The Alex Salmond Stitch-Up – Events on 06 June 2018:
In her statement to the Holyrood Inquiry Sturgeon said: Alex Salmond sent me a message on 03 June 2018. Both the tone and content of this message led me to conclude that legal action by Alex Salmond against the Scottish Government was a serious prospect and I decided that I should make Leslie Evans aware of this and wrote to her on 06 June 2018.
At this date Sturgeon had deliberately withheld from Leslie Evans, any knowledge of Geoff Aberdein’s three March 2018 meetings with Liz Lloyd, or his two further meetings with herself on 29 March 2018 and 02 April 2018 or her meeting with Alex Salmond at her home on 2 April 2018 or her firm promise to Alex Salmond (witnessed) to close the Inquiry, when faced with the reality that the Procedure was illegal and the threat of legal action.
Sturgeon in withholding the information committed a blatant breech of and compromised the Procedure and the Ministerial Code sections (4.22 and 4.23), (Guard against the release of previously undisclosed or confidential information which might compromise decisions in matters that Ministers are involved in) as were her unauthorised meetings with Geoff Aberdein and Alex Salmond.
Another incident confirming Alec Salmond was unfairly targeted by Sturgeon
Police investigations – Conduct obstructing or calculating to prejudice the due administration of justice.
21 August 2018:Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, and a Detective Chief Superintendent colleague met with Crown Agent Harvie at his request. He told them that the government had referred the complaints about Alex to the Crown Office “for Police investigation of potential criminality” and proposed to give them a copy of the findings of the Government’s internal investigation. The offer was rejected. The police did not view the document. Harvie then advised that the Scottish Government might be making a public statement in relation to the outcome of their investigation and referral of information to Police Scotland. The Chief Constable and his colleague voiced their concerns about a statement being made and said it would compromise any Police investigation. Their advice, which was accepted was that a proactive approach should be adopted in the course of which the force would interview the two complainants and contact other people who held similar roles to the women who had already come forward and identify if there were any other potential complainers.It was agreed that the Police would take matters forward with the rider that there would be no public announcements or any further involvement of any of the Scottish Government team of investigators. The matter was now an active Police investigation.
22 August 2018: Alex, Ms A and Ms B, and Sturgeon were each provided with a copy of Evans, decision report. Alex ‘s legal team wrote very strongly worded letters each to Evans and Sturgeon telling both that the actions they had taken was illegal, contrary to good staff relations and breached every statute of employment Law
23 August 2018: Early afternoon: Evans informed Alex, Ms A and Ms B, and Sturgeon by email that she had forwarded all case documentation to the Lord Advocate’s office for the Police to investigate and would be making a public statement at 1700 hours on the Scottish Government decision report and the police referral. Alex’s Counsel objected strongly stating that Evans actions were unsafe and a breach of protocol and Alex would seek an Interim Interdict preventing the release of information to the public so that the confidentiality of all parties would be maintained.
Faced with an Inteim Interdict Evans decided not to make a public statement. But someone within or very near to her office was alerted to Evans decision not to go public at 1700 hours and at around 1500 hours, in an act determined to obstruct and prejudice the administration of justice, emailed the Editor of the Daily Record a copy of the public statement. The illegal release of the information was considered to be the act of a ” whistleblower” which was not the case and following days of sustained pressure from Alex’s legal team and a half-hearted internal unsuccessful investigation was conducted by the Scottish Government. This is where the Police failed Ms A, Ms B and Alex.
The act of the still unidentified government employee was an illegal “contempt of court” since all matters were the subject of an on-going Police investigation. The Editor of the Daily Record, who has the email which would identify the sender, refused to release it to the Scottish Government. But a police demand for the document would need to be adhered to. Why the Police have not pursued is a puzzle.
The First Minister’s ever expanding army of “Special Advisers”
“Special Advisers” are political appointments and are exempt from impartiality requirements normally expected of civil servants in order to provide them with the freedom to give political advice to Ministers. Although never elected by the public nor subject to the normal rules of employee recruitment and formal interview they are gifted, courtesy of the First Minister alone, with a huge amount of power.
The leader of the “Special Adviser Team, has the authority to issue instructions to any civil servant on behalf of the First Minister
The Devolution Act permitted recruitment of up to twelve “Special Advisers” to the First Minister.
A 2023 the Sturgeon led government employed nineteen, including a new adviser supporting the two new Green Party ministers in the Scottish Coalition Government.
