Author: caltonjock

Are You Awake?

The spectre of a “Woke” dominated SNP Government looms menacingly, enabled through the imposition on constituencies of “right thinking” candidates by a party leadership no longer in touch with reality.

In recent years, the Party has lost focus evidenced by the introduction of controversial policy changes without consultation with or support of a majority of Party members and officials.

The criteria for selection as a candidate of the Party, until now, has been a straightforward process. Individuals were local to their community and possessed a solid record of active campaigning for the cause of independence.

But that changed when Nicola announced her intention to bring in changes to the “Gender Reassignment Act” permitting individuals to “self-declare” their gender.

Currently the law states that those seeking to officially change gender have to live in the preferred gender for two years and be diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a doctor to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Nicola and her supporters were warned that their proposals were toxic and the debate over legal changes would be protracted, divisive and perhaps unsuccessful, but they decided to press on with the change.

As projected the proposals polarized opinion within the Party, many believing a change to “self-declaration” would eliminate women’s sex-protected rights and undermine data which is dependent on knowing if a person is a man or a woman. A number of women’s groups added their voices to the protests.

One Scottish MSP, a committed nationalist not known for rebelling, Joan McAlpine, the chair of Holyrood’s “Culture and External Affairs Committee, spoke publicly about her concerns, and was abused by WOKE campaigners and and threatened with deselection.

In voicing an opinion she stood charged by the WOKEs’ as being a gender-critical trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF). So I must be a TERM. Got to get to grips with this new language!!!

Her committee also feared the inclusion of “non-binary” questions in census forms devaluing the data on a protected characteristic (sex) under the Equality Act.

There was also concern that women’s groups, in receipt of substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money, had dogmatically adopted the WOKE ideology while failing to represent women who disagreed.

This generated long worded denials from Scottish Government funded organisations: “Close the Gap” £225k: “Engender Scotland” £250k and “Equate Scotland”: £350k. New to you? and to me. How many more are there?

She was also attacked by some of her own SNP colleagues. Namely:

Rhiannon Spear, chair of the LGBT education lobby, “Tie” (Time for Inclusive Education).

She accused Joan of “stoking a fire” and “willfully ignoring the advice of service providers who have been working in the industry for decades”.

Michael Gibbons, head of the SNP’s student wing, who said: “There is nothing socialist, brave, or feminist about giving a platform to a TERF under a pretense of debate and discussion. It’s disingenuous and wrong.”

But Joan hit back with her statement:

“They try to shut you up by labelling you and othering you, by using extremist language. This isn’t just about trans people’s rights; they have the same human rights as everyone else and extra protections in the Equality Act and hate legislation, and that’s quite right. This is about women’s rights and how the changes being pushed for impact women.”

Find her on twitter, https://twitter.com/JoanMcAlpine/status/1101251118611525633

public profile campaigning can be a frustrating and lonely pastime

WOKE activists are behind a fast spreading culture of intimidation and self-censorship within the SNP and beyond.

Only last month the contents of private direct mail messages between three female SNP, MSPs, Gillian Martin, Ash Denham and Ruth Maguire was leaked to the public by the WOKE activist and SNP member, Jordan Henderson, (partner of NEC member, Alyn Smith) who summarized their exchange of views to read:

“The First Minister is “out of step” with the views of the SNP group at Holyrood over the impact on women of possible changes to the Gender Recognition Act and she is blind to the fact that the WOKE agenda is a real and dangerous threat to women and feminism”

Henderson added:

“Deeply concerning to see this conversation between SNP elected members claiming the FM is out of step for backing trans rights in Scotland. @theSNP and @NicolaSturgeon must act.”

An SNP source commented:

“This was a private conversation We know that staff can access MSPs’ Twitter accounts, so it will be extremely hurtful for the MSPs’ involved to think that one of their staff has leaked this to Jordan Henderson.

But the fact remains that a majority of SNP, MSPs’ are concerned about the impact of transgender self-identification on women’s rights and this should be able to be raised publicly without abuse. This kind of leak doesn’t help that happen.”

WOKEism is spreading

The policy of removing long standing and other preferred candidates and replacing them with WOKE activists started with the parachuting of the Party’s “Policy Development Convener” and leading “WOKE” supporter, Alyn Smith, (MEP) direct from his office in Brussels to stand as the Party’s 2019 General Election “shoo-in” candidate for a seat in Westminster.

NEC member Smith, spoken of in some circles as a future Party leader was duly elected and set his stall out early on with his appointment of “WOKE” activists to his office, including Cameron Archibald, (from the Bannockburn branch).

If you wish to know more about Archibald check out his twitter posts, “MammothWhale” and “TheStirlingWolf”. He really is a corker!!

The procedures for selecting candidates for the 2021 General Election is now under way and there are reports from Branches of gerrymandering by the NEC who have introduced policy changes removing all powers from Branches demitting the selection and short listing of candidates from Branches to the WOKE supporting NEC.

Comment:

WOKE ideology conflates sex and gender, but they are different. Being born a male or female is a fact of biology. Adopting a masculine or feminine persona is attributable to social conditioning and performance. Sex is data, gender is narrative. If the dangly bits are intact you are a male.

Mentorn Television Production

Not long after Scottish devolution, following storms of protest from Scottish viewers and politicians the BBC agreed to transfer a significant amount of television production to Scotland greatly increasing Scottish content. Implementation of change would be achieved without detriment to existing staff employed in England or to operational routine.

Smoke and mirrors time:

The BBC in London, restructured its programme production contract with Mentorn (a small but growing subsidiary of the Tinopolis Group, an offshore registered media producer & and distributor).

Mentorn, set up a Glasgow office in 2002, in compliance with the BBC commitment to transfer finance and programme making to Scotland.

From then Mentorn expanded its programme production and distribution many times over, including the Unionist biased, Question Time.

Mentorn & Nickilai Gentchev

This is how the production of Question Time was (paper) transferred to Scotland.

Gentchev, in the employ of Mentorn, transferred from London to Glasgow taking on the role of editor of Question Time.

In his new role he worked with Haley Valentine, who was appointed to the new (non-job) post of Executive Editor. A Scottish face need to be put in place comforting Scots licence holders and politicians

He remained in the employ of Mentorn for the duration of his tenure (2011-2016) reporting to Gavin Allen, the London based, Head of BBC Political News, who who continued to meet his salary.

He also wrote articles for the International Socialism Journal and Socialist Review. A revelation that led to attacks by Tory politicians saying that his background provided credence to their claims that the programme was a mouthpiece for left-wing politicians and activists.

The move was also openly criticized by its presenter, David Dimbleby, who insisted that weekly editorial meetings continue to take place in London. The programme also saw the resignation of its incumbent Editor, Ed Havard, who resigned rather than transfer to Scotland.

Hayley Valentine

Family: Born in Glenrothes in 1971. Schooling: Auchtermuchty High School & Edinburgh University. Career: Journalism: First worked in Dundee before moving on to work in commercial radio in Edinburgh. Progressed to producing television programming with Scottish Television then for BBC Scotland. Promoted and transferred to London taking up a post editing BBC Breakfast TV. Set her stall on working in radio and rewarded with her appointment as Head of News, for BBC Radio 5 Live.

