26 October 1999: Minister Jackie Baillie Backs Scrapping Trident
A Minister in the Scottish Executive has admitted publicly to being in favour of scrapping Trident, it was confirmed last night as the Opposition SNP moved to exploit Government concern at the controversial judgement of a Greenock sheriff who ruled that Trident was illegal.
In the wake of Sheriff Gimblett’s ruling that the nuclear deterrent based on the Clyde contravened the law as viewed by the International Court, the Opposition SNP last night asked if ministerial collective responsibility in Scotland applied to reserved as well as devolved areas.
Ms Jackie Baillie, Deputy Minister for Communities, replied to a CND questionnaire posted on the Internet before the Scottish Parliament elections saying she supported the scrapping of Trident.
I suspect there is only one job Jackie Baillie is anxious to protect at the moment. Mrs Baillie has put on a bravura performance pretending to be concerned with employment while actually defending Scotland’s place as a humble cog in the US military industrial machine and her own interest in the pork-barrel arrangements which flow there from.
Trident is about the British taxpayer subsidizing the US defence industry and providing, gratis, an ICBM submarine squadron to the US Navy.
The pork-barrel part is that impoverished / Labour – dominated (same thing, really) areas like Mrs Baillie’s constituency (20% of households living in poverty) get very few relatively well- paid, ferociously subsidized defence jobs. (Highbeam)
Election after election the SNP has failed to take the seat, failing by just 169 votes in 2016/17. But Baillie is canny she plays her cards well by fully supporting the retention of Trident ensuring votes near to Faslane would be cast for her. She doesn’t give a toss for party policy wisely giving her all to supporting her husband’s GMB trades Union, their workers and families. She knows who butters her bread and she ranks as one of the most despicable politicians to park her behind on a well upholstered seat at Holyrood.
28 October 2012: Jackie Baillie Trident job loss claims challenged by official MoD figures
Claims by Labour MSP Jackie Baillie that the Trident nuclear weapons system sustains 11,000 Scottish jobs have been called into question following a Freedom of Information request by Scottish CND. Figures obtained from the Ministry of Defence by the nuclear disarmament group show that the total number of jobs directly linked to Trident is a mere 520. According to official figures, of the 520, 159 are employed by the Ministry of Defence and 361 are employed by contractors.
Labour MSP Jackie Baillie has been a regular critic of the SNP’s policy over the siting of nuclear weapons on the Clyde. Ms Baillie has repeatedly claimed that having Trident creates 11,000 jobs, with thousands more set to be generated through plans to expand the naval base. Speaking on her official Labour party website, Ms Bailie said: “There are over 11,000 jobs dependent on the base.
The SNP would remove Trident, devastating our local economy and turning Helensburgh into a ghost town.” Ms Baillie also claimed that the renewal of the nuclear weapons system and the expansion of the base would create thousands more jobs and added: “The SNP also fail to acknowledge that almost 3,000 new jobs will be created with the impending expansion of the base. These too would be jeopardised by the SNP plans to scrap Trident.”
Dismissing his Labour opponent’s claim as nonsense, SNP MSP, Bill Kidd, said: “Trident is, in reality, a jobs-destroyer, and attempts to justify the presence of weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde in terms of jobs is the worst kind of nonsense, as Jackie Baillie knows only too well.” http://newsnet.scot/2012/10/baillie-trident-jobs-claim-challenged-by-official-mod-figures/
In 2016, the Scottish Government published the review of the storage and spreading of sewage sludge on land in Scotland – known as the Sludge Review. This acknowledged that ‘stakeholder feedback indicates that there is a need for greater consistency, and greater public confidence, in the way sewage sludge is handled and used’. 21 key recommendations were made, none of which have been fully implemented.
In 2018, in response to continued complaints, the Scottish Government commissioned The James Hutton Institute, to produce an updated health risk assessment of sewage sludge. This included a consultation in which the ASCC agreed to participate, hopeful it would lead to improved regulation. The final report was in 5 parts. This report was not made public.
After more than a decade of pursuing every avenue for change, in June 2021, a freedom of information (FOI) request on 1 July 2021 to the Scottish Government to gain access to the final report. This was refused on the basis that they intended to publish the report within 12 weeks. That period passed and the report was not published. An appeal was lodged and the report was eventually disclosed on 17 October 2021. The James Hutton Institute stated that, if it wasn’t for the fact that the FOI letter had been submitted to the Scottish Government, it would have been shelved.
We are still having issues with sewage sludge spreading to this day but the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) involvement has kept the issue of sewage sludge on the agenda
Once the report was made public online, the ASCC felt that it didn’t fully address public concerns regarding regulatory and enforcement failures. The report made a number of recommendations to mitigate risks to human health including odours, but none of these had been implemented.
With this information, ERCS contacted MSPs to ask parliamentary questions on both reports, including when the recommended actions would be implemented.
Following a letter to the Minister for the Environment and Land Reform, ERCS was informed that a consultation paper on the recommendations from the 2016 Sludge Review would be published by October 2022.
his was subsequently delayed to January 2023. Given this delay, in November 2022, ERCS submitted a representation to Environmental Standards Scotland regarding the failure to implement the recommendations of the Sludge Review in the hope that they would use their powers to intervene to ensure that the Scottish Government finally got the message and the necessary steps implemented addressing the significant and long-standing problems with the spreading of sewage sludge. Scotsare still waiting for action.
Sewage Sludge Spreading
07 Oct 2021: The James Hutton Institute report on the impact on human health and the environment arising from the spreading of sewage sludge on land has been completed when will it be published?
MSP question?: The smell and inconvenience generates multiple complaints, but it is the potential risk to human health that is most concerning. Can the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government has considered the risk to human and animal health of sewage sludge when it is used as a soil conditioner and advise what recent assessment it has made of the viral, heavy metal and bacterial loads in sewage sludge?
Màiri McAllan: I am aware of the concerns of constituents and of the member. The Government takes matters of human health and environmental policy very seriously. A full review of the legislation and guidance that are relevant to the storage and spreading of sludge was undertaken in 2016, and the more recent piece of work that I referred to, which will be published this month, will help us to carefully consider the situation in 2021.
The spreading of sewage sludge on land is a long-established practice and an effective way of recovering value and avoiding waste. The practice is tightly regulated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, but issues of odour, which I know the member’s constituents are concerned about, are the responsibility of local authorities. I assure the member that SEPA will never hesitate to take enforcement action against anyone who is not complying with the current regulations for storage and spreading. https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100243526/
15 Dec 2021:Highlighting archaic arrangements for residents of West Dumbartonshire, it was revealed that until 31 December 1998, for many years, sludge boats collected residue from treated sewage at Shieldhall and the Dalmuir works, and carried it out to a deep sea dumping area between the Isles of Bute and Arran a practice banned by a European Union directive which prevented the dumping of sewage at sea because of its adverse affect on the environment.
Now it is transported in articulated lorries, nicknamed “mobile shit ships” and dumped on farmland in the Auchencarroch Hills, near Haldane in Balloch and residents are fed up to the back teeth with shit overspills and the stink from fields at times of heavy rain.
22 Dec 2021: Environment Minister, Mairi McAllan said: “Since 2010 Scottish Water has worked with Sepa to upgrade 104 wastewater treatment works and 279 storm overflows, by investing £686 million. And now they plan to go even further, investing a further half a billion pounds to improve and protect Scotland’s waste water network.
In regard to resolving litter issues pertaining to the protection of the seas marine litter is a global challenge and we are determined to play our full part in addressing it. A recently issued Government draft strategy paper included proposals for improvements and these form part of a consultation process on an updated Marine Litter Strategy, which aims to prevent litter reaching our seas and shores, remove rubbish from the marine environment, and strengthen monitoring. Abandoned fishing and aquaculture nets and gear are difficult to recycle as these are usually made of multiple materials. Adopting a circular design, with standardised materials, would make dismantling and recycling easier. This would enable re-use of valuable materials and reduce the amount of waste that could potentially end up in the water.
The draft strategy also includes measures to prevent items like wet wipes and sanitary products from entering our seas through the sewage system. Actions include improvements to sewage system infrastructure and an awareness campaign to promote behaviour change and highlight inappropriate flushing of sanitary items. To help curb plastic pellet pollution, the strategy includes the development of a certification scheme for businesses handling plastic pellets, with this work to be undertaken in collaboration with the plastics industry.
Comment from a long suffering resident:
9 Jan 2022: Once again the Scottish Government is being exposed for failing to deliver. This is a government that lives on spin delivered by a veritable army of spin doctors and press consultants. But dig, even just a little, and no matter where you look, this is a government falling down on the job. Sewage sludge used to be disposed of at sea at Garrioch Head in the Firth of Clyde. But this was stopped because surprise, surprise the sludge was polluting the marine environment. So where to now does it go. Well where better than the rural hills of Auchencarroch above Loch Lomond and the National Park. With no attempt to deliver modern environmentally sound solutions like incineration to heat disposal facilities, it is once again a case of the Scottish Government saying one thing and doing another.
And that of course is absolutely true to of dealing with plastic and recycling. For years now we’ve heard all the spin about recycling. All the millions of words, buzz words, policies et al. But look locally just at West Dunbartonshire where recycling has dropped from 44% to 36%. It may be that our SNP Council is particularly badly run, but going backwards is the utter antithesis of what is being spun at Scottish Government level.
But aside of the environment which we are clearly quite happy to trash, the thousands of tonnes of material not being recycled but instead landfilled comes at a huge cost. Between landfill tax, tip fees, and other such charges, every tonne of land-filled waste costs the Council around £160.00. Multiplying that average cost times let us say 5,000 tonnes and one gets the scale of the money being shelled out on land-filling.
Looking at things like that and WDC’s huge drop in recycling, one gets an idea of the scandal of how we deal with waste. Maybe our local representatives would like to comment but I suspect not. But yes, an interesting article. Brings to the surface, exposes the reality of how poor Scotland’s environmental protection performance really is. COPD 26 – a load of poppycock as far as Scotland is concerned.
14 Nov 2022: Sewage sludge spreading – the harm and fight for improved regulation.
Doreen Goldie and Jo Hirst, previously Chair and Treasurer of the Avonbridge and Standburn Community Council (ASCC), have been at the forefront of public action against sewage sludge for more than a decade. This is their report.
Rural communities affected by sewage sludge spreading on agricultural land continue to wait at 2023, for the Scottish Government to act on human and environmental health risks.
Sewage sludge or biosolids is a by-product of sewage and wastewater treatment. It is a source of nutrients for soil structure and its recycled use on agricultural land as fertiliser is often the preferred option over incineration or landfill in the UK and EU. However, it needs to be regulated and managed appropriately as it contains a cocktail of potentially hazardous contaminants including heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, inorganic and organic contaminants, microplastics and human and animal pathogens. Its use was banned in the Netherlands in 1995 and in Switzerland in 2005. In April 2022, Maine become the first U.S State to ban the practice of using sewage sludge because it contains the hazardous ‘forever chemical’ PFAS and contaminated farms and groundwater beyond use. In Scotland, there has been growing concern over the use of sewage sludge, the lack of regulation and enforcement, and the need for an updated review of potential environmental and human health hazards.
Communities around Scotland are facing the same issues.
Community action: Sewage sludge first became an issue in Scotland in 2009 when residents complained of excessive odours from nearby spreading. Investigation uncovered issues affecting residents since 2004, across neighbouring areas and further afield in Aberdeen, Perthshire, Stirling, Renfrewshire, East Lothian, Dumfries and Galloway and Fife. Main issues and concerns:
This is a summary of the main issues and concerns uncovered:
Breaching recommended volumes and frequency of spreading leading to potential soil contamination.
Strong odours in residential areas affecting everyday life and worsening health for people with long-term health conditions (e.g. cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).
Spreading in fields near the primary school resulting in cases of children being physically sick in the playground and their sports day being cancelled.
Spreading and stockpiling near water bodies with the potential for water pollution.
Spreading on livestock land potentially affecting animal health and development.
Poor regulation of sewage sludge transportation operators resulting in odours, spillages and hostile confrontations, intimidation, aggression and physical harm against citizens from operators spreading sewage sludge. Hence a reluctance to report issues to the relevant authorities.
An outdated 2008 assessment of potential impacts on human health from sewage sludge not considering new research and emerging hazardous contaminants.
These ongoing issues seemed to be a combination of both the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the local authority not taking responsibility, not having adequate guidance or not having the capacity to take action.
Guidelines and standards need to be updated because the present reliance is on guidance from 2001. And it seems unreasonable to make SEPA the single regulatory body that’s going to be responsible for this because they don’t have the personnel and resources to regulate & enforce it.
