Category: Uncategorized

President Sarkosy’s Legacy – Recruiting the Southern Mediterranean Countries to the EU Cause

Oct 2007: In a major speech near to the start of his term of office President Sarkosy proposed the setting up of a “Union of the Mediterranean” mirroring the EU but including only states with the Mediterranean as a common border. The group would be led by France. Although not rejected immediately the proposal was recognised as having the potential to create major difficulties. If taken forward it would replace the 1995 Barcelona Process & Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and place at risk many of the major policy initiatives implemented from that date. Turkey, whose application to join the EC was well advanced, rejected the proposal claiming it to be a subterfuge designed to deny Turkey it’s place within Europe. Chancellor Merkel, who had not been consulted on the matter said the idea was non-starter so far as Germany was concerned since it would force Germany to turn to Eastern Europe for expansion of markets and France would be drawn to the Mediterranean for the same purpose. Effectively bring the EU to an end. Other members of the EU also rejected the concept on the basis that the change would result in a massive expansion of the number of administrative institutions and associated costs. The outcome of prolonged discussions was to remit the Sarkosy idea to the 1995 Barcelona Process & Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) group for development within that structure. The group’s initial response was that the absence of any tangible moves towards democracy in the states to the south of the Mediterranean precluded any significant expansion of the existing agreement but every effort would be made to develop the policy.

Jul 2008: Major Progress on EU & Mediterranean Cooperation

The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) was created by 43 Euro-Mediterranean Heads of State and Government on 13 July 2008 at the Paris Summit for the Mediterranean. The Secretariat of the Union for the Mediterranean, based in Barcelona and the first permanent structure dedicated to the intergovernmental Mediterranean partnership, is the operational institution that empowers this regional dialogue between the UfM Member States and stakeholders, fostering synergies among them and promoting cooperation projects and initiatives with a direct impact on the lives of people. The UfM constitutes a framework for political, economic and social relations between the European Union and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries and is inspired by the goals set out in the Barcelona Declaration, namely working towards the creation of an area of peace, stability, security and shared economic prosperity, as well as full respect for democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms and promotion of understanding between cultures and civilizations in the Euro-Mediterranean region. http://ufmsecretariat.org/who-we-are/

Will the UK be Excluded From Membership after Brexit Bites??

The EU has invested in excess of 20billion Euro’s in the partnership since 1995 and there is tangible evidence of a positive outcome in the future. But the UK will play no part in it. An negative  is the loss of financial investment, to date and in the future.

 

 

Establishing an Independent Scotland

Whitehall mandarins, Unionist politicians and their Luddite supporters will tell you it will be a long and torturous process over many years and it must be this way because the relationship Scotland has with the rest of the UK is too complex to untangle in a shorter period. But if Czechoslovakia could be split up in six months in 1992, why should the process of establishing an independent Scotland be such a hardship?

 

The Velvet Revolution

World War 1 lasted four years, World War 2 lasted six. So is it easier to conquer then lose an entire continent than to separate two jurisdictions peacefully? Czechoslovakia, not only transformed from a socialist republic and a Soviet satellite to liberal democracy, but it also successfully split peacefully into two nations in 6 months.

The pivotal elections that took place in 1992 saw an even split of voters in both of the constituent parts of Czechoslovakia. Tensions arose and the leaders of both constituent regions agreed the federation should be split.

An agreement was signed on 26 August 1992. By 13 November 1992, a law had been enacted as to how the federal assets were going to be divided and twelve days later, an act was passed that set the dissolution date on 31 December 1992.

Complex matters such as the continuity of government, laws, and arrangements for courts and so on were all swiftly determined by December 1992.

A new Czech Constitution was passed on 16th December  1992. Czechoslovakia was dissolved at midnight on 31 December 1992. When  people woke up on 01 January 1993, they had new nationalities.

Within a mere six months, a comprehensive settlement had been agreed and activated. Immobile assets were distributed to the country where they sat, mobile assets and assets abroad were distributed according to the rough population ratio.

Amendments to international treaties signed by Czechoslovakia were negotiated and signed very quickly by both new republics, confirming the continuation of such treaties.

In 1996, the two countries signed a protocol specifying the distribution of duties enshrined by treaties signed as Czechoslovakia.

All of this happened whilst Czechoslovakia and its constituent countries were undergoing a massive economic transformation. Czechoslovakia was privatizing on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented pace.

In a way, it was like Brexit and the UK’s 1980s privatizations combined, only a lot more complicated. Whereas the 1980s UK privatized two companies a year, the early 1990s Czechoslovakia privatized two companies an hour.

Taken together, these companies’ accounting value was a big share of GDP. The voucher privatization alone (there were other methods of privatization) privatized companies worth one-third of Czechoslovak GDP.

And let us not forget the fact that Czechoslovakia was also a currency union. The original idea was that the currency would continue after the separation, but the Czechoslovak koruna outlived Czechoslovakia by a mere six weeks. All of this was taking place at the exact same time the republics were being separated. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

 

Two things made this possible:

The leaders’ insistence that it must happen fast before organized business interests and/or government could mount a successful defence of the status quo. 

Then the fact that the two newly-created governments, for all the tension between them, successfully worked together to apply current or previous arrangements in good faith. 

Wherever questions or differences arose, they sought an amicable solution where none of the parties would score a win for their side but rather one where future cooperation would be maintained.

Nobody was proposing divorce bills or ridiculous notions of planes not flying, trucks stuck at the border, licenses not being recognized, or one country continuing to have jurisdiction over the other for the next 100 years.

Time and good faith were of the essence. If Czechs and Slovaks were able to separate in six months, surely Westminster and Holyrood will be able find a way to extract one the other in a similar time period?

 

 

Add title



Prince Philip – Salem School – Hitler Youth – Universal Fascism – Dr Hahn and Gordonstoun

During World War I, Prince Max von Baden was chancellor, while the Oxford-trained Dr Kurt Hahn first served as head of the Berlin Foreign Ministry’s intelligence desk, then as a special adviser to the Prince in the Versailles Treaty negotiations.

Von Baden and Hahn went on to set up a school in a wing of Schloss Salem, employing a combination of monasticism and the Nazis’  “strength-through-joy” system.

Hahn, an ardent supporter of Nazi ideals, was part Jewish but embraced the more centrist elements of the Nazi Party. Ownership of the school transferred to Prince Berthold, Margrave of Baden, (Queen Elizabeth’s uncle) in 1932. And, through the influence of his sister Theodora, (Prince Berthold’s wife) 12yo Philip, who had been exiled from Greece following a revolution when he was an infant, arrived at Schloss in the autumn term of 1933. At the time of Prince Philip’s arrival, it was controlled and directed by the Hitler Youth and the Nazi Party, and the curriculum was centered on Nazi “race science”.

In 1933 Hahn’s influential Nazi connections allowed him to leave Germany. He left not long after Prince Philip’s arrival and established a new school in Scotland which he called Gordonstoun.

One of his first pupils was homeless 13yo Philip, who was sent there from Germany in 1934 by his good friend Princess Theodora, Philip’s sister.

More on Hahn

Before the outbreak of war he was regularly consulted by the Foreign Office in London and urged the government to introduce appeasement policies that would appeal to the “centrist” Nazi’s in Germany. MI5 agents in Edinburgh and the Secretary of State for Scotland were convinced in 1940 that Hahn should be interned. But MI5 in London and the Home Office said he was free from suspicion.

