In the period 1930-1936 the SNP and the NPS (National Party for Scotland) campaigned separately each fighting, in vain to gain a political foothold in Scotland.
But in 1938 there was an acceptance in both Party’s that they would only achieve independence by joining forces. This they did under the banner of the SNP.
But merging is not achieved easily
The NPS “Gradualists” political preference was for “Home Rule” within the Westminster system which would bring with it a devolved range of policies for Scottish politicians to enact.
Over time, with the agreement of Westminster, it was expected controls would be expanded as the competence of Scottish politicians improved.
The Party established a dialogue with the Labour Party in Scotland, forming a “Scottish Convention” and in 1938 the Labour Party in Scotland, presented its pre-war Scottish manifesto, claiming that their support for “Home Rule” to be second only behind supporting the war effort against Japan, but in the 1938 British manifesto for Labour, (which took precedence over the Labour Party in Scotland there was no reference to Scottish “Home Rule.“
SNP “Radicals” were not slow in broadcasting to Scots that the labour Party would never commit to Scottish “Home Rule” if there was any risk of it losing electoral support in England, through an article published in the “Scots Independent”:
“Labour Party in Scotland voters your pledges have been cast aside; the Government formed by your Party in Westminster refused facilities for the introduction of a Scots “Home Rule” Bill.”
The “Radicals” of the SNP continued to challenge Unionist Party’s in Scotland, keeping the SNP firmly in the public eye. But the continuous campaigning for independence irked the Westminster government who controlled the media and through it they labelled the SNP as unpatriotic communists.
The “Gradualist” dominated leadership of the SNP persuaded the “Radicals” to moderate their attacks on Unionist Party’s so that progressive Nationalist policies could be adopted and taken to the Scottish Electorate improving the prospects of SNP candidates at elections. The policy achieved a measure of success and although there was no political breakthrough the SNP began to attract a solid base of voter support.
But, in 1955, after ten years without any major success the SNP was in danger of breaking apart and “Radicals” called for major policy changes including the adoption of more confrontational policies against the Westminster Government.
The “Gradualist” Party leadership refused, expelled 55 “radicals”. and retained the policy of a slow build to legitimacy and acceptance by the Scottish Electorate as an alternative system of governance.
Skip forward a few generations of slow build
1997 -2007 : Forty years of slow build achieved nothing. But the European Council (EC) forced change and instructed the Labour Government that it had to devolve power to the regions of the UK in accordance with EC policy.
The Westminster response was to gift Scots a hopelessly inadequate form of limited self government.
But the Labour Party in Scotland and the media hyped the changes to the electorate through a constant barrage of misinformation, the content of which Himmler would have been proud to call his own.
After nearly a decade of abuse, incompetence, sleaze and graft, Scots finally brought about the end of governance by the Labour Party in Scotland. Fifty five years of “pinning a red flag on a donkey” and getting it voted into Westminster or Holyrood were at an end.
2007: Alex Salmond asked Scots to give the SNP a chance to prove the Party in government would introduce progressive policies for the common good. Voters accepted him at his word and the SNP took office for the first time ever.
But difficulties arose very early on in the new parliament when Unionist Party MSP’s refused to support the minority government. Another Scottish General Election loomed.
But the deadlock was broken by Annabel Goldie who desperately wished to avoid an election and the assured elimination of the Tory Party in Scotland. A rule by consent was agreed between the SNP and the Tory Party. And the SNP delivered its manifesto to the electorate almost without change.
2011: Alex Salmond and the SNP were returned to office in a landslide election which resulted the party gaining an overall majority turning the entire system on its head. Alex Salmond’s finest hour!!
Equipped with a mandate to take independence forward Alex Salmond wasted little time in making it clear to Westminster of his intent to do just that. After many false dawns Scots would decide their future.
The SNP, in the years that followed proved time and again to Westminster and other nations in the world that its governance was competent and able. Scotland more than deserved its place in the World as a free and independent nation.
September 2014: A campaign marked by skulduggery, misinformation, bullying and downright lying by Westminster and unionist politicians in Scotland, the civil service, business moguls, and the media forced the browbeaten Scottish electorate into voting against independence. But there was a glimmer of hope for the future.
A “Vow” signed off by the three political leaders at Westminster was published illegally in the Daily Record 2 days before the referendum vote committing Westminster to devolving further significant powers (self government according to Gordon Brown), to Scotland within 6 months of the Referendum.
In December 2014 Alex Salmond, believing he had carried the SNP standard to the brink of independence only to fall just short, gave over control of the SNP to Nicola Sturgeon believing an injection of new blood at the top would energise the Party in anticipation of the imminent establishment of self government in Scotland, promised in the “Vow” before May 2015.
The Smith Commission
In the period leading up to the 2015 General Election the Westminster government formed a commission headed by Lord Smith of Kelvin with the role of overseeing the implementation of the commitments spelt out by the Westminster parliamentary leaders in the “Vow”.
Membership of the Commission was decided following consultation with political leaders in Scotland but the panel chosen reflected the campaigning groups of the independence referendum. The SNP team were heavily outnumbered by the Unionist’s.
John Swinney and his team were inept and came away from the Commission having achieved little change over the existing devolution arrangement. He had been outflanked and destroyed at every juncture. Westminster reneged on the promises in the “vow”
2015: The General Election
The Scottish electorate was enraged by the Westminster unionists who had promised so much and delivered so little and just about wiped them from the political map of Scotland. 56, SNP, MP’s were sent to Westminster with a mandate to gain independence.
But Nicola Sturgeon was “feart” and balked at the thought of confronting the Unionists with a demand for immediate independence and instead instructed the large contingent of SNP, MP’s to join fully in all aspects Westminster politics. An opportunity to meet the wishes of the Scottish electorate had been disgracefully passed up and Scots would pay dearly for Sturgeons lack of political backbone.
2015-2021
The Labour Party in Scotland failed to recover from the collapse of its membership and electoral support in the 2015 General Election when many of the former transferred their allegiance to the SNP.
But the “yellow” banner of the SNP changed to a pale “red” by result and Sturgeon seized the day, embracing the “new way” which required the rapid clear out from positions of power in the party of any ardent nationalists.
Implementation of the strategy required the adjusting of control mechanisms within the Party and this was initially achieved through natural regeneration which over time provided a new “Sturgeonista” cohort at the heart of the Party.
The cross fertilisation of SNP/Labour Party activists is on-going and Gordon Brown is advancing plans for Scottish “self rule” in anticipation that Boris Johnson’s government will collapse under the weight of sleaze its politicians seem determined to inflict on the Party.
Summary
Sturgeon has led Scots on a merry dance taking them to the political floor to the tune of the “Grand old Duke of York” marching supporters of independence up the hill and back down again with regularity achieving nothing of any note. But her tactical manoeuvring has revealed her intent which is, working with the Labour Party to implement the agenda of the National Party of Scotland (NPS) namely “Home Rule” within the Westminster system.
Awareness of operational working relationships between the Scottish Government and the Civil Service in Scotland is necessary to fully understand the complexities that contributed to the scandal that engulfed both entities at the time the SNP government under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon decided on the political and personal destruction of Alex Salmond.
Responsibility for the governance of the Civil Service in Scotland is not devolved. It is accountable for its actions, through the permanent Secretary of the Civil Service in Scotland to the Head of the Civil Service at Westminster. That person is presently the Head of the Westminster Governments Cabinet office.
Leslie Evans, who heads the Civil Service in Scotland reports to the First Minister of Scotland ensuring the provision of efficient service support to Scottish government ministers, at all times scrupulously adhering to the rules and regulations for the Civil Service enshrined by laws put in place by the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at Westminster. It follows therefore that the rules can only be amended with the authority of the government at Westminster.
Proposals to make changes to the Civil Service complaints procedures were first muted by Nicola Sturgeon in October 2017, at the time Woke campaigners were on the warpath demanding the head of any person who, in their view was failing or had failed to adhere to their political agenda for major changes to the accepted norms of society as they presently existed, with the support of the vast bulk of the electorate.
Acting in isolation, without the authority of the Westminster government, Senior Scottish civil service officers accepted inappropriate instructions from Scottish political figures and in harmony with Political Advisors to the First Minister revised Civil Service procedures introducing measures providing a means through which Scottish government ministers present and past could be charged with misconduct and harassment.
17 November 2017:Evans seeks approval of the Cabinet Office at Westminster
Contact with the Cabinet Office at Westminster is gifted to the Permanent Secretary in Scotland and the proposed revisions to the Civil Service procedures were referred to the Cabinet Secretary at Westminster for final approval. Authority was denied, it being the view of Westminster that the proposed changes were ill-conceived, unworkable and a danger to democracy.
Leslie Evans was caught between a rock and a hard place. Only a year or so until retirement, a damehood and a place in the lords was in jeopardy.
But she was accountable to the cabinet Secretary at Westminster. So allow me a wee bit of writer’s licence. I advance that, allowing time for the chickens without heads to run-around for a day Evans decided to comply with the instructions from Westminster and put the proposed changes on the back burner.
But the First Minster “GWOAT” and leader of the WOKE movement would not be denied and demanded action.
An opportunity for political mischief was not lost on the Westminster government who advised Leslie Evans to protect herself and Westminster by ensuring Sturgeon’s orders were put in writing.
Sturgeon duly shot herself and her government in the foot at a cost to the Scottish taxpayer of around £10-£20M. Money wasted on the futile and vindictive pursuit of a political rival by an elected politician.
22 Nov 2017:
Nicola Sturgeon’s “instruction from the First Minister” to Leslie Evans reads:
“As is clear from the continued media focus on cases of sexual harassment, in many instances, people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago. I wanted to make clear that in taking forward your review, and the new arrangements being developed, you should not be constrained by the passage of time. I would like you to consider ways in which we are able to address if necessary any concerns from staff, should any be raised, about the conduct of current Scottish Government ministers and also former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party. While I appreciate that the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code, I think it fair and reasonable that any complaints raised about their actions while they held office are considered against the standards expected of Ministers. I would be grateful for confirmation that this particular aspect is being included as part of the review you are leading.”
Afternote:
In her letter of instruction to Leslie Evans, Nicola Sturgeon wrote: “people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago” which was untrue since at the time she compiled the letter only two officers had come forward with minor concerns and both had expressly said they did not wish to make a formal complaint against Alex Salmond.
For those who are not yet familiar with the sequence of events leading up to Nicola Sturgeon “signing off” the “revised” complaints procedures I have added an October-December 2017 timeline consolidating the views of an eminent Scottish judge who ordered the immediate withdrawal of the ill conceived and badly drafted changes that had clearly been put in place with political malice aforethought and payment of Alex Salmond’s court costs (in excess of £500k). Reinforcing the views of many Scots that he had been fitted up.
The response from the Scottish government/head of the Civil Service was a statement that was crass in the extreme: “We might have lost a battle but the war goes on”. Is the reference to “WE” a promotion of the WOKE agenda?
29 October 2017:
The timeline – Late October 2017: Aamer Anwar alleged the existence of a ‘ticking time bomb catalogue of sexual harassment at Holyrood.
31 Oct: Political journalist David Clegg/Daily Record received “heads up” information together with supporting government documentation from an unnamed senior political source in the Scottish Government regarding allegations of sexual misconduct by Alex Salmond during his time in office. How’s that for a spoiler?
As at November 2021 (four years later) The police have yet to identify the political criminal who leaked the information. A scurrilous act of betrayal.
31 Oct: A senior SNP officer, Ms Anne Harvey, based in Westminster had been inundated with telephone text messages seeking damming gossip about Alex Salmond. This suggested that a fishing expedition had started in earnest well before any formal complaints had been made. Anne worked with Alex Salmond for many years and was an important witness for the defence, (but her evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry was 90% plus redacted by the Crown before submission). She was also at the time, a close political friend of one of the complainers.
31 Oct: Holyrood civil service senior officers, including John Somers, the First Ministers “gatekeeper” were in attendance at a meeting convened by Nicola Sturgeon with the purpose of reviewing civil service procedures for the handling of workplace complaints. Nicola Sturgeon asked that a review of government policies and processes be completed to ensure that they were fit for purpose. This was not done!!
31 Oct: But James Hynd, Head of Cabinet, Parliament, and Governance, for the Scottish Government, apparently acting on his own initiative decided to target former ministers including them in his first draft of a revised policy. Why?? Because he believed he was in charge of the Scottish government’s ministerial code and he believed there was a “gap” that needed to be closed. In his evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry he also conceded he was well aware of gossip about alleged misconduct involving the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, before choosing to include former ministers in the new anti-harassment policy. But he insisted he alone had decided to make former ministers the focus of his first draft of the policy because he thought there was a a “gap” that needed to be closed.
02 Nov: MSP and minister Mark McDonald, was taken in to speak to John Swinney and the First Minister’s chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, and was told his name had come up in “chatter” around “MeToo”.
03 Nov: McDonald met Lloyd, who revealed a complaint had been made against him about the offensive content of a social media message he had sent. Lloyd told him he would need to resign from the Government.
