I know not whether you have ever thought of the subject which I am to bring under your notice, but I own it has always been a favourite theme with myself, and I address these few lines to you in particular, because I believe you have too much candour to refuse to listen to sentiments that you may be opposed to, or to pronounce opinions absurd, simply because they are not popular, and not recommended fluence.
The Union between Scotland and England was one of the blackest transactions in history; and, like every other measure originating in selfishness, fraud, and injustice, that Union is producing its natural fruits, and promises very soon to realize the worst consequences that our Scottish ancestors anticipated from it — to become, in short, a positive practical nuisance.
In this light the Union is already begun to be considered by many in Scotland, and I should not be surprised but an agitation may ere long be commenced on this side of the Tweed with respect to that matter, which will not merely vindicate Scotsmen from the apathetic indifference with which they have long regarded national rights, but which will, if wisely conducted, be productive of results far transcending in importance every scheme that has yet been propounded for the elevation of our land.
Deeply and conscientiously as I am opposed to the Union however, my hostility does not arise because this bad thing and the other bad thing has been done by England to Scotland. It was easy to foresee, from the nature of the compact entered into between the two kingdoms, that Scotland would be continually getting rubs of this description, and that when England had a purpose of her own to serve, however prejudicial it might be to her weaker neighbour, no obstacle would be allowed to stand in the way of its attainment.
But I base my opposition to the Union on broader ground. I see in it the reduction of my country to a state of vassalage and dependence which no man ought to brook, and which is the more intolerable when one reflects on the treasure that was wasted, the blood spilt, and the heroism displayed by our forefathers to guard their posterity against those very evils of which we have daily cause to complain. And, indeed, in thinking indignantly over these things, I often wonder all the while, whether I am treading on Scottish soil, and if it can be possible that the people I am surrounded by, are the descendants of those who fought at Bannockburn and Stirling Bridge.
It is in vain to tell me that Scotland has thriven since the Union, and that the tranquillity and ease we enjoy is not too much to pay for the annihilation of our independence and very name as a nation : slavery might, on the same principle, be upheld as a good thing by its abettors, because the victims of that system are said to be well cared for, and to get fat under it. But I maintain that the so-called prosperity of Scotland is not owing to the Union, but to the intelligence and indomitable perseverance of Scotsmen; and I have yet to learn that the same, and even an infinitely greater, amount of prosperity might not have been the lot of our country had there been no Union at all.
Sure I am, that when Scotland had her own kings and her own parliaments, she was not behind England in the arts of civilized life, or the means of defence either; and as we contemplate her at the present day, she surpasses her southern sister in energy and enterprise, and in all those moral and physical qualities that ought to make a people prosperous and happy.
But although Scotland has thus abundantly within herself the elements of becoming a great nation, she is sternly interdicted from stretching out her arms and bringing those elements into play : England must first be consulted before a single step can be taken by Scotland in any walk of improvement; and here it is that the Union is felt to be a degrading and oppressive grievance.
Then, again, as to political advancement, the returns to Parliament demonstrate that our people are more inclined to take on the impress of democratic institutions than the English are; yet this avails us nothing, for the voice of our Scottish members, in the misnamed British Senate, is drowned amidst the tumultuous clamours of iron-hearted Tories, bloated corruptionists, and hordes of other venal creatures, who have been sent by the pure and enlightened constituencies of England to manage the business of the realm, and to bear down all opposition before them.
Nay, such is the direful effects of the Union on the progress of Scotland, that (without stopping to enumerate the instances in which it has been manifested of late) though the aspirations of the Scotch after national regeneration were to be of the most magnificent and compendious description, and enforced in Parliament by the patriotic fire and fervid eloquence of another Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, John Bull would scowl upon and laugh at all such schemes, just because he did not understand them, and had not a soul to be moved by them.
With these facts before me, and looking at the practical bearings of the whole subject, I venture to assert, that had Scotland been blessed with an independent government of her own, uncontaminated by English influence, cheering as the picture is that she now’ presents in some particulars, it would have been more cheering still.
Scottish enterprise would have had a wider field to exert itself in than it has, the land which God intended to he dug and cultivated minutely, would not have been lying waste or locked up in the custody of a few selfish aristocrats, who, besides spending the produce of it on hunting horses, idleness, and luxury, have the power, when it pleases them, to beggar, starve, and banish, the men and women born on it, and who have a better title to live by their industry on the fruits of it than their tyrants have.
The Highlands and Isles of Scotland, instead of exhibiting, as they now do, the unsightly spectacle of vast experimental gardens of misrule and despotism, would have been (under the eye of a paternal legislature of our own, always ready and on the spot to examine into the wants and necessities of those secluded regions), flourishing and productive provinces; and the chieftains living there, as Fletcher says, would have got “knocked on the head,” had they dared to tread down and rob their clansmen, as they have for half a century past done, and are still doing.
Enormous as these evils are, however, it is, I fear, almost hopeless for the people of Scotland to try and grapple with them while the Union with England continues. England is herself subject to the rod of an imperious oligarchy, whose ancestors, in the days of William the Bastard, won her by the sword, and it is the interest of these men that the privileges of their order, to pillage, and destroy mankind, should in no corner of the British empire be trenched on, or even called into question.
Hence Highland destitution and misery; hence such large ill-gotten estates as those of the Dukes of Sutherland and Buccleuch,— estates which, instead of belonging to two men, ought to be broken up and parcelled out in property among tens of thousands of men.
Now, Sir, I put it to you to say, whether we, as Scotchmen, ought to endure such a state of things as this? Or whether Edward the first, better known as the Murderer of Wallace, whose fiendish hatred of Scotland was so inveterate, that he spent his last breath in malediction her, could have desired to have our country more thoroughly under his feet than the Queen of England and her Parliament have it at this moment?
Some worthy well-meaning individuals propose to counter balance the malign effects of English ascendancy, by contending for having what they call “federal parliaments,’’ to manage local concerns. But this implies English connection, a thing I, for one, abhor; and, besides, the only benefit that a local parliament could confer upon Scotland, would be that it might save persons the expense of sending agents to London to look after their interests, which are probably as well attended to there already, as they would be even in Edinburgh; for, I believe, it is notorious, that when any local Scotch affair, not involving points of Divinity or Politics, is to be legislated on, English members do not trouble the House much with their presence, and the Scotch, in general, thereby get all their ends quietly accomplished.
Moreover, it is a degradation of the whole question, and a useless expenditure of our strength, to try and stir up a general movement for the sake of the paltry advantages that a mere federal parliament would confer on us, and Scotsmen, in volunteering their aid and countenance to forward such projects, give but too much colour to the supposition that they unintentionally act and think as if their country had always been an appendage of England, and that they are in the habit, like the Irish, of obsequiously blessing England for any little favour she might deign to dole out to them.
No! Scotland in her best days never dealt with England on these beggarly conditions, and when she comes to treat with that realm again, she will, I trust, assume an attitude that will atone for the foul stain the Union cast on her, and the parties who conclude the treaty will not be a parcel of crazed “gown-men,” who valued not national honour, provided they could get their own fanatical Presbyterian Kirk preserved, or treacherous nobles and gentry, who had often before sold their native land to her enemies; but, they will be the high-minded people of Scotland at large, who, animated by a consciousness of their own integrity and their own strength, have bravely combined to rid their country of a yoke that was gradually enslaving and destroying her, and to restore her to that rank among the States of Europe which she of old so respectably filled.
Yes, Scotland, condemned and despised Scotland, has still a soul to aspire to more dignified aims than the ability of getting a few local bills passed now and then by a sort of mock legislature of her own ; and as it is no doubt taken for granted by federalists that we are to swear allegiance to the same chief magistrate that the English do, this very circumstance of itself, though we had a federal parliament sitting at the back of Saint Giles’ tomorrow, would always give England the pretence to levy what taxes she pleased on Scotland, and to enmesh us in expensive wars and other abominations, just as she is doing at present. Such, appearing, then to me to be the results of federalism, I can see no cure for the evils of the Union, no method by which the practical skill and mental resources of Scotchmen can be fully and fairly developed, both at home and abroad, but to cast off all legislative connection with England whatever, and to acknowledge no other intimacy with that kingdom than what friendly intercourse, unlimited trade, and mutual protection from unprovoked foreign aggression require.
Mankind, Sir, will not now be contented with half-and-half temporary expedients. Truth is what is sought for ; and there being no denying that a crisis has arrived when Scotland, in order to keep pace with the spirit of the age, behoves to occupy a far different position from what she has hitherto done with reference to England, it is necessary that that position, to be free and unfettered, must, to all intents and purposes, be an independent and absolute, not a controllable and subordinate one. In other words, I contend for Scotland having the same power that she possessed in the days of her Alexanders, Roberts and James’s, to enact her own laws, levy her own taxes, enter into what treaties she pleases with foreign dominions, supply her own means of defence, internally and externally ; and while she studiously avoids interfering with, or encroaching on the privileges of other kingdoms, she will he as jealous and watchful in protecting herself from similar aggression.
Let Scotsmen but once in this manner assume to themselves the exclusive management of their own affairs, in their own way, and I much mistake them if they do not make Scotland, as to all that concerns her social, educational, and material weal, in reality “ the envy of surrounding nations.’’
Every spot of earth capable of tillage, which is now lying barren and useless, would be brought into cultivation; pauperism, and that revolting practice which our Scottish nobles and gentry have so long with impunity, to the eternal disgrace of the nation, been permitted to indulge in, viz. the “clearing” of estates, and compulsory banishment of our fellow countrymen into foreign climes, would no more be heard of, there would be no lack of employment for every man who is able and willing to work; the deserted glens of the Highlands in particular would be re-peopled as of old with thousands of industrious mountaineers, who would have freedom to enjoy the fruits of their labour without the dread of any rapacious landlord or domineering factor to burn their houses above their heads, scatter their poor families, and expel them from their holdings.
But the question occurs, How are these animating prospects to be realized, and what mode of government t. would be best suited to promote the interests of Scotsmen, and perpetually secure to them the complete enjoyment of those prerogatives and benefits I am supposing to be within their reach?
It seems to me, that, for these purposes, the Union ought to be dissolved out and out, and that the same deed which annuls the Union ought to invest every sane man, without exception, with the privilege of electing those who are to rule over him. But as the right exercise of the suffrage would be incompatible with the existence of monarchy. and a hereditary feudal aristocracy, both these useless, tyrannical, and all-devouring institutions would require to be swept away, and the nation declared to be a Republic, open to exchange commodities with the whole world, without let or hindrance.
To such an adjustment of affairs as this, the genius of our people, and the condition of our country, seem both to be peculiarly adapted, and it has the additional merit of being just and expedient in itself, and of harmonizing essentially in spirit with those enlarged schemes for the settlement of Scotland which were advocated at the time of the Union by that generous and enlightened patriot to whom I have already alluded, viz., Fletcher of Saltoun,—a man who devoted his life to the extirpation of despotism, and the establishment of freedom all the world over, and who was inspired with a detestation of English domination, and desire to advance the welfare of Scotland, which many of our noisy declaimers of this age would do well to try and imitate.
But whatever form of government the Scottish people may choose for themselves, it is manifest that an entire separation from England, in a political and legislative sense, is imperative, both for our safety and well-being. England is obviously actuated by maxims at home and views abroad, which will prove ruinous to herself, and, of course, involve in a like fate every other state that has the misfortune to be entangled with her. I ask the people of Scotland then to take these things into consideration, feebly and inadequately expressed though they be ; and if my poor attempts to arouse my countrymen from their slumbers, and to touch them with a sense of the degraded position they occupy, shall have the effect of bringing an advocate into the field better qualified than I can pretend to be to go into details, and to do justice to the subject generally, I will have got my utmost wishes gratified.
