This is what needs to be done by the SNP government.
The Scottish parliament should inform the Westminster government that subject to confirmation of the Scottish electorate Scotland will withdraw from the Treaty of Union of 1707 on 5 May 2022.
The electorate will be given the opportunity to vote against the measure and subject to more than 50% of the total eligible voting population voting “NO”, the Westminster government will be advised and the intended declaration of independence from the UK will be abandoned.
Eligible voters unable to attend a voting station will be able to vote through a nominated proxy. Polling Stations for “NO” voters will be open between the hours of 0700 – 2200. There will be no postal vote.
A petition to the heads of the Commonwealth nations seeking their support for a request from Scots to the Head of the Commonwealth, her majesty Queen Elizabeth to repeal the 1707 Treaty of Union which was imposed on Scots against their will by acts of betrayal by King William and aggression by England. In support of the petition should be noted that before the Union Scotland was a prosperous outward-looking nation with excellent trading relations with many other countries. A record of events between 1694 and 1707 has been added to the petition to aid the understanding of the request.
July 1694: The Bank of England
In the 17th century, early banking business was carried out by people known as the goldsmiths who owned and lent gold and silver to wealthy people at interest rates as high as 30%.
1672: Charles II borrowed vast amounts of money from the goldsmiths enabling his extravagant lifestyle and decided that as king he need not pay it back and wrote a letter stating: “Gentlemen, I’m an honest man but unfortunately I am unable to pay my debts back on this occasion. Sorry, will see what I can do.” As a result, goldsmith businesses collapsed and confidence in the sector dissolved.
1693: England was at war yet again with France and William III who urgently needed to raise funds to finance it went to the remaining goldsmiths to see if any of them would fund him. Their refusal forced him to find new ways of raising finance.
William Paterson, an influential merchant of Scottish descent suggested that the public would be able to lend money to the government trading their cash for shares in a newly formed joint-stock company owned by the public and the government. His proposal accepted a new company was formally established by Royal Charter on 27 July 1694 and given the name “The Governor and the Company of the Bank of England”. People duly invested in it by purchasing “bank stock” and the government paid them 8% interest which was a very good deal for the government.
The charter handed over to an anonymous committee the previously Royal prerogative of minting money and enabled international banksters to secure their loans on the taxes of the country rather than on the monarch’s personal undertaking committing the people of England to the everlasting support of a newly created “National debt”.
The measure forced Westminster politicians into groups in support of ensuing arguments over what was to be done with the new financial power so as to ensure that their cronies and their policies would predominate. This was the start of the bankers highly dubious practise of fractional reserve banking whereby gold became the basis of loans. £100 of gold would be legal security for a £1k loan. At 5% interest, £100 in gold could earn £50 interest annually with little inconvenience to the lender other than maintaining a ledger. The owner of £100 worth of land would still need to toil endlessly gaining nothing. The confrontational Party system of political divide and rule was the result.
20 Jun 1695: Establishment of the Scottish East India Company and Darien
King William allowed an Act for the Establishment of a Scottish East India Company to be passed. Before that since the Union of the Crowns, all Scottish efforts to found trading companies had been wrecked on English jealousy. There had always been and to this new East India Company, there was, a rival, a pre-existing English company.
The Scottish East India Company’s aim was to sell Scottish goods in many places worldwide and to facilitate the intent plans included the establishment of a trading colony on the isthmus of Panama. The great scheme was the idea of William Paterson, a far-travelled and financially-speculative son of a Scottish farmer who was the “projector,” or one of the projectors, of the Bank of England in 1694. Paterson accepted English investors into the Scheme and they responded by taking up half of the available shares as the “Act of Patent” permitted them to do.
October 1695: In London, the opening of the books of the new company caused panic and a fall of twenty points in the shares of the English East India Company. The English subscribers of half the paid-up capital were terrorised and forced to sell out and investments in the company in Hamburg were cancelled through English pressure. Scots took up the freed shares ensuring the venture was fully subscribed. But even at this late stage, the Darien part of the scheme was a closely guarded secret. There was only a vague reference to a settlement somewhere in Africa or the Indies.
King William returned to England from Holland and found English capitalists and the English Parliament in fury since the “Act of Patent” he had awarded to the new company committed him to interpose his authority if the ships of the company were detained by foreign powers and it also gave the traders leave to take “reparation” by force from any assailants. William reportedly said that he “had been ill-served by some of my Ministers.” and that he knew nothing about any settlement in or near to the Panama Isthmus which was within the Spanish sphere of influence.
July 1697: The secret plans for Darien became public knowledge and the English Council of Trade petitioned Parliament to scupper the plans of the Scottish East India Company by seizing Golden Island and an established port on the mainland.
July 1698: The Council of the intended Scots colony was elected, bought three ships and two tenders, and despatched 1200 settlers. On October 30, in the Gulf of Darien, they found natives who spoke Spanish and learned that the nearest gold mines were in Spanish hands and that the chiefs were carrying Spanish insignia of office. By February 1699 the Scots and Spaniards were exchanging shots and a Scottish ship, cruising in search of supplies, was seized by the Spanish at Carthagena. Spain complained to William when the Scots seized a Spanish merchant ship in retaliation. The Scots were held in irons in Seville until 1700. Responding to the Spanish complaints, in compliance with orders from the English Government, to all the colonies, the English Governor of Jamaica forbade his people from providing supplies to Scots who were blockaded by a Spanish flotilla at Darien.
August 1698: Early Warning of Westminster Treachery
Address to King William by the Scottish parliament on behalf of the Company Trading to Africa and the Indies: We, your majesty’s most loyal and faithful subjects do humbly represent to your majesty that, having considered a representation made to us by the counsel general of the company trading to Africa and the Indies, make mention of several obstructions they have met within the prosecution of their trade, particularly by means of a memorandum presented on your behalf to the senate of Hamburg by your majesty’s English diplomats with the intent of lessening the authority of the rights and privileges granted to the said company by an act of the parliament of Scotland. We do, therefore, in all humble duty, lay before your majesty the whole of Scotland’s concern in this matter. And we do most earnestly entreat, and most assuredly expect, that your majesty will, in your royal wisdom take such measures as to vindicate the undoubted rights and privileges of the said company and support the credit and interest thereof.
12 May 1699: A new expedition left Leith and on arrival at Darien found some Scots still alive and defending the port. Two ships remained at Darien and were further reinforced in February 1700, when a ship arrived with provisions and found the Spaniards assailing the settlement. The new arrivals cleared the Spaniards out of Darien in fifteen minutes and established control. A few weeks after Spain launched another attack and heavily outnumbered after an honourable resistance the settlers at Darien capitulated and departed Darien on 30 March 1700.
17 January 1701: May it please the King
Scotland was full of discontent and passions raged against King William whose agent in Hamburg had prevented foreigners from investing in the Scots company. English colonists had been forbidden by Westminster from aiding the Scottish settlers. Two hundred thousand pounds, several ships, and many lives had been lost. The news of the surrender of the colonists increased the indignation. The king refused (November 1700) to gratify the Estates by regarding the Darien colony as a legal enterprise since to do so might incur war with Spain and the anger of his English subjects. And yet the colony had been legally founded in accordance with the terms of the Act of Patent. The Scottish Estates voted that Darien was a lawful colony, and (1701) in an address to the Crown demanded compensation for the nation’s financial losses. King William replied with expressions of sympathy and hopes that the two kingdoms would consider a scheme of Union and a Bill for Union brought forward by English Lords was rejected by the English Commons.
The Address: “We, your majesty’s most faithful and dutiful subjects, the noblemen, barons and burgesses of the Scottish parliament, do in all humility represent that we are of sound mind, and do and shall ever most heartily acknowledge, that God raised your majesty to be our great deliverer, by whom our religion, liberties, rights and laws were rescued and restored into the happy estate and condition within which we now enjoy them.
Not least amongst the blessings was that your majesty desired the Kingdom to introduce measures for raising and improving the trade of the nation, and you were pleased in the year 1693 to give the royal assent to an act of parliament authorizing societies and companies in general, and then by an act of parliament in the year 1695, to elect and establish “The Company of Scotland, Trading to Africa and the Indies,” And, with the powers, privileges, liberties and immunities contained in the said act, by virtue and warrant whereof letters patent were also granted for the same effect under the great seal of this your ancient kingdom.
But though the act and patent contained nothing save what is agreeable to the law of nations and to the use and custom everywhere in like cases, yet no sooner were they expedited and the founders began to act than, to the great surprise of the said company and of this whole kingdom, the kingdom of England take offence and acting against the company place upon it great and grievous hardships.
First, there was the address, made in December 1695 by both houses of the parliament in England wherein they complained to your majesty of our said act of parliament for granting to the said company the privileges and immunities therein mentioned, as likely to bring many prejudices and mischiefs to all your English subjects concerned in the trade or wealth of that nation
And at the same time the House of Commons ordered an inquiry to be made to establish who were the advisers and promoters of our said act of parliament and acting on the information so gathered did move and make several prosecutions, even against the subjects of this kingdom who did not so much as reside in England, and only were acting by virtue and warrant of our said act of parliament and your majesty’s patent, whereby our said company was also disappointed and frustrated at the loss of the subscriptions of our own countrymen and others in England to the value of about £300,000.
And further, the House of Lords, by another address to your majesty, upon the twelfth of February 1698, persisted with the opposition made against our company and their colony of Caledonia in Darien in the continent of America, on the grounds of it being prejudicial to their nation and detrimental to its trade.
