02 Mar 2018: Sex scandals in Scottish parliament under Nicola Sturgeon’s watch
The publication date, early March 2018, is very relevant. This was a Scottish Government survey conducted right at the start of the efforts to destroy the reputation of Alex Salmond.
The report was a political bombshell, and yet it never appeared in any of the copious senior management texting correspondence. Nicola Sturgeon maintained she knew nothing about anything, which is impossible to believe since she read and commented on the document.
The October 2017, “Me2” campaign and the Westminster sex scandal arising from it prompted the completion of a confidential survey of people employed at Holyrood, including MSPs, their staff, parliamentary workers, and news reporters. Over 1000 individuals responded and the results were shocking.
The Holyrood sexual harassment report was sent to Nicola Sturgeon at the beginning of March 2018. It listed more than 200 allegations of harassment, most dating from 2016. Of the 137 women who said they had been sexually harassed, 67 reported that the perpetrator was an MSP.The report was quickly buried, and only Alex Salmond was put through the ringer. Why?
The findings showed that Holyrood perpetrators were nearly always male, regardless of the gender of the victim and in the majority of cases, the alleged perpetrator was in a position of authority.
Reports included 5 instances where the perpetrator had attempted to pinch or grope the victim’s bottom, and 10 where they had tried to kiss their victim. There was even 1 attempt to grope the breast of a woman, and another attempt to grab at a victim’s crotch.
The report also indicated that victims and their perpetrators were “most likely” to come from the same group of people. Nine of the 13 MSPs who had reported sexual harassment said their abuser had been another MSP.
Some 40 percent of respondents said they had been targeted by a parliamentary worker, and a further 20 percent by a member of MSPs’ staff. The total percentage exceeds 100 percent, as some respondents reported more than one case of harassment.
A total of 29 percent of respondents – which is approximately 300 people – said they had witnessed sexual harassment. One-in-five women said they had received sexist comments, 16 percent reported unwanted looks or leers, and another nine percent reported unwanted physical contact.
Of concern was that 11 people who had reported harassment said their cases were not taken seriously or acted on by their managers, while four said their complaints had caused problems for them at work. Most had taken no action at all, and a quarter of respondents said they didn’t feel confident that they knew how to report such incidents. (Sputnik)
The Scottish National party (SNP) is the only party in Scotland that cannot provide evidence of overhauling its sexual harassment policy following the #MeToo revelations of November 2017. This after a confidential survey conducted on 01 March 2018 found that one in 10 staff had experienced sexual harassment, 45% of whom said that the perpetrator was an MSP.
After note: All political parties, apart from the SNP, introduced revised procedures after 2017. Asked for comment, the SNP said it “continually looks to improve [its] policies and processes” and planned to introduce, in time, trained sexual harassment advisers.
The SNP is the only party which did not at the time display a code of conduct and relevant harassment policy on its website, or offer an easily searchable contact phone numbers or email to make a complaint. Indeed, the SNP code of conduct made no mention of sexual harassment specifically. (Guardian)
John Swinney – The Scottish MSP who spent 20 years plotting against and destroying fundamentalist nationalists achieved his life’s ambition in leading a firmly committed gradualist SNP Government. But to where?
Swinney was born in Edinburgh on 13 April 1964. He attended the University of Edinburgh, where he graduated with an MA Honours degree in politics in 1986.
He married work colleague Lorna in 1991. They had two children. The marriage ended in 1998 (annulled in 2000) after he discovered she was cheating on him with a married school-teacher. She retained the family home and the children and he moved into rented accommodation.
He decided to get married again. But there was a problem. His fiancée was a committed Roman Catholic and he was a divorced protestant and a wedding would not be permitted in a Roman Catholic Chapel unless his previous marriage had been annulled which was not possible because he had fathered two children in the marriage cancelling out any possibility of an annulment. If he and Elizabeth went ahead with the marriage it would not be recognised by the Roman Catholic Church and any children from the marriage might face other censures.
His first marriage was annulled by the Vatican using an obscure technical excuse, (kept secret) to the chagrin of the Protestant Church and in July 2003, he married BBC journalist, Roman Catholic, Elizabeth Quigley. How did he manage to get an annulment of his first marriage? GROK analysed the event:
Swinney was a research officer for the Scottish Coal Project (1987–1988), a senior management consultant with Development Options (1988–1992), and a strategic planning principal with Scottish Amicable (1992–1997).
Political Career 1979-2021
He joined the SNP aged 15 and was an active member of the youth wing, progressing over the years to the post of Assistant National Secretary then, in 1986, at the early age of 22, National Secretary until 1992, when he was promoted to the post of Vice Convenor, then Senior Vice Convenor (Deputy Party Leader) holding the position until 1997.
He was elected Member of Parliament (MP) in 1997, for the Tayside North constituency, and in 1999 he became an MSP for the same area in the Scottish Parliament.
He gave up the “dual mandate” as a Westminster MP at the 2001 general election to reduce his time away from home.
He supported Margaret Ewing in her 1990 bid to become SNP leader, but transferred his allegiance to Alex Salmond who won it.
Early Party and political Career 1979-1997
He joined the SNP aged only 15 and was an active member of the youth wing, progressing over the years to the post of Assistant National Secretary then, in 1986, at the early age of 22, National Secretary until 1992, when he was promoted to the post of Vice Convenor, then Senior Vice Convenor (Deputy Party Leader) holding the position until 1997.
He was elected Member of Parliament (MP) in 1997, for the Tayside North constituency, and in 1999 he became an MSP for the same area in the Scottish Parliament.
He gave up the “dual mandate” as a Westminster MP at the 2001 general election in order reducing his time away from home.
He supported Margaret Ewing in her 1990 bid to become SNP leader, but transferred his allegiance to Alex Salmond who won it.
2000 to date: The Holyrood years – MSP Tayside North (1999-2011) then MSP for Perthshire North
Alex Salmond resigned the Party leadership in 2000 and Swinney was elected Leader in the ensuing election.
2001: His leadership was ineffectual, with the Party losing an MP in 2001
2002: Swinney’s Chief of Staff, Stuart Barrowman walked away from the job just eight months after becoming the party’s top official because of savage in-fighting.
His decision to quit came as senior members of the party fought a bloody battle for re-selection as candidates for the Holyrood elections.
Barrowman was one of Swinney’s vital strategists and was in charge of parliamentary staff and the Holyrood group budget and was the key to building an effective opposition to the Labour-led Executive.
The run-up to the series of Nationalist hustings was a bruising internal battle with spin and smear campaigns being waged against some of the most senior MSPs in the party.
Informed sources advised that Party members, fed up with the dithering gradualists wished to appoint fundamentalist candidates and senior MSPs could end up well down the list – endangering their Holyrood seats.
Aug 2003: Swinney’s Leadership was challenged by Dr. Bill Wilson. Although he stood little chance of winning, it was the hope of Swinney’s critics that a “stalking horse” bid would provoke a serious challenge to a leader whose standing with Party members had been damaged further by the loss of even more MSP’s.
Critics blamed the losses on the Swinney’s style and his lack of charisma and his dictatorial style of leadership alienated a number of MSP’s including former MSP, Dorothy-Grace Elder and legendary SNP, figure Margo McDonald both of whom resigned from the Party.
A senior Party activist commented:
“This shows the widespread frustration among the grass roots. This was Labour’s worst election performance, but we could not capitalise on it – in fact we lost eight seats. And to add insult to injury, we had John Swinney and others claiming that it was a good campaign.”