The total annual approximate gross cost to the Scottish taxpayer of unaccoutnable Special Advisers is around £2 Million
Over two-thirds of Special Advisers are friends with or are the partners of senior SNP figures or Party influencers.
The group can be confidently described as a self-perpetuating elite surreptitiously slipped into positions of power and influence, thriving on their patronage and using it to by-pass the democratic rights of the Scottish electorate.
Oh!! A reminder total responsibility for the recruitment, employment, management, conduct and discipline of “Special Advisers” rests with the First Minister.
An informed ex servant of the crown commented:
“The introduction of “Special Advisers” into the Scottish Government established an alternative civil service.
They are an ill-disciplined bunch whose conduct is reported on through a “rebuttal unit” who feed distortions of the truth to the electorate, all with the purpose of ensuring the public are denied the truth of any given matter where the “image” of the Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP might be at risk.
In their efforts to establish and maintain their superiority they routinely pass negative value judgements on the ability of long term, full-time established civil servants.
They are immune to embarrassment and strangers to the appropriate and legal use of taxpayers monies.
They and their newly partnered green acolytes are enamoured with power and can be likened to a sick cancer bleeding off the efforts of hard working Scots.
12 December 2017: Sturgeon’s “Get Salmond” team of civil servants was provided with guidance documentation from the UK Cabinet Secretary’s office so that they would be assured their new procedure for investigating retrospective allegations of harassment against former Ministers would incorporate best practice and be legally sound. They ignored all of it believing they knew better. The consequences of their actions nearly destroyed the career of Scotland’s finest politician.
This information was gleaned from Evans statement to the Holyrood Inquiry on 18 August 2020
Evans said she had been commissioned to review harassment procedures by Scottish ministers, as well as the UK Government Cabinet Secretary and Head of the UK Civil Service. Having considered the relevant policies she concluded that there was no published process for handling complaints about current or former Ministers in the UK Government and she decided that her civil servants would develop a complaints procedure covering former and current Ministers. The process of developing the procedure would be guided by professional drafting processes informed by legal advice and HR best practice.This would ensure the Scottish Government would be ahead of many other institutions in the design and implementation of a novel new procedure which would openly and transparently address historical allegations of sexual misconduct.
Comment: The Scottish Government emphasised to the Holyrood Inquiry the significance of professional guidance produced by the UK Government Civil Service Employee Policy team (CSEP), a high-powered unit located in the UK Cabinet Office whose specific job it is to provide authoritative HR advice to the whole of the UK civil service.
Civil service officials tasked with the duty of compiling the novel new procedures received a draft copy of “Guidance on Handling of Historic Allegations of Harassment” developed by the UK Government Civil Service Policy team (CSEP) on 17 November 2017 and a later copy with Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) added on 12 December 2017, before the new procedure had been fully developed.
The advice contained in the guidance documentation was comprehensive in its coverage and stressed that the management of: “complex and sensitive cases of historical allegations, in every case, should be handled by an impartial investigator who had no prior knowledge of the complainer or any details of the case.”
It also stated that an investigator should be formally trained and experienced in the handling of complaints and cases involving very senior managers should be referred to an independent external body for investigation.
The “FAQ” supplement was provided to Richards as an email attachment on 12 December 2017 and sent on by her to Mackinnon and others that same day under subject heading “Guidance on handling allegation of harassment FAQ”.
That they read the document thoroughly is witnessed by the significance it is given in the Scottish Government’s statement to the inquiry.
So in the context of the procedure for handling harassment complaints which Evans, Richards and Mackinnon were at the very heart of developing at exactly the time the guidance was received it is simply inconceivable that they did not read and understand the most important sentence in FAQ, Answer 23: “no prior knowledge of the complainer or any details of the case”.
That Evans, MacKinnon and Richards ignored the (CSEP) advice cost the Scottish taxpayer £500,000. Evans should have been sacked for gross incompetence and her colleagues should have been demoted and given a first and final written warning.
20 December 2017: Draft letter compiled, from the First Minister to all former Scottish Government Minsters advising that a new retrospective examination of allegations of harassment would be applied from the opening of Holyrood. There was no indication of any intention by the Government to conduct a “lookback” trawl of previously investigated and settled claims. But any allegations not previously reported would be considered and investigated.