They went on to use the aforementioned statement to justify certain proclamations emitted in the year 1699 by the governors of the English plantations against our said company and their colony as agreeable to the above-mentioned address of both houses of parliament, alleging that the same did proceed upon the unanimous sense of that kingdom in relation to any settlement we might make in the West Indies, and gave forth their resolution that the settlement of our colony at Darien was inconsistent with the good of the plantation trade of England.
All which being laid before us by our said company, and having fully considered the same, we have unanimously concluded and passed the resolution that the votes and proceedings of the parliament of England and their address presented to your majesty in December 1695 in relation to our act of parliament establishing our Indian and African Company, and the address of the house of lords presented to your majesty in February last, were unwarranted meddling in the affairs of Scotland and an invasion upon the sovereignty and independence of our king and parliament.
Secondly, when our company sent their deputies to the German city of Hamburg, about the month of April 1697, to establish a treaty with that city and its inhabitants establishing free commerce to join with them according to the warrant contained in our act of parliament and your majesty’s patent, these deputies were immediately upon their arrival opposed by Sir Paul Rycault, an Englishman resident in that city, and a Mr Cresset, your majesty’s English envoy at the court of Lunenburg.
Both then made several addresses to the senate of that city in prejudice of our company, and at length gave to the senate a memorial in your majesty’s name as the king of Great Britain, (1) stating that they represented your majesty, and the said (deputies endeavoured to open to England commerce and trade with the City of Hamburg by making some convention or treaty with them and had commanded the City fathers to notify the Luneburg Senate that, if they should enter into any convention with Scottish men, your subjects, who had neither credential letters, nor were otherwise authorized by your majesty, you would regard such proceedings as an affront to your royal authority and would not fail to resent it.
And then, noting that the City of Hamburg, without regard to their remonstrations did offer to make conventions or treaties with the Scottish deputation, proceeding upon the supposition that they were vested with sufficient powers, they repeated their complaint beseeching the said Luneburg Senate, in your majesty’s name, to remedy the matter since the City of Hamburg were intent on proceeding to enter into a contract with said Scotsmen were not instructed with due credentials and also expressly invading their rights and privileges.
Your majesty was graciously pleased to signify to the company, once and again by your secretaries, that you had given orders to these ministers not to make use of your majesties’ name and authority to obstruct the company in the prosecution of their trade with the inhabitants of that city, which, nevertheless, the said English ministers altogether misrepresented.
Which being also complained of to us by the company and duly considered by us, we have unanimously concluded and passed another resolution that the memorial presented in your majesty’s name as the king of Great Britain to the senate of Hamburg, upon the seventh of April 1697, by Sir Paul Rycault, then resident in that city, and Mr Cresset, your majesties’ envoy extraordinary at the Court of Lunenburg, were most unwarrantable, containing manifest falsehoods and contrary to the law of nations,(1) injurious to your majesty and an open encroachment upon the sovereignty and independence of this crown and kingdom, the occasions of great losses and disappointments to the said company and of most dangerous consequence to the trade of Scotland now and in the future.
Thirdly, your majesty’s favour of forming the company, has been very acceptable to the whole of Scotland and having the financial support of many subscribers of all degrees and from all parts, and having procured a greater advance of money for a venture then was ever made before, the council and directors of the company thought good to make some settlement for a plantation. And, having considered that by the for-said act of parliament they were limited in their planting of colony’s either to places not inhabited or to other places with the consent of the natives and inhabitants, and not possessed by any European prince or state.
And having investigated available information understood that that part of Darien in America, where they thereafter fixed, was no European possession, they set forth well equipped with ships, men and provisions, which, arriving upon that coast in November 1698, the founders of the colony did not only find the place uninhabited, but also treated and agreed with the chief men of the natives near to the place, whom they found in independent and absolute freedom, and, being very kind and friendly by them admitted, our colony took possession and settled upon the most complete right of a place, void and unoccupied and with the consent of all the neighbouring natives that could have any pretence to it, and thus the company hoped they had made a good settlement and happily prevented others having designed for the same place in such manner as might tend to the advantage of all your majesty’s dominions.
But when they believed that their matters were thus in a hopeful and prosperous condition, they were exceedingly surprised to hear that proclamations had been published by the governors of the English plantations placing an embargo on the company as enemies, debarring them from all supplies and that these proclamations had been executed against Darien with the utmost rigour, forbidding our men wood, water and anchorage, and all sorts of provisions, even for money, contrary to the very rules of common humanity: and, within some weeks after, the company was informed that their colony had deserted Darien to the great loss and regret of the whole of Scotland.
And though the Company sent out a very considerable second mission to repossess Darien, the same rigorous execution was still continued against them. Which proclamations proceeding, as we believe, and that from the very style and variations that may be observed in them, from the error of the governor’s mistaking, as it is like from some cautions given them for prevention and not from direct orders, we are persuaded were not emitted by your majesty’s warrant, besides that they were executed with an unheard of rigour.
And therefore, upon a further complaint from our company in this matter, we have most unanimously concluded and past a third resolve in these terms: that the proclamations in the English plantations in April, May, June and September 1699 against our Indian and African Company and colony in Caledonia were and are injurious and prejudicial to the rights and liberties of the company, and that the execution of these proclamations against the settlers sent out by the said company was inhumane, barbarous and contrary to the law of nations and a great occasion of the loss and ruin of our said colony and settlement of Caledonia.
And we take to our further consideration the proceedings of our company in making the said settlement and how they punctiliously observed the condition of the for the said act of parliament and patent in making their plantations in no European possession, with the greatest caution both to fix in a place void and uninhabited and also with the consent of all the neighbouring natives that could have the least shadow of pretence thereto, and that yet, on the other hand, the said planters have been treated by the Spaniards, first at Carthagena and then in the very seat of our colony and like ways in old Spain, with all insolences and hostilities, not only as enemies but as pirates.
We thought it our duty, for vindicating and securing our said company and colony from all imputation or charge that has been or may be brought against them, to pass and conclude with the same unanimity the fourth resolve: that our Indian and African Company’s colony of Caledonia in Darien in the continent of America was and is legal and rightful, and that the settlement was made conform to the act of parliament and letters patent establishing the said company, and that the company, in making and prosecuting the said settlement, acted warrantable by virtue of the said act of parliament and patent.
We, having thus found the for said invasions to be manifest encroachments upon the undoubted independence and sovereignty of this your majesty’s ancient crown and kingdom and unanimously passed the above-mentioned resolves and votes for asserting the rights and privileges of our said company, and also for asserting our company’s right to their colony of Caledonia, we have further thought good to lay the same before your majesty by this our solemn address.
And, therefore, do with all humble duty and earnestness beseech your majesty to take this whole matter to your royal consideration and to prevent all encroachments for the future that may be made, either by your English ministers abroad or any other to the prejudice of this kingdom and our said company, or any project of trade that we may lawfully design, and to assure our said company of your majesty’s royal protection in all their just rights and privileges, and to grant them your countenance and concurrence for reparation of their losses, especially those great losses and damages that they and their colony have suffered by the injuries and acts of violence of the Spaniards.
And further, we represent to your majesty that the press-ganging of our citizens by the English for their sea service is contrary to the natural right and freedom of the subjects of this kingdom, ought to be absolutely discharged.
All which we represent to your majesty with the greater confidence, as being most assured that none of your kingdoms and subjects is or can be more dutifully and zealously affected to your majesty’s royal person and government than we and the good subjects of this your ancient kingdom are, and shall ever continue to testify by laying out our selves for your majesty’s service to the utmost of our power.
Signed in presence by warrant and in name of the estates of parliament by, may it please your majesty, your majesty’s most humble, most obedient and most faithful subject and servant, Patrick, Earl of Marchmont, Lord High Chancellor to the Parliament of Scotland, 17 January 1701″
1701: The English Parliament, introduced the “Act of Settlement”, passing royal succession to the House of Hanover securing Protestant only succession to the throne, and strengthening the guarantees ensuring a parliamentary system of government.
1702: William III fell from his horse and broke his neck.
1702: His wife’s sister Anne, became queen and the last monarch of the House of Stuart. She had 17 children by her husband, Prince George of Denmark, none of which survived her. She was immediately popular in England stating in her first speech to the English Parliament: “As I know my heart to be entirely English, I can very sincerely assure you there is not anything you can expect or desire from me which I shall not be ready to do for the happiness and prosperity of England.”
1704: England intended to transfer royal succession to the “House of Hanover” but Scotland insisted on the successor to Queen Anne being of direct Scottish descent as contained in the Laws of Scotland, right of succession. The outcome of discussions was a predictable stalemate. The Scottish Parliament passed the “Act of Security” threatening, in the absence of an agreement to withdraw financial and military support to England, which was fighting yet another war with Spain.
1705: The Alien Act, 1705 was passed by the parliament of England, in response to the Scottish parliament Act of Security, 1704 which in turn had been enacted in response to the English Act of Settlement, 1701. The Act provided that Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as aliens (foreign nationals), and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property, making inheritance much less certain. It also included an embargo on the import of Scottish products into England and English colonies about half of Scotland’s trade, covering goods such as linen, cattle and coal. It contained a provision that it would be suspended but only if the Scots entered into negotiations regarding a proposed union of the parliaments of Scotland and England. Combined with English financial offers to refund Scottish losses on the Darien scheme, the Act achieved its aim, leading to the Acts of Union 1707 uniting the two countries as the Kingdom of Great Britain.