But rumours of Hahn’s close ties to the Nazi’s continued to circulate including claims of photographs of Hahn with Hitler and there allegations that during the First World War Hahn “connived in measures calculated to break British morale”. He was also accused of spreading propaganda, blaming the 1919 Treaty of Versailles for the Second World War and advocating the return of colonies to Germany.

Gordonstoun, near Elgin, housed 150 boys and refugee German teachers and inevitably came under suspicion. The school was strategically sited between two RAF aerodromes, ran navigation courses for pupils and had a look-out post over the Moray Firth. In the summer of 1940, the school was evacuated and 5 masters and 11 boys were interned by order of the Home Secretary but not Hahn who was allowed to set up a similar establishment in Wales. Gordonstoun re-opened after the war.

Years after the war had ended confidential records were released by the Scottish Office under an Open Government initiative passed by parliament. They revealed that Hahn, the German-born founder of Gordonstoun, attended by Prince Charles, Andrew and Edward was a suspected Nazi spy.

Hahn was the father figure Philip modelled himself on. He adored Hahn and enthusiastically embraced all of his ideals and was determined his sons would benefit from Hahn’s methods which had been the mainstay of German youth from 1932 when Hahn first promoted the concept to the Nazi’s.

The SNP manifesto commitment to the LGBTI network says it all

01: Seek full devolution from the UK government of employment, equality and immigration

02: Introduce measures ensuring LGBT+ and intersex people are treated with dignity, respect and free from discrimination

03: Reform Gender recognition laws and recognise non-binary people in all official documents

04: Pardon retrospectively where needed, pardons for gay and bi people criminalised for their sexuality

05: Provide funding for life-saving PrEP medication

06: Protect the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act

07: Outlaw dangerous and discredited conversion therapy

08: Champion LGBT+ equality and human rights worldwide

The inclusion of such a radical programme of change in the manifesto, without discussion with or approval of party members breaks new ground for a Party which is at sixes and sevens as to the direction it intends to take the nation and there are many in the Party who are very unhappy with the leadership. But the force is apparently with other organisations.

The Scottish LGBTI Equality Pledge

The Pledge has been developed by the Equality Network, Scottish Trans Alliance, Stonewall Scotland and LGBT Youth Scotland, national charities working for LGBTI equality and human rights in Scotland. It calls for candidates to commit to:

01: Promote positive mental wellbeing for LGBTI people, ensuring that actions to improve Scotland’s mental health specifically address the inequalities LGBTI people face.

02: Support LGBTI people to have equal access to health and social care services, including by reforming NHS gender identity services to be fit-for-purpose.

03: Improve LGBTI rights and protections in the law, including by reforming laws on gender recognition and ending conversion therapy.

04: Support LGBTI young people to flourish in schools through the continued implementation of inclusive education.

05: Stand up for all LGBTI people, including the most marginalised – LGBTI people of colour, refugees, disabled people, older people, and trans people.

We want to see as many MSPs committed to LGBTI equality in the next Scottish Parliament as possible. Please take the time to email your candidates to let them know this matters to you, and ask them to sign our LGBTI pledge. It can make a real difference!

The undernoted SNP candidates have signed the pledge
Aberdeen Central – Kevin Stewart
Aberdeen Donside – Jackie Dunbar
Aberdeen South – Audrey Nicoll
Aberdeen West – Fergus Mutch
Airdrie & Shotts – Neil Gray
Banff & Buchan – Karen Adam
Clydesdale – Màiri McAllan
Dundee East – Shona Robison
Dundee West – Joe FitzPatrick
East Kilbride – Collette Stevenson
Edinburgh Central – Angus Robertson
Edinburgh North – Ben Macpherson
Edinburgh South – Catriona MacDonald
Glasgow Kelvin – Kaukab Stewart
Hamilton-Larkhall – Christina McKelvie
Shetland – Tom Wills
Strathkelvin & Bearsden – Rona Mackay

List Candidates

Central Scotland – Neil Gray & Christina McKelvie
Glasgow – Kaukab Stewart
Highlands – Sarah Fanet & Emma Roddick & Tom Wills
Lothians – Graham Campbell & Catriona MacDonald & Ben Macpherson & Angus Robertson
Mid Scotland & Fife – Stefan Hoggan-Radu & Fiona Sarwar
North East – Fergus Mutch & Lynne Short
South Scotland – Màiri McAllan
West Scotland – Michelle Campbell & Rona Mackay

https://www.equality-network.org/scottish-lgbti-equality-pledge/

The Liberal Democratic Party is pledging ‘complete reform’ of the Gender Recognition Act

Assisting their efforts with donations exceeding £1.3million, is Ferring Pharmaceuticals a company that markets drugs used in gender-identity clinics to delay puberty.

The party has already upset feminists, who worry that the “extreme trans-ideological” policies in its manifesto will put vulnerable women at risk.

The company is owned by the Swedish billionaire Frederik Paulsen and markets the drug, which is used to block puberty among adolescents.

The Lib Dem manifesto pledges “complete reform of the Gender Recognition Act to remove the requirement for medical reports, scrapping fees and recognition of non-binary gender identities”.

It also promises to “introduce an ‘X’ gender option on passports and extend equality law.

Details of the donations to the Lib/Dems. Other Parties and Stonewall are in on the act billions being spent on gender bending. Women need to be warned of the threat to their existence as a separate gender.

Feb 2015: Russian Consul’s puberty blocker drug firm bankrolls the Liberal Democrats

A Drugs company owned by a Swedish billionaire philanthopist and explorer, who is an honorary Russian consul and lives in Switzerland, has given nearly £500k to the Liberal Democrats.

Frederik Paulsen, who lives in Lausanne, is worth an estimated £3bn and owns Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The company is ultimately controlled from Curacao, a Caribbean tax haven.

Electoral Commission records show that the British arm of the company, based in West Drayton, west London, gave four donations to the Liberal Democrats between December 2013 and June 2014. Three of them exceeded £100,000.

The British arm of Ferring Pharmaceuticals was set up in 1975. Ferring said the company had made the donations because it supported Liberal Democrats policy on Europe. (Sunday Times)

Comment: And the Lib/Dems had the hard neck to criticise Alex Salmond for broadcasting his show on RT!!!

Feb 2016: Shameless Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg has trousered a massive £30k payment from an official “friend of Putin” whose company is based in an offshore tax haven.

Clegg received the bung from Frederik Paulsen, the billionaire chairman of drugs firm Ferring Pharmaceuticals. 

Paulsen was personally awarded an “Order of Friendship” medal by Putin himself. The Vlad acolyte who has poured huge amounts of cash into Russia, was given the gong by the Russian Foreign ministry, and is an honorary Russian citizen. Not only that, his company is ultimately controlled from a Caribbean tax haven…

The Liberal Democrats accuse other Party’s and politicians of siding with Putin. Conduct which is at the highest level of hypocrisy given the Party and its leader’s happiness to line their pockets with huge wedges of cash from Putin and his friends.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/honorary-russians-drug-firm-bankrolls-lib-dems-2cknvzqmf7r

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkxJhtIWkAANMfG?format=jpg&name=medium

https://www.secret-bases.co.uk/wiki/Ferring_Pharmaceuticals

https://www.eldyly.com/tag/party-donations

 

 

 

 

Leslie Evans

Born in Northern Ireland in 1958. Relocated to Sheffield. Attended High Storrs Comprehensive School 1970-76. Gained a degree in Music from Liverpool University. Married Derek McVay 1990. One son.

