denial. It would be the final nail in the coffin for the UK’s international reputation. It must be stopped.
She also challenged the UK Government to follow Scotland’s lead and rule out approval for any coal operations in England too. Adding: “Scotland – the country that helped bring the coal-fired industrial revolution to the world has drawn a line. The coal era is over. And I’m calling on the UK Government to follow us. To make the right call for once. To ban coal extraction for good.”
Further explaining the reasoning behind the position she said: “A transition is not just moving towards something, it’s also about moving away from something.
We have to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Fossil fuels in Scotland and the North Sea are no exception. That’s why the Scottish Government opposed Cambo. That’s why we will fight the UK Government’s reckless pursuit to extract every last drop of oil and gas. That is why Scotland stands strong against fracking.”
Powers over coal exploitation are reserved to the UK Government and the Coal Authority is responsible for licensing coal mining activity in Scotland. However, planning policy and determinations are devolved to the Scottish Government.
Midlothian Council approves extraction of millions of tonnes of peat from Auchencorth and Whim Moss
The Scottish Wildlife Trust and many climate change activists are greatly saddened that the extraction of thousands of tonnes of peat has been given the go-ahead at Auchencorth and Whim Moss, near Penicuik, over the next twenty years.
The peatlands are important carbon stores and wildlife habitats and also play an important part in reducing flood risk.
The decision is incredulous given the fossil free policies recently published by the SNP/Green government and a recent statement by Lorna Slater (Green Party leader and government minister confirming a hard-line no support approach for fossil extraction. And she is the constituency MSP.
The Scottish Green Party has joined with the SNP and formed the next government at Holyrood.
The establishment of a coalition government was a cynical move by Sturgeon and Harvie enabling them to make relatively unchallenged advances in their controversial social behaviour agendas.
Voters need to be alerted to excesses inherent in a number of these policies. Namely the implementation of the discredited Yogyakarta principles and other trans rights and GRA policies which will be forced onto statute by a government supported by gerrymandered consultation and with the active assistance and support of the all powerful “Equality Network”.
Voters concerned about plans to remove women’s rights and exposure of their families to regulatory imposition of oppressive social norms need to be alerted to the foregoing so that they will be better informed and able to give their vote to “ALBA” a party that fully intends to consult with and gain the support of the electorate before adding any new statute to the Laws of the Country.
23 Apr 2019: Green Party Leader accused of being a misogynist
The blog “A Thousand Flowers” posted a derogatory twitter article declaring Joan McAlpine SNP the winner of its weekly wanker accolade for airing her views about the rights of women and transgender people.
Patrick Harvie couldn’t resist commenting and shared it with his followers writing: “If the SNP wants to be a safe and supportive place for trans and gender non conforming people, they have to squarely take on those trying to prevent trans people having the same rights as anyone else“.
Twitter users were horrified. A spokeswomen for the Scottish Women’s blog tweeted “Good grief! I’m horrified that Harvie could ever retweet an abusive blog about another politician. Surely this goes against the code of conduct expected from our parliamentarians?” Her comments were echoed by other contributors.
But Harvie has form. In a previous twitter exchange he questioned the online abuse Joan had received when he said: “there is a serious debate to be had about such “abuse” but we can’t have it if people react with outrage to complaints from anti-trans campaigners but say nothing of the horrific wave of transphobic hostility, prejudice and violence that’s destroying people’s everyday lives”.
To which Joan responded: “My comments were in response to (male to female) trans activists who called me trash and justified violence against women who disagree with them. And the male leader of the Green Party in Scotland, pins his colours firmly to the she was asking for it mast.”
Harvie replied: “It’s disappointing that Joan McAlpine and a few others in the SNP have promoted anti-trans rhetoric in recent months, and apparently want to roll back trans people’s equality and human rights. Those attitudes and actions should be challenged, robustly but without abuse.”
Joan said: “Patrick Harvie should be ashamed of trying to justify the online abuse of women and indulging in it himself. Women are concerned their rights to privacy, fairness and dignity and safety are affected by proposals which means males can legally become women without surgery, medical diagnosis or gatekeeping. It is not “anti-trans” to question this proposal, but doing so has resulted in women being abused or threatened with violence. That Patrick Harvie seems to think they are asking for it is very worrying but bullies will not silence us.”
23 Jun 2019: Harvie stirs the sh*t at the Edinburgh Pride march
I met up with around a dozen like minded friends aged between 20-60. Some were wearing t-shirts proudly proclaiming “we are Lesbians”. We wanted to ensure lesbians would be visible yet despite an outward display of confidence we were alerted to an undercurrent of nervousness between the marchers and ourselves. Our apprehension was based on the negative attitude of other groups who did not approve of relationships that excluded men in our choice of partners. Acceptable? Yes!! but only if we conducted our chosen lifestyle in secret.
But we displayed our banners and sang our songs. Other lesbians came up to us and said they wished they had known we were marching and bemoaned the lack of Lesbian spaces and community in Scotland. They waved their hand-made purple and black placards, courageously yet quietly proclaiming their Lesbian existence and relieved to have support and solidarity of like minded people. There was an act of physical aggression against our group when an angry young person grabbed a placard and destroyed it screaming “TERF” but the stewards soon restored order.
But what was chilling and caused fear in our group was the content of speeches from MSPs who addressed the crowd at a pre-march rally, from the top of an open top bus. In particular the words of Patrick Harvie, Green MSP, where he said “I am sorry that this parliament very recently was used as a platform for transphobic hatred and bigotry”. And went on to say he felt compelled to apologise for the undemocratic workings of Parliament, and its decision to put a hold on GRA reform until it had been fully considered and deliberated by a broad range of groups who might be affected and, importantly, the conflation of sex and gender that has infested policy making in Scotland. His speech whipped the crowd into a frenzy, since they had already been warmed up by previous similar speeches. And whilst the promoted theme of the “Pride” was “Be Yourself”, the real focus was not about the right to be loved and to express love without prejudice, it was about “trans rights” and only that.