DRAFT LETTER TO FORMER FIRST MINISTERS
I am sure you will share my deep concern about the recent reports concerning allegations of sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct by those in public life. I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish political leaders have spokenwith one voice to condemn such behaviour,wherever it occurs.
We each have a duty, in our own areas of responsibility, to take whatever action we can to demonstrate zero tolerance of inappropriate behaviours of this sort. To that end,I recently asked the Permanent Secretary to carry out a full review of the Scottish Government’s internal policies and procedures to ensure that they are effective and offer assurance to SG staff that they can expect to be treated with respect and dignity. It is also of great importance that staff can be confident that any concerns they have about their treatment will be fully investigated.
In parallel,I have also been reflecting on how we might further underpin the standards of behaviour expected of Ministers. As you know,if a question arises about the conduct of a Minister it is, under the Scottish Ministerial Code, the responsibility of the incumbent First Minister to instruct an investigation into the matter and, in light of the investigation,to decide if the Minister in question should remain in post.
To provide further reassurance to Scottish Government staff, I have decided that in future any formal complaint from a staff member relating to sexual harassment against a serving Minister will be investigated automatically by the Permanent Secretary without my intervention. I intend to bring forward a change to the Ministerial Code to make clear that current Ministers will be required to cooperate fully in any such investigation. It will remain the case that, as now,the final decision will rest with me on whether or not a Minister’s behaviour has fallen below acceptable standards.
We also need to consider the position of former Ministers in relation to any formal complaints against them from staff that relate to the period in which the former Minister was in office. In the event of such a complaint, I believe that,again, it would appropriate for the Permanent Secretary to take the matter up directly with the former Minister so that they have the opportunity to respond. As the provisions of the Ministerial Code do not apply to former Ministers, the report of the investigation would be provided to both the former Minister and the current leader of their political party (if any) to consider. I would therefore only be involved in complaints about a former SNP Minister. I would have no involvement in complaints against a former Minister of another party.
Given your position as a former First Minister,I wanted you to be aware of this approach. I hope you will agree that it should help provide additional assurance to staff that any complaints they raise will be fully investigated, no matter when the alleged concerns occurred.
I intend to write to all former Ministers who have served in my Administration to make them aware of these arrangements. Similarly, you may wish to consider making Ministers who served in your Administration aware of them too. If you,or they,would find it helpful,the Permanent Secretary will be happy to discuss how these new approaches would work in practice.
Late December 2017: A police team met with Scottish Government officials to discuss proposed amendments to the existing harassment and misconduct policies for Government officials currently in employment and to give advice on the proposed “retrospective” follow up of allegations of former Ministers. The draft letter was withdrawn following the meeting on the advice of the police. Alex Salmond was never provided with a copy of the letter and he was the only former Minister (from a very large group of former Ministers) ever subjected to an illegal Civil Service investigation of his conduct whilst in office. And there is supporting evidence that there were a great many unresolved allegations in the pipeline if the draft letter had been sent. The task would have been impossible for Evans and her team to undertake and the fact that Sturgeon went ahead with an investigation of Alex only provides confirmation they were out to get him!!!! And who were they?
12 April 2023: Humza Yousaf, Leader of the SNP appointed the well known Independence activist and campaigner for Amnesty International Julie Hepburn to a new role of “Head of Strategic Delivery”.
About Julie Hepburn
Julie is a long-standing SNP activist and member of the National Executive Committee. On her motivation for political activism,she said: “I’ve been a member of the SNP for almost two decades, and while political activism can be tough at times, for me it’s been an overwhelmingly positive and empowering experience. “Politics is the vehicle through which we achieve change, and I am determined to help change our communities and our country for the better. Securing independence for Scotland is the single most important change we can make to deliver a fairer society and better life for everyone who lives here. That’s why I’ve dedicated my adult life to campaigning for independence.”
“I vividly remember attending my first SNP Conference 20 years ago in Dundee. The whole conference was alive with debate, ideas and personalities, and there was some stooshie over housing policy. It was fantastic. Like a number of people, I was hesitant about joining a political party, but was immediately reassured by the vibrancy of debate and room to contribute to those positive discussions. I felt genuinely empowered as a new member, and excited about my involvement.”
“One of the many strengths of the SNP is our internal democracy and I was surprised to read the suggestion that the Party should take a “command and control” approach to the selection of our parliamentary candidates. The Party’s NEC needs to be more effective, transparent and accountable.