2013: Message from: the Electoral Reform Society Scotland, to: Haley Valentine Executive Editor, Question Time. Date Jun 2013

The Electoral Reform Society in Scotland seeks to inform and improve Scotland’s democracy.

With that in mind, we have being undertaking an inquiry into what a good Scottish democracy looks like.

A major theme that has emerged from this year long, citizen led inquiry, is the importance of the media to instruct, publicize and inform the debate.

There has been support for a publicly funded media provider, but a strong sense that that body should be impartial and should seek to provide balanced and informed coverage of politics.

Clearly this is of particular concern in the run up to the 2014 referendum.

We were concerned therefore to see the line-up for the BBC Question Time programme to be held in Edinburgh this evening (Thursday 13th June).

Not only does the selection of panellists fail to represent the make-up of Scottish politics, but it also seems to be aimed more at pantomime than serious debate.

That this should be the case when the audience is, very pleasingly, to be made up of 16 and 17 year old’s in recognition of the extension of the franchise to that group for the referendum is worrying.

It seems to show a lack of respect for these young audience members – implying that they do not deserve serious political debate.

It also fails to allow them to hear from their elected representatives in this public debate forum which receives the widest of political attention.

Two of the parties which will be competing for their vote in 2014 are unrepresented and the Yes and Better Together campaigns are needlessly unequally represented.

Were this not bad enough, available spaces on the platform are taken instead by George Galloway MP and Nigel Farage M.E.P., two individuals and parties who are not represented in Scotland.

We welcome the decision to involve 16 and 17 year old’s in a public debate about the referendum, but the chosen panellists do those 16 and 17 year old’s a disservice as they will not be able to hear from the parties who represent them and who will be seeking their vote in 2014.

We would ask the BBC to urgently reconsider the panel, and at the very least to re-schedule a repeat of this edition of Question Time, but with a panel representative of Scottish politics that respects the BBC’s role to be impartial and equal.

Haley Valentine Jumps ship and transfers her employment to Mentorm

Mentorn Media Confirmed Hayley Valentine as its new director of current affairs.

She is joining Mentorn from BBC Scotland where she has been executive editor of Question Time.

Based in Glasgow, she will continue to oversee the programme for Mentorn as well as BBC One’s The Big Questions and continuing the growth of Mentorn’s current affairs output across all broadcasters.

Chief executive of Mentorn Media, John Willis, said: “Hayley is the perfect person to head up Mentorn’s current affairs programming.

She has extensive knowledge and experience and we are delighted she will be responsible for developing even more programming from our ever-expanding Glasgow office.”

Valentine said: “I’ve been on the receiving end of the impressive editorial work that Mentorn has produced and I look forward to maintaining that level of commitment to BBC programming as well as developing new and engaging formats across all broadcasters.”

2016/17: BBC Forced to make changes

Repeated demands over nearly 20 years, from viewers and politicians in Scotland, for news and current affairs programming to be produced in Scotland, for a Scottish audience fell on deaf ears in London.

But the Corporation was forced to respond to demands for change following widespread criticism of its referendum coverage.

It announced a new BBC Scotland channel which would broadcast from 7pm to midnight every day, as well as being available online and on iPlayer.

With a budget of around £30m it would feature acquired programmes and programmes from partners in the creative sector and from other countries and a selection of content sourced from other BBC services.

2018: Haley Valentine Returns to the BBC

Valentine, executive editor of the BBC’s, Question Time, the much criticized flagship political debate show, has been appointed editor of the “integrated news hour” a key part of the BBC Scotland channel.

The new bulletin includes national and international news and is broadcast between 9pm and 10pm on the new channel.

Not much of a change really, since she is already the director of current affairs at Mentorn Scotland, the company which makes the bloody programme for the BBC.

She said: “to be given the opportunity to launch a brand new programme at the heart of the proposed new BBC Scotland Channel is a real privilege and a rare treat.

We will be creating a really distinctive programme with a broad Scottish, UK-wide and international news agenda which has the priorities of a Scottish audience at the centre of everything we do.”

Gary Smith, head of news and current affairs at BBC Scotland, said: “Hayley has an outstanding track record and I’m delighted she is re-joining us.

I’m confident that under her leadership we will produce an exciting, distinctive, and brilliant new programme for our audiences.

She will also join my management team, and play a key role in the running of the department and the recruitment of the 80 new jobs which are being created through the BBC’s major investment in journalism in Scotland.” (and that is another story to be told)

2017/18: The New BBC Scotland Channel Takes Shape

80 new journalists were hired in the run-up to the launch of The Nine.

New appointments included James Cook, the BBC’s former North America correspondent, as chief news correspondent, innovation correspondent Laura Goodwin, David Farrell as entertainment reporter, A Europe correspondent, Jean MacKenzie, and three new political reporters – Rajdeep Sandhu, Lynsey Bews and David Lockhart.

2018: Hayley Valentine – A voice from cloud Cookoo Land

Referring to her work with Mentorm as Executive Editor of Question Time and the Scottish Independence Referendum, she said:

“I was involved in our referendum programming and I will defend it to accusations of bias until my dying day.

I’m not saying the BBC or any other broadcaster was perfect.

It was a tricky time, but we were all doing the best we could.

I don’t know a single journalist who brought any bias to work with them.

I’m aware that there are trust issues, but I think they are sometimes overplayed.

The BBC is still trusted, and BBC Scotland is still trusted, more than most news organisations.

I don’t think we are universally dismissed on a trust basis.

Across the piece, the public looks at lot more sceptically at journalism than it potentially did ten years ago.

To be trusted, you have to give people things that they want and have a need for, and stories that they wouldn’t otherwise be told.

A key aim of “The Nine” is to move political journalism away from institutions and translate politics into how it affects ordinary people.

I hope “The Nine” will restore faith in BBC Scotland by shunning top-down journalism, reducing the use of jargon and making people feel we are for them and of them.

Our remit is to serve the audience better, ask questions that people want asked, explore bits of Scottish life that aren’t currently being explored and reflect their lives back at that them.

That will get people to like and trust our programme.

It can do a lot to make people feel that we are for them and of them.”

What a load of Tosh!!!!  Her statement conflicts sharply with verified opinion polling carried out in the wake of the referendum which found that viewers in Scotland were more unhappy about the BBC’s output than any other part of the media.

Indeed one survey found that a third of audiences in Scotland believed that the BBC was biased against independence.

Sep 2020: New BBC Scotland Channel Is A Dud

launched in February 2019 average audience figures peaked around a satisfactory 60,000, but the honeymoon did not last long, figures had slumped to under 19,000 by the beginning of May 2019.

Over that same period 21 shows recorded an audience of zero. and in one day in May only 7200 viewers tuned in.

The flagship “nine news” also recorded zero viewers on a number of occasions.

Channel content has gone from bad to worse in 2020, viewing figures have plummeted and the channel will most likely close.

It just didn’t deliver what Scots want which is Scottish news and current affairs delivered on BBC1 at 6 and 9.

Valentine and her large expensively salaried team might just be returning to Mentorn very soon. A waste of licence fee payers hard earned money.

And the transfer of £80m from London to Scotland just didn’t happen. Just about all of the production work was awarded to Mentorn whose profits end up with their parent company registered offshore. I’ll write about them next time.

