Tory Placeman Tomkins Asks the Scottish Parliament to Trust the Westminster Government and Support Their Centralising of Devolved Powers – History Indicates Such Support Would be Folly






The Application of Laws in England and Scotland before 1707

The principles of Roman Law, a system of ‘rights’ and ‘obligations’ prevalent in European countries was used to develop Scots law over many hundreds of years before 1707.

Whilst, in England, lawmaking evolved by writing “Common Law” into statute, using the decisions of judges as precedence. The two systems are not entirely compatible.




The Treaty of Union (1707)

Article 19 of the 1707 Treaty of Union with England stated that the laws of Scotland would remain in place and the authority of the Scottish College of Justice, Court of Session and Court of Justiciary would be retained by Scotland.

But the merging of the two parliaments brought with it (in direct contravention of Article 19 of the Treaty) the move to England of Scottish politicians and lords and with them the removal of legislative power to Westminster which was finalised by the transfer of the “right of appeal” from the Scottish judiciary to the House of Lords.

Essential reading: The Union and the law. – David M Walker former Regius Professor of Law in the University of Glasgow (1958-1990.)




Illegal replacement of Scots law with English law.

Despite assurances to the contrary from Westminster and a legal commitment in the 1707 treaty, there have been many reforms to the Scottish judicial system and legal procedures over the years so that it conforms with English practice.

The Home Secretary in the 1820s, Robert Peel sought to justify changes on the grounds that the Scottish system was “totally different from English practice and repugnant to English feelings”.

In the mid Nineteenth century the industrial revolution brought with it new areas of public policy such as public health, working conditions and many other practices and these were legislated for by Westminster, without consultation with the Scottish judiciary, further challenging the uniqueness of the Scottish system.

And in the later part of the nineteenth century, commercial law was assimilated and Scottish law replaced by English-based measures such as the Partnership Act 1890 and the Sale of Goods Act 1893.

The weakening of Scots Law by the Westminster political establishment became so overtly routine that Lord Rosebery, in 1882, speaking in the House of Lords voiced Scottish fears of the creeping Anglicanisation of Scottish law stating that legislation was framed on the principle that “every part of the United Kingdom must be English, because it is part of the United Kingdom”.




Acts of the Westmnister parliament imposed on Scotland

The Treason Act – 1708 – This harmonised the treason laws of England and Scotland, effective from July 1709.

The English offences of high treason and misprision of treason were extended to Scotland, and the treasonable offences then existing in Scotland were abolished.

When the Scottish Parliament was set up in 1998, treason and treason felony were among the “reserved matters” it was prohibited from legislating about, ensuring that the law of treason remained uniform throughout the United Kingdom.




Disbandment of the Privy Council – 1708 – The Privy Council, and the great offices of state, including the chancellor, secretary and treasurer, were abolished after the Acts of Union 1707, with rule direct being implemented from London.




The Scottish Runrig System of land ownership

Up to mid eighteenth century land tenure in Scotland was maintained using the “runrig system.”

Agricultural land was divided into towns or townships, comprising an area of cultivable “in-bye” land and a larger area of pasture and rough grazing. The “in-bye” was divided into “rigs” which were periodically reassigned among the tenants of the township so that no individual had continuous use of the best land.

Tenants would have a few rigs under their tenure, and it would be their job to fertilise the earth using dung from their own animals. Ploughing, planting and reaping, the farmer cultivated and cared for the land producing crops to feed the family, and hopefully have some left over to barter with.

The “rig” was a strip of ploughed and cultivated land usually 20 feet wide, and high. Only the crown of the rig was ploughed and half the width between them was taken up by huge “baulks” or open spaces filled with briars, nettles, stones and water separated from the next Rig by a “run”, which was left uncultivated.

The high rigs served as a method of water drainage for the crop, given the prevalence of rain in Scotland.

The “baulks” provided shelter from the buffeting winds and a rich habitat for beneficial insects and birds that, in the absence of chemical pesticides, did a good job of eating many of the pests that would damage a crop.



The Scottish Society of Improvers

The Society of Scottish Improvers was founded in 1723 and included in its 300 members the Dukes, Earls, Lairds and Landlords of Scotland.

Exports to England increased from 1707 and the Society members were determined to increase agriculture output improving their profit margins.

Haymaking was introduced along with the English plough and foreign grasses, the sowing of rye grass, clover, turnips and cabbages was introduced.

lime was put down, roads built and woods planted.

Drilling and sowing and crop rotation was introduced and the introduction of the potato to Scotland in 1739 greatly improved the diet of the peasantry.

The Lothians became a major centre of grain, Ayrshire of cattle breading and the borders of sheep.




The Enclosure Acts – 1707-1860

The Enclosure Acts were a series of Westminster Acts of Parliament displacing rigs, free pasture and common land in Scotland, creating legal property rights to land.

Between 1707 and 1914, thousands of individual Enclosure Acts were legislated encompassing millions of acres of Scotland.

The joined land was divided into crofts and initially given over to tenants under fixed tenancy based on the amount of land that they owned before the act.

But often the land was uncultivated and useless and owners, who were required to to fence the land in order to live on it, couldn’t afford to do this forcing them to sell or give up the land and move into urban areas.

Authorities also forcibly implemented the enclosure acts through the eviction of crofters that did not own land.

They also evicted people who said they owned land, but who could not prove it.

This resulted in tens of thousands of displaced and homeless people who were forced to leave Scotland to take up their lives in the new colonies of Canada and the Americas.

Many thousands of Scots died due to the appalling conditions on board inadequate overloaded shipping and the Westminster parliament and Lords will be forever dammed by their actions

So, after stealing the land from village farmers, the landed aristocracy forced poor labourers off the “village commons” land and enclosed it as their own property.

The increase in their landholdings enabled them to cultivate ever larger fields.

The entitlement to land enjoyed by landowners in present day Scotland was built on the imposition by Westminster of a a brutal feudal system.

Over half of Scotland is owned by less than 500 people which equates to the most concentrated pattern of land ownership in the developed world.

Further reading:



The Disarming Act – 1716:

After the inconclusive Battle of Sheriffmuir the 1715 Jackobite rebellion withered and the clansmen drifted back to the glens.

English reprisals were swift and brutal. Many estates were forfeited and thousands of Clansmen were imprisoned and or sent as slaves to the plantations in the English colonies.

The purpose of the 1716 Disarming Act was to remove all weapons from Scotland.

It failed in its purpose as the bulk of weapons handed in were old, rusty and useless the Scots preferred to hide their weapons away to be used another day.




Disarming Act – 1725

There was a further unsuccessful Jacobite uprising in 1719 in which the Earl of Seaforth and other Jacobite chiefs, supported by a body of Spanish soldiers, were defeated by General Wightman and the Royal Navy.

This affair led to more determined legislation: “An Act for more effectual disarming of the Highlands in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, and for better securing the peace and quiet of that part of the Kingdom by which the men of the clans are required to surrender their – “…broad swords, targets, poynards, whingers or durks, side pistols, guns or any other warlike weapons.”

The man given the job of enforcing the measure was Major General George Wade, Commander in Chief of his Majesty’s Forces in North Britain.

Wade (an Irishman) estimated that there were, at that time, some 20,000 clansmen capable of bearing arms in the Highlands.

Half of that number, he advised, were potential Jacobites… but only around 2,500 weapons were surrendered.




Letters of an English Gentleman in the North of Scotland – 1730

There is an account of the attitude of English outsiders towards the Highland people and their culture in the writings of Captain Edmund Burt, a government engineer, who wrote his “Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland” in the 1730s.