Thanks to the spittle infused rhetoric espoused by Harvie our group’s situation was upscaled from hostile to dangerous. We feared for our safety and attack from the mob, since immediately after, a number of people started shouting “get the TERF’s out” They meant us and we had already been blocked in by some very large people with “Trans” and “Non-Binary” flags draped over their shoulders cancelling out our groups “lesbian visibility” banners.
It later transpired that lesbians had abandoned the march after they had been harassed by “trans rights” activists who accused them of being bigots for standing up for female rights and forcing politicians to add their support. Lesbians were no longer welcomed at “Pride” marches.
Multiculturalism – The Labour Party – uncontrolled immigration – a trip down memory lane
Secret papers revealed that the Labour Party threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK.
A draft report from the Cabinet Office showed that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’.
The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000.
Melting pot: Labour’s diversity drive is exposed in secret papers Labour has always justified immigration on economic grounds and denied it was using it to foster multiculturalism.
But suspicions of a secret agenda rose when Andrew Neather, former government adviser and speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said:
“the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy is to rub the rights’ nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.
Neather also said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to:
“open up the UK to mass migration” but ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss the move publicly for fear it would alienate the core working class vote.
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.”
Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.
Some 2.3 million migrants were added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out on a good day to release bad news..
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migration Watch think tank, said:
“Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”
The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said:
“We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true. “It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.”
A Home Office spokesman said:
“Our new flexible points based system gives us greater control on those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come.
Britain’s borders are stronger than ever before and we are rolling out ID cards to foreign nationals, we have introduced civil penalties for those employing illegal workers and from the end of next year our electronic border system will monitor 95 per cent of journeys in and out of the UK. The British people can be confident that immigration is under control. (This was a big big lie.)
A Decade Later – Multiculturalism Fails – 4 Million Immigrants – White Minority Areas Expanding
Demos, the Left-wing think-tank, said its analysis of Census data for England and Wales showed ethnic minorities are concentrating in particular areas and white people are moving out.
The findings echo a phenomenon first seen in the mid-20th century United States – where it was dubbed “white flight” – which saw racially-mixed urban areas become predominantly black as affluent whites moved to the suburbs.
The research is significant because Demos, which was once closely linked with the previous Labour government which increased immigration to record levels, suggested ethnic minorities are becoming more isolated in British life rather than becoming more integrated in a “multi-cultural” Britain.
It found 4.6 million ethnic minority Britons – about 45 per cent of the country’s black and Asian population – are now living in areas where whites are in a minority.
Ten years ago just 1 million black and Asian people, or 25 per cent of the country’s then total ethnic minority population, lived in such communities, said Demos.
Ed Miliband acknowledged that the last government made mistakes presiding over the most rapid expansion of our foreign-born population in history.
He conceded that wages were being depressed by the influx of immigrant labour and that British workers had found it more difficult to get a job as a result. Up to now, this has always been denied by the ministers responsible.
Is a government funded lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) equality and human rights charity.
Its influence over SNP policies and many aspects of Scottish society is absolute.
But Scots may not embrace imposed political changes in society without informed consultation and there has been little of that.
The political network represents around 0.4% of Scotland’s population monitors the commitment of political parties in Scotland to changes in the laws of Scotland advocated by its political champions, the SNP, Green’s and Lib/Dems.
The 2021 Green Party and the Lib/Dems
Party Manifestos stated that in government they would:
“Ensure that health and social care services throughout Scotland, including mental health services, are fully inclusive of LGBT+ people and designed to remove barriers and tackle health inequalities.”
“Implement the Time for Inclusion Education (TIE) campaign recommendations, including the delayed delivery of promised funding to assist the important
“Deliver long overdue reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, including statutory self-declaration, recognising non-binary identities and all genders, and providing access to health care for trans minors with parental or guardian consent.”
“Introduce an informed consent model of trans healthcare, and in the meantime continue to push for access to Gender Identity Clinics within 18 weeks, in line with NHS standards for other services.”
“Ban so-called ‘conversion therapy’, which refers to unethical and unnecessary interventions that seek to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBT+ people or alter a person’s sex characteristics without their consent.”
“Ensure LGBT+ inclusion in Scottish Government international development policies, and enshrining the Yogyakarta human rights principles into Scots law.”
Yogyakarta human rights principles: To avoid gender discrimination, in whatever area, full provision must be made for all those people who experience discrimination because of their gender role, gender identity or gender expression. In particular, provision must be made for those with an absence of intimate conviction as to being a man or a woman.
The Yogyakarta Principles: Women’s Rights Were Not Considered
Professor Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at Kings College London, is an expert on anti-discrimination law and sexual orientation law, and was one of the co-authors of the influential “Yogyakarta Principles”.
He now says the international human rights community got it wrong in merging lesbian and gay rights with the idea of a right to have “gender identity” replace sex.
The Yogyakarta principles, developed in 2006 built on the UK’s Gender Recognition Act, presenting it as international best practice. Principle 3 argues for a right to have gender identity replace sex on all identity documents and in all situations. (The Critic)
Stonewall has been on the receiving end of a backlash for its position on trans rights, concern over which was reportedly the reason for many companies parting ways with the scheme.
The charity holds that people should be able to self-identify with the gender that they choose, but has also been accused of attempting to shut down any debate on the issue by labelling anyone who disagrees with this position – for example people who argue that allowing trans women to use women-only facilities or compete in female sports violates the rights of women – of being transphobic.