At School: (her own words, nearly)

Absorbed lots of knowledge. Music important – soft spot David Bowie, likes reggae and dub, Bach + Bartok. Rereads Jane Austen, theatre lover, views Shakespeare regularly. Learnt to like poetry – Sylvia Plath, Jackie Kay, John Donne.

Loved history – fascinated with Gender politics. In particular her feminism and yes she is a feminist. Dated back to learning about Elizabeth 1st’s speech at Tilbury,

“I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.

Not just knowledge absorbed – learnt to ask not just what or why? But – really? Experience shaped her politics and values, and views about diversity, equality and inclusion.

Cultivated skills and capacities and the propensity to be curious, the ability to analyze – the desire to inform opinion and the appetite to question everything.

Gained 8 “O” levels in one year. Lost focus in the years following. More interested in partying than studying. Poor “A” level results.

Hard to take. Failure brought home the importance of hard work.

Despite poor results secured a place studying music at Liverpool University. Not talented or dedicated enough to be professional performer. Used musical skills to earn cash – in orchestra pit and teaching piano.

Used music degree as means to end, getting onto a post graduate course in London to get into arts administration.

Course included an employment secondment – worked really hard – made herself indispensable – gave up wild life and became totally dependable.

 

 

 

 

Employment with District councils

Offered employment in arts with local authority in London. Then similar work in Sheffield.

Moved to Edinburgh 1985 – employed with Edinburgh District Council in senior management roles, (1985 and 1987 and from 1989 to 2000).

Ensuring effective delivery of arts, theatre, entertainment and recreation. Similar work with Stirling Council (1988).

On each transfer of employment moved up the management ladder – role and responsibilities became broader and more diverse.

Learnt to seize every opportunity offered – to show enthusiasm – to speak first – to answer yes – to think about whether and how to do it later. Learned to feign confidence – faking it until able to make it.

 

 

 

 

Edinburgh District Council Scandal -Leslie Evans Nailed In Public

If someone in a position of authority is determined to smear you, it is very difficult to recover. Mud sticks.

Now, it is simply not the done thing for a Councillor to ever criticize an officer at a public meeting.

Politicians may only address their concerns to the Head of Department who is paid shed-loads to take the flack.

Those below departmental head know they can get away with not owning up to manipulations and misrepresentations, because that is what Department heads are for.

Back then, officers didn’t even have their name anywhere in the papers.

However, on this rare occasion, Councillor  Steve Cardownie stepped over that thin red line and fingered one such officer.

“Is it possible”, he thundered, that a very senior officer (there could only be one!) had tampered with the report, thereby undermining its validity and “independence”?

You could hear a pin drop. All eyes turned on Leslie Evans, who became bright, bright red with fury and froze, stock still. You could almost see the steam coming out of her ears. Her Video Strategy died before it had lived.

Footnote

It is said Leslie Evans caused Edinburgh Council to lose millions in the Usher Hall Lottery debacle of ’98, which led to the resignation of Roger Jones, the best and most popular Head of Department the Council ever had.

When Roger was forced to resign over the loss, Leslie had the temerity to give him a leaving card comparing him to Churchill – he was a hero, she said. If she truly felt that way, maybe she could have ‘fessed up and taken the rap, resigning in his place? Not our Leslie.

Full Article here: http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/fake-news-how-public-lies-begin/

This is a must read since it provides confirmation of views held by an increasing number of Scots that Leslie Evans is not an appropriate person to hold the position of Permanent Secretary to Scotland’s First minister.

 

 

 

 

What A Con – The Civil Service and Their Janus Faced Illegal Politics

Leslie Evans reported to Francesca Osowska OBE in David Mundell’s office.

Osowska was formerly Principal Private Secretary (PPS) to the First Minister (Alex Salmond) between 2007/09.

Francesca Osowska, in a number of evasive statements to the Scottish Affairs Committee, glossed over the expensive and extensive work of a large group of (supposedly politically neutral) Civil Servants who actively supported the objectives of the “Better Together” campaign.

A gross misuse of public finances and Civil Servants presumably by David Cameron and Sir Jeremy Heywood.

She also confirmed that Mundell retained funding sufficient to employ up to 100 whole time equivalent (W.T.E.) posts and that salary and incidental costs arising from such employment are (top sliced) from Scotland’s block grant before the allocation of finance to the Scottish government.

The slush fund created is an ever increasing annual financial nest egg, skimmed off Scotland’s block financial grant and used, abused by the Mundell for purposes such as UK government anti-devolution leaflet production, printing and distribution.

And Hiring of Special Advisors (SpAds), usually sons, daughters, other relations, friends of ministers or other MP’s and employment of Civil Servants from other Government Departments in times of need.

Reflect also on the disgraceful actions of the UK Cabinet Office and Treasury Civil servants which contain the proud admission that they had been seconded to the Scottish Office (in Westminster) and were tasked, for an extended period of time to provide active support to the “Better Together” campaign.

Actions that brought about the defeat of Scots who wished only to be an independent nation once again. What a bunch of charlatans.

Full Article here: https://caltonjock.com/2017/07/24/mundell-and-the-tory-party-actively-aided-by-the-scottish-office-are-the-legal-government-of-scotland-holyrood-politicians-need-to-be-mindful-of-this-or-westminster-will-shut-it-down/

 

 

 

 

Civil Service (CS):

Joined CS in 2000 soon after devolution – new Scottish Executive. Early 40s represented a major career change – big risk. But had gained experience in public service with local government – government service a cakewalk? – not so – miserable at work – didn’t seem to add value or make any difference. First year fish out of water. Held nerve – stayed resilient.

 

 

 

Permanent Secretary Scottish Government

The retirement of the permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, Sir Peter Housden (1) created a vacancy within the Civil Service.

The competition to succeed him was overseen by the First Civil Service Commissioner and open to candidates across the UK civil service, including in Whitehall.

Ms Sturgeon was presented with a shortlist of vetted candidates and selected Ms Evans.

Evans was appointed as Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government on July 1, 2015.

In this role, she is the principal policy adviser to the First Minister and Secretary to the Scottish Cabinet.

She is also the Principal Accountable Officer for the Scottish Government with personal responsibility for the propriety and regularity of Government finance and for economic, efficient and effective use of all related resources.

Evans is the senior Civil Servant in Scotland and leads more than 5,000 civil servants working for the Scottish Government, supporting development, implementation and communication of government policies, in accordance with the Civil Service Code.

She joined the Scottish Government in September 2000, having spent 20 years working for local authorities in Scotland (City of Edinburgh Council and Stirling Council) and England (London Borough of Greenwich and Sheffield City Council).

Her previous post within the Scottish Government was Director General Learning and Justice. Other positions held include, Head of Local Government Constitution & Governance Division, Head of Public Service Reform Group, Head of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and Director of Culture, External Affairs and Tourism.

(1): Insiders briefed that Sir Jeremy Heywood remained livid over the behavior of Housden during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum.

When he was accused of betraying the Westminster Civil Service brief by “going native”.

He was also criticized by Commons select committee for allowing the publication of swathes of Alex Salmond’s White Paper on independence that were politically “partisan” and failed to meet “factual standards”.