2003: Swinney won the leadership contest. In a result marked by a low turnout and many abstentions an unhappy membership confirmed Swinney as Party Leader. Speaking just after the result was announced a relieved Swinney said:
“This has been an uncomfortable summer for the SNP. But we have emerged stronger. I have made it clear that I have listened to members concerns and I will continue to listen. But the row between the gradualist side of the party and those who are in favour of an independence referendum, and the fundamentalist wing, who want all or nothing, should now end. The door is shut on these arguments”.
West of Scotland List MSP, Campbell Martin was the first MSP to publicly back Bill Wilson in his leadership challenge and Swinney’s supporters feared his breaking ranks might spark an open revolt amongst the other 27 MSP’s.
Speaking to the press he exposed deep divisions in the SNP saying his position reflected growing grassroots opposition to Swinney’s lack of commitment to independence. He said:
“The SNP is supposed to be the party of independence but under the current leader we have started to walk away from our core belief. Instead, we have argued to be allowed to form the Scottish Executive and manage devolution within the United Kingdom. I am sure the leadership of the party still believes in independence, it’s just that, to them, it has become an eventual aim that would be nice if it happened but no longer the main priority”.
He futher claimed Swinney was losing support of large swathes of the SNP because of the “New Labourisation” of the party and that he had surrounded himself with a clique of MSPs and unelected advisers who were shifting the party to the right, and continued saying:
“The clique that surrounds Swinney believes that if you are not with them, then you are against them and you are fair game to be attacked – even if your “crime” is nothing more than simply disagreeing with them. In the years of his leadership a number of SNP MSPs have complained about their treatment by the clique around the leader”.
Of Dr Wilson’s failed bid, he said:
“John Swinney will be pleased with the result. But he must now look over his shoulder. Bill took almost 20 per cent of the vote which means Swinney is effectively on probation until next year’s conference. Any danger to his leadership could now surface from people within his own leadership clique, who could now see an opportunity for themselves.”
2003: Swinney hoped the prospect of a referendum would quell rebellion in the Party after he discussed his proposals with the Green Party and other independence supporting MSP’s. But Senior SNP figures, who believe victory at the ballot box is all that is needed for independence, said that Swinney was fudging the issue in failing to grasp the nettle of independence and this confused voters. One senior fundamentalist said: “What we want is independence not indecision”.
Swinney retorted: “the choice for the SNP now is to follow my route into government and deliver independence through a referendum, or go into the political wilderness as we did in the 1980s, and that wasn’t a nice place for us.”
A senior party figure questioned the wisdom of his plans to build a coalition, saying: “This smacks of desperation. Swinney wants to reform the party believing a referendum on independence is the way forward. But his ploy to silence the fundamentalists won’t work. All it does is show that we don’t have full confidence in winning a majority in the Scottish Parliament.”
2004: The European election was a disaster.
2004: Furious Swinney blamed Alex Salmond for his downfall when he bowed out from the Party leadership with an angry swipe at internal back-stabbing in the SNP. In a veiled attack on the fundamentalists he said: “You know who they are, I know who they are. Let’s make sure they don’t corrode the SNP and thwart our campaign for independence. The small but vocal minority must understand that our leader is democratically elected and once elected should be supported by every single member.”
It transpired that Swinney had thought Sturgeon was an ally but was “furious” when he was told that she had been briefing against him. He told his small group of close friends that he blamed Alex Salmond, the man he replaced, for turning Sturgeon and much of the party against him.
Convinced his support would be sufficient to tip the balance in her favour he visited Roseanna Cunningham at home and told her he would be backing her bid for the leadership.
A senior Party member said: “As the knives came out, Swinney was astonished to hear Sturgeon was briefing against him. He thought it a poor show after everything he’d done for her. He’s been destroyed by back-stabbing and is convinced Alex Salmond orchestrated a whispering campaign against him. It’s one member one vote and his move will gift 1,000 votes to Roseanna out of the 8,000 up for grabs. That will swing it for her and Sturgeon has only got herself to blame. She was Alex Salmond’s star girl then Swinney took her under his wing when he took over. Now he finds out that she’s been stitching him up at what he thinks is Alex Salmond’s instruction.”
2004:But it was Alex Salmond who returned to the role of Party leader.
2007: Under his leadership the Party won the highest number of seats, (just short of a majority) in the Scottish Parliament in the 2007 Scottish election and he was appointed First Minister. As the head of a minority administration, he was unable to secure the approval of Scotland’s Parliament for a referendum on independence.
He tempered his ambitions and emphasized his priority would be sustainable economic growth, fairer taxes, education, and environmental awareness and he quickly implemented a number of popular measures, such as freezing council tax rates. He also maintained a close watch over Swinney whom he appointed Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth. A post in which he remained in until 2014.
2011: Expense scandals surfaced. Swinney was castigated by the press for taking a huge profit from the sale of his taxpayer funded apartment. The two-storey terraced property was sold for £430k, after being bought for £355k while he was the Leader of the SNP. After capital gains tax, his total profit was around £57,000. And in the period between the purchase and the sale, Swinney claimed more than £60,000 of taxpayers’ money to pay for the interest on his mortgage.
Swinney, at the time was overseeing the implementation of the UK chancellor’s austerity spending cuts and a public sector pay freeze, yet saw no problem in claiming a huge sum of money from taxpayers. He already earns a six-figure taxpayer-funded salary, which makes his claims and profit another kick in the teeth for hard-working families. The Taxpayers Alliance commented “the way politicians are able to make a profit from taxpayer-funded homes is a scandal.
2011:Alex Salmond’s diligence in the previous parliament was rewarded with the Party gaining an overall majority in the 2011 election and in 2012 he signed an agreement with British Prime Minister Cameron to hold an independence referendum in 2014. In the months leading up to the referendum, he inspired the pro-independence cause, steadily eroding a significant lead held by the Unionist Party’s.
2014: He emerged as the clear winner of a televised debate with Labour politician Alistair Darling, the leader of “Better Together,” the multiparty campaign committed to preserving Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. In polls held shortly after the debate, 51 percent of those expressing an opinion favoured independence. This marked the first time since polling on the matter began that the pro-independence camp had registered a lead. Cameron’s response was to promise major new devolved powers and greater autonomy through “the Vow” (published in the Daily Record illegally, within the purgatory period).
On September 18, 2014, Scots went to the polls in unprecedented numbers, with turnout approaching 85 percent, and 55 percent voted to reject independence. In his concession speech, Salmond declared that Scotland had “decided not, at this stage, to become an independent country,” a statement that raised the possibility of another referendum on the matter at some point in the future. The day after the referendum, he announced that he would resign as first minister and SNP leader, a move that became official at the SNP’s national conference in November 2014, when he was replaced by Nicola Sturgeon.
2014: Sturgeon succeeded Alex Salmond. Swinney retained his job as Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth adding the title Deputy First Minister to his CV.
2016: Sturgeon decided to freshen-up her government with the addition of new faces and Swinney, who publicly claimed he had asked for a new challenge, was downgraded to the post of Education Secretary where he remained until 2021.
2021: Scottish Elections saw the SNP returned to power. Sturgeon, unhappy with Swinney’s performance in the Education brief, removed him from office to a new post as Covid Recovery Secretary.
Teflon John just keeps rollin along racking up political failure after failure completely oblivious to his inadequacies. A multi million pound write off disaster. Hopefully 2026 will bring his career to an end.
GROK report here:
It is a very full report covering a number (but not all) of the controversy’s involving Swinney It is a long read but well worth it.
Jeremy Heywood was appointed Cabinet Secretary following the announcement of Sir Gus O’Donnell’s retirement in December 2011. From September 2014 to October 2018, he also held the title “Head of the Civil Service”.
Prior to that, he was Permanent Secretary to two successive Prime Ministers at 10 Downing Street.