 

 

 

In my previous post I forgot to include the measures that need to be taken now taking forward the cause of Scottish independence. Corrected with this post.

 

 

 

 

The Discredited 1707 Act of Union

The 1707 “Act of Union” was signed off, against the wishes of Scots, by a corrupt landowning, political elite.

It was heralded by the English as a voluntary joining of the two nations which would become a single United Kingdom. All would be equal.  But that is not what transpired.

The English trap was sprung within weeks of the signing of the treaty when the Sovereign of the two states declared Westminster to be the seat of the newly formed United Kingdom.

England’s green and pleasant land would survive but Scotland would be consigned to the historical rubbish dump.

And historical evidence from that time to the present day supports many thousands of allegations that Westminster politicians have only ever acted in the best interests of England and against the needs of Scots.

 

 

Scots Are Ready for Change: Now::

Conditioned by the brutality of the first and each succeeding Westminster regime over 300+ years, the Scottish view of Westminster is far removed from that of the people of Newcastle or Leeds.

The majority of Scots perceive Westminster to be a parliament that has imposed 313+ years of murderous and dictatorial rule.

They see it as a political regime that has denied them their right to economic and political sovereignty. Westminster is not Scotland’s Parliament and never will be.

Scots, with Brexit forced upon them against their wishes, are now clear in their minds that Unionist politicians will continue to impose their will over Scots regardless of any economic, social or other hardship.

The Scottish nation is of little consequence to the political ambitions of the political elite of Westminster.

 

Modified Abstentionism

S.N.P. MP’s should no longer routinely participate in any of the political activities at Westminster, including withdrawing MP’s from all joint committees and no attendance in the House of Commons.

MP’s would, in all other respects, continue to actively represent their constituents fully engaging with other political Party’s and their representatives on matters affecting Scots.

This would ensure no financial detriment to S.N.P. MP’s. but would send a shot across the bows of the English dominated parliament and frighten the Labour and Liberal Party’s who would be consigned to the opposition benches forever.

 

 

 

 

 

Rule Britannia

Post Brexit the Unionist Party’s will continue to “sing” from the same constitutional hymn sheet defying the aspirations of many Scots who wish to withdraw from a “Treaty of Union” forced upon their forebears.

The Unionists are aware that England’s hold over Scotland is only political, in their hearts and minds Scots will never hand over their nationality to another State.

Mindful of the foregoing the Unionist Party’s issued a recent statement saying:

“The Scottish Parliament is a fact and it will remain in place, and it will be able to legislate and implement policies for the newly reduced devolved responsibilities. A Tory government will not interfere with that. It will continue to govern Scotland with respect. Scots will see that and that will consolidate our support in the medium to longer term”.

The key words to note in the statement are “newly reduced devolved responsibilities” since they expose the duplicity of Unionist politicians, of all political persuasion.

The Tory Government has been evolving strategies for the removal of devolved government from Scotland from May 2010. These are the enabling mechanisms.

 

 

 

The UK National Security Council

The UK (NSC) was established on 12 May 2010 by Prime Minister David Cameron. It is a Cabinet Committee tasked with overseeing all issues related to national security, intelligence coordination, and defense strategy.

At a stroke it increased the power of the Prime Minister, who chairs the Council, and brought senior Cabinet ministers into national security policy-making, giving them access to the highest levels of intelligence.

 

 

 

Secretary of the new UK National Security Council (NSC)

Management of the NSC is the responsibility of the UK Government, Cabinet Secretary who reports only to the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the propriety and effectiveness of Cabinet and NSC governance.

As head of the UK Civil Service, he leads over 400,000 civil servants in HM Government and the Devolved Administrations, over 90% of whom are involved in the delivery of public services to the citizens of the UK.

 

 

 

 

UK National Intelligence

Headquartered in Whitehall, City of Westminster, London, is the National Intelligence Machinery. There are three Intelligence and Security Agencies, SIS, GCHQ and MI5, with associated projects being tasked to the Defense Intelligence and the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre.

 

 

The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)

the (JIC), operates within the Cabinet Office and is responsible for assessments and intelligence briefings that look at both tactical and strategic issues of importance to national interests, primarily in the fields of security, defense and foreign affairs.

The JIC’s permanent members are senior officials from the Cabinet Office, including the JIC Chairman, the Chief of the Assessments Staff and the National Security Advisor, as well as officials from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defense, the Home Office, the Department for International Development, HM Treasury and the agency heads.

The JIC also feed their assessments into the NSC which is the main forum for the collective discussion of the government’s objectives for national security, in which a range of relevant departments participates.

It is charged with examining more specific national security areas and overseeing and coordinating all aspects of Britain’s security.

The Prime Minister is advised by the head of the NSC secretariat, the National Security Adviser, who is responsible for coordinating and delivering the government’s international security agenda.

 

 

The UK Stabilisation Unit

This is comprised of a 1,000-strong civilian force providing the UK Government with increased capacity for planning and rapid reaction including deployment of military reservists and police in a civil defense capacity.

The unit’s remit was expanded in 2015, to include crisis response and conflict prevention and control of it was transferred to the UK National Security Council. Located in Whitehall is funded (£1 billion annually) by the Conflict, Stabilization and Security Fund.

It is now a much enlarged and powerful cross-government team tasked with ensuring all departments of government have unfettered access to specialist support and resources when dealing with some of the trickiest policy challenges.

 

 

 

Scotland’s Overlord – Andrew Dunlop

The quiet man of UK politics. He has been closely associated with the Conservative Party for most of his adult life. He was a special adviser to the Defense Secretary (1986–88) and a member of Margaret Thatcher’s Policy Unit (1988–1990).

The demise of Thatcher brought his budding career to a halt and he moved away from active politics to found and develop his own strategic communications consultancy business. Over 20 years later he sold the business, for a very tidy sum of money, to the Brussels-based Interel Group (lobbyists).

The return to power of the Tory Party in 2010 sparked his interest in politics once again and he linked up with his friend and former colleague David Cameron, in his former role of special advisor, with specific responsibility as the principal adviser on Scotland and devolution.

He was elevated to the House of Lords in 2015 allowing Cameron to take him into government, where he served as a minister in the UK Government as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland between 2015 and 2017.

He is a member of the UK Constitution Committee and an Expert Member of the UK Civilian Stabilization Group and retaining close contact with Scottish affairs he is currently a Board member of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

An avid supporter of Boris Johnson he is reputed to be the brains behind the Tory Government policies for Scotland.

In this respect, he revealed his thinking in his speech, in the Lords, during a debate on the “possible effects of Brexit on the stability of the Union of the parts of the United Kingdom”.

He said:

“Attention should be paid to the machinery of intergovernmental relations, which needs to be strengthened.”

“We also need to look at the cross-UK synergies, weakened since devolution, which need to be reinvigorated.”

“We need to pursue a decentralized, pan-UK strategy for re-balancing the economy, driven by city regions across the country.”

“This means moving away from seeing everything through a four-nation prism.”

“Many of the problems confronting Glasgow, for example, are similar to those of Manchester or Birmingham. They provide embryonic structures which can be built upon.”

“There are two years until the next Holyrood elections. Strengthening our union must be an urgent priority whatever our post-Brexit future.”