And a Westminster public administration committee said he should not have allowed taxpayers’ money to be used to publish sections that amounted to an SNP “agenda”.

The recruitment and appointment process of the new Permanent Secretary was tasked to the offices of the “First Civil Service Commissioner”, based in Whitehall so that the Westminster government would assured the appointment of their preferred candidate.

So as to be satisfied there would be no repeat of the conduct of Sir Peter Housden one of the new Permanent Secretary’s key tasks would be to rebuild trust with Holyrood’s opposition parties and Whitehall mandarins.

Leslie Evans is the Westminster Government’s “safe pair of hands” at Holyrood.

Over time she will add other Senior managers of the same ilk to her team, effectively emasculating the Scottish Government at Holyrood.

 

 

 

 

Salmond’s Nark Has Fallen Foul Of The Whitehall Mandarins

What do Whitehall’s top people do when one of their own goes native? When he breaks the code of the mandarins, stops giving his minister unwelcome advice and fails to say “No, Minister”

What they do is exclude him from their inner counsels – as we can see in the strange case of Sir Peter Housden.

Housden, 61, is permanent secretary – top civil servant – to the Scottish government and his political boss is First Minister Alex Salmond.

Officially, he is no different to the other permanent secretaries and regularly attends their Wednesday morning meetings in Whitehall.

Unofficially, though, they regard him – there’s no nice way to put this – as “Salmond’s nark”.

He is not on the crucial committee that is bringing together Whitehall’s campaign against Scottish independence. “Good God, no,” said one insider in shocked tones. “Housden would just report everything back to Salmond.”

Full Article here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9645906/When-it-comes-to-Sir-Peter-Housden-we-have-a-problem.html

 

 

 

 

Sir Peter Housden Faces Fresh Accusations of Partisanship

The head of Scotland’s Civil Service faced fresh accusations of being politically partisan last night after he told thousands of his officials that he expected Alex Salmond to emerge victorious in the independence referendum.

Sir Peter Housden circulated a briefing, in which he informed civil servants that he expected “substantial negotiations” with UK ministers after the ballot — all but dismissing the prospect of an SNP defeat.

Sir Peter, the Scottish Executive’s permanent secretary and Alex Salmond’s most senior mandarin, predicted that the referendum process would have several stages and told his civil servants that they “don’t need to swallow this elephant whole” as it would “stretch now over a good number of years”.

He then considered what would happen after the referendum and predicted: “The other side of a referendum is likely to involve substantial negotiations.” He continued that it “will certainly require a major constitutional bill in the Westminster parliament to reflect a positive result”.

He did not spell out why he believed the SNP would win in the face of opinion polls that show only about a third of Scots would vote for separation.

Opposition leaders last night renewed their accusations that Sir Peter, who remains part of the British civil service, had “gone native”. The code governing officials prevents them expressing political views or advice.

Full Article here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9021782/Sir-Peter-Housden-faces-fresh-accusations-of-partisanship.html

 

 

 

 

Independence White Paper Failed To Meet Civil Service Standards

Scotland’s most senior mandarin should have blocked the publication of swathes of Alex Salmond’s White Paper on independence that were politically “partisan” and failed to meet “factual standards”, according to a damning report.

The Commons Public Administration select committee said Sir Peter Housden, the Scottish Government’s permanent secretary, should not have allowed taxpayers’ money to be used to publish parts of the blueprint that amounted to an SNP “agenda”.

At “the very least”, the committee found that Sir Peter should have sought a “letter of direction” from Mr Salmond, a document requested by civil servants when they disagree with a minister’s decision so strongly that they refuse to be accountable for it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11488869/Independence-White-Paper-failed-to-meet-civil-service-standards.html

 

Judith Mackinnon

 

 

The Alex Salmond Debacle

In 2016 Nicola Sturgeon announced that “open government” would be a feature of the Holyrood parliament and new policies were to be put in place.

Leslie Evans had no personnel management qualifications and needed to strengthen her team.

In 2017 she recruited Judith Mackinnon, an experienced human resources manager, to a newly created, (very well remunerated) “Head of People Advice” position.

This is the same person that was previously Head of Human Resource Governance at Police Scotland.

Hardly a recommendation for employment in the Scottish Government given the many scandals in the force in the years she was in post.

Leslie Evans approached Nicola Sturgeon with proposals to draft new procedures in line with the Scottish Governments transparency in government drive.

Authority gained, Judith Mackinnon compiled the policy document, which was duly signed off by Nicola Sturgeon in December 2017.

One one month later, in January 2018, two complaints were made of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond under the new rules.

The incidents were alleged to have taken place at Bute House in 2013.

It was almost as though there had been “malice aforethought” and complainants had been waiting for the new rules to come into force.

There certainly seems to have been no attempt to make the accusation until the policy was active, protecting the accusers from exposure.

No matter the outcome of any subsequent investigation, the political damage to the SNP government would be considerable at a time when a new Scottish Independence Referendum was being mooted.

Alex Salmond was not made aware of the complaints despite the procedure requiring him to be informed, but Evans briefed Nicola Sturgeon and made a Police report.

The police investigation is on-going but there is justifiable concern that the appointment of an investigating police officer to lead the investigation might have been arranged!!!! determining the outcome.

Supported by £100K “crown funding”, Alex instructed legal action against the Scottish Civil Service for the breach of procedure which gave the impression it had been deliberately enacted to damage Alex and the SNP.

At court the Scottish Government accepted that there had been significant procedural errors in the handling of the complaints.

The Judge rebuked the Government and instructed that the matter should be closed.

Costs of the proceedings (possibly around £500K) were charged to the government.

 

 

 

The procedural errors:

A weird sequence of events. Complaints against Alex Salmond made by two female staff about alleged incidents they said occurred in 2013 (four years after the event) and only one month after the new procedures had been put in place.

The government follow up investigation revealed that the recently appointed personnel professional, Judith Mackinnon (who had no direct management authority over them), had solicited the complaints against Alex Salmond, from the two female officers.

She then spoke to them, at length on a number of occasions, in a manner “bordering on encouragement to proceed with formal complaints” against Alex Salmond.

The Government legal team further accepted there had been a “significant amount of inappropriate direct personal contact” between Mackinnon and the complainants.

Evans stated that the nature of the complaints had been brought to her attention by Mackinnon and she appointed Mackinnon to formally investigate the matter and take the appropriate action as required by the new procedure. But in doing so Evans compromised the procedures she and Mackinnon had only recently put in place. Plonkers comes to mind.

 

 

 

 

 

Dismantling Scotland’s judicial system by stealth 

The 1707 Act of Union guaranteed the independence of the judiciary and Scottish law in perpetuity. But Westminster Unionist politicians and the House of Lords have rendered Scottish law impotent through the illegal imposition of the laws of “Greater England” on Scots for their own nefarious purposes. The insidious determination of the unionists to wipe out Scottish Law was further advanced in 1999 when the “Crown Office of Scotland” which had been independent from political interference for near 500 years was transferred lock, stock, and barrel to the control of the then Unionist supporting Scottish government. From that time the Scottish Judiciary has been subject to continuous pressure to remove from statute, trial by jury, not proven and other laws.

 

 

Removal of the judiciary system free from political control

Recent events in Holyrood have exposed the folly of transferring the  administration of the laws of Scotland to the political control of the Scottish Government.  The decision must be reversed without delay re-establishing the independence of the judiciary from political interference.