Public bodies should be made accountable for regulating sewage sludge. This includes raising any concerns with MSPs, local authorities, SEPA and Scottish Water.
Iain Livingstone – Getting to know him: Iain Livingstone played for Raith Rovers for three years before he graduated with a first class honours law degree at Aberdeen University. He practised law in Glasgow, Edinburgh and London and is still a member of the Law Society of Scotland.
He switched careers in 1992 and joined Lothian and Borders Police and in just 10 years he was promoted to Superintendent after serving in Edinburgh’s West End and Leith divisions and in Livingston.
He spent a year in the USA, studying for a Masters degree in criminal justice, after winning a sought after Fulbright Scholarship, which supports graduates with outstanding leadership qualities.
In 2002 he was promoted to a high-flying post in Edinburgh at the police watchdog body, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, which oversees Scotland’s eight forces.
Police chiefs viewed him as one of the country’s brightest prospects and he was tipped as a possible future chief constable.
09 Feb 2003: Livingstone, 36, was suspended from all duties at Fettes Police HQ by an officer from the force’s complaints department who told him he would be the subject of a criminal investigation commissioned by the deputy chief constable Tom Wood, and headed up by a senior officer from Fife Constabulary who would report his findings to the Procurator Fiscal The investigation resulted after a WPC claimed she had been sexually assaulted by Livingstone. The claims surfaced after the officers, who were both employed by Lothians and Borders Police Force attended a networking course forming part of an Accelerated Promotion Scheme for Graduates, at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan three years before.
Livingstone, denied the allegations and told the Sunday Mail: “I am shattered. My reputation has been tarnished. It is a nightmare for me and my family. I will do everything to prove these allegations completely false. I wonder why, three years down the line, she has come forward with such nonsense. I look forward to the inquiry team getting to the bottom of this.”
26 Jun 2004: A hearing, chaired by John McLean, Strathclyde assistant chief constable, established there had been no sexual impropriety or intent on Mr Livingstone’s part and dismissed five allegations of serious sexual assault. But at a separate internal misconduct hearing Livingstone, admitted less serious allegations, including being in the woman’s room overnight after falling asleep. He was demoted from superintendent to constable, only to be fully reinstated to full duties in September 2004. No detriment to be applied.
Comment: The freedom of information act does not apply to Scotland’s National Police Force (it does in England) and requests for information about the 2004 inquiry into five allegations of sexual assault against Livingstone have been repeatedly denied.
The force also refuses to disclose any non-disclosure agreements which may have been part of any settlement of the case and, the information has been categorised as so sensitive, Police Scotland refuse to confirm if the files even exist.
In regard to the allegations of serious sexual assault, Livingstone was cleared of sexual impropriety or intent following an “internal” investigation by a panel of male colleagues led by Assistant Chief Constable John McLean.
But all incidents of a possible criminal nature should be first referred to the Procurator Fiscal at the Crown Office and the force’s decision to ignore protocol categorised the “internal” investigation other than usual.
The outcome of being a requirement for Livingstone to admit to a much less serious allegation of being in the woman’s room overnight and falling asleep.
So the public will never really know what happened that drunken evening in Tullianan College in 2000.
18 Jun 2019: Hope surfaced briefly when in a documentary, “A Force in Crisis’, Sam Poling investigated a crisis that hit Police Scotland, five years after the creation of the national force.
She heard damning testimony from serving officers and discovered evidence of misconduct and the manipulation of crime figures.
The programme revealed leaked documents which showed corruption at the very heart of the force and a culture of fear within its ranks and documents those at the top tried to suppress.
She probed Livingstone about the “allegations of sexual assault” and about him being “bumped down from superintendent to constable and suspended”.
He responded saying: “there was a set of circumstances in 2000 whereby at a social event at Tulliallan, at a training event I had too much to drink. I fell asleep in the wrong place and that was wrong and I shouldn’t have done that, and clearly I accept that. I was suspended, I spent time off work. There was a hearing convened where I did accept I fell asleep. I was cleared of any sexual impropriety. I was cleared of any level of sexual intent and at that hearing, initially, I was then demoted from superintendent to constable. I immediately appealed against that and I was reinstated.”
10 Dec 2015: Senior police colleagues of Iain Livingstone, Deputy Chief of Police Scotland claim he lost out on the top job to Phil Gormley, because of a fear he would not emerge from the journalist sources spying scandal unscathed.
The choice of Gormley, who took over as Chief Constable on 5 January 2016, came despite Government ministers favouring Livingstone.
Holyrood sources say both Justice Secretary Michael Matheson and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon favoured Livingstone and the Scottish Police Authority’s five-man selection panel voted for him 3-2 after the interview stage last month.
It is claimed that Matheson was persuaded to give the job to Gormley because he was an outsider untainted by the spying scandal that has engulfed Police Scotland.
2018: Professor Susan Deacon of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) who is the third new chairperson in five years accused her predecessors of presiding over a dysfunctional watchdog amid another series of of mishaps. Andrew Flanagan vacated the role after he was criticised for conducting proceedings behind closed doors. He was also accused of bullying former board member Moi Ali after she disagreed with his decisions.
The first post holder, Vic Emery, did not renew his contract after a power struggle with Police Scotland’s first Chief Constable Sir Stephen House.
Asked about the problems, Professor Deacon said: “What’s the point of looking back? I don’t want people playing the blame game. That said, I do find it quite difficult to comprehend a number of things I would regard as basics just in terms of good practice were not embedded in the organisation, particularly around governance and organisation.”
The former Labour Health Minister also pledged to make the SPA more transparent as she attempts to turn its fortunes around and restore its battered reputation. She added: “It’s about how we reconnect and project to the wider world. It’s a public authority. “It has to be an externally facing organisation.
03 Jun 2018: The Scottish Police Federation General Secretary launched a twitter attack on an ex colleague: Following criticisms by former Assistant Chief Constable Angela Wilson, of Iain Livingstone’s bid to become Chief Constable, Calum Steele, General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) launched a highly personalised attack on his female former colleague on the twitter social media platform.
Steele, a Police Constable with an honorary rank of Chief Inspector due to his Police Federation duties also branded Angela a “useless buffoon” and wrongly claimed that a corruption inquiry in her former force Tayside “extended” to her. Steele, the General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) posted six tweets after Angela spoke out on the prospect of DCC Iain Livingstone gaining the top job as Chief Constable of Police Scotland.
The first said she was: “one of the most incompetent imbeciles ever to have held rank in the police service” and claimed she was continuing, “a smear on one of the very best”, adding: “You really need to ask who is driving this?”
He went on to say that Wilson had served in Thames Valley Police as did Claire Gormley, the wife of Phil Gormley who quit as head of Police Scotland following bullying allegations against him. He added: “Angela Wilson and the Gormleys have an axe to grind. It’s frankly pathetic.”
He also described Livingstone as, “one of the most talented, able, skilled and resilient police officers”.
Angela subsequently lodged a formal complaint with Police Scotland and the SPF. Steele was found guilty of posting, “inappropriate and offensive” online comments about her.
But he, “made no apology” and refused to delete the messages despite the finding of the investigating officer that: “they related to his role as a police officer and particularly his role as General Secretary” of the SPF.
He followed up saying: “We have asked Constable Steele to remove the relevant tweets from his Twitter account. Unfortunately, it is his own personal Twitter account and, as such, we are unable to order him to remove or delete them.”
06 Jul 2018: Scottish Police Authority refused to release documents on sex assault case top cop who wants to be Chief Constable.
Serious and new complaints against Iain Livingstone alleging an additional, “interaction with another officer” are being kept secret by the Scottish Police Authority (SPA).
The secrecy move comes as three senior Police officers including current Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone submitted their applications to be considered for the £220,000 a year role as Chief Constable of Police Scotland.
Material relating to the new complaints was sought from the Scottish Police Authority. The Authority, delayed by many months, releasing their response, which was “no” to the Freedom of Information request which bolstered Livingstone’s position as front runner for the top job despite an awareness of the grim details of a previous case involving 5 allegations of serious sexual assault which were dismissed by a tribunal composed of Livingstone’s male colleagues. (http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-cop-factor-scottish-police.html)
10 August 2018: Sir Iain Livingstone, interim head of Police Scotland from September 2017, was formally appointed chief constable of Scotland’s national police force after Nicola Sturgeon sacked his predecessor Sir Stephen House, ( who went on to take temporary charge of the Metropoliton Police force in London).
Livingstone became the interim head of Police Scotland in September 2017, with the post becoming permanent in August 2018.
Although officially given the job by the Scottish Police Authority, his appointment was approved by Nicola Sturgeon. He was seen as a safe pair of hands to take on the role, after the early years of Police Scotland, a controversial SNP reform that saw regional forces scrapped, were plagued by scandal, causing a major headache for Ms Sturgeon.
2019: Susan Deacon resigned as chair of the Scottish Police Authority, saying the structures were fundamentally unworkable. I’ve seen nothing to suggest anything has changed.”
Her call for a commission, an investigatory committee set up by the UK Government to examine issues of national importance, came after the Police Force was severely criticised by an industrial tribunal that backed Rhona Malone, a former firearms officer, who claimed she had been victimised and hounded from her job after complaining about the sexism of a more senior officer and former Assistant Chief Constable, Angela Wilson, calling for a judge-led inquiry into the corporate culture in Police Scotland.
03 Oct 2019: Investigation suggests sexism, misogyny and worse at Police Scotland in 2019. Angela Wilson, former assistant chief constable of Tayside Police with more than 30 years’ service, spent her career fighting for equality in the ranks.
And yet Angela is wary about commenting on policing issues because the last time she did, (questioning the suitability of Iain Livingstone becoming chief constable due to a previous allegation of sexually assaulting a female officer of which he was cleared, although sanctioned for drunkenly falling asleep in her police college room).
she was attacked on-line by Calum Steele, General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation union, who branded her “useless”, a “buffoon” and “one of the most incompetent imbeciles ever to have held rank in the police service”. He also wrongly stated on Twitter that a corruption inquiry “extended” to her.
Despite Police Scotland upholding her complaint and branding Steele’s comments “inappropriate and offensive”, he did not apologise and refused to delete his tweets. That this abuse came from a prominent male policing figure seemed to prove Angela’s perception – that women are still expected to know their place and keep their mouths shut.
She said: “It troubles me that people can’t speak out without being attacked personally. It does make you nervous about sticking your head back up above the parapet.” She went on to refer to two unsavoury incidents namely:
The toxic case of former Police Sergeant Kevin Storey who was jailed for rape and sexual assault in 2014.
One of his victims, a female colleague, accused senior officers of suppressing her original complaint and when she insisted on reporting it, she said she was bullied and forced from her job.
And Karen Harper, who had 22 years’ unblemished service who claimed she was subjected to a “black op” to fit her up after she made a bullying complaining against a male sergeant in Dumfries.
Her case that her career was destroyed by sexual discrimination is being heard by an employment tribunal.
Angela believes the fundamental issue is that the police system of conducting internal complaints needs to change.
How can any complainer – male or female – have faith in the integrity of an investigation conducted by the colleagues of those alleged to have committed wrongdoing?
She said: “There needs to be an urgent review of how internal complaints are handled to make sure there’s impartiality for starters. My view is that internal complaints are not always effective.
Another conflict, according to Angela and other officers who have pursued complaints against colleagues, is the dual role played by the Scottish Police Federation in that they are deemed able to represent both sides in a thin blue line dispute.
Angela said: “There also needs to be a review of how the federation represents two parties when it’s an internal complaint because at the moment they both represent the complainer and the person complained about and I’m not clear they can do that effectively. It has to be a political solution.
We’re standing here and this is not the first time these issues have been raised. There needs to be some political impetus behind this.” (Russell Findlay)
1 Dec 2019: Livingstone told the Scottish Police Authority a 2018 review of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA) proved the national force now had robust procedures in place to manage undercover officers.
But conveniently the review had been written by Stephen Whitelock, a senior officer at the SCDEA, which Livingstone had previously described was a ” chaotic and potentially criminal undercover unit” and the events that were uncovered were “deplorable and outrageous”.
Whitelock, former head of intelligence at the SCDEA, was the lead inspector for the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Scotland (HMICS) report into undercover policing, published in 2018.
He was number three at the SCDEA in 2011 when Johnny Gwynne, who went on to become Deputy Chief Constable of Police Scotland, was number two.