Critics also point out that self-identification is not currently recognised in UK law, and changing gender is governed by the Gender Recognition Act 2004, requiring a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
Increasing numbers of high-profile employers are ending their partnerships with the charity. Among them are Channel 4, Ofsted, the Cabinet Office, and the UK’s equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the latter two of which said the scheme no longer provided good value for money.
The Scottish Government and Civil Service have retained membership of the scheme and enter into its annual “Workplace Equality Index” and “Global Workplace Equality Index” where they are benchmarked against other companies. The list is published as an annual rundown of the top 100 employers for LGBTI inclusion.
Political leaders fronting “pride” events and/or parades gain points for their team which are credited to the two equality scheme competitions. Nicola Sturgeon has performed well in this regard. Yet she has never attended any of the numerous marches for independence. Evidently LGBTI rights are of prime importance whilst the battle for independence “withers on the vine”.
Stonewall co-founder Matthew Parris, said: “the charity has become tangled up in the trans issue and cornered itself into an extremist stance”.
Stonewall co-founder Simon Fanshawe, said: “Stonewall has become single-mindedly focused on a particular and by no means universally accepted approach to trans rights”.
Nicola Sturgeon, Stonewall fanatic defended the controversial LGBTI Lobby Group amid a backlash against it from the UK Government
In her acceptance speech to the chamber she revealed her single most priority in government would be gender equality when she said:
“To become first minister is special and it is a big responsibility. To make history as the first woman first minister is even more so. I hope my election does indeed open the gate to greater opportunity for all women. I hope it sends a strong, positive message to all girls and young women across our land. There should be no limit to your ambition for what you can achieve, if you are good enough and you work hard enough, the sky is the limit to what you can achieve, and no glass ceiling should ever stop you from achieving your dreams.”
Thanking her husband, the SNP chief executive, Peter Murrell, and her family, who were watching the vote from the balcony, in gesture to her eight-year-old niece she said: “She doesn’t yet know about the gender pay gap or unequal representation or the barriers that make it so hard for so many women to pursue careers. My fervent hope is that she never will, that by the time she is a young woman she will have no need to know because they will have been consigned to history.” That there was no mention of the fight for independence surprised and disappointed many observers.
2014: Sturgeon’s first cabinet
Sturgeon confirmed her commitment to gender equality by recalibrating the gender balance of the cabinet with the announcement of a 50/50 split between men and women. Designed to send a strong positive message to girls and young women it instead confirmed her single minded determination to ignore political reality in pursuit of dogma since only 26% of the SNP MSP’s were female. A much smaller pool of female talent providing half the cabinet did not augur well for the future.
2015: Turning Scotland into a WOKE cultural institution
By the beginning of 2015 previously contained policy differences within the Con/Dem government began to surface and this coupled with the failure of the Smith Commission to fully deliver the much vaunted promises of “the Vow” polarised voting intentions in Scotland around the SNP. The Party’s surge in popularity continued unabated and Sturgeon was lauded by the UK and foreign press who were impressed by her leadership and publicly stated ideals. Invitations asking her to address foreign governments and women’s liberation groups poured into Holyrood. Exposing her inexperience in matters of state she succumbed to the false dawn and arranged a short speaking tour of Europe and the USA for herself and her special adviser Liz Lloyd, clearly believing the manufactured hype crediting her with the Party’s recently acquired popularity to be true.
The media hyped status as the “Boadicea of the North” also persuaded her to the view that her leadership of the Party and Scottish Government was absolute and with the support of her husband, the Party’s Chief Executive, she centralised control of all Party decisions on herself and a small team of trusted advisers including vetting and approving all candidates for the next UK General Election scheduled for May 2015.
The candidate list decided on proved to be controversial and unrepresentative of the Party membership since it included many who were new to the Party and the cause of independence and there appeared to be a much larger than previous group of LBGTI people.
Adding to the disquiet was the revelation that former UK ambassador Craig Murray, whose contribution to the “Yes” campaign had been immense and who had expressed an interest in being an SNP candidate in Airdrie and Shotts, had failed Sturgeon’s vetting procedure blocked from standing.
North Lanarkshire SNP councillors and rejected candidates Alan Beveridge and John Taggart both resigned giving voice that there was malignant practice within the party at HQ level following the refusal to reveal the breakdown for votes in candidate selection. In a press statement Beveridge said: There is a climate of fear and democracy and our party is under serious threat when HQ in Edinburgh decides to refuse to reveal the breakdown of the votes cast for each candidate.
2015: The Civil Service in Scotland – Diversity Champions
The current Director General of Learning and Justice, Irish born Leslie Evans, who joined the Scottish government in 2000 after a career in local government was appointed Scotland’s top Civil Servant on 1 July 2015, replacing Sir Peter Housden as Permanent Secretary.
Welcoming the new appointment Sturgeon said: “Leslie brings vast experience to the job an I look forward to working with her in her new role as Scotland’s most senior Civil Servant, to deliver outstanding public services and the very best for the people of Scotland.”
Evans was expected to introduce major changes in the Civil Service in Scotland actively supported by fellow “Stonewall Champion” Barbara Allison, who was promoted to a new greatly expanded role as Director of Communications, Ministerial Support & Facilities Services.
The recruitment and appointment process of the new Permanent Secretary was tasked to the offices of the “First Civil Service Commissioner” in Whitehall, so that the Westminster Government would be assured of the appointment of a “Stonewall Champion” who would be accountable to the UK Government Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood preventing a repeat of the “gone native” conduct of Sir Peter Housden. A key task for the new Permanent Secretary was to rebuild trust with Holyrood’s Unionist Parties and Whitehall mandarins.
2015: Sturgeon and Stonewall hit Scotland
The Scottish Government’s LGBTI Network Group was recognised as LGBTI inclusive by Stonewall Scotland whose Managing Director said: “LGBT inclusive employers play a crucial role in changing society by using their power and influence to proudly support LGBTI people in their organisations. Our award winners are leading the way, championing lesbian, gay, bi and trans equality in the workplace.