 

 

William Gordon Chalmers – the last truly independent Procurator Fiscal  of Scotland

Aberdonian William Gordon Chalmers was the permanent head of the procurator-fiscal service from 1974 to 1984 and zealously guarded the power of the Scots over their fiscal service.

He was a man of traditional values but was endowed with great vision to build a service to meet the challenges of the future and cope with an increase in serious crime at a time of economic stringency.

He was proud of his Aberdeen roots, having attended both Robert Gordon’s College and Aberdeen University. And served as an officer with the Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders, in the Second World War in which he was awarded the Military Cross. 

After hostilities ceased he became a solicitor and practiced in Aberdeen before joining the procurator-fiscal service as a depute-fiscal in Dunfermline in 1950.

During this period he gained a reputation as a fiscal who was prepared to take on a difficult case and work on it to secure the best possible result.

Although he enjoyed good relations with the police and politicians, he was always careful to ensure his and the fiscal’s independence in the process of investigating and prosecuting crime.

In 1959 he was promoted to Senior Depute Fiscal at Edinburgh then, in 1963, entered the Crown Office as an assistant to the Crown agent before becoming Deputy Crown Agent in 1967 and Crown Agent and Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer in 1974.

In the 1960s the fiscal service was relatively small comprising 80 lawyers throughout Scotland and significant level of backlogged cases was an accepted norm. But not for William Chalmers. 

Within a year of taking office he introduced the National Prosecution Service which would deal with sheriff and prepared high court cases while retaining responsibility for the prosecution of cases from government departments and local authorities. 

In those early years he identified a distinct lack of alternatives to prosecution and introduced fiscal fines and fixed penalties for less serious offences.  He went further and developed a system of warnings to alleged offenders and encouraged the introduction of schemes for certain offenders to be directed to social work and where applicable to make the prompt compensation for their crimes. The latter initiative was appreciated by victims who often became forgotten in the criminal process. During his tenure, the fiscal service went from strength to strength despite in latter years having to cope with a Westminster government intent on reducing public spending.

 

 

Retention of a Fiscal Service independent of Government

In his tenure he ensured the “Crown Office” would operate separate from the Scottish Office and achieved this by insisting on being directly funded by the UK treasury.

He was greatly saddened in his retirement, by changes in the fiscal service following devolution, in 1999 which he perceived weakened its independence.

He was was known to many people who had served with him as the “Real Crown Agent” and a fitting memorial to him would be for the “Fiscal Service” to recover its independence in a devolved Scotland.

William Gordon Chalmers, Crown Agent, born 4 June 1922, died 28 May  2003 (The Scotsman-Obituaries)

 

 

 

 

 

 

2014 Independence Referendum

Nicola Sturgeon was given the honour of leading the campaign for independence.

Referendum campaigning began with polls indicating “No” voters would prevail, a view promoted by the Unionist media and given maximum media space by the BBC, who bombarded Scotland with negative publicity broadcasting many times each day that only around 25% of Scots would commit to supporting independence.

In response, in the first months of 2014, the performance of the team Nicola had put in place was formal, lacklustre and deferential with result that it was completely outfoxed at every juncture by the well-oiled machine that was, “Better Together.”

Responding to months of the Unionist Party’s gutter politicking, negative media and attacks on Scots, Alex Salmond intervened and altering the campaigning strategy gave his support to “Yes” activists to take the lead on campaigning, getting onto the streets to encourage Scots to seize the day and take their country away from a union that had failed them so badly for over 300 years.

The inspired initiative worked a treat and the “Yes” campaign fortunes changed over the summer months of 2014 so much that by late August polls declared the outcome to be too close to call.

The Unionist campaign then faltered due to internal Party political wrangling and panic set in.

Cameron responded by sidelining “Better Together” transferring all decision making to his offices in Westminster, where he implored the Queen, Dukes, Barons, Knights of the realm, heads of Governments of countless countries around the world, just about every civil servant of any note, many hundreds of business leaders and politicians to get behind him and save the Union by pulling every trick in the book no matter how devious or dishonest.

The BBC and other Unionist media outlets assiduously assisted orchestrating skullduggery and delivering it through mass media subversion resulting in the pendulum swinging back in favour of the “No” campaign. But still “Yes” voters appeared to be on a roll with no sign of momentum slowing.

Desperate measures were needed if the Union was to be saved and only a week before the day of voting and therefore “illegal”, the “Unionists” pledged, then heavily promoted “Devo Max” for Scotland, greatly increasing devolved powers, only just short of “home rule”.

The ploy worked. Only days before the referendum vote Bookmakers stopped taking bets on a “no” vote victory. People with influence in the Unionist camp had clearly been advised of the outcome of the referendum before the voters of Scotland had even been to the polling booths.

Scotland subsequently voted “No” to independence on Thursday 18 September 2014.

 

 

 

The Fallout

The result of the referendum became evident not long after the polling stations closed when a resounding “no” vote was returned from a council expected to vote “yes”. A negative result confirmed by similar outcomes from other councils on the East coast of Scotland.

Unionists in Scotland and England were cock-a-hoop and could not contain their delight. Many clamoured for media airtime so that they would be able to rub salt into the wounds of Scots who had backed independence. One such person was “Ruth the Mooth” Davidson who mocked the nation with her release of information that she had been advised of the outcome before the referendum had been conducted.

Her admission was a bombshell. The only way she could have known things had gone so well for the “no” voters was if she or people known to her had opened and counted postal ballots, which had been held secure in England, at the headquarters of the company contracted by the Unionist Government to preserve the integrity of the vote.

A police investigation was completed, in the course of which Davidson confirmed sample voting had been conducted, as speculated, in England at the offices of the company contracted by the Unionist Government but no criminal act had occurred. It later transpired that the Company was owned by a Tory Minister and his associates.

The postal vote debacle further devalued the outcome of the referendum with the revelation that the total number of votes returned in many cases was the highest return in any election worldwide, by a great margin. The shenanigans convinced many Scots that the vote had been rigged in favour of a “no” vote.

Scots were also alarmed and had questioned before the referendum as to the reasons why the Chief Electoral Officer had been seconded to oversee the referendum from her permanent post in England and her subsequent actions appointing fellow English “counting officers” of similar ilk. There was further concern about her unprecedented actions banning exit polling and instructing that there would be no recounts nor appeals at any of the stations.

Cameron claimed victory the morning after and confirmed Alex had accepted defeat. He went on to give the undertaking to honour the Unionist “Vow” to deliver “Devomax” to Scotland. But he also introduced a spoiler in declaring England & Wales would also become “Devomaxed” answering the “Lothian Question” raised by Tam Dayell, but never answered. The House of Commons and Westminster would become a near irrelevance to Scotland who would not be permitted to have a view, discuss or vote on any matter exclusively concerning England or Wales.

Scots were outraged by the deceit of the Unionists who behaved dishonourably before and after the referendum and continued their protestations on social media, the only outlet permitting any expression of views which did not support the Unionist agenda.

Adding insult to injury only days after the referendum Cameron bragged to the Unionist media that “her majesty” had purred with delight when he informed her of the outcome.

A wronged nation is an unhappy nation and Scots were angry at the way in which the future was unravelling under the continued control of the Unionists and they turned in increasing numbers to the SNP demanding a different path. Independence was back on track. But under a new leader.

