Robert Harley secretary of State for the Northern Zone, (1704-1708) – His skilful employment of intelligence, and the important role he played in bringing about the union with Scotland.
The most distinctive feature, of Harley’s secretaryship, and the characteristic which marked him off from other secretaries of state of the period, was the organization and delivery of his “intelligence” network
To Harley, “intelligence” meant more than the employment of the ordinary secret service spies for the discovery of plots and hidden designs. He used spies, in France, Scotland, and elsewhere. To him the word intelligence also included the idea of ascertaining public opinion and going beyond that, an attempt to mould it.
One man best embodied to carry out this ideal in Scotland was Daniel Defoe, whose recruitment was achieved through the use of classic Harley intrigue. He arranged Defoe’s imprisonment in 1703 for having written, “the Shortest Way with Dissenters.”
Shortly after the start of his jail sentence, Defoe was visited by one of Harley’s Under Secretary’s who offered him an early release from imprisonment subject to committing to write, with discretion articles for the press supportive of Government policies. Defoe readily agreed and was released near the end of 1703.
In February 1704, the infamous newspaper “The Review” was launched (a modern day equivalent would be, “The Telegraph.”). The organ of government was used by Defoe to publish many articles supporting Harley’s policies smoothing the political path to a Union with Scotland.
King William fell off his horse and died – Queen Anne ascended to the thrones of England and Scotland and Robert Harvey turned his attention to Scotland
Appointed secretary of state Harley was not long delayed in taking an interest in Scottish affairs, because he felt that the Hanoverian succession would remain insecure as long as the political status of Scotland with reference to England remained unsettled.
His activity in Scotland took several forms. He cultivated a habit of corresponding with a small number of Scottish leaders, namely William Carstares, George Leslie, the Earl of Leven, the Earl of Mar and surprisingly with “Doubting Thomas”, James Douglas, the fourth Duke of Hamilton.
He sent agents into Scotland to observe and report to him the deliberations of the Scottish parliaments, particularly after he became secretary of state, so that he might keep check on the partisan information he received from the Scots. On the basis of his correspondence and reports he offered advice to the Queen, and finally, he himself took a part, as an English Commissioner, in the meetings of 1702 and 1706, in which the provisions for a treaty of union were discussed and at length agreed upon.
Harley’s part in the first meeting of the commissioners was a very minor one. Anne’s first parliaments in both England and Scotland had passed acts at her suggestion and as a legacy of King William who had urged the Scottish union in his last speech) empowering commissioners to treat for a union. Harley, as speaker of the house of commons, was an English delegate. Yet of the twenty-three actual meetings in the period of negotiation (November, 1702-February, 1703) he attended only four.
Harley placed his greatest confidence in the letters from Carstares: William Carstares, a prominent Scottish divine, had been chaplain to William. His influence was so great with the monarch that he was called “the cardinal.” He met Harley in his frequent sojourns at the English court, and he had lived in England from the time of William’s death until he was made the principal of Edinburgh University (1703). Each man admired the coolness and moderation of the other.
His many absences from meetings was due to the fact that the English parliament was meeting simultaneously, and the speaker’s presence was in demand there. Some useful agreements were reached, but arguments over church and trade, and the dwindling attendance of the English Tory delegates which caused the commission to be adjourned for eight months. And it never met again.
In the second attempt at union (1706), Harley’s activity was more varied and more effective. By this time he had learned the Scottish situation much more thoroughly, and had seen the storm clouds in the north assume threatening proportions, especially after the Scots had framed their Act of Security and forced its acceptance (1704). Finally, he had observed the ill effects of Godolphin’s waverings between the plan of union and that of persuading the Scots to accept the Hanoverian succession. He himself was convinced that a union was the final solution. Indeed, statesmen of both countries approached the second attempt at treaty making in a more chastened and determined mood than had been evident in 1702.
In England the elections of 1705 had brought victory for Harleian “moderation,” and a parliament slightly Whiggish in tone, and inclined to favor a union. As a result the threatening bills levelled at Scotland after the passage of their Act of Security were soon repealed providing openings for the commissioners to meet.
Scotland fixed the number of commissioners at thirty-one and England, chose the same number. The task of selecting the Scottish representatives was put largely in the hands of the Duke of Queensberry and the Earl of Mar. The choice of the English delegates was handed to Robert Harley.
The English list was completed in April. It was dubbed “Whiggish,” since many of the prominent ones had been included.
Some Scots backed the discussions in 1705 in the belief that union would never succeed, but a strong group considered it to be the only solution of Scotland’s difficulties.
The Scottish commissioners were primarily pro-union, for only three later voted against it in the Scottish parliament. One of these was George Lockhart, the Jacobite memoir writer. The Duke of Argyle refused to serve, because the Duke of Hamilton was omitted (contrary to a promise). Many Scots wanted the Marquis of Annandale on their list, but he refused. Sir William Fraser as did, The Melvilles and the Leslies.
Har;ey’s selection for commisioner roles comprised of inividuals that fully supported his agenda.
The commissioners first met in joint session on 16 April 1706, and completed their deliberations and presented the final articles of the treaty on 23 July.
Harley took an active part in the transactions. As a commissioner, he attended the ordinary meetings and presented the English case at a joint session on the delicate subject of the number of Scottish representatives to be allowed in the union parliament. He was also a member of the important committee which was appointed to investigate the “state of the taxes” in order to determine the amount of the “equivalent” which was to be paid to Scotland for accepting English taxation.
Oil and gas will be required for a period many years beyond the scientific deadline imposed by climate change activists.
Scotland is richly resourced with energy reserves which are boosted immeasurably by as yet untapped reserves.
Seismic surveys in the Firth of Clyde and other areas off the West coast of Scotland were completed by BP in 1981 and indicated the presence of large easy to get to, oil and gas fields.
A Sunday Post excusive revealed that Defence Secretary, Michael Heseltine, blocked a potential oil boom off the West coast of Scotland in the 1980s when he forced oil exploration companies to withdraw applications to drill for oil in the Firth of Clyde and wider afield, fearing exploration of the seabed would interfere with nuclear submarines travelling to and from Faslane. All applications for licences to drill were refused.
Developing the confirmed “sweet oil” and gas reserves just off the West coast of Scotland would transform the economy of the West Coast of Scotland providing excellent financial opportunities and associated benefits for many residents who are being denied a major boost to the poorest economy in the UK.
Two policy changes are required: Scottish independence and the removal of Trident from Faslane or the acceptance of oil and gas exploration and extraction.
I well remember the fear tactics of the Better Together fearmongers in 2014 including the intervention of former UK Chancellor Alistair Darling who asked Scots to cast their minds back to the events of 2007 and the banking crash that almost ruined the Bank of Scotland.
He went on to say that an independent Scotland, should not expect English taxpayers to stand behind failing Scottish banking institutions.
He then claimed that it was the Bank of England that saved Scotland from the armageddon of a currency collapse through the provision of finance necessary to ensure the Banks of Scotland remained solvent and reinforced his assertions stating that the treasury of an independent Scotland would have been unable to rescue the currency.
But Darling added to the crisis when he dithered for weeks before bringing forward a financial rescue package that had all the hallmarks of a significant input of Labour leader, Gordon Brown.
He also withheld events of relevance, including the intervention of the US treasury which had acted immediately (3 weeks before Darling) with the provision of a significant financial rescue package to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) fixing the losses in the US.
and was economical with the truth in his intervention when he failed to give any mention to the fact that 80% of the RBS losses in the World market, were attributed to RBS London based (carousel banking) business operations and as such it was always the responsibility of the UK treasury to resolve difficulties created by greedy speculators and bankers within its own Labour Party deregulated stock exchange.