Recording first-hand experiences of his time with Wade in the Highlands he had this to say:

“Various reasons are given both for and against the Highland dress. Against it is that it distinguishes the natives as a body of people distinct and separate from the rest of the subjects of Great Britain, and thereby is one cause of their narrow adherence among themselves, to the exclusion of all the rest of the kingdom…”

He continued “…but the part of the habit chiefly objected to is the plaid, which is calculated for the encouragement of an idle life in lying about upon the heath, in the daytime, instead of following some lawful employment and that it serves to cover them in the night when they lie in wait among the mountains, to commit their robberies and depredations and is composed of such colours as altogether, in the mass, so nearly resemble the heath on which they lie, that it is hardly to be distinguished from it until one is so near them as to be within their power, if they have evil intention…”

The implications of Burt’s writings are that, south of the Highland Line, among folk who were properly dressed, there was an absence of idleness and criminality.

His words also expose the political dimension and racial prejudice against the highlanders, of English thinking “…that it renders them ready at a moment’s warning, to join in any rebellion, as they always carry their tents with them.”

Burt provides further evidence of the prejudice in another of his letters “…there are some among the English who are so prejudiced, that they will not allow there is anything good on this side of the Tweed.”

Burt’s observations, sixteen years before the introduction of the 1746 dress act is a harbinger of the racial and cultural intolerance of England against Scots, expressed in the years that followed by the legislation against highland clothing.




The Dress Act – 1746:

On the 2nd of August 1745, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, eldest son of James (VIII & III – the “Old Pretender”), landed on the isle of Eriskay with seven companions.

When the standard of Royal House of Stuart was raised at Glenfinnan, Highland clans rallied to the cause.

The subsequent course of the ‘Forty-Five Rebellion has been so oft recorded, and is so well known, that suffice it to say, the army of “Bonnie Prince Charlie” looked for a time set to victory, with the Jacobites reaching Derby by December.

There was panic in the House of Hanover, with King George II preparing to flee to the Continent.

But when the promised french force, crucial to the success of the rebellion failed to materialise, Lord George Murray, counselled a Jacobite retreat and  on the 16th of April 1746, the army of Charles Edward was defeated by that of the Duke of Cumberland on Culloden Moor, outside Inverness.

There followed a bitter excess of reprisals –

As Commander-in-Chief, Cumberland was responsibile for the many atrocities committed in the aftermath of the rising, for he instigated them, actively assisted by his Generals – Hawley in particular – and junior officers, whose brutish behaviour, especially when, as they frequently were, drunk, is well documented.

This was an era when murder, rape, pillage and burning were common to the losing side in any fight but, even so, the reprisals against the ordinary highland people were, to any normal mind, excessive and left an evil memory”   (The Highland People – James D. Scarlett)

This was the mood against which the Dress Act of 1746 was drafted and passed by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke:

The purpose of it was to eradicate the military threat, to the Westminster government, of the Jacobite Highland clans, and to eliminate the culturally separate identity of the Highland people.

“From and after the first day of August, 1747, no man or boy, within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, other than such as shall be employed as officers and soldiers in his Majesty’s Forces, shall, on any pretence whatsoever wear or put on the clothes commonly called highland clothes (that is to say) the plaid, philabeg, or little kilt, trowse, shoulder belts, or any part whatsoever of what peculiarly belongs to the highland garb and that no tartan, or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used for great coats, or for upper coats. and if any such person shall presume after the first day of August, to wear or put on the aforesaid garments, or any part of them, every such person so offending, being convicted thereof by the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses before any Court of Justiciary shall suffer imprisonment, without bail, for six months, and on being convicted for a second offence, shall be liable to be transported to any of his Majesty’s plantations overseas and to remain there for seven years.”

The Westminster parliament in London, with breathtaking arrogance, laid down the law dictating how Scots might clothe themselves in their own land.

As might be expected, in each instance the law was treated, in large part, with the contempt it deserved and in 1782, thanks largely to the efforts of the Duke of Montrose, the hated 18th century Dress Act was repealed.




Acts against Roman Catholics

The failed Jackobite rising of 1715 brought with it an Act appointing commissioners to inquire into the estates of popish recusants with a view to confiscating two-thirds of each estate.

The scope of “An Act to oblige papists to register their names and real estates” added an additional expense of all transactions in land, the more galling as Catholics were doubly taxed under the annual land-tax acts.

In 1722 an act was passed was passed “Granting an aid to his Majesty through the levy of a tax upon Papists” by which the sum of one hundred thousand pounds was wrung from the impoverished Catholics.

These punitive acts and other legislation against catholics remained in place throughout the reigns of, George II and his successor, George III.

Repealing the acts was a long, slow, gradual, and complicated process, the chief measures of relief being;

The First Catholic Relief Act of 1778, which enabled Catholics to inherit and purchase land repealing the Act of William III, rewarding the conviction of priests.

The second Relief Act of 1791, which relieved all Catholics who took the oath therein prescribed from the operation of the Penal Code.

The Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 which removed punitive anti-catholic legislation.

Disqualifications against Catholics still in force are those which prohibit the sovereign from being or marrying a Catholic, or any Catholic from holding the offices of Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor.




The Scotland Act  – (1998)

The Westminster parliament passed a law (the Scotland Act 1998) which stated that Scotland could set up and run its own parliament and in 1999, a Scottish Parliament was convened for the first time in nearly 300 years.

This was a major development for Scottish politics and Scots law since it returned some powers to make their own laws on certain topics to the new Scottish Parliament.

It is of note therefore that the Scottish Parliament only exists because of a recent law passed by the UK parliament which means that Westminster retains ultimate control of the Scottish Parliament, including the power to dismantle it at will.

An important rider highlights that Acts passed by the Scottish Parliament can be challenged.

Sections 28 and 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 set out the competencies of Holyrood and state that legislation will be ultra vires if it relates to matters reserved to the UK Parliament or would be incompatible with EU law or the European Convention of Human Rights.

Questions over the legitimacy of Acts of the Scottish Parliament are known as ‘devolution issues’.

These can arise in any court but the ultimate court for determining these issues is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

This highlights the importance of Scots retaining an awareness that Scotland is not separate from the rest of the UK, only some legislative powers been devolved and the UK parliament still makes the bulk of laws affecting Scotland contrary to Article 19 of the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Credit to wikipedia




1820 Scottish Rising – Scots Betrayed Yet Again By Unionist Spies Acting for their Westminster Paymasters – 22 Scottish Martyrs Sentenced to Death For High Treason and Sedition





The 1820 Scottish Uprising

James Wilson, Andrew Hardie & John Baird (all weavers) were accused by the Crown of being leaders of the “1820 Rising”, a group of Scots campaigning for universal male suffrage, better working conditions and a Scottish parliament.

They, together with 19 others, mostly weavers: Thomas M’Culloch, Benjamin Moir, Alex Latimer, Alex Johnstone, Andrew White, David Thomson, James Wright, William Clackson, Thomas Pink, Alex Hart, John Barr, William Smith, Thomas M’Farlane, John Anderson, John M’Millan, Andrew Dawson, Allen Murchie, Robert Gray, William Crawford and James Cleland were tried for the crime of ” high treason” at Stirling high court on 14 July 1820.

All 23 were found guilty as charged and on 4 August 1820  were sentenced to death by hanging.


Martyrs Monument Glasgow


The Executions of James Wilson, Andrew Hardie and John Baird

James Wilson was executed on 4 August 1820 in Glasgow.