1706: The vast majority of Scots considered the Alien Act and its proposals to be blackmail and worked hard to retain their independence opening up new markets, running English blockades on Scotland’s ports, reducing dependence on trade with England. But Scottish nobles landed gentry and traders, who had borne much of the financial losses attributed to the, (Darien Project) were of a different mindset and led by the Duke of Queensberry, (the most senior noble in Scotland) they established a secret dialogue with Westminster politicians providing assurance an, “Act of Union” would be agreed, subject to a suitable financial settlement. A £400,000 sweetener was passed in secret to the Duke of Queensberry for distribution to the appropriate Scottish gentry.
1706: Despite the assurances of the Duke of Queensberry that Scotland would be delivered as promised the majority of Scots were still opposed to any agreement with England and a hastily-convened meeting of senior politicians in London decided that urgent measures would need to be taken, persuading the leader of factions opposed to the Union, (Duke of Hamilton) to switch sides. The ploy was successful, The Duke, together with enough of his close friends transferred their allegiance.
1706: The English public voiced doubt that the proposed Union would bring benefits and their concerns were raised in Westminster. To reassure England, Robert Harley, spymaster in the Westminster Government, contracted William Defoe to write a thrice-weekly review, (for the widest possible distribution in England) aimed at persuading English opinion to support the proposed Union. The thrust of Defoe’s assertions claimed that it would end the threat from Scotland forever and gain for Westminster an “inexhaustible treasury of fighting men” and a valuable new market further increasing the power of England.
1706 In the autumn, “Spymaster Harley” ordered Defoe to Edinburgh with the mission (as a secret agent) to do everything possible to help secure acquiescence in the Treaty of Union. His first reports included vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. Sometime after, John Clerk of Penicuik, a leading Unionist, wrote, “He was a spy among us, but not known as such, otherwise the Mob of Edinburgh would have pulled him to pieces.”
Defoe, a Presbyterian, had been accepted as an adviser to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and committees of the Parliament of Scotland. Harley wrote that he was, “privy to all their folly” but, “perfectly unsuspected as with corresponding with anybody in England”. He was then able to heavily influence proposals that were put to the Scottish Parliament. In manipulating Scottish opinion he used opposite arguments, to those he used in England, for example, unusually ignoring the English doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament, telling Scot’s that they could have complete confidence in the guarantees in the Treaty. He secretly wrote many pamphlets praising the Union which were circulated throughout Scotland.
1707: The “Act of Union” was signed off and Defoe, was financially rewarded by spymaster Harley”. But the Scottish public was infuriated by the betrayal of the Nobles and high heid yins in Parliament. The Presbyterian minister of the Trongate church in Glasgow urged his congregation, “to up and anent for the City of God”. English government troops put down rioters in Glasgow. Copies of the Treaty were destroyed at almost every Mercat cross in Scotland and Martial Law was imposed together with a dusk to dawn curfew which remained in force for months.
1723: Defoe returned to Scotland many year’s after and on viewing the abject poverty of the people admitted that the increase of trade and population in Scotland which he had predicted as a consequence of the Union, was “not the case, but rather the contrary”.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 – loss of control of Scottish food standards – Post Brexit
The UK Government decided that all powers currently exercised at the EU level would transfer from Brussels to Westminster and included control over fields of competence presently devolved to Scotland such as the environment, agriculture and fisheries. This prompted accusations from the Scottish government that the Bill was a “naked power grab”.
In defence of its actions, the UK Government took the view that the current responsibilities of the devolved institutions were limited anyway by EU law and there would be no reduction in the powers of the devolved bodies if those issues were currently dealt with by the EU were handled at UK level.
The Bill also enabled Westminster to alter retained EU law in future, with the law as amended remaining outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and included a number of caveats stating that decision-making powers returning from the EU would be allocated within the UK “in a way that works ensuring that no new barriers to living and doing business in the UK are created”.
The UK Government also gave notice of its intention to increase decision-making powers to devolved institutions in time, though the Bill was silent on when and how a further devolution of ‘repatriated’ powers would take place, or which powers would be repatriated but it did state that powers would not be devolved in a way that would hamper the UK’s ability to enter into trade agreements.
The foregoing legislation included modifying the aims and outputs of Food Standards (Scotland) (FSS) a non-ministerial entity that was put in place by the Scottish government in 2015 to ensure that information and advice on food safety and standards, nutrition and labelling were independent, consistent, evidence-based and consumer-focused.
With its primary concern being consumer protection the agency was further tasked with making sure that food was safe to eat, ensuring consumers knew what they were eating and improving nutrition. With that in mind, its vision was to deliver food and drink environment in Scotland that benefitted and protected consumers. FSS did develop policies and was a trusted source of advice protecting consumers through the delivery of a robust regulatory and enforcement strategy.
The Bill amended the Scotland Act 1998 forbidding the Scottish Parliament from modifying “retained EU law”. but empowered Westminster to alter retained EU laws in future.
Essentially, the effect was to ensure that powers currently outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament because of EU law constraints would remain outside its competence.
Comment: Food import contracts post-Brexit will be compiled negotiated and agreed upon by UK government ministers. Another example of Westminster’s colonial control over Scotland.
Elected in 1997 the New Labour government failed to protect the health of the population by backing away from regulating the food industry.
Baron Sainsbury was the Chairman of the supermarket chain carrying his name from 1992 to 1997. He was made a life peer in 1997, and sat in the House of Lords as a member of the Labour Party. He also served in the New Labour government as the Minister for Science and Innovation between1998 and 2006 and gifted the Labour Party £15M.
2000: Creation of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) a non-ministerial government department
A collapse in public trust triggered by a number of high-profile outbreaks and deaths from food borne illness including the BSE crisis led to the perception that civil servants within the then Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries placed the interests of food producers ahead of those of consumers. It was also felt that it was inappropriate – and dangerous – to have one government department responsible for both the health of the farming and food processing industries and also food safety. Hence the introduction of the FSA.
2006: Food manufacturers force government to back down on salt levels in food
The New Labour government abandoned a solem promise to the nation to force food manufacturers to cut salt levels in food. The plan was to reduce personal daily intake by 10gm to 6gm over the period ending in 2010. But responding to pressure from the food manufacturing industry the daily target was revised upwards by the government to 8gm, where it remained at March 2015. According to health experts, an extra 126,000 UK citizens died in the period 2006-2015 as a direct result of the revised policy.
Unsurprisingly the Food & Drink Federation representing Sainsbury’s and other supermarkets greatly welcomed the relaxed targets. Companies such as, Somerfield, Safeway, Waitrose and Tesco also donated money toNew Labour.
2006: Agency credibility challenged by food manufacturers
The Agency lost it’s way being heavily criticised for expensive and questionable research and fruitless public consultation exercises projects taking on more and more staff and running head on into controversy about the health claims of organic food and the role of GM foods. But ultimately, it was the FSA’s difficult relationship with the powerful food industry which undermined its effectiveness and claims of independence, after manufacturers brought an end to its attempt to secure a universal system of “traffic light labelling” for food and drink products.
Jul 2010: Victory for Food Manufacturers – Food Standards Agency Abolished By Tory Health Secretary
The Food Standards Agency was abolished by the Health Secretary, after the standards watchdog fought a running battle with industry and the EU over the introduction of colour-coded “traffic light” warnings for groceries, TV dinners and snacks. The move sparked accusations that the government had “caved in to big business”.
As part of the changes the FSA’s regulatory aspects including safety and hygiene were transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). And its responsibilities for nutrition, diet and public health were incorporated into the Department of Health.
The Tory Health Secretary also factored the opinions of fast food companies such as McDonald’s, KFC and processed food and drink manufacturers such as PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, Unilever, Mars and Diageo into public health related bills, on obesity, diet-related disease and alcohol. Campaign groups claimed the changes were the equivalent of handing smoking policy over to the tobacco industry.
It transpired later that until December 2009, the Health Secretary had received £134 an hour from a firm of advertisers that represented clients such as Walkers Crisps, McDonald’s, Unilever, Mars and Pizza Hut prompting Private Eye to suggest a link between these activities and the Health Secretary’s stated desire to see a more lightly regulated food industry. The same publication also suggested a similar link to a Department of Health report on red meat in which the only products listed in the report found to contain suitable amounts of red meat to merit a “Good” rating were a McDonald’s Big Mac, and a Peperami manufactured by Unilever. (Wikipedia)
9 Apr 2014: Salt levels in many foods unnecessarily high
Many grocery items such as sandwiches, smoked fish and ready meals were found to contain at least a third of an adult’s daily allowance of salt.
A study of 50 products from major supermarkets also found that other items such as soups, meat, salads and snacks contained more than a quarter of the six grams of salt, the Government’s recommended daily limit.
And some supermarket pizzas contained almost half the daily allowance of salt recommended for adults while snacks contained almost a third.
Experts said that the salt levels in many of the foods were unnecessarily high and called for manufacturers to urgently reduce the amounts to help save lives. They warned that there was a wealth of evidence linking high salt intake to raised blood pressure increasing the risk of heart disease and strokes. But the public had been told over salting produce had been eliminated in 2006!! Sadly this was not the case. (Telegraph)
2015: Food Standards Scotland Act 2015
Supermarket profits were under pressure and this brought with it an ever increasing need to reduce manufacturing costs, placing food standards at risk. and a number of unacceptable incidences occured such as horse meat being sold as beef and unacceptably high levels of Campylobacter in chickens.
The Scottish SNP government, was of the view that regulatorty standards introduced by the Tory government were unacceptable to Scottish consumers and, following a period of intense discussions it gained the approval of the Westminster government to set up a food standard monitoring body which would report to the Scottish parliament.