And finally, perhaps with malice aforethough he omitted to give mention to the fact that in a worldwide crisis banks will call upon many Central Banks to as lenders of last resort. which is the over-riding responsibility of Central Banks in the jurisdictions that they have control over. e.g. 80% of losses attributed to London in 2007 would still be the responsibility of a UK government.
Scots who had still not recovered from the shock of events of 2007 and austerity measures enforced upon them by the Tory Government were inclined to believe Darling and there is no doubt that Darling’s lies achieved their purpose.
Next time don’t let them scare you into submission. Vote, “yes” to independence.
The 2007 banking crash RBS Losses
I well remember the fear tactics of the Better Together fearmongers in 2014 including the intervention of former UK Chancellor Alistair Darling who asked Scots to cast their minds back to the events of 2007 and the banking crash that almost ruined the Bank of Scotland.
He went on to say that an independent Scotland, should not expect English taxpayers to stand behind failing Scottish banking institutions.
He then claimed that it was the Bank of England that saved Scotland from the armageddon of a currency collapse through the provision of finance necessary to ensure the Banks of Scotland remained solvent and reinforced his assertions stating that the treasury of an independent Scotland would have been unable to rescue the currency.
But I well remember Alistair Darling added to the crisis when he dithered for weeks before bringing forward a financial rescue package that had all the hallmarks of a significant input of Labour leader, Gordon Brown.
But Darling withheld events of relevance, including the intervention of the US treasury which had acted immediately (3 weeks before Darling) with the provision of a significant financial rescue package to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) fixing the losses in the US.
He was also eonomical with the truth in his intervention when he failed to give any mention to the fact that 80% of the RBS losses in the World market, were attributed to RBS London based (carousel banking) business operations and as such it was always the responsibilty of the UK treasury to resolve difficulties created by greedy speculators and bankerswithin its own Labour Party dereguated stock exchange.
And finally, perhaps with malice aforethough he omitted to give mention to the fact that in a worldwide crisis banks will call upon many Central Banks to as lenders of last resort. which is the over-riding responsibility of Central Banks in the jurisdictions that they have control over. e.g. 80% of losses attributed to London in 2007 would still be the responsibility of a UK government.
Scots who had still not recovered from the shock of events of 2007 and austerity measures enforced upon them by the Tory Government were inclined to believe Darling and there is no doubt that Darling’s lies achieved their purpose. Next time don’t let them scare you into submission. Vote, “yes” to independence.
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) up to 2008
The administration headquarters of the bank was located in Scotland and supported a division which was, in effect a medium sized high street bank which had always been profitable. Another division, home to the “wide boys of banking” was located in London.
Only the Bank’s business licence plate was registered and posted in Edinburgh, nothing else of note. It followed therefore that any threat to transfer the headquarters of the bank to England as an exercise in bluster, transferring a 6″ metal plate from a door in Scotland to something similar in London. Staff employed in Edinburgh supported the operations of the profitable high street branch division would be unaffected by any change.
John Swinney – The Scottish MSP who spent 20 years plotting against and destroying fundamentalist nationalists achieved his life’s ambition in leading a firmly committed gradualist SNP Government. But to where?
Swinney was born in Edinburgh on 13 April 1964. He attended the University of Edinburgh, where he graduated with an MA Honours degree in politics in 1986.
He married work colleague Lorna in 1991. They had two children. The marriage ended in 1998 (annulled in 2000) after he discovered she was cheating on him with a married school-teacher. She retained the family home and the children and he moved into rented accommodation.
He decided to get married again. But there was a problem. His fiancée was a committed Roman Catholic and he was a divorced protestant and a wedding would not be permitted in a Roman Catholic Chapel unless his previous marriage had been annulled which was not possible because he had fathered two children in the marriage cancelling out any possibility of an annulment. If he and Elizabeth went ahead with the marriage it would not be recognised by the Roman Catholic Church and any children from the marriage might face other censures.
His first marriage was annulled by the Vatican using an obscure technical excuse, (kept secret) to the chagrin of the Protestant Church and in July 2003, he married BBC journalist, Roman Catholic, Elizabeth Quigley. How did he manage to get an annulment of his first marriage? GROK analysed the event:
Swinney was a research officer for the Scottish Coal Project (1987–1988), a senior management consultant with Development Options (1988–1992), and a strategic planning principal with Scottish Amicable (1992–1997).
Political Career 1979-2021
He joined the SNP aged 15 and was an active member of the youth wing, progressing over the years to the post of Assistant National Secretary then, in 1986, at the early age of 22, National Secretary until 1992, when he was promoted to the post of Vice Convenor, then Senior Vice Convenor (Deputy Party Leader) holding the position until 1997.
He was elected Member of Parliament (MP) in 1997, for the Tayside North constituency, and in 1999 he became an MSP for the same area in the Scottish Parliament.
He gave up the “dual mandate” as a Westminster MP at the 2001 general election to reduce his time away from home.
He supported Margaret Ewing in her 1990 bid to become SNP leader, but transferred his allegiance to Alex Salmond who won it.
Early Party and political Career 1979-1997
He joined the SNP aged only 15 and was an active member of the youth wing, progressing over the years to the post of Assistant National Secretary then, in 1986, at the early age of 22, National Secretary until 1992, when he was promoted to the post of Vice Convenor, then Senior Vice Convenor (Deputy Party Leader) holding the position until 1997.
He was elected Member of Parliament (MP) in 1997, for the Tayside North constituency, and in 1999 he became an MSP for the same area in the Scottish Parliament.
He gave up the “dual mandate” as a Westminster MP at the 2001 general election in order reducing his time away from home.
He supported Margaret Ewing in her 1990 bid to become SNP leader, but transferred his allegiance to Alex Salmond who won it.
2000 to date: The Holyrood years – MSP Tayside North (1999-2011) then MSP for Perthshire North
Alex Salmond resigned the Party leadership in 2000 and Swinney was elected Leader in the ensuing election.
2001: His leadership was ineffectual, with the Party losing an MP in 2001
2002: Swinney’s Chief of Staff, Stuart Barrowman walked away from the job just eight months after becoming the party’s top official because of savage in-fighting.
His decision to quit came as senior members of the party fought a bloody battle for re-selection as candidates for the Holyrood elections.
Barrowman was one of Swinney’s vital strategists and was in charge of parliamentary staff and the Holyrood group budget and was the key to building an effective opposition to the Labour-led Executive.
The run-up to the series of Nationalist hustings was a bruising internal battle with spin and smear campaigns being waged against some of the most senior MSPs in the party.
Informed sources advised that Party members, fed up with the dithering gradualists wished to appoint fundamentalist candidates and senior MSPs could end up well down the list – endangering their Holyrood seats.
Aug 2003: Swinney’s Leadership was challenged by Dr. Bill Wilson. Although he stood little chance of winning, it was the hope of Swinney’s critics that a “stalking horse” bid would provoke a serious challenge to a leader whose standing with Party members had been damaged further by the loss of even more MSP’s.
Critics blamed the losses on the Swinney’s style and his lack of charisma and his dictatorial style of leadership alienated a number of MSP’s including former MSP, Dorothy-Grace Elder and legendary SNP, figure Margo McDonald both of whom resigned from the Party.