 

 

A long read but a very enlightening one

Andrew Dunlop -The Murky World Of The Lobbyist’s – This Takes A Bit Of Reading – But All the Inter Personal Links Are Included

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2014 Independence Referendum – Promises Made But Not Kept

“Better Together”: “Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.” “What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting “Yes.”

Ruth Davidson: “I think it is disingenuous of the Nationalists to say that “No” means out and “Yes” means in, when actually the opposite is true, “No” means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

David Cameron, Unionist Party Leaders & Ruth Davidson: “Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how Scotland is governed.”

The Purgatory Promise: Unionist Party Leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament, but the award was predicated by a “No” vote on 18 September 2014. Which they got.

The legislation introduced retained 70% of Scottish taxes and 85% of Scottish welfare spending in the hands of the Westminster government.

The cross-party Devolution (Further Powers) Committee said: “The Scotland Bill falls short in critical areas.”

A “YouGov” poll found that only 9 per cent of Scots believed that the promise of “extensive new powers” had been delivered.

The passage through Westminster of the 2015 Scotland Bill was torturous. 56 Scottish MP’s, representing a majority of Scots, tabled in excess of 100 suggested amendments to the Scottish Bill. Mundell, then Scottish Secretary of State, rejected every proposal. The entire process was a joke.

 

 

 

Shipbuilding

Before the referendum, the “No” campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a “Yes” vote.

Propaganda included the wide distribution of a leaflet saying “Separation Shuts Shipyards” promising that only a “No” vote would ensure Govan and Scotstoun would get the order for thirteen Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

In November 2015, the media reported that the programme would be slashed because funding needed to be diverted from ship building to fund replacement of the UK aged and obsolete nuclear submarine fleet and trident weaponry.

Later that month the UK government announced that the number of frigates to be built was reduced from thirteen to eight. From that time the project has been repeatedly delayed and the number of ships to be built further reduced. 800 clydeside workers were subsequently made redundant.

 

 

 

Energy

David Cameron heavily promoted a referendum “No” vote on the basis that: “when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.

Before the referendum Edward Davey the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs -generating energy and generating jobs”.

In June 2015 the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned.

The report also advised that Siemens, a German “clean energy” company had announced it would not invest in any further renewable projects in the UK until the UK Government had decided whether energy generation would be through investment in nuclear or wind and hydro. Scotland got hammered yet again!!!

 

HMRC Employment

Before the referendum it was claimed that H.M,R.C. delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland and that this would be at risk by a “Yes” vote.

In 2015 the UK Government announced the closure of many H.M.R.C. offices – 2,000 Scottish jobs went.

 

 

The Civil Service in Scotland

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that only the UK Government protected civil service jobs in Scotland. But information published in “SPICe” exposed the lie.

Between 2011 and 2015, there was a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland, 17.5% than in any other UK nation. The rate in England was 12.4%, Wales 9.3% and Northern Ireland 16.1%.

 

 

 

Carbon capture

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as the programme to support the commercialization of carbon capture and storage.”

The commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.

But after deciding the future would be nuclear energy the Westminster Government abruptly cancelled the proposed investment.

Peterhead and Longannet, the front runners lost out. Longannet was shut down. Canada didn’t hang about and developed the technology.

 

 

 

Social security

Before the referendum, “Better Together” suggested that independence would be a threat to the welfare state saying: “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland ” with a “No” vote.

Less than a year later the UK Government Chancellor announced £12bn cuts in welfare and benefits.

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”.

The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

 

 

EVEL

In the weeks before the Referendum Scots were “love bombed” by t.v. personalities, pop music performers, politicians and heads of state of other countries with the heart tugging message that Scots were an integral and equal part of the UK “family of nations” and tearful pleas of “please don’t go, we love you.”

Eight hours after after the referendum result was published Cameron announced the Unionist Party’s answer to the “West Lothian” question.

The Westminster Unionist led Government would introduce English votes for English Laws (EVEL) forming two tiers of parliamentarians in the House of Commons.

The ill-judged changes created a myriad of potential political strife situations where Scottish M.P’s would not be able to properly consider or vote on legislation relevant to Scotland such as the. Barnett formula or Barnett consequential’s since this would be classified English only.

 

 

 

Barnett Formula

The Vow, which was signed up to by each of the three main parties at Westminster clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory M.E.P. David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” raising the spectre of a Tory government at Westminster initiating a systematic and cynical erosion of Scotland’s finances.

One time Tory leadership candidate Michael Gove, yet again raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

 

 

 

 

 

The 2016 Presidential Election

The Democratic Party, led by Hilary Clinton, its candidate for office, conducted a no holds barred political campaign, including the wide use of every illegal and questionable apparatus of the “Deep State” and vicious media attacks on Trump and his family.

But American voters were fed up to the back teeth with the Democratic Party, who under President “look at me” Obama had grossly mismanaged the economy and  allowed Hilary Clinton, free reign over the formulation and implementation of a number of disastrous military expansionist attacks on foreign countries forcing many formerly friendly nations to criticize and in some cases, downgrade inter-governmental relationships with the US.

 

 

 

Donald Trump was declared winner of the Presidential Election on 3 November 2016.

Protocol established over many years dictates the conduct of inter-personal and State business matters between the President and President Elect and their supporting teams in the “handover” period prior to the formal inauguration of the new President.

Accepted practice requires the incumbent President to consult with the President Elect on matters of foreign policy and on internal affairs with a political dimension.

Obama ignored all protocols and except for a brief photo opportunity, refused to meet with President Elect Trump, in the 78 days from his win and his inauguration on 17 January 2017.

The Trump team was provided in the honeymoon period, with a threadbare briefing greatly disadvantaging his administration in its early months and the Anti-Trump media delivered, politically orchestrated, ill informed, unforgiving personal attacks on President Trump, his family and administration throughout his Presidency.

 

 

 

Outgoing President Obama acts against Russia

At the end of December 2016, Obama, (without consulting with President-Elect Trump) hit out at Russia accusing Putin of interfering in the 2016 Presidential election’

He then issued an “Executive Order” ejecting 35 Russian diplomats/businessmen and their families, from the United States and imposed sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services.

Then acting on information contained in a (now discredited) intelligence report, produced by an ex-employee of the British Secret Services he penalized the 4 top officers of one of those services, the powerful military intelligence unit known as the G.R.U.

The actions instructed by Obama appeared to be intended to box in President-elect Trump, who would need to decide whether to lift the sanctions on Russian intelligence agencies when he took office later in the month.

 

 

President-Elect Trump’s Reaction

Trump responded to the news of the Russian sanctions by reiterating his call to “move on.” But undertook to meet with the US intelligence officials, who had concluded that Russian hacking was an attempt to tip the election towards Trump.

But, in a statement from his holiday location in Hawaii, Obama had a less than subtle dig at the President-Elect, stating:

“All Americans should be alarmed by Russia’s actions, I acted after repeated private and public warnings to the Russian government, and the measures are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.”

 

 

 

The Russian Reaction

Russia criticized the sanctions and issued a statement saying:

“Such steps by an administration that will end in under three weeks is clearly aimed at further harming Russian-American ties, which are already at a low point as it is, and compromising the foreign policy plans of the incoming administration of the president-elect.”