On mounting the cart that was to take him to the scaffold, the headsman was seated before him, cloaked in black, his face covered, holding a large axe in his right hand and a knife in his left.

“Did you ever see sic a crowd as this?” Wilson remarked casually to his executioner.

At five minutes to three, he mounted the scaffold and several minutes later his body was convulsing on the end of a rope, where it remained for half an hour, before being lowered and decapitated by the masked executioner, who held the bloody head aloft and proclaimed: “This is the head of a traitor.”

The crowd jeered and shouts of,  “It is false, he has bled for his country!” were heard and reported in the Glasgow Herald the next morning.

Barely a week later, on 8th September 1820, Andrew Hardie, from Glasgow, who told the spectators, (‘I die a martyr to the cause of truth and injustice’) and John Baird, from Condorrat, met the same fate in Stirling:

The death sentence on the other 19 was changed to penal servitude for life and on the 15 August 1820 they were transported to the colony of New South Wales in Australia.



Westminster Government Conspiracy

It later transpired that the Westminster government, through the agency and double-dealing of spies, actually incited the rising in the first place.

But why would a government, gripped by fear of a popular revolution, incite a general strike in Scotland?

To answer this question, we must unearth the roots of the 1820 Rising.

In 1795, following the public stoning of King George III’s carriage as it travelled to Westminster, parliament completely redrew the laws for treason, with the effect that holding public meetings in support of reform could lead to the stiffest penalties that the courts were at liberty to dispense.

The period following the American Revolution was a time in Scotland when groups including enlightened aristocrats, members of the rising middle classes, professional people, calling themselves “Friends of the People” pushed gently for reform.

The weavers in Scotland were skilled and literate people who traditionally worked to commission, chose their own hours, and managed their own lives in a way that was denied to many factory workers and along with other skilled artisans, they formed an aristocracy of labour and were proud, independent, and increasingly radical in their outlook.

After the Battle of Waterloo a wicked recession gripped the UK and 1816 was a particularly black year for Glasgow, resulting in major bankruptcies across the city and its environs.

This sparked a gathering of tens of thousands at Thrushgrove near Glasgow, demanding but not gaining reform and the situation worsened over the next four years so that by 1820 the stage was set for the rising that would result in the deaths of James Wilson, Andrew Hardie and John Baird and penal servitude for 19 other Scottish martyrs.




The Committee for Organising a Provisional Scottish Government

There existed in Scotland a covert group called  “the Committee for Organising a Provisional government,” which consisted of committed radicals, elected by their respective unions, who would assume responsibility of organising the new social structure of Scotland in the aftermath of a successful rising.

However, it seems clear in retrospect that the committee had also been infiltrated by  Westminster government spies, who were rife at the time, being one of the government’s most important defences against underground radical activities.

The committee had the misfortune to convene in Marshall’s Tavern in Glasgow’s Gallowgate on March 21 1820, in the presence of a spy. John King, a weaver from Anderston.

King left the meeting early, just before the entire committee was arrested and detained in secret by the authorities.

This is a vital point in relation to the events that unfolded over the next few weeks, because the organising committee, the body of people who would be the centre of any radical rising, were off the streets and obviously not able to organise very much from their prison cells.


Glasgow Remembering the Martyrs of 1820



King and Other Unionist Spy’s Activate the Rising

The very next day, King was present at another meeting of important radicals in Anderston in Glasgow.

It was also attended by another three men, also government government spies: John Craig, a weaver, Duncan Turner, a tin-smith, and Robert Lees, described only as “the Englishman.”

King took the initiative at this meeting and reported that a large-scale rising was imminent and that all those present should make themselves ready for armed conflict.



The 1820 Proclamation

The following day, on March 23, the spy, Duncan Turner, unveiled plans for a provisional government and revealed a draft of a proclamation, inciting widespread revolt, that was to be posted around the city for the public’s attention.

This proclamation is pivotal to the whole history of the rising, and, given that the real “Committee for Establishing a Provisional Government” was in jail, the proclamation was later identified as the work of government agents, and part of larger plan to sink the radical movement in Scotland once and for all.

The events that transpired provides the evidence against King and his associates, all pointing in the direction of the Westminster government treachery and entrapment.



The Rising

On April 1 1820, the citizens of Glasgow awoke to find the proclamation posted around the city, urging them all “to desist from their labour from and after this day…and attend wholly to the recovery of their Rights…”

The proclamation opened with a rousing ideological plea for liberty: “Equality of Rights (not of property) is the object for which we contend, and which we consider as the only security for our Liberties and Lives.”

The plea continues to the soldiery, asking if they could really, “plunge…Bayonets into the Bosoms of Fathers and Brothers at the unrelenting Orders of a Cruel Faction…”

Strong words, and if the proclamation had been a government plan to draw underground radicals out into the open, they would have perhaps been shocked at the level of response from ordinary people and workers all over West and Central Scotland.

The following Monday, people from many different trades, but especially weaving, stopped work.

They were not only refusing to work, but were in many cases preparing for war.

Reports flooded in of groups of men engaged in military drills, and making weapons such as pikes from any material that could be obtained. Revolt was in the air.

On Tuesday 4 April, the spy, Duncan Turner, the issuer of the proclamation, was mustering a group of about 60 men in Germiston, and using all his arts of persuasion to convince the men to march to the Carron Works in Falkirk, where they could obtain arms for the coming battles.

Not all were convinced, but he rallied those that would go with promises of meeting more men on the way to help them in their mission.

He himself would be engaged in organising other initiatives and wouldn’t accompany them on their long march.

The leader of the group was the ill-fated Andrew Hardie, and Turner gave him half a card, which, he assured him, would match exactly with another half card held by a man waiting for him in Condorrat; a man at the head of another group of fighters.

In this way the group would grow, swelling its ranks until it arrived at Carron.



The Carronshore Ambush

Waiting in Condorrat was John Baird, at the head of five men, holding his half card that had been given to him by none other than John King in one of his many guises.

Both Hardie and Baird were no doubt expecting to unite with a small army when they matched their cards, and were obviously disappointed when they did match cards in the early hours of the morning.

However, John King promised more support before they reached Carron, and he himself would ride ahead to rally these supporters.

It is known that by this time the army already knew of a plot to take Carron, as a Lt. Hodgson had set off from Perth to protect Carron from an attack expected that day, Wednesday 5th April.

Also, the band of radicals were spotted and reported twice following their departure from Condorrat, confirming for the authorities that trouble was afoot.

The next time the band met King, they had been marching all night, and King told them to leave the road and wait at Bonnymuir while he mustered support from Camelon.

This was the last the group were to see of King.

Nor did they see more armed men rallying to their cause: instead they were shortly to meet opposing troops, with Lt Hodgson at their head, who had also left the road and incredibly found their way straight to Hardie and Baird’s band on Bonnymuir.

The ensuing battle was nothing more than a skirmish, whereby Hodgson’s force of 32 soldiers, after a volley of shots from the radicals, easily overpowered them with a cavalry charge.

Two soldiers and four radicals were wounded. In total, 19 of the radicals were taken prisoner and sent to Stirling Castle.

The event in itself hardly constitutes a major rising, but other isolated disturbances were taking place across West and Central Scotland, and the journey of Hardie and Baird showed that at the fore of radical thinking was union with other groups in different parts of the country.

However, the government seemed always to be one step ahead of the radicals, with inside knowledge at every step; also, the core organisers had been in jail since March 21st, without public knowledge, and some very suspicious men were acting on their behalf.

The whole event was a plot hatched by Westminster government agent provocateurs in order to draw the radicals into open battle.