There were strong rumours that Alex Salmond was unhappy at the lack of progress on independence given the strong polling figures in favour of this and was considering a return to front line politics, possibly through the Aberdeen seat vacated by Mark McDonald when he was denied the Party whip in Holyrood. It was also rumoured that Alex would soon be installed as the editor of the Scotsman.
04 Nov:McDonald said Nicola Sturgeon phoned him in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign that evening.
04 Nov: McDonald resigned from his role as children’s minister in the Scottish Government.
04 Nov: In the evening, Sky News contacted the SNP Government parliamentary media office enquiring about Alex Salmond’s alleged misconduct with women at Edinburgh Airport. Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans and Liz Lloyd were informed. Both of them briefed the First Minister of events the morning after.
Afternote:
Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government, told the inquiry that on 5 Mar 2017 she warned the first minister that Alex Salmond had been calling civil servants in connection with a Sky News investigation into an alleged incident at Edinburgh airport in 2007.
The officials were a bit bewildered and unhappy about it and she advised the First Minister of her concerns. She was also worried that it could become a story and the Scottish Government needed to be ready because the media was very volatile reporting on everything.
She went on to say that a whole range of un-named politicians inside the Scottish government had been raising concerns about alleged sexual misconduct involving ministers.
Rumours had began surfacing in early November 2017 at the height of the “MeToo” movement campaigning, soon after John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, announced a new zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct.
The briefing by Evans that rumours of misconduct included the former First Minister concentrated the minds of members of the Inquiry on the context of the closing statement of Ms Evans to suggest that the “new” sexual harassment policy had been “targeted at and designed to get Alex Salmond”.
Evans denied that was the case. But in late 2018, Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament that she first learned Alex Salmond was being investigated “when he told her” during a meeting at her home on 2 April 2018. But the government was forced to admit that she actually met one of Salmond’s closest former aides, Geoff Aberdein, in connection with the matter in her ministerial office on 29 March 2018.
06 Nov: Lloyd said she had been approached by several civil servants who raised concerns that Alex Salmond and his representatives were reportedly contacting other civil servants to ask that they provide supportive statements to his legal representatives relating to the matters raised by Sky News. The civil servants intimated that political approaches were unwelcome.
Lloyd was asked if she or some other Special Adviser could ask Alex Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct.
She was informed shortly after that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached by the same staff and was taking their request forward, so she made no approach to Alex Salmond.
08 Nov: The first draft of a new harassment policy “Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints Against Former Ministers.” written by top official James Hynd was circulated’
It stated that if a complaint would be lodged against a former minister and he/she was a member of the party in power, the First Minister should be informed immediately.
08 Nov:Barbara Allison, Director of Communications told the Parliamentary inquiry that she was first notified of concerns about the behaviour of Alex Salmond on 8 November 2017 when two female civil servants, (Ms A and Ms B) raised them with her by telephone. She had informed Richards and Evans, the following morning.
08 Nov: Ms B, related to Barbara Allison details of an alleged incident involving herself and Alex Salmond. Richards and Evans were notified.
The session required Alex Salmond to be photographed with one other person at his side on a small balcony.
Time, as ever, was a constraint and a rotating routine was in place requiring four people to be present on the small balcony throughout the shoot.
Ms B said that Alex Salmond had fondled her “bum” at the time she stood next to him on the balcony.
There were no witnesses to the event and Ms B had not reported it previously.
08 Nov: Both Ms A and Ms B were determined that they were not interested in making any formal complaint against Alex Salmond and expressed this to Gillian Russell and Barbara Allison at the time.
Their express wish was only to be allowed a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. On both counts the civil service failed them and they paid the price of failure.
10 Nov:Evans appointed Gillian Russell, Scottish Government, Director of Safer Communities as the “confidential sounding board” for complainers.
10 Nov: In the course of an arranged meeting Ms A related to Gillian Russell the information she had previously advised Barbara Allison of only two days before. Namely an alleged incident involving herself and Alex Salmond.Russell, with the consent of Ms A, updated Richards, who in turn alerted Evans (who had been briefed by Barbara Allison the day previously) and through her office, Judith Mackinnon.
Details of the alleged incident related by Ms B: A “photoshoot” session had been arranged at Stirling Castle attended by Alex Salmond and a number of his close working colleagues, including Miss B.
The essence of the experience Miss A related was: At the end of a long evening, in Bute House, after dealing with “Chinese business” Alex Salmond suggested they could share share some “Maotai”, a highly potent Chinese “rice” drink, a few bottles of which had been gifted to him. She accepted the invitation.
There was no central heating in the lower floors of Bute House at the time and they retired upstairs to Alex’s bedroom where after indulging more than a few drinks they ended up quite tipsy. They both dozed off on a bed, fully dressed and enjoyed a “sleepy cuddle”. After a short period they both awakened. Ms A collected her papers. Alex kissed her on the cheek and she left to go downstairs. There was no intention of any non-consensual sex. Not long after, Ms A lodged a complaint against Alex Salmond.
The matter had been resolved to her satisfaction, using approved Civil Service procedures, following an unreserved apology from Alex Salmond.
Ms A was also offered a transfer away from Alex Salmond’s office without loss of rank or earnings but declined stating her preference to retain her employment and close working relationship with him. Which they subsequently enjoyed for a number of years after.
13-15 Nov: In an exchange of emails with senior civil servants, Hynd advised, “officials will also need to alert the First Minister if a complaint is lodged against a minister because she’d “want to know straight away”.
16 Nov: McDonald suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him.
16 Nov:Hynd emailed (Private Secretary 1 to Evans). (Policy on Complaints Against Ministers.” As requested”. James.
16 Nov: Hynd circulated to the Scottish Government civil service senior management team, and Lloyd (first sight, at her request) a second draft procedure titled “Handling of sexual harassment complaints involving current or former ministers.”
16 Nov: A copy of the draft policy was sent to the UK Government’s Cabinet Office in Westminster for approval.
17 Nov: Approval was not forthcoming. Instead the response expressed grave concerns about implications for politicians throughout the UK if the Scottish Government would be permitted to act in isolation from the other governments of GB and Northern Ireland introducing a process for complaints about ministers and former ministers which had not been universally approved.
The cabinet Office instructed that the policy changes should be deferred until such time as the other governments had completed their own reviews.
Reference was also made to the unfairness of the revised policies which demanded standards of personal conduct for Scottish politicians greatly in excess of those for civil servants which had remained unchanged. Double standards were not acceptable. The document was unfit for introduction.
Afternote:
The Westminster “Cabinet Office” exposed the hypocracy of the intent behind the proposed changes and rightly blocked the proposals.
17 Nov: Hynd forwarded the Cabinet Office response to an unnamed private secretary in the Scottish Government, (possibly Somers) who replied: “Oh dear, I did wonder if that would be their reaction. Not sure how long their review will take but Sturgeon and Evans are keen to resolve quickly and discuss on Tuesday.
I suspect we don’t have a policy on former civil servants. But we are looking at this in the context of the overall review of policies and the justification for having something about Ministers is the action that Parliament is taking in light of allegations about MSP conduct which includes a recent SG Minister?”.
Afternote:
Questioned by the Parliamentary inquiry Hynd said: “Nicola Sturgeon was keen to take national leadership on the matter and delaying implementation of the new procedure was not an option for consideration.”
Comment: But of note was that the procedure for civil servants was not updated to include retrospective consideration of harassment allegations.
Afternote:
Lloyd stated that the inclusion of herself in the circulation of the draft procedure created a requirement to identify and amend the ministerial code, if necessary since the code was the responsibility of the First Minister.
Comment: But the Ministerial Code and the proposed complaints procedure were the business of the Civil Service and the unelected Lloyd had no legitimate input.
20 Nov: Somers said complainer, Ms A, arranged a meeting with him at which she told him of her past experiences in a way that would improve the organization and make sure that no one else would have to go through that sort of thing again.
She stressed she was not making a complaint, she simply wanted to assess her options for how she could best share the information. Her wish was to be allowed to speak to the First Minister which was why she had approached him.
Somers said he felt “overwhelmed” by the disclosure and informed his line manager Barbara Allison and the Director of Safer Communities, Gillian Russell.
21 Nov: Somers and two unnamed officers met with Ms A and advised her she would need to further discuss the matter with his line manager Barbara Allison, with a proviso that if she felt she was not being taken seriously or no one was listening to her, she should get back in touch with Somers who would set-up a personal meeting for her with the First Minister.
He never heard back from her. He went on to say that he did not tell the First Minister that Ms A had confided in him because it wasn’t his experience to share and had he done so he would have put the First Minister in a state of knowledge about something she could not have taken action upon until the new procedures were in place.
Afternote:
Nothing rings true in Somers statements to the inquiry since all of the officers named by him had been “in the loop” about the allegations of misconduct about Alex Salmond from 8 November, nearly two weeks before
Afternote:
In her statement to the inquiry the Scottish Government’s Director for Communications, Ministerial Support & Facilities, Barbara Allison, who was Director of People from 2009 to 2016, said that Alex Salmond was a “visionary and dynamic” and although demanding and difficult to work for people also expressed that they enjoyed working for him.
She had never heard of sexual misconduct concerns about him while he was the First Minister. Nor had she heard of any concerns being escalated to the status of formal complaints while she was in charge of human resources.
Afternote:
Allison also said she had not raised any issues of bullying or harassment with either Evans or Sturgeon and for clarity, she emphasized to the inquiry that she was not aware of any issues about sexual harassment” and added that she was a “huge advocate” for informal resolution, stating that if a matter could be resolved through this process, then “absolutely people must have recourse to a formal process”.
22 Nov: Nicola Sturgeon’s “instruction from the First Minister” was sent to to Evans. It read:
“As is clear from the continued media focus on cases of sexual harassment, in many instances, people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago. I wanted to make clear that in taking forward your review, and the new arrangements being developed, you should not be constrained by the passage of time. I would like you to consider ways in which we are able to address if necessary any concerns from staff, should any be raised, about the conduct of current Scottish Government ministers and also former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party. While I appreciate that the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code, I think it fair and reasonable that any complaints raised about their actions while they held office are considered against the standards expected of Ministers. I would be grateful for confirmation that this particular aspect is being included as part of the review you are leading.”
Note: The letter of instruction makes no sense since the newly written draft procedure was already in place and circulated within the senior Civil Servant management team.
And Hynd, the person who wrote the new procedure was not copied into the correspondence.
24 Nov: A fifth draft of Hynd’s, policy delegated authority to the Permanent Secretary to investigate complaints but made clear the First Minister should also be alerted. A copy was also sent to the First Minister.
23 Nov:Richards sent an e-mail to Evans, copied to Mackinnon “we would need to consult with the individual before disclosing to another party or the Police because of the risk of the matter getting into the press and the individuals being identified.
We have a duty of care for our staff which means we shouldn’t do something that puts them at risk, so if they don’t want us to share information or go to the police, it would be very difficult to justify (sic) doing so (without putting them at risk of being identified and wider impacts).
This was subsequently changed on 9th January 2018 to read “SG as employer will not refer specific cases to police without the knowledge/consent of the employee.”
24 Nov:Lloyd, Somers, Hynd and a member of the Permanent Secretary’s office, attended a meeting to further discuss the content of the “instruction from the First Minister” and to establish and agree clear lines of responsibility between the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary.
A second purpose was to reword the second draft procedure inserting changes designed to prevent the First Minister from stopping the Permanent Secretary from investigating a sexual harassment complaint made by a civil servant against a minister if the Permanent Secretary judged there was something to investigate. The change was put in place to protect the First Minister from criticism.
Additional input from Lloyd included the view that it was essential that the First Minister should be made aware of an investigation or allegation into a serving minister, before the event, in order to determine if, under the ministerial code, that minister could remain in post whilst an investigation was conducted.
Yet she later stipulated that on that date she had no knowledge, of any of the allegations against Alex Salmond that were subsequently investigated under the new procedure.
29 Nov: Russell wrote to Ms A “as agreed, I sent your narrative on in confidence to Nicky (Richards) and Judith (Mackinnon). I have now been asked by Nicky and Judith if you would be prepared to speak to them following receipt of your narrative.
As part of this discussion Nicky would like to share with you the developing policy for handling complaints against former and current ministers. This would give you an opportunity to test whether this would have helped at the time and also to consider next steps.” Later that day Ms A agreed to do so but reiterated her wish to speak first personally with Nicola Sturgeon.
Comment: So we have a potential complainant assisting the process of compiling the procedure to be used against the person she is complaining about. You couldn’t make it up!!
29 Nov:Richards, met with Evans, who then went on to have a “summit meeting with Nicola Sturgeon, “to discuss the development of the proposed procedure”.
30 Nov:Richards emailed Hynd, the Head of the Cabinet Secretariat: “Would you be able to send me the latest version of the process I agreed with Leslie Evans that I would test against some key individuals?”
Comment: Just who the individuals were was not revealed.
01 Dec: Hynd sent the “eighth” harassment policy draft to Richards.
04/05 Dec:Richards, redrafted parts of the “eighth” draft procedure completing her work 2334 hours on the evening of 5 Dec.