 

 

 

President Trump Under Investigation

Not content with severely hamstringing foreign policy and other important business of the Trump administration, ex- President Obama and the “Clinton Foundation” continued with their campaign to get the result of the 2016 Presidential Election overturned and Clinton elected to office by default.

Before he left office Obama tasked the FBI and other agencies to investigate President-Elect Trump with the purpose of digging the dirt, no matter any lack in the efficacy of the truth.

The activities of these agencies lasted nearly 3 years and destroyed a number of political careers but eventually concluded there had been no collusion between the Russian’s and President Trump or any of his administration.

And yet the American “Deep State” and others intent on discrediting President Trump are still attacking him and his family. But he still intends to remain in office given the support of the American voter. A weaker man would walk away.

 

 

 

Why is Trump Hanging Onto Office?

The 2020 Presidential Election will be held in just under 3 weeks and Joe Biden (ex- Vice President of the US) is the front runner, as was Hilary Clinton in 2016.

It appears President Trump is heading for defeat and a humiliating end to his short political career.

But the Democratic Party/Biden campaign might be forced to publicly address damming allegations of tax evasion, criminal conduct and abuse of the offices of State dating back a number of years.

 

 

 

The Mucky Clinton’s

Respected Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel was not surprised that Hillary Clinton appeared to be deeply involved in how the Trump-Russia investigation started. According to him:

“The roots of the Clinton corruption run deep and start in Arkansas where Bill Clinton served as a governor and attorney general.

When the Clinton’s moved to the White House, the scale of their corrupt and suspicious activities expanded to the national and international stages, from 1997 onward, a key instrument in swapping cash for influence has been the network of Clinton “charities” that has never been properly regulated anywhere.

If an understanding is needed to establish why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were so determined to impede or topple President Trump, investigators must go back into history comparing sums that donors claim they sent towards the Clinton Foundation, with the Foundation’s public filings, submitted many places, under penalties of perjury.

The Clinton Foundation public record, evident in plain sight includes multiple confessions of making false statements under oath.

May the long overdue indictments, prosecutions, convictions, fines and incarcerations soon begin”.

 

 

 

Obamagate

In May 2020 President Trump accused Ex-President Obama of carrying out “the biggest political crime in American history” addressing it as “Obamagate”.

His allegation was a response to Obama’s widely “leaked” conference call in which the ex-president lambasted the Department of Justice’s decision to drop charges against ex-National Security Adviser  General Michael Flynn.

Charles Ortel, said:

“In accusing Obama of “the biggest crime” President Trump may have alluded to either treason or sedition or both, described in 18 US Code Chapter 115.

With many months behind them, and ample resources, investigating officers are likely to have found solid evidence that Barack Obama violated his oath of office in numerous ways, and subsequently attempted to overturn the results of the 2016 election”.

Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell, commenting on her conjecture that Obama was in on the plot to “frame” Michel Flynn said:

“The whole thing was orchestrated and set up by James Clapper, (former Director of National Intelligence) and John Brennan, (Former CIA Director) in the Oval Office, with President Obama.

I believe that General Flynn, appointed by Obama, grew to protest many reckless foreign policies, having access to damaging classified information that most of us have not seen and may never see.

Flynn’s refusal to stand down after being fired in 2014, and his stubbornness infuriated Obama, suggesting that Flynn may hold secrets that Obama cannot have revealed. In short, Barack Obama is scared because he should be scared”.

 

 

 

The Unprecedented Unmasking of General Flynn and Obama’s Role in the Conspiracy

Distorting the truth of General Flynn’s alleged “Crime of perjury” the former president stated:

“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free”.

But he was was taken to task by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board for making a grave mistake. It wrote:

“Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath in a legal proceeding. He pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on 24 January 2017 that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues”.

 

 

 

The Trump Administration is Fighting back

Undeterred by many obstacles placed in their way the Trump administration appears to be determined to get to the bottom of the outgoing Obama administration’s role in targeting Trump campaign aides.

Richard Grenell, acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) recently declassified a list of former Obama administration officials involved in the “unmasking” of General Flynn in his talks with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. It is believed to be “much larger than anything involving General Flynn”.

Ortel explained:

​”Unmasking (exposing the names of Americans associated with targets of counter-intelligence investigations) is a serious potential offence, especially when the investigation in question is launched on spurious pretenses.

What we are likely soon to find is that many Obama co-conspirators obstructed investigations that were opened or should have been opened, and then rigged or attempted to rig elections inside and outside the United States.

I wrote to Richard Grenell, Director of the DNI requesting the names of those involved in General Flynn’s unmasking.

Today I received the shocking reply that Joe Biden and many others knew!

What did President Obama know? I am inviting DNI Director Richard Grenell to testify next week in the Senate”.

 

 

 

The Republican Party and the Senate

Richard Grenell and AG Barr attended a meeting of a Senate Committee after which it expressed gratitude to both of them for their ongoing efforts to bring transparency to the Russian investigation.

A Committee member requested even more materials to be declassified, including:

The transcript of the conversation between General Flynn and the Russian Ambassador.

The Susan Rice memo about the 5 January 2017 meeting between President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy AG Yates on the Russian investigation.

The mysteriously missing original transcript of the General Flynn-FBI interview at the White House.

Ortel summarized events to date, saying:

“Fearing consequences of a Trump victory, Obamagate co-conspirators manufactured hoaxes to turn eyes away from their own massive crimes”.

Soon we may learn how many fair critics of Obama and of unregulated globalism were illegally targeted and harmed by the Obama presidency.

Although the mainstream left-leaning media have denounced “Obamagate” as Trump’s favourite distraction tactics, it seems that very soon many people, especially Barack Obama and the Clintons, will find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

The revelations are likely to have a domino effect and may even affect major allied nations including Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia”, all of whom were had some role in the “Spygate” scandal.

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Gethins SNP  

Dec 2018: In the course of a near 5 year parliamentary career at Westminster he displayed little interest in the politics of the Russia or the many unsubstantiated charges of its leaders conducting “disinformation” campaigns against the United Kingdom.

Indeed the only time he mentioned the subject was in the course of an emergency debate in the Commons, on the misconduct of the UK Government and NATO funded charity “Integrity Initiative”.

Which he apparently was unaware operated out of a disused factory in his constituency.

 

 

 

The debate: opening statement from the Tory Minister of State:

“The “Institute for Statecraft” is an independent UK-based charity whose work seeks to improve governance and enhance national security.

It runs a project called the “integrity initiative”, which is working to counter disinformation overseas by bringing together groups of experts to analyse and discuss the problem posed by Russian disinformation.

The Government are funding this initiative with nearly £2 million this financial year.

That funding covers its activity outside the UK and it does not fund any activity within the UK; nor does it fund the management of the “integrity initiative’s” social media account.

Recent reports that Foreign Office funding has been used to support party political activity in the UK are therefore wholly untrue.” (Hansard)

But the debate had been called for by the Labour Party in response to the misuse of the organisation’s Twitter account to publish a number of posts hostile to Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party, in apparent breach of the foregoing statement of the rules relating to state funding and charity activity.