A senior Party activist commented:
“This shows the widespread frustration among the grass roots. This was Labour’s worst election performance, but we could not capitalise on it – in fact we lost eight seats. And to add insult to injury, we had John Swinney and others claiming that it was a good campaign.”
2003: Swinney won the leadership contest. In a result marked by a low turnout and many abstentions an unhappy membership confirmed Swinney as Party Leader. Speaking just after the result was announced a relieved Swinney said:
“This has been an uncomfortable summer for the SNP. But we have emerged stronger. I have made it clear that I have listened to members concerns and I will continue to listen. But the row between the gradualist side of the party and those who are in favour of an independence referendum, and the fundamentalist wing, who want all or nothing, should now end. The door is shut on these arguments”.
West of Scotland List MSP, Campbell Martin was the first MSP to publicly back Bill Wilson in his leadership challenge and Swinney’s supporters feared his breaking ranks might spark an open revolt amongst the other 27 MSP’s.
Speaking to the press he exposed deep divisions in the SNP saying his position reflected growing grassroots opposition to Swinney’s lack of commitment to independence. He said:
“The SNP is supposed to be the party of independence but under the current leader we have started to walk away from our core belief. Instead, we have argued to be allowed to form the Scottish Executive and manage devolution within the United Kingdom. I am sure the leadership of the party still believes in independence, it’s just that, to them, it has become an eventual aim that would be nice if it happened but no longer the main priority”.
He futher claimed Swinney was losing support of large swathes of the SNP because of the “New Labourisation” of the party and that he had surrounded himself with a clique of MSPs and unelected advisers who were shifting the party to the right, and continued saying:
“The clique that surrounds Swinney believes that if you are not with them, then you are against them and you are fair game to be attacked – even if your “crime” is nothing more than simply disagreeing with them. In the years of his leadership a number of SNP MSPs have complained about their treatment by the clique around the leader”.
Of Dr Wilson’s failed bid, he said:
“John Swinney will be pleased with the result. But he must now look over his shoulder. Bill took almost 20 per cent of the vote which means Swinney is effectively on probation until next year’s conference. Any danger to his leadership could now surface from people within his own leadership clique, who could now see an opportunity for themselves.”
2003: Swinney hoped the prospect of a referendum would quell rebellion in the Party after he discussed his proposals with the Green Party and other independence supporting MSP’s. But Senior SNP figures, who believe victory at the ballot box is all that is needed for independence, said that Swinney was fudging the issue in failing to grasp the nettle of independence and this confused voters. One senior fundamentalist said: “What we want is independence not indecision”.
Swinney retorted: “the choice for the SNP now is to follow my route into government and deliver independence through a referendum, or go into the political wilderness as we did in the 1980s, and that wasn’t a nice place for us.”
A senior party figure questioned the wisdom of his plans to build a coalition, saying: “This smacks of desperation. Swinney wants to reform the party believing a referendum on independence is the way forward. But his ploy to silence the fundamentalists won’t work. All it does is show that we don’t have full confidence in winning a majority in the Scottish Parliament.”
2004: The European election was a disaster.
2004: Furious Swinney blamed Alex Salmond for his downfall when he bowed out from the Party leadership with an angry swipe at internal back-stabbing in the SNP. In a veiled attack on the fundamentalists he said: “You know who they are, I know who they are. Let’s make sure they don’t corrode the SNP and thwart our campaign for independence. The small but vocal minority must understand that our leader is democratically elected and once elected should be supported by every single member.”
It transpired that Swinney had thought Sturgeon was an ally but was “furious” when he was told that she had been briefing against him. He told his small group of close friends that he blamed Alex Salmond, the man he replaced, for turning Sturgeon and much of the party against him.
Convinced his support would be sufficient to tip the balance in her favour he visited Roseanna Cunningham at home and told her he would be backing her bid for the leadership.
A senior Party member said: “As the knives came out, Swinney was astonished to hear Sturgeon was briefing against him. He thought it a poor show after everything he’d done for her. He’s been destroyed by back-stabbing and is convinced Alex Salmond orchestrated a whispering campaign against him. It’s one member one vote and his move will gift 1,000 votes to Roseanna out of the 8,000 up for grabs. That will swing it for her and Sturgeon has only got herself to blame. She was Alex Salmond’s star girl then Swinney took her under his wing when he took over. Now he finds out that she’s been stitching him up at what he thinks is Alex Salmond’s instruction.”
2004:But it was Alex Salmond who returned to the role of Party leader.
2007: Under his leadership the Party won the highest number of seats, (just short of a majority) in the Scottish Parliament in the 2007 Scottish election and he was appointed First Minister. As the head of a minority administration, he was unable to secure the approval of Scotland’s Parliament for a referendum on independence.
He tempered his ambitions and emphasized his priority would be sustainable economic growth, fairer taxes, education, and environmental awareness and he quickly implemented a number of popular measures, such as freezing council tax rates. He also maintained a close watch over Swinney whom he appointed Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth. A post in which he remained in until 2014.
2011: Expense scandals surfaced. Swinney was castigated by the press for taking a huge profit from the sale of his taxpayer funded apartment. The two-storey terraced property was sold for £430k, after being bought for £355k while he was the Leader of the SNP. After capital gains tax, his total profit was around £57,000. And in the period between the purchase and the sale, Swinney claimed more than £60,000 of taxpayers’ money to pay for the interest on his mortgage.
Swinney, at the time was overseeing the implementation of the UK chancellor’s austerity spending cuts and a public sector pay freeze, yet saw no problem in claiming a huge sum of money from taxpayers. He already earns a six-figure taxpayer-funded salary, which makes his claims and profit another kick in the teeth for hard-working families. The Taxpayers Alliance commented “the way politicians are able to make a profit from taxpayer-funded homes is a scandal.
2011:Alex Salmond’s diligence in the previous parliament was rewarded with the Party gaining an overall majority in the 2011 election and in 2012 he signed an agreement with British Prime Minister Cameron to hold an independence referendum in 2014. In the months leading up to the referendum, he inspired the pro-independence cause, steadily eroding a significant lead held by the Unionist Party’s.
2014: He emerged as the clear winner of a televised debate with Labour politician Alistair Darling, the leader of “Better Together,” the multiparty campaign committed to preserving Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. In polls held shortly after the debate, 51 percent of those expressing an opinion favoured independence. This marked the first time since polling on the matter began that the pro-independence camp had registered a lead. Cameron’s response was to promise major new devolved powers and greater autonomy through “the Vow” (published in the Daily Record illegally, within the purgatory period).
On September 18, 2014, Scots went to the polls in unprecedented numbers, with turnout approaching 85 percent, and 55 percent voted to reject independence. In his concession speech, Salmond declared that Scotland had “decided not, at this stage, to become an independent country,” a statement that raised the possibility of another referendum on the matter at some point in the future. The day after the referendum, he announced that he would resign as first minister and SNP leader, a move that became official at the SNP’s national conference in November 2014, when he was replaced by Nicola Sturgeon.
2014: Sturgeon succeeded Alex Salmond. Swinney retained his job as Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth adding the title Deputy First Minister to his CV.
2016: Sturgeon decided to freshen-up her government with the addition of new faces and Swinney, who publicly claimed he had asked for a new challenge, was downgraded to the post of Education Secretary where he remained until 2021.
2021: Scottish Elections saw the SNP returned to power. Sturgeon, unhappy with Swinney’s performance in the Education brief, removed him from office to a new post as Covid Recovery Secretary.
Teflon John just keeps rollin along racking up political failure after failure completely oblivious to his inadequacies. A multi million pound write off disaster. Hopefully 2026 will bring his career to an end.
