The New World Order – Part one – Sleepwalking to Disaster


The New World Order Is Decided

Gordon Brown 10 November 2008 “As America stands at its own dawn of hope, so let that hope be fulfilled through a pact with the wider world to lead and shape the 21st century as the century of a truly global society.”





The New World Order – The dogma that Drives the labour Party




Gordon Brown and His Vision Of A new World Order


The CIA Call The Tune And The Labour Party Dances To It – Scotland Sold For American Gold – But To The Deep Pockets Of The Party Not The Public




The Isle of Iona

Close followers of the Scottish political scene will have noted recurring links between the Labour Party and the Isle of Iona.

John Smith, Labour Party Leader (dec)is buried there. His widow is Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, is a political figure of note in her own right.

One of John Smiths daughters, Sarah was married there. Another daughter married Labour Lord Robertson’s son on the Isle of Islay.

The Reverend Douglas N Alexander, a long time member of the Iona Community and lifetime friend of John Smith conducted all of the events.





Reverend George Macleod

The charismatic founder of the Iona Community was the Reverend George MacLeod, who once stood as Labour candidate in a rectorial election for Glasgow University.

The Iona Community and was regarded by some in the Kirk as a Jesuitical conspiracy pushing the Kirk simultaneously towards Catholicism and Communism.

Consequently Iona Community members found the doors of many parishes in Scotland closed to them: they were seen as dangerous men. Divinity students contemplating joining the Community were warned about their career prospects. MacLeod never made excuses for his involvement in politics, citing Knox and the Covenanters as precedents. He once said:

“If churchmen are not politically involved, you soon get the spectacle of RCs and Communists dominating our trade unions – as now they do,” he wrote in reply to one critic. “As to Labour choice, it is not a bad thing to introduce the Faith into Labour policies, which, left to secularists, could indeed veer into Communism … What matters even more is the continuance of democracy as a living cause in our midst and not the Labour, or any other party, in permanent ascendancy. But to achieve this Christians must be involved.”

MacLeod’s manifesto was received warmly by the Alexander family and others deemed to become dominant UK political figures. MacLeod, was their “hero.”

His experiences of war persuaded him to the view that Nuclear weapons were a blight on mankind and should be banned. It followed that membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was a must for followers of his doctrine.


26918_1DA-as-JC-at-ScDouglas Alexander (in his mother's arms) and his family at his baptism on the Isle of IonaThe Alexander Family

The Iona Community & Glasgow University Set

Douglas Alexander (senior) joined the labour party whilst studying at Glasgow University in the early 60’s and enjoyed a lifetime friendship with many members of the University (Labour Party) clique. The environment in which the Reverend Douglas N Alexander’s children and the children of other members of the community were nurtured was heavily politicised in favour of socialist policies. He had two children:

Wendy. Sponsored and mentored by the British American Project (BAP), she enjoyed a rapid rise to fame at the start of the devolved Scottish Parlament. She was responsible for the introduction of a number of progressive policies. She took time out to enjoy life with her newly born twins but returned to politics not long after. The early death of Gordon Dewar resulted in some turmoil in the Party and a number of leadership campaigns culminated in Wendy making a bid for the leadership. She failed and retired once more from politics taking up a career in education.

Douglas. Sponsored and mentored by the British American Project (BAP), he was elected to Westminster and gained rapid promotion to high office in the Labour Party.


p1833Donald Dewaramerican-british-cartoon-bubblearticle-1127334-032DB91B000005DC-607_468x341

The Glasgow University Clique

* Donald Dewar (dec) Married Alison Mary McNair. She took up a relationship with his friend, Derry Irvine. They divorced in 1973. They had two children, Iain, who became an artist and Marian, now a Senior Civil Servant with the European Commission..


article-0-03D2820A000005DC-250_306x423    Derry Irvine and Mary McNair.   1365498Alistair Irvine


* Baron Derry Irvine, (lord Chancellor with New Labour).,_Baron_Irvine_of_Lairg .

His son Alastair took up body-building during his late teens and became a professional personal trainer in a joint business with a former soft porn model, Carole Caplin. The business failed.

Alistair went off to America and lived the high life for a time becoming a crack cocaine addict. He was imprisoned in the US for stalking an ex girlfriend and threatening to shoot her boyfriend. he is now a reformed character having given up drugs.

It was Alistair who introduced his bisexual friends, Dwina Murphy-Gibb (wife of the Late Robin Gibb) and Carole Caplin to Cherie Blair.


article-2270948-1541BC71000005DC-446_308x425cherieDM_468x475CaplinMOS1507_228x677Carole Caplinindex


Tony and Cherie Blair (nee Booth) were given vital pupillage (practical traineeship in law) by Derry Irvine assisting them to become Lawyers. At their wedding he dubbed himself “Cupid QC” for having introduced them.