Within two weeks of the referendum, the membership of the SNP increased to an unprecedented level taking its total well beyond that of any political party in the United Kingdom.

Nicola Sturgeon supporters attributed the increase in the membership of the Party to her influence but in reality, it was due to the ongoing intransigence of Mundell and the Unionists who were delaying and distorting the terms of “Devomax”.

 

 

Alex Salmond

In the 18 September, 2014 referendum Scots rejected independence by 55% to 45%. The day after Alex announced he would be standing down as First Minister and SNP leader. In his time in office, as leader of the SNP, Alex exceeded the expectations of his political remit by improving the SNP political standing in Scotland, turning his party into the most popular in the history of devolution, always on a platform of fighting for Scottish interests.

Nicola Sturgeon would be his successor of choice, but he warned of the dangers inherent in a coronation. His advice went unheeded and Nicola was duly “crowned” not long after.

 

 

 

Nicola Sturgeon

Her position as leader confirmed Nicola addressed an audience in an auditorium packed to the gunnels with many thousands of members all fully committed to the cause of independence and expecting a rallying call to renew the fight for freedom from their leader. But they were to be disappointed.

She used her acceptance speech as First Minister to reassure her Unionist opponents her administration would be more than just a vehicle for constitutional campaigning. It would provide good government for all Scots always fully operating within the rules put in place by Westminster

She dwelled longest on her achievement of becoming the first woman to lead a Scottish Government. Her election showed “the sky’s the limit” for women and girls across the country, she told the audience before then saying:

“But it is what I do as First Minister that will matter more – much more – than the example I set by simply holding the office.”

Then, Looking up towards her niece Harriet, eight, in the gallery, she added:

“She doesn’t yet know about the gender pay gap or under-representation or the barriers, like high childcare costs, that make it so hard for so many women to work and pursue careers. My fervent hope is that she never will; that by the time she is a young woman, she will have no need to know about any of these issues because they will have been consigned to history. If, during my tenure as First Minister, I can play a part in making that so, for my niece and for every other little girl in this country, I will be very happy indeed.”

She had set her priorities for the future. The fight for independence was to be continued but within the limits of responsible governance. But her primary mission was to advance the cause of women.

What followed was a media frenzy in which Nicola was feted by women’s rights organisations worldwide including invitations to visit the USA and address female leaders and human rights activists the UN. She would become the new “Angela Merkel” and inspire women to a better future in politics and business.

 

 

 

Devo max

A cross-party commission, led by Lord Smith of Kelvin, was set up agree upon the implementation of the Unionist’s “Vow” which would be the greatest transfer of powers from Westminster to Scotland since the reopening of the Scottish Parliament 15 years before.

So what happened?

The Commission Panel concurred that their discussions and outcomes would be formalised without consultation with external bodies and went on to commit to 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. Other powers to be devolved included: 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. An agreed draft of “Heads of Agreement” proposals was published on 21 November 2014.

But many of the foregoing commitments were axed on the final day, at the instigation of Unionist parties, without explanation and it was revealed later that Commission panel members of Unionist persuasion, 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 commitment permitting the Scottish government to vary the components of Universal Credit, which merged Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing Benefit, Income Support, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and Employment and Support Allowance, was rejected by Westminster.

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.

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 the trade union movement in Scotland was struck out and relegated to the “additional issues” annexe of the final report, which said the Scottish and UK governments would merely “consider” changes.

Also included was the 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 the 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.”

The Commission chairman, Lord Smith of Kelvin, gave the impression he added weight to the views of the three main Westminster parties over panel members. A source saying: “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.”

 

 

 

Devo max was not delivered by the Unionists who decided many important powers would remain with Westminster, including:

The Barnett Formula, setting the block grant from Westminster.

The state pension, including the pension age.

National Insurance, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Corporation tax, fuel duty, oil and gas receipts.

Universal Credit, the new DWP system for delivering working-age benefits, including the rates and sanctions regime- Housing benefit, maternity pay, statutory sick pay, bereavement allowance and child benefit.

The National Minimum Wage.

The Equality Act, but Scotland would be enabled to set new rules, such as gender quotas within the government.

Overall responsibility to manage risks and shocks to the economy, including retention of the power to levy UK-wide taxes if required.

 

 

The SNP response

John Swinney, who had led the negotiations for the SNP Government said:

“We regret that job creation powers, welfare powers, control over the personal allowance or national insurance have not been delivered. We welcome the new powers – as we support all progress for Scotland – and pledge to use them when they are in place in the best interests of the Scottish people. We also welcome the acknowledgement of the ‘sovereign right’ of the people of Scotland, and our ability to proceed to independence if we so choose. But the proposals clearly do not reflect the full wishes of the people of Scotland, and also fall far short of the rhetoric from the “No” campaign during the referendum.

Harking back to the referendum campaign it is important to highlight the illegal and late intervention of former Labour Party Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, only days before the referendum and well within the “period of purgatory” when acting with the authority of the Unionist Government, he promised that in the event of a “no” vote the reward for Scotland would be “Devomax” which would be as close to a federal state as the UK could be.

Brown, no longer a statesman, was given 2 hours of BBC prime time television and a hand-picked unionist supporting studio audience to promote his illegal, game-changing ploy which had been apparently condoned by the Electoral Commission.

Regrettably, the Westminster government and other political Unionist supporters failed to deliver the powerhouse parliament the people of Scotland had been promised. Under the proposals delivered, much less than 30 per cent of Scottish taxes would be to be set in Scotland and less than 20 per cent of welfare spending would be devolved. Most significantly, the proposals did not include the job-creating powers that Scotland so badly needed to get more people into work and grow the economy, nor welfare powers to tackle in-work poverty. This was not “Home Rule” – It was the continuation of Westminster rule.

Of significance for the future the final report contained the following statement:

“Reflecting the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, as expressed in the referendum on 18 September 2014, and in the context of Scotland remaining within the UK, an enhanced devolution settlement for Scotland will be durable, responsive and democratic. And it is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

And Scots, fed up to the back teeth with the Unionist Party’s refusal to honour their promise of “Devomax” gave notice of their determination on independence in a UK General Election only a few months later.

 

 

The 2015 General Election

At the time of his resignation, reportedly forced on him by a small group of senior SNP managers, Alex Salmond could not have foreseen the landslide SNP victory (gained only six months later) in the 2015 General Election.

A success brought about by the disgraceful backsliding of “Unionist” politicians, their Civil Service helpers and other parties interested only in the containment of Scots within the existing political constraints.

The much-touted joint Unionist commitment to fully implement their “Vow” !!!!……to devolve powers to Scotland, just short of independence, proved to be a “lie” that broke the hearts of many Scots who had voted to remain in the Union only on the substance of “Unionist! promises.

Private polling, in the months before the election, provided an early indication of a marked upturn in the fortunes of the Party and the battle for the hearts, minds and votes of Scots was taken up, once again, by those who would not be denied Scotlands freedom from an oppressive Westminster political machine.

Alex, semi-retired from active politics by many, consulted the Party hierarchy and gained their reluctant support for his challenge for the Banff & Buchan constituency. Which he subsequently won.