GROK report here:
It is a very full report covering a number (but not all) of the controversy’s involving Swinney It is a long read but well worth it.
Fishing Quotas for Scotland’s fishing grounds are used as trade offs by Unionist Governments for England’s betterment
In Scotland, quotas for species such as herring and mackerel have been bought up by a handful of families.
Two-fifths of the entire Scottish catch by value and 65 per cent by tonnage was landed by 19 powerful super-trawlers in 2016.
More than half (13) of the top 25 quota holders have directors, shareholders, or vessel partners who were convicted of offences in Scotland’s £63m “blackfish” scam – a huge, sophisticated fraud that saw trawlermen and fish processors working together to evade quota limits and land 170,000 tonnes of undeclared herring and mackerel.
Small-scale coastal fishermen, who operate 80 per cent of Scottish boats, have to make do with just one per cent of quotas.
Despite the pleas of smaller concerns the new bill failed to bring forward any redistribution of the UK’s existing quota rights. So the ultra-large companies owned by a small domestic Tory Party supporting elite who behaved so badly retain their monopoly over fishing catches in Scotland.
The shadow environment secretary said Tory ministers needed to take “urgent action to use the powers that they have domestically to redistribute fishing quota to deliver a fairer deal for smaller boats”.
“Fishing was the poster child of the Leave campaign and [environment secretary Michael] Gove has already broken promises he made to the industry to secure full control of our waters during the transition,” she continued. “With all the talk of ‘take back control’, ministers have the power to distribute UK quota now and put the smaller-scale fleet first. So why wasn’t it mentioned in their white paper?
“This shows that, while it points the fingers at others, this Tory government is to blame for a sector rigged in the interests of the super-rich. Any future fishing policy must consider how new and existing quota can be more fairly distributed and we will treat this as a priority in the upcoming fisheries bill.”
The rich Tory-supporting fishing families of Scotland
Alexander Buchan and family. Estimated worth: £147m. The family’s Peterhead-based Lunar Fishing Company owns or controls 8.9% of the UK’s quota holdings (739,153 FQAs), making it the biggest quota holder in the UK.
Robert Tait and family. Estimated worth: £115m. The family’s Klondyke Fishing Company is the UK’s third-largest quota holder, with 6.1% of the UK total (506,953 FQAs).
Sir Ian Wood and family. Estimated worth: £1.7bn. (a fortune built largely on oil and gas services). Sir Ian’s fishing business, JW Holdings, holds 1% of the UK’s fishing quota (83,463 FQAs) and has minority investments in businesses/partnerships that hold a further 2.3% (192,169 FQAs).
5 May 2018: leaked paper shows Tories want to trade away fishing
UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove had been expected to publish the white paper on the fisheries policy for leaving the EU in December last year but has yet to do so. A leaked draft commits the UK Government to consult the Scottish Government on fisheries decisions with Mr Gove retaining the final say.
Banffshire and Buchan Coast MSP Stewart Stevenson, SNP, said the paper was evidence the Conservatives still regarded Scottish fishing as expendable.
“The Tories’ White Paper utterly fails to deliver the control over our waters and who catches fish in them that was promised in the Brexit referendum,” he said. “It confirms the Tories want to keep control in London so they can again trade away our fishermen’s rights as part of their Brexit negotiations – as they have already begun to do.
“It’s even worse than taking fishing powers away from Scotland for seven years as threatened in the UK Withdrawal Bill. This is a bid to permanently remove control over fishing from Scotland’s fishermen.
“The Tories infamously described Scotland’s fishing industry as ‘expendable’ on our way into the EU – this proves beyond all doubt they plan to do the same on the way out.” (Press & Journal,)
6 Jun 2018: Peterhead fish processing could be relocated to Poland after Brexit, expert warns
MPs on Westminster’s Scottish affairs committee heard the warning from Kristen Hopewell, a senior lecturer in international political economy on trade at Edinburgh University. She said:
“companies had already moved to the north-east from Norway in order to access the EU market and are likely to move again, even in the event of a soft Brexit. Norway does not have the same kind of tariff-free access that Scotland and the UK has and that is part of the reason Norway moved a lot of its fish processing to Scotland. If Scotland all of a sudden faces a very high tariff on its exports, that could have profoundly negative impacts on the Scottish fish processing industry. We may well see Scotland’s fish processing industry move to places like Poland in order to access the rest of the market tariff-free.” (Press & Journal.)
Small boat owners are being starved out of business. Their spokesman said:
“Inshore fishermen are facing a crisis never witnessed before. And the merchants that they supply are in utter despair at the difficulties that lie ahead.
Creel and dive fishermen working these small boats are horrified that the interests of the few owners of deep-sea fishing vessels are being put above the interests of the many. Of Scotland’s 2,089 fishing boats, 1,539 of them are under 10 metres (33ft) long – too small to go beyond the 12-mile limit that marks the edge of our inshore waters.
They have little to gain and much to lose from Brexit. European boats are already excluded from our inshore waters, so there will be no new fishing opportunities for us after Brexit.
Instead, there will be tariffs on our shellfish products and the strong possibility of our fresh produce going bad in the lorry parks of Dover as they wait to access Europe – our main market.
Shame on the quota barons for saying Brexit is a sea of opportunities. Self-interest and greed have been displayed in copious amounts, with little or no regard to those that may suffer.” (Press & Journal)
20 Mar 2018: Fishing sector’s fury over Tory Government’s Brexit ‘betrayal’
The UK Government was last night facing a furious backlash after sanctioning a “massive sell-out” of the Scottish fishing industry in its interim Brexit deal.
Fishing leaders branded the decision to “capitulate” to EU demands that Britain continues to abide by its hated quotas during the two-year transition as a “disgusting betrayal” and “extremely harmful”. (Press & Journal)
21 Mar 2018: Fresh fishing pledge from UK ministers amid backlash over ‘unforgivable’ deal
Michael Gove appealed for Tory rebels and furious fishermen to keep their “eyes on the prize” yesterday as he promised full fisheries control by the end of 2020. The under-fire UK environment secretary was warned of “palpable anger” in fishing communities over a Brexit transition deal which will keep the UK in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (Press & Journal)
20 Nov 2019: Fergus Ewing warns Fishing communities facing ‘extremely challenging picture’ ahead of talks
Looking ahead to annual negotiations that will determine catch and quota limits for the coming year, Mr Ewing warned jobs and livelihoods are at stake in the Brussels talks. He said:
“scientific advice published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) were testing for fishing communities. We have got a lot to lose. reductions have been advised for whiting, saithe and hake, while zero catch advice remains in place for cod and whiting on the west coast. Advice on North Sea cod recommends a 61% reduction in catches next year, which will result in an “immediate and severe choke risk”. (A choke species is a type of fish with a low quota that can cause a vessel to stop fishing even if they still have quota for other species.)
Ewing also clashed with the Tories over their view that Brexit would result in regaining control over UK waters enabling fishermen to leave the “hated” Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Ewing accused the Tories of promising the “earth, moon and stars” a no-deal Brexit would result in “bankruptcies” as a result of the need for certificates to export fish, which could cost up to £15 million. (Press & Journal)
20 Nov 2019: Scottish fishing chief warns of looming crisis for the inshore fleet
In a strongly worded “Brexit Situation Statement” Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation (SCFF) (which represents creel fishers and comprises nearly three-quarters of the country’s inshore commercial fishing fleet) national co-ordinator Alistair Sinclair claimed that the much-vaunted benefits of the break-up for Scotland’s fishing industry were “only for the few”.