On the fateful day of April 5th, troops took up position all over Glasgow, and although radical movements were reported all day, no attack was forthcoming.


Martyrs monument Glasgow



Betrayal of James Wilson

Also on April 5th, the awful fate of James Wilson was starting to unfold.

Again, one of the spies was involved, this time the “Englishman” Lees, who sent a message to the Strathaven radicals that the rising had started.

Wilson left with a small force of 25 the following morning, carrying a banner that declared “Scotland Free or a Desert.”

By the time they neared East Kilbride, they were tipped off that an army ambush lay between them and their destination at Cathkin.

Wilson returned to Strathaven, while his men avoided the ambush and reached their destination to find no action at all at Cathkin.

By the following evening, the authorities had discovered the identity of 10 of the group, including Wilson, and held them under lock and key.


New Lanark 1820



English Soldiers Massacre Citizens of Greenock

The worst violence against civilians occurred on Saturday 8th April when the authorities tried to move a group of the prisoners from Paisley to Greenock.

The citizens of Greenock attacked the soldiers who had been ordered to move the prisoners.

Even after they had completed their task, the soldiers still had to fight their way back out of the town as the crowd pelted them with stones.

The army opened fire, killing eight people, including an eight-year-old child, and injuring 10 others.

The government’s retribution was harsh, examples were to be made, and they took the form of the executions of Wilson, Hardie and Baird and the transportation to the colony’s of 19 others.

The rising was over.

There are some who regard the tragic events of 1820 as minor and of little historical importance in comparison to other Scottish rebellions.

But they marked an intensification of the desire of Scots for human rights reform and their own government and the martyrs, James Wilson, Andrew Hardie and John Baird serve as examples to those who feared that nothing can be done in the face of such a powerful centralised state as Westminster governance.  Further reading:

BBC Archives






The BBC is the Most Powerful Government Mouthpiece in the World and Its Biased Output it is Capable of Deciding the Outcome of any Election or Referendum – More Powerful Than Governmet It Needs to be Neutered and Soon





1 May 2018: BBC Bias is Well Capable of Swinging an Election or Referendum

The BBC is an immensely powerful organisation and the way it presents news could potentially have significant effects on election/referendum results.

In 2017, Patrick Kennedy and Andrea Prat, economists from the Columbia Business School, analysed 18 countries’ news media markets to develop a “power index”.

Across all countries, the UK had the most concentrated media sector, mainly due to the BBC.

Over all mediums, the BBC reaches 81 per cent of people who consume news, and has a 36 per cent attention share.

It has the most power to affect public opinion of any news organisation worldwide.

According to the researchers, it would require just five per cent of the BBC’s audience to be completely trusting of its output to give it the power to swing a close election by one percentage point.

It could swing an election by two points, if 10 per cent of consumers were naive.

This makes it much more powerful than, any major UK newspaper.

To achieve the same result would require in excess of 38 per cent of a major newspaper’s readers to be trusting.

Poll after poll suggests that the BBC is the most trusted news source in Britain, and therefore the combination of its reach and reputation means its output could have substantial impacts on elections and public opinion.

Of course, trust in the BBC has arisen in part, no doubt, because it is perceived to be trustworthy whilst newspapers have editorial viewpoints and priors, and the BBC claims to make big efforts to be impartial.

But with great power comes great responsibility and the issue of bias is critical, as it only requires a small proportion of people to take the presentation of an issue at face value to really affect public opinion.

(Ryan Bourne occupies the R Evan Scharf Chair in the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute in Washington DC.)




The Westminster government controls and directs the content and bias of the media output of the BBC.

And is accurately reported as requiring the management of the corporation to ensure subjects pertaining to Scottish affairs eg. independence and SNP Scottish governence are presented in a negative format or not reported on at all.

The media content share of the distribution of the annual licence fee finance collected is very unfavourable to Scotland since only about 20% of money collected from Scot’s for the BBC coffers finds it’s way back to Scotland.

Broadcast media policy is retained by the Westminster government which is unfair to Scotland and this needs to change so that a balanced output can be achieved.

As a start media matters applicable to Scotland should be devolved perhaps with international news output being retained by Westminster.

Without change the outcome of any independence referendum in the future will   be prejudiced against “Yes” voters distorting the outcome as it did in 2014.





Tory Luddite Tomkins Mocks the SNP Government Attacking Proposals For Safe Drug Taking Facilities – But fails to Bring Forward Any Answers to the Question – How do you reintegrate people to Society who were not integrated in the first place?






Drug-Control Policies in Britain

The late Prof Geoffrey Pearson was an eminent and highly respected Criminologist noted for his research into violence among the young.

In his journal, The New Heroin Users (1987) he gave a voice to users and addicts, confounding many stereotypes concerning this demonised group, who were concentrated in areas already suffering unemployment, poor housing and poverty.

He carried out a number of studies of drug use among young people in care, of drug markets, and the policing of drugs and was a member of the committee that carried out the 1971 inquiry into the misuse of drugs in the UK.

He was not a supporter of the UK government approach to drug taking and clarified his understanding of the issue in his paper:

Abstract from: “Drug-Control Policies in Britain,” Crime and Justice 14 (1991): He wrote:

“The British approach to heroin addiction has been widely misunderstood. The “British system” did not break down in the 1960s under the pressure of an upsurge in heroin misuse.

The 1960s heroin phenomenon was a relatively minor difficulty almost entirely confined to London and failed to dislodge the medical profession from its central role in the British response to serious drug misuse.

During the 1980s, however, a major heroin epidemic spread rapidly through a number of towns and cities in the North of England and Scotland, concentrated mainly in areas of high unemployment and social deprivation.

Government-sponsored responses have included high-profile mass media campaigns and a strengthening of the law-enforcement effort. Even so, the “British system” has remained essentially intact.

In response to the threat of drug-related HIV transmission, public health remedies have reasserted themselves against the prevailing rhetoric of “law and order.”





Jul 2017: Tory government rejects advice of its own Advisory body

The UK government dismissed a call from its own advisory body to consider introducing drug consumption rooms.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) had said the rooms would provide a safe space for users to take class A drugs under the supervision of medical professionals.

The Tory government said it had no plans to approve drug consumption rooms and whilst it is committed to taking action to prevent the harms caused by drug use the official approach continues to be prevention of class A drug use in communities and helping drug dependent addicts recover, while ensuring that drugs laws are strictly enforced”.




10 Nov 2017: Scottish Lord advocate fails to back ‘fix room’ plan

Scotland’s top prosecutor refused to back a controversial plan to set up the UK’s first so-called “fix room”.

The proposed injecting facility in Glasgow aimed to give drug addicts a safe environment to inject under supervision.

The proposal was being driven by the city’s Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP) which had planned to create an injecting facility between Trongate, Saltmarket and the River Clyde, by 2018, after a steep rise in HIV cases.

However, the scheme had required Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC to allow possession of street-bought heroin within the facility.

Glasgow, which has an estimated 13,600 problem drug users, has seen a growing number of addicts diagnosed with HIV.

Health officials put the cost to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde at more than £29m. (BBC News)




12 Dec 2017: Call for drug laws to be devolved to Scottish Government

The Scottish government is seeking devolution of drugs laws to allow users to take heroin safely under medical supervision.

This follows a ruling by the Home Office in London, which controls drug legislation, that introduction of a “fix room” would be illegal under existing UK drug enforcement policy and it expected Scottish police to enforce the law. (BBC News)

In 2016, 170 drug-related deaths were recorded in Glasgow – from a record total across Scotland of 867.