Of yore Scotsmen required no stimulus to prompt them to install an energetic exertion, when their rights were trampled on, and their national honour invaded. How much stronger is the necessity now for our resuming a portion of the spirit of our ancestors, when our fatherland, in consequence of being united to England, has been sunk into a contemptible province, stripped of her very name, deprived of the power to remove those crying evils which afflict her, both socially and politically and when she is left with no other memorials of her former dignity and independence but the moss- covered ruins of her palaces and citadels, whose gigantic fragments but too emphatically tell what Scotland once was, and what she now is.
Never was the destruction of an ancient state more complete and humiliating than that of Scotland;—never did a people consent so tamely to surrender their liberties, and submit themselves to the overbearing dictation of another kingdom, as the Scotch have done. No amount of prosperity, whether commercial or agricultural, can excuse or palliate mean conduct like this ; and however much we may boast ourselves of our enlightenment, and the pretended happiness we enjoy under English rule, were our unpolished, but brave, honest, and shrewd Scottish ancestors to rise from their graves, and to behold in us their descendants the wreck and prostration of that glorious principle of nationality which burned so intensely in their bosoms, and for which they so often enthusiastically fought and bled, they would utterly disown and despise us.
Vastly rich investors in biomedical companies are funding a myriad of transgender organizations worldwide
The power of the business group is frightening. Women’s safe spaces have been wiped out and previously secure doors are opened to any man who choses to identify as a woman. A rapid cultural change is happening at a meteoric pace without consideration for women and girls’ safety, or public debate.
The English language is being assailed with with new pronouns coupled with a sustained assault on those organisations/individuals who fail to adopt them. Laws mandating new speech are being passed. Laws overriding biological sex with the amorphous concept of gender identity are being institutionalised. Anyone daring to voice opinion contrary to the “new way” are being ostracised from society and their livelihoods threatened.
But is the attack on society really about body dysphoria, could there be a hidden agenda with financial gain as the driving force?
Surely not capitalism, a vehicle notorious for consuming social justice movements?
Oh yes it is. The transgender lobby and associated organizations is funded by these billionaires (selected from an even longer list) through their organizations and corporations:
Jennifer Pritzker (a male who identifies as transgender) Martine Rothblatt (a male who identifies as transgender and transhumanist) Tim Gill (a gay man) Drummond Pike. Warren and Peter Buffett. Jon Stryker (a gay man) Mark Bonham (a gay man) Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented)
The mechanics of change
Separating transgender issues from LGBT infrastructure is not an easy task, but the wealthiest donors have been funding LGB institutions well before they became LGBT-oriented, and only in some instances are monies earmarked specifically for transgender issues. Some of these billionaires fund the LGBT through their myriad companies, multiplying their contributions many times over in ways that are also difficult to track.
Financial support is sifted through anonymous funding organizations such as the Tides Foundation, founded and operated by Drummond Pike. Large corporations, philanthropists, and organizations send enormous sums of money to the Tides Foundation, specifying the direction the finance is to go and have the funds get to their destination anonymously. The foundation creates a legal firewall and tax shelter and funds political campaigns, often using legally dubious tactics.
The financers identified and others, including pharmaceutical companies and governments, (including the SNP) are providing millions to LGBT causes.
Global spending on LGBT is now estimated to be £400m.
From 2003-2013, reported funding for transgender issues increased more than eightfold, growing at three times the increase of LGBTQ funding overall, which quadrupled from 2003 to 2012.
The spike in funding occurred at the same time transgenderism began gaining traction worldwide. The investment is sufficient to provide impetus to changing laws, uprooting language and forcing new speech on the public and too censor and create atmospheres of threat for those who do not comply with gender identity ideology.
Transgenderism: The New Medical and Lifestyle Market
The first gender clinic for children opened in Boston US in 2007 and over the past ten years, more than 30 clinics for children with purported gender dysphoria have opened for business in the United States, the largest serving 725 patients.
In support of the foregoing, there has been an explosion in transgender medical infrastructure across the United States and increasingly in the wider world to “treat” transgender people. In addition to gender clinics proliferating, hospital wings are being built for specialized surgeries, and many medical institutions are clamouring to get on board with the new developments.
Doctors are being trained in cadaver symposiums across the world in all manner of surgeries related to transgender individuals, including phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, facial feminization surgery, urethral procedures, and more.
More and more corporations are covering transgender surgeries, drugs, and other expenses.
Endocrinologists seeking the fountain of youth in hormones for more than a generation, and the subsequent earnings for marketing those hormones, are still on a quest for gold.
Puberty blockers are another growing market. The plastic surgery arm of medicine is staged for an infusion of cash as well as organ transplants, especially womb transplants for men identifying as women who may want future pregnancies.
These surgeries are already being practiced on animals and the first successful womb implant from a deceased female donor to another female has already been a success.
Biogenetics is poised to be the investment of the future, says Rothblatt, who has headed a massive pharmaceutical corporation and is now heavily invested in biogenetics and transplants.
Transgenderism has certainly made its way into the marketplace, so it seems important to consider the implications of this as we pass laws regarding transgender individuals’ and our civil liberties.
Transgenderism sits square in the middle of the medical industrial complex, which is by some estimates even bigger than the military industrial complex.
With the medical infrastructure being built, doctors being trained for various surgeries, clinics opening at warp speed, and the media celebrating it, transgenderism is poised for growth.
The LGB, a once-tiny group of people trying to love those of the same sex openly and be treated equally within society, has likely already been subsumed by capitalism and is now infiltrated by the medical industrial complex via transgenderism.
Who Works to Institutionalize Transgender Ideology?
Much more important than funds going directly to the LGBT lobby and organizations, (only a fraction of which trickles down to assist people who identify as transgender) is the money invested by financers, governments, and technology and pharmaceutical corporations to institutionalize and normalize transgenderism as a lifestyle choice. They are shaping the narrative about transgenderism and normalizing it within the culture using their funding methods. Hardly a coincidence when the very thing absolutely essential to those transitioning are pharmaceuticals and technology.
The Financiers
The case study that follows is used to reduce the length of this article and because it exemplfies the system.
The Pritzkers are an American family of philanthropic billionaires worth around $30bn, a fortune gestated by Hyatt Hotels and nursing homes. They now have massive investments in the medical industrial complex. Examining just a few of provides indication of their reach and influence as a family, especially as regards the transgender project and their relationship to the medical industrial complex. It is important to remember that transitioning individuals are medical patients for life and the Pritzker family are not an anomaly in their funding trajectory or investments in the medical-industrial complex.
Jennifer Pritzker: Once a family man and a decorated member of the armed forces, now identifies as transgender. He has made transgenderism a high note in philanthropic funding through his Tawani Foundation. He is one of the largest contributors to transgender causes and, with his family, an enormous influence in the rapid institutionalization of transgenderism.
Some of the organizations Pritzker owns and funds are especially noteworthy to examining the rapid induction of transgender ideology into medical, legal and educational institutions.
Pritzker owns Squadron Capital, an acquisitions corporation, with a focus on medical technology, medical devices, and orthopaedic implants, and the Tawani Foundation, a philanthropic organization with a grants focus on Gender & Human Sexuality.
Pritzker sits on the leadership council of the Program of Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota, to which he also committed $8m over the past decade. Among many other organizations and institutions Pritzker funds are Lurie Children’s Hospital, a medical centre for gender non-conforming children, serving 400 children in Chicago; the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago; a chair of transgender studies at the University of Victoria (the first of its kind); and the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto. He also funds the American Civil Liberties Union and his family funds Planned Parenthood, two significant organizations for institutionalizing female-erasing language and support for transgender causes. Planned Parenthood also recently decided to get into the transgender medical market.
Pritzker funds strategically, as does his family, by giving to universities that become beholden to his ideology, whose students go on to spread gender ideology by writing pro-trans articles in medical journals and elsewhere.
Pritzker’s uncle and aunt, John and Lisa Pritzker, gave $25m to the University of California at San Francisco for a centre of children’s psychiatry. Jennifer likewise funds hospitals and medical schools where the alumni go on to create transgender specialties and LGBT medical centre’s, even though lesbians, gays, and bisexuals don’t need specialized medical services.
Penny Pritzker: Served on President Obama’s Council for Jobs and Competitiveness and Economic Recovery Advisory Board. She was national co-chair of Obama for America 2012 and national finance chair of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. To say she was influential in getting the American president elected would be an understatement.
As Obama’s secretary of commerce, Pritzker helped create the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), by facilitating an award of $70 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the first funding of its kind. Obama made transgenderism a pet issue of his administration, holding a meeting at the White House (the first ever) for transgenderism.
The administration quietly applied the power of the executive branch to make it easier for transgender people to alter their passports, get cross-sex treatment at Veteran’s Administration facilities, and access public school restrooms and sports programs based on gender identity. These are just a few of the transgender-specific policy shifts of Obama’s presidency.
Penny Pritzker funds the Harvard School of Public Health and, with her husband through their mutual foundation, the Pritzker Traubert Family Foundation, are funding early childhood initiatives as well as providing scholarships to Harvard University medical students.
The Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Services wing physicians are all affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Penny Pritzker also sat on the board at Harvard, where student life offices teach students, many of whom go on to lead U.S. institutions, that “there are more than two sexes.”
J.B. Pritzker: Brother of Penny he is an American venture capitalist, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and business owner. He is co-founder of the Pritzker Group, a private investment firm that invests in digital technology and medical companies, including Clinical Innovations, which has a global presence.
Clinical Innovations is one of the largest medical device companies and in 2017 acquired Brenner Medical, another significant medical group offering innovative products in the fields of obstetrics and gynaecology.
He provided seed funding for Matter, a start-up incubator for medical technology based in Chicago. He also sits on the board of directors at his alma mater, Duke University, where they are making advances in cryopreserving women’s ovaries.
He was elected governor of Illinois in 2018 and put $25 million into an Obama administration public-private initiative totalling $1 billion for early childhood education.
He and his wife, M.K. Pritzker, donated $100 million to North-western University School of Law, partly for scholarships and partly for the school’s “social justice” and childhood law work.
There doesn’t seem to be a sphere of influence that is untouched by Pritzker money, from early childhood education and universities to law, medical institutions, the LGBT lobby and organizations, politics, and the military.
If the Pritzker’s were the only ones funding the institutionalization of transgender ideology they would still be fantastically influential, but they are joined by other exceedingly wealthy, influential white men, who also have ties to the pharmaceutical and medical industries.
Listed below are several current activities of Pritzker-funded medical school alumni and recipients of Pritzker money.
James Hekman: Founded the LGBT medical care center in Lakewood Ohio.
David T. Rubin: Sits on the advisory board of Accordant/CVS Caremark, the largest pharmaceutical chain in the United States. CVS acquired Target department stores’ pharmacies in 2015. Target, is the site of a major social controversy about unisex bathrooms and is a corporate funder of the trans-pushing Human Rights Campaign activist group.
Loren Schecter: Is the author of the first surgical atlas for transgender surgery, author of pro-trans journals, was awarded for legal advocacy of transgenders, performs reconstructive surgeries, and is director of transfeminine conferences sponsored by World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH). He also performs reconstructive surgeries at Weiss Memorial Hospital in Chicago. Schecter is also the “surgeons only sessions chair” on the Scientific Program Committee of the newly formed United States arm of WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health), USPATH, holding conferences in Los Angeles for surgeons in transgender surgeries.