“We need tailored campaigns for different communities – whether this is a physical community or a community bound by a shared identity. It’s about how we communicate the arguments and benefits of independence to a diverse Scotland.”
“I’m running to be the SNP’s depute leader for a number of reasons. I’ve made this choice because I was asked by so many activists across the country. They’ve asked me to stand because of my proven track record of service to the party, my previous commitment to driving forward internal reforms, and my work in supporting others across the SNP. However, most significantly for me, I want to use the skills, experience and networks I’ve built up over almost two decades in the SNP to help prepare us for another independence referendum and indeed future elections.”
Comments On Julie’s 2020 Campaign for Deputy Leader of the SNP
I was impressed by Julie Hepburn’s campaigning efforts in her unsuccessful bid for the Deputy leadership post when at the outset she said in her view the 2014 Independence Referendum had failed because the “Yes” movement had conducted its campaign like a General Election and in doing so allowed itself to be dragged by “Better Together” activists into pointless debates about future policy matters resulting in little time being devoted to pushing hard on the principle of independence.
I was also pleasantly surprised with her proposal to separate the political and constitutional issues so that the wider independence “Movement” would be able to get on with the business of campaigning for independence free of interference in or undue influence over policy matters. The tactic would also strengthen the political Parties abilty to continue to engage with the public over political issues and provide good governance.
She was also a lady in a hurry a pragmatist clearly recognising the need to get on with the task of gaining independence, when she said: “Let’s not expend energy arguing over the finer points of policies that the future governments of an independent Scotland may or may not decide to pursue, and focus our arguments on the wider principles of self-government and the potential that gives us to transform our country.”
She raised her voice to impress upon Sturgeon and her cabal a need to make the “constitutional ceiling” the overarching issue of the SNP’s 2021 Holyrood election campaign with her message that: “Throughout our campaign, we need to demonstrate each point where the constitutional ceiling limits our ability to make life better for Scots. Let’s campaign on the defining issue facing our country: should we stick with the status quo and remain in the clutches of Westminster failure, or do we choose a better future and put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands?”
Julie’s sage advice fell on deaf ears, Sturgeon was not inclined to think outside the constraining though financially well remunerated box of Westminster devolution and rejected Julie in favour of the more acceptable Keith Brown.
Mindful of the power of the Zionist movement many Scots were concerned when Sturgeon ferociously criticised Israel. They feared that the special relationship between the Scottish Government and Israel was fractured when Sturgeon urged Tel Aviv to halt the violence after armed Israeli police stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. “Attacking a place of worship at any time is reprehensible, but attacking a mosque during Ramadan is utterly indefensible,” she said. “It is also a violation of international law. Israel should heed calls to halt the violence immediately.”
Many influential Jews went as far as saying her words were tantamount to the “desecration of a synagogue” and the relentless volley of anti-Semitism allegations against her was viewed in some political circles to be part of a concerted effort to destabilise the leadership of the SNP and Scotland’s independence movement. The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, pointed out that similar measures were not taken against other states that have territorial disputes, such as Tibet, Kashmir or Cyprus but, “When the Jewish state is singled out then that is as much anti-Semitism as the desecration of a synagogue,” it insisted.
Despite meeting representatives of the Jewish community in an effort to calm some of their more outraged leaders, Sturgeon’s appeasement strategy failed. Co-founder of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Mick Napier, suggested she might be “lined up for the Corbyn treatment”. A reference to the ousting of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his replacement by self-proclaimed Zionist Sir Keir Starmer. According to Napier, “Whereas Scottish Jewry has courted the Scottish Government assiduously in recent years, they now claim that discouraging trade and investment in Israel’s illegal settlements expresses hostility to Scottish Jews. Not only hostility but Jew-hatred on a par with the desecration of Jewish houses of worship.
The very existence of Israel is reliant on the unconditional support of its allies on the Security Council, of which the United Kingdom, France and the US are its greatest friends. Known collectively as the P5, the other permanent members are China and Russia. Any one of them can veto a resolution, which often proves invaluable to the rogue Zionist state which has violated or ignored nearly 200 UN Resolutions since it was created in occupied Palestine in 1948 and the greatest threat to Israel is the stated intention of the SNP to have nuclear weapons removed from Scottish soil within three years of gaining independence which would result in the removal of England from the Security Council since it would no longer be a nuclear power.