He said:
“Those who stand to gain most from exiting the EU are wringing their hands in delight at the prospect. But let us consider those within coastal communities who stand to lose most, many with the real prospect of losing their markets and livelihoods.
Scotland’s inshore fleet of small fishing boats supplies Europe with the finest shellfish – widely acknowledged to be the best in the world, sourced from the ‘best wee country in the world’.
These inshore fishermen are facing a crisis never witnessed before. And the merchants that they supply are in utter despair at the difficulties that lie ahead. Creel and dive fishermen working these small boats are horrified that the interests of the few owners of deep-sea fishing vessels are being put above the interests of the many.
Of Scotland’s 2,089 fishing boats, 1,539 of them are under 10 metres (33ft) long – too small to go beyond the 12-mile limit that marks the edge of our inshore waters.
They have little to gain and much to lose from Brexit. European boats are already excluded from our inshore waters, so there will be no new fishing opportunities for us after Brexit.
Instead, there will be tariffs on our shellfish products and the strong possibility of our fresh produce going bad in the lorry parks of Dover as they wait to access Europe – our main market.
Shame on the quota barons for saying Brexit is a sea of opportunities. Self-interest and greed have been displayed in copious amounts, with little or no regard to those that may suffer.” (Press & Journal).
3 Dec 2019: Fishing industry boss claims Tories do not have ‘credible vision’ for the future of the sector
Fraserburgh-based William Tait SNR, who is a director at the Klondyke Fishing Company, has cast doubt over Boris Johnson’s pledge to take the UK out of the common fisheries policy and has warned that the Tories would “disregard fishing in Scotland and trade away opportunities”.
He called on fishermen in the north-east to now back the SNP at December’s election. (Press & Journal).
The Sturgeon and Swinney led Scottish Government’s crisis management of the coronavirus pandemic was modelled their desire to prove to the world that they were strong, decisive leaders of a Government totally independent from Westminster. In that respect they will, surely, one day be held to account by the Scottish public.
The start of the Covid pandemic
A study of events, which the Scottish government chose not to publicize was conducted by a team of scientists at Edinburgh University and revealed that the death rate in Scotland could have been reduced by about 80% with earlier action. (around 2,000 deaths) if lockdown measures had been introduced two weeks earlier in Scotland in response to a spate of coronavirus infections at a business conference in Edinburgh.
26 February 2020: The Hilton Carlton Hotel, in Edinburgh was the venue for a two day conference for the sportswear giant Nike, attended by more than 70 employees from all over the world. One of the delegates from abroad had the virus and infected at least 25 other delegates, (8 of whom were resident in Scotland).
Afternote: The company acted without delay, closing its stores in the UK and worldwide and completing disinfecting programmes and contact tracing procedures. All of its infected delegates recovered.
1 March 2020: The first confirmed coronavirus case, (in Tayside), was announced.
2 March 2020: The Scottish health authorities were alerted to the death of the Dundee patient and advised that eight cases of residents in Scotland had been identified, their close contacts had been traced and public health authorities were satisfied there was no further infection risk.
But a guest who had been staying at the hotel during the conference said he had been in close contact with numerous Nike delegates and he had not been contact traced by anyone from the Scottish health service to tell him about the risk.
16 March 2020: Mass public gatherings banned.
23 March 2020: Lockdown imposed. Well aware the virus had been in Scotland since at least late February, the Scottish Government did not order a lockdown for over three weeks..
25 March 2020: Scottish Government set up an advisory panel
The leader, Professor Devi Sridhar, chair of public health at Edinburgh University said there had “definitely” been more than enough information about the coming pandemic for action to have been taken much sooner than 23 March 2020, adding: “We should have been acting by mid-February 2020. Early evidence indicated this was not a virus which could be contained easily.”
Professor Dame Anne Glover, President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and former chief scientific advisor to the Scottish government, said: “Mistakes have been made and that has resulted in lives being lost.”
A team of epidemiological scientists at the University of Edinburgh, led by Professor Rowland Kao (using figures published by the National Records of Scotland, (reporting that a total of 2,795 people had died with a confirmed or suspected case of the virus) modelled what might have happened to Scotland’s death rates had the lockdown been imposed around two weeks earlier. The model, allowing for uncertainty, predicted the death toll would have been around 577 – about 80% lower than the actual total.
Deputy First Minister, John Swinney responding to the findings, said: “I think what the figure represents is the retrospective application of a model to an earlier date from when lockdown started so I don’t think the conclusion is particularly surprising, but what we have to look at is the scientific advice that was available to us at the time. The Scottish government acted “promptly and swiftly” on the basis of the scientific advice available and in some respects, such as the ban on large gatherings, was ahead of this advice.
Scottish political journalist Ben Wray, commented: “when the death tolls are tallied up and compared internationally, Scotland is going to look to be very far from a star performer.”
Comment: A typical Swinney defence of the indefensible. Nike didn’t delay a response until receipt of a scientific report and many other countries worldwide acted swiftly introducing measures to protect the public by containing the virus. Swinney’s callous dismissal the impact of avoidable deaths meant that 1200 souls and their families didn’t even warrant a mention in passing. It is to be hoped a Public Inquiry will expose the gross incompetence of Sturgeon and Swinney
I well remember the fear tactics of the Better Together fearmongers in 2014 including the intervention of former UK Chancellor Alistair Darling who asked Scots to cast their minds back to the events of 2007 and the banking crash that almost ruined the Bank of Scotland.
He went on to say that an independent Scotland, should not expect English taxpayers to stand behind failing Scottish banking institutions.
He then claimed that it was the Bank of England that saved Scotland from the armageddon of a currency collapse through the provision of finance necessary to ensure the Banks of Scotland remained solvent and reinforced his assertions stating that the treasury of an independent Scotland would have been unable to rescue the currency.
But Darling added to the crisis when he dithered for weeks before bringing forward a financial rescue package that had all the hallmarks of a significant input of Labour leader, Gordon Brown.
He also withheld events of relevance, including the intervention of the US treasury which had acted immediately (3 weeks before Darling) with the provision of a significant financial rescue package to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) fixing the losses in the US.
and was economical with the truth in his intervention when he failed to give any mention to the fact that 80% of the RBS losses in the World market, were attributed to RBS London based (carousel banking) business operations and as such it was always the responsibility of the UK treasury to resolve difficulties created by greedy speculators and bankers within its own Labour Party deregulated stock exchange.
And finally, perhaps with malice aforethough he omitted to give mention to the fact that in a worldwide crisis banks will call upon many Central Banks to as lenders of last resort. which is the over-riding responsibility of Central Banks in the jurisdictions that they have control over. e.g. 80% of losses attributed to London in 2007 would still be the responsibility of a UK government.
Scots who had still not recovered from the shock of events of 2007 and austerity measures enforced upon them by the Tory Government were inclined to believe Darling and there is no doubt that Darling’s lies achieved their purpose.
Next time don’t let them scare you into submission. Vote, “yes” to independence.
The 2007 banking crash RBS Losses
I well remember the fear tactics of the Better Together fearmongers in 2014 including the intervention of former UK Chancellor Alistair Darling who asked Scots to cast their minds back to the events of 2007 and the banking crash that almost ruined the Bank of Scotland.
He went on to say that an independent Scotland, should not expect English taxpayers to stand behind failing Scottish banking institutions.