He also spent over three years as a Managing Director including as co-head of the UK Investment Banking Division at Morgan Stanley.
Before joining Morgan Stanley, he occupied a range of senior civil service roles, including as Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister (1999–2003).
Prior to that, he had a variety of senior roles at HM Treasury including:
Head of Securities and Markets Policy
Head of Corporate and Management Change
He also served as Principal Private Secretary to Chancellors Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke and had a spell at the International Monetary Fund in Washington DC. His first job in the civil service was as an Economic Adviser to the Health and Safety Executive.
He died of cancer in November 2018
The extraordinary man in the shadows who ruled 10 Downing Street
Keir Hardie founded the Labour Party and championed the cause of the working class who had been badly governed for many years.
But political power in Scotland had been vested with the Tory and Liberal Party’s for nearly 240 years until the advent of change in the political scene, brought about by an awakening of the working class after WW2.
In the period 1945-1979 Party growth in Scotland was spectacular as factory workers, coal miners, shipyard and steel workers flocked to its banner.
In the same period the Party sent many able politicians to Westminster ensuring Scotland’s voice was heard in Parliament.
Scotland effectively became a one Party state as Labour dominated the political scene.
In the West of Scotland Labour votes were weighed not counted. In heavily industrialised Lanarkshire it was said that the Party could put up a donkey for election to office and it would win.
But the first past the post voting system of the UK had ensured Scotland would be governed by the Tory Party ( apart from brief periods between 1960-79 when Labour governments were elected but with small majority’s preventing effective policy delivery.)
The Thatcher years
The eighties brought twenty years of extreme right-wing government, introduced by Margaret Thatcher ending in 1997 with John Major.
Margaret Thatcher, since Scots refused to embrace her “dog eat dog society” asset stripped Scotland of its industrial base, transferring it to England and Wales.
She funded the changes abusing revenue accrued from Scotland’s oil. Using it to finance unemployment in Scotland resulting in many hundreds of thousands of Scots aged over 30 never working again. A lifetime on the dole, families at the mercy of the welfare state initially a safety net which she soon denied the children. Poverty and deprivation last witnessed in Scotland in the 1930’s. And she was proud of her government’s achievements.
Twenty years in the political wilderness was not encouraging for aspiring Labour politicians. The Party in Scotland failed to attract students of politics of the grade it had previously and yet the Labour heartlands of
Scotland persisted in voting less able individuals into office believing the alternative to be unpalatable. The capable but lazy “old guard” was replaced with incompetent corrupt regimes akin to those in place in Eastern Europe.
The Thatcher years rekindled the fires of desire to be free of a political system that had eclipsed Scotland to it’s detriment. The Scottish National Party (SNP) started to make an impact at local and national level.
But not in the West of Scotland which remained in the grip of the “Red Flag.”
The New Labour years
In 1997 Tony Blair and Gordon Brown introduced “New Labour” to Britain and inspired the electorate to get rid of a Tory government mired in scandal and corruption. The motto of the party was “things will only get better” and people believed it.
But major policy divisions soon emerged shattering the media hyped illusion of unity and harmony within labour yet the Tory Party was still in disarray and unelectable and the electorate returned New Labour to office in 2001 and 2005.
The world financial crash in 2007-8 sealed the fate of the New Labour government which had proved to be a “basket case” entity controlled by a warmongering elite who took Britain to the gates of hell in just about every aspect of an abuse of the power gifted to them by a gullible electorate.
Salmond and the SNP
In Scotland the SNP finally recaptured its purpose under the inspired leadership of Alex Salmond who had heeded the call of its members and returned to Scottish politics replacing the dull and incompetent John Swinney.
The response was electrifying. Scottish Parliamentary elections delivered an increased number of MSP’s. Disappointingly the changes in the fortunes of the Party were largely in the the rural areas and in the East of Scotland.
The Labour Party maintained it’s dominance over the West of Scotland.
The breakthrough came in 2007 when the SNP was returned by the Scottish electorate as the largest Party but without a majority and no offers of a coalition.
Overcoming many obstacles placed in his way by truculent Unionist politicians Alex Salmond formed a minority government which performed admirably and completed a full term in office.
The demise of New Labour
In 2010 many self penned Labour Party men of the people left their offices of state in a state of financial chaos contrasting their own futures which were guaranteed as peers of the realm holding positions of power and influence in big businesses (often linked to their previous employment as ministers).
Multi-millionaires one and all and no looking back at the people of Scotland who they had promised to represent faithfully but cynically betrayed.
The 2010 UK General Election
But lessons had not yet been learned by Scots and the electorate in the West of Scotland sent a bunch of incompetent Labour MP’s back to Westminster.
The red coloured political mapping in areas such as Motherwell, Hamilton, East Kilbride, Airdrie, Coatbridge, Bellshill and Glasgow stood with the labour Party.
The 2011 Scottish General Election
The Scottish electorate was impressed by the competence of the government of the SNP lead by Alex Salmond and the Party was returned to government with an unprecedented overall majority.
Once more it had provided good governance despite the imposition by the UK government of brutal financial austerity cutbacks which destroyed the hopes and aspirations of many thousands of Scots.
The 2014 Independence Referendum
The referendum was lost by a small margin primarily due to the Unionist’s clubbing together with other interested groups to deny Scotland its independence.
But Scottish desire for independence had been reawakened by their near success and the revelations of Unionist skulduggery in the 2014 referendum and the electorate was no longer accepting of mistreatment by Westminster politicians.
The 2015 UK General Election
Unionist politicians at Westminster arrogantly believed that the additional very limited devolved powers recommended by the Smith Commission would silence the Scots but in doing so failed to recognise the new political reality.
The election, only 6 months after the September referendum provided Scotland with the opportunity to send a message to politicians in Westminster that the betrayal of the pledges made by Unionist politicians in the 2014 referendum “Vow” was unacceptable to a Scottish electorate that was fed up to the back teeth being recognised by other nations of the World as a quaint wee colony of England, occupied by haggis eating, bagpipe playing, whisky drinking layabouts who existed only with the guarantee of financial handouts by a benign and over generous England. And in a shot across the bows they sent 56 SNP MP’s to Westminster with a remit to declare Scotland’s independence. That they failed to do so cast a mortal slur on the leadership of the SNP and its members commitment to the cause of Scottish independence.
The 2016 Scottish General Election
The election provided the opportunity for the people of Scotland to stand up for their rights and get rid of the corrupt, incompetent, crime ridden Labour controlled councils in the West of Scotland and Aberdeen.
But the lack lustre performance of the SNP leadership in the course of the campaign provided the Tory Party, under the hi-profile control of Ruth Davidson, with the opportunity to take seats from the labour Party, which was in meltdown. And she duly did so. Seats that should have been won by the SNP were lost to the Tory’s.
Nicola Sturgeon and her team’s indecisive campaigning very nearly brought an end to the SNP government. With the help of the Green Party it was returned to government but only after making significant unacceptable concessions. Hardly inspiring!! and things would get worse.
The 2017 General election was a disappointment for the SNP
The 56 MP’s elected only 18 months before had achieved absolutely nothing at Westminster. The Unionist dominated House of Commons mocked, ridiculed and contemptuously dismissed the opinions, views and contributions of SNP representatives as irrelevant nonsense at every televised sitting of the House.
The embarrassing spectacle and daily humiliation of Scottish MP’ in the Commons was witnessed by viewers worldwide and many Scots at home and the absence of any decisive action by Nicola Sturgeon was reflected in the loss of 21 MP’s.