She then forwarded it under cover of an email, to Evans, Hynd, MacKinnon, and an unnamed lawyer. The email stated: “As discussed earlier today, I’ve made some revisions to the process.”
06 Dec: Richards, met with Ms B and shared with her the content of the revised 8th draft procedure, seeking and gaining from Ms B confirmation that had the procedures been in place at the time she claimed she had been sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.
Comment: Unbelievable!!
06 Dec:Mackinnon, met with Ms A and after sharing the draft procedures gained from her confirmation that had the new procedures been in place at the time she was sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.
Comment: Unbelievable!!
06 Dec: Evans emailed Richards, Hynd, and a third person writing, “Spoke with John S (Swinney?) last night.
We agreed you would send up tweaked codes in draft without any letters just now. and as discussed, info on the steps and touchpoints involved in the process also useful. Keep me posted back in the office tomorrow but happy to talk. John (Swinney?) also I’m sure.”
Afternote:
Evans told the inquiry team that she did not see a “natural role” for Special Advisor (Lloyd) in the Scottish Government response to the judicial review brought by Alex Salmond.
But a freedom of information response listed 17 meetings at which lawyers involved in the judicial review met with Sturgeon or senior staff, with Lloyd present at three meetings in Oct and Nov 2018.
Evans, confronted by the facts, was forced to correct her evidence to confirm that Sturgeon’s political special advisor, Lloyd, did fully participate in meetings at which the allegations against Alex Salmond were discussed.
Afternote:
Somers told the inquiry that he had no involvement in the development of the procedure used against Alex Salmond. This is not true. Somers, in his capacity as Sturgeon’s Principal Private Secretary, had a key role in developing the policy at a critical time.
5 Dec 2017: The “letters” that Somers was subsequently instructed “not” to send to Sturgeon were the “tweaked codes” which Somers and Hynd had been instructed by Evans to draft in line with the procedure as it had existed prior to her discussion with Somers, and for the purpose of intimating the new procedure to former Ministers and former First Ministers when it would be approved by the First Minister in due course. The “letters” disappeared from the development process after the discussions and the Scottish Government has persistently refused to disclose the contents.
Exactly what comprised the “steps and touchpoints involved in the process” was discussed by Evans and Somers but the content remains guesswork since no-one at the inquiry asked Somers, or has ever asked Evans, what was meant by these terms. But what is clear is that both Evans herself and Somers were “happy to talk” to Richards, Hynd, and the third person about these “steps and touchpoints” in the radically recast procedure.
There is a hugely significant context of the very obvious involvement of Somers, acting on behalf of Sturgeon, in the development, actually, in the complete recast of the procedure. For now, it is worth noting that Somers’s evidence on affirmation was given, as Somers himself pointed out, with the specific advance endorsement of the Scottish Government. Civil Service jargon for “not my words govn’r!!””
05 Dec: First contact between the SG and Police Scotland was initiated by the Deputy Director of People, MacKinnon, who on 5th December emailed the Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS), Head of Public Protection at Police Scotland.
An email response was sent on the same date and a physical meeting was arranged, which took place on 6th December, attended by the Deputy Director of People, MacKinnon, the DCS, the Chief Superintendent (CS), Local Policing Commander for Edinburgh Division and Detective Superintendent (DSU) for Edinburgh Division.
In addition to the email contact between MacKinnon and the DCS and latterly to the DSU on the dates above, a number of telephone conversations and email exchanges took place between MacKinnon, and the DSU on 30th January 2018; 31st January 2018; 18th April 2018; 19th April 2018; 1st August 2018; 2nd August 2018 and 3rd August 2018. The initial email contact indicated that advice was being sought on the SG approach to sexual harassment procedures responding to the “Metoo” movement, and, SG obligations in response to allegations made by staff or former staff which may constitute a criminal offence.
06 Dec:MacKinnon provided information to the DCS and DSU about the reporting mechanism within the Scottish Parliament. A procedure very recently put in place in partnership with the Westminster government who had responded to widespread media reporting of alleged inappropriate conduct involving members of the UK Parliament.
A ‘hotline’ number had been launched by the Scottish Parliament which directed callers to support agencies and, where appropriate, the police. Hotline responders would not report matters directly to the police but would direct callers to contact ‘101’ or ‘999’ in an emergency.
MacKinnon, also provided advice that any potential victim or complainer would be provided with details of support and advocacy services. which would allow concerns to be discussed with an experienced advocacy worker with knowledge of the criminal justice process and to support the individual to report matters to the police.
Advice would be given that where criminality was suspected, individuals would be directed to support and advocacy services, to enable them to make informed decisions about whether or not to report matters to the police. Information that was reiterated on several occasions to the police in discussions with MacKinnon in the course of ongoing contact between December 2017 and August 2018.
A number of hypothetical questions were posed during email and telephone contact around the criminal justice process.
Police Scotland advised that, without specific details, no appropriate response could be given and no assessment of risk could be made. It was further emphasised that individuals should be directed to the relevant support services as it appeared that the hypothetical questions were predicated upon a specific set of circumstances andthe SG response to that set of circumstances, rather than development of a generic procedure. The hypothetical questions also suggested more than one victim of potential criminality and as such, it was stressed that, without knowledge of the detail, any risk that a suspect might present, could not be properly assessed or mitigated.
It was highlighted by the police that that SG staff had not been trained to undertake such investigations, or to engage with victims. No details of potential victims or perpetrators were provided by SG and, throughout the contact, Police Scotland encouraged SG to refer victims to appropriate support services. Police Scotland was not invited to provide comment in relation to a draft ‘procedure’ or framework for the handling of harassment complaints, nor was any draft or final document shared with Police Scotland.
On Tuesday 21st August 2018, complaints against the former First minister were formally referred to Police Scotland by the Scottish Government through the the Crown Agent. This took place during a meeting at the Crown Office, Edinburgh, involving the Crown Agent, the Chief Constable and the DCS, Head of Public Protection.
Afternote:
Evidently the Scottish Government had no interest in developing a comprehensive procedure covering harassment in the workplace. Discussions between Scottish Government representatives and the police centred on a number of hypothetical incidents each of which provided indication that a very senior former politician was the subject under discussion.
The police backed off and raised warning signals about the SG methodology. They went on to advise that the Scottish Government was not qualified or trained to undertake investigations on its own and any alleged victims should be directed to “support and advocacy services” who could help them decide what to do and whether to involve the police.
The Scottish Government, ignored the advice and went on to conduct its own illegal and biased investigations and found Salmond guilty, and then when that illegality was about to be exposed it reported the complaints to the police AGAINST the express wishes of the complainers, and also against the rules it had itself written after taking the advice of the employees’ trade union.
Afternote:
Procedure: Para 19: Throughout the process, all available steps will be taken to support the staff member and ensure they are protected from any harmful behaviour. However, if at any point it becomes apparent to the SG that criminal behaviour might have occurred the SG may bring the matter directly to the attention of the Police. Also, if it became apparent that the matter being raised formed part of a wider pattern of behaviour, it may be necessary for the SG to consider involving the Police in light of the information provided. SG, as employer will not refer specific cases to the police without the knowledge/consent of the employee. Should either of these steps be necessary the staff member would be advised and supported throughout.
07 Dec:MacKinnon met with complainant Ms B.
10 Dec: Evidently there was a deadline for the submission of the procedure for the signature of the First minster and this was confirmed in yet another email and document enclosure and to the same people in which Richards wrote: “I’ve updated the timeline and this is the final version of the policy I’ve sent to Evans.” The “air” of finality clearly suggested that the civil service team, supported by legal opinion were confident it would be signed off and introduced.
12 Dec:Evans and Sturgeon met and discussed the “new” procedures.
12 Dec: Evans wrote to Sturgeon: “You wrote me on 22 Nov regarding the review of the Scottish Government’s policies and processes on sexual harassment. As we have discussed, we have a shared commitment to ensure that the arrangements that are in place are effective and contribute to the work already in hand to promote an inclusive and respectful culture across the Scottish Government.
Your letter, in particular, asked me to consider as part of the review, ways in which any concerns raised by staff about the conduct of current or former Ministers could be addressed. I have developed, for your agreement, a process for how complaints of harassment, including sexual harassment, might be taken forward.
This new process aims to ensure that I am able to fulfil my duty of care to staff by taking the necessary steps to support the member of staff and to put in train any further action that might be required within the civil service as a result of the issues raised.
As far as current Ministers are concerned, the process will also assist you in taking forward your responsibilities under the Scottish Ministerial Code.
It also sets out how complaints against former Ministers will be handled. Given that the process engages the responsibility of the First Minister for the application of the Ministerial Code, we will seek approval for the ongoing application of the process on each occasion the Ministerial Code is updated.
I should be grateful to learn if you are content to adopt the process set out in the annex. As you have requested, I am happy to update the Cabinet about the outcome of the review whenever you wish.
14 Dec:Richards emailed Private Secretary (2) to Evans, Hynd, Mackinnon, and the Head of Branch, Peoples Directorate: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers:
I’ve amended the letter and policy in line with our exchange. If this looks OK I’d like first for us to run this past the unions before the final exchange with the First Minister. I think we should just share with the Unions the revised procedures part about current ministers because that is what would form part of our revised “fairness at work” policy. The process relating to former minister’s is more for us to know what we would do rather than to have out there as a published policy.
Comment: So the Unions would be provided with a selective brief omitting any reference to retrospective investigation of ministers.
14 Dec: Hynd emailed Richards, Private Secretary 2, Mackinnon and, Head of Branch Peoples Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. Thanks for this. Some formatting wrinkles had crept in which I have now sorted in the attached version (‘final’). Other than the removal of references to ‘sexual’, the text remains the same as that which went to the First Minister and on which she commented.
14 Dec: Private Secretary 2 to Evans emailed Hynd, Richards, MacKinnon, and Head of Branch, Peoples Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. I’ve just spoken with Hynd about another few small adjustments – just to ensure using consistent terms throughout. Nothing substantive. Hynd is kindly making those adjustments and will circulate the final version shortly so Head of Branch, People Directorate 1 you may wish to hold off your preparation of the version for Unions meantime.
In terms of timing to the First Minister, we will put the procedure to the First Minister once we have the green light from Richards. If we want to appraise the Permanent Secretary of timings and sharing with Unions, she is tied up in interviews today till 15:00 and then on leave until Tuesday – but contactable.
14 Dec:Hynd emailed Private Secretary 2 to Evans, Richards, Mackinnon, and Head of Branch, People Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. Dear all. With sincere and deepest thanks to Private Secretary 2 to Evans, here is yet another ‘final’ version.
20 Dec: The First minister signed off the new procedure.
Clegg first appeared on the scene in Scotland when he took up a post with the Dundee Courier. His interest in politics was not long in surfacing and he enhanced his reputation as an investigative journalist reporting events in Holyrood.
Sky News also employed him to front political reporting of the day in Scotland.
He gained rapid promotion to Assistant then Editor of the Courier between 2010 -2012 before moving to the Daily Record where he reported politics between 2012-2019. A full circle of employment took him back as editor to the Dundee Courier in November 2019.
He is a bit of an enigma socially since there is little on record about him or his family but, based on the coverage of his news and current affairs he established a wide gathering of informers in a short time in Scotland, or perhaps he had friends in “high places”.
His political coverage of Scottish events up to the start of the 2014 Independence Referendum was marked by fairness and gained him a number of awards for political journalism.
But from the start of campaigning in 2014 he revealed his true political colours and they were “Red”. An avid supporter of the Unionist cause the “man from Northern Ireland” courted the wrath of nationalists through his relentless attacks on the SNP (mainly Alex Salmond) supported by the political and legal protection of the Unionist political mouthpiece the “Daily Record”.
Nicola Sturgeon raised many eyebrows when she defended Clegg’s right to free speech in a “twitter” post criticising nationalist supporters (aggressively given the title “cybernats” by Better Together campaigners) who allegedly made threats against him.
Her intervention would have been better received if she had criticised both sides but in any event any political vitriol against her by “Better Together” was somewhat muted by result.
2014 David Clegg and his input to the Scottish Independence Referendum
“Purdah”, the period which prevented the UK government from announcing new legislation to gain advantage over the “Yes” campaign started on 21 August 2014. For those who might not be aware of the legislation the term means:
“Veil on government”, and refers to the pre-election campaign period and provides restrictions on how the government may act, how the Civil Service behaves and the use of government resources during that time.
Like many aspects the UK’s unwritten constitution government, is a mix of convention, precedent, code of conduct and statutory requirement. Additionally there are some aspects of purdah that relate to statutory restrictions on how campaigns are conducted which are set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act of 2000: namely controls on funding and on publicity for electoral campaigns and how the Civil Service needs to be aware of them.
The abuse of “purdah” occurred only 3 days before the referendum in response to informed comment that the “Yes” campaign had gained a small but significant lead in the polls. Murray Foote, Editor and Clegg, then Deputy Editor of the “Daily Record” together with other press figures and heavyweight politicians, published the infamous “vow” which was then given major “air time” on the BBC over the final 3 days of the campaign and other news outlets to the Scottish electorate.