Scottish Independence
At the beginning of 2022 Sturgeon kick-started yet another independence campaign with a view to making preparations for a vote on independence in October 2023. Not long after she announced her plans an attack was launched by the Union of Jewish Students president Nina Freedman who told The Times: “Jewish students in Scotland are a vital part of the Scottish Jewish community, and these actions by the SNP have a large impact on their Jewish life and wider university experience. We have seen across the UK that when BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] is implemented, campus becomes incredibly hostile for Jewish students.” The student group is an opponent of the Scottish government’s criticism of trade between Scotland and illegal settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
Within days of that statement Starmer visited Glasgow and in a shared platform with Anas Sarwar took a hard line towards the SNP vowing that Labour would never enter into deals with a Sturgeon led SNP even if it meant that the Party would need to go into a minority government following the next general election. They also forcefully stated that they would not grant another independence referendum.
Disarming the Labour threat
From around 2018 Sturgeon implemented an SNP recruitment strategy centred on attracting Scotlands Muslim voters of which there are approximately 100,000, a number expected to double in number over the next ten years. Muslim organisations receive more public funding for ‘equality’ than all other religious groups clubbed together. Almost 60% of the multi-million pound grant funds distributed by the Equality Unit go to Muslim groups.
The Glasgow-based, Ahl Al Bait Muslim charitable organisation “Love Life Waste Less” project has been awarded more than £220,000 through the Scottish Government’s Climate Challenge Fund. The project offers: free support to help the Middle Eastern Community of Glasgow to reduce carbon emissions in the areas of energy, waste and food. Project activities include home energy advice visits to help improve household energy efficiency and tackle fuel poverty. Other initiatives focus on repair and upcycling, food growing, food waste and sustainable cookery. The project also offers interactive climate change educational workshops and climate leadership training.
The weakness of Sturgeon’s strategy
Not content with roping in the Muslim vote with very generous financing of its communities she determined on the aggressive recruitment of teenagers and the young and in the process she forced Scottish society to embrace the invidious policies, eg; self indentification, of Stonewall and a myriad number of LGBTI organisatons and campaign groups. The latter completely negates the former so she shot herself in the foot.
Stonewall, Equality Network, Scottish Trans Alliance, Engender and a growing number of other groups such as the LGBTQ Trend and Rape Crisis, are discredited organisations provided with around £3 million annually and rising, from the public purse by the SNP Scottish Government. The SNP leadership seeks to justify the expenditure and promotion of the groups saying they exist to “promote equality and tackle discrimination and prejudice.” But their nebulous ideology imposes a toxic influence over social policy and Scottish law and has no place in Scottish society.
Leslie Evans – Stonewaller
The discredited former Permanent Secretary of the Civil Service in Scotland, who recently retired with a £2 million perks and pension package, launched a crusade in the summer of 2017 determined that the Civil Service would conform with and fully adopt the “Stonewall” agenda for change.. She was assisted in this by her colleague, Barbara Allison and the Scottish Government led by Nicola Sturgeon. This is what she wrote and circulated to all civil servants and Scottish Government employees on 12 February 2018:
Stonewall – Workplace Equality Index (WEI)
Equality for LGBTI colleagues in our workplace is something I am passionate about. The latest Stonewall WEI ranked SG at 101 out of 439 participating employers – a drop from last year when we ranked firmly within the top 100 at position 50. We can do better than this – and we must. I welcome Stonewall’s challenge for continual improvement and a strong focus on transgender policies and practice. Colleagues are meeting with Stonewall this week to receive detailed feedback on our performance and this will inform future work. We will continue to engage with Stonewall and our LGBTI networks to ensure a supportive and positive workplace for our trans, non-binary and intersex colleagues. This issue is firmly on my radar. I want to see the SG demonstrate our unwavering commitment to equality for all.
Harassment in the workplace
The new guidance on harassment I wrote to you all in November following media reports of alleged sexual harassment in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, referring to work I had commissioned to ensure SG internal policies and procedures in this area were sufficiently robust and effective. As part of the ongoing review of our Fairness at Work policy a new process has been created to support colleagues raising sexual harassment complaints, including where these involve ministers. This is designed to ensure we listen to, take seriously and support anyone with a harassment complaint and provide clear routes for taking action. Of course, policies and procedures can only be effective in an open, inclusive and positive workplace culture. That’s why it’s vital for us to talk about this issue, and for each of us to feel confident to challenge unacceptable behaviour – ‘what you permit, you promote’. If you have any questions about the new guidance or suggestions for further improvement please contact our HR Professional Adviser team. I also encourage you to submit your views on tackling harassment via the UK wide civil service survey this week.