Senior Civil Servant, Barbara Allison, responsible for Communications, Ministerial Support and Facilities in the Scottish Government and Group Leader, collected the award and said: “LGBTI equality and inclusion are at the heart of our ambition to be a world leading, diverse employer where people can be themselves at work. Our LGBTI Network is critical to building a supportive and inclusive workplace, providing a valuable space of empowerment, community and constructive challenge to our organisation. It has shown itself to be a powerful force for good in shifting perceptions and promoting understanding and we are delighted that the hard work of its members has been recognised by Stonewall.”
Afternote: Provides explanation to the Evans/Allison twice denied email exchange, “the battle may be lost but not the war” after Alex Salmond won his judicial review against the Scottish Government.
2015-2024: Stonewall gifted £1million by the Scottish Government
Questions have been asked about the Scottish Government’s major funding to LGBT charity Stonewall who recently stated: “Research suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity. LGBTQ inclusive and affirming education is crucial for the wellbeing of all young people. Yet, many nurseries and schools teach a binary understanding of pre-assigned gender.” The statement was criticised by the LGB Alliance as an “extreme ideological belief.”
The payments do not include the Scottish Government awarding Stonewall £25k to be part of its diversity champions programme. A scheme that “advises employers how to bring their policies in line” with Stonewall’s best practice to make workplaces better and fairer for LGBT staff. Critics claim that the programme is a lobbying enterprise and not impartial.
A spokeswoman for “Women of Scotland” criticised the money spent stating: “Stonewall are a lobbying group and we are concerned about the Scottish Government giving large amounts of taxpayers money to the Scottish branch of an international pseudo charity. Many Scots are volunteering to give their free time to help feed the homeless in Glasgow and Edinburgh and these lobbying groups are getting all this money chucked at them to do what exactly? They charge the Scottish Government for going on courses and have the cheek to go down to councils and charge them and try that at local schools, and it’s not training as such.”
Stonewall previously came under-fire for trying to instruct public bodies to remove gendered words such as “mother” from their HR policies. A change which Leslie Evans agreed to by amending the Civil Service maternity leave policy so that the organisation could improve its standing on Stonewall’s controversial Workplace Equality Index.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “We work with a wide range of third sector organisations, including registered charity Stonewall Scotland, to help shape policy and practice to improve outcomes for LGBTI communities across Scotland. Grant funding is awarded to Stonewall to tackle issues of LGBTI discrimination in public life in Scotland, including in workplaces, health services and communities, and to better equip public service providers to meet the public sector equality duty. In 2021/22 we provided around £3million to third sector organisations in the homelessness sector.”
2015: Staff recruitment influenced by Stonewall
Stonewalls extensive input into the Scottish Government’s 2018 campaign to recruit 150 senior “band 2” officials was revealed under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act confirming concerns about the extent of Stonewalls influence over the recruitment of Scottish senior Civil Service officials and Special Advisers witnessed by the Scottish government’s contravention of the rules governing the impartiality of the civil service through the application of pressure encouraging Civil Service recruitment panels to communicate with Stonewall as part of their recruitment campaigns. In addition to the recruitment and promotion of senior civil servants Stonewall is also routinely contracted to train officials who go on to endorse support for contentious changes to gender identity law.
2015: The Stonewall Workplace Equality Index
The index is promoted by Stonewall as being a celebration of the fairest employers in the country and their efforts to eliminate discrimination in the workplace.
Taking a contrary view the chairwoman of Sex Matters said: “Stonewall sells its Workplace Equality Index as a scheme to help organisations comply with equality law – but what it offers is lobbying. It also presents its own highly contentious understanding of what the law should be, presented as ‘training’ on what the law is and tells organisations to treat anyone who identifies as the opposite sex as if they have changed sex, and are therefore automatically entitled to use spaces such as toilets, changing rooms and showers that others rely on for privacy – that’s not the law. But Stonewall presents it as if it is and encourages organisations to treat any objections as a disciplinary matter.
The Scottish government participates in the scheme at an annual cost of £2500.
In one 31 page annual return, Leslie Evans offered up screenshots of its social media activities for Stonewall’s approval including details of every “Pride” event attended by Sturgeon, together with examples of “LGBT champions” censuring dissenting colleagues on internal forums as proof of the Scottish Government’s commitment to “equality”.
The return also contained a commitment to consult on changing the laws of the country when in a section “worth 10% of the total score” of the 2017 application, it pledged to “consult on reforming gender recognition legislation in line with international best practice for transgender people.”
Questioned in the 2018 application form, “has your organisation done any further work in the past year to promote LGBT equality in the wider community?”, Evans responded that it “has consulted on potential reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce a self declaratory system”.
Stonewall lobbied for people to have access to single-sex spaces, on the basis of their self-declared “gender identity” instead of biological sex. A controversial proposal opposed by many women, who fear it will open up spaces such as changing rooms, prisons, refuges and women-only shortlists to any biological male who says they are a woman.
In an effort to win points, the government also described how it was “consulting on the detail of what should be included in a new hate crime bill”.
The recently passed “hate crime bill” legislation, created a new offence of “stirring up hatred” on grounds such as transgender identity, and attracted criticism for excluding women as a protected group.
But its implementation also won the Government a pat on the back from Stonewall who stated: “The sponsorship and support the Scottish Government provides is highly valuable and impactful, and together with the consultations towards reforming gender recognition legislation it has an influential and powerful role in improving the lives of LGBT people across Scotland.” The reward was 18 out of 20 points.
In another application, Stonewall awarded the Scottish Government 11 out 17 points: “for its “influence on the 2021 census”.