Gwynne and Whitelock were the two most senior SCDEA officers involved in the events that led to a former undercover officer, known as Mrs K in court, successfully suing the police after claiming she was made a scapegoat and frozen out of her job when she exposed the chaotic finances and management of the elite agency’s covert unit.
Both men announced their retirement in January 2019 as the judgment in Mrs K’s case was published but said the timing was a coincidence. Critics have questioned Livingstone’s Judgement.
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, which is responsible for holding Livingstone to account. One board member, Tom Halpin, said Livingstone must dispel any perception that he: “marked his own homework”. No more news on this one!!!!
24 Oct 2021: Wendy Chamberlain, the Lib Dem MP for North East Fife, who joined Lothian and Borders police in 1999 before leaving 12 years later to pursue her career in politics said claims of bullying, sexism and misogyny in the police should be investigated by a Royal Commission.
In an interview she said: “I’m dismayed that, despite reports and reviews such as those from Dame Eilish Angiolini, very little appears to have changed or has been learned. A Royal Commission should now consider the issue of violence against women and girls to ensure that the corporate cultures of police forces across the UK, including Scotland, is included in that.”
Wendy slammed the SNP for a lack of “focus” on dealing with crime and justice issues saying that under the SNP Government a “litany of failures” has edged the justice system in the wrong direction.
She cited the backlog in court cases, the long waits for prisoners on remand and the distances individuals are expected to travel to give evidence to back up her concerns.
The Lib Dems were fierce opponents of the SNP’s decision to scrap Scotland’s eight police forces and create one national service in 2013, arguing that it would reduce local accountability.
Wendy continued: “It does feel that justice is less close to people and less close to communities, and obviously, I served in Lothian and Borders Police and I represent a constituency of North-east Fife, and there’s no doubt that I saw first-hand the sort of difficulties that are represented in Scotland.
But it certainly doesn’t make people feel that their justice system is close to them. When you couple the loss of identity within the police service and with that being removed to a national level coupled with obvious closures within the court systems as well and people having to travel distances to give evidence.”
When asked whether she has faith in the current administration to turn the situation around, she said: “I think I think the fact that we’re talking about the sort of litany of failures suggests otherwise. “We’ve now had 14 years of an SNP government and you know, when you compare that to the previous Labour/Liberal coalition, I think just generally you can point to things that the coalition did in a way that you can’t with the SNP government, because frankly, it’s not their focus and it’s not the reason why their voters vote for them.”
Ms Chamberlain’s Holyrood counterparts have echoed her concern, voicing the need for fundamental reform of legal aid funding and investment in solicitors to retain equal access to experts. Across all criminal courts in Scotland, there are 43,606 cases scheduled, a record high number along with figures from the Scottish Prison Service showing prisoners held on remand and waiting for their court trial date have soared by nearly a third since 2018-19.
21 Feb 2021: Compensation and legal fees due to complainants for wrongful and malicious prosecution could cost Scottish taxpayers up to £100m.
In a separate settlement, David Whitehouse, received £310,000 from the Police Force in compensation and legal costs and queried Livingstone’s suggestion to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit Committee that only £75,000 of the payment was for damages, (that being the maximum amount the chief constable is enabled to sign off without seeking the authority of the Scottish Police Authority).
Whitehouse, who was arrested, locked in a cell for six days then pursued by Police Scotland and the Crown Office for months before being prosecuted for no reason, as part of an inquiry into the takeover and collapse of Glasgow Rangers, said Livingstone’s statement, “did not reflect the reality of what happened”.
Whitehouse and Paul Clark, a colleague at restructuring firm Duff & Phelps, have already received £21 million in compensation from the Crown Office and an apology after Lord Advocate James Wolffe admitted their prosecution, later abandoned, had been wrongful and malicious.
He said ” I received £310,000 in costs and damages while a colleague, also maliciously prosecuted, was also paid a similar amount by the Police Force. Addressing the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit Committee, Livingstone said the sum paid to Clark and Whitehouse was below the £75,000 he was authorised to sign off without seeking clearance from oversight body the SPA. He told MSPs: “On the settlement, as I think you heard from the SPA, I never asked for any authority for the extrajudicial settlement that I agreed with the representatives of Clark and Whitehouse.
The reason for that was because it was within the limits of my delegated authority in terms of litigation. My delegated authority is to the limit of £75,000. “I was able to settle with Clark and Whitehouse regarding their specific claims against policing.
An additional unidentified sum was awarded as a commensurate contribution towards legal expenses, and the settlement was made and validated by the court. I am not allowed to say anything more than that in detail.”
Total paid out by Police Scotland: £150,000 litigation. £472,000 legal fees = £620,000.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe in an address to parliament admitted the prosecution of Whitehouse and Clark was wrongful and malicious and admitted that separate cases for damages related to the scandal were ongoing and compensation and legal fees could cost taxpayers up to £100m, with the bill being covered by the Scottish government reallocating resource that may have been designated for health, education or infrastructure projects.
26 Oct 2021: Moi Ali, a former member of the Scottish Police Authority, said the police force were warned they were “as bad as the Met”’ for violence and sexism against women.
She also raised concerns that police officers in Scotland are able retire with their pensions and gratuities intact, avoiding any adverse impact of misconduct investigations that may still be on-going, whilst in England and Wales, if there’s a gross misconduct investigation in process steps are taken to prevent retirement until inquiries are concluded.
She also hit out at the lack of domestic abuse protection for women whose partners are serving officers, saying: “A recent Women’s Centre For Justice report revealed hundreds of partners of serving officers were living in fear and unable to trust the police will robustly investigate.
It’s clear women in Scotland have fewer protections if their partners are police officers. It’s deeply disturbing. What we need is a truly independent specialised unit which can operate to investigate cases like these so victims can trust they will get justice.
At the present time there is concern that there is no truly independent governance or oversight with many of the organisations set up to do that containing former police officers. There’s little point in bringing in an outside force to do this job because the public have clearly lost confidence and trust in that process.”
She said: “The latest, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) report told how women officers felt overlooked for promotions and were undervalued.
One woman said: “I have been sexually assaulted at work, as have most female colleagues I have spoken to. I have also spent years being on the receiving end of sexist ‘jokes’ and banter, been asked questions regarding what sexual practices I take part in. I have also been told I have only received promotions due to being a female, and likewise been asked if I have performed sexual favours in order to get specific jobs/posts.”
It also reported that there had been 542 negative responses from officers about Police Scotland, some alleged being sexually assaulted and more than a third of women alleged they had suffered discrimination and almost a third said they had been harassed.
The watchdog report found the force had a “culture driven by fear and misogyny”, and, although there were changes for the better, it was still a “boys’ club” of “white middle-aged men”.
The report confirmed the previous year’s findings of former Lord Advocate, Dame Elish Angiolini, who called for 80 changes to be made after finding racism, sexism and homophobia was rife in the force.
13 May 2022: Police Scotland pay out almost £1m over sexism case: Police Scotland has paid Rhona Malone, a former female firearms officer almost £1m after an employment tribunal found she had been victimised.
The tribunal heard last year that Rhona, who was based in Edinburgh, was a committed police constable who had an exemplary record.
It accepted evidence that the culture in parts of armed policing was “horrific” and an “absolute boys’ club.” One female officer said she was told women should not be firearms officers because they menstruate and this would affect their temperament.
The tribunal was also critical of witnesses appearing on behalf of Police Scotland. It found the evidence of a chief superintendent “implausible” and “wholly unsatisfactory” and described the actions of an HR official as “neither honest nor reliable.”
When Rhona raised concerns about her experiences she was offered a small pay-out on the condition she signed a non disclosure agreement (NDA) to stop her speaking out. She refused and ended up taking her case to an employment tribunal.
In 2020, Ms Malone said she wanted acknowledgement and accountability for the way she’d been treated and would have been an absolute hypocrite if she’d signed the NDA.
Last year she described winning her tribunal as “vindication” but said Police Scotland had put her through “absolute hell.”
14 Feb 2023: Forty-seven police officers in Scotland resigned or retired during misconduct proceedings against them between 2019-2022.
If an officer leaves Police Scotland, misconduct proceedings are automatically scrapped.
The rules are different in England and Wales where the Policing and Crime Act 2017 extends the system to former officers, so proceedings continue even if the officer leaves their post.
Last year, the Scottish government said it would change the rules to allow hearings to continue. It hasn’t done so.
There are currently 16,644 full-time police officers in Scotland.
In the period 2019-2022 Police Scotland received 332 allegations of gross misconduct and 1,182 allegations of misconduct against officers.
The undernoted officers left the service while the process of investigating allegations of misconduct against them was incomplete:
12 officers left in 2019 15 officers left in 2020 16 officers left in 2021 04 officers left in 2022
4 May 2023: Yousaf accused of failing to tackle “culture of misogyny” at Police Scotland
Humza Yousaf when Justice Secretary said that he would resolve concerns addressing and eliminating misogyny within the force.
In a public statement he said: “I will move at pace and ensure decisive action is taken on addressing misogyny within society generally.
In terms of some of the concerns that have been raised in relation to misogyny within the police force, I know from my engagement with the Chief Constable (Sir) Iain Livingstone how seriously he takes the issue of misogyny.
We take as a Government, and I know the police do, extremely seriously any concern raised against police officers.” Critics say that Yousaf’s response is “complacent and in denial, a view strengthened by female police officers being compelled to speak to the media in order to inspire change.
It comes as four women, including a former assistant chief constable (ACC), spoke about allegations of a “culture of misogyny” at all levels within the Scottish force.
Angela Wilson, former ACC of Tayside Police, said women currently working in the force are too afraid to speak out about their experiences.
She has spoken of her support for Rhona Malone, who won almost £1 million in compensation from Police Scotland after an employment tribunal ruled she had been victimised while raising sexism concerns.
Angela, who took early retirement in 2013, said her own 30-year career had been disrupted by trying to address the culture. She has since called for a judge-led inquiry into the claims.
Georgina Gallivan, who worked in an IT civilian role in the force for 20 years, told how her appraisals had all been excellent until she complained about a male colleague in 2017.
She said: “After that, it all kind of became ‘she’s a problem, she’s got mental health issues, she’s just causing trouble’.” She said the male officer made comments about her being “hormonal”, adding “it was humiliating in front of colleagues that you’ve worked with for such a long time”.
01 Nov 2017: James Dornan MSP, without consulting Miss “A”, sent details of a twitter exchange between Mark McDonald and Miss “A”, which he had retained for over a year without the knowledge or permission of either person.
02 Nov 2017: Mark was invited by John Swinney and Liz Lloyd to a meeting at which he was informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “Me2” movement.
03 Nov 2017: Lloyd then convened a second meeting with Mark at which she showed him a copy of his messages to Miss A. She did not provide the name of the person that had supplied it to her. but she did say that a complaint that had been lodged against him by an SNP Party member (Dornan). She advised him that his position as a minister of the government was no longer tenable and he would need to resign.
05 Nov 2017: Mark resigned as minister for childcare and early years.
07 Nov 2017: In a weird turn of events Sturgeon dismissed the notion that Mark should resign from Holyrood claiming that “Some may well have thought it was not serious enough to resign for.” Sturgeon’s statement suggested Lloyd acted against Mark McDonald without her knowledge or authority.
08 Nov 2017: Alerted by Sturgeon’s intervention of her belief that the reasons for Mark’s dismissal from his minister post was probably without foundation the SNP “hit squad” identified an urgent need to establish a “Moorov doctrine” pattern of harassment against Mark without delay to prevent his escape from the justice their gang had decided on.*
(*) The Moorov doctrine is a mechanism which applies where a person is accused of two or more separate offences, connected in time and circumstances. In such a case, where each of the offences charged is spoken to by a single credible witness, that evidence may corroborate, and be corroborated by, the other single witnesses, so as to enable the conviction of the accused on all the charges.
11 Nov 2017: A special investigation team, including an ex police officer was contracted, at considerable cost, to “dig for dirt” on Mark.
16 Nov 2017: A third potential complainer surfaced. Mark’s Party membership was immediately suspended and a team of private investigators including an ex-policeman were contracted at considerable expense, to complete investigations and report their findings to the Party’s Compliance Officer by 3 December 2017.
05 Dec 2017: Mark was summoned to meet with representatives from the SNP following which they issued a surprising “no further action” statement saying there was no criminality involved in the allegations against him. But the allegations although trivial were not dismissed. An expensive investigation had revealed nothing of note. Or so it seemed!!!!! The “Moorov Doctrine” manouvre had failed to materialise.