Robert Garofalo: A gay man, is director of the St. Lurie children’s gender clinic, head of the hospital’s division of adolescent medicine, and a professor of paediatrics a: North-western University, which J.B. Pritzker (whom we will meet later) funds.
Benjamin N. Breyer: Is chief of urology at San Francisco General Hospital and a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, specializing in transgender surgery.
Nicholas Matte: Teaches at the Mark Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto, with a specialty in queer studies. Pritzker also funds the Bonham Centre. He lectures around the US on transgender issues, and espouses the idea that we are not a sexually dimorphic species.
Mark Hyman: Is the Pritzker Foundation Chair in functional medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and director of the Cleveland Clinic Centre for Functional Medicine. Cleveland Clinic conducted the United States’ first uterus transplant.
Baylor College of Medicine: Is on the receiving end of the Pritzker School of Medicine’s “pipeline programs” for people studying to be doctors. Baylor is where the nation’s first child was born from a uterus transplant as part of an experimental program funding the procedure for 10 women in order to develop uterus transplants ultimately health insurance and taxpayers will pay for rather than being relegated to elective infertility treatment.
Jennifer Pritzker: Has also helped normalize transgender individuals in the military with a $1.35 million grant to the Palm Center, a University of California, Santa Barbara-based LGBT think tank, to create research validating military transgenderism. He has also donated $25 million to Norwich University in Vermont, a military academy and the first school to launch a Naval Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program.
Pritzker’s funding is worldwide reaching other countries via WPATH, in conferences for physicians studying transgender surgery and funding of international universities.
Pharmaceuticals, and technology giants worldwide support the transgender agenda
Along with support by pharmaceutical giants such as Janssen Therapeutics, the health foundation of a Johnson and Johnson founder, Viiv, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, major technology corporations including Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Dell, and IBM are also funding the transgender project. In February 2017, Apple, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Yelp, PayPal, and 53 other mainly tech corporations signed up to an amicus brief seeking the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit schools from keeping private facilities for students designated according to sex.
Summary
Society needs to look urgently at the what the real agenda is in commissioning a lifetime of anti-body medical treatments for less than 1% of the population.
Conflating civil rights with a manufactured medical issue only perpetuates and grows the problem.
Transgenderism is classed as a medical problem for the gender dysphoria of children who need puberty blockers and are being groomed for a lifetime of medicalization, but also as a brave and original lifestyle choice for adults.
The underlying suggestion is that we are all trans human, that changing our bodies by removing healthy tissue and organs and ingesting cross-sex hormones over the course of a lifetime can be likened to wearing make-up, dying our hair, or getting a tattoo. If we are all trans human, expressing that could be a never-ending saga of body-related consumerism.
The massive medical and technological infrastructure expansion for a tiny (but growing) fraction of the population with gender dysphoria, along with the money being funnelled to this project by those heavily invested in the medical and technology industries, seems to make sense only in the context of expanding markets for changing the human body.
Trans activists are already clamouring for a change from “gender dysphoria” to “gender incongruence” in the next revision to the international register of mental diagnosis codes, the ICD-11.
The push is on for insurance-paid hormones and surgeries for anyone who believes his or her body is in any way “incongruent” with his or her “gender identity.”
Bodily diversity appears to be the core issue, not gender dysphoria. That and unlinking people from their biology via language distortions, to normalize altering human biology. Institutionalizing transgender ideology does just this.
The ideology is being promoted as a civil rights issue by wealthy, white, men with enormous influence who stand to personally benefit from their political activities.
The foregoing article summarises one published in the Federalist by Jennifer Bilek in February 2018: Lots more information here:
Scotland’s – Claim of Right Act 1689 states: “That the sending of an army in a hostile manner upon any part of Scotland in peacetime is contrary to law”
The Birth of Red Clydeside
Before and during the First World War, there was no statutory standard working week in the UK although it was generally accepted that the norm was 54 hours.
During the war the coalition government attempted to impose, “the Munitions Act,” “the Dilution of Labour Act” and the “Defence of the Realm Act,” upon workers providing the government with draconian powers to negate long-fought-for pay rates and conditions for skilled work, and to crack down on opposition. The measures were resisted strongly by the Clyde Workers’ Committee (CWC) in Glasgow.
At the war end the armed forces were demobilized and returned home to the labour market. The infusion of the large body of new workers seeking work in an rapidly shrinking economy base resulted in a steep rise in the unemployed and resultant hardship and discontent.
In the absence of any initiative from the government in Westminster a number of Trades Unions in Glasgow addressed the issue and brought forward proposals which if accepted by the government and employers would reduce the working week to 40 hours expanding the labour market and reducing unemployment.
After weeks of negotiations a provisional agreement was achieved, between government, employers and some Union officials, providing for the introduction of a 47 hour week, (applicable to shipbuilding and engineering trades only) at some time in 1919.
Shop Stewards of the (CWC) in Glasgow rejected the offer and tabled a counter bid supported by limiting the standard working week to 40 hours with paid tea-breaks (removed under the 47 hour week offer) restored.
1919 The Battle of George Square
A strike meeting (over 3,000 attended) was held at the St Andrews Halls on Monday 27 January. Immediately after which 40,000 workers downed tools, answering the call to strike. By Friday 31 January the number of workers on strike had risen to 60,000 plus. United action by workers, (on this scale) had not been seen in Scotland since the Weavers of Glasgow’s, Calton District had engaged their employers in a long and bitter dispute over wages and basic justice in 1787, which ended with the murder of a number of weavers by government forces. A later insurrection in 1820 again ended in the death of protestors and deportation to the colonies of many activists and their families.
On Friday 31 January the strikers were invited to a meeting in George Square at which it was intended that the Lord Provost Sir James Watson Stewart would issue the official response from the Westminster government to the unions’ request for government intervention in the dispute. A large crowd of strikers (marshalled by a large police force) gathered in George Square to witness the statement. But faced with a noisy crowd the Lord Provost instead invited representatives of the CWC (led by David Kirkwood) and the Glasgow Trades Council (represented by Emanual Shinwell) into the Glasgow City Chambers for a briefing.
Not long after the start of the briefing the Lord Provost was alerted to trouble outside the City Chambers and asked Kirkwood and Shinwell to intervene and establish order. They agreed, left the meeting and ventured outside, to be immediately ambushed by a group of police who knocked Kirkwood to the ground and arrested the delegation on a charge of “instigating and inciting large crowds of persons to form part of a riotous mob. What sparked the riot has never been formally established but many witnesses (independent of the incident) blamed the actions of mounted police, who it is alleged (acting on secret government orders) had launched a baton wielding charge on the crowd without provocation.
What is fact is the impact of the confrontation between the protestors and the police. The crowds attempts to get away from George Square were thwarted by “night stick” wielding police who had deployed forces at each of the potential escape routes effectively “Kettling” the protestors. This resulted in pitched battles between armed police and unarmed demonstrators. The folly of precipitating the confrontation dawned (too late) on the police as a riot then ensued, over which they had no control. Iron Railings, cobble stones and bottles were used in defence against the police truncheons and dispersing the crowd proved to be beyond the police presence. The fighting between the police and protestors spread to other parts of the city and throughout the day and well into the evening many men women and children suffered injuries inflicted by an out of control police force. There were many arrests and Duke Street Prison was filled to capacity. Many strikers were later tried at the High Court in Edinburgh and sentenced to varying jail terms.
English soldiers posing with their tanks Glasgow 1919
The Bolshevist Uprising in Glasgow
An uneasy calm returned to Glasgow, over the weekend but the intervention of the “Scottish Secretary” who described the rioting as a “Bolshevist Uprising” proved to be the catalyst for deploying the armed forces to the streets of Glasgow.
The Coalition government (led by David Lloyd George) over-reacted, sending 10,000 English soldiers (heavily armed with heavy machine guns, howitzers and Tanks) to Glasgow.
The “Battle Group” (the largest deployment of English soldiers on Scottish soil since the Battle of Culloden) arrived on Friday 7 February 1919.
Tanks at the Cattle Market Glasgow 1919
Martial Law was imposed on Glasgow and this was strictly enforced on the public by zealous English soldiers who took control of the City Centre positioning heavy machine guns on the top of the Post Office building and The North British Hotel.
A large howitzer was placed at the entrance to the City Chambers. City-wide English soldiers were deployed in force patrolling the streets, completing stop and search and ID checks on Glaswegians and guarding the docks, power stations and other key installations.
An eyewitness said ‘the whole city bristled with tanks and machine guns’.
The force was withdrawn from Glasgow on 16 February and located, for a time in barracks elsewhere in Scotland.
The government fearing that Scottish soldiers might not obey orders to take action against their countrymen issued orders that they would be confined to barracks for the duration of the deployment of the English force to Glasgow.
The Highland Light Infantry (almost exclusively Glaswegian) were disarmed and detained in Maryhill Barracks.
English soldiers being transported to Glasgow 1919
After the Riot
Manny Shinwell, William Gallacher and David Kirkwood were jailed for several months. The striking workers returned to work with the guarantee of a 47-hour week, ten hours less than they were working beforehand.
Three years later, in the 1922 GE, Scotland elected 29 Labour MPs, (including the 40 Hour Strike organizers and Independent Labour Party members Manny Shinwell and David Kirkwood.). The epithet of Red Clydeside was established.
110 years later – Are there parallels to be drawn?
Scottish society has changed little in the last 110 years. Much of the poverty that existed at the time of the riot is still present today. Unionist governments in Westminster have taken Scotland’s young men to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Serbia and other countries, without justification, spending obscene amounts of money whilst imposing massive cuts in key services such as education, welfare, infrastructure, and the NHS.
Social housing building in Scotland has been stagnant under successive Unionist Tory & Labour) governments and this has placed many families at the mercy of greedy landlords who raise rents without justification.
In Glasgow there are many hundreds of newly refurbished flats lying empty, the cost of purchase being well beyond that of the typical Glaswegian. A situation that forces many families onto the streets. Where is the affordable housing promised by successive Tory and Labour governments?
The banking crash of 2007/8 brought with it many job redundancies and house repossessions as the resultant depression impacted on the economy. Yet not one UK banker went to jail for participating in the biggest banking frauds in history. Instead they were rewarded for their efforts, being allowed to operate much as before including awarding themselves and their fraudulent colleagues with undeserved massive multi-million pound bonuses whilst many thousands of Scots were thrown of society’s scrapheap never to work again.
Ten years later the Unionist government in Westminster was still asset stripping the poor through the use of an “Austerity Plan” put in place by the Tory Party. A plan which took on debt from the Labour government of around £800 billion and increased it to nearly £2 Trillion.
Iceland meantime jailed the bankers, imposed massive restrictions and returned their economy to balance within 5 years.
Blackman is MP for Aberdeen North and Deputy Westminster Leader
On Westminster politics she said:
“I am so passionate about trying to improve parliament to make it better reflect the diversity of those who live in our country. Being a member of parliament should not be a job only for middle-aged men. I believe better laws and decisions are made if they’re proposed and scrutinised by folk from a wide variety of backgrounds. Politics isn’t about making speeches in parliament or in council chambers – it’s about the people we help every day and the positive impact we can make in our communities.”