The Food (Scotland) Bill then set up a stand-alone food safety, standards and nutrition body in Scotland. The Bill received Royal Assent from Her Majesty the Queen on 13th Jan 2015 creating the Food (Scotland) Act 2015 paving the way for Food Standards Scotland to operate as a legal body.
Food Standards Scotland, a non-ministerial government department of the Scottish Government became operational from 1 April 2015. It took over all of the responsibilities of the former UK-wide organisation responsible for food safety, food standards, nutrition, food labelling and meat inspection in Scotland. (Wikipedia)
Changes following Brexit. Westminster back in control
Excess consumption of sugar is linked to a number of health problems such as obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay and it also imposed health costs on individuals (lower life expectancy) and the rest of society (higher health care costs + lower productivity)
The proposal was that a tax on sugar would discourage consumption and raise tax revenue to fund improved health care. Yet, critics argued it would be a regressive tax taking more from those on low incomes. The Tory government delayed a decision but eventually it was forced by public pressure to act. Draft legislation was put in place introducing a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks from April 2018.
Two bands were proposed one for soft drinks with more than 5g of sugar per 100ml and a higher one for drinks with more than 8g per 100ml.
Pure fruit juices were exempt but health officials stressed that people should limit consumption of these beverages to no more than 150ml per day. Likewise, sugary milkshake and yogurt drinks were also excluded since there was concern that teenagers, particularly girls, were not getting enough calcium and taxing these drinks would be counterproductive.
It was projected that the levy would raise £520m each year and the price of a litre of fizzy drink would increase by around 20p.
A Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health representative said: “We are very pleased to see government moving forward with this draft legislation. The sugary drinks that will be affected by this tax have no nutritional benefit and often contain levels of sugar that are above a child’s daily recommended limit. These drinks are a major contributor to the high sugar intakes of children, particularly teenagers, and we are in no doubt that they are, in part, contributing to this country’s obesity crisis.”
Aug 2017: Hepatitis E contaminated pork imported from Europe
Tens of thousands of Britons are being infected with a ‘potentially deadly liver virus’ in pork products, mostly imported from Europe. According to reports, the strain of hepatitis E, linked to pig farms in France, Holland, Germany and Denmark, is infecting more than 60,000 people in Britain every year. And while most cases are not serious, figures from Public Health England (PHE) show an increase in serious illnesses, from 368 in 2010 to 1,244 in 2016. Transplant patients and pregnant women are considered especially at risk.
A gastroenterologist at Exeter University said: “I call it the Brexit virus, It attacks the liver and nerves. It is particularly dangerous for people with suppressed immune systems such as those who have had organ transplants and possibly cancer. ”
The reports also quoted a study showing the virus had spread to more than 90% of British pigs. They also referred to research suggesting 10% of sausages could be affected.
In the UK, sausages with the “Red Tractor” logo are not permitted to include liver or offal, reducing the risk of contamination compared with countries where liver and blood sausages are popular.
The National Pig Association (NPA) issued a statement: “Research at Public Health England has shown that the subgroup of hepatitis E causing the majority of human infection in the UK is not the same as the subgroup found in UK pigs. The NPA agrees with the conclusion of the researchers that if people in this country have contracted hepatitis E virus from eating pork, it is likely to have come from imported pork, rather than British pork. Further research and surveillance is required to determine the true cause of the rise in hepatitis E cases in the UK. The NPA recommends that consumers follow the advice from the Food Standards Agency that pork and sausages should be cooked thoroughly until steaming hot throughout, with no pink or red in the centre, to greatly reduce the risk of infection.”
Tesco has been named as the supermarket chain which may have infected people with hepatitis E from contaminated pork. Public Health England confirmed that the UK’s biggest retailer was the supermarket identified in a study as the potential source of the virus in the UK.
Hepatitis E is thought to have entered the country in pork imports from the Netherlands and Germany. British pigs are not infected with the G3-2 strain of the hepatitis E which is thought to be behind most infections.
Sep 2017: Chicken production packaging and distrubtion scandal
A company, 2SFG owned by food tycoon Ranjit Boparan – the largest supplier of poultry meat to United Kingdom supermarkets has been accused of altering sell by dates. United Kingdom supermarkets have been forced to launch investigations into their chicken supply chain after undercover footage emerged that allegedly showed workers at its West Bromwich site dropping chicken on the floor before returning it to the production line.
The footage also showed workers repackaging mixed meat of different ages and changing source codes on crates of meat that had been returned to the factory by supermarket distribution centres, returning chicken to the production line that had been dropped on the floor, and altering records of where and when chickens were slaughtered. It also emerged that packs of Tesco’ s “Willow Farm” fresh chicken were bulked up with unsold chicken returned by Lidl.
Food Standards Agency (England) announced it had launched an investigation into the claims, which include older birds being dumped in with fresh stock but given the same sell-by dates.
2 Oct 2017: Foreign sugar company sponsors Tory Party conference
The Conservative Party came under fire from angry farmers on social media after allowing a major US sugar company to sponsor its conference in Manchester. US sugar company Tate & Lyle Sugars, a major exporter to the UK, is sponsoring the conference to be held in Manchester in October 2017. The gaffe means that the Conservatives advertised a brand which is a major competitor to British Sugar and this just days after Tory ministers high profile vist to a sugar factory to celebrate the end of EU sugar quotas.
The National Farmers’ Union even set up a sensory farm inside the conference, which included a “pledge apple tree” on which delegates were able to hang a paper apple on the prop pledging their support for British farming. The NFU President said the Conference provided the perfect opportunity to assure thousands of delegates of the unqualified support for the British farming industry by the Tory Party.
A View From Austria – Four Lessons To Be Learned from the Scottish Referendum
Government authorities in the UK declared that the “Yes” campaign for secession had failed by a margin of approximately 55 per cent to 45 per cent. Yet, even without a majority vote for secession, the campaign for separation from the United Kingdom already provided numerous insights into the future of secession movements and those who defend the status quo.
Lesson 1: Global Elites Greatly Fear Secession and Decentralization
Global elite institutions and individuals including Goldman Sachs, Alan Greenspan, David Cameron and several major banks pulled out all the stops to sow fear about independence as much as possible. Global bankers vowed to punish Scotland, declaring they would move out of Scotland if independence were declared.
A Deutsche Bank report compared independence to the decision to return to the gold standard in the 1920s and said it might spark a rerun of the Great Depression, at least north of the border. When it comes to predictions of economic doom, it doesn’t get much more hysterical than that. Except that it does. David Cameron nearly burst into tears begging the Scots not to vote for independence.
The elite onslaught against secession employed at least two strategies. The first involved threats and “for your own good” lectures. Things will “not work out well” for Scotland in case of secession, intoned Robert Zoellick of the World Bank.
The late Senator John McCain implied that Scottish independence would be good for terrorists. The second strategy involved pleading and begging, which, of course, betrayed how truly fearful the West’s ruling class is of secession.
In addition to Cameron’s histrionics based on nostalgia and maudlin appeals to not break “this family apart,” Cameron bribed Scots with numerous promises of more money, more autonomy, and more power within the UK.
The threats that focused on the future of the Scottish monetary system are particularly telling. The very last thing that governments in London, Brussels, or Washington, DC want to see is an established Western country secede from a monetary system and join another in an orderly fashion.
Lesson 2: Secession Movements Will Demand a Vote
While the Westminster elite was desperate to see the Scotland referendum fail, few argued that the Scots had no right to vote on the matter. Some argued that all of the UK should vote on it, but most observers appeared to simply accept that the Scots were entitled to vote by themselves on Scotland’s status in the UK.
Lesson 3: Secession is a good way to bargain
Centralizers fear secession to the point where they’re willing to throw a lot of perks at the secessionists. In Scotland’s case, the promises involved a lot of additional government welfare. Threatening secession can be a useful tactic to obtain additional autonomy. Moreover, it is always helpful to force a central government to submit to a referendum on its legitimacy.
Ultimately, however, what really matters to a controlling regime is the ability to inflate the money supply and control the financial system. Politicians from the Westminster government may be willing to part with many powers, but the power to inflate and control the banks will never be given up lightly.
Lesson 4: Centralization is Unnecessary for Economic Success
As predicted by a host of observers of trends in state legitimacy, the state’s status as the central fact in the political order of the world continues to decline with smaller national groups and economic regions breaking up the old order in favour of both local autonomy and international alliances. The Scottish secession effort is one example and the short-term defeat of the referendum will do little to alter the trend.
In addition, the economic realities of the modern world with constantly moving capital and labour will continue to undermine the modern nation-state which has been largely built on the idea of economic nationalism and the myth that economic self-sufficiency can only be retained within the UK.
The proliferation of trade among nations with huge national markets, labour forces, and a willingness to trade internationally has destroyed the UK government claims that only the nation-state can provide the markets, coercive power, and international clout necessary for economic growth.
Scots see access to international markets as something that is quite attainable without the added baggage of the UK central state to which they are presently beholden. Scotland does not need England to facilitate its trade with countries worldwide.
Small nations do very well when it comes to economic performance, and smallness is hardly a liability. The assertion that bigger is better was always easily disprovable but remained popular for centuries. The success of the Scottish secessionist claims that Scotland could indeed compete internationally has shown that the continued dominance of the old myth is breaking down.
Conclusion
The drive for regional independence and autonomy will continue to grow as economies stagnate, and the promises of the centralizing elites from London, Brussels or Rome or Madrid will fall on very deaf ears.