Not long after the unexpected death of John Smith king-maker, Derry Irvine, in conversation told Peter Mandelson, head of Labour Party strategy that Tony would need to be the next Labour Party leader. Peter Mandelson then made it happen. Much to the chagrin of Gordon Brown PhD and all the other hopefuls for the Labour Party crown.





* John Smith (dec) leader of the UK Labour Party. Smith and friend Denis Healey (Founder Member) were members of the Steering Committee of the influential Bilderberg Group. He had three daughters:


_40138863_labour_hq_238_39170727_smith_family_2383702099155The Smith Family


Eldest daughter Sarah is a radio and television news reporter with BBC Scotland having joined in Spring 2014 for the run-up to the independence Referendum on 18 September 2014. Smith has covered many important news stories in he career.

Daughter Jane is the head of events at Napier University in Edinburgh. She married Malcolm Robertson, (son of John Robertson) head of Scottish public affairs for the British Airports Authority (BAA).

Youngest daughter Catherine is an advocate practicing in Scotland. She studied History and Law at Glasgow University gaining an MA (Hons) and LLB and later gained her Diploma in Legal Practice at Strathclyde University. She practiced as a solicitor in private practice in Scotland for a number of years prior to becoming an advocate.

* Elizabeth Margaret Smith (nee Bennett), Married the late John Smith. She is the Lords Chair of The Labour Friends of Israel. A fluent Russian speaker, she is also a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which provides parliamentary oversight of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6, (GCHQ) and the Security Service (MI5). She is an advisory council member of the foreign-policy think-tank, the Foreign Policy Centre.,_Baroness_Smith_of_Gilmorehill


Baroness_SmithBaroness Smith550aa32404Baroness Ramsay180px-Meta


* Baroness Margaret Ramsay,(MI6 agent) and foreign policy advisor for the late John Smith.,_Baroness_Ramsay_of_Cartvale

Another example of infiltration into the Labour Party MI6 officer Margaret “Meta” Ramsay had been elected President of the Scottish Union of Students.

In 1962, she became associate secretary of the CIA-front the International Student Conference at Leiden, Holland.

From 1965 to 1967, she was secretary of the Fund for International Student Co-operation, which was later identified as another recipient of CIA funds.

She became an active member of the Labour Party, attending conferences where party officials were “unaware” of her intelligence connections.

In August 1992, she was appointed to the position of foreign policy adviser to her university friend, Labour leader John Smith. As well as raising a few eyebrows, this appointment begged the question: What was the leader of the Labour Party doing employing a known high-ranking MI6 agent in such a senior position?

A fluent Russian speaker, she has been involved with the American backed and funded “Institute for Jewish Policy Research” and the “Zionist Labour Friends of Israel.”



* Sir Menzies Campbell, (former leader of the UK Liberal Democrat Party).



gordonJames Stuart Gordon (Baron Gordon of Strathblane)

James Stuart Gordon (Baron Gordon of Strathblane). Closest friend at university and best man at John Smith’s wedding.

James was Chairman of the secretive, “Glasgow Common Purpose” organization and in a chequered career has been the holder of many influential posts in the Scottish Media, business and Public bodies. A staunch Labour Party supporter throughout his lifetime.,_Baron_Gordon_of_Strathblane



Dr Vince CableJohn Vincent (Vince) Cable


John Vincent (Vince) Cable, Secretary of State For Business, Innovation and Skills since 2010 Although not at university with him Vince Cable was active in the Labour Party, and was Special Advisor to John Smith in 1978 when he was Industry Secretary in the Labour Government.



brown310891543_10200359113057645_2152538000516619062_nPeter Mandelson Mellowing



The Rise to Power – The Piper Decides the Price

Labour politicians, including Donald Dewar, John Smith, Gordon Brown, George Foulkes, George Robertson and the late Robin Cook were precisely the types the intelligence services longed to see take control of the Labour party and it is believed that contemporaries and acquaintances of these leading Scottish Labour figures took active roles in organisations sponsored and endorsed by MI6 and the CIA. Sunday Times, 15 June 2003.


10991403_217840175053356_3045992987456186701_nDONALD DEWAR MPLord-Robertson_2532499bcook_robin


Elizabeth Smith (John Smith’s widow) was approached. So was Margaret ‘Meta’ Ramsay, President of the Scottish National Union of Students between 1959 and 1961, who worked at the Fund for International Student Co-operation (FISC) where the organiser was George Foulkes:

“In 1969 the Radical Student Alliance published a pamphlet alleging that FISC was a CIA front. That was denied, but in 1969 Ramsay joined MI6. She was a specialist in the Scandinavian states.”