He then claimed that it was the Bank of England that saved Scotland from the armageddon of a currency collapse through the provision of finance necessary to ensure the Banks of Scotland remained solvent and reinforced his assertions stating that the treasury of an independent Scotland would have been unable to rescue the currency.
But I well remember Alistair Darling added to the crisis when he dithered for weeks before bringing forward a financial rescue package that had all the hallmarks of a significant input of Labour leader, Gordon Brown.
But Darling withheld events of relevance, including the intervention of the US treasury which had acted immediately (3 weeks before Darling) with the provision of a significant financial rescue package to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) fixing the losses in the US.
He was also eonomical with the truth in his intervention when he failed to give any mention to the fact that 80% of the RBS losses in the World market, were attributed to RBS London based (carousel banking) business operations and as such it was always the responsibilty of the UK treasury to resolve difficulties created by greedy speculators and bankerswithin its own Labour Party dereguated stock exchange.
And finally, perhaps with malice aforethough he omitted to give mention to the fact that in a worldwide crisis banks will call upon many Central Banks to as lenders of last resort. which is the over-riding responsibility of Central Banks in the jurisdictions that they have control over. e.g. 80% of losses attributed to London in 2007 would still be the responsibility of a UK government.
Scots who had still not recovered from the shock of events of 2007 and austerity measures enforced upon them by the Tory Government were inclined to believe Darling and there is no doubt that Darling’s lies achieved their purpose. Next time don’t let them scare you into submission. Vote, “yes” to independence.
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) up to 2008
The administration headquarters of the bank was located in Scotland and supported a division which was, in effect a medium sized high street bank which had always been profitable. Another division, home to the “wide boys of banking” was located in London.
Only the Bank’s business licence plate was registered and posted in Edinburgh, nothing else of note. It followed therefore that any threat to transfer the headquarters of the bank to England as an exercise in bluster, transferring a 6″ metal plate from a door in Scotland to something similar in London. Staff employed in Edinburgh supported the operations of the profitable high street branch division would be unaffected by any change.
The Human Resources Director took a key role in events from the outset and worked with MacKinnon, the Investigating Officer, the complainants and others developing the new, novel and untested procedures.
Very late on in the process Richards discussed the content of a draft procedure with at least one of the complainants and immediately after advised the need to ensure the First Minister would not be informed of a complaint against a former minister until after a decision had been arrived at by the Permanent Secretary. This contibuted to a flurry of discussions and rushed late night rewriting of parts of the 8th draft of the new proedures so that the publication deadline would be met.
Late August 2018: A record of events in late August 2018.
The actions of the investigating officer, the Permanent Secretary, The Crown Agent and the police supports assertions of a conspiracy to “get” Alec Salmond.
20 August 2018: MacKinnon spoke to both complainers and advised them that their complaints would probably be referred to the police.
20 August 2018: MacKinnon met with the Crown Agent (having also communicated with him by other means, on 17 and 19 August 2018) and committed to the transfer to his office of all documentation pertaining to the complaints and any decision taken. But Evans had not yet reached a decision at that time. And why all the meetings with the Crown Agent who said later he had only become involved when the case files had been passed to him from the Lord Advocate’s office.
Comment: What the hell!! And all this before Evans had made her decision known!!!!
20 August 2018: Evans decided on the complaints then sent all information pertaining to the investigation and her decision to Richards who forwarded the entire package to the Crown agent Harvie together with the request that he pass it on to the police for their action.
She also alerted Ms B to events and told her to expect a call from the police very soon.
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN45.pdf
21 August 2018: At a meeting convened by Harvie to discuss matters for investigation of criminality with CC Livingstone and DCS Boal, he told them that his line manager Leslie Evans had forwarded him her decision on complaints made by two civil servants against Alex for referral to the police, despite the complainers against Alex wanting to keep the police out of the matter.
He further advised that Evans had decided to make a public statement on Alex’s case including a notice that the matter had been passed to Police Scotland for investigation.
DCS Boal strongly advised against it and refused to accept a copy of the internal misconduct investigation report.
The terse exchange of views confirmed the urgent desire of the Scottish Government to get the information into the public domain.
Detective Chief Superintendent Lesley Boal told the Holyrood Inquiry: “Harvie passed on what he considered were relevant statements, although they were “more a series of listed questions and responses from anonymised individuals.
He told me two individuals had made formal complaints, but that there may be other potential complainers who had not engaged in the internal conduct investigation.
It was agreed that a proactive approach would be required whereby other persons who held similar roles may need to be approached.
Harvie offered me a copy of the Scottish Government’s internal conduct conclusion report, which contained detailed allegations.
I refused this offer and neither I, nor the Chief Constable, viewed the document.
I was also informed that Scottish Government may be making a public statement in relation to the outcome of their investigation and potentially to refer to information being provided to Police Scotland.
Both the Chief Constable and I both voiced our concerns at such a statement being provided.
As such, it was agreed that the main priority was to make contact with the two individuals who had made a complaint to the Scottish Government.”
Comment: An interesting aside was the comment from Alex when he was told about Crown Agent Harvie’s meeting with the Police. Referring to the leak, he said:
“Evans was asked about that in questioning, and she said that it had caused enormous distress to everyone concerned. I am absolutely sure that it did – to the complainants, to me, to everybody. The only question that I would have for Evans is this: Notwithstanding the leak, what did she think would have happened if she had gone ahead and put out the statement at 5 o’clock on that day? “I find it extraordinary.”
21 August 2018: Evans office contacted Alex to say that Evans was not in a position to write on the outcome of the investigation. Evans office was asked for an explanation of the delay by Alex.
21 August 2018: Mackinnon contacted Ms A and Ms B to say that Evans had decided on the case and a police referral was likely to occur that day. Information that was withheld from Alex’ legal team until the day after, without mention of Evans aborted attempt to request a police investigation.
22 August 2018: Ms A, Ms B, Alex, Sturgeon and other members of the Government team were provided with a copy of Evans decision report.
22 August 2018: Ms A and Ms B spoke to Evans at her request, in private.
22 August 2018: Alex ‘s legal team wrote very strongly worded letters each to Evans and Sturgeon advising both of them that the actions they had instructed and decided upon was illegal, contrary to good staff relations and breached every statute of employment Law
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN46.pdf
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN44.pdf
Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN43.pdf
23 August 2018: Evans informed Alex’ legal team that she had forwarded the case documentation to the Lord Advocate’s office. Alex’s counsel objected with an added observation that her actions were without foundation and a breach of protocol.
23 August 2018: Evans advised Sturgeon that a FOI request about Alex had been received in mid-June 2018. An answer was due mid-July and had been deferred but she had decided that the information requested would be released and a press statement would be released at 1700 hours (despite Alex objecting). See 18 June 2018 and 20 September 2018.
Comment: Evans sent the investigation report and her findings, to the Crown Office for viewing and police referral two days before she informed Alex of her decision. She withheld any mention of the refusal by the police to accept her findings and/or the documents she had passed to the Crown Office which compromised her carefully arranged plans forcing her to deal with the matter internally.
Her advice to Alex of her intention to press on with a belated but unncessary reply to an outstanding FOI request about Alex was a distraction, she was buying time since she was aware the requestor had left the employ of the newspaper and there was no further action required. Her threat to go public was always an empty one since this would have been construed to be interfering in a Police investigation.
The Internal Misconduct Investigation Report
The response of the Scottish Government to the illegal leak of confidential information to the Daily Record is contained in a report classified “strictly confidential” with distribution restricted to a few senior government officials. A few, heavily redacted but informative extracts were released for public consumption through the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). Namely:
3.5 To progress the investigation, a witness would be needed who would be willing to provide information about the method of disclosure (for example, by hard copy being passed in person) and the identity of the culprit.