An unprecedented 56 SNP MP’s were elected in a landslide, just about eliminating the Unionist Parties in Scotland. The nation had spoken. Independence should have been declared, but repeating the errors of the past, tartan wearing, bagpipe playing SNP MP’s, and their supporters descended on Westminster determined to shake the House of Commons to its core, forcing change leading to another independence referendum. But they had not consulted those that had elected them preferring to embrace the instructions of the SNP leaders who advised Scots that:

“Westminster is going through culture shock in coming to terms with the fact the SNP did so well in the election. That we are here in such strong numbers, elected as Scots who support independence, is also not lost on them. We were elected to pursue an anti-austerity agenda and more devolved powers for Scotland. and we will do just that.”

But they had chosen to misread the will of the Scottish nation which was to abandon the “Treaty of Union”. And yet again, as on previous occasions, they were to be sorely disappointed. The “old lady of parliament” simply adjusted her skirts and swept them aside with contempt.

 

 

 

Consequences

The influence of a large body of SNP MP’s at Westminster had been of little matter when set against the blatant refusal by the Unionist parties to uphold their 2014 referendum promise to devolve additional powers to the Scottish parliament and when the UK held yet another General Election only a year later the Unionist campaign managers of their Scottish branches agreed to assist each other, cutting back on political campaigning where they had little chance of gaining a seat instead promoting the cause of the Unionist candidates regardless of persuasion. Tactical voting had arrived, with a vengeance. And it worked a treat.

 

 

 

Peter Murrell

A complacent SNP election team, led by its Chief Executive and Campaigns Manager, Peter Murrell (Nicola Sturgeon’s husband) failed to anticipate the new tactics of the Unionists and lost many good MP’s.

And Murrell has form. Under the leadership of John Swinney, he directed the organisation and delivery of the disastrous 2003 Holyrood election, in which the Party lost eight seats which resulted in the resignation of John Swinney as SNP leader in 2004 and a bid for the leadership of the Party by Nicola Sturgeon, which she was forced to withdraw when Alex Salmond announced his intention to add his name to the list of contenders. She subsequently agreed to take on the role of Deputy leader of the Party and to “stand-in” for Alex as the Party’s “Holyrood leader” while he remained an MP at Westminster.

Few people know Murrell who is rarely seen, except at elections and at Party events, where he is nearly always present in the main auditorium, usually standing in the shadows to the side of the stage whispering instructions to Cabinet ministers as they prepare to make keynote speeches. He is a powerful general blessed with a salary in excess of £100K and a level of authority more comprehensive than the casual watcher could possibly realise.

 

 

 

The Feminist agenda

In the years following her elevation to the leadership of the Party Nicola turned Scottish politics on its head. Female SNP politicians and careerists now dominate the Party hierarchy witnessed in the ongoing Alex Salmon inquiry which revealed the First Minister’s Cabinet to be predominantly female, with seven of its 12 members women. And an all-female team reporting to her, comprising: Chief of Staff, Liz Lloyd, Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans, Director of People, Nicola Richards and the Head of People Advice, Judith Mackinnon.

 

 

 

Summary

There is a growing disquiet among members, supporters and independence activists that the Party has lost its way under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon in the years since the 2014 referendum. And it is no longer the Party of independence having morphed into the Party of Government in Scotland. A role to which the Party founders never aspired.

Critics also highlight that neither Nicola nor her Party Chief Executive husband and has ever attended, fronted or supported any of the many dozens of marches and or rallies organised and delivered across the country in the past 6 years, by many hundreds of thousands of Scottish independence activists.

Conversely Nicola appears to be always available to provide public support and photo opportunities through her attendance at rallies, throughout the UK, organised by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender groups.

The priorities for the leader of the Scottish national Party should be gaining independence for Scotland. That and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An update – The Alex Salmond debacle

Judith Mackinnon left her post in July 2017 and took up employment in a newly created post as “Head of People Advice for The Scottish Government”.

She reported to Nicola Richards, who had been appointed to her new role as “Director of People”. It was she who appointed MacKinnon to be the “Investigating Officer”

An early priority was to assist the process of drafting a complaint procedure and McKinnon would surely have been guided by urgent recommendations contained in the January 2017 Police Authority audit report of a similar complaint procedure she had introduced when employed in a senior personnel role by the Authority.

One particular recommendation comes to mind.

“Misconduct Regulations state that the subject officer must receive immediate formal notification of the misconduct allegation once it has been determined that an investigation is required and an investigator has been appointed but before the start of an investigation so that the subject officer can be provided with an opportunity to address it if it is their wish.”

But recent revelations are uncovering a “can of worms”

It has been revealed that on 29 November 2017, Richards and MacKinnon discussed with “Ms. A”, (one of the women who went on to make a formal complaint of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond in January 2018) the content of a draft procedure they were proposing to introduce so that harassment complaints could be actioned against former Ministers, in retrospect.

The document was sent to the Cabinet Secretariat to be retyped.

On 1 December 2017, Richards, emailed James Hynd, the Head of the Cabinet Secretariat;

“Would you be able to send me the latest version of the process? I agreed with “Perm Sec” that I would test it with some key individuals.”

Hynd, replied within the day, attaching the latest version of the draft procedure as requested. He wrote;

“Here you are.”

Richards and MacKinnon met again with “Ms. A” on 5 December 2017 and again discussed the content of the draft procedure then sought “Ms. A” confirmation that the procedures would have helped her at the time and how to put in place safeguards for the future.

Helped her with what??

Later, on 5 December 2017, Richards met with Permanent Secretary, Evans following which she worked late into the evening making changes to the document.

Just before midnight that day, she distributed the revamped document to James Hynd, “Head of the Cabinet secretariat”, MacKinnon and an unnamed lawyer. Her email stated;

“As discussed today, I’ve made some revisions to the process”

There was evidently some urgency in moving the matter forward to a conclusion, confirmed in yet another email in which Richards wrote;

“I’ve updated the timeline – and this is the final version of the policy I’ve sent to Perm Sec.”

The “air” of finality clearly suggested that the civil servant team, supported by legal opinion were confident it would be signed off and introduced.

Nicola Sturgeon approved the introduction of the procedure on 20 December 2017.

 

Comment

The decision to appoint an “investigating officer” should not have been instructed by Richards on her own!!!!  But did she?  Assuming the procedures had been adjusted following the Police Authority recommendations she would have been required to sign off the investigation process with one other, a more senior officer. That would be Evans.

And yet another titbit: On 25 August 2020, in evidence given, on oath, to the Salmond inquiry, James Hynd, “Head of the Cabinet Secretariat” stated:

“To be clear – if I was not earlier – the first that I heard about any allegations was, I think, on 24 August 2018, when there were press reports. I knew nothing before then about any complainer or anybody raising concerns. I knew nothing about the appointment of any investigating officer or about any sharing of the draft procedure with any individuals.”

Well, well, well !!!!!!!!! The worm turns!!!

 

 

 

The Police Authority and Judith Mackinnon

MacKinnon was Head of Human Resources governance for the Scottish Police Authority between 2015 & 2017.

Her prime responsibility was to provide assurance to the Authority that they were a responsible employer and a sustainable organization, achieving this goal through the introduction of efficient personnel policies aiding the professional development of management and staff.

The first years following the formation of the Authority were plagued by complaints of harassment and wrongdoing in the force, primarily led by the Unionist Press who seized on every incident, no matter the rights and wrongs of it to undermine the SNP Government.

The Government was forced to order an independent audit of the Authority’s human resources and other departments that had been subject to criticism.