Some people in the intelligence community claim that a firm called Hakluyt had been started by MI6 officers to carry out “deniable” operations. It was disturbing to read that the late John Smith’s widow had been given a job with Hakluyt. A smoking gun if ever there was one. Hakluyt being an MI6 company it is difficult not to conclude that Mrs Smith had been placed there for purposes of surveillance. There was speculation after John’s death that he had been poisoned.



fuchs_hakluyt180px-MetaMargaret Ramsay



The Americans meantime had been cultivating Blair, Mandelson and Brown since the eighties, and Blair was too promising, and manipulable, for them to pass up. Meta Ramsey must have ‘failed’ John.


brown pocketmoneyarticle-1380915-039E0A4F0000044D-344_634x432Peter Mandelson Mellowing


When John Smith became leader of the Labour Party he was a member of the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group: the steering committee, the inner core. He got Gordon Brown invited to the 1991 meeting, incidentally…



Who was John Smith? Genial, whiskey-drinking Scots lawyer from the traditional Labour right. But also life-long chums with a senior MI6 officer, now Baroness Ramsay. Lady Smith, his widow, is now on the board of Hakluyt, a MI6 front company.

John Smith also took on an advisor – Ed Balls, a Financial Times leader writer – an ideologist for globalisation, in effect – who learned some of his economics at Harvard . Like other Labour personnel, including Yvette Cooper MP, whom Balls later married, and David Miliband, head of Blair’s policy unit, Balls had spent a year in America as a Kennedy Scholar.



balls3yvette_cooperThe Balls  yvette cooperballs9


Virtually all of Labour people have some connection to America and American money…Tony Blair took the US government’s free tour of the States in 1986 and told his hosts that while officially a member of CND he supported the nuclear deterrent. He joined the CIA front, Labour Friends of Israel in 1983.


500Leader_173171125-600x374There’s no such thing as Scottish Labour Read the sign



While Shadow Home Secretary in 1994 Tony Blair took an Israeli government freebie holiday in Israel. On his return the number two at the Israeli embassy in London introduced him to Michael Levy – now Lord Levy – one of the top fund-raisers for Jewish charities.




The Labour Party And A Promise Betrayed – A Scottish Parliament with Full Home Rule – Scots Never Forget Those Who Renege On A Promise


article-2270948-1541BC71000005DC-446_308x425News Corp Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch attends The Times CEO summit at the Savoy Hotel in Londonimagesert


1999: A Promise Betrayed- A Scottish Parliament with Full Home Rule

New Labour under the leadership of Tony Blair fell under the spell of the USA and Press baron Murdoch. The lurch to the right brought with it new thinking about Scottish devolution, to which he had been forced against his will, to commit to by John Smith politicians within the new government as part of the leadership campaign. The difference agreed to by Blair was the emphasis to be placed on Scottish devolution and the amount of powers to be transferred to it.

Donald Dewar, good friend of John Smith and keen supporter of Scottish Home Rule reluctantly agreed to devolution with minimum powers with a promise that, over time the authority of the new parliament would be expanded to full home rule effectively creating a UK federal State with a central governing body taking charge of concerns with an external bias. He died before the commitment would be honoured. New Labour reneged on their commitment.

Scot’s have long memories and provided with the opportunity through the ballot box removed the Labour Party from power over Scottish political affairs and on 7 May 2015 the rout will be complete with the rejection of the Labour Party in Scotland.

It could all have been so different. Had John Smith lived Scotland would have benefitted from full Home Rule and the Labour Party would have retained the trust of the Scottish electorate.




April 2014: John Smith – Scotland’s lost leader

In a remarkably prescient 1992 speech at Strathclyde University John Smith questioned the nature of British democracy, warning that people were losing faith in the democratic process; arguing government had become remote and overly centralised.

He objected to the clawing of power back to the centre, the stifling of voices of dissent and the closing down of channels of open and accountable government.

He argued that democracy needed reform and the process of centralisation needed to be reversed and he wanted to restore people’s faith in their system of government.

Key to that reform was, he believed, the conscious devolution of power to the nations and regions of the UK, and the first step was the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, effectively committing the Labour Party to establish that parliament as the “settled will” of the Scottish people.

Smith was a convert to devolution in the Seventies, not because he saw it as a means of killing “nationalism stone dead” or to buy time for a Labour government, but because he saw it as a means of addressing a democratic deficit, bringing politicians closer to the people and making them more accountable for their actions.

While administrative powers were increasingly ceded by Whitehall to the Scottish Office, answerable only to the secretary of state, there was no corresponding devolution of political control over Scottish affairs to the Scottish people over areas of policy that had a direct impact on the lives of Scots. That had to change.