A Guardian interviewer reported. She is markedly less keen to talk about Scottish independence, the SNP’s founding principle. Her belief being that she is not in Westminster to pressure the government for a referendum. She stated;
“I don’t think most folk in their daily lives give two hoots about whether Scotland is a member of the union. The constitutional issues are not the biggest concern for an awful lot of people and, in fact, I very rarely talk about Scottish independence in the chamber.”
Diversity in politics
Lesbian Joanna Cherry was sacked as the SNP’s Westminster spokesperson for not being “inclusive” enough over the issue of gender recognition:
“Things have moved forward some since the 1980s,” her erstwhile colleague Kirsty Blackman snarked.
To which Cherry responded with aplomb: “I’ll ignore the ageism. I wouldn’t expect a privileged young straight woman to know what it was like for lesbians in the 1980s.”
Nine months on from that event WOKE activism in Scotland continues to marginalise lesbians and erase women who are now termed “uterus-havers” and “menstruators”. Feminists are now focused solely on reducing the manliness of men. Think long and hard on the actions of President Joe Biden who on his first day in office was forced to sign an executive order eroding women’s long held sex-based rights. A change since implemented by the SNP in Scotland against the wishes of the electorate.
Calls for reform by electors of the grossly unfair feudal system of land distribution and ownership in Scotland are persistently ignored by an SNP government which gives matters of lesser importance a higher priority.
Owners of huge estates are comprised of dukes, peers and carpetbaggers whose inherited lands were gifted to them courtesy of the “clearances” which forced many hundreds of thousands of Scots from their lands and country in support of the aims and aspirations of a corrupted system of privilege benefiting the lickspittles of British gentry. And the “New School” landowners are made up of foreign based rich businessmen and English institutions. This article highlights one such institution:
The Church of England;
Owns land and forestry estates in Scotland with a combined size larger than Renfrewshire. All of which is business rates and tax free. Adding insult to injury the church is rewarded with a near £800k annual tax free subsidy from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to maintain the land courtesy of the Scottish taxpayer. And all profits from their Scottish lands goes back to England to be invested in all sorts of weird, and dubious ventures.
The Church of England operates a Charitable Foundation with a book value in excess of 10bn
The foundation is managed by Church Commissioners and accrues tax free interest providing around 16% of the Church’s annual income requirements.
The foundation also inherits the wills of bishop’s and cathedrals adding to the overall income. Such wills and are comprised of large tracts of land and buildings which are let to farmers generating income which is used to meet the salaries and accommodation of the clergy.
The church left huge areas of land undeveloped and capitalised on it at the time of the Industrial Revolution which brought with it a massive expansion of towns and cities in England.
Many of these ancient land holdings in England and abroad still remain in the church’s’ ownership, e.g. the highly valued Hyde Park Estate in West London. And the church still benefits financially from ownership of many other prime central London residential property’s, department stores and media outlets built on this land.
Up to the end of WW2 the bulk of the church’s assets was in real estate and government securities, but the church commissioners widened the portfolio of investments to include; shares, bonds, commercial property, (including purchase of land for coal mining and planting of forestry) and other many other business assets.
In the latter part of the 20th century the task of managing the fund overwhelmed the church commissioners and the Archbishop of Canterbury asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England to appoint policy committee to advise the commissioners’ about ethical investment policy.
Over time the role of the policy advisory committee diminished in favour of retaining professional, “Fund Managers” who are expected to subscribe to the commissioners approach to ethical investments, which is always to avoid a short term quick profit in favour of more secure long term returns.
The Church of England investment portfolio includes ownership and development of forestry in the South of Scotland in excess of 120,000 acres. The ” Fund managers” claimed around £6m (tax free) from the CAP over a period of 10 years.
In December 2014: U.P.M. (Sweden) sold around 6500 hectares of land and 14 large forests to the Church of England for £51m. A contract rider ensures U.P.M. Tilhill will be contracted by the church to maintain then harvest the timber on its Scottish estates over many years. A multi-million £ contract any taxes on the profits from which will be given over to the government’s of Sweden and England.
In the period 1930-1936 the SNP and the NPS (National Party for Scotland) campaigned separately each fighting, in vain to gain a political foothold in Scotland.
But in 1938 there was an acceptance in both Party’s that they would only achieve independence by joining forces. This they did under the banner of the SNP.
But merging is not achieved easily
The NPS “Gradualists” political preference was for “Home Rule” within the Westminster system which would bring with it a devolved range of policies for Scottish politicians to enact.
Over time, with the agreement of Westminster, it was expected controls would be expanded as the competence of Scottish politicians improved.
The Party established a dialogue with the Labour Party in Scotland, forming a “Scottish Convention” and in 1938 the Labour Party in Scotland, presented its pre-war Scottish manifesto, claiming that their support for “Home Rule” to be second only behind supporting the war effort against Japan, but in the 1938 British manifesto for Labour, (which took precedence over the Labour Party in Scotland there was no reference to Scottish “Home Rule.“
SNP “Radicals” were not slow in broadcasting to Scots that the labour Party would never commit to Scottish “Home Rule” if there was any risk of it losing electoral support in England, through an article published in the “Scots Independent”:
“Labour Party in Scotland voters your pledges have been cast aside; the Government formed by your Party in Westminster refused facilities for the introduction of a Scots “Home Rule” Bill.”
The “Radicals” of the SNP continued to challenge Unionist Party’s in Scotland, keeping the SNP firmly in the public eye. But the continuous campaigning for independence irked the Westminster government who controlled the media and through it they labelled the SNP as unpatriotic communists.
The “Gradualist” dominated leadership of the SNP persuaded the “Radicals” to moderate their attacks on Unionist Party’s so that progressive Nationalist policies could be adopted and taken to the Scottish Electorate improving the prospects of SNP candidates at elections. The policy achieved a measure of success and although there was no political breakthrough the SNP began to attract a solid base of voter support.
But, in 1955, after ten years without any major success the SNP was in danger of breaking apart and “Radicals” called for major policy changes including the adoption of more confrontational policies against the Westminster Government.
The “Gradualist” Party leadership refused, expelled 55 “radicals”. and retained the policy of a slow build to legitimacy and acceptance by the Scottish Electorate as an alternative system of governance.
Skip forward a few generations of slow build
1997 -2007 : Forty years of slow build achieved nothing. But the European Council (EC) forced change and instructed the Labour Government that it had to devolve power to the regions of the UK in accordance with EC policy.
The Westminster response was to gift Scots a hopelessly inadequate form of limited self government.
But the Labour Party in Scotland and the media hyped the changes to the electorate through a constant barrage of misinformation, the content of which Himmler would have been proud to call his own.
After nearly a decade of abuse, incompetence, sleaze and graft, Scots finally brought about the end of governance by the Labour Party in Scotland. Fifty five years of “pinning a red flag on a donkey” and getting it voted into Westminster or Holyrood were at an end.
2007: Alex Salmond asked Scots to give the SNP a chance to prove the Party in government would introduce progressive policies for the common good. Voters accepted him at his word and the SNP took office for the first time ever.
But difficulties arose very early on in the new parliament when Unionist Party MSP’s refused to support the minority government. Another Scottish General Election loomed.
But the deadlock was broken by Annabel Goldie who desperately wished to avoid an election and the assured elimination of the Tory Party in Scotland. A rule by consent was agreed between the SNP and the Tory Party. And the SNP delivered its manifesto to the electorate almost without change.
2011: Alex Salmond and the SNP were returned to office in a landslide election which resulted the party gaining an overall majority turning the entire system on its head. Alex Salmond’s finest hour!!
Equipped with a mandate to take independence forward Alex Salmond wasted little time in making it clear to Westminster of his intent to do just that. After many false dawns Scots would decide their future.
The SNP, in the years that followed proved time and again to Westminster and other nations in the world that its governance was competent and able. Scotland more than deserved its place in the World as a free and independent nation.
September 2014: A campaign marked by skulduggery, misinformation, bullying and downright lying by Westminster and unionist politicians in Scotland, the civil service, business moguls, and the media forced the browbeaten Scottish electorate into voting against independence. But there was a glimmer of hope for the future.
A “Vow” signed off by the three political leaders at Westminster was published illegally in the Daily Record 2 days before the referendum vote committing Westminster to devolving further significant powers (self government according to Gordon Brown), to Scotland within 6 months of the Referendum.
In December 2014 Alex Salmond, believing he had carried the SNP standard to the brink of independence only to fall just short, gave over control of the SNP to Nicola Sturgeon believing an injection of new blood at the top would energise the Party in anticipation of the imminent establishment of self government in Scotland, promised in the “Vow” before May 2015.
The Smith Commission
In the period leading up to the 2015 General Election the Westminster government formed a commission headed by Lord Smith of Kelvin with the role of overseeing the implementation of the commitments spelt out by the Westminster parliamentary leaders in the “Vow”.
Membership of the Commission was decided following consultation with political leaders in Scotland but the panel chosen reflected the campaigning groups of the independence referendum. The SNP team were heavily outnumbered by the Unionist’s.
John Swinney and his team were inept and came away from the Commission having achieved little change over the existing devolution arrangement. He had been outflanked and destroyed at every juncture. Westminster reneged on the promises in the “vow”
2015: The General Election
The Scottish electorate was enraged by the Westminster unionists who had promised so much and delivered so little and just about wiped them from the political map of Scotland. 56, SNP, MP’s were sent to Westminster with a mandate to gain independence.
But Nicola Sturgeon was “feart” and balked at the thought of confronting the Unionists with a demand for immediate independence and instead instructed the large contingent of SNP, MP’s to join fully in all aspects Westminster politics. An opportunity to meet the wishes of the Scottish electorate had been disgracefully passed up and Scots would pay dearly for Sturgeons lack of political backbone.
2015-2021
The Labour Party in Scotland failed to recover from the collapse of its membership and electoral support in the 2015 General Election when many of the former transferred their allegiance to the SNP.
But the “yellow” banner of the SNP changed to a pale “red” by result and Sturgeon seized the day, embracing the “new way” which required the rapid clear out from positions of power in the party of any ardent nationalists.
Implementation of the strategy required the adjusting of control mechanisms within the Party and this was initially achieved through natural regeneration which over time provided a new “Sturgeonista” cohort at the heart of the Party.
The cross fertilisation of SNP/Labour Party activists is on-going and Gordon Brown is advancing plans for Scottish “self rule” in anticipation that Boris Johnson’s government will collapse under the weight of sleaze its politicians seem determined to inflict on the Party.
Summary
Sturgeon has led Scots on a merry dance taking them to the political floor to the tune of the “Grand old Duke of York” marching supporters of independence up the hill and back down again with regularity achieving nothing of any note. But her tactical manoeuvring has revealed her intent which is, working with the Labour Party to implement the agenda of the National Party of Scotland (NPS) namely “Home Rule” within the Westminster system.
Awareness of operational working relationships between the Scottish Government and the Civil Service in Scotland is necessary to fully understand the complexities that contributed to the scandal that engulfed both entities at the time the SNP government under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon decided on the political and personal destruction of Alex Salmond.
Responsibility for the governance of the Civil Service in Scotland is not devolved. It is accountable for its actions, through the permanent Secretary of the Civil Service in Scotland to the Head of the Civil Service at Westminster. That person is presently the Head of the Westminster Governments Cabinet office.
Leslie Evans, who heads the Civil Service in Scotland reports to the First Minister of Scotland ensuring the provision of efficient service support to Scottish government ministers, at all times scrupulously adhering to the rules and regulations for the Civil Service enshrined by laws put in place by the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at Westminster. It follows therefore that the rules can only be amended with the authority of the government at Westminster.