The unprecedented “pledge to the nation” brokered by former prime minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour, was signed by the three political leaders at Westminster offering their version of the future governance of Scotland, alternative to independence.
It gave assurance to Scots wavering about complete separation confidence that, if the a “no” vote would still result in major changes and Scotland would be given a much more control over its future.
It proved to be the deal of the century for the Unionists who won over many older voters who were worried sick that their would be massive reductions in their old age pensions which was only one of the many lies foisted on Scots and boasted about after the referendum by the “Better Together” campaign promises. And the delivery? Well that’s another story!!! “Not a lot” as Paul Daniels used to Quip.
There were three guarantees
New powers for the Scottish Parliament. Holyrood will be strengthened with extensive new powers, on a timetable beginning on September 19, with legislation in 2015. The Scottish Parliament will be a permanent and irreversible part of the British constitution.
The guarantee of fairness to Scotland. The guarantee that the modern purpose of the Union is to ensure opportunity and security by pooling and sharing our resources equitably for our defence, prosperity and the social and economic welfare of every citizen, including through UK pensions and UK funding of healthcare.
The power to spend more on the NHS if that is Scottish people’s will. The guarantee that with the continued Barnett allocation, based on need and with the power to raise its own funds, the final decisions on spending on public services in Scotland, including on the NHS, will be made by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will have the last word on how much is spent on health. It will have the power to keep the NHS in public hands and the capacity to protect it.
2015: After So nearly winning, cheated of victory by the illegal treachery of the reincarnation of a few Daniel Defoe’s at the “Daily Record” the hurt was very painful for Alex Salmond and he stood down handing control of the Party to the ambitious but, untried Nicola Sturgeon anticipating there would be much for her to do to take Scotland forward equipped with many new powers assured by “the Vow”.
That was his big mistake and he lived to regret it. As predicted by Scottish nationalists who had campaigned day and night for nearly a year, Westminster renaged on the promises made in “the Vow”. This was the outcome of the inept bargaining powers of John Sweeney and his SNP team who allowed themselves to be set-up as the lesser particpants in a significant minority with Unionist political Partys’.
In the General Election Unionist party’s were just about wiped out in Scotland. Voters were scunnered with the Westminster cabal who failed to deliver deliver the undertakings contained in “The Vow”.
The reverse being the case in some areas devolved powers had been taken back to Westminster. It was expected that Nicola Sturgeon would announce that the Scottish electorate had given her Party a mandate to declare independence.
But she and her close colleagues lacked the political courage or backbone to do so. This the time Scotland badly needed a leader and Alex Salmond was out to pasture. An opportunity lost and Scotland would pay dearly for this in the years that followed.
2018: Murray Foote went on record saying: “I can no longer stand by while a cabal of a privileged cabal in London continue to deprive our sons and daughters the right to decide their future. Whilst an independent Scotland will face “financial challenges” in the years after a “Yes” vote and there will be difficult decisions to be faced and sacrifices to be made what troubles me more is the prospect of bequeathing to my daughters an isolated Britain governed indefinitely by the progeny of Westminster and their ilk. I have reconciled that independence will herald good and bad but I trust in Scots to solve the problems that will come our way. If so many other countries can, it is inconceivable that Scotland can’t. Were there to be another independence referendum, I will “strap on my work boots and take that leap” to support the campaign.” David Clegg, who participated in the betrayal of Scots offered no comment preferring to keep his head under the parapet!!!
2016: The International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP)
The programme, introduces future power-brokers-to-be to the American way and is designed to pinpoint future VIPs. It was used in the early 1980s to reach out to young Labour politicians, including Blair and Brown, at a time when scepticism about the Atlantic alliance was prevalent within the party.
It is a highly prestigious and expensive (around £10k) programme and participants are hand-picked to spend typically three weeks visiting Washington DC and three additional towns or cities, meeting their counterparts and other VIPs and experts – all highly valuable networking experience for any ambitious young man or woman on the climb.
Conspiracy theorists say the scheme is all about an imperial power meddling in the affairs of sovereign regimes, seducing their future political leaders and moulding them into Washington-approved candidates. It is a prime example of US “soft power” in action, shaping first impressions and casting America within the context of one’s own ambitions, aspirations, ideas, and possibilities. But not everyone views the programme so benignly. There are those that argue that the notion of a major power courting the future elite of another nation state offers cause for alarm. (BBC)
In Jun 2016 a group of Scottish political activists with the approval of Party leaders were selected to participate in the IVLP progamme (while parliament was in session at Holyrood and Westmister). Among those attending were: Kezia Dugdale (leader of the Labour Party in Scotland (who authorised her own attendance); Jenny Gilruth, SNP, MSP, parliamentary liaison officer for John Swinney; Liz Lloyd SNP Senior political advisor (SPAD) to Nicola Sturgeon; David Clegg, Journalist at the Daily Record.
The presence of Clegg and the publicised togetherness of the group in America surprised political observers and disappointed many Scottish Independence supporters who were affronted by the decision of the Party leader to authorise the attendance of SNP officials on the course with an arch enemy of independence.
In America the group met-up with Patrick Grady (SNP Westminster chief whip) and Angela Crawley (SNP member of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee) were also in the US at that time.
Shortly after their return to Scotland Dugdale advised the press that her new partner was, Jenny Gilruth, SNP, MSP for Mid Fife and Glenrothes who was first elected to Holyrood in May 2016. The visit to America would prove to be an eventful one in a number of ways in the future.
The attendance of Liz Lloyd on the course although criticised was proper, always providing she observed the roles and responsibilities of her employment as a SPAD
SPAD’s are not civil servants but as paid employees of the State they are – subject to specified exceptions – required to conduct themselves in accordance with the “Civil Service Code.”which states that the highest standards of conduct are expected of them.
“Specifically, the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks has no part to play in the job of being a special adviser as it has no part to play in the conduct of public life.
“Any special adviser ever found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing minister.
“Special advisers…must observe discretion and express comment with moderation, avoiding personal attacks.”
“All contacts with news media should be authorized, in advance by the appointing minister.”
Right at the at the start of devolution a young and charismatic politician emerged and imposed himself on the Scottish political scene only to be destroyed by Unionist politicians who feared him.
He led the the Scottish electorate protests against the community charge (or ‘poll tax’) which Thatcher’s Tory government introduced in Scotland to replace the existing system of household rates and successfully campaigned against warrant sales, which publicly sold a householder’s possessions to pay tax arrears. In his first attendance at Holyrood he got the law changed. His campaigning saw Tommy jailed for six months, but while in Edinburgh’s Saughton Prison, he was elected to Glasgow City Council representing the Pollok ward.
He founded the Scottish Socialist Party in 1999 and became its leader and was elected as a member of the Scottish Parliament in the same year, representing Glasgow. A passionate conviction-politician he was demonised by some but praised by many more. In his time at Holyrood he gave away half of his MSP salary, preferring to live on the wage of an ordinary working person.
His party gained electoral success in 2003, when it returned six MSP’s to the Scottish parliament, including himself. But, concerned his party was becoming a one man band he stepped down from the leadership role providing opportunities for others in the Party to come to the fore. This proved to be the undoing of himself and ultimately his Party whose members could not agree common policies and the resultant in-fighting ended its brief but eventful existence in Scottish politics.
Outside parliament Tommy won £200k in damages from Rupert Murdoch’s sleazy organisation after the now defunct and disgraced News of the World newspaper printed unfounded allegations about his private life. But only later a police investigation was launched following complaints from the same press source that Tommy had lied to the jury over a minor point of law. In a highly questionable follow up action Tommy was jailed for contempt of court. In the year of his incarceration and the years that followed he did not receive one penny of his successful claim against Murdoch and without income he, his wife and child were dependent on their family for support. An unnecessary hardship imposed on innocent parties.
On his release from prison Tommy rightly went after Murdoch for his money but the media baron was not finished with him and asked the high court to overturn the verdict of the jury who had found in Tommy’s favour.
After a lengthy deliberation the appeal court rejected the Murdoch application and awarded Tommy the full judgement of £200k, but in a bizarre judgement it refused to award Tommy interest on the £200k that had been withheld from him at the time he was in jail.
Tommy appealed to the “Court of Session” that the “Appeal Court” had erred in its judgement. His argument won the day and the “Court of Session” awarded Tommy interest totalling £176k.
The judgement of the “Court of Session” was that Tommy had won his case against Murdoch press bullies and the imposition of a custodial sentence on him for a misdemeanour in law in no way influenced the jury against Murdoch. But Tommy was forced to wait nearly 8 years before Murdoch paid him a penny.
Why was Tommy jailed? The answer is simple. He was a “pain in the butt” to the established political system and needed to be removed, regardless of right.
Unelected “invisible establishment controllers” won the war. Tommy was finished as a politician, destroyed by unfounded, unsubstantiated innuendo about his private life.
What of the future? It is within the grasp of Scots to set aside any negative views of Tommy cruelly created in their minds by those who wish to take Scots down the WOKE road.
He needs to be rehabilitated as a leading politician heading “Alba-Under-One-Banner” in its marches for freedom from the clutches of Westminster and the WOKE nutters of the SNP/Green Alliance.
A political system which encourages the electorate to be indifferent to the abuse of society by politicans cannot be a good one. A political system in which the electorate is tolerant of the ill-advised and at times illegal activities of politicians believing them to be immune to shame is certainly not a good one.
Despite these warnings the political systems of Westminster and Holyrood promote and reward electorate abuse and unsocial behaviour by politicians abhorrent to the bulk of society.
The “mushroom” managed electorate of Scotland are spoon fed rumour and innuendo by a politically controlled and financed press which decides on the guilt or innocence of a politicians sexual or political indiscretion and its subsequent exposure which usually brings about the end of that persons service to the public.
This is so wrong and Scots need to be alerted to open their eyes, ears and hearts to the imminent threat of the imposition on Scotland of a totalitarian regime similar in nature to that imposed on Scotland from 1745-1820.
A look back at a small number of political shenanigans in the UK between 1930-to date provides substance to the assertion that exposure and punishment is unequally apportioned to individuals.
If your “face fits” and the government controlled press “likes you” any indiscretion will be forgiven and forgotten and the House of Lords is a guaranteed shoo-in.
2001: Scotland’s First Minister McConnell confessed to cheating on his wife.
Only hours before he emerged as Labour’s sole candidate after failing to win a single nomination from any member of the Scottish Executive Cabinet for the First Minister’s post vacated by Henry McLeish in the wake of the Officegate scandal McConnell confessed to being a love cheat, betraying his wife and lying about the affair.
McConnell’s mistress was a Labour Party backroom official Maureen Smith, who was also married at the time. The affair took place when he was general secretary of the Scottish Labour Party and she was his Press officer. His wife, Bridget McLuckie, confirmed his treachery and said: “Jack betrayed my trust.”
McConnell had the hard neck he is renowned for when he went on to say: “I hope that you people will allow my family to some privacy.”
And the end Note: McConnell and McLuckie have since been elevated to the House of Lords. I kid you not.
2016: Two Married Scottish National Party MP’s bonked the same woman
Stewart Hosie, 53 and Angus MacNeil, 45, are both said to have had affairs with Serena Cowdy, 36 a Westminister journalist. Deputy party leader Hosie announced on Sunday that he was separating from wife MSP, Shona Robison, 45. Journalist, Miss Cowdy is a keen observer of political gossip, intrigue and in-fighting.But now she is at the centre of her very own bust-up after having affairs with two married MPs from the same party.
The long suffering Mrs MacNeil had stayed with her husband after a previous incident when he was caught with two teenage girls in a hotel room in 2007 while she, then pregnant, was in hospital. Miss Cowdy is said to have told friends that she saw SNP MPs as romantic revolutionaries, describing them as ‘the “Mujahideen of British politicians”. A source said: “This love triangle is a disgrace for Scottish politics – and gives weight to the rumours that some of the sudden mass of SNP MPs in London have been going on a big jolly. “These two have behaved with all the decorum of a coach party in a Carry On film arriving at a pub.
Tommy Sheridan
2007: Right at the at the start of devolution a young and charismatic politician emerged and imposed himself on the Scottish political scene only to be destroyed by Unionist politicians who feared him
He led the the Scottish electorate protests against the community charge (or ‘poll tax’) which Thatcher’s Tory government introduced in Scotland to replace the existing system of household rates and successfully campaigned against warrant sales, which publicly sold a householder’s possessions to pay tax arrears. In his first attendance at Holyrood he got the law changed. His campaigning saw Tommy jailed for six months, but while in Edinburgh’s Saughton Prison, he was elected to Glasgow City Council representing the Pollok ward.
He founded the Scottish Socialist Party in 1999 and became its leader and was elected as a member of the Scottish Parliament in the same year, representing Glasgow.
A passionate conviction-politician he is demonised by some but praised by many more. In his time at Holyrood he gave away half of his MSP salary, preferring to live on the wage of an ordinary working person. His party gained electoral success in 2003, when it returned six MSP’s to the Scottish parliament, including himself. Concerned his party was becoming a one man band he stepped down from the leadership role providing opportunities for others in the Party to come to the fore. This proved to be the undoing of himself and ultimately his Party whose members could not agree common policies and the resultant in-fighting ended its brief but eventful existence in Scottish politics.