This article provides expanation:  https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/integrity-initiative-just-how-well-connected-are-gateside-three

 

 

 

and Gethins contribution:

“I wish to put on record that a number of Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) funded non-governmental organisations do extraordinary work in the most difficult circumstances.

Before I came to this place, I worked in the south Caucasus and the western Balkans, where many of those organisations do that extraordinary work.

They deserve our support for doing that but, more than anything else, they need to know that the Foreign Office has full openness and transparency.

Our most powerful tool against any Russian misinformation is respect for the rule of law, the democratic process and, critically, transparency; we owe that to those working in these organisations.

The Minister will be well aware of many people who work in very difficult circumstances and find themselves at the hard edge of Russian disinformation campaigns. (Hansard)

 

 

 

April 2019: The Tory Government ramps up its anti-Putin/Russia campaigning and Gethins asked a pointless and clearly planted written question. Brownie points?

Gethins:

What steps is the Minister taking with his overseas counterparts to tackle the distribution of disinformation in (a) Ukraine, (b) Belarus and (c) the Baltic States?

Tory Minister of State:

​We have a regular dialogue with international partners on the challenge posed by hostile state disinformation, including to align donor support in this field.

The Foreign Secretary discussed disinformation at the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 21 January in the context of the European Commission’s ambitious Action Plan Against Disinformation.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s own dedicated Counter Disinformation and Media Development Programme aims to protect national security by countering disinformation directed at the UK and its Allies from Russia.

It funds projects in a number of different countries that seek to enhance independent media, support civil society organisations that expose disinformation and share good practice with partner governments.

Media plurality, institutional resilience and public awareness provide strong defenses against disinformation, whatever the source, and sit at the heart of our efforts.

In particular, we are supporting a new Open Information Partnership of European Non-Governmental Organisations, charities, academics, think-tanks and journalists which are working to respond to manipulated information in the news, social media and across the public space.

Make sense of that!!!

 

 

 

April 2019: Only days later the American justice system revealed that many of the programmes of disinformation worldwide are plotted and delivered by the British Secret Services.

Following 22 months of torturous investigation US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, chairman of a committee comprised mainly of Democrats hand picked by himself, concluded that Russia had not interfered in the US election.

The investigation did reveal however that the British Secret Services had been actively involved, plotting together with the FBI and other parties, funded by “dark money” and had implemented a programme of spurious disinformation in support of Hillary Clinton.

But the remit of Muller’s investigation was restricted to claims against Russia and the final report made no mention of the involvement of MI6 and its associates.

 

 

 

British Secret Services interference in the US Presidential Election

Q: Why was the Service tasked to assist Clinton?

A: Because Clinton supported Britain’s continued membership of the EC. But Trump wanted it out so that he could extend the influence of the US bringing back the “old alliance” heavily promoted in the Reagan-Thatcher era.

Where’s the evidence?

Allegations of British Secret Service and other agencies were referred to the US Justice Department for further investigation. Of special interest is the so called “Steele Dossier” an investigation commissioned at the request (allegedly) of the Democratic Party and/or President Obama.

The report is a collection of claims supposedly proving the existence of a conspiracy between Trump’s team and the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favour, and which reportedly served to justify the wiretapping by the FBI of Trump’s campaign managers.

The company contracted to complete the work was “Orbis”, a British company since revealed to be a front for the MI6 organization.

So, in effect the British government organized a dirty campaign to discredit Trump. Wholly unjustified, illegal interference in another country’s elections.

And the Steele Report?

In July 2020 the US Senate Judiciary Committee released newly declassified documents on the FBI’s interview with ex-UK intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s “primary sub-source” claiming that the Steele dossier about the alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump was “unsubstantiated and unreliable”.

 

 

 

In summary:

It revealed that “Orbis” tasked (former) MI6 agent Christopher Steele, to gather evidence confirming collusion between Trump’s team and the Russians and to compile a dossier for submission to the FBI.

Steele was not permitted to enter Russia due to his previous activities as an MI6 agent and his contacts within Russia had long since departed the scene so his reliance on gossip and innuendo was absolute.

Starved of current intelligence, Steele established contact with former “Brooking Institution” * researcher Igor Danchenko, a Russian-trained lawyer who had earned degrees at the University of Louisville and Georgetown University.

Danchenko’s experience of Russian politics was limited to identifying risks associated with doing business with Russian companies.

He had no history of working with Russian intelligence operatives or bringing to light their covert activities.

But he became the main source of information to Steele. A damming revelation adding confirmation to the lack of credibility of the “Steele dossier.

* A left wing think tank firmly in the pocket of President Obama and the Democratic Party

 

 

And the plot thickens

The New York Times reported that Danchenko had agreed to collaborate with the FBI in 1997 on the condition that the agency would keep his identity secret so he could protect himself.

So, in 2017 the FBI were fully aware that the content of the “Steele dossier” was “unsubstantiated and unreliable” and that the information Danchenko had given to Steele was “second and third-hand information and rumours at best”.

Yet the FBI still permitted the the publication of the “Steele dossier” alleging that Russian intelligence had compromising information on the US president and that Moscow and POTUS had “extensive” secret back-channels, only a week before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017.

The content of the “dossier” became part of the Democratic Party’s efforts to tarnish Trump’s political image accusing him of colluding with Russia. A charge which he has repeatedly rejected as a “witch hunt”.

In April 2019, Robert Muller’s 22 month investigation, led by a Democratic Party majority committee confirmed the truth of Trump’s many denials of wrongdoing.

 

 

Summary

Gethins lost his North East Fife seat at Westminster in the 2019 General Election, but he recently announced his return to politics in next years Scottish elections.

If successful I expect him to concentrate on the day job of campaigning for Scotland’s self determination.

But the irony of the political views of himself and others of the same ilk, in the SNP was expressed in their contributions to foreign affairs debates and in their media statements when they were at Westminster when they failed to accept and support the people of Donetsk and Crimea who had held self determination referendums and decided that they wished to return to Russia.

Stewart McDonald MP for Glasgow South, the SNP spokesperson for Defense and a very active Member of the British Foreign Affairs Committee, is also the proud recipient of the “Third Class of Order of Merit of the Ukraine”, in recognition of his work promoting relations between Scotland and Ukraine.

But informed observers, including Putin, are well aware that the Western Ukraine population is almost exclusively Germanic and it was only roped into the USSR in 1945, because of Churchill’s eagerness to strike a deal with Stalin. Its right to independence is respected by Russia.

But the Ukraine is not a free country. It is politically controlled by the corrupt financial backing of arch-capitalist George Soros, who invited the “West” to provide support and assistance to the country in its time of need. Asset stripping with a vengeance.

And Stewart McDonald MP apparently speaks for the SNP in his attacks on Russia. What the hell is that all about. It most definitely is not the reason voters elected him to office. He should back off from the committee and get on with the day job of fighting for independence for Scotland.

 

The SNP and the John Smith Trust are in cahoots working to blindside Scots over independence?

 

 

 

10 Sep 2020: Reported in today’s “National” – Councillors in Shetland have passed a motion to explore options for “achieving political and financial self-determination”.

Leader of the council Steven Coutts proposed the motion, which was carried yesterday by 18 to 2 votes. The motion states there is concern that centralised decision-making “is seriously threatening the prosperity, and sustainability, of Shetland as a community”.