The fall out from the fruitless pursuit of Alex Salmond by Nicola Sturgeon
Sturgeon’s legal background was questioned during and on conclusion of the Holyrood inquiry into her handling of harassment complaints against Alex Salmond who successfully challenged her government’s “unlawful” and “biased” investigation at a judicial review, with the debacle costing the taxpayer up to £1m.
Rape Crisis Scotland also got involved after the event with its public support for two civil servants who at the time they came forward had said they desired only to speak with Sturgeon expressly ruling out any formal complaint of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond.
Their wishes had been ignored by Sturgeon’s government and when the judicial review ruled its actions unlawful and biased their cases were referred to the Crown Office against their will. And adding insult to injury in an act of gross betrayal, one of their names was leaked by a member of Sturgeon’s team to Alex Salmond’s former chief of staff. And to date, no one has been held to account for any part of the debacle.
The revelations of Rape Crisis Scotland also prompted a press response from a lady who alleged she had previously been on the receiving end of rough justice from Sturgeon at the time she was a solicitor with Stirling law firm Bell & Craig.
She said: “The way the women were let down was Sturgeon’s responsibility and it was completely wrong. The outcome of the judicial review was devastating for the government and wholly unsatisfactory for the two women who had made complaints. It goes back to my story; there was no responsibility taken. How can you sail through life like that and not admit any responsibility for when things go wrong? When she told me she was moving on to politics, an alarm bell rang and I immediately thought, that’s why I’m getting nowhere. She was focused on herself and her own career. To me, that’s what she is doing now as well. Where was her focus on the two women who complained about Alex Salmond?
Nov 1997: Sturgeon was investigated by the Scottish Law Society:
Sturgeon worked at Stirling law firm Bell & Craig when the client a battered wife turned to the newly-qualified solicitor for help in July 1996 after years of abuse at the hands of her husband.
Over the next 14 months, despite the woman being followed, threatened and physically attacked, it was claimed Sturgeon did not seek a court order against the woman’s violent partner. The matter was still unresolved when Sturgeon left the company for a new job in Glasgow.
A new solicitor was appointed and briefed by the client that Sturgeon had failed to send off her legal aid application despite claiming that she had done so. The unsent application was subsequently discovered in the client’s file. In stark contrast to Sturgeon’s inaction, the new solicitor immediately secured both legal aid and an interdict with the power of arrest against the husband ending his stalking and threats.
The client wrote to the Law Society in November 1997, saying: “I sincerely hope that you look into this case as I certainly would not wish Sturgeon to ill advise further matrimonial cases which she is clearly not capable of dealing with. The following month, the client’s outstanding fees totalling £542 were waived by Bell & Craig as a “goodwill gesture”.
A year later, in December 1998, the Law Society sent the client a five-page report which stated that her complaint would be investigated in the professional misconduct category. The three individual allegations were:
Failing to raise the interim interdict against the ex-husband.
Misleading the client about the legal aid application.
Failing to properly take her financial circumstances into account.
The Law Society of Scotland appointed a case manager, a solicitor, now Sheriff Olga Pasportnikov to investigate.
In a five-page report, dated Dec 1998, Olga Passportnikov concluded:
“Ms Sturgeon’s failure to provide competent legal services qualified as professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor.” She identified three counts ‘of professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor’. They were:
Failing to raise interdict.
Misleading client about legal aid application. The legal aid form had been completed and signed by the client and the client’s employers but not sent.
Failing to properly consider the client’s financial circumstances.
The Law Society of Scotland subsequently concluded that there should be no further action since Sturgeon had left the legal profession to contest a seat for the Scottish National Party entering politics without an on the record finding of professional misconduct by the Law Society of Scotland.
2018 The Professional misconduct story resurfaces
According to now-deleted tweets from a former journalist which has now been widely published online a story on the complaint regarding Nicola Sturgeon’s failure to provide adequate legal services to a victim of domestic violence, and the identification of several counts of professional misconduct against her by currently serving Sheriff Olga Pasportnikov had support from the editor of the Daily Record to be published that is until David Clegg the papers Political editor voted the story down.
The deleted tweet went on to allege that sometime later, the “Record” was leaked details of the harassment complaints against Alex Salmond and the investigation by Police Scotland which subsequently led to Alex Salmond being charged with multiple offences. He appeared in court on 21 November 2019 and entered a plea of “not guilty” and at the subsequent trial, Mr Salmond was cleared by a jury trial – heard by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorrian.
2015: Olga Pasportnikov the lawyer who previously found Nicola Sturgeon guilty of misconduct was appointed Sheriff of Inverness by the Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister
2021: The Justice Committee hearing of the Register of Judges Interests Petition PE 1458
This is the same Judicial Interests Register petition Nicola Sturgeon has tried to undermine and block since she became First Minister. If a Register of Judges’ Interests did become a requirement Sheriff Pasportnikov who found Nicola Sturgeon guilty of professional misconduct may be forced to list that fact and other details of her service to the Law Society of Scotland.
On Wednesday 3 March 2021 – the Judicial Office for Scotland was asked the following questions:
A currently serving Sheriff – Olga Pasportnikov – conducted an investigation of complaints lodged about Scotland’s current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon while she was a solicitor at a law firm identified as Bell & Craig. Ms Pasportnikov was, as the Judicial Office will be aware – a case manager for the Law Society of Scotland from September 1998 to March 2003.
In a five-page report released in December 1998, Olga Pasportnikov said: “The complaint, in this case, has been identified as professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor.”
Olga Pasportnikov found Ms Sturgeon guilty of 3 identifiable counts of professional misconduct: They were: failing to raise interdict as instructed, misleading the client about legal aid application, failing to properly consider the client’s financial circumstances. Ms Sturgeon quickly left the legal profession.
Noting Ms Pasportnikov currently declares her time at the Law Society of Scotland on her Linkedin page as a “case manager” – along with other career attributes including a term at the Crown Office as a Procurator Fiscal Depute, and her current role as a serving Sheriff. Does Sheriff Pasportnikov have any comment on the following questions:
Why she does not list her role in investigating complaints against solicitors?
Why did she find Ms Sturgeon guilty of 3 identifiable issues of professional misconduct?
Why did no regulatory punishment take place upon Sheriff Pasportnikov’s findings?
Does the Judicial Office have any comment on the above events and any comment on the impact of a currently serving Sheriff with a long history as a solicitor, prosecutor and now a judge – having found Scotland’s current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon guilty of three counts of professional misconduct to which no sanction was ever applied by legal regulators and never declared in any register of interests?
5 Mar 2021: The Judicial Office Response
(JOFS) issued a statement to the media claiming Sheriff Pasportnikov had forgotten she had investigated a complaint case involving the current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. A spokesperson for the Judicial Office said:
“The Sheriff was one of a number of case managers working on the Law Society for Scotland’s Client Relations Team from 1998 – 2003. Her role was limited to that of gathering and categorising information as the first step in a much longer process. She did not produce any reports or make any findings. Covering a volume of work, she would not remember specific names in routine cases, including where a solicitor was cleared entirely.”
Comment: A response to the foregoing Judicial Office statement was submitted querying the JOFS claim, and confirming that material now in the public domain does confirm Sheriff Pasportnikov did, in fact, investigate a complaint against Nicola Sturgeon and that Sheriff Pasportnikov identified several breaches of professional misconduct by Ms Sturgeon.
To date, no reply to the additional query has been received, nor has the Judicial Office disputed the terms of questions & information supplied to JOFS staff. It would be difficult to believe a case relevant to the current First Minister was forgotten about by the investigating reporter Sheriff Pasportnikov as there is obviously only one Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland – the current First Minister.
A legal expert comments
An expert in law assessed the material now in the public domain and the deleted tweets from a former journalist who names the Scottish newspaper and a “spiked” story on Ms Sturgeon.
He said: “I hope the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints will now scrutinise the information available and ask further questions of the First Minister in view of suggestions on social media platforms that a former journalist held this information for a number of years before approaching several newspapers seemingly without success. People may reasonably expect questions to be asked of why this story has not come to light until now and the method of travel to the media.”
Adding
“Was there a motive in withholding this story involving Scotland’s First Minister, either by a newspaper, a political party or a journalist? I am curious to find out. However, I am also curious as to why no one with the information offered the material in evidence to the long-running Scottish Parliament investigation of issues involving Alex Salmond given the First Minister responded to questions on what appear to be references to the investigation of Ms Sturgeon and a newspaper deal. MSPs should ask rigorous questions of anyone involved in this matter given the situation we face where information now exists alleging the Sheriff complaint probe of Scotland’s First Minister was allegedly swapped for a story on harassment complaints and a Police investigation of Alex Salmond in the summer of 2018”
A Judicial Interests Register would have required declaration of Sheriff’s role in FM Complaint:
It has been previously reported Nicola Sturgeon personally intervened to block the Judicial Register petition during a long-running investigation by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee. The surprise intervention by the First Minister in the bid to bring transparency to Scotland’s secretive judges came to light after a failed attempt by her then Legal Affairs Minister – Paul Wheelhouse – to overturn the petition with claims that ‘gangsters’ could misuse the information in a judges register. In the letter – dated 30 March 2015 – Nicola Sturgeon also revealed Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse had a secret meeting in February 2015 with Lord Gill to discuss the petition and the Judiciary & Scottish Government’s concerted opposition to creating the Judicial Register.
Rhiannon Spear Glasgow City Council Councillor and SNP politician is quitting politics blaming “relentless abuse” for her decision.