Proposals to make changes to the Civil Service complaints procedures were first muted by Nicola Sturgeon in October 2017, at the time Woke campaigners were on the warpath demanding the head of any person who, in their view was failing or had failed to adhere to their political agenda for major changes to the accepted norms of society as they presently existed, with the support of the vast bulk of the electorate.
Acting in isolation, without the authority of the Westminster government, Senior Scottish civil service officers accepted inappropriate instructions from Scottish political figures and in harmony with Political Advisors to the First Minister revised Civil Service procedures introducing measures providing a means through which Scottish government ministers present and past could be charged with misconduct and harassment.
17 November 2017:Evans seeks approval of the Cabinet Office at Westminster
Contact with the Cabinet Office at Westminster is gifted to the Permanent Secretary in Scotland and the proposed revisions to the Civil Service procedures were referred to the Cabinet Secretary at Westminster for final approval. Authority was denied, it being the view of Westminster that the proposed changes were ill-conceived, unworkable and a danger to democracy.
Leslie Evans was caught between a rock and a hard place. Only a year or so until retirement, a damehood and a place in the lords was in jeopardy.
But she was accountable to the cabinet Secretary at Westminster. So allow me a wee bit of writer’s licence. I advance that, allowing time for the chickens without heads to run-around for a day Evans decided to comply with the instructions from Westminster and put the proposed changes on the back burner.
But the First Minster “GWOAT” and leader of the WOKE movement would not be denied and demanded action.
An opportunity for political mischief was not lost on the Westminster government who advised Leslie Evans to protect herself and Westminster by ensuring Sturgeon’s orders were put in writing.
Sturgeon duly shot herself and her government in the foot at a cost to the Scottish taxpayer of around £10-£20M. Money wasted on the futile and vindictive pursuit of a political rival by an elected politician.
22 Nov 2017:
Nicola Sturgeon’s “instruction from the First Minister” to Leslie Evans reads:
“As is clear from the continued media focus on cases of sexual harassment, in many instances, people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago. I wanted to make clear that in taking forward your review, and the new arrangements being developed, you should not be constrained by the passage of time. I would like you to consider ways in which we are able to address if necessary any concerns from staff, should any be raised, about the conduct of current Scottish Government ministers and also former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party. While I appreciate that the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code, I think it fair and reasonable that any complaints raised about their actions while they held office are considered against the standards expected of Ministers. I would be grateful for confirmation that this particular aspect is being included as part of the review you are leading.”
Afternote:
In her letter of instruction to Leslie Evans, Nicola Sturgeon wrote: “people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago” which was untrue since at the time she compiled the letter only two officers had come forward with minor concerns and both had expressly said they did not wish to make a formal complaint against Alex Salmond.
For those who are not yet familiar with the sequence of events leading up to Nicola Sturgeon “signing off” the “revised” complaints procedures I have added an October-December 2017 timeline consolidating the views of an eminent Scottish judge who ordered the immediate withdrawal of the ill conceived and badly drafted changes that had clearly been put in place with political malice aforethought and payment of Alex Salmond’s court costs (in excess of £500k). Reinforcing the views of many Scots that he had been fitted up.
The response from the Scottish government/head of the Civil Service was a statement that was crass in the extreme: “We might have lost a battle but the war goes on”. Is the reference to “WE” a promotion of the WOKE agenda?
29 October 2017:
The timeline – Late October 2017: Aamer Anwar alleged the existence of a ‘ticking time bomb catalogue of sexual harassment at Holyrood.
31 Oct: Political journalist David Clegg/Daily Record received “heads up” information together with supporting government documentation from an unnamed senior political source in the Scottish Government regarding allegations of sexual misconduct by Alex Salmond during his time in office. How’s that for a spoiler?
As at November 2021 (four years later) The police have yet to identify the political criminal who leaked the information. A scurrilous act of betrayal.
31 Oct: A senior SNP officer, Ms Anne Harvey, based in Westminster had been inundated with telephone text messages seeking damming gossip about Alex Salmond. This suggested that a fishing expedition had started in earnest well before any formal complaints had been made. Anne worked with Alex Salmond for many years and was an important witness for the defence, (but her evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry was 90% plus redacted by the Crown before submission). She was also at the time, a close political friend of one of the complainers.
31 Oct: Holyrood civil service senior officers, including John Somers, the First Ministers “gatekeeper” were in attendance at a meeting convened by Nicola Sturgeon with the purpose of reviewing civil service procedures for the handling of workplace complaints. Nicola Sturgeon asked that a review of government policies and processes be completed to ensure that they were fit for purpose. This was not done!!
31 Oct: But James Hynd, Head of Cabinet, Parliament, and Governance, for the Scottish Government, apparently acting on his own initiative decided to target former ministers including them in his first draft of a revised policy. Why?? Because he believed he was in charge of the Scottish government’s ministerial code and he believed there was a “gap” that needed to be closed. In his evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry he also conceded he was well aware of gossip about alleged misconduct involving the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, before choosing to include former ministers in the new anti-harassment policy. But he insisted he alone had decided to make former ministers the focus of his first draft of the policy because he thought there was a a “gap” that needed to be closed.
02 Nov: MSP and minister Mark McDonald, was taken in to speak to John Swinney and the First Minister’s chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, and was told his name had come up in “chatter” around “MeToo”.
03 Nov: McDonald met Lloyd, who revealed a complaint had been made against him about the offensive content of a social media message he had sent. Lloyd told him he would need to resign from the Government.
There were strong rumours that Alex Salmond was unhappy at the lack of progress on independence given the strong polling figures in favour of this and was considering a return to front line politics, possibly through the Aberdeen seat vacated by Mark McDonald when he was denied the Party whip in Holyrood. It was also rumoured that Alex would soon be installed as the editor of the Scotsman.
04 Nov:McDonald said Nicola Sturgeon phoned him in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign that evening.
04 Nov: McDonald resigned from his role as children’s minister in the Scottish Government.
04 Nov: In the evening, Sky News contacted the SNP Government parliamentary media office enquiring about Alex Salmond’s alleged misconduct with women at Edinburgh Airport. Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans and Liz Lloyd were informed. Both of them briefed the First Minister of events the morning after.
Afternote:
Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government, told the inquiry that on 5 Mar 2017 she warned the first minister that Alex Salmond had been calling civil servants in connection with a Sky News investigation into an alleged incident at Edinburgh airport in 2007.
The officials were a bit bewildered and unhappy about it and she advised the First Minister of her concerns. She was also worried that it could become a story and the Scottish Government needed to be ready because the media was very volatile reporting on everything.
She went on to say that a whole range of un-named politicians inside the Scottish government had been raising concerns about alleged sexual misconduct involving ministers.
Rumours had began surfacing in early November 2017 at the height of the “MeToo” movement campaigning, soon after John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, announced a new zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct.
The briefing by Evans that rumours of misconduct included the former First Minister concentrated the minds of members of the Inquiry on the context of the closing statement of Ms Evans to suggest that the “new” sexual harassment policy had been “targeted at and designed to get Alex Salmond”.
Evans denied that was the case. But in late 2018, Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament that she first learned Alex Salmond was being investigated “when he told her” during a meeting at her home on 2 April 2018. But the government was forced to admit that she actually met one of Salmond’s closest former aides, Geoff Aberdein, in connection with the matter in her ministerial office on 29 March 2018.
06 Nov: Lloyd said she had been approached by several civil servants who raised concerns that Alex Salmond and his representatives were reportedly contacting other civil servants to ask that they provide supportive statements to his legal representatives relating to the matters raised by Sky News. The civil servants intimated that political approaches were unwelcome.
Lloyd was asked if she or some other Special Adviser could ask Alex Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct.
She was informed shortly after that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached by the same staff and was taking their request forward, so she made no approach to Alex Salmond.
08 Nov: The first draft of a new harassment policy “Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints Against Former Ministers.” written by top official James Hynd was circulated’
It stated that if a complaint would be lodged against a former minister and he/she was a member of the party in power, the First Minister should be informed immediately.
08 Nov:Barbara Allison, Director of Communications told the Parliamentary inquiry that she was first notified of concerns about the behaviour of Alex Salmond on 8 November 2017 when two female civil servants, (Ms A and Ms B) raised them with her by telephone. She had informed Richards and Evans, the following morning.
08 Nov: Ms B, related to Barbara Allison details of an alleged incident involving herself and Alex Salmond. Richards and Evans were notified.
The session required Alex Salmond to be photographed with one other person at his side on a small balcony.
Time, as ever, was a constraint and a rotating routine was in place requiring four people to be present on the small balcony throughout the shoot.
Ms B said that Alex Salmond had fondled her “bum” at the time she stood next to him on the balcony.
There were no witnesses to the event and Ms B had not reported it previously.
08 Nov: Both Ms A and Ms B were determined that they were not interested in making any formal complaint against Alex Salmond and expressed this to Gillian Russell and Barbara Allison at the time.
Their express wish was only to be allowed a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. On both counts the civil service failed them and they paid the price of failure.
10 Nov:Evans appointed Gillian Russell, Scottish Government, Director of Safer Communities as the “confidential sounding board” for complainers.
10 Nov: In the course of an arranged meeting Ms A related to Gillian Russell the information she had previously advised Barbara Allison of only two days before. Namely an alleged incident involving herself and Alex Salmond.Russell, with the consent of Ms A, updated Richards, who in turn alerted Evans (who had been briefed by Barbara Allison the day previously) and through her office, Judith Mackinnon.
Details of the alleged incident related by Ms B: A “photoshoot” session had been arranged at Stirling Castle attended by Alex Salmond and a number of his close working colleagues, including Miss B.
The essence of the experience Miss A related was: At the end of a long evening, in Bute House, after dealing with “Chinese business” Alex Salmond suggested they could share share some “Maotai”, a highly potent Chinese “rice” drink, a few bottles of which had been gifted to him. She accepted the invitation.
There was no central heating in the lower floors of Bute House at the time and they retired upstairs to Alex’s bedroom where after indulging more than a few drinks they ended up quite tipsy. They both dozed off on a bed, fully dressed and enjoyed a “sleepy cuddle”. After a short period they both awakened. Ms A collected her papers. Alex kissed her on the cheek and she left to go downstairs. There was no intention of any non-consensual sex. Not long after, Ms A lodged a complaint against Alex Salmond.
The matter had been resolved to her satisfaction, using approved Civil Service procedures, following an unreserved apology from Alex Salmond.
Ms A was also offered a transfer away from Alex Salmond’s office without loss of rank or earnings but declined stating her preference to retain her employment and close working relationship with him. Which they subsequently enjoyed for a number of years after.
13-15 Nov: In an exchange of emails with senior civil servants, Hynd advised, “officials will also need to alert the First Minister if a complaint is lodged against a minister because she’d “want to know straight away”.
16 Nov: McDonald suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him.
16 Nov:Hynd emailed (Private Secretary 1 to Evans). (Policy on Complaints Against Ministers.” As requested”. James.
16 Nov: Hynd circulated to the Scottish Government civil service senior management team, and Lloyd (first sight, at her request) a second draft procedure titled “Handling of sexual harassment complaints involving current or former ministers.”
16 Nov: A copy of the draft policy was sent to the UK Government’s Cabinet Office in Westminster for approval.
17 Nov: Approval was not forthcoming. Instead the response expressed grave concerns about implications for politicians throughout the UK if the Scottish Government would be permitted to act in isolation from the other governments of GB and Northern Ireland introducing a process for complaints about ministers and former ministers which had not been universally approved.