The 2019 UK General Election
In the election campaign the SNP told Scots it was firmly committed and would demand the right to hold another independence referendum if the electorate indicated a desire for it by returning a majority of Scottish MP’s to Westminster.
The SNP subsequently gained a 45% share of the vote winning 48 seats and claiming second place in the 11 others.
Nicola Sturgeon told Boris Johnson he had no right to stand in the way of another Scottish independence referendum adding that the overwhelming victory reinforced and strengthened the mandate for another independence referendum.
It is now 2022 and three years on from the General Election and there is no firm indication a second referendum will be held.
“Boris or Jack? I have no idea who you are but suffice to say you must be working your butt off in promoting the Independence cause. The level of your depth of knowledge, historical and otherwise, and obvious talent for carrying out investigations and research is second to none. I follow your articles (every one – plus save them all) and they are truly amazing. More than anything I use a great deal of what you have to say online and on the doorstep to great effect. Keep up the good work. It’s people like you and Stuart Campbell who are making a massive difference and we won’t forget it when we get our Independence. Maybe then I’ll find out if you are Boris or Jack, LOL. Best of wishes from me and more than anything thanks a million.”
10 Jun 2017:Barry Watson commented:
“A true voice for Scotland jock, your knowledge is an inspiration to read, not just the divisive one liners that all too often get spouted from the keyboards of some “yessers”. You should be heard on a bigger stage in my opinion, are you in contact with serving MSP’s? Maybe someone could get you time with the first minister’s team, I’m sure they could learn even a little. Keep up the good work!”
12 Jun 2017: Andrew Smith commented:
“I share all your blogs on Facebook, and have noticed a few posters on ‘wings’ sharing them, I think you reach more people than you imagine. But, like you say, the SNP leadership should be taking more on board the material served up by yourself and several other excellent sites, let’s face it, you’re all doing them a great service at no cost to party funds!”
12 Jun 2017: Caltonjock replied:
“Thank you for the kind words. I have been active for around three and a half years now and have clocked up 654,000 hits, to date. I know Wings attracts many more people but it is aimed at a different audience. I prefer to gather facts supported by evidence so that the information can be passed on with confidence. I often results in long articles but careful reading aids understanding of complex issues. I can only keep working away in the hope that someone near the top of the SNP tree recognises my efforts and gets the information to the right places.”
15 March 2017: Petition against a second Scottish independence referendum
A petition stating;
” A second Scottish Independence referendum should not be allowed to happen” has reached 123,000 signatures.
It stated: “We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely.
The majority of Scottish voters wish to remain in the British union, despite Nicola Sturgeon’s latest demands for a Scottish referendum, according to the latest polling from YouGov.
Some 57 per cent of Scots would vote No in an independence referendum, according to the poll, although younger people aged 18-24 were overwhelmingly in favour of independence.
The petition, on the Government’s official website is growing daily and is well in excess of the 100,000 signature threshold required for a debate on the issue at Westminster.
Ruth Davidson’s Media Manipulation Team In Action
The passage of time might reveal that the petition was a “spoiler” prepared and submitted to the internet social media by Ruth Davidson’s recently appointed high profile media manipulation team headed by Gordon Hector.
But fair play the ploy worked since it succeeded in raising the public profile of the possibility of another Independence referendum, which (at the time) had not been given mention by anyone other than Ruth Davidson.
The bellicose behaviour of Ruth Davidson at First Ministers questions, in the period after publication of Mundell’s pronouncement gave impetus to this review and analysis of information arising from the petition.
Methodology – Analysis of Petition Figure’s
Information was sourced from official lists and records providing numbers of acceptable signatories by Scottish Constituency.
Electorate totals were included and a percentage signatory total was established for each constituency.
From that the mean figure of 3.75% was used to forward project the outcome of an Independence referendum, should one be held after Brexit.
The figures suggest that from an electorate of 4,021,203 the outcome of another referendum would result in a: 48.00% “Yes” vote in favour of independence with 52.00% preferring to remain with the Union.
The information would be best used to forward plan strategy.
Edinburgh, Aberdeen, East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire recorded higher than average figures favouring remaining with the Union.
Others appear to be less dogmatic which is encouraging.
The 2017 General Election
The landslide victory achieved by the SNP in the last GE cannot realistically be achieved. My analysis suggests 23 seats might change hands with the Tory Party being the main benefactor:The SNP campaign management teams will need devote additional resources to the marginals to be sure of a maximum turnout of supporters otherwise many of the under-noted constituencies will be lost.
This group of seats are marginals – The risk of loss decreases as the % number drops
71749: Edinburgh W., Michelle Thomson: 4388-6.12% Lib Gain
69982: E. Renfrewshire, Kirsten Oswald: 4241-6.06% Tory Gain
66966: E. Dunbartonshire, John Nicolson: 3977-5.94% Lib Gain
65846: Edinburgh S., Ian Murray: 3579-5.44% (Labour) Lab Hold
73445: West Abdn, Stuart Donaldson: 3961-5.40% Tory Gain
80978: Edinburgh N. & Leith, Deidre Brock MP: 4280-5.29% SNP Hold
66208: Paisley & Renfrew N., Gavin Newlands: 3158-4.77% SNP Hold
68875: Argyll & Bute, Brendan O’Hara: 3277-4.75% SNP Hold
62003: N. E. Fife, Stephen Gethins: 2937-4.74% SNP Hold
67236: Stirling, Steven Paterson: 3175-4.72% Tory Gain
77379: Ochil, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: 3645-4.71% Tory Gain
79393: Gordon: Rt Hon Alex Salmond: 3711-4.68% Tory Gain
68056: Aberdeen South: Callum McCaig: 3618-4.65% Tory Gain
79481: East Lothian, George Kerevan: 3676-4.63% Lab Gain
72178: Edinburgh South West, Joanna Cherry: 3283-4.55% SNP Hold
72447: Perth & North, Pete Wishart MP: 3033-4.19% SNP Hold
71685: Moray, Angus Robertson: 2995-4.18% Tory Gain
78037: Lanark & Hamilton E, Angela Crawley: 3272-4.19% SNP Hold
68483: Dumfriesshire, David Mundell: 2816-4.11% Tory Hold
74179: Berwickshire, Calum Kerr: 3026-4.08% Tory Gain
86955: Linlithgow & East Falkirk, Martyn Day: 3570-4.11% SNP Hold
68609: Banff & Buchan, Dr Eilidh Whiteford: 2772-4.04% Tory Gain
73445: W. Abdn, Stuart Donaldson: 3961-5.40% Tory Gain
I came across Jacqui quite by accident. I was in the middle of a blog on some Stonewall teaching materials for primary schools and during the course of that research I looked up Pearsons; who co-produced the teaching materials. This led me to Pearsons Spectrum UK who have a YouTube channel. The only person featured on that channel is Jacqui, a rather charming Scottish male who claims a ”transgender” identity. You can find it here: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3flfykj2TDQ)
Jacqui is asked to outline their history and tells a lovely anecdote about being a ten year old boy, coming across a black and white picture of a naked man but the nudity wasn’t what caught the young boys attention, it was the sadness in his eyes. Turning over the page there is another image of the same person, clawing at his skin and peeling off his male exterior to reveal a beautifully made up and glamorous woman.
This was in the 1970’s so Jacqui describes a few years of going to visit psychiatrists who ”prodded and poked me” all the while saying ”little boys can’t become little girls”. Jacqui’s parents, we are told, encouraged the young Jacqui to take up masculine pursuits and Jacqui was so successful they became a schoolboy signing for Aberdeen, under Alex Ferguson, who is better remembered for his management of Manchester United. Sadly, we are told ”Fergie” found out that I was a little bit different which “prompted me to lose my schoolboy contract”.