AboutRhiannon Spear
Education: 2017 – 2021: the University of Glasgow LLBLaw (Doubled up as the SNP Councillor for Pollok) 2008 – 2012: University of Glasgow MA Creative and Cultural Studies Film and Television (summer workplace experience in television production) 2002 – 2006: Rothesay Academy. Highers (A, A, A, B, B) English, History, Maths, Art, Physics
Personality: She is strikingly attractive, highly intelligent and gifted with a natural ability to attract attention, unfortunately not always to her benefit. She is feisty, strong-willed and determined to succeed at any task she is minded to take on. She is media savvy and possesses first-class skills including the production of excellent graphics for social media presentation and discussion. One of her many character weaknesses is her abject inability to accept criticism and her single-minded approach to her work. She needs to learn that political life is not a Religion and she is not the Pope.
Relationships: Her partner, is Rhys Crilley, a native of Wakefield in West Yorkshire. A gifted academic, prolific writer and university lecturer at Glasgow University whose primary interests are in war, militarism, scandals and outrage. He also maintains close political relationships with senior SNP leaders and actively supports the policies to which his partner and the SNP are committed.
Politics: Joined the SNP in 2011. Jointly founded Generation Yes, the national youth campaign for independence in the run-up to the 2014 referendum. National Convenor of YSI for two years from 2015–17. Elected to the SNP’s NEC in 2016. Scottish Parliament Candidate for the Glasgow List in 2016.Elected Councillor for Greater Pollok in 2017. Successfully proposed motions at SNP Conference on all-female lists, inclusive education and raising the age of military recruitment to 18. Chairs TIE the LBGTI government-funded charity which is remitted to support Scottish Education bodies providing LGBT-inclusive education in Scottish Schools. Actively promoted the #Metoo movement denouncing sexual harassment on campus at the University of Glasgow.
LBGTI: She is the driving force behind WOKE campaigning individuals, groups, charities and formal groups promoting and implementing the WOKE agenda in all state schools in Scotland. The bulk of WOKE activities, including resources and staffing, (£3-5M) is funded by the Scottish taxpayer through the SNP government. The unhealthy influence of WOKE minded politicians is being planted across all aspects of Scottish society as each day passes.
2008-2014: Glasgow Unversity
Speaking about her experiences from 2008 until 2012 at the University of Glasgow where she was a Creative and Cultural Studies student said, “My experience of university was that rape culture was commonplace and male sexual aggression was normalised.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it since, trying to come to terms with that environment, and it has been a long process. I was sexually assaulted. I had naked pictures taken of me while I slept which were shared in group chats. That was common for girls, and people don’t realise how common it is.
Hyper heteronormative shows of masculinity by young men in their late teens and early 20s fuelled by lots of alcohol and a need to perform in front of friends. Groping hands, pulling off clothes and men exposing themselves to you on the dance floor in the union were all part of a night out.
Then there were the darker things that happened behind closed doors which were definitely not consensual that I am only now coming to terms with. At one event a guy dragged me into a cupboard, exposed himself to me and demanded I had sex with him. I remember saying that I didn’t want to touch him, and I wanted to get out. I did get out and I wanted to report it at the time, but I knew there was no point.
Then there was waking up to a guy having sex with me, I was sick as soon as I realised what was happening. I am only now able to call that what it really was.” (Glasgow Evening Times)
Young Scots for Independence: Young Scots for Independence (YSI) (SNP Youth) is represented on the SNP National Executive Committee and sends delegates to meetings of the SNP Annual National Conference.
Many YSI activists have since risen to prominence in the SNP, including Rhiannon Spear, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Fiona Hyslop.
In 2012, Humza Yousaf then a member of the YSI, was promoted to Government as Minister for International Development.
The YSI first flexed its muscle at the annual conference in 2012 when the Party debated NATO membership. The YSI decided on opposing membership because it was a nuclear alliance. Despite gaining 48% of the vote, the anti-NATO group lost and the SNP policy is now pro-NATO membership.
Jan 2014: Generation Yes
Generation Yes was established in January 2014 by Rhiannon Spear and Kirsten Thornton to campaign for a yes vote amongst young voters in the referendum on Scottish Independence. Despite the defeat, a poll taken after the 2014 referendum showed 71% of teenagers had voted yes. Spear said: We will continue to campaign for full enfranchisement in all elections for people aged 16 and 17.
Time for Inclusive Education (TIE)
2015: Founded by Jordan Daly (now with Stonewall) and Liam Stevenson, TIE raised awareness of the isolation and bullying faced by young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Scotland. In 2017, the Scottish Government launched a TIE led working group with the task of embedding LGBTI-inclusive education in the schools’ curriculum of Scotland.
Nov 2018: Scotland became the first country in the world to include compulsory LGBTI issues in school curricula after the government accepted in full a report from Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) outlining 33 recommendations on how to tackle LGBTI bullying in schools.
Scottish Deputy First Minister John Swinney said that state schools across Scotland will be required to educate pupils on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex issues, including LGBTI history, terminology and identities, and ways of tackling homophobia and prejudice. Other recommendations include providing training programs for teachers and offering new teaching materials to tackle LGBTI issues.
The First Minister gave the group her personal endorsement at Holyrood, telling MSPs: “I am a supporter of the TIE campaign, not just in their objectives but in the spirited way they go about trying to make sure that their objectives are taking forward. They will work with decision-makers, produce curriculum resources, and deliver services for teachers and pupils to raise awareness and heighten knowledge.” Swinney promised to fund the new programmes and additional teaching resources to support LGBTI-inclusive education.
All state schools now have to teach LGBTI equality and inclusion as part of the curriculum, including the teaching of LGBTI terminology and identities, tackling homophobia and prejudice, and the history of the equalities movement.
TIE was granted charitable status and appointed a Board of Trustees led by Rhiannon Spear who on her appointment said: “The campaign has challenged us all to think about what is possible. Although The Scottish Government’s announcement to Parliament, that LGBT-inclusive education will become a reality, has been the culmination of three years work – it is truly just the beginning.”
2019: TIE, the charity launched less than a year ago is in deep financial trouble as it prepared to upscale its operations. A spokesperson said that funding promised by the Government had not yet been provided and money was needed to fund the “massive demand” for its services.
The dissolution of TIE is a certainty without sustainable funding, of staff and resources. Expectations are that the charity will need to be supported by recurring annual funding of around £500,000.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “We are fully aware of the funding difficulties currently being experienced by the TIE Campaign. We are carefully considering all options to further support the TIE Campaign in its important work with schools in Scotland.” The charity got its money and some.
Aug 2018: Loud, white men must get with the times: In a Tweet, Rhiannon Spear said: This week, I pointed out that an all-male panel at a political event was inadequate and called for at least one woman to be a voice. In response, I was called sexist and a fraud, sworn at, accused of being a BBC plant and labelled anti-independence by an online cohort made up overwhelmingly of white, older men. Apparently, being an elected representative of the SNP and dedicated campaigner for Scottish independence doesn’t meet the bar set to be a Yes voter.
Jan 2019: Rhiannon Spear, SNP Councillor scolds Andy Murray’s mother for Sharing a Pro-Women’s Rights Article: Scotland’s most eminent Women’s Tennis Coach, posted a link to an article on Twitter from Scottish newspaper, The National, about the importance of learning the lessons about the impact of transgenderism on women in Canada. Responding Spear took Judy to task for sharing a “transphobic and 14 years out of date article” hinted that she had not read the article in its entirety.
Spear’s response was met with an onslaught of criticism, for the sanctimonious and patronising tone of her tweet (for implying Murray shared something she hadn’t read) and the implicit ageism (suggesting she was out of touch with modern Scottish attitudes) and misogyny (assuming she didn’t fully understand what she had tweeted because, if she did, then presumably she wouldn’t identify with it because of the fact she’s a woman) in her tweets. She was also admonished for being out of touch with, and completely failing to comprehend, the relevant legislation she accused Murray of being out of step with. Her response to criticisms was less than acceptable.
Spear leads the government-funded TIE campaign in Scotland, which promotes gender ideology in our schools and the thought of this woman having any influence on school children is of increasing concern to many parents. Also of concern is her oft-repeated assertion that feminism is wack because it reduces womanhood to genitalia and reproductive ability. Then when a Scottish journalist offered that reducing womanhood to genitalia was already happening as a direct result of trans activism, not feminism, she accused the journalist of whipping up mob hysteria by fear. https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3489880-Glasgow-Councillor-Tries-to-Scold-Judy-Murray
Jan 2019: Comments: Moll: This is very much her modus operandi with respect to every political topic she gets involved with: You’re either with her or against her. The last time she publicly maligned a popular pro-Scottish independence blogger as a transphobe and got exactly the same reaction. She maligned his 56k followers as being “part of the problem”, a huge portion of which belongs to her own political party and share her political ambitions. She’s very much of the view that if you don’t agree with her, then it’s because you need to reflect more. In my view, she’s a toxic extremist. And for all her qualms about not being reduced to her reproductive capacities, she wasn’t above using her miscarriage to garner up sympathy for herself and get her sycophants to go after a man she couldn’t have a reasoned discussion with.
Apr 2019: SNP politician accused of “promoting” sex work: Councillor Rhiannon Spear, chair of the TIE campaign which has successfully lobbied for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender education to be embedded in Scotland’s schools sparked claims from SNP colleagues she was “advocating” prostitution by posting a controversial tweet and a selfie with fellow SNP Councillor Christina Cannon, dominatrix Megara Furie and another unnamed woman at Glasgow City Chambers, saying “brilliant meeting Megara Furie + bringing sex workers into the City Chambers. Sex workers rights are human rights.”