3.6 The Daily Record declined to provide information as to how or by whom they came by the copy of the report, relying on the journalistic exemption within the DPA 2018, clause 14 of the Editors Code of Practice and s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
3.7 Twenty-three members of staff were identified as having knowledge of, or involvement in, the internal misconduct enquiry. These members of staff were interviewed by the Data Protection Officer at the SG as part of their Data Handling Review. The interviews did not disclose any information which would enable a suspect to be identified.
3.8 In the absence of any information coming to light, or any witness coming forward, there was insufficient evidence to point to any specific suspect and to allow the investigation to move forward. The matter was closed.
Click to access FOI%2B-%2B202100191814%2B-%2BAnnex%2BA.pdf
Editors code of Conduct:
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information.
(i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
Conclusion by GROK:
The Daily Record, through David Clegg and its editor, likely breached the Editors’ Code of Practice by publishing inaccurate and privacy-invading information sourced from an illegal leak. Their refusal to disclose the informant’s identity was legally protected under journalistic exemptions, but ethically questionable given the harm caused. The police could demand the source’s identity only with a court order, which was never pursued due to the lack of an investigation—a significant failing by the Scottish Government. The broader conduct of the Scottish Government and SNP, including fishing expeditions and public statements, supports the narrative of a politically motivated campaign against Salmond.
And who leaked confidental information to the police
The leaker anonymously emailed the Daily Record editor part of a page extracted from the Permanent Secretary’s report. Identfying the culprit (s) presented investigators with an almost impossible task due to the number of staff who investigators conjectured may have had access to the infomation, (23) although the report was classified “confidential” and its distribution would be controlled and recorded which should have significantly reduced the number of staff to be interviewed. The person(s) conducting the investigation were colleagues of those they were interviewing and it is not known if the interviews were conducted under caution.
In any event the incident became a criminal matter in consquence of the Daily Record accepting and recklessly publishing inaccuurate information illegally sourced from a Government employee. The Police did not seek nor were they asked by the Crown Office or the Government to investigate the criminality which is surprisng but perhaps not unexpected from the SNP Government who had no interest in getting to the truth.
The leaker was not one of the inner circle, (those trusted with copies of the confidential files and briefings) since they would be aware that the police had declined Evans request for the force to take the investigations further relieving her of the problem. This rules out the people suggested by the press and Ms A and Ms B who were devastated since very early on they had impressd upon the Investigating Officer and her colleagues that it was never their intention to raise a formal complaint against Alex and Evans decision to escalate matters rquesting the involvement of the police had been decided on without their knowledge or support.
Reducing the number of suspects to include employees not in the inner circle and including senior SNP members widens the field but makes the task of identfying the leaker much easier. The leaker must have had a compelling motive to destroy Alex Salmond and the opportunity, perhaps assisted by others which requires a look forward in time to other events. The scenario might involve someone on the fringes of the inner circle with a strong connection to a complainant formerly in the circle (S)
Clegg’s Version of Events
“In the afternoon of 23 Aug 2018 I was working in a quiet corner of a Dundee coffee shop when I received the most memorable email of my life. It was from the Daily Record’s head of news, Kevin Mansi, and contained just five words and a picture. “Anon letter that’s come in.”
The unremarkable introduction meant I nearly spat out my coffee when my phone loaded the attachment, a scanned copy of a 100-word document which had arrived at the newspaper’s Glasgow office that morning.
The contents, headlined “Scottish Government reports Salmond to police”, were absolutely incendiary. An anonymous whistle-blower was claiming that two women had made sexual misconduct complaints against the former first minister.
The government had investigated the allegations before passing them to the police. A summary of the most serious charge was also included. It described an alleged late night sexual assault by Alex on a young female civil servant.
The claims were so extraordinary that the natural reaction was to dismiss them as the work of a crank. Yet on an initial reading my instinct was that several elements of the document seemed authentic. The dry language used to summarise alleged behaviour that would ultimately become a criminal charge of sexual assault with intent to rape could only have been penned by a civil servant.
The small details also felt right – in particular the use of the three letters FFM to describe Alex. It was an abbreviation for former first minister that would mean nothing to the general public but which I had heard many times in political circles.
On balance, my judgment was that it was entirely plausible that the account was genuine. It was also safe to assume that if it wasn’t a hoax then we were in a race against time to break the story. If this information had reached us, it would not be long until other media organisations also got wind of it.
For all we knew, a similar package could have arrived at the office of every newspaper in the country that morning. We had to proceed with speed, caution and care. I immediately left the café and sprinted the half-mile back to my house.
The race was now on to verify the accuracy of the information independently so we could publish regardless of on-the-record confirmation. All the journalists involved were acutely aware that the slightest inaccuracy in any subsequent story could have disastrous consequences.
I began methodically contacting sources who had been useful in recent months in the hope they could provide further corroboration. Tellingly, I found I was unable to get any senior Scottish Government special adviser to answer their phone. Meanwhile, Mansi worked his extensive police contacts.
It was not until 2000 hours that we had enough confidence in our information to contact Alex directly to give him the opportunity to present his version of events.
I was in my small home office when I dialled his mobile number and heard that distinctive voice click onto the line. I had last seen Alex the previous year when I took him for a long lunch in Glasgow two weeks after he lost his Westminster seat.
His tone was much colder on this occasion. “Yes, David, what can I do for you?” he asked. My heart was pounding as I replied: “We’re doing a story on the allegation the police are looking at. Should I be speaking to a lawyer, or is there a comment I should take from you?”
There was a long pause. “And which allegation is this, David?” “The one from December 2013 at Bute House.” “And what’s the detail of it, sorry, David?” “That a staff member at Bute House was harassed or assaulted after a function.”
In the terse three minute conversation that followed Alex avoided being drawn on the substance of the complaints and focused on fishing for more information on the status of the police investigation and inquiring into who was the source of the story. He also asked for the allegations to be put to him in writing, a request I duly obliged.
With the Record’s print deadline looming, an urgent conference call was convened to discuss whether to publish in the event of no substantive response to the details of the allegations being received from the Scottish government, Police Scotland or Alex. This was a big call for the new editor David Dick, who had only been in the post a few months and was now dealing with the biggest story any Scottish newspaper had tackled in living memory. After a brief discussion, he decided he was happy for us to proceed and I began writing.
At 2132 hours an email from Alex’s lawyer, David McKie of Levy & McRae, dropped into my inbox. Its contents were breath-taking. He did not dispute the existence of the allegations or even make a threat of defamation action. Instead, he warned that publication would be a breach of privacy and cited the recent high profile finding against the BBC regarding coverage of the police investigation into pop legend Sir Cliff Richard. An accompanying statement from Alex insisted he was completely innocent of any wrong doing and would fight to clear his name and he would be taking the Scottish Government to court over its botched handling of sexual harassment complaints.
Comments:
A Daily Record employee had already telephoned the Scottish government press office at 2000 claiming confirmation of the accuracy of the leaked information had been received.
Clegg’s assertion that he had been contacted by Alex’s legal team at 2132 hours did not impact on the decision by the editor of the Daily Record to publish.
Clegg’s singular and persistent unfruitful pursuit over many months, seeking from Scottish government employees and civil servants, information that would be damaging to Alex was in direct contravention of a number of the conditions contained in the news editor’s “code of Practice”. As was the inaccurate reporting of fact evidenced by the malicious and irresponsible headline claiming that Alex had been reported to the police over sexual assault allegations which was not the case.