At this point, we learn, that Jacqui moved to London, age 15, but returned home after a year because their mum was terminally ill. In a surprise move the next event of significance involved joining the military, only to be discovered to be ”different” and forced to leave or face a criminal sentence. Their account here differs from other versions which stated that they were in fact discovered wearing women’s clothing. And another in which they stated that they made the decision to leave after being threatened with demotion.
According to Jacqui these are their qualifications.
Marriage and Modelling.
Jacqui then describes being outed as ”transgender” by the media. This is true and was occasioned by a 1995 marriage ceremony, to a man, in the Caribbean. An article in 2015 describes the relationship as 23 years long. The coverage was indeed cruel and sensationalist.
Once again, we are told, the modelling career was ended when it was discovered they were not female.
Civil Service
Jacqui then describes joining the civil service and within two weeks being contacted by Terry Moran and asked to help the Civil Service with the ”trans” issue. This is Terry’s CV. {Jacqui also talks about having their own private cheerleader in Jeremy Heywood; he was the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet under both David Cameron and Theresa May}.
You can see Jacqui’s career trajectory below. All from Jacqui’s linkedin. Financial Conduct Authority, posts in the Civil Service at the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for International Trade and the Cabinet Office. Not bad for someone who’s highest qualification appears to be a City and Guilds. During their spare time Jacqui also found time to be on the advisory board for Diva Magazine and worked with Diversity Role Models. Jacqui was also awarded the Order of the British Empire and regularly appears in lists of influential LGBT influencers.
Jacqui became first Chair of the Transgender Network and then joined the steering group a:Gender
As Jacqui explains this allowed the combining of a role as a Trans activist and a Civil Servant and their influence spread across the Civil Service.
In the YouTube for Pearson Spectrum Jacqui talks a good game about listening to all voices; ”even those we don’t want to hear”, its somewhat spoilt by the addition of “even those spouting hate” but it’s an attempt, at least. There’s some guff about walking a mile in other peoples shoes, and a patronising assumption that lack of acceptance is because people don’t understand. Women could say the same to Jacqui, who also doesn’t understand what it is to be us.
Women’s right to feel safe.
One of the interviewers then asked a question which looked as if there would be some meaningful engagement with the concerns of women but the question was how we include trans-identified males ”transwomen” in the conversation so they are not marginalised. However Jacqui threw them a somewhat ”terfy” curve ball. Seems Jacqui is a bit concerned about the ever expanding ”trans” umbrella and female spaces.
I would love to see a source for this quote. I cannot find any reference to this anywhere online. After some checking I don’t think this is true but there are other examples of men with transvestic fetishism committing sex offences against women.
Jacqui then talks about how self-conscious they feel using female facilities even though they have had a ”full transition”. Maybe this reflects some subconscious (or conscious) awareness they are violating women’s boundaries and women are undressing because they think they are in an all female facility?
Jacqui’s preferred solution to this issue is ”gender neutral” (a.k.a mixed sex) facilities. Unfortunately for us Jacqui was listened to over women and gender neutral facilities spread across the civil service and wider society. If Jacqui had walked a mile in our shoes and understood women’s history they would not casually strip single sex spaces from women.
This is what the government had to say on it’s consultation toilet facilities, launched in January 2021.
In recent years, there has been a trend towards the removal of well-established male-only/female-only spaces when premises are built or refurbished, and they have often been replaced with gender-neutral toilets. This places women at a significant disadvantage. While men can then use both cubicles and urinals, women can only use the former, and women also need safe spaces given their particular health and sanitary needs (for example, women who are menstruating, pregnant or at menopause, may need to use the toilet more often).
Women are also likely to feel less comfortable using mixed sex facilities, and require more space.
By then Jacqui was out of the civil service.
It’s difficult to make an assessment of how much damage was done by the various trans-identified males in the Civil Service. I sense Jacqui has a growing appreciation that the, ever-expanding, ”trans” umbrella presents a range of new challenges. Developments over the last decade have jeopardised the privileged access to female spaces they have enjoyed for over 30 years. At this stage the ethical decision is to campaign for gender neutral spaces and single sex spaces and illustrate your good faith by ending use of female only spaces. By continuing to use female spaces, by stealth or emotional blackmail, you are violating women’s boundaries in any space where women are undressing or merely meeting to discuss issues that only affect women, as a sex class.
Close friends Leslie and Jacqui leading a Scottish government Trans Inclusion event bringing colleagues together with inspirational trans-role models & those involved in improving the experiences of trans people at work & in our society
Jacqui Gavin (Prev. Scott Whyte) – Scottish trans champion
Growing up as a boy in 1970s in rural Scotland, he was young, trans and vulnerable. His short career in the army ended abruptly. After transitioning her budding photographic modelling was destroyed by those who misunderstood her identity and she endured humiliation from the British press. Despite the enduring hate, she channelled her energy into making things better for other trans people. She brought Scottish trans people under her wing and went on to help make the civil service the inclusive industry-leading employer it is today. She was recognised by the Queen with a British Empire Medal in October 2020.
Being trans in 1970s Scotland
She said she realised she was trans when she was 10. “I describe it as a wake-up call, I was 10 years old. I was flicking through the pages of a magazine and found a picture of a man straddling the back of a chair. It was in black and white, he was naked and sad. I didn’t understand why. I flicked to the next page and saw a picture of the same man in the same pose with his skin ripped off. Underneath was a beautiful lady with smooth skin, flowing locks and perfect makeup. As soon as I saw this image I knew what had been missing in my life. But this was 1970s Scotland and my parents dismissed it as a photographic trick. Boys were boys, girls were girls and there was nothing to be done.”
She was encouraged to be a boy and do the things boys do, such as play football, which to her dismay she was quite good at. She said: “I represented my school and country as a boy till I was 15. Then I told my managers I couldn’t do it anymore. I felt like a failure- like I’d let my parents down.”
At only 15 she ran away from home in 1983 and headed to London where she spent evenings waiting tables for a surprising amount of cash and discovering the other outcasts who had arrived in the gay mecca of Soho and come to call it home. Despite this newfound haven, she returned home when her mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer and her parents filed for a divorced. She took care of her siblings and then, not being able to stay there any longer, she enlisted in the army, following her older brother’s footsteps. But then her secret was found out. She hadn’t yet transitioned, and during training had injured her knee so was taken to the hospital. While in the ambulance she was told she screamed, ‘I want to be a girl.’
She said: “I was put in front of my commanding officer and offered prison time or to be sent back to basic training.” She used her waiting money to buy herself out of the military and used the rest of her money to buy her transition surgery at age 20. She ended up working in Aberdeen, but the queer scene there wasn’t like in Soho. She described it as “underground backwater places, down dark alleyways.” She said: “The community was small but it was family. Everyone looked after everyone, but we’d have to leave a venue together or be subject to abuse, hate and people spitting on you.”
She wanted to change things to keep people safe. She said: “I created a group with my friend Anne Forester to give support for people regarding gender expression. It was a safe space where trans and non-binary people could go and be themselves. Guys could come along and put a frock on in a safe environment. We provided a resource and brought in people of authority. The police came in because they wanted to engage and talk with us and even local Aberdeen city council members. These were conversations that allowed us to build trust and respectability between the police and the LGBTQ+ community.”
How transphobia almost destroyed her career
Despite her success in empowering her community and bridging these divides, her career remained non-existent. She said the discrimination against her as a transgender person “has impacted my career massively. All opportunity for promotion was denied. I was told I wasn’t ready. There was a stereotype that trans women are overly sensitive. They’d say ‘you’re too vulnerable because of your trans status.’”