The previous year there had been 47 new diagnoses of HIV among those who inject drugs, compared with a previous annual average of 10.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) published “Taking away the chaos,” a review of the health needs of those injecting drugs in public places.

It said: “Public injecting in Glasgow is concentrated in lanes, closes, car parks, and public toilets of the south-east city centre and adjoining areas of the east end.

“Several informal drug consumption areas have been found in abandoned buildings and makeshift huts.”

A spokesman for Glasgow HSCP said: “We are continuing to work on our proposal to open a safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow.

“We have had initial discussions with the Scottish Government on how we can best secure the legislative framework needed to ensure the facility can open legitimately.” (BBC News)




23 Apr 2018: Typical Tory Tomkins Politisizes Scottish Approach to Drug Addict Care

The Express published an article written by Tomkins in which he attacked the SNP government wrongly attributing the proposed introduction of safe facilities to it, cheapening the efforts of highly qualified medics, social services experts and other people determined to improve the lives of drug users. See the article:



Denmark’s ‘Fix Rooms’ Give Drug Users A Safe Haven

Martin Jensen smokes heroin.

In the past, when this gaunt-faced Dane had to hide in elevators and stairwells to feed his addiction, he probably wouldn’t have been so willing to advertise that fact. Back then, his days were spent scouring Copenhagen — mostly the notorious Vesterbro neighborhood — for places to smoke, out of sight of the police and children.

He says he never felt safe, understandably, given what happened to one of his friends.

“My friend, he [was trying to] get some sleep, when he had smoked,” Jensen recalls.

That’s when an arsonist stopped by.

“They put gasoline here, on top of his head. And put on fire and just let him …” Jensen trails off, though he notes the friend survived.

All this is by way of explaining why, for Jensen, this year has meant the difference between “hell” and “heaven.”

It’s not that he’s quit — though he is taking methadone, which has helped him cut back.

It’s that now he has a place to come and take his drugs in peace.

In June 2012, the Danish Parliament passed legislation making it possible for municipalities to open so-called drug consumption rooms (known in Denmark as “fix rooms” and elsewhere, more specifically, as supervised injection sites) — facilities where adults with serious addictions can bring their illegal drugs and take them, legally, under the watchful eye of a nurse.

Within four months, Copenhagen had opened the first.

Two other cities have since followed suit. Full article at:”




27 May 2015: Denmark’s injection rooms save 300 lives

Denmark’s legal drug injection rooms have saved upwards of 301 lives according to figures from the Health Ministry.

The country’s five injection rooms – located in Copenhagen, Odense and Aarhus – allow drug users to get their fix in controlled environments and under the watchful eye of healthcare professionals.

According to a Health Ministry report released on Wednesday, heroin and other drugs have been injected by around 4,300 registered users some 355,255 times since the rooms opened in 2012.

The vast majority – 94 percent – of injections took place in Copenhagen.

In 301 instances, the drug user overdosed but thanks to the presence of the rooms’ personnel there was not a single death.

“On that background, the evaluation concludes that the injection rooms must be seen to limit the risk of death and injuries,” a Health Ministry press release read.

The report also stated that the injection rooms have helped health professionals come in contact with addicts that they would not otherwise reach if the drug use remained on the streets.

There were 354 instances in which a user asked for help in breaking their habit.

According to the evaluation, it is not just users who have benefited from the injection rooms.

“Also the residents in those areas where drug abusers hang out and used to take their drugs in the streets, stairwells and hallways have noted that there aren’t as many used needles [lying around],” the ministry release stated.

The volume of used needles in Copenhagen has fallen by nearly 80 percent since the nation’s first injection room was opened there in the autumn of 2012.

The Danish Health and Medicines Authority said last year that the injection rooms deserve the lion’s share of the credit for the fact that drug-related deaths have reached their lowest level in nearly 20 years.”



Scotland – Englands First Colony – Ravished – Pillaged – Blockaded – Betrayed – Castigated – Absorbed on False Promises – Brexit is Our Chance to Right the Wrongs of the Past – All We Need is a Referendum






The Alien Act – Bully Boy Nation England Forces a Treaty of Union On Scotland

The 1701 Alien Act was the culmination of the England’s efforts to subjucate Scotland, and the negative impact was huge.

An embargo on Scottish goods to both England and its colonies, enforced by a naval blockade of Scottish ports and a large English army force in Berwick, cut maritime trade by fifty percent, crippling Scotland’s already fragmented economy which was struggling to recover after twenty five percent of Scotland’s total liquid capital had been lost during the Darien Scheme.

The Act also threatened inheritance rights for Scottish nationals living in England, causing unrest among Scotland’s elite.

Through this piece of legislation, English Parliament hinted at the dangers of refusing to unite the two nations.

England had the power to destroy the Scottish economy and take away the property of many of its citizens, and unless Scotland agreed to their proposals that was exactly what they would do.

In 1706 Scotland relented, activating a provision added to the end of the Alien Act that suspended the legislation as a whole following Scotland’s entrance into negotiations leading to the 1707 Act of Union with England.


Earl of Seafield



Second Thoughts On the Union – The First Earl of Seafield and His Attempt to Repeal the 1707 Treaty of Union

On 2nd June 1713 the Earl introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to repeal the 1707 Treaty of Union citing amongst the grievances of the Scots:

1. The dissolution of the Scottish Privy Council.

The Treaty of Union 1707 with England preserved the Scottish Legal System. Article XIX providing “that the Court of Session or College of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland, and that the Court of Justiciary do also after the Union … remain in all time coming.

But soon after the Union, the Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707 combined the English and Scottish Privy Councils and decentralised Scottish administration through the appointment of justices of the peace in each Scottish shire to carry out administration.

In effect it took the day-to-day government of Scotland out of the hands of politicians and into those of the College of Justice who would report to the officer in post in the newly created position of Scottish Secretary of State in Westminster.




2. The Treason Act.

The Scottish Act, which was relatively humane was abandoned in favour of the more barbarous English Treason Act.

Section III of the Act required the Scottish courts to try cases of treason and misprision of treason according to English rules of procedure and evidence.

When the Scottish Parliament was established in 1998, treason and misprision of treason were designated as “reserved matters,” meaning they fell outside the jurisdiction of the Scottish government.




3. The incapacitating of the peers.

After the Scottish Parliament passed the ratifying Act it turned to the question of Scotland’s future parliamentary representation.

Article 22 of the Treaty had decreed that 16 peers and 45 commoners were to represent Scotland at Westminster, It would be for Scotland’s Parliament to settle the detail.

At this time the Edinburgh parliament was a unicameral body which, by the eve of the Union, had grown to consist of a ‘theoretical’ total of 302, made up of some 143 hereditary peers, 92 ‘shire’ or county commissioners, and 67 burgh commissioners.

Inevitably, Scotland’s loss of its representative body – symbolizing the loss of national sovereignty – in favour of a much reduced representation at Westminster produced deep resentment among the Scottish populace.

At the end of January 1707, following a series of ill-attended sittings, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation setting out the procedures for electing the 16 peers and 45 commoners. The 16 representative peers were to be chosen by the entire body of Scottish peers through ‘open election’ rather than by ballot.

Each elected peer was to serve for the duration of one Parliament. Upon the dissolution of Parliament all Scottish peers would be summoned by royal proclamation to the Palace of Holyroodhouse, where the names of peers were called over and each peer would then read out his list of 16 nominees.

It became standard practice for governments to canvass their preferred choices, thus ensuring a controllable bloc of support in the Upper House. The practice of electing “representative peers” of Scotland was to continue until it was abolished by the Peerage Act of 1963.