The cabinet Office instructed that the policy changes should be deferred until such time as the other governments had completed their own reviews.
Reference was also made to the unfairness of the revised policies which demanded standards of personal conduct for Scottish politicians greatly in excess of those for civil servants which had remained unchanged. Double standards were not acceptable. The document was unfit for introduction.
Afternote:
The Westminster “Cabinet Office” exposed the hypocracy of the intent behind the proposed changes and rightly blocked the proposals.
17 Nov: Hynd forwarded the Cabinet Office response to an unnamed private secretary in the Scottish Government, (possibly Somers) who replied: “Oh dear, I did wonder if that would be their reaction. Not sure how long their review will take but Sturgeon and Evans are keen to resolve quickly and discuss on Tuesday.
I suspect we don’t have a policy on former civil servants. But we are looking at this in the context of the overall review of policies and the justification for having something about Ministers is the action that Parliament is taking in light of allegations about MSP conduct which includes a recent SG Minister?”.
Afternote:
Questioned by the Parliamentary inquiry Hynd said: “Nicola Sturgeon was keen to take national leadership on the matter and delaying implementation of the new procedure was not an option for consideration.”
Comment: But of note was that the procedure for civil servants was not updated to include retrospective consideration of harassment allegations.
Afternote:
Lloyd stated that the inclusion of herself in the circulation of the draft procedure created a requirement to identify and amend the ministerial code, if necessary since the code was the responsibility of the First Minister.
Comment: But the Ministerial Code and the proposed complaints procedure were the business of the Civil Service and the unelected Lloyd had no legitimate input.
20 Nov: Somers said complainer, Ms A, arranged a meeting with him at which she told him of her past experiences in a way that would improve the organization and make sure that no one else would have to go through that sort of thing again.
She stressed she was not making a complaint, she simply wanted to assess her options for how she could best share the information. Her wish was to be allowed to speak to the First Minister which was why she had approached him.
Somers said he felt “overwhelmed” by the disclosure and informed his line manager Barbara Allison and the Director of Safer Communities, Gillian Russell.
21 Nov: Somers and two unnamed officers met with Ms A and advised her she would need to further discuss the matter with his line manager Barbara Allison, with a proviso that if she felt she was not being taken seriously or no one was listening to her, she should get back in touch with Somers who would set-up a personal meeting for her with the First Minister.
He never heard back from her. He went on to say that he did not tell the First Minister that Ms A had confided in him because it wasn’t his experience to share and had he done so he would have put the First Minister in a state of knowledge about something she could not have taken action upon until the new procedures were in place.
Afternote:
Nothing rings true in Somers statements to the inquiry since all of the officers named by him had been “in the loop” about the allegations of misconduct about Alex Salmond from 8 November, nearly two weeks before
Afternote:
In her statement to the inquiry the Scottish Government’s Director for Communications, Ministerial Support & Facilities, Barbara Allison, who was Director of People from 2009 to 2016, said that Alex Salmond was a “visionary and dynamic” and although demanding and difficult to work for people also expressed that they enjoyed working for him.
She had never heard of sexual misconduct concerns about him while he was the First Minister. Nor had she heard of any concerns being escalated to the status of formal complaints while she was in charge of human resources.
Afternote:
Allison also said she had not raised any issues of bullying or harassment with either Evans or Sturgeon and for clarity, she emphasized to the inquiry that she was not aware of any issues about sexual harassment” and added that she was a “huge advocate” for informal resolution, stating that if a matter could be resolved through this process, then “absolutely people must have recourse to a formal process”.
22 Nov: Nicola Sturgeon’s “instruction from the First Minister” was sent to to Evans. It read:
“As is clear from the continued media focus on cases of sexual harassment, in many instances, people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago. I wanted to make clear that in taking forward your review, and the new arrangements being developed, you should not be constrained by the passage of time. I would like you to consider ways in which we are able to address if necessary any concerns from staff, should any be raised, about the conduct of current Scottish Government ministers and also former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party. While I appreciate that the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code, I think it fair and reasonable that any complaints raised about their actions while they held office are considered against the standards expected of Ministers. I would be grateful for confirmation that this particular aspect is being included as part of the review you are leading.”
Note: The letter of instruction makes no sense since the newly written draft procedure was already in place and circulated within the senior Civil Servant management team.
And Hynd, the person who wrote the new procedure was not copied into the correspondence.
24 Nov: A fifth draft of Hynd’s, policy delegated authority to the Permanent Secretary to investigate complaints but made clear the First Minister should also be alerted. A copy was also sent to the First Minister.
23 Nov:Richards sent an e-mail to Evans, copied to Mackinnon “we would need to consult with the individual before disclosing to another party or the Police because of the risk of the matter getting into the press and the individuals being identified.
We have a duty of care for our staff which means we shouldn’t do something that puts them at risk, so if they don’t want us to share information or go to the police, it would be very difficult to justify (sic) doing so (without putting them at risk of being identified and wider impacts).
This was subsequently changed on 9th January 2018 to read “SG as employer will not refer specific cases to police without the knowledge/consent of the employee.”
24 Nov:Lloyd, Somers, Hynd and a member of the Permanent Secretary’s office, attended a meeting to further discuss the content of the “instruction from the First Minister” and to establish and agree clear lines of responsibility between the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary.
A second purpose was to reword the second draft procedure inserting changes designed to prevent the First Minister from stopping the Permanent Secretary from investigating a sexual harassment complaint made by a civil servant against a minister if the Permanent Secretary judged there was something to investigate. The change was put in place to protect the First Minister from criticism.
Additional input from Lloyd included the view that it was essential that the First Minister should be made aware of an investigation or allegation into a serving minister, before the event, in order to determine if, under the ministerial code, that minister could remain in post whilst an investigation was conducted.
Yet she later stipulated that on that date she had no knowledge, of any of the allegations against Alex Salmond that were subsequently investigated under the new procedure.
29 Nov: Russell wrote to Ms A “as agreed, I sent your narrative on in confidence to Nicky (Richards) and Judith (Mackinnon). I have now been asked by Nicky and Judith if you would be prepared to speak to them following receipt of your narrative.
As part of this discussion Nicky would like to share with you the developing policy for handling complaints against former and current ministers. This would give you an opportunity to test whether this would have helped at the time and also to consider next steps.” Later that day Ms A agreed to do so but reiterated her wish to speak first personally with Nicola Sturgeon.
Comment: So we have a potential complainant assisting the process of compiling the procedure to be used against the person she is complaining about. You couldn’t make it up!!
29 Nov:Richards, met with Evans, who then went on to have a “summit meeting with Nicola Sturgeon, “to discuss the development of the proposed procedure”.
30 Nov:Richards emailed Hynd, the Head of the Cabinet Secretariat: “Would you be able to send me the latest version of the process I agreed with Leslie Evans that I would test against some key individuals?”
Comment: Just who the individuals were was not revealed.
01 Dec: Hynd sent the “eighth” harassment policy draft to Richards.
04/05 Dec:Richards, redrafted parts of the “eighth” draft procedure completing her work 2334 hours on the evening of 5 Dec.
She then forwarded it under cover of an email, to Evans, Hynd, MacKinnon, and an unnamed lawyer. The email stated: “As discussed earlier today, I’ve made some revisions to the process.”
06 Dec: Richards, met with Ms B and shared with her the content of the revised 8th draft procedure, seeking and gaining from Ms B confirmation that had the procedures been in place at the time she claimed she had been sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.
Comment: Unbelievable!!
06 Dec:Mackinnon, met with Ms A and after sharing the draft procedures gained from her confirmation that had the new procedures been in place at the time she was sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.
Comment: Unbelievable!!
06 Dec: Evans emailed Richards, Hynd, and a third person writing, “Spoke with John S (Swinney?) last night.
We agreed you would send up tweaked codes in draft without any letters just now. and as discussed, info on the steps and touchpoints involved in the process also useful. Keep me posted back in the office tomorrow but happy to talk. John (Swinney?) also I’m sure.”
Afternote:
Evans told the inquiry team that she did not see a “natural role” for Special Advisor (Lloyd) in the Scottish Government response to the judicial review brought by Alex Salmond.
But a freedom of information response listed 17 meetings at which lawyers involved in the judicial review met with Sturgeon or senior staff, with Lloyd present at three meetings in Oct and Nov 2018.
Evans, confronted by the facts, was forced to correct her evidence to confirm that Sturgeon’s political special advisor, Lloyd, did fully participate in meetings at which the allegations against Alex Salmond were discussed.
Afternote:
Somers told the inquiry that he had no involvement in the development of the procedure used against Alex Salmond. This is not true. Somers, in his capacity as Sturgeon’s Principal Private Secretary, had a key role in developing the policy at a critical time.
5 Dec 2017: The “letters” that Somers was subsequently instructed “not” to send to Sturgeon were the “tweaked codes” which Somers and Hynd had been instructed by Evans to draft in line with the procedure as it had existed prior to her discussion with Somers, and for the purpose of intimating the new procedure to former Ministers and former First Ministers when it would be approved by the First Minister in due course. The “letters” disappeared from the development process after the discussions and the Scottish Government has persistently refused to disclose the contents.
Exactly what comprised the “steps and touchpoints involved in the process” was discussed by Evans and Somers but the content remains guesswork since no-one at the inquiry asked Somers, or has ever asked Evans, what was meant by these terms. But what is clear is that both Evans herself and Somers were “happy to talk” to Richards, Hynd, and the third person about these “steps and touchpoints” in the radically recast procedure.
There is a hugely significant context of the very obvious involvement of Somers, acting on behalf of Sturgeon, in the development, actually, in the complete recast of the procedure. For now, it is worth noting that Somers’s evidence on affirmation was given, as Somers himself pointed out, with the specific advance endorsement of the Scottish Government. Civil Service jargon for “not my words govn’r!!””
05 Dec: First contact between the SG and Police Scotland was initiated by the Deputy Director of People, MacKinnon, who on 5th December emailed the Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS), Head of Public Protection at Police Scotland.
An email response was sent on the same date and a physical meeting was arranged, which took place on 6th December, attended by the Deputy Director of People, MacKinnon, the DCS, the Chief Superintendent (CS), Local Policing Commander for Edinburgh Division and Detective Superintendent (DSU) for Edinburgh Division.
In addition to the email contact between MacKinnon and the DCS and latterly to the DSU on the dates above, a number of telephone conversations and email exchanges took place between MacKinnon, and the DSU on 30th January 2018; 31st January 2018; 18th April 2018; 19th April 2018; 1st August 2018; 2nd August 2018 and 3rd August 2018. The initial email contact indicated that advice was being sought on the SG approach to sexual harassment procedures responding to the “Metoo” movement, and, SG obligations in response to allegations made by staff or former staff which may constitute a criminal offence.
06 Dec:MacKinnon provided information to the DCS and DSU about the reporting mechanism within the Scottish Parliament. A procedure very recently put in place in partnership with the Westminster government who had responded to widespread media reporting of alleged inappropriate conduct involving members of the UK Parliament.
A ‘hotline’ number had been launched by the Scottish Parliament which directed callers to support agencies and, where appropriate, the police. Hotline responders would not report matters directly to the police but would direct callers to contact ‘101’ or ‘999’ in an emergency.
MacKinnon, also provided advice that any potential victim or complainer would be provided with details of support and advocacy services. which would allow concerns to be discussed with an experienced advocacy worker with knowledge of the criminal justice process and to support the individual to report matters to the police.