She was scouted by a modelling agency whilst in Scotland, but her career ended when she was exposed as trans. She said: “Being trans in the modelling industry at the time was not acceptable. It destroyed my modelling career. The rights for trans people were non-existent back then. There was no legal protection so I found myself going from job to job. My CV was a patchwork quilt. I’d be in a job for no more than two years and be found out.”
She described the time she arrived back at one job after taking compassionate leave when her mother passed away. She had been exposed as trans by the British tabloid press. She said the director of the company asked her why she’d ticked the ‘F’ for female in her application form. At that point, the HR manager stormed into the room to Jacqui’s rescue and told her to go back to her desk.
She was ripped apart by the press in 1995 after her runaway wedding in Barbados to her now ex-husband. They took a holiday wedding to avoid the laws in the UK which restricted trans people from marrying. She described clutching her birth certificate as they registered, which had her old name and gender at birth, fearful the clerks would ask for it. She returned to the UK with husband Steve Gavin greeted with devastating headlines like: ‘Guy do! Butcher Jacqui gets wed after sex swap’.
The Sun’s coverage of Jacqui’s wedding, June 12 1995
Why she became a campaigner
She gained progress and recognition for her efforts when she joined the UK civil service in 2009. After only a few weeks in an admin role for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), she said she got the ‘we know about you’ call. But instead of being fired, she was asked to set up a transgender network within the department. From there she became the first chair of the first transgender network in the entire of the civil service. She was then given the role across the whole civil service to impact the way trans issues were seen. She went on to work in a similar role for the Fire Service, not just for trans people but for other minorities too.
However she said her impact at the civil service is her biggest achievement to date. She said: “In Whitehall, in 2009 it was as though you were at school. You don’t speak out of turn or challenge the seniors in these organisations. By the time 2015 came around the organisation was listening to people and viewing and valuing who we are. It’s become the most inclusive employer in the country. We got there by working together and breaking down barriers through conversation. I realised if you get things right for one marginalised group such as trans people, that makes things easier for other groups too. It has a positive knock-on effect.” (summarised from an article in the Cambridge News)
Tuesday 10 March 2020: Extract summary: In a Scottish context: Constitutional Affairs: The Roles and responsibilities of the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Q: If the Permanent Secretary, is concerned about a ministerial decision they can ask for a written ministerial direction but what course of action is open if the Permanent Secretary is unhappy with the conduct or behaviour of the first Minster?
A: It would depend how serious those concerns are. I would normally expect the Permanent Secretary and the First Minister to make their best endeavours to work effectively together to lead in partnership. If there are tensions one would normally expect those to be resolved between them, in private if they possibly can. If for some reason they were not able to do so, I might be asked to become involved. It is only in very rare cases that one would expect that to be the case. Generally these relationships are good. They are often challenging. They are conducted with candour and courtesy in private. It is that partnership that means that Ministers can ensure the Civil Service is delivering its priorities.
Q: What is the role of the Cabinet Secretary in dealing with such issues.
A: If a difficulty arises it is important to restore harmony. It is to try to ensure that the relationship is productive. Obviously if there are concerns, if a First Mninster has concerns about the effectiveness of the top team, whether the Department is in the right shape, again I would expect the Permanent Secretary to try to resolve those and ensure that the Department is running the way the First Minister wants the Department to run. My role, if there were a point of tension, would be to try to address any concerns and help the two of them work through those together. Of course, if that is not possible, we would have to consider alternative courses of action.
Q: In your endeavours to restore harmony in a St Francis of Assisi way, there is no formal process, is there?
A: There is not a formal process unless an issue has become formal because there are formal complaints about behaviour and so on. As in any big organisation, the process is essentially to try to ensure that the top team, political and professional, are working effectively together and that the professional Civil Service is delivering to the expectations of the agenda of Ministers.
Q: Further on that, what is formal process?
A: For example, if there were a complaint about conduct against an official, a special adviser, a Minister, by anyone, that complaint would be investigated, just as it is in any big organisation if it were about bullying or harassment or discrimination or behaviour, and the appropriate action taken. The appropriate action will often simply be some kind of behavioural intervention, giving someone some advice or coaching on the impact they might be having on others. Obviously, if it is more serious and there is a matter of conduct, whether that is by an official or a special adviser or Minister, there are formal processes set out in the codes that we would follow. Those would only be in the rarest and most difficult cases, obviously.
Q: How does it work in relation to the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government because he/she is responsible to the first Minister of Scotland?
A: Essentially the process is the same. The difference is that it is the First Minister of the Scottish Government who makes the final decision as opposed to the Prime Minister. The process and the relationship between me and them, I am still the accounting officer, for the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary so the First Minister in those circumstances is playing both the role of the Secretary of State and taking the final decision that the Prime Minister would take in the other jobs.
Q: For clarity, you are the line manager of the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government.
A: Yes.
Q: How does that work in the context of the Scottish Government, for example, pursuing diametrically opposed policies and positions from the UK Government? How can you appraise the Permanent Secretary on that basis for carrying out policies and positions that are contrary to the ones that you have been instructed to carry out on behalf of the UK Government?
A: It is a great question. The job is to carry out the policies of whichever Government you are working for. If the general election result had gone the other way, we would be carrying out a very different programme from the one that we are carrying out now, and that is the job of the permanent Civil Service. My job is to make a professional assessment of the professional performance of the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government in pursuing the policies of the Government, ensuring that we are operating in the most collaborative way that we can and assessing their contribution as senior leaders in the broader Civil Service.
Q: With the Scottish service, say a relationship difficulty occurred that was similar to the harassment relationship that has been alleged in the Home Department with the Home Secretary would the Permanent Secretary report to the Cabinet Secretary? Say if the First Minister of Scotland was misbehaving in any particular way?
A: Essentially exactly the same principles and so on would apply. In the end, as I said, one would always hope that it was possible for these things to be resolved between the Permanent Secretary and their responsible Minister, whether it was the First Minister of Scotland or, as you say, in that hypothetical example, but if necessary the Cabinet Secretary would become involved.
Q: In the recent or longer past, has a Permanent Secretary in Scotland had to report any misbehaviours of their First Minister to you?
A: You will understand, particularly in the light of events this week in the Scottish courts, I have to be very, very careful. All I can say is that the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government certainly in my time and, as I understand, her predecessors and mine have applied exactly the same system that I described to you.
Tuesday 10 March 2020: Meeting of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for a hearing on the work of the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Q: If a Permanent Secretary, is concerned about a ministerial decision they can ask for a written ministerial direction. What course of action is open to a Permanent Secretary who is unhappy with the conduct or behaviour of their line manager?
A: It would depend how serious those concerns are. I would normally expect a Permanent Secretary and their line manager to make their best endeavours to work effectively together to lead in partnership. That is the case in the overwhelming majority of the cases and the partnerships are extremely effective. If there are tensions—and Government is challenging and deals with difficult issues—one would normally expect those to be resolved between them, in private if they possibly can. If for some reason they were not able to do so, I might be asked to become involved. It is only in very rare cases that one would expect that to be the case. Generally these relationships are good. They are often challenging. They are conducted with candour and courtesy in private. It is that partnership that means that Ministers can ensure the Civil Service is delivering its priorities.
Q: What is the role of the Cabinet Secretary in dealing with such issues.
A: If a difficulty arises it is important to restore harmony. It is to try to ensure that the relationship is productive. Obviously if there are concerns, if a Line manager has concerns about the effectiveness of the top team, whether the Department is in the right shape, again I would expect the Permanent Secretary to try to resolve those and ensure that the Department is running the way the line manager wants the Department to run. My role, if there were a point of tension, would be to try to address any concerns and help the two of them work through those together. Of course, if that is not possible, we would have to consider alternative courses of action.