Despite all the many commitments to change the legal landscape not only within its own workplace but across the whole country, the Scottish Government missed out on a Top 100 ranking by just one place — it came 101st.
Responding to the setback Leslie Evans declared in a blog: “We can and must do better than this.” And her exortions bore fruit, in the following year, the Scottish Government was placed 72nd.
And Stonewall demanded more saying: “Some key areas to focus on before the next submission. Ensure that Mothers, Pregnant Women and Fathers gender terminology is removed from your Maternity and Paternity policies.”
It failed to do so and the year after it sunk down to 127th.
Stonewall commented: “We have identified the following areas as priorities for the year ahead. Remove any remaining gendered terms such as ‘mother’ from your maternity policy, and replace them with gender neutral equivalents. Please refer to Stonewall’s Inclusive Policy Toolkit for further information.”
Critics say Stonewall uses the scheme to impose its own language and beliefs, with which not all gay and transgender people agree.
Within hours of the independence referendum declaration giving the Unionists victory, David Cameron, acting on the advice of the UK government Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood and ignoring warnings, pleas from “Better Together” campaigners not to do so, went ahead and declared that English Votes for English Laws (EVEL), would be proceeded with at the same time as processing the “Vow”.
The announcement prompted the SNP Government to accuse Cameron of reneging on the “Vow” and in the weeks following the SNP surged in the polls. By mid-December the SNP were 20% ahead of Labour Party. A SNP landslide victory was predicted in the next General Election .
Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury, who was denied sight of Cameron’s statement before the announcement said “it was an appalling episode … He went from being a prime minister who had absolutely done the right thing in the national interest to making a very partisan judgement on behalf of the Conservative party, that’s how it felt to me”. Adding: “talk about trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. What it did was just give the nationalists a whole grievance agenda from a minute after the result was declared. It was just dreadful”.
It was revealed in early December that during the referendum campaign the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, had commissioned a poll on the “West Lothian question”, in England, at a cost of cost around £600,000.
The data collected found that 53 per cent of voters in England supported the concept of not allowing Scottish MPs in the UK Parliament in Westminster to vote on issues that did not impact on Scotland. 23 per cent opposed the idea and 24 per cent who did not know.
The also found that 44 per cent supported the concept of giving more decision making powers on issues such as tax, education, policing to big cities and regions in England with 40 per cent agreeing with the need for a fully-fledged English Parliament.
Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary, UK Government
Heywood’s name was in the thoughts of many political commentators as revelations surfaced of his “Svengali” like power over Westminster politicians. Having been in post at the time Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron were in control of UK Government’s he was aware of all their political wrong doings himself having discharged an executive role in many of the events. Ultimte unfettered power was his, gained, retained and exercised through knowing where skeletons were buried.
Many claims have been made that the 2014 independence referendum was won for the Unionists by the “Better Together” Campaign. It wasn’t. Heywood was the driving force behind Westminsters aasult on the “Yes” campaign.
Reporting only to David Cameron, and armed with an unlimited financial budget, Heywood, created a “defence of the Union” team comprised of around a dozen of his most talented senior Civil Servants.
They were removed from from all other duties for 6 months before the referendum and functioned out of the Cabinet Office. Their “dirty tricks” spoilers were a major contribution to the successful campaign and they were given due recognition and were well rewarded for their efforts.
A few examples of Heywood’s insidious artistry in the 2014 independence referendum:
The Queen’s “off the cuff” remark to one of her “specially placed” subjects at Balmoral four days before the referendum where in answer to a query about the future she said: “Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future.” This was a Heywood inspired intervention. He had contacts in high places.
Contacting Heads of State world-wide seeking their public support encouraging Scots to remain with the union.
Covering up the illegal release by a Civil Servant of a confidential document from the Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael’s office detailing malicious and untrue allegations about Nicola Sturgeon and the French Ambassador to Scotland.
Another Heywood inspired spoiler. A week before the referendum the Royal Bank announced that it would move its legal headquarters to England in the event of a “Yes” vote boosting the Unionist cause.
The announcement was released apparently following a specially arranged board meeting. And this from a bank the subject of bail-outs, mis-selling scandals, lavish bonuses for most of the six years that RBS had been majority-owned by British taxpayers.
Alex Salmond was furious and demanded that the “Treasury leak” of the RBS plan be investigated. But the timing of the leak which was accompanied with similar statements by Lloyds Banking Group, TSB and Clydesdale threatened to deflate the argument of the SNP that the economy of an independent Scotland would be sustainable.
He organised a “breakfast meeting” at Downing Street attended by the captains of British industry together with the chair’s and chief executives of many large businesses.
Right after which he arranged the distribution of a “letter from industry” signed by all of those in attendance warning Scots of the many pitfalls that would accompany independence and warned that there would be a major shift of industry away from Scotland.
Jim Sillars was furious and accused the signatories of “subverting Scotland’s democratic process” by making high-profile interventions in the independence referendum debate.
He also warned that Oil giant BP would face nationalisation in an independent Scotland and greedy bankers’ would be called to account for their abuse of the nations financial assets.
In Jun 2014, in a blatant political move just weeks before the Scottish referendum Heywood arranged for the Grangemouth plant to receive a £230 million UK Treasury loan guarantee from the UK Government.
The plant owner Ineos intended to build Europe’s largest ethane storage tank, with the loan also allowing the construction of an import terminal to process ethane from shale gas shipped from the US.
The Electoral Commission for Scotland
The Electoral Commission (EC) for Scotland a supposedly impartial organisation was formed in 2001 with a mandate that included, increasing public participation in democracy and regulating political donations. The role was further strengthened adding security arrangements for postal voting and a number of investigatory responsibilities.