Scots legal experts were frustrated that from 1712 the House of Lords in Westminster was also the Court of Appeal for Scottish cases.

This led to “miscarriages of justice” caused by a lack of understanding of Scots law by English judges.

Scots landowners with English titles were angry in 1711 when they were prevented from taking their seats in the House of Lords.




4. The introduction of many new taxes on Scotland

After 1707, new taxes imposed on Scotland by Westminster increased the prices of Scottish goods for export to England and abroad greatly benefitting English manufacturers but to the severe detriment of Scot’s.

Duties on linen in 1711 and 1715, and the Soap Act of 1714 upset many people in Scotland.

The Salt Tax of 1711 was especially unpopular and resulted in riots.

The Malt Tax, introduced in 1713 in defiance of the Treaty of Union was imposed on the Scottish brewing industry and undermined a wide range of Scottish endeavours and entrenched a culture of evasion, amongst poor Scots who relied on a diet of inexpensive ale.

The cumulative effect of the new taxes served only to reduce legitimate trade in Scotland whilst encouraging smuggling and in some instances outright resistance.

As a result of increased goods duties, there were attacks on customs officers and an increase in the smuggling of goods into Scotland.

The Malt Tax Riots in 1725 and the Porteous Riot in 1736 both highlighted popular resentment for English intervention in the name of integration.




5. The deliberate ruination by Westminster of Scottish trade and manufacturing

Despite the promises made by England during the unification process, economic rehabilitation in Scotland was an abject failure.

While there were apparent economic benefits for the nobility and landowners, who “sensed that union would open up new opportunities to them through being able to sell their cattle and other produce to England” they represented a very small part of the socio-economic makeup of Scotland.

The benefits of maritime trade afforded to them by the union only applied to the elite, (this is still the case in 2014) and the rest of Scotland faced a new, far less attractive economic reality after 1707.

The expansion of the cattle and sheep industries in Scotland to compensate for increased demand in England also led to many tenants being forcibly cleared off of their land in order to maximize grazing.

This accumulation of injustices only served to strengthen resistance to the Union of 1707 in both the Lowlands and the Highlands and, as their economic situation worsened many turned to Jacobitism as a solution to their problems, one that supported “the old monarchy” and was inherently Scottish.




6. Introduction of the English Enclosure Act

There was great unrest as a result of introduction of the English “enclosures” system of land allocation, replacing the Scottish “runrig” system.

There were outbreaks of fence-smashing by labourers who had fallen on hard times through not being able to afford “enclosures.”




7. The Irish Diamension – The Wool Act

Westninster prohibited any export of manufactured woollen goods from Ireland in 1699.

A protection of trade measure designed to ensure English farmers and woollen manufacturers would be allowed to operate without competition.

The restrictions on the woollen trade greatly distorted the importance of the Irish linen industry, particularly in Ulster and in 1696 a Bill was passed through Westminster which encouraged the manufacturing of linen in Ireland free of tax at time of export to England and other foreign trade.

But Scotland was not considered. Linen taxes were imposed on Scotland to the detriment of the trade and its rapid closure due to the high cost of exporting the yarn and finished goods.




Outcome of the Debate

The response from the English peers who favoured the Union’s continuance principally underscored its importance in terms of protecting the succession.

At this point the coherence of the Scots’ assault broke down as some of their English allies moved in favour of adjourning the debate and suggested that separate legislation should be drafted for protecting the nation.

When the House came to divide, the bill for dissolving the Union lost by just 4 votes, and even then only because of the employment of proxies.

A few days later the malt bill passed the Lords and was enacted on 10th June.

The failure of the Scots’ rebellion was largely down to their inability to secure the unqualified support of key members of the Whig opposition.

For many of these the affair was simply an opportunity to embarrass the administration and when it came to the crunch were found to be absent from the House.

Even for those who believed genuinely that something needed to be done to improve the condition of the Scots, several preferred to concentrate on securing an amended version of the malt bill rather than threatening the Union itself.

Inevitable Rebellion: The Jacobite Risings and the Union of 1707 – Lindsay Swanson – PSU HST 102 – December 17, 2014



Syria – The US, UK and French Have Given Up On Regime Change in Syria – New Strategy is to Establish a New State East of the Euphrates – More Blood to Be SpiltCarve









6 May 2018: Tensions Rising Between Syrian Army, Kurds Amid Creation of US Bases

The probability of all-out war between the Syrian army and Kurdish militias in northern Syria has intensified amid reports of the creation of more new US bases, along with reports of a possible deployment of troops from a Saudi-led ‘Arab coalition’.

There are also reports of a growing French presence in areas of Syria under Kurdish control.

Tensions have been running high since the US sent yet another convoy of weapons to Kurdish militants in the Tal Beidar region and Kurdish forces’ actions fortifying their positions has increased the danger of a direct confrontation with the Syrian Army.

Also this week, around 30 villagers were killed in a US-led coalition airstrike in the village of al-Fadel in southern Hasakah, prompting Damascus to submit another letter of complaint to the United Nations about the coalition’s “massacres” against the Syrian people and its attempts to undermine the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The letter also accuses Washington of providing “systematic support” for Daesh.




Syria – The US, UK and French Are Intent on Regime Change Regardless of the Expressed Will of the Syrian People

In the summer of 2017 the Syrian Army liberated large parts of their eastern provinces, re-establishing a land re-supply route stretching from Iran to Syria and the formidable Hezbollah forces based in the Lebanon.

This was unpalatable to the Western allies and a major offensive was launched against the Syrian army, by the US, UK, Israel and France.

The offensive, when fully completed removed the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon land route diminishing Iran’s ability to channel funds and armaments to Hezbollah adversely affecting Syria’s ability to trade with Iraq and Iran further complicating Syria’s post-war reconstruction plans.


The Syrian government and its allies became extremely concerned about the increasing build-up of French, UK and US (FUKUS) forces in Syria, East of the Euphrates and along the border with Jordan, claiming it to be an illegal occupation designed to partition the country.

Referring the matter to the UN Security Council the Syrian government pointed out that the countries concerned did not have a mandate from the UN Security Council nor an invitation from the Syrian government to be in Syria and they should be withdrawn without delay.

President Trump is previously reported indicating his intention to withdraw allied forces from Eastern Syria if and when the situation was improved.

Since that time the Allies declared the war against ISIS to be at an end.

But the occupation of Syria goes on.

It now appears the agenda has changed and (FUKUS) intend to occupy Syria, East of the Euphrates, perhaps on a permanent basis.

This will ensure control of the countries most productive oil and gas fields remains with groups loyal to (FUKUS) denying the Syrian government, and most likely Turkey and Iraq, who would otherwise delight in further military action intent on reducing the Kurd presence and influence to the East of the Euphrates.

The scene is set for further military confrontation, similar to the recent battle for control of the Deir-el-Zour oil field, which resulted in the death of around 200 Russian irregulars and an unspecified number of Syrian soldiers, as the Syrian government seeks to re-establish control of the region.

War without end regardless of cost


Attempted Murder of Former Russian Spy Sergie Skripal – The Facts Without the Waffle – Who did it? – You Decide




MI6 handler:Pablo Miller & Sergie Skripal



15 Aug 2017: This Will Blow Your Mind – Required Reading Before Taking in the Rest of the Article

We think we are more connected to the world, when in reality it’s the opposite. We no longer trust the world we live in precisely because of Facebook, Google and Twitter who now have dominance over the global narrative, themselves braided and intertwined into the architecture of the establishment and their handlers.