But Dornan continued his unfair pursuit of Mark and demanded that the full content of the allegations forming the “Moorov Doctrine” should be sent to the Ethics Commissioner for decision. Mark was suspended from Holyrood for one month but left politics at the end of parliament in 2021.
Weeks later the incident came under scrutiny of the press and revealed the bad faith of the “witchfinders” in the upper echelon’s of the SNP who claimed to be fair minded.
The heavily canvassed and reluctant complainant and many other Party members attended the Party’s 2015 Xmas function.
The complainant was a young researcher new to the Party scene who underestimated the adverse effect of over indulging in alcohol consumption. She became quite enamoured with a much older married man Jamie Hepburn, MSP. They left the party to continue their tryst and were away for some time. Later in the evening Mark noted her behaviour and condition had further deteriorated due to the alcohol and he decided to remove her to the safety of his nearby accommodation. She slept on his bed and he curled up in a quilt on the floor. The next day the young lady had no recollection of the previous evening but witnesses confirmed the accuracy of events to the SNP investigators. The young lady when interviewed by private investigators, said her overnight stay in Mark’s bedroom had been uneventful and there was no cause to register a complaint against him. She then spoke to Hepburn and he suggested she shouldn’t mention anything about the evening to anyone. Hepburn was subsequently summoned to attend a meeting with very senior SNP people. The content of the meeting was not recorded but a dossier was compiled and sent to Bill Thomson, the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. for decision. There was no mention in it of the 2015 Xmas party or of Hepburn’s inappropriate behaviour. His abuse of the young vulnerable female researcher was whitewashed from the probe.
That left the minor matter of the loan of the deposit on a flat of £476.14 that Mark had asked his staffer to pay for him in May 2016 and the three week delay in reimbursing it. The Standards Commissioner’s investigation found that Mark’s conduct had “showed a lack of respect” over the flat deposit. That was it!!! No complaint registered and the incident could not be judged by the ethics Commissioner on a single weak case.
Comment: The absence of any judgement by the Ethics Commissioner on Hepburn’s tryst with the young vulnerable staffer leads to the conclusion that Hepburn’s role in events had excluded from the dossier for political purposes.
The Commissioner’s opinion that Mark had shown Witness B a “lack of respect” in paying back the loan was subjective and warranted no mention in his summary opinion and its inclusion reduced the charges against Mark to a farcical level and all the more unpalatable when combined with the knowledge that Mark had been under severe stress at the time as he was waiting to find out if his father had terminal cancer.
The young vulnerable staffer was not offered up by the SNP investigation team to speak to the Ethics Commissioner because the move would risk exposing the events at the Xmas 2015 party. Her evidence was provided to the Ethics Commissioner, via a solicitor nominated by the SNP and stated she did not wish to participate in the investigation, except to confirm her agreement to the factual information set out in the report.
Many requests for comment that it doctored allegations against Mark to protect Jamie Hepburn from a charge of abusing his position have gone unanswered. His career continues to blossom at the expense of Mark’s which is unfair.
In August 2019 I was raped in my home by a man pretending to be a pizza delivery driver. The first trial in January 2020 resulted in a hung jury and the retrial was delayed until March 2021 on account of covid-19. During this time the defendant was remanded in custody.
I had worked in the criminal justice system as a probation officer so was used to the court process. However, I was shocked at the conduct of the defence barrister, and his portrayal of me as a consenting partner in my opinion contributed to the outcome of each trial.
Anything Goes
After the first occasion I read about the process of trials and what was appropriate. I am aware that CPS must take several issues into account when deciding whether a prosecution can go ahead and that stereotypes about victims should not play a part. However, the defending barrister broke all of these rules and although he was reined in by the judge a few times the point had been made. On account of having worked as a probation officer, although thirty years previously, it was claimed that I should have been able to talk the defendant out of raping me. No reference was made to my age of sixty five and that the defendant had threatened me with a large kitchen knife which he pointed at my throat and drew across my neck. An example of the belief that women are responsible for men’s behaviour ?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
In such cases where the victim is the only witness part of the defence’s role under the current system is to discredit her. Bearing in mind that the jury have to be convinced of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt this can prove precarious for victims. I was under threat by the defendant for seven hours, latterly in my bedroom where the five counts of rape took place. At one point he became interested in my books and I encouraged discussion to distract him from further violence. He was particularly interested in some books about witchcraft which my daughter had bought for a degree module on genocide and a reference book which I had bought several years ago out of interest. The defendant had mentioned these books to the defending barrister who asked me whether I was a witch at both trials. He was reprimanded at the first but not the second trial. As well as being an attempt to discredit me in the jury’s eyes I felt as if I was being tried as a witch in that everything that I did to stop him from using the knife to seriously injure or kill me, which I experienced as a real threat, was held against me. A modern day equivalent of the ducking stool.
Decriminalisation of rape
The defence challenged my account of events by relaying the defendant’s story which sounded like a mix of a Mills and Boon novel and a porn movie. A domestic scene of drinking coffee and washing up was included. I was ridiculed and constantly asked why I had not taken various actions to escape despite having been under serious threat and terrified. At the first trial it was claimed that the knife was used to cut the non existent pizza.
The jury found the defendant not guilty. As well as being in shock about the verdict I was concerned for my safety in view of his possible feelings of anger at having been on remand for nineteen months and knowing where I live. He had also seen me that day on the video which was my evidence in chief. I had already asked, on the advice of the witness support service, for a restraining order to be made in the event of an acquittal. The judge refused to make an order as there was no evidence of harassment.
“Within seven days of his release the defendant was again remanded in custody for sexual assault. This is an indictment on the current system which gives rapists excuses for their behaviour and lends credit to their stories which in turn gives them a sense of entitlement. These men are a danger to women.”
Expert juries?
Issues such as offending cycles which are typical of sex offenders’ behaviour are little known to the public as a whole. On account of their specific nature sex offences should be treated differently and not follow the current adversarial process where the victim’s right to justice is effectively cancelled out by the defendant’s. There appears to be an assumption that the victim is lying and being possibly retraumatised by the trial does not allow her voice to be heard fairly. Jury members could have their subjective opinions about rape and it has been suggested that sometimes female jurors take an unsympathetic attitude to a female victim in order to reassure themselves that the rape happened because she did or did not act in a certain way and that if they act differently they will not be at risk of rape. How a victim responds to rape is entirely individual and cannot be predicted as it depends on circumstances. Therefore a line of questioning about her actions or lack of actions can unfairly influence a jury.
Is a panel made up of experts about sex offender behaviour and how victims respond to trauma the way forward ? Maybe this would challenge the current low conviction rate of rape cases and act as a deterrent to rapists whose sense of entitlement is encouraged by the current system.
A conspirator is someone engaged in a conspiracy—a secret plan by multiple people to do something evil or illegal.
Murrell in a statement to the Holyrood Inquiry stated that Party policy dictated the handling of complaints within the Party was the responsibility of the Party Executive and it did not share case details with any other organisation unless the complaint highlighted a “clear act of criminality”, and at no time in the Autumn of 2017 did the Party inform any Scottish Government civil servant or special advisor of a complaint by a Party member against a minister of the Government.
He lied!!!
His assertion doesn’t fit the conduct of Liz Lloyd who, in asking for Mark McDonalds resignation contravened the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors.
31 October 2017: Ann Harvey, principal assistant to the chief whip at the SNP’s Westminster Group reported to the Inquiry that she had received 16 text messages, some from SNP HQ, to her private number, each one fishing for information which could be damaging if used against Alex Salmond.
A few persisted in asking for confirmation that Sue Ruddick ( a personal friend and ex colleague of Ann) had been physically assaulted by Alex while they were campaigning together during the 2008 General Election campaign. Her answer to that enquiry was a categorical rebuttal there was no physical aggression at any time on the part of Alex.
What’s up? Someone at the top of the SNP chain of command authorised a canvassing of staff for complaints. Hardly a spontaneous response as later claimed. Digging the dirt for long forgotten incidents.
01 Nov 2017: James Dornan MSP, was contacted by someone from SNP Party headquarters who was canvassing for any complaints against Party officials. He responded, without consulting Miss “A”, by copying the enquirer details of a twitter exchange between Mark McDonald and Miss “A” of 26 September 2016, which he had retained for over a year without the knowledge or permission of either party.
02 Nov 2017: Mark was invited to attend a meeting with John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, to be informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “MeToo” movement.
03 Nov 2017: Lloyd convened a second meeting with Mark at which she showed him a copy of his messages to Miss A. She did not provide the name of the person that had supplied it to her. but she did say that a complaint that had been lodged against him by an SNP Party member. She advised him that his position as a minister of the government was no longer tenable and he would need to resign.
04 Nov 2017: Sturgeon telephoned Mark in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign from the Government.
05 Nov 2017: Mark resigned as minister for childcare and early years. He was suspended later by the SNP following receipt of undisclosed “new” information about his conduct.
07 Nov 2017: In a strange turn of events Sturgeon dismissed the notion that Mark should resign from Holyrood claiming that “Some may well have thought it was not serious enough to resign for.”
Points to Swinney and Lloyd acting against Mark McDonald without the knowledge or authority of Sturgeon or of the SNP Chief Executive Peter Murrell, (see his quote above)
01 Nov 2017: Witness A said that following the publication of her blogs James Dornan MSP, her boss, had been contacted by someone from SNP Party headquarters and without consulting her he copied the enquirer the private Twitter messages of 26 September 2016, which he had retained for over a year without her knowledge or permission. His actions fit the profile of senior officials of the SNP who retain information which they use later to bring to account officers and/or staff who might fall foul of the Party hierarchy.
02 Nov 2017: Mark was invited to attend a meeting with John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, to be informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “MeToo” movement.
03 Nov 2017: Lloyd convened a second meeting with Mark at which she showed him a copy of his messages to Miss A. She did not provide the name of the person that had supplied it to her. but she did say that a complaint that had been lodged against him by an SNP Party member. She advised him that his position as a minister of the government was no longer tenable and he would need to resign.
04 Nov 2017: Sturgeon telephoned Mark in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign from the Government.
05 Nov 2017: Mark resigned as minister for childcare and early years. He was suspended later by the SNP following receipt of undisclosed “new” information about his conduct.
07 Nov 2017: In a strange turn of events Sturgeon dismissed the notion that Mark should resign from Holyrood claiming that “Some may well have thought it was not serious enough to resign for.”
Comment: Mark’s resignation would have cleared the way for Alex to return to frontline politics since at that time his political standing was untarnished. Sturgeon needed to keep Mark in post until the “Get Salmond” strategy was in place.
16 Nov 2017: Mark was suspended by the SNP after a third complainer surfaced.
03 Dec 2017: The SNP compliance officer instituted an investigation. This was done by hiring a team of private investigators who reported their findigs on 03 Dec 2017.
05 Dec 2017: Mark was summoned to meet with representatives from the SNP following which they issued a “no further action” statement saying there was no criminality involved in the allegations against him.
Mark announced to the press that he had contacted the national secretary of the SNP, and the chief whip of the parliamentary group, to resign from the Party with immediate effect saying: “while at no stage was my behaviour in any way physically abusive, and while it was certainly not my intention to cause any upset, discomfort or offence to those concerned, it is clear through the concerns highlighted in the report that I have done so.” He went on the state that it was his intention to return to Holyrood to sit as an independent MSP until the next Holyrood election in 2021. He defended his decision to remain in his £62,000-a-year job claiming it to be “morally justified”.
Comment: Murrell in a statement to the Holyrood Inquiry stated that Party policy dictated the handling of complaints within the Party was the responsibility of the Party Executive and it did not share case details with any other organisation unless the complaint highlighted a “clear act of criminality”, and at no time in the Autumn of 2017 did the Party inform any Scottish Government civil servant or special advisor of a complaint by a Party member against a minister of the Government. His assertion doesn’t fit the conduct of Lloyd who contravened the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors. She should have been dismissed.
11 Mar 2018: Mark said that releasing the report would “address a lot of misconceptions.” and said that as long as steps were taken to protect the identity of any women involved, he would be happy to see the report published. [But] if it was to be released, it would have to be done so in a redacted fashion, because people shouldn’t be identified or feel the need that they have to identify themselves.
Mark, who had undertaken counselling about his behaviour, said: “I don’t dispute that I behaved in a way that fell below the professional standards that should be expected of me, but if we are to say that people cannot make a mistake and then rehabilitate and return, what message are we sending out more widely? What are we saying about the concept of rehabilitation? Are we saying that it’s impossible?” Asked if he should be considered a sex pest, he said “I would hope not,” and followed up saying: “I want to show that my behaviour was not all that I am. One of the hardest parts of this is having a version of you held up in front of you that you don’t recognise as you. And it doesn’t tally with how you see yourself. And having to come to terms with the idea that maybe you’re wrong about yourself. And maybe other people see you very differently. I want to come back and demonstrate, yes to colleagues, yes to constituents, but also to my kids, that this wasn’t all that I was. That this wasn’t the sum of me, because otherwise this will be their truth.”