The guarantee of a strictly impartial Commissioner and support team was crucial to the success of the new organisation and John McCormick, employed by the strictly unbiased BBC for 34 years, as Secretary then Controller of BBC Scotland, 1992-2004 was appointed to the post of Commissioner in 2008.
But the failings of the EC were soon exposed following a number of Scottish elections in which there were tens of thousands of claims of electoral fraud, voters being turned away from polling stations and an insufficient number ballot forms.
The Glenrothes by-election of 2008 was one such fiasco where the boxes containing the counted votes went missing, preventing a recount, where the by-election victor held his seat.
In the 2014 referendum Clackmannanshire voted “no” which was a body blow to the “yes” campaign since it had been accepted the electorate was pro-independence.
Its recently appointed Counting Officer and Council Chief Executive, Elaine McPherson, who surprisingly resided in Cheshire, England, was a former business partner of the master of shady deals, Sir Philip Green, the notorious British tycoon and die-hard Zionist-for-Empire-and-Austerity.
Mary Pitcaithly, a senior Civil Servant and Unionist was appointed Chief Counting Officer, of the independence referendum.
A qualified corporate lawyer she was second chair of the “Queen’s High Commissioner” Arbuthnot Commission which considered and recommended controversial constituency boundary changes and voting systems in Scotland.
She then joined the Tory/Labour coalition in 2012 and played a major role in the organisation of the anti SNP “spoiler” Unionist biased Bannockburn 700 celebrations.
In her referendum brief to the public she stated that there would be no national recount even if the result was close.
The referendum held in September 2014 wasn’t so much an electoral process as an unfettered festival of jiggery-pokery and gerrymandering Conspiracy!!!!! witnessed by the triumphalist behaviour of Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Tories who claimed minutes after the outcome of the referendum that she and many Unionist campaigners within the “Better Together” group were aware that they had won the referendum before the 18th of September which meant that they had to have had access to the postal votes which were supposed to have been held secure until after the live voting had concluded at 2200 hours on the 18th of September.
Davidson was interviewed by the police but the public were not informed of the outcome of their investigations.
The Smith Commission
Core structures & desired outcomes
Civil servants worked effectively to construct an intelligible process that established and maintained momentum and reached a conclusion by the agreed deadline.
The deal reached created the potential for policy divergence between Scotland and the rest of the UK, symptomatic of the shift to competitive but restricted welfare federalism.
The UK government,though not formally present at the negotiations exerted considerable control feeding their policy preferences into the Commission and shaping an outcome that fitted their preferences.
From Whitehall, the short-term political agenda was driven by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jermey Heywood, who claimed to be serving the political agenda of the UK Goverment.
The Treasury bowed to political realities in the short-term, confident of its ability to reassert its authority in the more technical negotiations that to follow the Commission’s conclusions
The Deal
The outcome of the Commission most closely reflected the preferences of the Conservative party.
Both Conservative members of the Commission claimed, in interviews, that they had successfully “delivered Strathclyde” (the Conservative’s devolution proposals were the result of an internal party commission that was informally named the Strathclyde Commission, after its chair).
The Conservatives, a party who opposed Scottish Home Rule through to the 1960s and Tony Blair’s devolution proposals in the 1990s had managed to find a middle ground between the maximalist position of the SNP and Labour’s proposals. The intellectual argument had been won by the better politically equipped Conservatives.
The technical success of the Smith Commission in that it reached an outcome by the agreed deadline came at the expense of ambition and detail.
In order to secure a minimum level of agreement in a short space of time, certain contentious or complicated issues remained unresolved. The result was a terse report with a low level of analysis and argument.
The devolution of welfare was not sufficiently explored and thought through, and the discussion was ultimately cut short not only by the time pressures limiting the extent of the engagement by Scotland’s academic and third sector but also by the recurring intervention of the Cabinet Secretary in London.
The report also relied on abstract concepts such as the principle of “no detriment” that required subsequent inter-governmental negotiations to give it substance.
A short-term fiscal framework was agreed in February 2016, but negotiations afterwards were punctuated by the intransigence of the Scottish Secretary, David Mundell who laboriously insisted on conducting a long drawn out campaign of delaying tactics aimed at reducing devolved powers.
Conclusion
The Smith Commission was a political fix in the guise of an investigation. Its predetermined task, which it accomplished, was to put together a package of powers that could be presented as delivering a ‘powerhouse’ Holyrood. This neutralised the heat of the referendum battle by creating some legitimacy and consensus around the next stage of Scotland’s devolution journey. Its report was simply a checklist of agreed points and mentions of unresolved issues.
Announcing the 2014 independence referendum result a clearly relieved Prime Minister David Cameron, confirmed the “Vow” published in the DailY Record, would be fully implemented by the UK Government.
He then went on to announce that a consequence of increasing the powers of the devolved Scottish Government generated a need to resolve the “West Lothian” question and to facilitate this an urgent “Bill” would be introduced at Westminster barring Scottish MP’s from any involvement in legislation impacting on England and Wales.
For many Scots the off-handed manner of his surprise pronouncement of momentous change was an ominous portent of events to come.
Although the referendum had been lost the close run outcome promised a bright future for the SNP which contrary to expectations was polling very highly.
But a despondent Alex Salmond took stock and judged it was time for him to give up his role as leader of the SNP and Scottish Government. It would be for a new leadership team to take the cause of independence forward.
Sturgeon Coronated SNP leader
The Party membership on 14 November 2014 at the Autumn Conference in Perth, formally inducted Sturgeon, as Party leader.
Her first ill judged decision, against the advice of Alex Salmond, and other senior Party officials was to confirm her husband Peter Murrell would continue in his role as Chief Executive of the Party.
In acting as she did she exposed a style of leadership closely resembling that of her political hero the consumate control freak, Margaret Thatcher. But would the two headed monster consume the Party? Early indicators were not promising.