Advice would be given that where criminality was suspected, individuals would be directed to support and advocacy services, to enable them to make informed decisions about whether or not to report matters to the police. Information that was reiterated on several occasions to the police in discussions with MacKinnon in the course of ongoing contact between December 2017 and August 2018.
A number of hypothetical questions were posed during email and telephone contact around the criminal justice process.
Police Scotland advised that, without specific details, no appropriate response could be given and no assessment of risk could be made. It was further emphasised that individuals should be directed to the relevant support services as it appeared that the hypothetical questions were predicated upon a specific set of circumstances andthe SG response to that set of circumstances, rather than development of a generic procedure. The hypothetical questions also suggested more than one victim of potential criminality and as such, it was stressed that, without knowledge of the detail, any risk that a suspect might present, could not be properly assessed or mitigated.
It was highlighted by the police that that SG staff had not been trained to undertake such investigations, or to engage with victims. No details of potential victims or perpetrators were provided by SG and, throughout the contact, Police Scotland encouraged SG to refer victims to appropriate support services. Police Scotland was not invited to provide comment in relation to a draft ‘procedure’ or framework for the handling of harassment complaints, nor was any draft or final document shared with Police Scotland.
On Tuesday 21st August 2018, complaints against the former First minister were formally referred to Police Scotland by the Scottish Government through the the Crown Agent. This took place during a meeting at the Crown Office, Edinburgh, involving the Crown Agent, the Chief Constable and the DCS, Head of Public Protection.
Afternote:
Evidently the Scottish Government had no interest in developing a comprehensive procedure covering harassment in the workplace. Discussions between Scottish Government representatives and the police centred on a number of hypothetical incidents each of which provided indication that a very senior former politician was the subject under discussion.
The police backed off and raised warning signals about the SG methodology. They went on to advise that the Scottish Government was not qualified or trained to undertake investigations on its own and any alleged victims should be directed to “support and advocacy services” who could help them decide what to do and whether to involve the police.
The Scottish Government, ignored the advice and went on to conduct its own illegal and biased investigations and found Salmond guilty, and then when that illegality was about to be exposed it reported the complaints to the police AGAINST the express wishes of the complainers, and also against the rules it had itself written after taking the advice of the employees’ trade union.
Afternote:
Procedure: Para 19: Throughout the process, all available steps will be taken to support the staff member and ensure they are protected from any harmful behaviour. However, if at any point it becomes apparent to the SG that criminal behaviour might have occurred the SG may bring the matter directly to the attention of the Police. Also, if it became apparent that the matter being raised formed part of a wider pattern of behaviour, it may be necessary for the SG to consider involving the Police in light of the information provided. SG, as employer will not refer specific cases to the police without the knowledge/consent of the employee. Should either of these steps be necessary the staff member would be advised and supported throughout.
07 Dec:MacKinnon met with complainant Ms B.
10 Dec: Evidently there was a deadline for the submission of the procedure for the signature of the First minster and this was confirmed in yet another email and document enclosure and to the same people in which Richards wrote: “I’ve updated the timeline and this is the final version of the policy I’ve sent to Evans.” The “air” of finality clearly suggested that the civil service team, supported by legal opinion were confident it would be signed off and introduced.
12 Dec:Evans and Sturgeon met and discussed the “new” procedures.
12 Dec: Evans wrote to Sturgeon: “You wrote me on 22 Nov regarding the review of the Scottish Government’s policies and processes on sexual harassment. As we have discussed, we have a shared commitment to ensure that the arrangements that are in place are effective and contribute to the work already in hand to promote an inclusive and respectful culture across the Scottish Government.
Your letter, in particular, asked me to consider as part of the review, ways in which any concerns raised by staff about the conduct of current or former Ministers could be addressed. I have developed, for your agreement, a process for how complaints of harassment, including sexual harassment, might be taken forward.
This new process aims to ensure that I am able to fulfil my duty of care to staff by taking the necessary steps to support the member of staff and to put in train any further action that might be required within the civil service as a result of the issues raised.
As far as current Ministers are concerned, the process will also assist you in taking forward your responsibilities under the Scottish Ministerial Code.
It also sets out how complaints against former Ministers will be handled. Given that the process engages the responsibility of the First Minister for the application of the Ministerial Code, we will seek approval for the ongoing application of the process on each occasion the Ministerial Code is updated.
I should be grateful to learn if you are content to adopt the process set out in the annex. As you have requested, I am happy to update the Cabinet about the outcome of the review whenever you wish.
14 Dec:Richards emailed Private Secretary (2) to Evans, Hynd, Mackinnon, and the Head of Branch, Peoples Directorate: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers:
I’ve amended the letter and policy in line with our exchange. If this looks OK I’d like first for us to run this past the unions before the final exchange with the First Minister. I think we should just share with the Unions the revised procedures part about current ministers because that is what would form part of our revised “fairness at work” policy. The process relating to former minister’s is more for us to know what we would do rather than to have out there as a published policy.
Comment: So the Unions would be provided with a selective brief omitting any reference to retrospective investigation of ministers.
14 Dec: Hynd emailed Richards, Private Secretary 2, Mackinnon and, Head of Branch Peoples Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. Thanks for this. Some formatting wrinkles had crept in which I have now sorted in the attached version (‘final’). Other than the removal of references to ‘sexual’, the text remains the same as that which went to the First Minister and on which she commented.
14 Dec: Private Secretary 2 to Evans emailed Hynd, Richards, MacKinnon, and Head of Branch, Peoples Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. I’ve just spoken with Hynd about another few small adjustments – just to ensure using consistent terms throughout. Nothing substantive. Hynd is kindly making those adjustments and will circulate the final version shortly so Head of Branch, People Directorate 1 you may wish to hold off your preparation of the version for Unions meantime.
In terms of timing to the First Minister, we will put the procedure to the First Minister once we have the green light from Richards. If we want to appraise the Permanent Secretary of timings and sharing with Unions, she is tied up in interviews today till 15:00 and then on leave until Tuesday – but contactable.
14 Dec:Hynd emailed Private Secretary 2 to Evans, Richards, Mackinnon, and Head of Branch, People Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. Dear all. With sincere and deepest thanks to Private Secretary 2 to Evans, here is yet another ‘final’ version.
20 Dec: The First minister signed off the new procedure.
Clegg first appeared on the scene in Scotland when he took up a post with the Dundee Courier. His interest in politics was not long in surfacing and he enhanced his reputation as an investigative journalist reporting events in Holyrood.
Sky News also employed him to front political reporting of the day in Scotland.
He gained rapid promotion to Assistant then Editor of the Courier between 2010 -2012 before moving to the Daily Record where he reported politics between 2012-2019. A full circle of employment took him back as editor to the Dundee Courier in November 2019.
He is a bit of an enigma socially since there is little on record about him or his family but, based on the coverage of his news and current affairs he established a wide gathering of informers in a short time in Scotland, or perhaps he had friends in “high places”.
His political coverage of Scottish events up to the start of the 2014 Independence Referendum was marked by fairness and gained him a number of awards for political journalism.
But from the start of campaigning in 2014 he revealed his true political colours and they were “Red”. An avid supporter of the Unionist cause the “man from Northern Ireland” courted the wrath of nationalists through his relentless attacks on the SNP (mainly Alex Salmond) supported by the political and legal protection of the Unionist political mouthpiece the “Daily Record”.
Nicola Sturgeon raised many eyebrows when she defended Clegg’s right to free speech in a “twitter” post criticising nationalist supporters (aggressively given the title “cybernats” by Better Together campaigners) who allegedly made threats against him.
Her intervention would have been better received if she had criticised both sides but in any event any political vitriol against her by “Better Together” was somewhat muted by result.
2014 David Clegg and his input to the Scottish Independence Referendum
“Purdah”, the period which prevented the UK government from announcing new legislation to gain advantage over the “Yes” campaign started on 21 August 2014. For those who might not be aware of the legislation the term means:
“Veil on government”, and refers to the pre-election campaign period and provides restrictions on how the government may act, how the Civil Service behaves and the use of government resources during that time.
Like many aspects the UK’s unwritten constitution government, is a mix of convention, precedent, code of conduct and statutory requirement. Additionally there are some aspects of purdah that relate to statutory restrictions on how campaigns are conducted which are set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act of 2000: namely controls on funding and on publicity for electoral campaigns and how the Civil Service needs to be aware of them.
The abuse of “purdah” occurred only 3 days before the referendum in response to informed comment that the “Yes” campaign had gained a small but significant lead in the polls. Murray Foote, Editor and Clegg, then Deputy Editor of the “Daily Record” together with other press figures and heavyweight politicians, published the infamous “vow” which was then given major “air time” on the BBC over the final 3 days of the campaign and other news outlets to the Scottish electorate.
The unprecedented “pledge to the nation” brokered by former prime minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour, was signed by the three political leaders at Westminster offering their version of the future governance of Scotland, alternative to independence.
It gave assurance to Scots wavering about complete separation confidence that, if the a “no” vote would still result in major changes and Scotland would be given a much more control over its future.
It proved to be the deal of the century for the Unionists who won over many older voters who were worried sick that their would be massive reductions in their old age pensions which was only one of the many lies foisted on Scots and boasted about after the referendum by the “Better Together” campaign promises. And the delivery? Well that’s another story!!! “Not a lot” as Paul Daniels used to Quip.
There were three guarantees
New powers for the Scottish Parliament. Holyrood will be strengthened with extensive new powers, on a timetable beginning on September 19, with legislation in 2015. The Scottish Parliament will be a permanent and irreversible part of the British constitution.
The guarantee of fairness to Scotland. The guarantee that the modern purpose of the Union is to ensure opportunity and security by pooling and sharing our resources equitably for our defence, prosperity and the social and economic welfare of every citizen, including through UK pensions and UK funding of healthcare.
The power to spend more on the NHS if that is Scottish people’s will. The guarantee that with the continued Barnett allocation, based on need and with the power to raise its own funds, the final decisions on spending on public services in Scotland, including on the NHS, will be made by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will have the last word on how much is spent on health. It will have the power to keep the NHS in public hands and the capacity to protect it.
2015: After So nearly winning, cheated of victory by the illegal treachery of the reincarnation of a few Daniel Defoe’s at the “Daily Record” the hurt was very painful for Alex Salmond and he stood down handing control of the Party to the ambitious but, untried Nicola Sturgeon anticipating there would be much for her to do to take Scotland forward equipped with many new powers assured by “the Vow”.
That was his big mistake and he lived to regret it. As predicted by Scottish nationalists who had campaigned day and night for nearly a year, Westminster renaged on the promises made in “the Vow”. This was the outcome of the inept bargaining powers of John Sweeney and his SNP team who allowed themselves to be set-up as the lesser particpants in a significant minority with Unionist political Partys’.
In the General Election Unionist party’s were just about wiped out in Scotland. Voters were scunnered with the Westminster cabal who failed to deliver deliver the undertakings contained in “The Vow”.
The reverse being the case in some areas devolved powers had been taken back to Westminster. It was expected that Nicola Sturgeon would announce that the Scottish electorate had given her Party a mandate to declare independence.
But she and her close colleagues lacked the political courage or backbone to do so. This the time Scotland badly needed a leader and Alex Salmond was out to pasture. An opportunity lost and Scotland would pay dearly for this in the years that followed.