SNP -Policy on the hoof
All political parties, apart from the SNP introduced revised procedures in response to the late summer of 2017 “Metoo” campaign. The SNP was the only party which did not at the time display a code of conduct and relevant harassment policy on its website, or offer an easily searchable contact phone numbers or email to make a complaint. Indeed, the SNP code of conduct made no mention of sexual harassment specifically. Responding to questioning the SNP Chief Executive said the Party “continually looks to improve [its] policies and processes” and planned to introduce, in time, trained sexual harassment advisers.
By whom the first are tried
Within the week the Scottish Government, led by Evans launched it attack on the integrity of Alex Salmond. After a year of mind and body destroying attrition the SNP government was belatedly ordered to cease its harassment and was then judged to have conducted an unlawful war on Alex. Alex was awarded £512,250 costs. Immediately after the verdict Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans sent an email message to Barbara Allison, who was away on holiday sunning herself in the Middle East. It read: “We may have lost the battle but we will win the war.” She was of course referring to their crusade with with Stonewall. Nasty people.
MacKinnon was Head of Human Resources governance for the Scottish Police Authority between 2015 & 2017.
Her prime responsibility was to provide assurance to the Authority that they were a responsible employer and a sustainable organization, achieving this goal through the introduction of efficient personnel policies aiding the professional development of management and staff.
The first years following the formation of the Authority were plagued by complaints of harassment and wrongdoing in the force and the SNP Government ordered an independent audit of the Authority’s human resources and other departments that had been subject to criticism.
A lack of transparency and clarity surrounding the complaints processes.
The length of time taken to deal with complaints and to undertake preliminary assessments in misconduct allegations.
A lack of communication between the Authority and senior officers who were the subjects of complaint.
Communication between the Authority and senior officers was inconsistent. In some instances, subject officers had been invited to address allegations/complaints whilst in others, an invitation had not been extended.
On a number of occasions, the first officers became aware complaints had been made about them was through media coverage.
Responsibility for ordering a preliminary assessment of misconduct allegations rested with a manager who had little or no relevant knowledge or experience and expertise.
Conclusions
The complaint handling procedure in place is neither effective nor efficient and lacks transparency and unclear guidance resulted in organizational confusion as to whether a matter should be dealt with as a “relevant”.
The average time taken to conclude complaints and preliminary misconduct assessments is excessive and disproportionate to the level of inquiry undertaken or required of the Authority.
Decisions of the Authority lacked clarity and transparency and in many cases did not contain sufficient explanation to demonstrate how a decision had been reached.
Notifying senior officers about misconduct allegations and ‘relevant complaints’ made about them was inconsistent. In some instances, senior officers were not notified but in other cases, they were notified but sometimes at the beginning or on occasions at the end of the process.
The subject officer must receive formal notification of a misconduct allegation once it has been determined that an investigation is required and before an investigator has been appointed and before the start of any investigation.
Chairpersons Statement:
Susan Deacon, (SPA chair), said the report identified a “number of important areas” requiring the authority’s attention. And it was essential that the Authority’s systems and practices were robust and worked effectively to maintain public confidence and trust.
Addressing the concerns of senior officers, procedures would be revised requiring more than one “deciding” officer to ensure key decisions were taken ensuring better oversight of the complaints process.
BBC News & current affairs presenters are biased against Scottish Independence
A video was released on UTube casting significant doubt on the willingness and ability of the BBC to cover Scottish independence campaigners in an impartial manner.
The leaked videos featured in-house presentations by four senior BBC presenters giving explanatory background briefings to an audience of junior BBC staff.
The presenters, including BBC Scotland’s political editor Brian Taylor, are shown attacking the SNP’s proposed referendum question while claiming that Alex Salmond is ‘not impregnable’.
He is also accused of wanting a devo-max option on the ballot paper in order to ensure a parachute would be in place should Scots fail to back independence.
In the presentations, Scotland is mockingly described as being in financial deficit and requiring subsidy.
Taylor claims that Alex Salmond wished to delay a referendum in order to ‘sow dissent’ among Unionist parties, stating:
“Salmond wants a contest as close as possible to the next UK general election because he believes that by then his Unionist opponents will be fighting each other rather than fighting independence and Alex Salmond. He wants to sow dissent among them”.