Unionist commentators and politicians leapt onto news of the motion, with Highlands and Islands Tory MSP Jamie Halcro Johnston saying it was “no wonder islanders have run out patience” with Holyrood.

He commented: “I believe it’s right that both of our governments work with the islands to help meet the aspirations and unique needs of their people. However, it is clear that the current arrangements, where so much power is centralised in Edinburgh and the needs of Shetland often ignored, is some distance from where Shetlanders want to be.”

Ahead of the 2014 independence referendum, there were reports the islands could become self-governing like the Isle of Man if the rest of Scotland voted Yes while they backed staying in the Union.

LibDem MP Alistair Carmichael said in that situation a “conversation about Shetland’s position and the options that might be open to it” could start.

 

Comment:

The report might be dismissed as being not particularly interesting but taken with recent news about the intention of the UK Government it is entirely relevant in today’s politics in Scotland and possibly signals a start of a process bringing about the reduction of the devolved powers of the Scottish Government. And there is good reason to be concerned. I reviewed and compiled (see below) a record of political events, from 2014 to date, pertaining to the governance of the isles.

 

 

 

The Three Islands Strategy

In the early months of the 2014 independence referendum campaign as the balance of probability switched from “no” to “yes” the Lib/Dems were forced to step away from their leading role in the mainland campaign by the other two Unionist Party’s.

The Lib/Dems retained their leadership role campaigning for a “no” vote in the Scottish Isles and formed three Unionist supporting campaign groups. “Our Islands Our Future”, “For Argyll” and “Wir Shetland”.

Tavish Scott, one-time leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland and then MSP for Orkney and Shetland, called on the islands to loosen their ties with Scotland. Saying he was in favour of the islands forming a crown dependency in their own right, with a similar status to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

The Unionist Party’s echoed and added support to Scott’s views and dropped a spoiler into the mix offering specific guarantees to the Islanders should they vote “no”.

 

 

 

The New Deal for the Isles

the legislation would be put in place ensuring the account of island priorities. The UK Government in Scotland would appoint an islands representative dedicated to supporting the isles together with an oil and gas islands forum which would assist decision-making in the sector.

Renewable energy transmission links would be built linking the Isles to the mainland and island-specific challenges for transport, postal services, digital connectivity and fuel poverty would receive closer consideration, and measures would be taken to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Crown Estate, which manages Scotland’s seas and foreshore.

Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael said the proposals would “strengthen the voice of our islands at the heart of the UK government”. Adding: “It will mean their unique needs are considered across all UK government activity and legislation, tailoring our approach to ensure islands issues continue to get the attention they require. That is good news for the councils of the isles and will improve the economy, connectivity and lives of our people on our islands. It shows we are not only listening but acting – and in doing so we are strengthening the UK.”

 

 

 

The Future Governance of the Scottish Isles

Three weeks before the referendum the Unionists published their “Framework for the Islands” with the claim that it would embed the voice of the island at the heart of the UK Government reflecting the priorities of their communities more closely in decision making and policy.

It would provide the basis for joint working between the UK Government and Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles on a range of priorities and included a 10 point plan for the islands:

* Islands proofing: Including new arrangements to scrutinise UK Government policy and legislation to ensure they take account of islands priorities.

* Economic benefits: A new Islands Working Group supported by a dedicated position in the UK Government offices in Edinburgh with its agenda set by the islands, covering priorities like Islands Innovation Zones, construction costs and community benefit.

* A new Oil and Gas Islands forum: The UK Government will commit to working with the Islands Councils assisting strategic decision-making on future priorities for the oil and gas industry. This will allow the councils to work more closely with the UK Government and industry.

* Renewable energy: There will be a firm UK Government commitment to the “Renewable Energy Delivery Forum”, focussed on getting transmission links to the islands. The UK Government also shared the 3 Islands Councils’ ambitions for the deployment of renewable energy and for research and development activity, and we will ensure that obstacles to securing the necessary infrastructure are tackled effectively.

* The framework recognised the island groups faced particular challenges in the areas of transport, postal services, digital connectivity and fuel poverty. The UK Government will work with the councils on these areas.

* Transport: This includes seeking an extension to the Air Discount Scheme and a commitment to consider fiscal measures to support transport connectivity with the island groups.

* Postal services: The UK Government will work with retailers, consumer groups and enforcers to ensure parcel delivery charges to remote regions are fair and transparent, in line with the UK statement of principles for parcel deliveries.

* Connectivity: Digital connectivity is of great importance to local inhabitants and businesses on the islands and the UK Government will fund the “Mobile Infrastructure Project”, working to provide improved mobile coverage throughout the isles, aiming to address market failures in these areas. There will be a guarantee of parity in the minimum service level between the UK mainland and islands areas achieved by the delivery of superfast broadband to all premises in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles.

* Crown Estate: measures will be taken to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Crown Estate.

* There will be increased island representation on UK government bodies and a dedicated point of contact to offer advice and guidance to the islands.

Selling his vision of the future to the islanders, Carmichael said:

“Today’s announcement is a landmark for the relationship between the UK Government and OUR island communities in Scotland. It builds on a great deal of good work in the past and will strengthen the voice of our islands at the heart of the UK government. It will mean their unique needs are considered across all UK Government activity and legislation, tailoring our approach to ensure islands issues continue to get the attention they require. That is good news for the councils and for the whole of the UK and will improve the economy, connectivity and lives of people on our islands. It shows we are not only listening but acting and in doing so we are strengthening the Isles and their place in the UK. This is the start of the next part of our journey together, giving us a strong framework which will be reviewed and built on further in the future.

 

 

 

The Smith Commission

The Leaders of Scotland’s three Islands Councils have welcomed the findings of the Smith Commission as a major landmark for the “Our Islands Our Future” campaign. The Commission was set up following the Referendum. Its recommendations formed the basis of legislation on more powers for Scotland and the 3 Isles. In his report, Lord Smith said:

“There is a strong desire to see the principle of devolution extended further, with the transfer of powers from Holyrood to local communities. The Scottish Government should work with the UK Parliament, civic Scotland and local authorities to set out ways in which local areas can benefit from the powers of the Scottish Parliament.”

A key aspiration of “Our Islands Our Future” is for the three Islands Councils to take over the Crown Estate’s current responsibility for the foreshore and seabed around their islands. And responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets in Scotland – including the seabed and foreshore – should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament.

“Following this transfer, responsibility for the management of those assets will be further devolved to local authority areas such as Orkney, Shetland, Na h-Eilean Siar.”

 

 

 

After the Referendum

Steeled the “No” vote majority and backed by the Unionist Government in Westminster the Scottish Secretary (Mundell) saw no reason to maintain a low key approach to implementation of his plans for the future governance of the isles and any masking of his activities was abandoned in the knowledge that the Westminster government had taken charge of the agenda to the exclusion of the Scottish Government.