Following up on social media she added, “Yesterday I met with Megara Furie to talk all things sex work. Did you know sex work includes trixs, submissives, cam work, phone + text services, dancers, masseuses, porn, escorting etc it’s not all street-based sale of sex?”
Another tweet from Spear enraged colleagues who said it questioned the law on pimping. She wrote “It’s currently illegal for workers to work together. It is illegal for a man (but not a woman) to live on money earned through sex work. So it would be illegal to live with your boyfriend. Does that sound safe?”
But SNP sources angrily claimed the tweets “promoted” sex work which SNP policy condemns as a form of violence against women. An SNP insider who withheld her name hit out at the tweets, saying they were “advocating prostitution”. and added “her views are not the views of the SNP nationally, or Glasgow’s SNP group.” and another said: “Given her youth education role with TIE, it is not appropriate to be promoting S&M.”
And Megara 35!!!: She recently set up a sex workers’ branch of the GMB in Glasgow, allowing prostitutes to join a union for the first time. Her Mistress Megara Furie website promises “endorphic exhilaration and absolute submission”.(https://twitter.com/rhiannonv/status/1114510091431161856?lang=en-gb)
Feb 2019: Joan McAlpine is an unlikely rebel against the Scottish political establishment. The SNP MSP is chair of Holyrood’s culture and external affairs committee and a former parliamentary aide to Alex Salmond. She is gender-critical, or, in the prosecutorial terms of her detractors, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF).
Recently she began asking awkward questions about the campaign to give the force of law to relatively new and largely untested theories about sex, gender and identity only to be denounced by SNP councillor Rhiannon Spear, chair of the LGBT education lobby, TIE who accused her of “stoking a fire” and “wilfully ignoring the advice of service providers who have been working in the industry for decades”.
It is not the first time Joan has fallen foul of the SNP gendarmerie who police the views of feminists and other gender dissenters. In February, her committee recommended that the sex question in the Scottish census “should remain binary” and posted a Twitter thread outlining their concerns, which were:
Including a “non-binary” option risked devaluing the data on a protected characteristic (sex) under the Equality Act. They also wondered why so many women’s groups, especially those in receipt of taxpayers’ money, had dogmatically adopted the transgender ideology while failing to represent women who disagreed.
This prompted an extraordinary 1,400-word open letter in which some of Scotland’s leading third-sector groups took her to task over the Twitter thread. Signatories to the statement, which rebuked her for “sharing an inaccurate, partial, and negative assessment” of their work, included Close the Gap (which received £205,000 from the Scottish Government in 2018/19), Engender Scotland (£225,350) and Equate Scotland (£331,019).
Even in the unforgiving world of Scottish politics, the backlash against Joan was vicious. She told the press: “They try to shut you up by labelling you and othering you, by using extremist language. This isn’t just about trans people’s rights; they have the same human rights as everyone else and extra protections in the Equality Act and hate legislation, and that’s quite rightly so. This is about women’s rights and how the changes being pushed for impact women.”
Joan may be a Nationalist bomb-thrower but on gender, she has been moderate and measured. No one sincerely interested in a debate can credibly dismiss her thoughtful interventions or her temperate tone, including on proposals to amend the Gender Recognition Act to abandon medically-supported gender recognition certificates in favour of self-identification.
For the most part, Joan’s campaign has been a lonely one. Other MSPs agree but have hitherto been reluctant to invite controversy. No wonder. Only a few days before, the contents of private messages between three female SNP MSPs were leaked, exposing them as critics of Nicola Sturgeon’s breathless enthusiasm for the trans agenda.
The backlash served as a warning to other women not to step out of line if they don’t want their political careers jeopardised. The trans movement has co-opted the gay and lesbian struggle to convince doubters they are on “the wrong side of history”.
The tactic is a parallel of their ideology’s efforts to conflate sex and gender but the two are not the same. Maleness or femaleness is a fact of biology while masculine or feminine identity is the product of social conditioning and performance. Sex is data, gender is narrative. (https://twitter.com/JoanMcAlpine/status/1101251118611525633)
Aug 2020: Councillor Rhiannon Spear to spearhead the new SNP women’s mentoring programme: In a statement, she said, “Women make up over half of the population in Scotland but only 35% of those elected to the Scottish Parliament. That needs to change. Women are impacted by every decision that is taken in any parliament or local authority in Scotland. To allow decisions to have the best outcome for women our elected members should be representative of the communities they represent and made up of as many diverse voices as possible. So in order to encourage more women to stand the SNP has put in place measures that will remove the barriers that women face when they stand for election. Starting now any woman thinking of standing will be supported through the candidate self-assessment process through the SNP Women’s Mentoring Project. The project that I am leading is specifically for women who are interested in standing in the Local Government Election in 2022. The aim is that by the end of the project they will be confident enough to successfully stand to be selected and elected.”
Apr 2021: The Equality Network: Is a government-funded lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) equality and human rights charity. Its influence over SNP policies and many areas of Scottish society is absolute. Political Party’s will be expected to conform to the LGBTI agenda or face oblivion at the ballot box.
But the electorate may not subscribe to the changes without consultation of which there has been very little, to date. People are afraid of change and this might well be reflected in the way in which they cast their votes in the council elections in May 2022. In response to the possibility of dissent the commitment of political parties in Scotland to social and changes in the laws of Scotland, their network is being monitored so that conformity can be maintained.
May 2019: Ukraine Anti-Corruption President Elected
Ukraine from the date of its independence in 1991 has had five presidents. The political legacy of all was one of political intrigues, corruption, dancing to the tunes of oligarchs and foreign powers and devoid of any popular support from the long-suffering and impoverished Ukrainian people. The present incumbent is 41 year old, Jewish born Volodymyr Zelensky, who before taking on the role of President on 20 May 2019 enjoyed a career in the entertainment industry including participation in a popular televised comic student-led quiz show the success of which provided him with public exposure as a comedian, actor and screenwriter. In his campaign for the Presidency, he declined to align himself with any political policies in preference for popularist addresses to the public in which he said that he represented a fresh start for Ukraine and he would end the graft, criminal influence and power of corrupt politicians and oligarchs who illegally transferred the wealth of the nation to personal off-shore accounts and properties all over the world. He was elected to office by 73% of the electorate.
Aug 2019: Stewart McDonald MP for Glasgow South
Stewart McDonald’s interest in Ukraine and Russia is quite remarkable. Until 2018, he showed little or no interest in the countries, but then, following an opaquely funded and organized jolly to Ukraine, he suddenly transformed into an ardent opponent of Moscow. He also became a passionate supporter of the British establishment position on foreign policy. Perhaps it was the chicken Kiev that turned his head. But he was rewarded for his efforts with the presentation of the “Third Class of the Order of Merit of Ukrainian” award from President Zelensky for his significant personal contribution to strengthening the international prestige of Ukraine, the development of interstate cooperation and fruitful public activities.
Oct 2021: President Zelensky and the Pandora Papers
As the avatar of reform, Zelensky promised to take down the oligarchs with their untouchable offshore assets and break their magic walls of influence throughout the country. But Some things never change in Ukrainian politics, where power brokers with offshore wealth hold the reins. the revelation that Zelensky has his own impregnable offshore assets of ambiguous legality is yet another blow to his already damaged reputation.
The 12 million files analyzed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed, among others, the international financial schemes of 38 highly placed Ukrainians, the most of any country. The papers show that Zelensky and his friends set up their chain of offshore companies long before they ever considered going into politics.
When Zelensky was about to be elected president in 2019, he handed his share over to his closest adviser, Serhiy Shefir. But the papers revealed that under the arrangement, dividends would keep flowing to a company owned by Zelensky’s wife Olena. Much of these assets went undeclared. What’s also troubling is that there’s also evidence that Zelensky’s offshore companies received payments from entities connected to Ihor Kolomoisky, the billionaire oligarch that airs Zelensky’s shows.
Some of that money may have been stolen by Kolomoisky through PrivatBank from Ukrainians. Thus far, Kolomoisky has faced no criminal charges in the $5.5 billion bank fraud that forced Ukraine to bail out the nation’s largest bank and take ownership in 2016, although he faces civil lawsuits and at least one criminal investigation in the U.S.
These revelations show that far from being different, Zelensky is a lot like his arch-rival, the oligarch and former President Petro Poroshenko, who was revealed to have a massive offshore network in the previous Panama Papers leak in 2016. Zelensky is not dissimilar to other oligarchs he vowed to take down.
Conforming with the law Common Purpose registered as a charity in the UK in 1989. But it is in reality an international political organisation masquerading as a charity, with leaders of a new order being trained and placed in key positions. A networking organisation it is dependent upon total secrecy for its success and continued existence. It maintains control over its membership through a near guarantee of employment support locating and placing them in employment in powerful and well rewarded positions. The aide extends to covering for their mistakes. Other benefits are gained from access to its secret network. In return graduates are expected to be loyal to the directives of the organisation, instead of to their own departments, which they then undermine subvert or exploit assisting the growth of the organisation. Over 120,000 leaders world wide have contributed to or participated in a Common Purpose programme a number which grows by round 3,000 people annually. The tentacles of the organisation are wide reaching.
Common Purpose – Financing
More than 20,000 people have attended training courses at a cost of around £6k each. Answering a “Freedom of Information” the “Department for Work and Pensions” confirmed it had spent £238k sending selected members of its staff on, “Common Purpose” courses. And the Tory Party, “Cabinet Office Leadership Committee” and 200 Civil Servants. also attended courses confirming that the organisation is making significant inroads within the Civil Service. It is also a key element of the Tory Party machinery enhancing the possibility of corruption, abuse of freedom of information rules and murky deals hidden from public view.