Q: In your endeavours to restore harmony in a St Francis of Assisi way, there is no formal process, is there?
A: There is not a formal process unless an issue has become formal because there are formal complaints about behaviour and so on. As in any big organisation, the process is essentially to try to ensure that the top team, political and professional, are working effectively together and that the professional Civil Service is delivering to the expectations of the agenda of Ministers.
Q: Further on that, what is formal process?
A: For example, if there were a complaint about conduct against an official, a special adviser, a Minister, by anyone, that complaint would be investigated, just as it is in any big organisation if it were about bullying or harassment or discrimination or behaviour, and the appropriateaction taken. The appropriate action will often simply be some kind of behavioural intervention, giving someone some advice or coaching on the impact they might be having on others. Obviously, if it is more serious and there is a matter of conduct, whether that is by an official or a special adviser or Minister, there are formal processes set out in the codes that we would follow. Those would only be in the rarest and most difficult cases, obviously.
Performance Appraisal
Q: How does it work in relation to the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government because he/she is accountable to the first Minister of Scotland?
A: Essentially the process is the same. The difference is that it is the First Minister of the Scottish Government makes the final decision as opposed to the Prime Minister. The process and the relationship between me and them, I am still their reporting officer, so the First Minister in those circumstances is playing both the role of the Secretary of State and taking the final decision that the Prime Minister would take in the other jobs.
Q: For clarity, you are the line manager of the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government.
A: Yes. But I am not of the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service because that is separate entity from the GB Civil Service.
Q: How does that work in the context of the Scottish Government, for example, pursuing diametrically opposed policies and positions from the UK Government? How can you appraise the Permanent Secretary on that basis for carrying out policies and positions that are contrary to the ones that you have been instructed to carry out on behalf of the UK Government?
A: It is a great question. The job is to carry out the policies of whichever Government you are working for. If the general election result had gone the other way, we would be carrying out a very different programme from the one that we are carrying out now, and that is the job of the permanent Civil Service. My job is to make a professional assessment of the professional performance of the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government in pursuing the policies of the Government, ensuring that we are operating in the most collaborative way that we can and assessing their contribution as senior leaders in the broader Civil Service.
Q: If the Scottish Government had indeed managed to stop Brexit, you would have given the Permanent Secretary a five-star rating for achieving that?
A: That would have rather depended on whether the Scottish Government claimed the credit themselves or gave the credit to the Civil Service.
Q: In the context now of where devolved settlements have reached, with devolved Administrations pursuing diametrically opposed policies to the UK Government, and often being the harshest critics of the UK Government and therefore their fellow civil servants, that it is sustainable to continue with the one Civil Service model?
A: I think it is important that we do, because this Government’s position is that the Union is an important institution. Of course there are tensions and of course there are discussions. There are different human resource policies in Scotland, but we work through those and it continues to be a very important aspect of the Civil Service, having one Civil Service reaching right across the United Kingdom.
Q: Is there anything specific you think that would strengthen it, actions that you are taking or could take?
A: Yes. I think a greater presence, particularly a greater presence in the devolved Administrations, and we are doing that. As you know, we have a big office opening in Edinburgh. The hub process. A greater distribution of civil servants from Whitehall into the devolved Administrations is going to be very important, and that is on the agenda and we are working that through as we go forward. That is the obvious step.
There ought to be—and this will be a political decision—a conversation about the policies. If this Government’s position is that we need to strengthen the Union, we need to have the conversations. Rather than just ask, “How does that policy look through a devolved Administration’s lens?” we should be thinking about policies that specifically strengthen that Union. We are not quite there yet but that is the role of the Civil Service to start generating those things. That depends on the creativity and the imagination of the civil servants across working in tandem with our Scottish colleagues.
Q: That is a challenge when the devolved Administration policy is diametrically the opposite.(David Mundell)
A: Of course it is a challenge, but the one Civil Service is one thing that is across the United Kingdom and I think that should stay and we should reinforce it.
Q: Are there still secondments from, for example, the Welsh or Scottish Governments to Whitehall and vice versa?
A: Yes, there are. We do it annually. We do it annually and the intent is to beef that up and do more of it. I would say at the moment we are not satisfied that we have enough of the civil servants that look back to Whitehall in the devolved Administrations. We want to strengthen that in the next phase and that is part of our plan.
Q: Are there still weekly meetings of Permanent Secretaries?
A: Yes, more than. We have a weekly meeting of all the heads of Department and sometimes every couple of weeks of the wider group of Permanent Secretaries, including some of the specialists.
Q: Presumably, at those meetings delivery of Government policy is discussed?
A: Yes, we will brief on what has happened in Cabinet, we will talk about the main issues of the day. We will often talk about Civil Service capability or some of the main issues.
Q: Does the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government attend the meetings?
A: Yes, usually. If there are areas of policies that are delicate in that sense, we must not put them in a position where they feel conflicted and we will avoid those conversations and have those in a slightly different group. One has to just manage these things. It was particularly the case during the 2014 referendum that we had to be very careful about that. If we are talking about domestic policies, for example, about social care or homelessness or whatever it might be, even if those issues are essentially Whitehall, it is only focused on England or maybe England and Wales in some cases, it is useful to have the insight and the input from the other devolved Administrations because, in those areas of policy, social policy, we are often working in partnership rather than in the hierarchical sense. We make a judgment case by case.
Q: In cases of sensitivity you convene separate meetings of Permanent Secretaries?
A: Yes, but that in a sense is no different from having a meeting on Coronavirus, for example, which has the Permanent Secretaries who are relevant to that particular issue, or something on national security or something on an economic issue. We do not make everyone come to everything. We tend to use those full meetings, as most big organisations would, as essentially information-sharing meetings.
Q: Is the head of the Northern Ireland service invited to those meetings?
A: Yes.
Q: In that regard you treat it as one Civil Service but you have a separate line-management structure for them. They are a separate service. Therefore, why is it so important that Wales and Scotland are not a separate service if you are able to treat it as one union in some regards with Northern Ireland? Sir John, you mentioned that it was important to the Union. The biggest threat to the Union is Northern Ireland leaving, not Scotland and Wales in my view, if “threat” is the right word. Why not allow the Scottish Civil Service and the Welsh Civil Service to have the same kind of status as the Northern Ireland Civil Service?
A: It is essentially a historical issue. The Irish Civil Service was separate; the Northern Ireland Civil Service then continued to be separate after 1922. It has arisen for no better reason, in a sense, than the circumstances at the time. What we endeavour to do is bind the Northern Ireland Civil Service into the broader Civil Service to ensure that they have access to the broader talent pool and thinking and so on and create that sense of collegiality across the entire UK. There are many issues in which we do govern as a UK as a whole. Of course some domestic policy issues are devolved, very significant ones. In that sense, parts of Whitehall are just governing England. Certain Departments in Whitehall are just responsible for those services and issues in England. Other Departments in very significant areas of work, including the area that I spent most of my career in, are UK-wide. One of the jobs of a Cabinet Secretary anyway is to try to see the connections between all these things. One of my obsessions is to try to ensure that we look horizontally as effectively as we tend to look vertically. Anything that increased the vertical boundaries, sharpened the vertical boundaries and made it harder to work collaboratively across the United Kingdom on some of the issues that affect us all, I think would be an error.
Q: Does the Northern Ireland service having this historical separation make it harder?
A: In some areas it probably does. We have to make a greater effort. I think we do it well but we have to make a greater effort to ensure that they are properly brought into the collaborative enterprise. Increasingly, we are deploying the commercial expertise or the technical expertise or the project expertise right across, including into the Northern Ireland Civil Service and that is strengthening the bond, so I would go the other way.