12 Mar 2018: James Dornan MSP, to the Convener of Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee: I wish to lodge a formal complaint against a Member of the Scottish Parliament, namely Mark McDonald. I have a member of staff who was a targeted victim of harassment and sexual innuendo at the hands of this member. This member of staff would like to remain anonymous, if possible, to prevent any further hurt or distress.
My staff member first approached me to tell me of her distress at the end of 2016. I encouraged her to take it further but as Mark was a Government Minister at the time she was both afraid and anxious at the prospect. My staffer kept me informed of any contact from Mark and it was only at her insistence that I did not take this further.
Mark sent her highly inappropriate messages on social media, which my staff member immediately showed me. I also witnessed him show unwanted attention within the Parliament grounds on a number of occasions. On one occasion I had to leave an event I was hosting to escort my staff member to a waiting car as she was sure Mark was waiting for her. As we left the building he was standing close to the exit, and I have no doubt he was indeed waiting for her.
When the “Weinstein” allegations started to break my staff member reported Mark to the Scottish National Party. The change in the perceived public response to victims helped enable her to do so.
In July 2017 my staff member became so unwell due to stress she was admitted to Wishaw General Hospital with a stroke, she then spent several months rehabilitating and six months off of her work, which had a massive impact on my office and on her life. It would be wrong of me not to mention that she was under other extreme pressure, but this was compounded by Mark who should have known better and who, in my opinion, used his position to harass her.
The Party conducted an investigation, including an investigation into allegations from other staffers, and Mark resigned from the SNP, left the SNP parliamentary group and his position as a Government Minister.
However, Mark has now indicated that he will be returning to the Scottish Parliament. In my view having Mark in the same workplace as his victims would be clear negation of the duty of care that the parliament has to all its members of staff. In any other workplace I would expect my staff member to be protected from this kind of behaviour and the Scottish Parliament should be no exception.
12 Mar 2018: Dornan launched his bid to get Mark barred from Holyrood as an independent MSP with a public demand and press release demanding “speedy” action, arguing Mark’s presence at Holyrood would be a “clear negation” of the Parliament’s duty of care to staff he graphically told how Mark had bombarded one of his female employees with “inappropriate messages” and “unwanted attention “and described her as: “a targeted victim of harassment and sexual innuendo” who he had to escort from the Scottish Parliament because Mark “was waiting for her”. He went on to tell the press that the staff member “was very unwell due to stress” and had been admitted to hospital with a stroke. Clear breech of the “Code of Conduct” for MSP’s. Dornan’s actions denied Mark a fair hearing of the facts.
14 Mar 2018: Clare Haughey, Convenor of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee issued a copy of her reply to Dornan: “We do not think it would be appropriate for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to undertake its own investigation since there is no procedure or precedent for the Committee to do so. While It is in no one’s interest that this matter becomes drawn out we understand that due process must be followed and this will take time regardless of who carries out the investigation. In referring the matter to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland the Committee is confident the Commissioner will recognise this.
16 Mar 2018: Complaint against Mark McDonald MSP: To: The Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland: From: Clare Haughey MSP, Convener, Standards, Procedures & Public Appointments Committee: In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), and by virtue of Rule 3A.2 of the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of the Scottish Parliament gives the following direction to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland: With reference to the attached letter of complaint, received from Mr James Dornan MSP dated 12th March 2018, alleging that a member of Mr Dornan’s staff was a targeted victim of harassment and sexual innuendo by Mr Mark McDonald MSP, that the Commissioner: Undertake an investigation into the complaint about the conduct of the member of the Parliament. Take into account any information which may relate to the complaint. Treat the complaint as admissible. Further, the relevant provisions which are to be treated as having been identified by the Commissioner for the purposes of the first test within section 6 of the 2002 Act are sections 7 (1) of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament (“the Code”) including in particular section 7 (6) of the Code (and formerly sections 7.1.1 and 7.2.3 of the 6th edition of the Code in force from 29 April 2016 to 29 August 2017). Treat the complaint as having met all the requirements specified within section 6 (5) of the 2002 Act. MSP/2119/17-18/23 Appendix 1 The Committee look forward to receiving your Report at the conclusion of your, investigation.
Summary of Commissioners meeting with Witness A: Began working for James Dornan, MSP at the end of May 2016. Worked in Dornan’s constituency office on Mondays and Fridays and on other days in his office at the Scottish Parliament. Also an elected member of her local district council.
Described herself as a gregarious, outgoing and friendly person. However, sometime after she had taken up the role with Dornan, she had to deal with difficult issues due to her treatment by the local council and in the press and because of other issues which occurred in her own family.
Referred to social media links between party members as the means by which she first had any contact with Mark. She thought it would have been during the campaign for the Holyrood election in 2016, when Mark had been a candidate in the North East Region. It was much earlier than this.
There were occasional social media exchanges, originally on a public twitter feed. At some point there were direct messages between Mark and herself which were of a more private nature. She could not recall the point at which the direct messages began nor by whom they had been initiated. These did not cause her any particular concern, albeit that she had commented once or twice to Dornan that the respondent was “quite full on”.
Explained that she exchanged greetings with Mark at the Parliament, after the 2016 election, and that the direct messages became a bit more personal, both on Twitter and on one or the other’s Facebook page. She acknowledged that some were in response to messages she had posted about abuse which she had received in her local council role. This is a social contact relationship accident waiting to happen. A powder keg existence. Her stress levels appear to be off the chart.
After the 2016 election, Mark was appointed as the Minister for Childcare and Early Years, and Dornan was elected as Convener of the Education and Skills Committee. Explained that, in terms of the hierarchy within the party, this meant that Mark as a junior minister, was in a position which was significantly senior to her as a staffer.
Began to feel that Mark was being too friendly towards her, given his ministerial and family status. Although Mark and Dornan had offices in separate parts of the parliamentary estate, it was common for ministers, members and staffers to meet in the parliament’s ground floor restaurant or in the garden lobby. She formed the impression that Mark frequently appeared to be around when she was there.
Said she had received an email from Mark on 26 September 2016 asking if she wished to meet for coffee. An event was to be hosted that evening by Dornan on behalf of Colleges Scotland in the former Members’ Dining Room at the Parliament and she was under pressure with the added responsibilities for the event that evening. Having discussed the invitation with Dornan. Witness A declined. She had a feeling that it was not work related, and that it was “different” and she felt she was being pestered by Mark. Said that Mark had attended the event, but she could not recall any interaction with him. But Mark did not attend the meeting
Planned to walk to Waverley Station to catch a train home. However, when she went to leave, she said that she saw Mark in the garden lobby at the foot of the stairs leading down from the room where the event was being held. He was wearing a jacket and carrying a leather bag on his shoulder. She felt that Mark was waiting for her and she did not feel sufficiently secure to walk to the train station by herself. Too agitated to take a taxi. Aware that Dornan could not leave the event at that time. Contacted a friend and asked him to collect her from the parliament in his car. He contacted her some time later and said that he was parked across the road from the public entrance to the parliament. Could not recall precisely, but thought that around 20 minutes would have passed between her making contact and his arriving outside the parliament. Motherwell to Edinburgh in 20 minutes!!
Asked Dornan to accompany her to the car, which he did. She could not remember retrieving her belongings from Dornan’s office in the Members’ Block. She thought that Dornan might have fetched them for her. Said that on the way out of the parliament building with Dornan, they passed Mark who was loitering in the area at the foot of the stairs between the cash machine and the allowances desk which lead down from the room where the event took place. Said that Mark asked if she was leaving and going to the station, and that Dornan replied, frostily, that she was not. Said that Mark walked alongside her and Dornan to the turnstiles at the Canongate exit. Abject nonsense. Exposed as such in Dornan’s complaint
Explained that, at this point in her life, she was still under what she described as “mega pressure” in the council and in the media. Stressful existence holding down two jobs.
Said that later that evening, when she was at home, she received a direct twitter message from Mark saying “that’s twice you’ve dingyed me.” Dingyed: meaning: To be ignored. When someone says something and you ignore them they would say “dingyed” She did not reply, but received a further message from Mark saying that his phone had tried to autocorrect the previous message to “you’ve fingered me,” and adding “how awkward would that be?” Fingered me: A rude gesture in which the middle finger is extended upright and shown to another person to convey frustration, anger, contempt, etc. She felt that the message was testing her, to see how she would respond, and it caused her to burst into tears.
Was concerned that she had upset a government minister, a senior member of the Party. Forwarded them to Dornan then deleted them. She was unconcerned about any adverse reaction to her publicly posted letter to Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party leader. Said that Dornan phoned her and said that he intended to report Mark in respect of his behaviour towards her. She also made contact with a lawyer friend who said that she had to report it. However, she was not willing for any report to be made.
Said that she had no further contact with Mark until the SNP conference, later in the year. At the conference, she had moved an amendment to a motion which Mark had proposed, because she thought that she was right and she wanted to hurt him. Not very nice. Why did she wish to hurt him? Vindictive behaviour without good reason. Possibly stressed!!!
Said that Mark’s behaviour was different towards her in the Parliament’s garden lobby and restaurant after the evening of the Colleges Scotland event in that he appeared to be avoiding making contact with her. But wasn’t that what she wanted?
Expanded on the difficulties which she had been experiencing as a local councillor, including what she described as a smear campaign against her. She also referred to a specific, unfounded allegation which she considered was simply designed to discredit her. Stressful events.
Made reference to how she had been described in the press, for example, in terms of her glamorous appearance. There were also family issues. [These involve sensitive personal data, which are withheld, given that it may be made public at a later stage.] Stressful events.
Said that two complaints had been registered against her about alleged breaches of the local district Councillors’ Code of Conduct and these were being investigated at the time. Stressful events.
Said that as part of her recuperation she had gone abroad on what had been planned as a family trip. At that time, the allegations about Harvey Weinstein became public. She decided to write two blogs, about her own experience of sexual harassment in the council and in the parliament.
She also wrote an open letter to Jeremy Corbyn about her treatment by Labour councillors. She noted that Mark and others had been tweeting about how disgraceful the Harvey Weinstein situation was. Her conversion to the cause of the WOKE activists was swift and not unexpected. One of her children was transitioning at the time.
01 Nov 2017: Said that following publication of her blogs Dornan had been contacted by someone from SNP Party headquarters and without consulting her he copied the enquirer the messages of 26 September 2016, which he had retained for over a year without her knowledge or permission. His actions fit the profile of senior officials of the SNP who retain information which they use at a later date to bring to account officers and/or staff who might fall foul of the Party hierarchy.
Was contacted by an official from the SNP who asked if she wished to make a complaint and decided to do so. Someone at SNP headquarters was conducting a witch-hunt. Said she was aware that Mark had sent an apology to another woman, but she had only seen Mark’s public apology. Said that it would have gone a long way if he had sent an apology for the hurt which he had caused her, via Dornan or the Party, together with a commitment to avoid her. It was the absence of such an assurance that convinced her that she could not return to work at the parliament whilst Mark was there. But an apology or assurance was never requested from Mark.
14 and 21 Jun 2018: Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland: Decisions of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Committee: The Committee met to consider the findings of the Ethical Standards Commissioner to a complaint from James Dornan MSP about Mark McDonald MSP in which Dornan alleged that a female member of staff employed by him was a “targeted victim of harassment and sexual innuendo at the hands of” Mark:
Investigation and findings:
Witness B provided evidence to the SNP investigation indirectly, via a solicitor nominated by the SNP. She did not wish to participate in the investigation, except to confirm her agreement to the factual information set out in the report being disclosed. The facts were not disputed by Mark.
Witness B worked in Mark’s parliamentary office in a variety of roles both before and after his re-election in May 2016, but ceased to do so some weeks after his appointment as a minister.
Following the election and his appointment as a minister, the respondent decided to take a lease of a flat in Edinburgh. At the point at which a deposit was due to be paid, Mark said he was not in a position to pass across his card details or to make payment in person and he asked his assistant, Witness B, to make the payment on his behalf, intending to reimburse her. She agreed. The deposit of £476.14 was paid on 28 May 2016. This was reimbursed by the respondent on 21 June 2016.