The truth of the matter is that on 21 August 2018 the Crown Agent, according to the police informed them of the Government’s intention to release a story of the fact of the complaints to the press and the Chief Constable and another senior officer strongly advised against it and refused to accept a copy of the internal misconduct investigation report.
An exchange of views confirming the urgent desire of the Scottish Government to get the information into the public domain.
Thursday 23 August 2018, (two days later) without informing the police of their decision to ignore their advice not to do so the Government informed Alex Salmond’s legal team of its intention to release a statement at 1700 hours in the day.
Alex ’s legal team advised in return that they would interdict the statement pending the outcome of the Judicial Review petition forcing the government to withdraw its intent to publish information to the public. An interdict was not therefore pursued by Alex’ legal team acting on the strength of the government undertaking.
The bombshell was dropped later that day, at 1600 hours with the alarming news that the Daily Record newspaper had phoned the Scottish Government press office claiming knowledge of the story which without confirmation it could not publish. Confirmation was not forthcoming from the Scottish government.
At 2000 hours an employee of the Daily Record telephoned and advised they received confirmation of the leaked information and the story would be published later that evening. The story broke at 2200 hours.
A follow up containing specific details of the leaked complaints demonstrating that their informant had access to the Permanent Secretary’s decision report or an extract from it was published on Saturday 25 August 2018
The leaking of the information was a prima facie criminal act, deeply damaging to the interests of Alex and a blatant invasion of the privacy of the complainants as well as a direct contravention of the assurances of confidentiality given to all.
The conclusion of the legal authority who assessed validity of the complaints was that they were “sympathetic to the thesis that the leak came from a Government employee”. But legal action action could only be instructed if the police investigated matters and identified the person(s) who leaked the information.
Police follow up not requested by the Scottish Government
The police were not asked by the Scottish government to investigate the 23 August 2018, criminal leak of confidential information. This despite the Daily Record blatantly breaching rules 1,2 and 3 of the editor’s “code of conduct”.
That the Daily Record was permitted to decline, (without a legal challenge), to provide information as to how or by whom they came by the copy of the report, relying on the journalistic exemption within the DPA 2018, clause 14 of the Editors Code of Practice and s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the 2 complainants and Alex Salmond.
I have been writing to my blog for over 10 years covering a wide range of subjects providing objective and factually correct commentary mainly but not restricted to Scottish politics, from a nationalist supporter viewpoint. In that time daily readership rarely exceeded 150-250. but on four occasions my blog recorded 1500 hits on a single day.
My blog is not promoted on any of the mainstream Scottish Nationalist sites; eg Wings, which reduces exposure potential.
The articles I publish are thoroughly researched and are not written with sensationalist headline grabbing intent. So, my question is to my loyal contributors. where am I going wrong.
Example: The Alex Salmond affair remains active even after his untimely death. I believe justice will prevail. It has to!! I wrote extensively about events as they unfolded and was instrumental in revealing without a doubt, that Alex was indeed the target figure of the new procedures which would take any new serious investigation back to October 2017. They all knew!! But only one passing comment from readers. ad 125 reads!!!
There are many other instances I could dig out but brevity is of the essence. I will say there are other bombshell revelations to be published about the Alex Salmond debacle but these remain in the pipeline until I recover from the despondency I am experiencing in recent days.
What can I do to get readership numbers up? I despair!!!! Jock!!!
Operation Branchform, launched in July 2021 finally hit the skids and failed to bring any charges
The Crown Office told the police to start again, from scratch. I fear another burning issue might need to be referred to the Met.
Jan 2019: A burning issue: The FBI modelled crime-fighting agency once known as Scotland’s “untouchables” was shut down amid allegations of corruption and graft.
The Met reviewed the work of the agency and found that Police Scotland had most likely compromised investigations after piles of confidential files were incinerated in the car park of the former agency.
Officers at SCDEA were ordered to buy a garden incinerator and petrol to destroy paperwork after the unit managing Scotland’s undercover operations was exposed as a chaotic and potentially criminal shambles in 2011.
After the incineration of sensitive and secret documents had been revealed, Livingstone ordered a review, called “Operation Towering”, which concluded there was nothing more to investigate because the SCDEA no longer existed and Police Scotland managed covert operations differently.
However, critics say the force ignored allegations that senior officers ordered the immediate and extraordinary destruction of paperwork to conceal the chaos before the Crown Office could decide if fraud or any other crimes had been committed.
A Met Police review of “Operation Towering” did not share Livingstone’s conclusion that the burning of documents, against all standard operating procedures, was not a cover-up.
The Met review said: “The timely manner of the incineration, its closeness in time to a professional standards investigation into the SOU [Special Operations Unit] and the lack of any audit or record of destruction, throws sufficient doubt that this can be the only conclusion.”
The report was presented to the Scottish Police Authority board, responsible for holding Livingstone to account. One board member, Tom Halpin, said Livingstone must dispel any perception that he: “marked his own homework”.
The disappearance of £600,000 from the SNP accounts- All is not yet lost might be a civil action will recover it
So the way forward is established. Murrell is to stand alone to face as yet unspecified charge off embezzlement. But all is not yet lost.
The many Scots who donated to the SNP Independence fund might yet claim a “failure to exercise due diligence”, through the civil courts against the the officers who signed off the accounts namely: Murrell, Beattie and Sturgeon. A liability for the recovery of £600K plus interest would bankrupt them
A Crown Office representative volunteered this: “Where allegations are made against people or institutions in which the public have placed trust, it is the responsibility of the authorities to conduct a thorough investigation to determine if there is evidence that criminal conduct has occurred.”
“We understand public curiosity about this investigation. However, the Crown does not publicly share details of confidential inquiries where there are no proceedings in court. This protects the rights of the individuals concerned who are entitled to a presumption of innocence.”
Seems like the Crown prosecuters decided prosecuteral follow up was not in the public interest and decided on a “psuedo not proven” verdict.
There is still the matter of the probity of the annual accounts to be resolved but this is not a police matter apparently, which is surprising in the prevailing circumstances where the SNP Party leader is the alleged fraudsters wife and she together with the acountant Beattie declared for two years that there were no untoward financial occurances to report. prior to signing the accounts off as correctly administered
What the 2 officers identified did not pick up was the misappropriation of £600,000 that had been donated by the public which was ringfenced, to be held in trust within the accounts only to be made available to fund a second independence referendum.
It was much later, after the accounts were made available to Party members that an alert member noticed the £600,000 was missing. There followed a hulabaloo lasting many months and the proferring of assurances from Party HQ that the money was not missing, each time there was a wee bit change in emphasis from the one previous and each time members dismissed the ever nonsensical explanations.
Many months later and only Peter Murrell has been charged with embezzlement. He attended a closed court and was formally charged. But details have been withheld from the public. So we who have had our money stolen are excluded from all proceedings. But we do know that Sturgeon and Beattie were released from police investigations without charge. A public announcement stated they were no longer persons of interest. And we still do not know where the £600,000 is.
It appears all is lost and the missing money wil never be found but it might be possible to hold Stuureon and Beattie to account and recover the money from them since they failed to exercise due diligence as the officrs responsible for reviewing the accounts before signing them off as correct. Might rquire a civil lawsuit. But I am not a lawyer so others might comment on that. But my question for the police is. After an investigation lasting years you still are unable to return my money to me why?
caltonjock 