According to the 2017 Edelman TRUST Barometer trust in the British media has fallen 4 places in just one year to seventh from bottom globally, behind countries such as Turkey, Poland and Russia, none of which are considered to have a free press.

In fact, trust in the four institutions of government, business, media and NGO’s has taken a dramatic dive in just the last three years alone.

Military designed disinformation campaigns are being used against us to ensure we fall into line. This is a world concocted by a faulty and deceitful media operated and managed by the neurosis of government and its agencies.

Just six people control about 80 percent of all printed media in Britain and an even smaller number controls nearly 90 percent of what is seen on the Internet. The same exists in the USA and across Europe.

Allegations of government officials pressuring and even threatening editors and journalists are now rife in the industry.

Mainstream media was literally choked by government information officers peddling propaganda, disinformation and fake news and now we, the people are directly targeted by the surveillance systems the public paid for but had no control over.

Full article here:


Skripal arrested in Russia



5 Mar 2018: Attempted Murder of Former Russian Spy

Ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal, 66, former colonel in Russia’s Military Intelligence Directorate and his daughter, 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, – are in a critical condition in Salisbury after being exposed to an ‘unknown substance’

Skripal was one of four Russians exchanged in 2010 for 10 Russian “sleeper agents” discovered in the United States. Four years before, he had been sentenced to 13 years in prison for treason, providing British intelligence with information about Russian security agents.

He decided to seek permanent residence in Great Britain and led a quiet life in Salisbury, where he reportedly bought a four bedroom house for £340,000 cash.

It is unclear why Skripal decided to resettle specifically in Salisbury, but Pablo Miller, the MI6 agent who recruited him also resides in the town.

It is also reported that Skripal had been awarded an MI6 pension on his arrival in the UK in 2010, in return for giving speeches to defence and security officials and for providing “consultancy” to the intelligence services.

Skripal’s wife, Lyudmila, lived with him in Salisbury until her death a few years ago. His son died from liver failure in 2017 in St. Petersburg. Yulia’s Facebook page states that she had moved to Salisbury in 2010, with her parents, but had returned to Moscow a few years later.


Sergie Skripal in Salisbury.


1 Mar 2018: Skripal is reported to have visited the local police station to advise of his concern for his safety and well being.


Yulia Skripal



1 Mar 2018: Skripal Planning a Return to Russia?

It was revealed by Victoria Skripal (niece) that Yulia’s current partner is a high ranking official in the Russian security services and Yulia had travelled from Russia to Salisbury to be together with her father on the date of her late brother Alexander’s birthday and the first anniversary of his death.

Secondary business included the formal completion of paperwork pertaining to the transfer to Yulia of “Power of Attorney” over the affairs of her father and her late brother who both own properties in Russia and where her late brother has a bank account, balance £200,000 approx.

Skripal, previously formally pardoned for his crimes against the Russian state, was negotiating his return to Russia in exchange for information proving that MI6 had fabricated the Trump Dossier in order to delegitimize President Trump. He also wished to be with his elderly mother (87) in her final years.


Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey

Yulia & Sergie Skripal in Zizzi restuarant but who is the photogapher?



4 Mar 2018: Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey

Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, resides near to the Skirpal residence and it is feasible that he pulled a protective escort duty at the time the Skirpals were away from their home on 4 March 2018.

All photography of the officer portays him in uniform but his normal attire would be civilian clothes. If the duty is affirmed his involvement in the incident would need to be revised.

A photograph of Skripal and his daughter reported to be at lunch in the Zizzi restuarant on the day of the incident appeared in the press.

In it the person taking the photograph appeared to be at lunch with the Skripals. But is the person mirrored Nick Bailey? If it is this is where he might have become infected with the toxin.

There are other aspects of his involvement in the incident that raise further enquiry:

It is reported by the police force that Nick first went to the aid of the Skripals long after after they had been in receipt of medical aid from an unprotected qualified doctor and other first aiders for about 15 minutes.

Assistance that continued unbroken until Skripal and his daughter were removed from the scene and taken to hospital. Between 30-45 minutes.

Why is it that all those involved in the care of the Skripal’s with the exception of Nick were unaffected?

The police offered that Nick may have been contaminated through a transfer of the agent from the doorknob of the Skripal residence when he went there after they had been removed to hospital.

This begs more questions:

The doorknob explanation is “false news”. Delivery of the toxin was confirmed to be by mouth in liquid form.

This rules out the house visit as the place Nick became contaminated. What other explanation is there?

Why did Nick feel the need to go to the house?

Did he have a doorkey?

Did he enter the house?

If he did enter the house why did he not secure the open windows before leaving?

Did he remove anything from the house?

Why did he drive alone to the hospital in a marked police car well after the incident?

When did he begin to feel unwell?

When and at what time was he admitted to hospital?

At the time of his visit to the Skripal home, why did Nick not remove to a safe place the £4000 valued Persian house cat, a second cat and guinea pig pets?

The cat, “Nash Van Drake” was found weeks after the incident, starving and dehydrated in a ‘distressed state’ in the Skripal home.

A veterinary surgeon had to euthanise the animal to “alleviate its suffering.”

Skripal’s two guinea pigs were also found dead in the course of the discovery.

Were the dead animals tested for the presence of the toxin?

If affirmative what were the findings?

The £4000 Persian cat was put down days after Yulia had recovered. Did she give her permission?


Skripal home in Salisbury. Note the open windows



4 Mar 2018: Sequence of events

1255 – 1335: Left home. Visited cemetery.

1335 – 1340: Travelled by car to The Maltings. Parked up in the car-park.

1340 – 1415: Drinks in the Bishop’s Mill Pub.

1415 – 1545: In the Italian Zizzi Restuarant. Yulia reportedly opened a “gift from friends” as they consumed a meal. Soon after Skirpal began acting irrationaly.

A witness, who saw the pair at the restaurant said Mr Skirpal was acting “very strange” and was “very agitated”.  He seemed to lose his temper… and he just started screaming at the top of his voice, he  wanted his bill and he wanted to go.”

Traces of the agent were found in the restuarant some days after the incident.

1545 – 1548: CCTV footage of Skripal and Yulia in the Maltings Shopping Centre walking towards the bench were they were found distressed shortly after. (

1600 – 1615: Skripal and daughter found on park bench comatose, frothing at mouth, contracted pupils, vacant stare, convulsions, evidence of vomiting.

Attending doctor described Yulia as “vomiting and fitting” after losing control of her bodily functions.

The doctor, one of the first people on the scene described how she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting and fitting.

She had also lost control of her bodily functions.

The woman, who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father.

She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripal’s face or body.

The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent, but added that she “felt fine”.

1615 – 1645: Police, ambulance and Air ambulance arrived at scene.

Yulia transferred to hospital by Air ambulance. Father transported by road to same hospital.




6 Mar 2018: Skripal Poisoning – Suspicious Substance Identified at Scene

Authorities declined to name the toxin to which the pair were suspected to have been exposed, but local media soon reported the substance found at the scene to be similar to fentanyl: a lethally strong opioid available even on Salisbury’s soporific streets.

But the UK government was already hinting at Russian involvement. The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd issued a brief statement on Monday 6 March 2018 after visiting the site. She said:

“The attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, using a nerve agent was a “brazen and reckless” act.

On Tuesday 6 March 2018, She briefed MP’s stating:

“This was an “outrageous crime and the government will act without hesitation as the facts become clearer. It would be inappropriate to speculate on whether the Russian state might have been involved in the attack.

It is a police investigation and findings should be based on “facts, not rumour”.