Mark indicated that it was not uncommon for members’ staff to be asked to undertake tasks which were outside the scope of normal duties and he referred to the pressures which followed his ministerial appointment and to concurrent family health issues in respect of the delay in making payment. However, he accepted that it had been wrong to ask his member of staff to pay the deposit on his behalf. He also acknowledged that, having done so, he ought to have reimbursed her sooner. Mark regretted his actions and advised that he had issued a written apology to Witness B following the investigation of the complaint by the SNP.
12 Mar 2018: Married Jamie Hepburn, MSP, was implicated in the privately conducted SNP investigation into allegations of harassment against Mark. Reports were that at the Party’s 2015 Xmas function Hepburn was embroiled in a tryst with Witness B, an SNP staffer,
Witness B, a young lady who was over 10 years his junior was witnessed leaving the party with Hepburn. They were gone for a considerable period. Witness B was a vulnerable young party researcher and it was inappropriate for Hepburn, a married government minister, to have been romantically involved with her. Witness B later slept overnight in Mark’s room and though there was no suggestion anything happened between them rumours persisted.
Witnesses to the events that evening confirmed the accuracy of the allegations to the SNP investigators during their evidence gathering in support of Witness B’s allegation against Mark.
Witness B, when interviewed by private investigators contracted by the SNP, said her overnight stay in Mark’s bedroom after the 2015 Xmas party had been uneventful and there was no cause to register a complaint against Mark. She spoke to Hepburn later and he suggested she shouldn’t mention it to anyone. Hepburn was subsequently summoned to attend a meeting with very senior SNP people .
The SNP produced a dossier which was sent to Bill Thomson, the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland for decision. The damming information about Hepburn’s involvement was whitewashed from the probe and not included in the dossier.
Witness B, preferred to provide evidence to the Commissioner through an SNP contracted solicitor prompting the Commissioner to comment: “ Witness B did not wish to participate in this investigation except to confirm her agreement to the factual information set out in this report being disclosed.”
The only information on her complaint related to a deposit on a flat of £ 476.14 that McDonald asked her to pay for him in May 2016 but failed to reimburse for a further three weeks. The Standards Commissioner’s investigation ultimately found that McDonald ’s conduct towards Witness B had “showed a lack of respect” over the flat deposit.
The absence of judgement on Hepburn’s tryst with Witness B or any comment on the allegation of harassment by Mark that triggered the SNP investigation lead to the conclusion that Hepburn’s role in events had not been included in the dossier for political purposes. Thomson’s report singularly addressed the incident in which Mark was a bit lax in failing to pay loan of money back to “Witness B”. The Commissioner’s opinion being that Mark had shown Witness B a “lack of respect”. An unbelievable comment on a matter so trivial its inclusion rendered the allegation against to a farcical level and made with the knowledge that Mark had been under severe stress a the time he was waiting on and being informed his father had terminal cancer.
Witness A was employed by James Dornan MSP as office manager from the end of May 2016. She is a member of the SNP and was also an elected member of the local district Council a post she gave up at the time of the 2017 election.
The evidence given by Witness A and by Mark indicates that contacts between them began on public social media pages around the time of the 2016 Holyrood election campaign. Mark thought that the contact began in late 2015.
At some stage, which neither party could pinpoint given the passage of time, they also began to exchange private messages on twitter or Facebook. In his evidence Dornan described this as “fairly innocent stuff”.
Witness A stated that, after the initial public exchanges, there were direct messages between her and Mark which were of a more private nature. She could not recall by whom they had been initiated. She advised that these did not cause her any particular concern albeit that she commented to Dornan that some of the respondent’s messages seemed ‘quite full on’. There was no evidence suggesting that these early exchanges involved inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mark.
Dornan described Witness A as being very friendly, and said that she was always interacting with people on social media. Witness A described herself as gregarious, outgoing and friendly.
Mark was aware that Witness A had an interest in matters concerning children and early years, which was his ministerial remit. He considered that it was appropriate for him, as the responsible minister, to seek to discuss these matters with another interested, elected representative.
Mark had been due to speak at a conference in Inverness on the morning of Friday, 30 September 2016. His plan was to travel from Inverness to Glasgow by train and stay the night there ahead of speaking at an early years conference in Glasgow the following morning.
He recollected a discussion with Witness A on private social media about the possibility of meeting up for a drink in Glasgow after work on the Friday. He advised that Witness A had declined on the basis that she would be attending a fund raising event in her local area.
Witness A said that she had become concerned that Mark was becoming too friendly towards her. Dornan said that he had been aware of Witness A’s concern that Mark was persisting in making approaches to her, and was “not taking the hint”.
This appears to have been based in part on Witness A’s impression that Mark frequently appeared to be present when she was in common parts of the Parliament, such as the ground floor restaurant or the Garden Lobby.
Witness A said that Mark’s behaviour towards her in these areas of the Parliament was markedly different after the events of 27 September 2016.
However, neither Dornan nor Witness A was able to identify any specific incidents or behaviours which stood out in this context. I do not, therefore, consider that I can give any weight to this aspect of the complaint.
Witness A said that, at some point during the day on 27 September 2016, Mark sent an email asking if she would like to meet for a coffee at the Parliament. This was not disputed by Mark, although he was unable to trace the email containing the invitation.
He said that it was common for members and staff to be gathered in the Garden Lobby area of the Parliament, having discussions over tea or coffee. Given that both he and Witness A had an interest in the same areas of policy and practice, he saw nothing exceptional in seeking to catch up in that way.
Witness A said she found the invitation to be intrusive, in the context of her growing concern about Mark’s apparent persistence. She felt pestered by Mark. It is not clear from the evidence whether Witness A replied to the invitation. Mark’s recollection was that he had contacted Witness A on a number of occasions on that day suggesting that they should meet for a coffee. However, neither Witness A nor Mark had made reference in their evidence to multiple contacts on that day.
Dornan was due to host an event at the Parliament on the evening of 27 September 2016. The event was for Colleges Scotland and was held in the Members’ Room, which is situated on the first floor of the Parliament building. The event began at 6 pm, and Witness A attended along with Dornan.
Witness A advised that her intention had been to leave the event and walk from the Parliament to Waverley station to catch a train home. However, at some point during the evening, she formed the opinion that Mark was waiting in the Garden Lobby with the intention of intercepting her as she left the building.
Witness A did not wish that to happen, and became agitated. She stated that she did not feel confident to leave the building on her own and walk to the station, nor even to take a taxi. Witness A contacted a friend and asked him to collect her in his car and drive her home. He agreed. Dornan later escorted Witness A from the Parliament building to the waiting car and she was driven home.
Mark’s version of what happened that evening is that, after Decision Time at approximately 5 pm, he went back to his office in the Ministerial Tower. He attended to some ministerial correspondence, then left the office and went down the stairs which lead to a lobby area outside the entrance to the Members’ Room. He had no reason to go in to the event, and did not do so.
Mark said that he then went down the stairs to the Garden Lobby, and crossed it to go to the bar, in order to see if any of his backbench colleagues were there. Finding that there were none, he claims that he walked back across the Garden Lobby, left the Parliament building, and returned to his flat. He denies that he waited, or skulked, in the Garden Lobby area.
Mark recalled passing Witness A on the stairs between the first floor and the Garden Lobby, as he was heading down towards the bar. Mark said that they had a brief conversation in which Witness A asked how he was getting on, and about his ministerial work.
He thought that something might have been said about not having managed to meet up for coffee. The evidence given by Dornan and Witness A about the circumstances surrounding the Colleges Scotland event is inconsistent. This is perhaps not surprising, given that it occurred some 18 months before the complaint was submitted.
Witness A gave evidence to the effect that Mark attended the event in the Members’ Room but that she did not speak to him other than possibly to say “Hi”. Dornan could not recall if Mark did attend. Mark denied that he attended.
Witness A said that she saw Mark in the Garden Lobby area, and that he was wearing a jacket and carrying a leather bag on his shoulder. She claims to have seen him from the event. However, that is not physically possible. In order to be able to see someone in the Garden Lobby area, it would be necessary to exit from the Members’ Room, walk a short distance across the lobby area outside the room and look or walk down the stairs which lead to the Garden Lobby.
Witness A was uncertain as to the time which elapsed between her making contact with the friend who came to collect her and the point at which he did so. She estimated that it must have been about 20 minutes.
Witness A claims that the respondent was skulking in the Garden Lobby area, between the cash machine and the Allowances desk, throughout that period. The friend who drove to the Parliament to collect Witness A recalled clearly that he was at, or just leaving, Motherwell station when he received her request. His view was that it would have taken approximately 45 minutes to drive from there to the Parliament.
Witness A was accompanied by Dornan when she left the Parliament building. Her evidence was that they passed Mark on their way out. In fact, she said that he walked alongside them for the short distance between the Parliament’s Pass holders’ exit and the turnstiles at the foot of the Canongate. Witness A recalled that Mark spoke to them as they were leaving the building, and asked if she was going to the station. She did not respond but she said that Dornan did so, frostily.
Dornan recalled that they had had to walk past Mark, who was waiting inside the Parliament building. He said that he had been asked by Witness A not to say anything to Mark. He was not certain if Mark had said anything as they passed. Witness A recalled that the car was parked across the road from the public entrance to the Parliament building, outside Holyrood Palace. That accords with her friend’s recollection.
Dornan was less clear in his evidence as to where the car was parked. Mark denied that he saw or spoke to Dornan that evening. I have concluded that there was a lapse of approximately 45 minutes between Witness A making contact with her friend and his arriving to collect her. There is no evidence to support Witness A’s assertion that Mark was waiting, or skulking, in the Garden Lobby area throughout the period between her making contact with her friend and leaving the Parliament building. I considered that for Mark to have done so would have amounted to quite exceptional behaviour. I have therefore concluded, on the balance of probabilities having regard to the evidence available to me, that Mark did not wait for an extended period of time in the Garden Lobby area of the Parliament for Witness A to leave the Colleges Scotland event. Similarly, the evidence led me to conclude that Mark did not attend the Colleges Scotland event in the Members’ Dining Room. My conclusion is supported by the fact that none of the photographs of the event, which are available on the Colleges Scotland website, show the respondent being in attendance. Given his status as a minister, I would have expected him to feature, had he been there. I do not doubt that Witness A saw Mark that evening. Nonetheless, her recollection in relation to when and where she saw him cannot be reconciled with my conclusion that mark did not attend the Colleges Scotland Event and the physical impossibility of observing the area in which it is alleged that Mark loitered from the Members’ Room. The evidence suggests that Witness A could not, therefore, have observed Mark at, or from, the event except possibly fleetingly as he passed on his way down from the Ministerial Tower. Mark’s description of his meeting with Witness A that evening was that they met, and had a brief conversation, on the stairs. I noted that Witness A stated in her evidence that, when she saw Mark, he was wearing a jacket and carrying a leather bag. She said that her belongings must have been collected at some point in the evening from Dornan’s office in the Members’ Block, but she could not recall if or how she had done so. The most direct route between the Members’ Room and Dornan’s office is via the stairs and the Garden Lobby. If Witness A did retrieve her belongings from the Members’ Block, it is therefore quite possible that she passed Mark on the stairs leading to and from the Garden Lobby. That would also be consistent with the limited timings which can be established. These are that: the event started at 6 pm; Witness A contacted her friend at approximately 6.30 pm and was collected by him approximately 45 minutes later. On balance, in the light of all of the evidence available to me, I prefer Mark’s explanation of his meeting with Witness A that evening. There is then a question as to whether Mark spoke to Witness A and to Dornan as they left the building. Mark denied that he had done so. Dornan said that he and Witness A had had to walk past Mark, but that he could not recall Mark speaking to them. Witness A recalled Mark speaking and Dornan responding to him in frosty terms. I considered, given the circumstances, that it would have been strange for there to have been no conversation, if indeed they had passed in close proximity. In the light of the contradictory evidence of Dornan and Witness A, and Mark’s denial, I have been unable to reach a conclusion as to whether Mark was present at the point when Dornan and Witness A left the Parliament building. However, even if Mark was present and did walk to the turnstiles with Dornan and Witness A, there is no evidence to suggest that either did or said anything inappropriate at the time.
Witness A said she had received message from Mark at 19.51 which she opened and read when she got home from the event at the Parliament building on 27 September 2016. Mark does not dispute that he sent them. He does not have a record of any messages received by him as part of an exchange of which they might have formed part. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I have concluded on the balance of probabilities that the messages were sent on the evening of 27 September 2016. Witness A said that the messages caused her considerable upset, and that she burst into tears on reading them. She said that she was under “mega pressure” at the time and she convinced herself that the messages had been sent to test her reaction. At the same time was concerned that she had angered a government minister whose responsibilities were relevant to the committee of which Dornan was convener.