She got a dream start. The SNP’s main rival, Labour, was in turmoil. In contrast the SNP had experienced a massive surge of support for independence. Party membership had grown from 25,000 before the referendum to more than 90,000 and rising, making it the UK’s third-largest party, indicating independence had only been briefly delayed.
Sturgeon went on to complete a week long tour of Scotland meeting these many new members, culminating in her triuphant address to the Party faithful at a fully booked 13,000 capacity SSE Hydro in Glasgow.
But there were concerns that the expectations of the vast bulk of the new members who wanted independence to remain central to the SNP political agenda would be ignored when she said that the rumoured watered down proposals for increased powers were sufficient to continue to negotiate in good faith with Lord Smith, who was heading the multi-political team tasked with to drawing up a package of new tax and welfare powers for Scotland by early January 2015.
Addressing independence she said she still believed Scotland would become independent: “at some stage in the future”. But a decision to include another referendum in the Party’s next manifesto would be determined by circumstances, including the impact of a delivery of more powers and the possibility of an EU referendum.
Sturgeon Gains Power
On 20 November 2014, Sturgeon was officially sworn into the office of First Minister of Scotland. The next day she unveiled her Cabinet with a 50/50 gender balance.
Sturgeon’s bold move demonstrated one significant difference between herself and Thatcher. The latter was dismissive of feminism, while she made promoting gender equality her top priority, regardless of ability. When questioned about style and substance she said:
“Thatcher didn’t do anything to open opportunity for women coming up behind her. I want to make sure I use whatever time I get to be First Minister to make sure that it’s not another 20 years before we have another woman leader in Scotland.”
And her fervent advocacy of the cause of feminism was not confined to Cabinet appointments. Her first “programme for government”, included proposals to force larger Scottish companies to introduce gender-balanced boards by 2020.
At a conference for women members of the Party she promised her personal intervention for any woman seeking official roles. And when When a female SNP councillor complained that a male party colleague had criticised her for wearing white linen trousers at work, she empathasised with her saying: “If it wasn’t for the fact that I know you are perfectly capable of dealing with that yourself I would suggest that the next time he makes a comment like that you send him to me for further discussion.”
In a follow up interview she said that political commentators’ obsessive focus on appearance was just one of a multitude of obstacles to women’s progress. Adding: “It’s probably not a single day goes by when I don’t read some derogatory comment about myself, about how I look or what I’m wearing. I’m used to it but what angers me is the thought that there might be some young woman out there just now who would really like to get into politics but picks up a newspaper and reads some awful commentary about my hair, or how I look, and thinks: “I don’t think I could put myself through that.”
And Sturgeon was quick to dismiss Unionist claims that a constitutional referendum would be a “once-in-a-generation” event with a counter that another vote could be held as soon as public opinion permitted it.
Citing Neil MacCormick, the Scottish legal philosopher, as distinguishing between existentialist and utilitarian nationalists, the latter wanting independence mainly for the power claiming it would provide politicians with the ability to build a better country. She offered: “There’s probably a mix of both of those things in most modern nationalists but I’m more of the utilitarian type than the existential type.”
Mid-January 2015 The new broom begins her sweep
Sir Peter Howsden, Scotland most senior Civil Servant, whose tenure as Permanent Secretary was dogged by opposition allegations that he had gone “native” in his relationship with Alex Salmond’s nationalist administration announced his retirement from office saying he would leave his job well before the May 2015 UK General Election.
Alex Salmond said Sir Peter had handled the referendum process and talks with the UK government “particularly well”, as an “outstanding public servant”.
But Sir Peter was called to Westminster to face a charge that he had breached the Civil Service Code over an internal briefing in which he had advised those in attendance that the referendum debate had left “the status quo lost in the mists of time”.
He was found not guilty. But many Unionist politicians continued to question his impartiality, including Sir Bernard Jenkin, Conservative convener of Westminster’s Public Administration Committee, who asked whether he could impartially serve another administration in the event the SNP was voted out in 2016.
Sir Peter denied acting as a “cheerleader” for independence and told the Commons committee he had raised no concerns with SNP ministers that the white paper on independence could have compromised civil service neutrality.
Liberal Democrat MSP Tavish Scott suggested Sir Peter had presided over a politicised civil service and the promotion of SNP policy with the launch of the white paper in late 2013, saying : “The Scottish civil service needs a shake-up. If they are to be impartial and above reproach, we cannot see repeats of the infamous independence white paper which was an SNP political manifesto and contrary to the values of an independent civil service. Change at the top is needed and Scotland will look for a new approach from a new permanent secretary.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, welcoming Sir Peter’s departure, said: “We need to draw a line underneath that period and given that, Sir Peter’s decision to leave before a potential change of government is the right one.”
UK Cabinet Secretary regains control of Scotland
Sir Peter’s departure provided the UK Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service, Sir Jeremy Heywood, with the opportunity to re-establish his authority over Civil Servants employed in Scotland and he did so with great speed ushering in to power a team of hardline feminist and Stonewall activist Civil Servants led by a newly appointed Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans.
The change brought with it a reintroduction of the Permanent Secretary’s weekly meetings with UK Cabinet colleagues in London requiring Leslie Evans to rise at 0455 hours so that she could catch a first class early bird flight from Turnhouse.
Expensive but reinforced Heywood’s control of herself and the 5000 Civil Servants in Scotland.
The stage was set for Stonewall to deploy its considerable LGBTI resources to Scotland.
Which it did with Sturgeon’s enthusiastic support and £400,000 of Scottish taxpayers hard earned cash.
Alex Salmond – his drive for Scottish independence
The SNP first gained power under the inspired leadership of Alex Salmond at the 2007 Scottish Parliament election, forming a minority government, before going on to win the 2011 Parliament election on a platform of supporting independence and of holding a referendum.