Taylor further claimed that the Scottish government’s proposed referendum question was not straightforward and simple suggesting that it was designed to elicit a positive response.
On the proposed question: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”
Taylor said: “Straight forward, simple – except it’s not. The word ‘agree’ according to psephologists is a welcoming word, it draws people in.
People like to agree, they don’t like to disagree so the word there is good. Adding: “Why does Alex Salmond favour a second question, Devo max, and Devo plus, why not just go for independence, which is the one he has the mandate for?
Because he wants a fall-back, he wants a parachute should independence fail to win”.
Also featured on the videos is BBC TV political commentator, Andrew Neil, a former editor of The Scotsman and the Sunday Times, BBC TV’s UK political editor, Nick Robinson, and BBC TV’s economics editor.
Proof of institutionalized BBC bias against Scottish Independence. The BBC purports to be even-handed this. This proves otherwise.
I find this to be genuinely disturbing. Any doubters that the staff of the BBC are past-masters in deception and double-speak watch this video and learn!
The sole message of the seminar is: “Scottish nationalists are the enemies of the BBC. This is how we will misrepresent them.”
I am delighted that this is being picked up by the wider media community, having found this and other material including the Andrew Neil briefing while searching for BBC footage on other issues.
I was struck by the impression that this event was nothing short of a Ministry of Propaganda meeting to discuss State TV strategy. Taylor is fully dependent on maintaining the union.
Neil. An exiled Scot with very few ties to Scotland. He supports the union so that he can keep pretending London is the same country as Scotland. The current arrangement works for him and he will fight tooth and nail to retain it.
The usual BBC propaganda and Scots sellouts trying to save their high salary, low effort jobs.
Interesting that most of the facts here are positive for an Independent Scotland, the economy for example. Almost like ok guys how do we make all this stuff look bad. Also, the UK can’t exist with the Kingdom of Scotland. Wales and Ireland (Northern) didn’t join the UK they were already part of the Kingdom of England.
Where is the part where they tell the audience of journalists from the BBC how to be impartial when dealing with the facts? I must have missed that bit. Can you imagine some of the other meetings which take place well behind closed doors?
The “How to Stop the Scots” seminar.
The BBC shows its true red white and blue colours and its inability to provide the impartial reporting its own charter declares is its founding principle. Basically, when it comes to anything anti-Westminster establishment the BBC are full of bile.
At 30:00 a really key admission. For the UK it’s a ‘deficit’ (which nearly all countries big and small are dealing with), however. For Scotland, it’s a ‘subsidy’ (which we generously receive from London- even though the English are sick of paying it). Ladies and gentlemen of the BBC, there’s yer bias.
Who attended this presentation? Are we now to assume that all BBC presenters, producers & editorial staff will follow the lead of Brian Taylor & Andrew Neil?
Andrew Neil has been Westminster based since the ’80s, he probably won’t even be eligible to vote (assuming he doesn’t have a rarely used Scottish residence). Remember, we pay for this ex Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece and his oversized friend.
Hey if Scotland isn’t a successor state to the UK we don’t have to inherit their debt. Yay for us.
They closed down comments contributions to conceal the real tenor of public opinion. Perhaps the upcoming vote is going to be jiggered with fake votes. In Quebec in 1995, the unconstitutional and illegal referendum was NOT about “secession” or “independence.” It was an attempt to blackmail Canadians into accepting the EU system for ALL of Canada, as the basis of the North American Union. Some quarter million FAKE citizenship ID’s were created in the half-decade prior: 217,000+ people ALL now UNTRACEABLE.
My response to this… I’m not paying your license tax for this Pravda bias! Stick your BBC up your backside! As for Andrew Neil…
I’m not sure whether to like this, ’cause it proves how biased the BBC is, or dislike it, because of the content.
Taylor gets paid too much by the BBC and he spends his wages on steaks and chips. What a waste of our TV license fee!
BBC Scotland’s online department is coming under increasing pressure, (without response) to explain their decision to suspend comments from political blogs.
Alone among BBC broadcast regions, the blogs of veteran editor Brian Taylor and Douglas Fraser have been closed down to comments from the general public for months.
The Union of the UK is between two countries Scotland and England. Scotland leaving ends that and creates two new states. If Scotland has to re-apply to the EU then so must England/rUK. Schengen and the Euro are not preconditions of membership.
caltonjock 