Mark claimed that the messages represented misguided humour on his part, referring to a couple of failed attempts to meet up with Witness A. He said that there was no malice on his part, nor any intention to engage in any form of innuendo. However, he accepted that the messages caused hurt, and acknowledged that there could be a distinction between intention and interpretation. He had recognised the problem, and for that reason had taken the decision to resign as a minister and issue an apology.
The reference in the second of the three messages to being “dingyed” twice supports Witness A’s evidence that she had rejected his attempts to arrange a meeting, and that she found them unwelcome. There is clearly an element of sexual innuendo in the third message. Even if the messages were a clumsy attempt at humour on the part of Mark, they were wholly inappropriate. Mark accepted that. Witness A said that she forwarded the messages to Dornan that evening. Dornan’s evidence was that he was furious, and wanted to confront Mark. However, he did not, because Witness A did not want him to take that course of action. Mark challenged Dornan’s interpretation of events, on the basis of a light hearted public social media exchange between him and the complainer later on the evening of 27 September 2016. Whilst I have no doubt that Witness A did forward the messages to Dornan this was on an unspecified date as it was he who provided them to the investigation.
Dornan makes reference to Witness A being admitted to hospital with a stress induced “stroke” in July 2017. and refers to Witness A being “under other extreme pressure” at the time, and alleges that this was compounded by Mark’s harassment of Witness A. Witness A provided more detail about the deterioration in her health which led to her being hospitalised in June 2017, and the factors which she considered had contributed to her condition. It was identified by medical staff as an extreme reaction to stress. The factors included difficulties which she had experienced in her role as an elected member of Council, including two complaints to the convenors office about her conduct, family circumstances, and the way in which she had been portrayed in the media. It is clear that Witness A was subject to pressures in more than one area of her life. However, I am not in a position to make any judgement as to the extent to which the conduct of Mark, or Witness A’s perception of it, contributed to the impact of those pressures on her health.
Mark expressed surprise that no earlier attempt was made to raise with him the concerns of Dornan or of Witness A. He drew attention to the social media exchange with Dornan late in the evening of 27 September 2016. He noted that Dornan continued to behave towards him in a friendly manner in the Parliament after that evening. Mark also made specific reference to the day of the Scottish Cup Final in Glasgow between Celtic and Aberdeen, on 27 May 2017. His evidence was that Dornan collected him from the hotel, and they campaigned together in East Renfrewshire, before Dornan drove him back to Hampden Park for the match, all on an apparently friendly basis. It does appear that the relationship between Dornan and Mark was cordial which somewhat weakens the evidence he gave earlier.
Conclusions: Section 7.2.3 of the 6th edition of the Code is headed Treatment of Staff and includes a statement that: “Complaints from staff of bullying or harassment, including any allegation of sexual harassment, or any other inappropriate behaviour on the part of members will be taken seriously and investigated.” The provision clearly applies to the staff of MSPs. However, there is no definition of “harassment”. I have therefore had regard to the definition set out in section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The Committee is unanimous in the decisions reached on the complaint.
Firstly, it agrees with both the findings in fact and the conclusion of the Commissioner that Mark failed to treat one witness with respect, and that his conduct towards her involved sexual harassment, and that he also failed to treat a second witness with respect in relation to a financial matter. The Committee agrees with the Commissioner’s finding that both behaviours were in breach of the Code of Conduct for MSPs. Secondly, the Committee considers that the breaches justify the imposition of sanctions on Mark. While the Committee’s role in the complaints process is specifically focused on considering the Commissioner’s findings in fact and conclusion, the Committee would also like to comment more generally on the nature of the complaint. The Zero Tolerance statement agreed by the Presiding Officer, the Chief Executive and the party leaders on 12 June 2018 provides clear definitions of sexist behaviour and sexual harassment and makes it clear that these behaviours do not belong in the Parliament. The Committee fully endorses this statement. In the Committee’s recent report on sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour the Committee identified a number of potential areas in which the Code of Conduct could be strengthened and the Committee will pursue these revisions in the coming parliamentary year.
Decisions: The Committee looked at the full range of sanctions available to the Parliament and agreed that the sanctions placed on Mark should send a clear signal about the seriousness of his conduct, but should not have a financial impact on his staff nor unduly impact on his ability to represent his constituents. Mark was excluded from proceedings of the Parliament for a period of one month. His salary for the month was withheld and he was barred from Holyrood for one month.
Afternote: An explicit provision in the Code of Conduct states that Members must not disclose, communicate or discuss any complaint or intention to make a complaint to or with members of the press or other media prior to the lodging of the complaint or during Stage 1 and 2 of the procedure for dealing with complaints. The Convener had issued a reminder of this provision in her statement on 08 March 2018 and said that proper processes must be observed in order to ensure a robust outcome so that the Commissioner and the Committee would be enabled to carry out their work without any external interference or influences and the Committee considered it unacceptable that the confidentiality requirements had been blatantly flouted more than once during the course of the investigations. This was disrespectful to the process and those involved, as well as to the Committee and the Parliament. A matter of concern is that before the Committee had even seen the Commissioner’s report, its findings had been released to and discussed with the media, by James Dornan MSP.
Noteworthy is that the complaint notified to the Committee by Dornan was not upheld since it had been compiled in collaboration with Witness A nearly 18 months after the alleged events. In a short statement Mark said: “The manner in which Dornan chose to publicise his complaint, and make lurid allegations against me, has had a significant and lasting impact upon my personal mental health and wellbeing, and has affected my family. I am grateful that his allegations were not upheld, as I have always denied them.
Summary of Commissioner’s interview with Mark McDonald, MSP
Mark confirmed that he was first elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2011, to represent the North East Scotland Region. In 2013 he stood down to contest the Aberdeen Donside seat, for which he was elected in June of that year and re-elected in May 2016. He is a dedicated advocate for individuals on the autistic spectrum, leading members debates on the issue and asking questions of the Scottish Government. He has been a member of the Scotland Advisory Committee of the National Autistic Society and a trustee of the charity, Friendly Access, which looks to create a more accessible environment for individuals with sensory disabilities. He has been a member of many committees in the parliament, but most recently sat on the Finance Committee and the Devolution & Further Powers Committee. In addition, he served on a number of Cross Party Groups (CPGs) including Oil & Gas, Carers, Epilepsy and Mental Health (which he co-convened). He served as a Parliamentary Liaison Officer to the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney having previously been Parliamentary Liaison Officer to Alex Salmond during his tenure as First Minister. A very busy politician dedicated to bettering the existence of children in need and those with sensory disabilities.
On 20 May 2016, he received a phone call from the First Minister’s office asking him to attend at Bute House the following day. He was then invited to become Minster for Childcare and Early Years. Mark then had to move parliamentary office, from the Members’ Block to the Ministerial Tower. Mark had leased a flat on Royal Park Terrace from 2013, which he had to terminate following a leak from the upstairs property which brought down the bathroom ceiling. He moved to serviced apartments near the parliament which were not to his liking.
His election to office in 2016 prompted him to find better accommodation a task not made easier since his appointment as a minister of government entailed significant time consuming commitments. Mark’s parliamentary assistant offered to assist with the search and securing of a flat and she was happy to attend the installation of broadband in the flat. When it came to paying the fee, Mark said he was not in a position to make the payment physically, or in person and asked his assistant to make payment on her credit card, which he would then reimburse. She agreed to do this and the payment was made at the end of May 2016. He repaid the loan 3 weeks later, on 21 June 2016.
Mark said he regretted the incident and acknowledged that he should not have asked his staff member to pay the fee and that, having done so, the repayment should have been made sooner.
In mitigation, Mark explained that his father had been undergoing tests at the time which resulted in a diagnosis of terminal cancer and whilst he did not offer that the request he had made was normal, he did say that it was common practice for MSP’s to ask their staff to do things outside the normal scope of their duties, Mark added that he had made a written apology to the person concerned following an investigation by the SNP.
In terms of social contact with Witness A following the election in 2016, Mark said that Witness A was an elected local district councillor with a keen interest in the area of children and young people for which he had ministerial responsibility and they had and they communicated openly and regularly on these matters and before his promotion they had also regularly indulged in more relaxed conversations on social media. He provided copies of twitter exchanges from May to July 2016 and explained that he no longer had copies of earlier exchanges. He and Witness A also conversed in person at a number of events, such as an SNP conference in Aberdeen in 2015.
He went on to explain that following his ministerial appointment in 2016, he had been interested in speaking to elected representatives at local council level (she was an elected local councillor) with an interest in the agenda for children and young people, formally or informally, about alignment of policy and approaches and Witness A had expressed a willingness to participate but she was employed as a staffer for another MSP and it would be inappropriate to take her away from her duties to facilitate discussions. They circumvented the problem by routinely meeting for coffee in the garden lobby area and whilst he had no recollection of the arrangement that would have been the nature of any approach and invitation for coffee, had there been one.
Regarding the alleged incident at the Colleges Scotland event in the parliament in September 2016, Mark said that the allegation that had been suggested to him at the time he was interviewed by the SNP investigation officers related to his alleged behaviour in connection with an equality network event hosted by Mr Dornan in November 2016. There was no such event. Mark said that he had advised the SNP investigators that he had a recollection of an occasion when he had met Witness A on the stairs leading to the garden lobby at the parliament but he was adamant he did not attend the Colleges Scotland event in September 2016.
On reviewing his diary, he noted that on that day he had a number of ministerial meetings in the course of the day but had nothing booked for the evening. After Decision Time at the parliament he had done what he normally did and went up to his office to work through his ministerial papers. He was also scheduled to lead an important debate on early learning and child care later in the week and he spent time preparing for this.
At the conclusion of that period, he left the office and went down the stairs from the ministerial tower, coming out by the lift next to the members’ restaurant, where the College Scotland event was in process. He did not go into the event, because he was not required to be there and he had no indication that anyone from his constituency would be attending or wished to speak to him.
He proceeded to the stairs leading to the garden lobby and met witness A who was coming up the stairs to the event. He recalled a very brief but cordial conversation in passing, to the effect that they would not be able to meet for coffee which they had discussed earlier due to her other duties.
Mark referred to the SNP Conference in March 2017 at which he and Witness A spoke on the platform together on a resolution in relation to child care, on which he was leading and in which she had an interest. He said that Witness A later messaged him on an open social media channel to ask about the policy of the SNP government on a child care issue, as an example of Witness A’s willingness to engage with him some months after the events alleged to have taken place in September 2016.
He also referred again to the debate in the Parliament in which he was leading and said that he sent messages to Dornan and all the other contributors to the debate, congratulating them on their good speeches. He said that Dornan responded positively and he had continued to be cordial afterwards.
Providing evidence of this Mark said In May 2017, he travelled to Glasgow for the Scottish Cup final match between Aberdeen and Celtic. Dornan collected him from his hotel in Glasgow and drove him to East Renfrewshire, where they campaigned together. Dornan then drove him to Hampden for the match. At no time did Dornan mention any problem or issue between them. He provided photographs from the day as proof of the good relationship he referred to.
Mark said he was disappointed that Dornan has not raised the allegations with him providing the opportunity to correct his behaviour as provided for in the procedures set out in the Code of Conduct for MSPs which required an approach to business managers or to the Parliament’s HR department if there were concerns about about the treatment of staff.
Mark accepted that he had sent an unsolicited but not unusual twitter message to Witness A. He said that its content was a poor attempt at humour referring to their failed attempts to get together. There was no malice, nor any attempt to engage in any form of innuendo. However, he accepted that it had been received in a way which did not match the intent.
He was first given sight of the message which he had previously deleted, on 04 November 2017 when he was shown it by Liz Lloyd who told him she has been told to instruct him to offer his resignation from his minister post immediately. Confronted with the evidence he did so.
In regard to the timing of the message he could not confirm the date he sent it since it was not date stamped but the SNP investigation team alleged he had sent it in November 2016.
Giving the matter further thought Mark said he recollected a twitter exchange with Witness A in the last week of September 2016 in which they discussed the possibility of meeting up in Glasgow the next weekend, when he would be addressing an early years conference. After speaking at a conference in Inverness on Friday, 30 September 2016 Mark anticipated travelling by train and staying overnight in Glasgow where he would have some free time before the conference scheduled for the Saturday morning.
Witness A had declined the invitation because she had a fund raising event in her local area. Mark said that he had not made any approach to Witness A with nefarious intent. There had been many friendly twitter exchanges between them both in private messages and on public social media.