Outside parliament Tommy won £200k in damages from Rupert Murdoch’s sleazy organisation after the now defunct and disgraced News of the World newspaper printed unfounded allegations about the MSP’s sex life.
Only weeks after a police investigation was launched following complaints from the same press source that Tommy had lied to the jury over a minor point of law and in a follow up action he was jailed for a year.
In the year of his incarceration and the years that followed he did not receive one penny of his successful claim against Murdoch and without income he, his wife and child were dependent on their family for support. An unnecessary hardship imposed on innocent parties.
On his release from prison Tommy rightly went after Murdoch for his money but the media baron was not finished with him and asked the high court to overturn the verdict of the jury who had found in Tommy’s favour.
After a lengthy deliberation the appeal court rejected the Murdoch application and awarded Tommy the full judgement of £200k, but in a bizarre judgement it refused to award Tommy interest on the £200k that had been withheld from him at the time he was in jail.
Tommy appealed to the “Court of Session” that the “Appeal Court” had erred in its judgement. His argument won the day and the “Court of Session” awarded Tommy interest totalling £176k. The judgement of the “Court of Session” was that Tommy had won his case against Murdoch press bullies and the imposition of a custodial sentence on Tommy for a misdemeanour in law in no way influenced the jury against Murdoch. But Tommy was forced to wait nearly 8 years before Murdoch paid him a penny.
Why was Tommy jailed? The answer is simple. Tommy was a “pain in the butt” to the established political system and needed to be removed from it regardless of right. But unelected “invisable establishment controllers” had won the day. Tommy was finished as a politician, destroyed by unfounded, unsubstantiated innuendo about his private life.
And what of the future? It is within the grasp of Scots to set aside any negative views of Tommy cruelly created in their minds by those who wish to take Scots down the WOKE road. He needs to be rehabiltated as a leading politician heading “Alba-Under-One-Banner” in its marches for freedom from the clutches of Westminster and Sturgeon’s WOKE nutters.
1929-1964: Politicians Heterosexual, Homosexual and their control of the nations political agenda
1920-1960: Robert “Bob” Boothby was a Tory Party member and BBC commentator on public affairs. He first entered parliament in 1924, at a time when politicians’ private lives and private infidelities almost never made the headlines.
During his more than 30 years in parliament, Boothby had a protracted affair with Dorothy Macmillan, the wife of his Conservative colleague Harold Macmillan, beginning in the 1930s and continuing through Macmillan’s succession to Prime Minister in 1956.
Bisexual Boothby also had a gay affair with notorious East End gangster Ronnie Kray, who together with his identical twin Reggie, dominated London’s underworld for twenty years.
The illicit relationship was hushed up by tabloid press for nearly 20 years, even the belated release of the news and MI5 investigation did not derail his career Baron Boothby, continued to sit in the House of Lords until his death in 1986.
Boothby’s underworld associations kept their mouths shut and Ronnie Kray, who knew all of the sordid details of their activities was, even after completing his sentence, denied a release from prison the presence in the community of an old and senile man being considered a threat to society. Ronnie died in solitary confinement, in prison. Now there’s a biography I would like to read an unexpurgated version.
Tory Party Minster, John Profumo was British Secretary of State for War when he began an affair with a 19-year-old, call girl, Christine Keeler. The two were introduced at an exclusive party at Lord Astor’s Cliveden estate, adding aristocratic debauchery to the story. At the time of their relationship, Keeler was also involved with Soviet naval attaché and suspected spy, Yevgeny “Eugene” Ivanov.
Rumours of the relationship and its potential security implications spread rapidly but under pressure Profumo lied about the affair. The police became involved and Keeler testified to the relationship, leading to Profumo’s resignation. His wife Valerie stood by him, and a “chastened and redemptive” Profumo became an anonymous volunteer with the poor. After his death, declassified M15 documents from the 1930s revealed Profumo had also had an affair with a Nazi spy.
1967: The true story of the first British politician to stand trial for conspiracy to murder
Jeremy Thorpe: Thorpe was a stylish and charismatic homosexual, Liberal party leader who being married and “firmly in the closet” desperately tried to hide an affair with Norman Scott, a stable hand he met while visiting a friend in 1961. When Scott refused to stop contacting Thorpe after the married MP ended their long term relationship, Thorpe allegedly paid to have his former lover killed. The October 1975 attempt on Scott failed, although his beloved Great Dane Rinka was shot.
Scott publicly accused Thorpe, who was forced to resign as leader of his party in May 1976. But the resignation did not end the scandal, which dragged on in the press and ultimately in the courts, with Thorpe becoming the first sitting MP to stand trial for murder in May 1979. While Thorpe was ultimately acquitted, the scandal ended his political career.
1974: A Faked Death
John Stonehouse: Stonehouse was a Labour cabinet minister who fell into financial trouble and came under investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry. Rather than face prosecution, he allegedly deposited his clothes on a beach in Miami, Florida to leave the impression that he had drowned.
As Miami police investigated his apparent demise, Stonehouse and his secretary fled to Australia to start a new life under assumed names. The pair lasted only a month before being discovered by chance. They were eventually deported to England where Stonehouse would stand trial in 1976 for fraud, theft and forgery.
Remarkably, Stonehouse refused to relinquish his parliamentary seat after his “resurrection” and sat in parliament until conducting his own defence. He was convicted, served time in prison, and eventually wed his secretary.
1993: John Major-We need to rid our politics of sleaze and get “Back to basic family values”
Bogged down by allegations of political sleaze Prime Minister, John Major demanded that the Tory Party change its image. Margaret Thatcher, as the “Iron Lady,” had her admirers but many in the electorate others saw the Tories as the “nasty party.” and when John Major took over the Party leadership in 1990, he set out to change the party’s image.
In a 1993 speech, he famously declared that the country should go ‘back to basics’, returning to core values of “neighbourliness, decency, courtesy”. The slogan came to be a source of ridicule for the government over the next few years as ministers were caught in a quick succession of sex and money scandals that harkened back to the bad old days.
Chancellor Norman Lamont was revealed to have a sex therapist living in his rented-out London flat. David Mellor resigned as a minister after sordid revelations of an extra-marital affair with actress Antonia de Sancha. Transport minister Steven Norris was reportedly having simultaneous affairs with three women who did not know about each other. Conservative MP Stephen Milligan was tragically found dead on his kitchen table as a result of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Major himself denied an affair with Downing Street caterer Clare Latimer but years later, it was revealed he’d had a four-year affair with fellow conservative MP Edwina Currie. In addition to press revelations of sexual improprieties, The financial misconduct of certain ministers came to light. when two MPs were accused of of being paid thousands of pounds to ask questions in Parliament on behalf of Harrod’s owner Mohammed Al-Fayed: Tim Smith resigned as Northern Ireland minister and later admitted to accepting the money; Conservative MP Neil Hamilton lost his libel suit against Al-Fayed when the court was satisfied the Harrod’s owner had, indeed, made his case. Conservative Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken conducted improper commercial relations with Saudi businessmen and was later jailed for perjury after lying under oath. A far cry from the “decency” which Major had promised the British people!
1998: Three times and you’re out – Not if you are a Labour politician
Peter Mandelson British Labour Party politician. “Decency” is a word few people ever associated with Tony Blair’s long-time confident and New Labour mastermind, the political Svengali who orchestrated the 1997 election campaign resulting in Labour’s landslide victory.
Blair rewarded Mandelson by making him a Minister with Portfolio, or senior cabinet advisor, before moving him to the Department for Trade and Industry. He didn’t last long being forced to resign his post after only five months when it was revealed he had accepted (and failed to declare) a very large interest-free loan from a fellow ministerial colleague.
But “rubber ball” (Mandy) was back in government under a year later when Blair appointed him Minister for Northern Ireland. This time he lasted a year before being accused of inappropriately helping an Indian billionaire secure a British passport and he was forced to resign yet again.
Undeterred Blair nominated (Mandy) for a lucrative position with the European Commission, where he served four years as a trade commissioner. At the end of his tenure with the EC Blair brought him back to Westminster in 2008 and promoted him to the House of Lords from which he returned to the Labour government government for a third time as Gordon Brown’s Business Secretary.
2009 Fraudulent Expenses claims
In addition to their official salaries, MP’s are entitled to reimbursement for expenses associated with their parliamentary careers, including the costs of maintaining two homes—one in London and one in their constituency. These parliamentary “perks” were secreted away from taxpayers’ prying eyes, but in 2009, stories of widespread abuses led journalists to launch a Freedom of Information Request to obtain access to MP and Ministers’ expenses.
Two months before an official disclosure, The records were leaked. Offenses included MPs falsely designating a second home in order to claim more expenses; submitting extra expenses for renovations, refurnishing homes, purchase of toothbrushes, eyliner and other frivolous luxuries; and evading or avoiding tax.
One conservative MP was discovered to have claimed nearly £2000 for a new duck house. Several ministers and “Glasgow Mike”, the Speaker of the House of Commons had to resign from their posts and five MPs were sent to jail as a result of fraudulent claims. While less egregious than attempted murder or affairs with gangsters and feigned death, these “everyday” revelations of graft and dishonesty proved ultimately more damning to public confidence in ministers and in British politics more generally. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/specialfeatures/politicians-behaving-badly
Current Prime Minister Boris Johnson has strayed from his marriages many times. Before he wed current wife Carrie Symonds, he was married to his second wife Marina Wheeler for over 25 years. During that marriage, he had at least one confirmed extramarital affair as he had a love child with property developer Helen Macintyre who gave birth to their daughter, Stephanie, in 2009.
There are rumours of other affairs, most recently American businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri who claimed they had a four-year affair and even shared a selfie of herself in Boris and his then wife Marina’s marital home. An Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation into his dealings with Jennifer confirmed the pair had had an “intimate relationship”.
Matt Hancock: The Tory MP and Health minster was photographed passionately kissing his married closest aide Gina Coladangelo sparking rumours of an amid rumours of an extramarital affair. Admitting the indiscretion he was subsequently forced to resign from his minister post.
Piers Merchant: The Tory politician and MP was forced to resign following a sex scandal. In 1997, photos were published showing him participating in a “sex romp” with a nightclub hostess and researcher aged just 17. He was forced to step down as an MP that year only to resurface in 2004 as a candidate for UKIP in the 2004 European Parliament election. His loyal wife stayed with him but admitted he’d been a “bloody fool”.
John Prescott: He was quite a ladies man as well as being a big fan of Jaguar cars. Married to Pauline Tilston from 1961 he engaged in a 2 year long affair with his diary secretary Tracey Temple.
David Blunkett: Lord Blunkett ( a former MP) was exposed as having an affair and love child with a married woman. his years long affair with Kimberly Quinn was exposed in 2004. DNA tests later revealed he had fathered had fathered her first and older child.
Keith Vaz: Disgraced Labour MP Keith Vaz was forced to quit his senior ministerial role role after he was accused of “hiring male prostitutes” and allegedly “offering them cocaine”. Refused to resign as an MP and hung on to the death before losing his seat in the next General Election.
David Mellor: Tory MP David Mellor was exposed as having an affair with actress Antonia de Sancha in 1992. Prime Minister John Major supported him at the time, but Mellor was subsequently forced to resign after accepting a month-long holiday to Marbella from socialite Mona Bauwens.
John Major: Prime Minister infamous for his “back to basics” pleas to the nation had a four-year affair, from 1984-1988 with his former Tory colleague and Minster Edwina Currie. The affair apparently lasted from 1984-1988 while they were both married to other people. Currie later wrote that they were deeply in love ended their relationship because it had become too “politically dangerous”.
Paddy Ashdown: MP and leader of the Liberal Democrats from 1988 to 1999 he was exposed as having a five-month affair with his secretary Patricia Howard. Tabloids cruelly nicknamed him “Paddy Pantsdown”. He was subsequently promoted to the Lords and remained married to his forgiving wife, Jane Courtenay.
Independence supporters need to get a grip and seize the agenda
An Independent Scotland will remain a dream until Scots rally under one banner and defeat the forces of evil that have held Scotland captive for over 300 years.
In the years leading up to and after the signing of the infamous “Treaty of Union” political rivalries encouraged an avaricous elite to abuse their status and sign away Scotland’s independence.
And English politicians at Westminster were quick to seize the opportunities gifted to them. They destroyed the Scottish economy by removing acccess to foreign trade through Scottish ports making a potentially difficult exercise easy by blockading the seas around Scotland commandeering or sinking any ship not flying the red ensign.
They betrayed just about all of the written undertakings they had signed off to in the “treaty” not to interfere in the internal affairs or governance of Scotland. The independence of the Scottish legal system was rapidly eroded, then eliminated and replaced with Westminster dictates. Scots are now unable to “fart” without the permission of Westminster politicians.