That same day local police were stood down from the investigation and ordered to pass the matter to a police anti-terrorist unit.


Sergie and Yulia leaving Zizzi’s


6 Mar 2018: Expert comment

Dr Jennifer Cole, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, said anyone manufacturing nerve agents needs advanced chemical knowledge and some form of laboratory. “With something that dangerous you need to know exactly what you’re doing, particularly so that you don’t get it on yourself.

It wouldn’t be difficult to manufacture in the UK – it wouldn’t have to be imported.”

Dr Cole added that when nerve agents are absorbed through the skin or inhaled, they are very fast-acting. “The fact that there doesn’t seem to have been anyone with them when they collapsed points to it being ingested (swallowed).

Antidotes do exist to several nerve agents but their effectiveness relies on them being administered immediately to counteract their rapid effect onthe nervous system.”


Accused Russia of the Murder Attempt



7 Mar 2018: The Russians Did It says Prime Minister May and Boris Johnson

Experts at Porton Down laboratories have identified the substance used as a military-grade nerve agent “of a type developed by Russia”, and part of a group of such agents known as Novichok.

Prime Minister Theresa May gave Moscow 36 hours to “provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme” to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The OPCW is the implementing body of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in 1997 and has 192 member states.

May said police were still investigating how the dose of the nerve agent was administered. But who is responsible?

“The government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal,” May said.

She added that Britain had reached the verdict based on its knowledge that Russia had previously produced the agent and could still do so, the country’s “record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations” and its analysis that Moscow views some defectors as legitimate targets for killing.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said the Skripal case has “echoes” of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian dissident who died of Polonium poisoning in a 2006 attack attributed to Moscow.

Moscow  denied involvement in the Salisbury attack and accused Prime Minister may of an attempt to “discredit” Russia.

A police statement, issued later stated,  “we are not declaring a person of interest or a suspect at this time”.


Porton Down statement: Novichuk or closely related agent



9 Mar 2018: Russian Ex-Pats Add Fuel to the Fire

Valery Morozov, a former construction magnate who fled Russia after revealing corruption, claimed last night that Sergie Skripal, 66, was still working, and remained in regular contact with military intelligence officers at the Russian embassy.

He added that, as a result, he had decided to steer clear of Skripal for his own safety.

Speaking to Channel 4 News he said: “If you have a military intelligence officer working in the Russian diplomatic service, living after retirement in the UK, working in cyber-security and every month going to the embassy to meet military intelligence officers – for me, being a political refugee, it is either a certain danger or, frankly speaking,  I thought that this contact might not be very good for me because it can bring some questions from British officials.”

Andrei Lugovoi, another former Russian agent, stated that Skripal had been pardoned in Russia so no one from there would be after him. “I don’t rule out that this is another provocation by  the British.

Whatever happens on British territory, they start yelling: “He was killed, he was hung, he was poisoned!” and that Russia is to blame for everything. This is to their advantage.”

Igor Sutyagin, yet another Russian traitor flown to Russia in 2010 in an exchange of spies-also said, “I don’t think that Skripal would be targeted, because he was pardoned.”



9 Mar 2018: Poisioned British-Russian Double-Agent Has Links To the Hilary Clinton Presidential Campaign

There are indicators pointing to a strong connection between the Skripal case and the anti-Trump/anti-Russia propaganda drive run by the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton election campaign.

See my posts:

Skirpal’s MI6 handler and close neighbour in Salisbury, Pablo Miller, now retired, is employed as a security consultant by Orbis Business Intelligence.

In it’s employ Miller actively participated with Steele and a number of Russian contacts, (in the UK and Russia) in the process of compiling a controversial dossier, (since dismissed as entirely false) on US presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Orbis is owned by Christopher Steele’s company which was paid by Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS working for the Clinton campaign to make up or find ‘dirt’ about Trump.

Steele had spent more than twenty years in M.I.6, most of it focussing on Russia.

For three years, in the nineties, he spied in Moscow under diplomatic cover. Between 2006 and 2009, he ran the service’s Russia desk, at its headquarters, in London.

He is fluent in Russian, and widely considered to be an expert on the country.

Steele was an MI6 undercover agent in Moscow around the time when Skripal was recruited and handed over Russian secrets to the MI6.

He also ran the MI6 Russia desk so anything about Skripal will have passed through him. It is very likely that they personally knew each other.

If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems likely, then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him.

Lots of shady people and officials, on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating and running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign.

There are several investigations on-going and some very dirty laundry may yet be revealed.

Removing Skripal whilst attaching the blame to Russia looks like an opportune way to get rid of a potentially troublesome witness.

But the important question of motive has not yet been asked nor answered and this weakens any assertions attaching blame to Russia.

It was certainly not vengeance for Skripal’s earlier spying since he had been in Russian jails for four years and had lived openly in Salisbury for eight, providing many opportunities for the Russian’s to top him if they wished to.

Also faced with an already belicose and increasingly belligerent UK government and media Russia did not need to attract any more anti-Russian propaganda in the “western” media.

The former British ambassador Craig Murray suspects a different motive and culprit: (Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg – 10:21 AM – 8 Mar 2018)

“Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and it reinforces intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack.”

Former Ambassador Murray also pointed out that Salisbury, where the incident took place, is just 8 miles away from Porton Down, a chemical weapon test site run by the British government.

As the BBC noted in a report about the place: “chemical agents are still manufactured on site.”

More likely motives can also be found in the statement:

“It is no surprise that the UK government, and the US, are promoting a “wicked Putin’s Russia” story eagerly embraced and circulated to a gullible public, by the British media since it allows the implentation of further wide ranging sanctions and other punitive actions against Russia all with the purpose of starting the process of “Regime Change.”




15 Mar 2018: Craig Murray Former UK Ambassador: The Novichok Story Is Indeed Another Iraqi WMD Scam

As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown. Full report here:

( kingdom/novichok-story-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam/)




13 Apr 2018: Defence Laboratory Chief Executive wrong to say Salisbury Novichok nerve agent could “probably” only be made by a state actor

Eminent scientists disagree with Porton Down statement, read:




14 Apr 2018: Swiss Laboratory says Incapacitating Agent ‘BZ Toxin’ was used in Salisbury

Blood Samples of the persons infected were provided by the UK to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). These were were passed to the Swiss State Spiez Chemical Laboratory for analysis.

The lab is an internationally recognized centre of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological and chemical protection and is one of the five centres permanently authorized by the OPCW.

Their findings indicated the presence of a novichuck agent and an incapacitating binding toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ.

The BZ toxin had never been produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

The presence of the BZ toxin nullified the potency of the Novichuck agent so that ingestion would only incapacitate a victim for a period of between 2-5 days from which there would be an expectancy of a full recovery.

The Swiss Centre sent the results to OPCW. But the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the presence of a novichuck agent without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document.

The Russian Foreign Office asked OPCW to comment on the issue which in their view suggested the attack on the Skripals might have originated in the UK or the US.

Moscow also believes that the entire Skripal case lacks transparency and that the UK is not interested in an independent inquiry.

“We get the impression that the British government is deliberately pursuing the policy of destroying all possible evidence, classifying all remaining materials and making a transparent investigation impossible,” the Russian ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said during a press conference.

The Russian foreign minister also said that London refused to answer dozens of “very specific” questions asked by Moscow about the Salisbury case, as well as to provide any substantial evidence that could shed light on the incident.

Instead, the UK accused Russia of failing to answer its own questions, he said, adding that, in fact, London did not ask any questions but wanted Moscow to admit that it was responsible for the delivery of the chemical agent to the UK.