In January 2017 the Scottish Police Authority Complaints Audit was published: (https://pirc.scot/media/4447/spa-audit-report-2017.pdf)

 

The Undernoted concerns were recorded

A lack of transparency and clarity surrounding the complaints processes.

The length of time taken to deal with complaints and to undertake preliminary assessments in misconduct allegations.

A lack of communication between the Authority and senior officers who were the subjects of complaint.

Communication between the Authority and senior officers was inconsistent. In some instances, subject officers had been invited to address allegations/complaints whilst in others, an invitation had not been extended.

On a number of occasions, the first officers became aware complaints had been made about them was through media coverage.

Responsibility for ordering a preliminary assessment of misconduct allegations rested with a manager who had little or no relevant knowledge or experience and expertise.

 

Conclusions

The complaint handling procedure in place is neither effective nor efficient and lacks transparency and unclear guidance resulted in organizational confusion as to whether a matter should be dealt with as a “relevant”.

The average time taken to conclude complaints and preliminary misconduct assessments is excessive and disproportionate to the level of inquiry undertaken or required of the Authority.

Decisions of the Authority lacked clarity and transparency and in many cases did not contain sufficient explanation to demonstrate how a decision had been reached.

Notifying senior officers about misconduct allegations and ‘relevant complaints’ made about them was inconsistent. In some instances, senior officers were not notified but in other cases, they were notified but sometimes at the beginning or on occasions at the end of the process.

Whilst there is no statutory requirement to notify a senior officer about an allegation or to ask him/her to comment on an allegation until after an assessment has been carried out and an appropriate investigator has been appointed.

But the subject officer must receive formal notification of a misconduct allegation once it has been determined that an investigation is required and an investigator has been appointed and before the start of any investigation.

 

 

Chairpersons Statement:

Susan Deacon, (SPA chair), said the report identified a “number of important areas” requiring the authority’s attention. And it was essential that the Authority’s systems and practices were robust and worked effectively to maintain public confidence and trust.

Addressing the concerns of senior officers, procedures would be revised requiring more than one “deciding” officer to ensure key decisions were taken ensuring better oversight of the complaints process.

 

 

 

 

Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints

John Swinney:

“You wrote to three Scottish Government civil servants on 29 October asking questions in
connection with the Committee’s work. As you know, civil servants work on behalf of Ministers,
and so I am responding to your questions on behalf of the Scottish Government.

In relation to your letter to Liz Lloyd…………………………………………………

In relation to the letter to John Somers…………………………………………….

In relation to your letter to the other civil servant……………………………….

In relation to the development of the procedure………………………………..

In relation to the judicial review………………………………………………………

And finally:

“I would be grateful for your further assistance in addressing my continuing concerns
about some interactions between civil servants and Committee members at the Committee.
As we have previously discussed, civil servants play an important role in supporting Ministers
who are properly held to account by Parliament for the actions of the government. The rules
governing civil servants’ appearances are well established and understood by all parties and
normally work well, in my opinion. Scottish Ministers have a duty of care for civil servants employed by the Scottish Government. While the normal rules that usually govern the way we work together are not observed by all Committee Members, the ability of Ministers to discharge that duty of care for these witnesses is jeopardized.”

Complete letter here:(https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/20201106DFMtoConvener.pdf)

 

Comment: Swinney takes the investigating committee to task over its questioning of three civil servants who may be in possession of information relevant to the inquiry. His assertion that civil servants report to Scottish Government Ministers and as such all questions relating to their work should be addressed to their political masters is for students of the Law to discuss and decide upon but in my opinion, his view is coloured by a need to buy time. But for what purpose?? And compare his defense of Scottish Government civil servants and their actions against the active participation of Westminster based civil servants who aided and assisted “Better Together” campaigners and foreign governments against Scots in the  2014 Referendum Campaign.

 

 

 

 Civil Servants Seconded from Westminster to the Scottish Office in 2014

Francesca Osowska: “All activities undertaken by civil servants in my Department would meet a propriety test, yet I think you would agree that in the run-up to a referendum, obviously when Ministers want to be more visible, when we need to ensure that there is a good flow of public information for example, via the Scotland analysis papers that increase our activity and that is why there was an increase between 2013-14 out turn and 2014-15 out turn.”

* But reflect on the proudly broadcast admission of the self-same Civil Servants that they had been seconded to the Scottish Office (in Westminster) and had been tasked, to provide active support to the “Better Together” campaign. Actions that brought about the defeat of Scots who wished only to be an independent nation once again. What a bunch of charlatans.

 

 

November 2014: Team of senior civil servants seconded from the Treasury to the Scottish Office to actively participate in the Better Together campaign in the 2014 referendum 

Sir Jeremy Heywood took great pleasure in awarding the team “The Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award 2014” in recognition of their outstanding achievements in helping defeat Scots separatists on an issue of national importance. Glowing with pride after the presentation some of the leaders were quoted:

Mario Pisani Deputy Director at HM Treasury said:

“We all had something in common, we’re trying to save the Union. We just kept it by the skin of our teeth. I actually cried when the result came in. After 10 years in the civil service, my proudest moment is tonight and receiving this award. As civil servants, you are prevented by statute from getting involved in politics. So, for the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were actively involved in everything from the analysis to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being publically recognized (at the Civil Service Awards), makes me feel just incredibly proud.”

Paul Doyle; Senior Treasury Official

“This award is not just for the Treasury, it’s for all the hard work that was done by all government departments in Westminster and in Scotland assisting the “Better Together” campaign on the Scotland referendum agenda. In all my experience of the civil service, I have never seen the civil service pull together in the way they did behind supporting the UK government in maintaining the United Kingdom. It was very special to all of us.”

Shannon Cochrane; Senior Treasury Official 

“We’ve learned that politicians are able to task civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult. This places the actions of civil servants very close to the line of what is lawful, but it’s possible to find your way through and to make a difference.”

William MacFarlane; Deputy Director HM Treasury, (Budget and Tax Strategy)

“As civil servants, you are not allowed to get involved in the politics of the country. But, for the first time in my life, we’re part of a political campaign. We were involved in everything from analysis to advertising, to communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. Recognition of our work being recognized (at the Civil Service Awards), makes me feel just incredibly proud.”

Note:

The secondment of 20-30 senior civil servants from the Treasury to provide professional support to the “Better Together” campaign was done without the knowledge of the Scottish Government. Adding insult to injury the Scottish Office met all of their salaries and on-costs using finance provided to Scotland. (The civil Service World) (All comments paraphrased)

 

Civil Servants and Janus Faced Illegal politicking Against Scots

Francesca Osowska, in a number of evasive statements, neglected to reveal that Civil Servants had, in a  gross misuse of public finances, been authorized at the highest level of the UK Government to actively support the objectives of the “Better Together” campaign.

She confirmed that Mundell retained access to funding sufficient to employ up to 100 whole-time equivalents (W.T.E.) posts and that salary and incidental costs arising from such employment are (top sliced) from Scotland’s block grant before the allocation of finance to the Scottish government.

The slush fund created is an ever-increasing annual financial nest egg, skimmed off Scotland’s block financial grant and used, abused by Scottish Office management for anti-devolution leaflet production, printing, and distribution and the secondment of Civil Servants from other Government Departments and employment of Special Advisors (SpAds), often well connected to friends of ministers or other MP’s.