Westminster politicians always fearful of the strength of the Scottish Clan system, that had denied them the freedom to control and subjugate Scots for hundreds of years set about destroying it using their tried and tested division and rule tactics playing one Clan against another feeding on the greed of influential individuals whose eyes were diverted away from the welfare of their friends and families by the glint of English gold. But these measures were time consuming and progress was slow so they played the religious card pitting Central and Southern Scots against their brothers in the North with the promise that the United Kingdom would become one of the most propersous countries in the World if only the “Church of Rome” followers in the North could be brought to heel.
The 1745 rebellion provided Westminster with just that opportunity. The “Jacobites” who supported the return of Charles to the throne of England and Scotland took their fight to the gates of London only to be betrayed by the French and English who failed to link with them and carry the battle to London. The long retreat of the “jacobite” army back to the highlands of Scotland was not made easier by the refusal of Scots occupying the lands below the “Firth of Tay” to provide shelter, food or indeed any assistance to them.
The demoralisd and almost defenceless “Jacobites” were wiped out at the “Massacre of Culloden” and in the 15 years that followed an English army garrisoned Scotland, north of the Tay and ruled the region through martial law.
Not content with these measures Westminster then removed Scotland’s troublesome leaders by eliminating the “clan” system and anyone associated with it and removed all lands north of the Tay from Scottish ownership transferring all of it to the English aristocracy and their supporters.
But there remained problems yet to resolve namely removal of any threat of violence forever against the new English landowners and a need to release English army forces who had been occupying the North of Scotland for many years, to fight new wars in Europe and further afield as England expanded it’s empire.
The solution was to “clear the lands “North of the Tay” of anyone whom the landlords wished to get “shot of”. The clearances did just that. Near 90% of Scots living in the North were thrown off the crofts they had lived on for centuries and hundreds of thousands of their families were forced onto small boats, incapable of safe ocean going and transferred to the new colony’s on the other side of the Atlantic. Many thousands didn’t make the journey and were dumped overboard to feed the fishes.
The enslavement and forced shipping abroad of so many Northern Scots, for that was what it was, solved a problem for the English Landlords who were able to flood their ill-gotten lands with sheep making fortunes from the sale of mutton and wool to the many new armies Westminster was deploying in it’s invasion of countries all over the “new World”. But Westminster achieved it’s principle objective.
It would no longer get it’s arse kicked by rebellious Scots whose finest fighting men perished at the hands of their own countrymen at the “Massacre of Culloden”. Scotland died that day and the English landlords still have control and ownership of the North of Scotland and many other parts.
I believe it is impossible to snuff out a dream and Scotland might yet return to the league of nations a free land but we need a charismatic leader capable of gathering and leading many hundreds of Scots already sworn to the common cause of independence, nullifying the impact of the many political conspirators and rabble rousers placed in Scottish society “feathering their own nest” in reward by their Unionist party mentors.
Is there such a person in Scotland at this time?
Alex Salmond? No, he is a very able elder statesman who need to be called upon to voice his opinion at times when the impact of his intervention can be assured.
Facebook warriors? No, Their memberships’ thinking is disparate and it is this volatility that is holding the cause of independence back. What is required is for all of the Facebook groups to link under one banner “Alba for Scotland”. Now that would be a sea-change for the independence movement.
Wings over Scotland? No. The blog owner “the Rev” was a thorn in the side of the Unionist for over eight years but recently closed the most effective organ for disseminating anti- unionist propaganda in the public media and it is doubtful it will return.
All under one Banner? No, But the potential for the group to be the vehicle that drives a “campaign for independence” to victory is there, but it badly needs a home, financial probity and a leader able to marshall and inspire supporters of independence who have proved their loyalty time and again marching in all weathers and donating their hard earned money.
Were it in my power I would link Alba and All Under One Banner under a new name “Alba Under One Banner” and insist that “Alba” politicians and leaders be in the leading group at every public event. It from that entity that a leader might well emerge.
The Scottish National Party? No, The Party has lost it’s way. The “before” 2014 politicians are growing old and retiring from the fray, the fire of independence in their bellies has been extinguished.
The 2015 intake of Amazonian “wanabee” politicians promoted well beyond their capabilities by the SNP leadership are now running the show and independence is not the motivating factor that drives them politically.
They are not prepared to game the system preferring to stick with the status quo which provides them with all the taxpayer finance they need to progress their WOKE agenda to the detriment of the nation.
Nicola Sturgeon’s Speech at the Doors of Westminster
“The SNP will be the principled opposition in this place to the Conservative government. The SNP has worked long and hard in this election to make Scotland’s voice heard. To have people in Scotland in such overwhelming numbers put their trust in us is fantastic, but also is a big responsibility. We are determined to make Scotland’s voice heard here in Westminster, but we are also determined to be that voice for progressive politics that we promised to be during the election. To stand up to policies from a Conservative government that will damage Scotland and to make common cause with others of like mind from across the UK.”
No mention of independence from a Party leader who preferred set the tone by committing the Party to the promotion of progressive politics. Whatever that meant!!!
Beguiled by Westminster Largesse
The House of Commons is a comfortable place to be. The terrace bar, with Big Ben bonging into the night, has the best view in London: to the left, the soaring faux-gothic buttresses of the Palace of Westminster, to the right the London Eye, straight ahead a scene of double-decker buses crossing Westminster bridge. It’s like the opening scene of a Hollywood film set in London. And all around, arresting sights such as Michael Gove drinking heavily subsidised white wine and large groups of men (Tories? Maybe not…) getting in the even cheaper champagne it’s the best workplace ever. There’s a ton of bars and restaurants where MPs hang out at all times of the working day. SNP MPs have colonised the Sports and Social Club, which is where a lot of the parliamentary staff go, and which has a karaoke night. And there are always colleagues around to gossip with. People keep having conversations about “the Tories’ evil plan”, which I only belatedly realise is actually their EVEL plan. It’s only been a couple of months, but the consensus is that the SNP MP’s are fully institutionalised and chastised where needed. Firmly in the past is the “clap-gate” incident when – instead of uttering “hear hear” at something they agreed with, as if they were 18th-century landowners – they broke into the new fangled concept: applause. The Daily Mail piped in: “Show some respect! Furious Speaker Bercow rebuked new Scots Nat’s MPs for breaking strict Commons protocol by clapping during the Queen’s Speech debate.” Portrayed by the Unionist Press as ignorant ruffians unworthy of a seat in the Commons they now comply with all parliamentary traditions and procedures. (Carole Cadwalladr)
The Commons sews its seeds in all who enter it. In an instant raw politicians are made to feel they are no longer simply human. They are “special”. Accompanying their large salary there is a budget for staff hire, generous allowances affording the lease or purchase of luxury accommodation in the most expensive capital city in the World, travel and subsistence and other allowances totalling well in excess of £150 annually. Head spinning stuff!!! Its beguiling influence is addictive and its destructive power has compromised many SNP MP’s who first went there in 2015.
The Westminster trap – another view
You go there full of cocksure rebelliousness. Stupid rules – who cares about the rules. You get into fights in the playground with the older boys, and take no crap about clapping in assembly. But “Westmonster” as some SNP people call the UK Parliament, has been around a long time. It has seen off socialists like Keir Hardie – who caused outrage because he wore a deer-stalker to parliament. It dealt with Parnell’s Irish nationalists, with Suffragettes, Militant Tendency and grade-A parliamentary delinquents like our own Alex Salmond, the first MP to disrupt a Budget Speech in 1988. And it’s still there, with all its fripperies and anachronisms, like the cloak room hook to hold the Hon Member’s sword. The Palace of Westminster is a powerful institution which uses its own often archaic rules and conventions as a means of diffusing political discontent. You see it with Scotland’s MPs. Suddenly they are wearing ties and suits, speaking respectfully to Mr Speaker, agreeing not to clap and promising to be “good parliamentarians”. (Iain McWhirter)
The Sewel Convention Con Trick
The Sewel Convention, under which Westminster supposedly refrains from ruling on devolved issues without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, is froth, mince, tripe, baloney and codswallop. It has no legal force. The clause in the 2016 Scotland Act, which supposedly placed Sewel on a “statutory footing”, was just there to fool the natives into thinking their Parliament’s powers were “entrenched” and irreversible. Holyrood’s legislative powers are clearly and explicitly on loan from Westminster and liable to be over-ridden as and when the UK Government chooses. No one will believe a word UK ministers say in future about the powers and constitutional standing of Holyrood; not that many of us did in the past. (Iain McWhirter)
English Votes for English Legislation (EVEL)
English Votes for English Legislation (EVEL) breached the fundamental principle that all members of the house are equal . Non-English MPs, by Commons convention, no longer vote on “English” bills. This means that Scottish MPs are excluded from whole areas of legislation where they are denied a vote. A change slipped through by parliamentary sleight of hand and the English Grand Committee will gradually extend its influence. But the Scottish Government opposes the change because many supposedly “English” bills on the NHS or income tax, have financial consequences for Scotland. It also means that Scottish MPs are second-class citizens.
Gerrymandering the Scotland Bill
Scotland’s only Tory MP and Secretary of State for Scotland, Mundell, proposed 80 technical amendments to the Scotland Bill , stating: “some are amendments in terms of the usual changing of commas and apostrophes and these sort of things. However, the bulk of them relate to technical procedures and a rearranging of previous proposals. In three cases the amendments will reserve additional powers to Westminster. Under clause 43, the Scottish Parliament will not be able to raise levies on postal operators, electricity or gas for the purpose of funding consumer advocacy.”
Scotland Bill: the 3rd reading at Westminster Allocated 6 hours of debate to decide on 253 amendments.
The Scotland Bill was rushed through without adequate discussion before SNP MPs parked their bums on the green benches of the House of Commons ensuring that the legislation would be on the statute books well before the next Holyrood elections. The bill as it stands is a stitch-up and places a fiscal time bomb under Holyrood.
SNP Welfare Improvements Rejected
Proposed amendments to the Scotland Bill submitted by the SNP giving the Scottish Parliament the power to design its own welfare system were rejected by the Unionists. Unionist politician and Scottish Secretary Mundell insisted that the Unionist’s stance was fully in accordance with the Smith Commission’s recommendations. The rejection came after the Unionists also voted against proposals from the SNP for an “Economic Agreement” between Westminster and Holyrood which would eventually lead to full fiscal autonomy. They also voted against a proposal for an independent commission to examine the effects of full fiscal autonomy. Responding, Angus Robertson MP said: “This is typical Unionist arrogance. Mundell, the only Tory MP from Scotland arrogantly refuses to listen to the representatives of the people of Scotland and supported by his Unionist colleagues vetoed without reason or explanation every single proposal submitted by the SNP. And this at a time of savage cuts to the welfare state by Unionists causing real hurt to hard working families and vulnerable people, forcing hardship on and driving increasing numbers of Scots to food banks. Welfare powers should be transferred to Scotland honouring the spirit of the 3 Party Leaders’ Pledge to the people of Scotland just before the Scottish Independence Referendum.”
It is Time to Boycott Westminster
I monitored debates, discussions and voting in the House of Commons from the time the 2015 General Election landslide which returned 56 SNP MP’s. Day after day the SNP group took their places on the benches and participated in fruitless discussions and debates. Their presence in the Commons was mocked, abused and ridiculed by the Speaker and Unionist politicians who protected their vested interest by ensuring the SNP group were side-lined and rendered irrelevant. The response from the SNP contingent should be to withdraw participation from all business of the Commons including committees. This should be done while retaining all rights and privileges (office, travel subsistence, staff, etc) the right of MP’s. The boycott of the House of Commons would enable SNP MP’s to spend more time in Westminster resolving their constituents problems and concerns. The foregoing could be implemented without any financial detriment to the Westminster SNP group. Political business between Scotland and Westminster would then be completed through the offices of the Scottish First Minister (advised by the MP group), who would be permitted permanent use of a committee room at Holyrood.
Devolution powers shelved at the last minute from Smith Commission report
New powers were formally committed to in the heavily promoted Unionist “Vow” made in the last few days before the 2014 independence referendum.
The Smith Commission Panel subsequently agreed to a full devolution of abortion law, the creation of a separate Scottish Health & Safety Executive, lotteries, asylum and a much greater say in the governance of the BBC.
Devolution of income tax personal allowances, bands and rates, employers’ National Insurance contributions, inheritance tax, the power to create new taxes without Treasury approval and a raft of other taxes were also agreed.
But all of the foregoing changes were axed, in the final day, at the instigation of Unionist parties, without explanation.
So what happened?
There were nine cross-party meetings over seven weeks prior to the publication of a agreed draft of “Heads of Agreement” proposals on 21 November 2014.
It was later confirmed that Commission panel members of Unionist persuasion, MSP members of political parties incorporated in Scotland and allegedly independent of Westminster were frequently on the phone taking instructions from their UK party leaders in London, with the LibDems and Tories particularly exercised about welfare proposals and Labour more focused on tax.
The Commission chairman, Lord Smith of Kelvin, also gave impression he added weight to the views of the three main Westminster parties over panel members.
A source said: “The position that Lord Smith took was that if the parties who were either in the current UK government or might be in the next refused to budge on something, he went with it. The Unionist votes counted for more.”