Q: With the Scottish service, say a relationship difficulty occurred that was similar to the relationship that has been alleged in the Home Department with the Home Secretary would the Permanent Secretary report to the Cabinet Secretary? Say if the First Minister of Scotland was misbehaving in any particular way?
A: Essentially exactly the same principles and so on would apply. In the end, as I said, one would always hope that it was possible for these things to be resolved between the Permanent Secretary and their responsible Minister, whether it was the First Minister of Scotland or, as you say, in that hypothetical example, but if necessary the Cabinet Secretary would become involved.
Q: In the recent or longer past, has a Permanent Secretary in Scotland had to report any misbehaviours of their First Minister to you?
A: You will understand, particularly in the light of events this week in the Scottish courts, I have to be very, very careful. All I can say is that the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government certainly in my time and, as I understand, her predecessors and mine have applied exactly the same system that I described to you.
Q: You mentioned earlier that Whitehall was expanding or increasing its footprint in Scotland and I am wondering to back up what was said earlier is that role of the expanded Civil Service, coming out of Whitehall, to support the democratically elected Scottish Government in its manifesto or is it to support the UK Government’s manifesto?
A: Primarily, it will be the UK Government presence in Scotland but in so doing will, therefore, be cheek by jowl with their colleagues in the Scottish part of the Civil Service. Therefore, relationships will improve and all of that will get better.
Q: It is hard to see relationships improving when one is going in one direction and the other is going in the opposite direction.
A: Might I add a point to that? It is important. Of course there is a different position between the two Governments on the eventual status of Scotland, but in terms of the governance of the United Kingdom. The First Minister of Scotland, is concerned with the good governance of the United Kingdom. Fundamentally, although the policies vary, all of the Governments of the United Kingdom are seeking to pursue policies about the governance of the United Kingdom. The First Minister of Scotland has always been clear that she expects us to support them within the current shevernance arrangements of the UK, even though she obviously has a different view as to the eventual status of those arrangements
Q: You mentioned earlier that you are the reporting officer of the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government, Leslie Evans. Is there anything that she would not report to you or any conversations that she can have in complete privacy with the Scottish Government, with the First Minister, that you would not expect to be privy to?
A: Yes, for example, if they were discussing a policy matter that was entirely within the Scottish Government. The relations have to be relationships of confidence. I do not expect Leslie Evans to be back-briefing me on every conversation she has with the First Minister. All relationships have to have elements of them that are in confidence. That is part of building trust and confidence between people. I would expect Permanent Secretaries across Government to be able to do that with their Minister.
Unionists are individuals whose minds and actions are dominated by the retention of the UK union at any cost
Many of them pursue successful careers in politics fully supporting the aims and aspirations of any Party of their choosing, always provided that their primary motivation is never compromised.
Others are deployed to media manipulation with a guarantee of a long and well numerated career, promoted well beyond their capabilities and fully protected from public exposure.
The First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, presenting a John Smith Public Service Award. The Centre is extremely grateful for the time the First Minister gave to speak to students.
The John Smith Centre
Founder member, Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: Is a British Secret Service agent of long-standing and a powerful political figure in the UK. She is the widow of the late John Smith, Labour Party Leader, and high heid yin of the Zionist, Biderberger, movement. She also retains membership of a number of organisations with political interests at variance with Russia and other Eastern bloc countries.
Smith was a member of the Hakluyt Foundation which was set up by former MI6 executives after the end of the Cold War to provide intelligence for many FTSE 100 companies and UK, US and European clients. The directors include many ex MI6 agents, diplomats, journalists and former special advisers to government ministers.
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 provided.
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 activities of the John Smith Centre are overseen by a Board comprising members of the Smith family, University of Glasgow alumni, political and 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 Foundation is operates as a charitable organisation under the auspices of Glasgow University and is not required to publish or make available any sources of income or expenditure to the public.
The Board
Catherine Smith: Daughter of Baroness Smith. Vice-Chair of Justice Scotland. An organisation involved in work promoting the rule of law and human rights in developing democracies and sustainable development in societies in transition.
Ed Balls: Is a neoliberal former member of the Labour Party government who attended the secretive, annual Bilderberg conclaves of the richest 1% of the world financiers.
Dr Matt Carter: Was General Secretary of the Labour Party, overseeing political campaigns and organisation in the period running up to and including the 2005 General Election, which saw Tony Blair win a successful third term in office. He has spent the last fifteen years advising political leaders and others on campaign strategy and messaging, with a particular focus on corporate communications, reputation management, politics and polling.
Professor Sarah Carter: Is Vice-Principal and Head of the college of Social Sciences at the University of Glasgow. She holds a number of external appointments, as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers to the First Minister of Scotland, the Enterprise & Skills Strategic Board, and the Women in Enterprise Action Group and as a Non-Executive Director of Women’s Enterprise Scotland. and is a member of the UK Government’s Women’s Enterprise Taskforce.
Ruth Davidson: In 2011, Conservative Central Office in London decided to take control of the party in Scotland and run it from London through a proxy leader. The Tory Central Office and Party Chairman, a former senior British Secret Service officer selected her for the post and created the Ruth Davidson appreciation society giving her free rein as the Party Leader in Scotland (albeit strictly monitored by senior officers in the party) to rebuild the Party from scratch. She lead the Party for around eight years before surprisingly resigning from politics to take up a position in the House of Lords.
Resham Kotecha: Was a Tory candidate in the 2015 general election, where she was the Party’s youngest BME candidate. Stood for office again in the 2017 election. Presently serving as the Head of Engagement for Women2Win. A strategy and policy specialist she is currently the Head of Policy & Government Affairs, EMEA at Wise. She is the founder of the Conservative Policy Network, designed to increase accessibility to policy-makers, and is a Trustee of the Fawcett Society, the UK’s leading charity campaigning for gender equality and women’s rights.
David Muir: Was the Director of Strategy to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Possesses a first class degree in politics and economics from the University of Glasgow, and has served as a visiting fellow of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University. Also serves on the advisory board of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago.
Andrew Wilson: Founding Partner of Charlotte Street Partners, the strategic communications firm based in London and Edinburgh. Began his career in the civil service in the Government Economic Service then worked as researcher and economist for the SNP and as a business economist at Royal Bank of Scotland.
Elected to the first Scottish Parliament in 1999 he served as Shadow Minister for, variously: Finance, Economy, Transport and Lifelong Learning. In 2003, he re-joined the RBS working in a number of roles including as Deputy Chief Economist.
During the banking crisis, he served as Head of Group Communications and was intimately involved in the bank’s high-profile engagement with the City, UK Government and media during those tumultuous times.
In 2012, prior to launching Charlotte Street Partners, he joined global marcomms group WPP Group in a client strategy role working with agencies and group across the full range of services including media and advertising. In September 2016 he was appointed to chair the Sustainable Growth Commission, which reported to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, in May 2018.
Stephen Gethins: Former SNP MP for North East Fife and shadow SNP Spokesperson for foreign affairs. Worked with Craig Oliphant in Eastern Europe before entering politics for the SNP. Very close politically to Nicola Sturgeon.
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.
Lord Duncan: Appointed a Tory working peer by UK Prime Minister in 2017, he is currently Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords. he was a Tory UK Government Minister, serving in each of the territorial departments (Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) and laterally as Minister for Climate Change with responsibility for international negotiations.
Kezia Dugdale: Former leader of the Labour Party in Scotland is the Director of the Centre.
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 reality
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”..
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.”
caltonjock 