Alex challenged the status of a “devolved executive” asserting that the electorate of a sovereign country had every expectation that their votes cast in a general election would result in the formation of a government and ignoring protests emanating from the Cabinet Office London went ahead and changed the terminology then created the Scottish Government.
He then changed the roles and responsibilities of the civil service in Scotland, stating, “It is the role of the Scottish civil service to work with the elected government of the day to implement its policies”.
The Cabinet Secretary of the UK Government was quick to condemn the change claiming there would be “constitutional fiction” since officials in Edinburgh and London were part of a single unified civil service and the long established principle of a single civil service responsible to the UK Government Cabinet Office Secretary was worth protecting.
But Sir Peter Housden, the Scottish Government Permanent Secretary and Civil Servants in Scotland fully embraced the regime change and adapted its policies accordingly ignoring any contrary instructions from London.
He praised Scottish ministers’ “vision, skill and energy” and their “ambitious and exciting programme”.
After the SNP’s election victory he wrote:
“This will be a remarkable period in Scotland’s history as we embark on a journey toward constitutional reform with the near-term strengthening of the Scotland Bill and a referendum in the second half of the parliament. The terms of this debate have changed irrevocably in just three weeks.”
He also urged staff to read an opinion piece by a politics professor which argued the SNP no longer had a “conceptual” problem with persuading voters to support independence. The stage was set for confrontation.
This was triggered when in November 2011, Alex Salmond launched the SNP Governments white paper for independence, “Scotland’s Future”.
Unionist politicians in Scotland wrote to the Cabinet Secretary in London forcefully criticising the Permanent Secretary, saying the paper, prepared by the Civil Service in Scotland was close to being a Party manifesto and lacked candour and accuracy and did not uphold the factual standards expected of a government white paper.
They also questioned the use of public money for partisan purposes, stating that Civil Servants should not be required to carry out ministers’ wishes if they are being asked to use public funds to promote the agenda of a political party.
The Scottish Government insisted that “Scotland’s Future”, “met the highest professional standards and that its contents were entirely appropriate for a government publication and it was a proper use of public funds.
The 2014 Independence Referendum
The September 2014 Independence Referendum inspired the UK Government and Unionist political supporters at Westminster, in business and the news and television media to execute a brutal “Project Fear” campaign against the future well being of Scots.
But despite their best efforts when their deceitful “Better Together” campaign was faced with the probability of defeat its leaders unlawfully broke the agreed rules of campaigning by illegally publishing an offer to the Scottish electorate, in the Daily Record, to establish a devolved Scottish Government armed with “Devomax” powers. That was self rule just short of full independence. Many Scots fell for the ruse and voted to remain within the Union.
Alex Salmond resigned soon after, opening the door in November 2014, for Nicola Sturgeon to be appointed by acclimation to the position of Leader of the SNP and the Scottish Government.
2014: Stonewall and its Gender Gestapo set the agenda on diversity
Stephen Frost, the Director of Stonewall, one of the largest organisations campaigning for the rights of LGBT people across Britain was contracted, cost £millions, together with his organisation to act as expert advisors to the UK government advising Heywood on the implementation of Stonewall’s ideals on the delivery of diversity and inclusion policies within the Civil Service in England and Wales.
Accepting all recommendations, Heywood decided on the execution of a civil service diversity drive led by a single cross-government team run through his offices.
The initial push would commit the civil service to an intensive programme” of informed assistance for departments and agencies enabling them to fully integrate diversity and inclusion into their business processes.
Heywood then announced his intentions in an address to a Civil Service summit saying:
“The implementation of diversity policies will be scrutinised by non-executive directors with established track records on diversity. While the most senior civil servants will be deemed personally responsible for tackling discrimination. As long as I’m head of the civil service this will be one of the top priorities and we will relentlessly focus on it. I want each individual permanent secretary to have a clear, evidence-based objective relevant to their department for which they will be held accountable. The objectives will be public so there will be public pressure. They will be agreed stretching objectives such that if we meet them consistently over the parliament we’ll have made a big difference.”
The drive for change was designed to eliminate the then prevalent culture of working which was holding back disabled Civil Servant’s of which a disproportionate number reported being bullied or harassed in the workplace.
It would also bring order to the inconsistent and uncoordinated implementation of the new policies being designed to ensure talented black and minority ethnic (BME) civil servants would be recognised through promotion and correcting the paucity of senior lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) role models in the Civil Service.
The Civil Service in Scotland was not included in Heywood’s agenda for change since the Permanent Secretary, Sir Peter Housden took his instructions from Alex Salmond and ignored any of the overtures from London. Another confrontation was inevitable.
Rishi Sunak – A history of banking scandals and tax evasion
Sunak shone as a partner in the interventionist hedge fund the Children’s Investment Fund (TCI) while it targeted Dutch bank ABN Amro to the point that Royal Bank of Scotland ill-advisedly bought it up in 2007 and needed a £45bn taxpayer-funded bailout the following year.
That history may or may not help Sunak clear up his former firm’s mess as he takes charge of the 62 per cent stake in RBS the taxpayer still owns.
Soon afterwards, in 2009, Sunak left TCI to co-found another hedge fund, the Anglo-American Thélème Partners.
It is closely linked to the Cayman Islands – where Thélème funds were supposedly principally managed in the classic tax-avoiding way that hedge funds operate, slashing tax bills from California to Mayfair.
Just three days before his promotion to Chancellor, the eager-to-please Sunak launched his pet policy for freeports around the UK. A plan he first pushed as a relatively new MP in a 2016 paper for the right-wing Centre for Policy Studies.
Now he has his hands on all of the financial controls of government he can and will do whatever it takes to entice major investment to the soon to be created freeports (ie big tax breaks and few questions asked). (truepublica)
caltonjock 