Mark also produced copies of what he described were humorous exchanges on social media in public between him Dornan on 23 July 2017 and a thank you from Dornan for Mark standing in for him at an event at the SNP conference in October 2017.
He also referred to items on social media in June 2017 which confirmed that Witness A had not, in fact, suffered a stroke, to material allocating blame for her condition to three other causes, and in September 2017 showing her return to work at the Parliament and drew attention to reports in the Daily Record and the Daily Telegraph on 09 November 2017, following his ministerial resignation, in which Witness A was quoted as commenting on people’s behaviour changing but made no reference to his behaviour towards her going beyond the messages nor to his behaviour contributing towards the health episode as now alleged. Whilst he was not seeking to diminish the health issues, nor to avoid responsibility for his actions, Mark did not consider that he should have to take responsibility for matters in which he had no involvement.
Mark had issued two written apologies. One to Witness B which had been accepted. And the other to Witness A in which he had accepted and regretted that he had let his standards fall in relation to his relationship with her, meeting the requirement she had requested of him in her complaint to the SNP.
He further explained that had apologised for any upset and hurt which had arisen as a result of his behaviour, and also to say that his intention was to demonstrate through his future conduct that he had changed as a result. He added that, until very recently, he had mistakenly thought that he enjoyed positive relationships on a personal level. The realisation of how he was perceived had been hurtful and had forced a period of reflection on what he could do to change that perception.
August 2018: Mark issued a press release advising his intent to leave politics at the end of the present parliament. He wrote: “It has been one of the greatest privileges of my life to have had the opportunity to represent the constituency of Aberdeen Donside, and prior to that the North East of Scotland region, in the Scottish Parliament. “I grew up in, and live in, the constituency I represent and thus it has always had an importance to me, which I have sought to emphasise through my advocacy on behalf of constituents and communities. “I am, however, acutely aware that none of these achievements will be the things which people will associate with me, and that my time in office will forever be defined by the mistakes I have made, and for which I have paid a significant and lasting price. When I returned to parliament in 2018, I made it clear that I would demonstrate through my conduct that I had reflected upon the errors of judgement I had made in my interactions with people, where I had misunderstood how the power dynamics as a government minister, or MSP, could lead to interactions being perceived differently by those who I had regarded as friends or colleagues. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate such change. I will have to live forever with consequences of those mistakes and the upset that they caused, and it is appropriate for me to reiterate here the apologies I have made before. I continue to seek to make right the things I got wrong. I am also acutely aware that any election campaign in which I played a part would be one which would focus far less on the important issues which affect the communities I represent, and would instead be one defined around my presence. I believe the constituents and communities of Aberdeen Donside deserve a range of candidates whose sole focus is on how they can improve the life circumstances of those they represent, and while that is the primary motivation which I have to do the job, I recognise that for it to be a reality I cannot be one of those candidates. After speaking to those closest to me to make them aware of my decision, I am taking the opportunity to formally announce that I shall be stepping down from parliament at the 2021 election. I shall continue for the next twelve months, as I have done since my first day in the job, to represent the communities of this constituency to the best of my ability, and I look forward to continuing to meet constituents and organisations to enable their voices to be heard.”
08 Mar 2020: In a press interview Mark said he considered committing suicide shortly after his suspension from the SNP in November 2017 and again four months later in March 2018. He said: “After my suspension ended and I returned to work there seemed to be a mentality among some MSPs that I should have been given a harsher punishment. I never said my conduct did not merit any sanction and I duly served the punishment. I had hoped that since I demonstrated that I truly reflected on my behaviour and hoped that most people who encountered me would say I was not the person I was in 2017. But in coming back to parliament, I felt I was being punished multiple times for the same thing. I haven’t spoken about this before but recent events have made me feel like we can’t carry on with this culture where people can’t atone for their mistakes. At Holyrood we talk a good game about these things. I haven’t seen any of it from within the SNP with a few honourable exceptions.”
James Dornan, b1953 is a Scottish National Party (SNP) politician and is the Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Glasgow Cathcart.
He joined the Scottish National Party in 1996 and represented the Langside ward on Glasgow City Council between 2007-2012. SNP group leader on the council until June 2011. He was elected in the 2011 Parliamentary elections, having failed to be elected in the Ayr Constituency 2003 and the Glasgow South-West Constituency in the 2005 UK general election.
He was also selected to be the SNP candidate in the 2009 Glasgow North East by-election, but stood down after it was reported that he may have breached charity law by acting as an “unpaid” partner-director of Culture and Sport Glasgow while he was covered by a protected trust deed – an arrangement which avoids a court-ordered bankruptcy. He was appointed SNP Depute Whip in 2012.
25 February 2020: Dornan announced he would not be standing at the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. However, in July 2020, he reversed his decision and announced that he would put himself forward again for election.
Later in July 2020, the SNP National Executive Committee voted have an all-woman shortlist for the Glasgow Cathcart Scottish Parliamentary constituency, ending his bid of standing for the seat again. Dornan announced he would challenge it. The SNP National Secretary reversed the all-woman shortlist permitting Dornan to stand. Dornan elected as the MSP for Glasgow Cathcart Scottish Parliamentary constituency.
Dornan courts publicity and thrives on controversy. Listed below are a few of his more recent headlines
14 Apr 2023: James Dornan, one of the SNP’s most active MSPs on social media, has been called out for his ‘grotesque’ conflation of homophobia and parents concerned by the harms of gender beliefs.
Reader comment: This little gargoyle goes out of his way to be controversial. This alphabet of genderism is divisive and unhealthy, call yourself what you want but women need to be protected. Now an organisation has had to change venues at least twice because of threats, just because their beliefs don’t toe the line with this rabbles outlook. These clowns shout and bawl about Democracy, they wouldn’t recognise Democracy if it bit them in the arse. Dornan is a hater full stop and him and the rest of them think they are our betters. What a state our little country is in.
12 Oct 2022: Glasgow MSP James Dornan has come under fire from domestic violence activists for making a deeply insensitive analogy for backing a statement online that compared Scotland’s relationship with the UK, to someone attempting to end a relationship with an abusive family member.
25 Jun 2022: Controversial SNP MSP James Dornan caused a social media furore after he retweeted a ludicrous conspiracy theory tweet from arch nationalist Bill Cruickshank who tried to claim that an ongoing controversy surrounding sex pest MP Patrick Grady was just the “Brits” trying to smear top SNP figures.
Westminster leader Ian Blackford was urged to resign due to his handling of the situation and the fact that the party only suspended Mr Grady for two days.
Despite it being a very serious situation, with Grady’s victim revealing he was “traumatised” due to the lack of support from the SNP.
05 Mar 2022: James Dornan was accused of hypocrisy after slamming Scottish Labour for selecting a former senior Orange Order as a prospective councillor.
In a post on Twitter he raised the question: “How could Sarwar support Dunbar while also following Holyrood’s strict policy on challenging racial and religious prejudice.
A Twitter responder pointed out that Dornan had form when he promoted the exact same thing when he and fellow Glasgow councillor Feargal Dalton posed in front of a banned Irish Republican terrorist group’s flag.
22 Feb 2022: James Dornan has apologised for making it seem like he thought the abuse suffered by a female journalist was imaginary, when he said her woes were imaginary. He said he did not mean “woes” that were “imaginary”. Confused!!!
But Dornan is full of hot takes. Remember the time he was forced to apologise for using the word “fag” in relation to then Tory MP Ross Thomson?
He later clarified he was referring to the public school practice of “fagging”, not the modern understanding of the word. He said he’d “apologised for any misunderstanding of the use of the word”. Hmm.!!!
And Dornan was reported to the Ethical Standards Commissioner for warning Jacob Rees-Mogg that “if your god exists you will undoubtedly rot in hell”.
After that particular foot-in-mouth moment, Dornan was forced to set his Twitter account to private. If only he’d kept it that way.
23 Nov 2021: It’s been some months since the last report on the antics of James Dornan, the SNP MSP and amateur Hate-Finder General.
The gaffe-prone Glaswegian managed, in the space of just one week, to get himself embroiled in multiple minor scandals after accusing an Edinburgh bus company had stopped services on St Patrick’s Day because of ‘anti-Irish racism’ (an untrue claim for which he had no evidence) and then for refusing to apologise for claiming Rangers’ players had sung a sectarian tune (another untrue claim based on poorly-doctored footage).
Three weeks later he also told the Catholic leader of the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg: ‘If your God exists you will undoubtedly rot in hell.’ Nice!
Undaunted by past controversies, the amateur sleuth is back on the detective trail again. The Sherlock Holmes of Holyrood has deduced that the perpetrators of an attack on his office – in which a sign was taken down and allegedly urinated upon – were none other than… Gers fans.
But is there any evidence that ‘Rangers supporters’ taking ‘out their anger and hatred’ were responsible for this act? More than 24 hours after naming and blaming the Ibrox club, Dornan is yet to corroborate his claims.
He has posted screenshots from a Rangers website in which anonymous users express their hopes that supporters were responsible – but crucially, nothing to show that they were in fact responsible. In light of Dornan’s habit of throwing around allegations without evidence, it seems only fair to ask: does he have any proof to back up his accusations?
As mentioned previously, it’s not the first time Dornan – the poor man’s Mike Russell – has had run-ins with Rangers. In March 2019, the Celtic-mad MSP was forced to apologise to Rangers fan group Club 1872 after complaining they ‘abuse him regularly’ on their website and that moderators fail to monitor their user content.
Amusingly, this is the same MSP who subsequently penned an article for the Times titled: “Keep politics out of football and we’ll all be winners.”’ A member of Scotland’s governing party using his position to repeatedly demonise one of his city’s biggest clubs? Even Poirot wouldn’t have trouble solving this one.
6 Jun 2021: Dornan was forced to apologise for falsely claiming a bus company was discriminating against Irish Catholics when he suggested that Lothian buses cancelled their services on St Patrick’s Day over fears ‘Irish Catholics were to blame for the rise in anti-social behaviour which was proven to be false
15 Feb 2018: Deputy Leader of the SNP: So far the only definite candidate is James Dornan.
Dornan, MSP for Glasgow Cathcart, is a scowl in search of a grievance.
It’s as if the Almighty decided to sculpt an entire person around the word ‘haw’.
He is the embodiment of Wee Man Syndrome and the strain of angry middle-aged man that Scottish nationalism is so adept at recruiting.
Dornan speaks in a furious garble of indictments. ‘Westminster! … [rolling grunt]…Tories! … [indistinct argle-bargle] … Unionists! … [unfortunate run-in with a vowel]’ Every now and then a plucky verb makes a break for it, like Steve McQueen in the Great Escape.
Choosing Dornan would be good for diversity. The SNP would have a deputy leader who speaks English as a third language. It would also be top comedy value.
Dornan once mounted a campaign for Scottish Athletics to pay staff the living wage, leaving the national sports body to explain gently that it already did.
In January, he declared that repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act – which sees football fans lifted for singing songs deemed offensive – would ‘take us back to the 1970s’. The Act was passed in 2012.
Publishing Scotland is a registered charity, governed by a main Board of Trustees with responsibility for overall policy setting and financial matters. It is very generously supported by the Scottish Government, with finance released to it through Creative Scotland, (annual charitable distribution between £75-£100million) It is also part funded by annual subscriptions from the membership. And from profits from a trading subsidiary company: BookSource, which has an annual turnover of £10-£ 12million turnover.
Booksource: Is a subsidiary company of Publishing Scotland. Managing Director Davinder Bedi who joined Publishing Scotland as Finance Manager in 1996. Retaining his position as a Director of Publishing Scotlandand he now spends most of his working time developing BookSource of which he is the Managing Director with charge of the £10-£12m business. He is married to Kirsten Oswald the MP for East Renfrewshire.
The Sandstone Press is an active member of Publishing Scotland: Police are investigating fraud allegations over £295,000 of taxpayers’ money given to the publisher of a book of Nicola Sturgeon’s speeches. Officers from the financial crimes unit are probing claims rules were broken when Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) awarded grants and loans to Sandstone Press of Inverness. The firm, run by SNP supporter Robert Davidson, was given £120,000 in the 12 months leading up to the publication of Women Hold Up Half the Sky: Selected Speeches of Nicola Sturgeon.
SNP minister Angus Robertson cancels book promo at event paid for by own department. Angus Robertson cancelled his appearance last night – after the Sunday Mail started asking about the £30,000 handed to it by a Creative Scotland, on of the departments of Government under his control.
caltonjock 