The BBC inadvertently revealed that the draft version of the agreement included late proposals submitted by the Scottish lib/Dem leader, to devolve power to vary Universal Credit a key plank of the Westminster Coalition government welfare reform. But the commitment to permit the Scottish government to vary its components were dropped after the UK Cabinet was informed.
Universal Credit is supposed to merge Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing Benefit, Income Support, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and Employment and Support Allowance. Only a power to vary the housing cost element remained.
The decision to devolve abortion policy had been agreed on a 4-1 basis, with only Labour opposed to it. In the draft version of the report dated 11.15am on November 26 – the final day of negotiations – stated: “Powers over abortion will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.” But throughout that same day, Labour kept pushing its opposition in one-to-one meetings with Lord Smith, who then raised it again with the other parties. The Tory members then sided with Labour and the commitment to devolve abortion was removed.
Patrick Harvie, co-convener of the Scottish Greens, who sat on the Commission, said: “The reaction against devolving abortion in the final few days surprised and disappointed me. Concerns that Scotland would do the wrong thing and undermine women’s rights are misplaced. The real threat to women’s reproductive rights comes from the voice we hear at Westminster.”
The draft also stated: “Power to establish a separate Scottish Health & Safety Executive to set enforcement priorities, goals and objectives in Scotland will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The body would be required to operate within the reserved UK health & safety framework but would assess, set and achieve the health and safety objectives of most relevance and importance to Scotland.”
The policy, long supported by Labour and the trade union movement in Scotland was struck out and relegated to the “additional issues” annex of the final report, which said the Scottish and UK governments should merely “consider” changes.
Also included was an agreement that: “The power to permit the creation and regulation of new lotteries in Scotland will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.”
But the final report devolved only the power to “prevent the proliferation” of highly addictive gaming machines known as fixed-odds betting terminals.
Also missing from the final draft was a statement that had said: “There will be greater Scottish involvement in BBC governance beyond the current right to have one Trust member and the current Audience Council Scotland.”
And a year later
SNP’s leader in the Commons, Angus Robertson, asked David Cameron about “The Vow”, stating:
“One year ago today, to the day, the Prime Minister made a “Vow” to the people of Scotland. Promises were made to deliver Home Rule and as-near-to-federalism-as-possible.
However, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown now says that the UK Government is, and I quote, “falling short on the delivery of the recommendations of the Smith Commission on Scottish devolution”. When will the Prime Minister deliver on the promises that he made to the people of Scotland?
2005 – The Who’s Who of the Tory apparatchik organisers of “Fever” the largest upper class only sex orgy ever held in Britain
The principle organiser was self made millionaire Eddie Davenport who gathered his made his first £m in his teens through his organisation of the infamous underage sex Gatecrasher balls and is now a property tycoon worth £133m. He spends six months a year in Monaco as a tax exile sharing £200-a-night hotel suite with two women and shares a £15m London pad with three more. He was seen kissing and fondling a girl on the orgy bed at his latest sex orgy venue, a luxury property in central London which he purchased from the Sierra Leone government in 2002 for a knock-down price of just £50k.
David Russell Walters: By day the ex-Tory candidate is the boss of the anti-Europe Democracy Movement. By night he is the orgy master tending to guests. At the party he looked on as four girls, one a Dutch rowing champ, pleasured each other.
Jonathon Friedman:– The brains behind Fever’s image. Spends hours “dressing” rooms with pink satin, chocolates, fruit, and jelly babies to energise the participants. Was seen canoodling on a bed with a stunningly beautiful American blonde.
Emma Sayle: A diplomat’s daughter. Dad, an OBE, was a colonel with the Welsh Guards. Regarded as one of Britain’s best and most upmarket swapping party organisers “Killing Kittens” she did not participate in the orgy.
James Hayter: A professional rugby player, around 6′ in height and weighing around 15 stone he was hired as a bouncer but lust got to him and he stripped off and got stuck into the action.
Dougie Smith: Senior Conservative Party strategist. A founding member of “Fever” the 42-year-old, who preached the Tories’ morally-focused back-to-basics policy, was forced to cut his links with “Fever” and now advises and writes speeches for senior Tory MPs.
Wealthy Good Looking Punters
The Charity Boss: International charity director had sex with a female TV production company boss.
The Crime Boss: Heir to a multi-million crime empire, bonked French, Russian, Italian models and a well known fashion designer.
The Wild Child: Raunchy daughter of a legendary rock star had public sex with a top media lawyer.
The Film Director: Movie bigwig and his catwalk model lover had sex with at least seven other couples.
Michael Bates: The Architect of PFI (Rewarded with a life peerage by John Major). As Lord Bates was responsible for administering overseas aid through the Department for International Development (DFID)
Geoffrey Robinson, Labour Party Paymaster General (expanded PFI with a vengeance)
Private Finance Initiative (PFI) –
By 1997 the Tories had exhausted most of the possibilities for the direct sale of state-owned assets. Public transport, utilities, energy and communications infrastructure had all passed into private hands, raising £123bn. What remained was services – health, education and local government – impossible to privatise without guaranteed profits.
Facilitating the changes required the state to continue to levy charges from every individual taxpayer for the service concerned in the form of taxation and passing the collected revenue to the private sector as profit.
Gordon Brown talked of ‘risk transfer’ to the private sector, but, in reality the state retained the real risk so far as the private sector was concerned. That of getting the money out of the taxpayer.
Multinationals did not have to worry about whether or not they would collect payments from the ‘taxpayer’ the state would continue to take care of that.
This was not a problem for the new owners of gas, electricity and telecommunications industries: they would simply cut off consumers if they failed to pay their bills.
In education or health this was not acceptable but private capital still needed to make a profit from running these services, and that required cuts, whether in services, or in the pay of the workers providing them, or both.
Universal provision would be further eroded since it was services to the working class that bore the brunt of any cuts.
Unelected Now Lord Dunlop Arch Right Wing Tory Minder at Scottish Office for Mundell
PFI – Rejected by labour in opposition but embraced just as soon as they took office in 1997
When Labour first came to office in May 1997, PFI under the Tories had stalled.
On taking up office New Labour appointed Geoffrey Robinson to the post of Paymaster General.
Working with Gordon Brown’s Treasury team he proclaimed his and the labour Party’s support for PFI and contracted Michael Bates, (later knighted for his services to privatisation) then head of global finance services organisation AMP, to complete a review of PFI. His report presented a glowing future for the country under the PFI banner.
Tony Blair & Gordon Brown soon kick-started a programme of change through the establishment of a dedicated Treasury taskforce to handle the process across government.
From £7bn in April 1997, the value of PFI contracts rose to over £25bn by October 2000 with a further £11.5bn in the pipeline.
The first £14bn of PFI would yield the private sector a guaranteed £96bn income over a 26-year period and estimates were that PFI contracts could be worth £30bn per annum to the private sector, £5bn in education alone, including one in five schools.
To promote it, new quangos were formed. The New Local Government Network (NLGN) and its equivalent for the NHS, the New Health Network (NHN). Connecting them was the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) and part-privatised Treasury taskforce, Partnerships UK.
Previously, public-private partnership used to be called corruption. Now it became the norm – private companies no longer needed to bribe public officials to influence policy; they worked openly with the enthusiastic support of said officials in deciding what service was next for sell off.
A typical example was the plan to close down Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and associated financially lucrative premises in the middle of Edinburgh, and replace them with a new hospital built by a private enterprise consortium on the outskirts the city. The area got a new hospital, the consortium got the business, but the people of Edinburgh got a hospital with 300 fewer beds than originally planned and substantial cuts in staff.
John Major and his secret lover Edwina Currie. John sent the first PFI team to Scotland to kick-start the PFI process in Scotland (shades of the Poll Tax. Try it on the Jocks first)
1996: John Major Sent Civil Servant John G Henderson (Civil Servant) to Scotland to Develop PFI – These are his memories of the Early Days of PFI: “When I arrived as head of the Private Finance Unit PFU it was just after the 1997 General Election. I had some experience of PFI in my previous job funding further education colleges, but I had much to learn. Fortunately, most other people had as well. It was a time of rapid change. There were doubts about the ability of local government and health bodies to undertake PFI, and the policy had yet to deliver its potential. The first Bates Review was quickly upon me, and I had to quickly assess its implications for Scotland. The key recommendation was the establishment of a Treasury Taskforce under Adrian Montague. I was very lucky over that first summer in having a mini-taskforce in Edinburgh in the Shape of Charles McLeod, who was at the time working with the Panel Executive. Charles was both a source of information and an inspiration with his can-do attitude. That, of course, led to his later success heading the 3ED team in the Glasgow schools project. Once Adrian was in post I recall meeting him in London when he came to brief the late Donald Dewar with Geoffrey Robinson, at the time Paymaster General. This was the beginning of a very constructive relationship with the Taskforce. Particular mention needs to be made to the assistance that David Goldstone and Lindsay Watson gave to pathfinder projects such as the Glasgow and Falkirk schools. On the delivery front a key requirement was to get PFI established in local government. It was natural that the focus should be on schools, with the new Government’s emphasis on ‘Education, education, education. To achieve success in schools projects we had to roll-out a system of revenue support, called level-playing field support. This helped make projects affordable and incentivised authorities to develop schemes. That combined with the skills in project teams, consultants and bankers led to breakthroughs such as the £65m Falkirk schools project, the first large bundled deal in the UK. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1069/0005211.pdf
Labour Lib-Dem Coalition Government in Scotland – Scottish Executive Private Finance Unit – The Key Role of Captain Charles McLeod MBE
McLeod’s employment record is chequered. Born in London, he spent his first seven years in Rhodesia, before moving back to England and Kent, where he spent much of his childhood. A spell in the army preceded his attendance at King’s College, London, where he gained a BA (Hons) in German, after which he went to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. He served as a platoon commander with the British Army for 10 years, and saw service in Northern Ireland. He eventually became captain in the Queen’s Regiment and was later awarded an MBE for his services in Northern Ireland. He left the army after 10 years and joined the Foreign Office (diplomatic service) taking up a post as monitor (spook) for the European Community Monitor Mission in the former Yugoslavia, and went on to work as a political adviser to the International Conference in the region.
September 1995 – September 1997: On return to the UK from Europe he joined the Tory government’s “Private Finance Panel Executive”, working out of the Treasury Office developing with others the concept of using private finance to fund public utilities. Still with the team and now a civil servant he was seconded to the Scottish Office where he helped the Inland Revenue and West Lothian College with restructuring projects. He then worked out of the Scottish Office restructuring local government funding. He also worked with Falkirk Council procuring their first schools project for five new schools, the first grouped schools PFI project in the UK. Still with the Scottish Office he went on to prepare and introduce local government restructuring policies for the distribution of local government finance.
The Ugly truth of the labour Party and PFI – Typically the unitary charge is three to five times the capital cost, and on more egregious PFI projects as high as seven.
May 1996: PFI conference in Edinburgh: The conference discussed what the establishment of a devolved Scottish Parliament meant for joint projects. Would a Scottish Parliament look to private finance to play a role in its plans for Scotland’s infrastructure? Speakers from local government, the construction industry, finance and business brought their views on current arrangements and possibilities for the future. Charles Mcleod, MBE Alistair Darling MP led discussions outlining Labour Party’s proposals. https://mars.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/egenda/images/att45923.pdf
1997: In Scotland the Directors of Education Services and Financial Services submitted a joint report to the “Scottish Executive Private Finance Unit” on a feasibility study for a PFI project in education.
February 1998: Glasgow City Council decided to reduce its secondary school estate from 38 to 29 secondary schools and reinvest the savings. An outline business case was prepared to assess the affordability and value for money of a PFI for the modernisation of its secondary school estate. Subsequent developments relating to the modernisation of Glasgow secondary schools buildings and the introduction of an ICT programme were based on this Council strategy.
August 1998: In November 1999 the 3ED Consortium was selected as the preferred bidder to provide accommodation services for 30 years and ICT services for 12 years. The agreement was titled Project 2002.
September 1997 – January 2001 (3 years 5 months): Captain Mcleod resigned from the Scottish Office quango and transferred his employment the newly created 3ED Glasgow private Consortium. He assembled then guided his team setting up the award winning Glasgow Schools PPP.
The £225million construction programme of change included, establishing a 30-year maintenance and a 12-year programme of Information Technology Services for 29 secondary schools and one primary school. He further delivered 10 additional new secondary schools within the client’s affordability. Won Project of the Year Award at the 2001 PPP Awards and Education Project of the Year at the 2002 PPP Awards.
October 1997 – August 1998 (11 months): Captain Mcleod Departed 3ED and joined Miller Construction as Business Development Manager.
June 1998: Captain Mcleod directed the development of Group strategy, establishing a new division to secure major PPI regeneration and partnership projects. Teams were quickly formed and trained and bids submitted for a number of PFI projects.
Brian Wilson (Labour) Minister for Construction – Given a Key role implementing New Labour’s PFI policy
April 1999: The row over Scottish Labour’s support for the Private Finance Initiative deepened after the party treasurer called on it to ditch the policy.