2018: Murray Foote went on record saying: “I can no longer stand by while a cabal of a privileged cabal in London continue to deprive our sons and daughters the right to decide their future. Whilst an independent Scotland will face “financial challenges” in the years after a “Yes” vote and there will be difficult decisions to be faced and sacrifices to be made what troubles me more is the prospect of bequeathing to my daughters an isolated Britain governed indefinitely by the progeny of Westminster and their ilk. I have reconciled that independence will herald good and bad but I trust in Scots to solve the problems that will come our way. If so many other countries can, it is inconceivable that Scotland can’t. Were there to be another independence referendum, I will “strap on my work boots and take that leap” to support the campaign.” David Clegg, who participated in the betrayal of Scots offered no comment preferring to keep his head under the parapet!!!
2016: The International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP)
The programme, introduces future power-brokers-to-be to the American way and is designed to pinpoint future VIPs. It was used in the early 1980s to reach out to young Labour politicians, including Blair and Brown, at a time when scepticism about the Atlantic alliance was prevalent within the party.
It is a highly prestigious and expensive (around £10k) programme and participants are hand-picked to spend typically three weeks visiting Washington DC and three additional towns or cities, meeting their counterparts and other VIPs and experts – all highly valuable networking experience for any ambitious young man or woman on the climb.
Conspiracy theorists say the scheme is all about an imperial power meddling in the affairs of sovereign regimes, seducing their future political leaders and moulding them into Washington-approved candidates. It is a prime example of US “soft power” in action, shaping first impressions and casting America within the context of one’s own ambitions, aspirations, ideas, and possibilities. But not everyone views the programme so benignly. There are those that argue that the notion of a major power courting the future elite of another nation state offers cause for alarm. (BBC)
In Jun 2016 a group of Scottish political activists with the approval of Party leaders were selected to participate in the IVLP progamme (while parliament was in session at Holyrood and Westmister). Among those attending were: Kezia Dugdale (leader of the Labour Party in Scotland (who authorised her own attendance); Jenny Gilruth, SNP, MSP, parliamentary liaison officer for John Swinney; Liz Lloyd SNP Senior political advisor (SPAD) to Nicola Sturgeon; David Clegg, Journalist at the Daily Record.
The presence of Clegg and the publicised togetherness of the group in America surprised political observers and disappointed many Scottish Independence supporters who were affronted by the decision of the Party leader to authorise the attendance of SNP officials on the course with an arch enemy of independence.
In America the group met-up with Patrick Grady (SNP Westminster chief whip) and Angela Crawley (SNP member of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee) were also in the US at that time.
Shortly after their return to Scotland Dugdale advised the press that her new partner was, Jenny Gilruth, SNP, MSP for Mid Fife and Glenrothes who was first elected to Holyrood in May 2016. The visit to America would prove to be an eventful one in a number of ways in the future.
The attendance of Liz Lloyd on the course although criticised was proper, always providing she observed the roles and responsibilities of her employment as a SPAD
SPAD’s are not civil servants but as paid employees of the State they are – subject to specified exceptions – required to conduct themselves in accordance with the “Civil Service Code.”which states that the highest standards of conduct are expected of them.
“Specifically, the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks has no part to play in the job of being a special adviser as it has no part to play in the conduct of public life.
“Any special adviser ever found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing minister.
“Special advisers…must observe discretion and express comment with moderation, avoiding personal attacks.”
“All contacts with news media should be authorized, in advance by the appointing minister.”
Right at the at the start of devolution a young and charismatic politician emerged and imposed himself on the Scottish political scene only to be destroyed by Unionist politicians who feared him.
He led the the Scottish electorate protests against the community charge (or ‘poll tax’) which Thatcher’s Tory government introduced in Scotland to replace the existing system of household rates and successfully campaigned against warrant sales, which publicly sold a householder’s possessions to pay tax arrears. In his first attendance at Holyrood he got the law changed. His campaigning saw Tommy jailed for six months, but while in Edinburgh’s Saughton Prison, he was elected to Glasgow City Council representing the Pollok ward.
He founded the Scottish Socialist Party in 1999 and became its leader and was elected as a member of the Scottish Parliament in the same year, representing Glasgow. A passionate conviction-politician he was demonised by some but praised by many more. In his time at Holyrood he gave away half of his MSP salary, preferring to live on the wage of an ordinary working person.
His party gained electoral success in 2003, when it returned six MSP’s to the Scottish parliament, including himself. But, concerned his party was becoming a one man band he stepped down from the leadership role providing opportunities for others in the Party to come to the fore. This proved to be the undoing of himself and ultimately his Party whose members could not agree common policies and the resultant in-fighting ended its brief but eventful existence in Scottish politics.
Outside parliament Tommy won £200k in damages from Rupert Murdoch’s sleazy organisation after the now defunct and disgraced News of the World newspaper printed unfounded allegations about his private life. But only later a police investigation was launched following complaints from the same press source that Tommy had lied to the jury over a minor point of law. In a highly questionable follow up action Tommy was jailed for contempt of court. In the year of his incarceration and the years that followed he did not receive one penny of his successful claim against Murdoch and without income he, his wife and child were dependent on their family for support. An unnecessary hardship imposed on innocent parties.
On his release from prison Tommy rightly went after Murdoch for his money but the media baron was not finished with him and asked the high court to overturn the verdict of the jury who had found in Tommy’s favour.
After a lengthy deliberation the appeal court rejected the Murdoch application and awarded Tommy the full judgement of £200k, but in a bizarre judgement it refused to award Tommy interest on the £200k that had been withheld from him at the time he was in jail.
Tommy appealed to the “Court of Session” that the “Appeal Court” had erred in its judgement. His argument won the day and the “Court of Session” awarded Tommy interest totalling £176k.
The judgement of the “Court of Session” was that Tommy had won his case against Murdoch press bullies and the imposition of a custodial sentence on him for a misdemeanour in law in no way influenced the jury against Murdoch. But Tommy was forced to wait nearly 8 years before Murdoch paid him a penny.
Why was Tommy jailed? The answer is simple. He was a “pain in the butt” to the established political system and needed to be removed, regardless of right.
Unelected “invisible establishment controllers” won the war. Tommy was finished as a politician, destroyed by unfounded, unsubstantiated innuendo about his private life.
What of the future? It is within the grasp of Scots to set aside any negative views of Tommy cruelly created in their minds by those who wish to take Scots down the WOKE road.
He needs to be rehabilitated as a leading politician heading “Alba-Under-One-Banner” in its marches for freedom from the clutches of Westminster and the WOKE nutters of the SNP/Green Alliance.
Independence supporters need to get a grip and seize the agenda
An Independent Scotland will remain a dream until Scots rally under one banner and defeat the forces of evil that have held Scotland captive for over 300 years.
In the years leading up to and after the signing of the infamous “Treaty of Union” political rivalries encouraged an avaricous elite to abuse their status and sign away Scotland’s independence.
And English politicians at Westminster were quick to seize the opportunities gifted to them. They destroyed the Scottish economy by removing acccess to foreign trade through Scottish ports making a potentially difficult exercise easy by blockading the seas around Scotland commandeering or sinking any ship not flying the red ensign.
They betrayed just about all of the written undertakings they had signed off to in the “treaty” not to interfere in the internal affairs or governance of Scotland. The independence of the Scottish legal system was rapidly eroded, then eliminated and replaced with Westminster dictates. Scots are now unable to “fart” without the permission of Westminster politicians.
Westminster politicians always fearful of the strength of the Scottish Clan system, that had denied them the freedom to control and subjugate Scots for hundreds of years set about destroying it using their tried and tested division and rule tactics playing one Clan against another feeding on the greed of influential individuals whose eyes were diverted away from the welfare of their friends and families by the glint of English gold. But these measures were time consuming and progress was slow so they played the religious card pitting Central and Southern Scots against their brothers in the North with the promise that the United Kingdom would become one of the most propersous countries in the World if only the “Church of Rome” followers in the North could be brought to heel.
The 1745 rebellion provided Westminster with just that opportunity. The “Jacobites” who supported the return of Charles to the throne of England and Scotland took their fight to the gates of London only to be betrayed by the French and English who failed to link with them and carry the battle to London. The long retreat of the “jacobite” army back to the highlands of Scotland was not made easier by the refusal of Scots occupying the lands below the “Firth of Tay” to provide shelter, food or indeed any assistance to them.
The demoralisd and almost defenceless “Jacobites” were wiped out at the “Massacre of Culloden” and in the 15 years that followed an English army garrisoned Scotland, north of the Tay and ruled the region through martial law.
Not content with these measures Westminster then removed Scotland’s troublesome leaders by eliminating the “clan” system and anyone associated with it and removed all lands north of the Tay from Scottish ownership transferring all of it to the English aristocracy and their supporters.
But there remained problems yet to resolve namely removal of any threat of violence forever against the new English landowners and a need to release English army forces who had been occupying the North of Scotland for many years, to fight new wars in Europe and further afield as England expanded it’s empire.
The solution was to “clear the lands “North of the Tay” of anyone whom the landlords wished to get “shot of”. The clearances did just that. Near 90% of Scots living in the North were thrown off the crofts they had lived on for centuries and hundreds of thousands of their families were forced onto small boats, incapable of safe ocean going and transferred to the new colony’s on the other side of the Atlantic. Many thousands didn’t make the journey and were dumped overboard to feed the fishes.
The enslavement and forced shipping abroad of so many Northern Scots, for that was what it was, solved a problem for the English Landlords who were able to flood their ill-gotten lands with sheep making fortunes from the sale of mutton and wool to the many new armies Westminster was deploying in it’s invasion of countries all over the “new World”. But Westminster achieved it’s principle objective.
It would no longer get it’s arse kicked by rebellious Scots whose finest fighting men perished at the hands of their own countrymen at the “Massacre of Culloden”. Scotland died that day and the English landlords still have control and ownership of the North of Scotland and many other parts.
I believe it is impossible to snuff out a dream and Scotland might yet return to the league of nations a free land but we need a charismatic leader capable of gathering and leading many hundreds of Scots already sworn to the common cause of independence, nullifying the impact of the many political conspirators and rabble rousers placed in Scottish society “feathering their own nest” in reward by their Unionist party mentors.
Is there such a person in Scotland at this time?
Alex Salmond? No, he is a very able elder statesman who need to be called upon to voice his opinion at times when the impact of his intervention can be assured.
Facebook warriors? No, Their memberships’ thinking is disparate and it is this volatility that is holding the cause of independence back. What is required is for all of the Facebook groups to link under one banner “Alba for Scotland”. Now that would be a sea-change for the independence movement.
Wings over Scotland? No. The blog owner “the Rev” was a thorn in the side of the Unionist for over eight years but recently closed the most effective organ for disseminating anti- unionist propaganda in the public media and it is doubtful it will return.
All under one Banner? No, But the potential for the group to be the vehicle that drives a “campaign for independence” to victory is there, but it badly needs a home, financial probity and a leader able to marshall and inspire supporters of independence who have proved their loyalty time and again marching in all weathers and donating their hard earned money.
Were it in my power I would link Alba and All Under One Banner under a new name “Alba Under One Banner” and insist that “Alba” politicians and leaders be in the leading group at every public event. It from that entity that a leader might well emerge.
The Scottish National Party? No, The Party has lost it’s way. The “before” 2014 politicians are growing old and retiring from the fray, the fire of independence in their bellies has been extinguished.
The 2015 intake of Amazonian “wanabee” politicians promoted well beyond their capabilities by the SNP leadership are now running the show and independence is not the motivating factor that drives them politically.
They are not prepared to game the system preferring to stick with the status quo which provides them with all the taxpayer finance they need to progress their WOKE agenda to the detriment of the nation.
caltonjock 