Mundell attended a meeting with the “Islands Working Group” attended by each of the islands leaders and other persons closely involved in the campaign taking forward the commitments detailed in the Islands Framework and confirmed the UK Government’s unqualified commitment to the major decentralisation in decision making across Scotland. He said:

“I confirm my on-going commitment to the Islands framework, placing power in the hands of communities making sure opportunity and prosperity reach every part of the United Kingdom. It shows how the Western Isles coming together with Orkney and Shetland has created an example for other parts of Scotland to follow. I’m keen for the Islands Councils to play a full part in the on-going debate on how the substantial powers in the Scotland Bill are used to directly benefit island communities. Over the past few years there has been a process of centralisation from the Scottish Government but taking forward legislation such as the devolution of management over the Crown Estate, this is an imbalance that will be redressed.”

Commenting, Isles MP Angus MacNeil claimed that in endorsing more power to island communities, Mundell had performed a remarkable’ u-turn, saying:

“Hopefully Mr Mundell has become a belated convert to decentralisation. If he had listened when I put this forward at the last Scotland Bill in 2011 we would be a lot further forward. He opposed moves for decentralisation and resisted a push to devolve the Crown Estate to Scotland. His position on this issue has now changed due to the strength Scotland has with the SNP making Tory Westminster listen a little more. I hope Mundell will see for himself during his visit to the islands what real benefits could come from more decentralisation of powers from London and that he will, from now on, be supporting me in fighting to ensure the islands voice is heard at Westminster.”

 

 

 

Mundell and Double Devolution

Mundell called for a debate on what new powers Scottish local government should be given by Holyrood in order to take greater control over their own affairs, saying:

“The issue of devolution to local communities is now an urgent one for Scotland. There is a revolution going on in local government across the rest of the United Kingdom, with local areas regaining power and responsibility at an unprecedented rate. Scotland cannot afford to be left behind as the rest of the UK revolutionises how it governs itself, giving towns, cities and counties more of the autonomy which our international competitors enjoy. It’s time we had a proper debate about devolution within Scotland. Councils need to make their voices heard on what powers and responsibilities they want to have to shape their futures. Devolution is not worthy of the name if it stops at the gates of Holyrood. It has been argued by some that the UK Government should legislate to devolve these and other things directly to Scotland’s local authorities: so-called ‘double devolution’. That is the right intention, but the wrong approach. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are responsible for local government in Scotland and it is their responsibility to drive that devolution onwards.”

Mundell’s views not supported by this UK Government. who intend to introduce Double Devolution with a vengeance.

 

 

 

 

The United Kingdom National Security Council

Created by the Tory Government on 12 May 2010, the (NSC) of the United Kingdom is an inner Cabinet Committee gifted with the authority to oversee all issues relating to national security, intelligence coordination, and defence strategy.

The Secretary to the National Security Council (NSC) and the Cabinet Office is the Government’s most senior adviser on strategy, policy and implementation and is responsible only to the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the propriety and effectiveness of government. As head of the UK Civil Service the secretary also leads over 400,000 civil servants in the UK Government and in the Devolved Administrations.

At a stroke the new systems of government increased the powers of the Prime Minister, who chairs the Council, and brought senior Cabinet ministers into national security policymaking, giving them access to the highest levels of intelligence.

From 1 April 2015, the council widened its authority through the creation of a Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, (CSSF) financed annually with a £1m annual budget.

 

 

 

 

UK National Intelligence

Headquartered in Whitehall in the City of Westminster the intelligence agencies are at the heart of the national intelligence machinery. There are three Intelligence and Security Agencies, SIS, GCHQ and MI5 at its heart, with important work also carried out by Defence Intelligence and the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre.

 

 

 

 

The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)

The (JIC), operates within the Cabinet Office and is responsible for assessments and intelligence briefings that look at both tactical and strategic issues of importance to national interests, primarily in the fields of security, defence and foreign affairs.

The JIC’s permanent members are senior officials from the Cabinet Office, including the JIC Chairman, the Chief of the Assessments Staff and the National Security Advisor, as well as officials from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Department for International Development, HM Treasury and the agency heads.

The JIC also feeds their assessments into the NSC which is the main forum for the collective discussion of the government’s objectives for national security, in which a range of relevant departments participates.

It is charged with examining more specific national security areas and overseeing and coordinating all aspects of Britain’s security.

The Prime Minister is advised by the head of the NSC secretariat, the National Security Adviser, who is responsible for coordinating and delivering the government’s security agenda.

 

 

 

The United Kingdom Stabilisation Unit

The Unit has at its disposal a 1,000-strong civilian force remitted to ensure greatly enhanced capacity for planning and rapid reaction including the deployment of military reservists in a civilian capacity and police deployment. The unit’s responsibilities were expanded in 2015, (post the Scottish Referendum) to include crisis response, conflict prevention and control.

Control of the unit was transferred to the (NSC) in 2016 and its management team, located in Whitehall is allocated £1bn annually. It is now a much enlarged and more powerful cross-government team tasked with ensuring all departments of government have unfettered access to specialist support and resources when dealing with some of the trickiest policy challenges.

 

Dunlop on the left of picture

 

Tory Peer – Sir Andrew Dunlop

Never elected, yet a persistent thorn in the side of Scots for the 40 years he has been associated with the Conservative Party he was a special adviser to the Defence Secretary (1986–88) then a member of Thatcher’s Policy Unit (remember the Poll Tax) between (1988–1990).

The demise of Thatcher brought his budding career to a halt and he moved away from active politics to found and develop his own strategic communications consultancy business. Over 20 years later he sold the business, for a very tidy sum of money, to the Brussels-based Interel Group (lobbyists).

The return to power of the Tory Party in 2010 sparked his interest in politics once again and he linked up with his friend and former colleague David Cameron, taking on his former role of special advisor, (2012 to 2015), with specific responsibility as the principal adviser on Scotland and devolution.

He was elevated to the House of Lords in 2015 allowing Cameron to take him into his government where he served as an unelected minister in the UK Government as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, 2015-2017.

In the Lords, he is a member of the UK Constitution Committee and an expert member of the UK Civilian Stabilisation Group. Retaining close involvement with Scottish affairs he is currently a Board member of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

An avowed supporter of Boris Johnson he is reputed to be formulating and implementing Tory government policies for Scotland and in this respect, he revealed his thinking on the future of Scotland, in a speech he made in the course of a debate on the “possible effects of Brexit on the stability of the Union of the parts of the United Kingdom”. He said:

“Attention should be paid to the machinery of intergovernmental relations, which needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at the cross-UK synergies, weakened since devolution, which need to be reinvigorated.

We need to pursue a decentralised, pan-UK strategy for rebalancing the economy, driven by city regions across the country. This means moving away from seeing everything through a four-nation prism.

Many of the problems confronting Glasgow, for example, are similar to those of Manchester or Birmingham. They provide embryonic structures which can be built upon. There are two years until the next Holyrood elections. Strengthening our union must be an urgent priority whatever our post-Brexit future.”

Check this chappie out a very long but enlightening read:

Andrew Dunlop -The Murky World Of The Lobbyist’s – This Takes A Bit Of Reading – But All the Inter Personal Links Are Included

 

 

 

Summary

This then is the direction Boris Johnson is headed. So far as Scotland is concerned there will be no further independence referendums and devolution is to be rendered impotent being bypassed by UK government agencies working within but not responsible to the Scottish government.

The UK Stabilisation Unit is also closely monitoring Scottish politics, events and personalities and has resources available to deal with any disruption or attempts at destabilisation of the UK.