Bob Thomson’s appeal came just days after leading Unison union official Mark Irvine resigned from the party over policies, including the use of PFI to build hospitals and schools. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/scotland_99/news/321519.stm
June 1999: The Scottish Administration promised reform of the controversial private financing of public sector projects in Scotland. Finance Minister Jack McConnell told MSPs new measures would be introduced to protect public sector workers’ pension rights and prevent revenue from surplus land being lost by the government. He also said the government would make it possible to buy back buildings when PFI contracts expired and return them to public control. In a debate initiated by the Scottish National Party, ministers were accused of allowing privatisation of school, hospital and transport projects “by the backdoor”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/377145.stm
November 1999: 3ED Consortium selected as the preferred bidder to provide accommodation services for 30 years and ICT services for 12 years. To start at the beginning of 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/502582.stm
January 2001 – March 2003 (2 years 3 months): Amey inc: restructured creating a Scottish corporate presence (Amey Scotland PLC) allowing it to “focus more closely on Scottish business opportunities, reducing operating costs”.
Amey: A FTSE 250 construction company metamorphosed into a support services business. Scottish turnover was c.£100m, generated by 1,400 employees.
Amey was the lead partner in the 3ED consortium formed specifically to provide £1.2b for the Project 2002 schools’ modernisation programme in Glasgow, the largest PFI scheme in British education.
The project included a £225m capital construction programme, establishment of 30-year FM and 12-year ICT services for 29 secondary schools and one primary school and delivered 10 additional new secondary schools.
Amey then won a £360m schools contract from the City of Edinburgh Council. Under the 30-year contract, 10 new primary schools, two special schools, two high schools, a secure unit and a community centre would be built, and three high schools and one special school would be refurbished.
Amey was also involved in running a large number of public sector services, including Railtrack (it was a contractor at the time of the Hatfield crash).
Amey also planned to expand into the health sector, specialising in the provision of back-office and administrative systems for hospitals rather than front-line medical care.
Amey won the right to provide road maintenance projects including a 176m contract to maintain eight motorways and 16 trunk roads from Perth to the Borders.
In addition, Amey won an 8m a year contract for 10 years to maintain all roads in North Lanarkshire.
Labour Party Minister of Construction PFI Brian Wilson (Now semi-retired from politics and a Multi-millionaire) Nice one Brian
August 2001: an article in the Guardian reported that teachers at a Glasgow PFI school were threatening strike action due to the poor standard of rebuilding and refurbishment work.
Staff complained that on returning to the school for the new term building materials and equipment still lay in the corridors. Five schools involved in the scheme failed to open on time and teachers reported that classrooms were much smaller than promised and that there were fewer of them.
Poor school design led to soaring temperatures in classrooms. Children fainted in the heat. The highest recorded temperature was 38 degrees in Home Economics department. It was later identified that designs did not take into consideration that departments had ovens. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1500052.stm
March 2002: Amey announced radical changes in its accounting policies. Under the changes, Amey would write off all bidding costs and similar costs incurred in winning work as and when they were incurred. In addition Amey committed to spreading income it would have received on the closure of a project over its early years, so deferring this income. Previously, it had deferred or capitalised costs only when it was named preferred bidder. The changes led to a 17% decline in Amey’s share value and turned the company’s £55m profit for 2001 into a pre-tax loss of £18.3m. It also highlighted concerns that Government’s PPPs could be jeopardised by the City’s concerns over new accounting standards.
November 2002: Amey reversed an earlier decision, announced to the City, to pay a 1.16p interim dividend costing £2.9m because it had “insufficient distributable reserves”. Shares in Amey slid a further 15% to 26p; meaning 90% of the company’s market value had been lost. Amey tried to offload its equity stakes in all of its PFI contracts – with the exception of its one third share in the Tube Lines consortium.
Poor building standards blamed for the collapse of PFI built building wall at Oxgangs Primary School in Edinburgh
December 2002:Amey announced plans to slash £85m from the book value of its assets and warned shareholders that pre-tax results would take a further hit because of contract delays on the London Underground public-private partnership. Amey hoped to offload its PFI contracts to John Laing before the year end raising around £50m – some £30m less than book value.
January 2003: Amey sold its stakes in eight PFI projects to rival John Laing, including 30-year building and maintenance contracts for Glasgow and Edinburgh schools, but retained sub-contracts to provide cleaning and IT services.
January 2003: Leading PFI firms including Amey, saw their share price fall. An investor who brought £100 worth of shares in each of 9 leading PFI education firms would be left with just £371 worth of shares – a loss of £529.
March 2003: Amey posted a pre tax loss of £129.5m for 2002 compared with £18.3m in 2001. Amey sacked its Chief Executive and two finance directors. The company stated it had incurred exceptional charges of £110.2m in 2002, mainly through writing down PFI investments such as the Croydon Tram-link. Figures illustrated the fluctuations in the stock market which characterised and influenced private companies’ performance and viability. This made clients of the consortium 3ED, which included schools in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Falkirk and other Council operations, very vulnerable. Private companies have no statutory responsibility nor public duty to provide education services nor are they democratically accountable to their communities. They are bound by contracts which can be varied or broken. Profit to the private sector from outsourcing to contractors arises from money previously ear-marked for the benefit of schools and their pupils. This is achieved by reducing the service through efficiency gains or reductions in provision. But the addition of a profit margin and the providers’ management and staffing costs to the contract mean that the real cost of providing services increases.
April 2003: Amey goes bust Sold for £81m to Ferrovial, a Spanish construction and business services giant, which assumed debts of £190m.
Ferrovial Servicios, whose British interests had been limited to a half-share in Bristol Airport, said it intended to use Amey as a stepping stone into the world of PPP in the UK and further afield.
April 2003: The board of troubled Amey PLC – once one of the biggest PFI firms – agreed to an £80m takeover offer by Spanish construction group Ferrovial. Amey was until recently a construction and services powerhouse worth £1bn. But it squandered its advantages – contracts to take over parts of London Underground and various Ministry of Defence and Network Rail deals – through mismanagement and too-fast growth. A black hole was found in the accounts, leading to the exit of two finance directors and, finally, the removal its of chief executive.
May 2003: The Glasgow Herald, reported that that the Financial Services Authority would investigate possible insider dealing following unusual share price movements before the takeover of Amey by Ferrovial Servicios. Shares in Amey had changed hands in unusually high volumes prior to the takeover by the Madrid.
Meanwhile, the torrent of academic papers critical of the PFI continued. Inveterate critic Allyson Pollock, head of health policy at University College London, shredded the performance of a PFI scheme for the new Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh.
In the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary a 24% reduction in numbers of acute beds was supposed to have been offset by efficiency improvements and greater use of care outside the hospital. But these aims had not been met, claimed Pollock and co-author Matthew Dunningan, writing in the British Medical Journal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/482840.stm
In the Glasgow City Council schools project charges for accommodation in year one grew from £24m in the feasibility study to £36.7m in the Full Business Case (FBC). Seven swimming pools were lost along with classrooms and staff common-rooms. The original requirement for refurbishment of 26 schools and the construction of two new schools changed to the construction of 12 new schools as this would be more profitable for the construction company.
Allyson Pollock – Head of health policy at University College London
The National Audit Office – the spending watchdog, called for more transparency in PFI bond issues, while the Conservative Party accused Gordon Brown of being the “Enron chancellor” because he used PFI to push spending off his balance sheet. A recent study by consultancy “Capital Economic” suggested that £22bn had been moved in this way. The labour government insisted any criticism was simply petty politicking. Brian Wilson, Minister for Construction (in executive control of PFI policy in Scotland) claimed it was ludicrous to highlight as typical a few PFI deals that have gone wrong.
Did the labour Party set up it’s own PFI then sell Scottish utilities back to the party
A company that made many millions from the Scottish taxpayer was Amey’ It soared into the new PFI market, strongly backed by PricewaterhouseCoopers (Putr), the biggest accountancy firm in the county. It was PwC, for instance, which persuaded Glasgow and East Renfrewshire councils in Scotland to hand over the running of their schools to a consortium led by Amey. The public private partnership (PPP) for the Glasgow schools led to widespread protests in the city, especially over the closure of swimming pools. To make matters worse for the company, the Scottish government auditors were unhappy when they studied the “public sector comparator” in which private consortia bidding for PFI contracts are expected to show that their project is cheaper than additional procurement would have been. The auditors concluded:
“The result of the public sector comparator test does not indicate compelling evidence that the PFI deal offers the most economic option compared to conventional procurement.”
Few paid any attention to that warning. Amey and PwC were a convincing double act and went on winning PFI contracts to run schools all over the country, most notably in the London borough of Waltham Forest.
Into the bargain, and just to prove the firm’s close association with the government, Amey was awarded a £35million – 35-year contract to run an “accounts service” for the department of trade and industry.
A Closer Look at Amey PLC Scotland
Meantime there were warning signs that all was not well with Amey. At the beginning of 2002′ Amey was knocking at the door of the Footsie top 100 companies in Britain. But by late summer the share price had slumped. The firm was obliged to admit that its stated profits of £55m were in fact losses of £l8m. How had such a glaring mistake been made?Amey put most of the blame on something called Urgent Issues Task Force Note 51, a note issued by the accounting standards board. This specifically prevented an accounting trick which companies like Amey had used to massage their figures into something very different to the reality. One way they did this was to pretend that the vast costs of bidding for a PFI contract were “investment” and therefore need not be set against profit figures’. This was nonsense and should not happen again the auditors note insisted. So Amey said publicly that because of the accounting standards note, with which it obviously disagreed, it had to admit that a hefty profit was really a hefty loss. Even this turned out to be deception. ln August 2002 David Miller, Amey’sfinance director, resigned. He was replaced by Michael Kayser. Kayser soon discovered that the Amey accounts were worse even than had appeared in the summer crisis, and that the firm’s prodigious losses were caused by much more than just a note from the accounting standards office. As soon as he absorbed the state of the accounts, Kayser resigned. The remaining directors brought in a partner from Deloitte and Touche who insisted that £122m – an enormous sum for a company the size of Amey – should be written off. The 2002 Amey accounts indicated that the huge write-off was necessary for reasons far wider than the accounting standards note. The accounts referred to “write-downs of construction work in progress balances and forward loss provision for which previous optimism as to the recovery. .. has not been born out in Practice”.
Amey charged Council £2000 to plant a tree
Amey had set up “a subsidiary appropriately called “Treasure Park,” half-owned by another company run by a businessman not entirely unknown to Brian Staples, Amey’s chief executive. Because this management was known as a JANE (‘joint arrangement not an entity’)
Amey hoped to avoid Losses on its Croydon Tramlink PFI catastrophe and at the same time book some profits to close the £55m hole.” This it plainly failed to do. Chief executive Staples took a pay off of a quarter of a million quid and went to join the board of a company called “IMI” and sat on the audit committee there. Amey, however, had lost an enormous sum of money, not just by fiddling the PFI books but also as a result of the deranged optimism that plagued a lot of construction companies at the time.
Part of the reason for this was the absurd faith placed in the company by the PFl – crazed New labour government. For instance, just as its 2002 financial difficulties were being unveiled, the Amey board was joined by a New Labour leader of utmost prominence. Baroness Jay had been New Labour’s leader in the Lords and a member of the cabinet. She joined Amey when the company most needed her prestige. Among her fellow directors was former Tory secretary of state for education, John Patten whose abilities had been questioned by John Major, former Tory prime minister, who suggested his problems in the education department had brought about something close to a nervous breakdown. Patten’s job at Amey was to keep a reliable eye on PFI contracts in schools.
The three Amigo’s Falconer, Mandelson and Jay (chairman of Amey)
In 2003, Amey posted a loss of £130m and was duly gobbled up by a Spanish building company called Ferrovial. Sceptics in the City were surprised that the Spaniards would want to buy a clapped-out loss’ maker like Amey. But the Spaniards’ enthusiasm was easy to understand. Amey was still part of a consortium bidding for a PFI contract to run the London tube. The cream from the tube would easily drown the losses of the past. Thus was Amey’s survival due in no small part to the chancellor, Gordon Brown, described in the Eye as “the only person left in the country who still believes the London Underground should be flogged off to companies such as Jarvis and Amey“. There was, however, one other Person who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, continued to believe in the magic of Amey. In August 2003, at the depth of Amey’s misfortune, Nigel Crisp, head of the NHS, put Ken Anderson in charge of Tony Blair’s ‘fast track’ hospitals”. Texas born Anderson, former development director of Amey, (now the new commercial director of the NHS) whose job included tempting private entrepreneurs with records as impressive as Amey’s to run newly privatised diagnostic and treatment centres. So Amey owned Scotland’s public utilities and New Labour runs Amey!!!!!
Gordon Brown when Chancellor sold Scotland’s public utilities to the private sector for a pittance then committed Councils to entering endless leasing schemes at exorbitant cost to the taxpayer. Many people made multi £B’ns from the sweat of Scottish taxpayers. The buck rested at the doors of the Labour Party which was complicit in the transfer of massive amounts of real estate and services from Public ownership to the private sector. Adding insult to the injury is that the bulk of the money is now in the hands of foreign countries and off-shore hedge funds. Crazy.
caltonjock 