Common Purpose – A Closed Society
Common Purpose controllers do not deny trying to identify future leaders but say their agenda is merely to open up the potential for success to a more diverse range of people. In support of this the organisation’s website says: “We are always balanced and owe no historical or other allegiance to any other group.” But should public funded institutions such as the Civil Service, government ministries, the legal profession, police, Journalism, Quango’s, local authorities, The Health Service and the BBC pay money to a charity to host training courses which are essentially networking opportunities for staff? And the organisation is not the most open since all of it’s business is conducted under, “Chatham House” rules. Which means everything that is said in dialogue or meetings is unattributable.
Common Purpose – Media Control
The organisation’s control of the press and media is backed by its high level collaboration with governments of all persuasions meaning the end of free, open and accurate press and media reporting. Add to the foregoing behavioural change broadcasts to the people through programmes operated by “Applied Behavioural Psychology Units” and George Orwell’s predictions are no longer fiction. A member of the Commons media select committee, said. “Common Purpose is a very secretive organisation which parliament would do well to be wary of. “It is trying to get its tentacles into every nook and cranny of the establishment to pursue their political agenda. Common Purpose does not want a free press because a free press would expose what it is up too.”
Common Purpose – The Rotherham Scandal
The scandal concerning the industrial scale of abuse of young children in Rotherham provided an opportunity to bring into sharp public focus any networks of Common Purpose operatives found within the strategic partnerships made up of various public sector organisations in Rotherham and the wider geographical area.The “Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 – 2013” is very uncomfortable reading. Extracts from the Executive Summary:
“Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.
Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. The Police gave no priority to child sex exploitation and regarded many child victims with contempt and failed to treat their abuse as a crime. Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and 2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham. For 16 years, not only did the police and social services turn a blind eye, sometimes the police even harassed those who were whistle-blowers. Is there a provable behind the scenes connection between those leading South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham MBC Officers? Read the full article which exposes the widespread presence of Common Purpose managers in positions of responsibility. (http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/rotherham-common-purpose-effect)
Keir Starmer Aided by The John Smith Foundation To Launch Their Assault on Scotland
The Leader of the Labour party, Sir Keir Starmer will launch a new devolution deal for Holyrood as part of an attempt to revive Labour’s fortunes in Scotland. The pressure has been building in within the Labour movement pushing the party towards a “devo-max” proposal that would see the Scottish Parliament take control of more powers and would also include the reform of the House of Lords to give greater representation to the UK’s nations and regions at Westminster.
In his address to the John P. Mackintosh Memorial Lecture on Friday 11 December, he will give the first indication of his constitutional offer to Scots before next May’s Holyrood election.*
*Cancelled due to covid lockdown.
He is also rumoured to be planning to displace Richard Leonard who will be forced to give up his role as leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.
So a full-on fightback is in the wind and I expect the John Smith Foundation and its supporters will muster all guns in their support. This is a do or die moment in their history and the 5th columnists and 77 Brigade will be active. Read on and get a more informed view of past events.
Judged by the Company they Keep
Effective political strategy nullifies opposition and is usually revealed after the event But the SNP under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon and her supporters are so confident they have absolute control and that any challenges to their political agenda can be first contained then eliminated.
A number of vociferous individuals in the “Sturgeonista Group” only joined the Party within the last ten years and their pedigree and political affiliation are questionable.
Fifth Columnists and the Havoc They Generate
The Westminster, London based Zionist financial cartel loosely titled the Government of the people is well versed in the art of deception and its response to the scare of the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum was swift and decisive.
Remedial action was necessary to maintain unionist control and this required that the SNP should first be neutered then merged with the Labour Party branch in Scotland. The mission would be achieved over a period not exceeding ten years through the use of fifth Columnists who would join the SNP and operate from within bringing about fundamental changes to the pursuit of Scottish independence.
What follows is conjecture but is based on my near 60 years of political activism in Scotland. If only 20% of what I offer up is true then the SNP government will be forever dammed by its actions and betrayal of the founding principle of the Party, namely full independence for Scotland and divorce from the Westminster Zionist elite that control it.
Westminster Strategy Exposed
Glasgow University, a safe haven for Unionists for over 300 years has been selected by Westminster to be the operational control centre. Baroness Smith, the master spy and widow of Bilderberger, the Late John Smith, has set up the John Smith Centre to operate from there.
SNP members are linked to the discredited charity, a front for the Fife-based Integrity Initiative and 77 Brigade Spying organisations controlled and funded by the Foreign Office in Westminster.
The SNP spokesperson for Defence & Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Stewart McDonald MP, Douglas Chapman MP, Chris law MP and SNP frontbench adviser Neal Stewart, enjoyed a fully-funded trip to Ukraine in 2018. The funding source has never been revealed. In Westminster afterwards, they regularly took up parliamentary time criticizing Russia. But contributed not a jot about Scottish Independence.
Members of the group and its leader Alyn Smith MP also featured in the November 2020 paper from the SNP Westminster group submitted to the UK Government integrated review of foreign policy and defence. Amid the verbiage, there is a clear shift towards multilateralism, a disingenuous softening of the party’s commitment to unilaterally ratifying the UN Treaty on Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons, and a call for Lossiemouth to be the hub for combined Scottish, UK and US P-8 maritime bombers. This is causing deep concern among veteran anti-nuclear campaigners inside the SNP. See: (https://www.conter.co.uk/blog/2020/11/17/snp-the-week-the-gloves-came-off)
A number of SNP MSP’s succumbed to the temptation of the American dollar and followed trails previously trod by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the 1990s when they left the UK as staunch supporters of Unilateral disarmament only to return two weeks later as confirmed Multilateralist inline with the policies of the USA. In Jul 2016, Labour Party Leader Kezia Dugdale MSP, Jenny Gilruth MSP, Nicola Sturgeon’s Civil Service chief of staff (the Executioner) Elizabeth Lloyd and Daily Record Journalist David Clegg enjoyed a two-week working holiday in the USA.
The invitation to attend the all-expenses-paid jaunt had been extended by the organisers of the USA Government-funded International Visitor Leadership Programme. The inclusion of a pseudo civil servant and a tabloid journalist surprised some. Clegg would go on to later exclusively reveal intimate details of charges of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond. The government official that leaked the information has never been revealed.
Gerrymandering the Membership of the NEC By the NEC
The election of the NEC in 2020 had the potential to bring about a fundamental change of the party in its present form since its NEC will decide the future direction of the party. The choice for independence tactics will be polarized between two factions. The WOKE activists who favour the “Gradualist” approach” or the “Fundamentalists” who prefer direct action.
Anticipating the election of a significant number of “fundamentalists” the NEC imposed new and restrictive rules on branch management ensuring that NEC would be enabled to veto and force changes to candidate shortlists so that a marked prevalence of WOKE activists would be listed as candidates. The process was duly adopted early in November.
This is the real reason the present NEC membership, choc-a-bloc with WOKE activists postponed the Party conference from June until late November 2020. The NEC needed to be sure the fundamentalists had been castrated.
Where were we 6 months short of the next Scottish General Election?
The issue of Scottish independence is no longer a negative factor and if the political scene remains as it is the campaign will yet again pit the SNP against the Tory Party. The Green’s will gather second choice votes sufficient to ensure the return of a similar number of list MSP’s as will the Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party will be squeezed further and might suffer more losses resulting in its relegation to fourth Party status at Holyrood. But tactical voting might yet dictate a different outcome.
A new Party pledged to the cause of Scottish Independence, without compromise might yet emerge and persuade the electorate to transfer their second vote from the SNP to it which would ensure a parity of voting providing Nationalists with a significant majority over all other party’s. This approach would add strength to the cause of independence since Unionists arguments would largely fall on deaf ears.
ALBA was formed only a few weeks before the Scottish election but failed to achieve a breakthrough due to negative campaigning against it by the WOKE motivated SNP leadership.
And What About Indy Ref 2?
The question is best answered by harking back to the 2014 referendum when only 2 days before the vote the Unionists played their final card and offered Devo max, an option just short of total independence, for a “no” vote. Scots were attracted by the ploy which was publically supported by the entire Unionist community and the Queen herself. Gordon Brown issued a solemn promise stating “There will be no backtracking on the promise, my iron fists will prevent it.”
Gentle John Sweeney, led the Nationalist team in the subsequent negotiations and was completely outflanked by the Unionists who reneged on many of their “Devo max” pledges. Nothing was heard from Gordon Brown or any of the other Unionist leaders. Scottish voters were furious at the betrayal but unable to reverse the outcome of the referendum they bided their time until the next election only 6 months on and decimated the Unionist party’s in Scotland returning a nearly full house of SNP MPs to Westminster with a clear mandate to pursue the cause of independence yet again.
A mandate commitment was undertaken by all parties to the negotiations in Edinburgh only a few months before. This is the statement:
“Reflecting the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, as expressed in the referendum on 18 September 2014, and in the context of Scotland remaining within the UK, an enhanced devolution settlement for Scotland will be durable, responsive and democratic. And it is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”
And What About the Secret Service presence at Glasgow University?
This is a concern given the increasing number of SNP politicians who are in close association with Baroness Smith and her team. It raises the possibility that measures approved by the Bilderbergers in the USA, will be put in place providing a way forward to limited Scottish independence tied to a merger of the SNP and Labour under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon. Impossible!!! Wait and see!!!!
caltonjock 