A Scottish Parliament, he believed, was essential to the democratic governance of “our nation”, by which he meant the United Kingdom not just Scotland and in Smith’s view “unfinished business”. Devolution was in the interests of the UK, not just Scotland, and a key part of the democratic renewal of the British constitution and its civil institutions.

It would be a parliament to legislate on matters unique to Scotland but with a government in Westminster to address the wider concerns of the UK as a whole. Mike Elrick:  Press Officer to Labour leader John Smith



Red Tories In Scotland Increasing Distribution Of Leaflet’s Full Of Lies – Lying Liebour Needs Exposing




Murphy at it again with his GE leaflet lies. These need to be challenged in public so that Scots attention is drawn to the misinformation policy of the Red Tory Party




February 2013: The Living Wage

The living wage, designed to reflect the actual cost of living, is paid voluntarily by some employers. The SNP Scottish government has guaranteed the living wage to its own staff and says it would like to extend its application. EU employment law does not provide for a universal living wage.

In a recent statement Nicola Sturgeon said “We don’t disagree with the objective of making payment of the living wage a mandatory requirement of public contracts. We’re the first Scottish government to adopt the living wage for all of our employers and we encourage all other employers, public private, third sector, to pay their staff the living wage.”

The Chair of the Scottish Living Wage Campaign Peter Kelly said “With the problem of in-work poverty continuing to increase, the Scottish Government’s continued support for the Living Wage must be congratulated. Today’s announcement will ensure that some of the lowest paid workers in the public sector will receive a wage increase that will provide real help in these difficult times. We look forward to working with the Scottish Government to ensure that more employees across Scotland can get the benefit of the living wage.”





May 2014: Zero Hours Contracts

The SNP government position: “Zero-hours contracts are not always appropriate and present many people on benefits with real challenges in managing their income. While the UK government is encouraging the use of zero hours contracts, the Scottish SNP Government has been looking at options available to tackle the issue within its limited powers. As employment policy is reserved to Westminster, this is yet another example of how we can do things differently, and better, with independence.”

February 2015: Press release from Jim Murphy announced that Scottish Labour will abolish exploitative zero hours contracts and make work pay for Scottish families.

He said “In this May’s election, Scotland can choose to end the scandal of exploitative zero hour contracts by sending Scottish Labour MPs to kick out the Tories and form a UK Labour Government. There are 84,000 proud Scots who are too often forced into zero hour contracts. Too many are left worried about whether they will have enough work and wages to be able to put food on the table from one week to the next. Many are blocked from getting credit they can afford and turn to extortionate pay day loans. It’s no way to treat people who want to work hard and get on in life. When working families prosper Scotland prospers, when people have decent pay and conditions they spend more and Scotland’s economy grows. That’s the way to build a fairer Scotland. Too many Scots who want to work rather than be on benefit are caught in a cycle of poverty pay. They have no idea what they will earn from one week to the next. In 2015 too many Scots are still exploited for their labour. I am determined to change that once and for all. In May we can replace the Tories with a Labour Government who will ban exploitative zero hour contracts. The SNP had their chance to ban zero hour contracts last year and they let people down. It’s time to bin these exploitative contracts once and for all.”

April 2015: Ed Miliband pledged that workers on zero-hours contracts will have the right to regular employment after 12 weeks. The policy, will be included in Labour’s election manifesto. So Murphy is at it again. Employment rights are not delegated to the Scottish Parliament as such he will need to conform to the will of the English Labour party.



March 2015: Rent Controls

Rent controls were in place from 1915-1989 in the UK after legislation was passed in the House of Commons in response to the Glasgow rent strike of 1915. Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government got rid of the controls in 1989.

Since that time, private rent prices have skyrocketed, and campaigners say a cap on rents would save billions in housing benefit payments which, they argue, is effectively a subsidy for landlords.

Nicola Sturgeon said the Scottish Government is consulting on the introduction of rent controls to address high prices in the private-rented sector in Scotland.

During a questions session after her lecture at the London School of Economics (LSE), she was asked by a member of the audience about what the Scottish Government would do to tackle “the housing crisis” in Scotland, and specifically whether she would consider the introduction of rent controls, which is a cap on the prices landlords can set rents at.

She replied the most fundamental issue was “to build more houses”, adding that the Scottish Government scrapped the right-to-buy scheme because it didn’t make any sense to lose that investment into social housing.

She further added that the government “were consulting” on the issue of rent controls, saying that there was a “strong argument for it. But, she stated it must be balanced with a need for “a good and high quality supply of private sector housing.”



A Labour Victory Will Be Handing Unfettered Power To The Irresponsible Politicians Who Flogged Our Gold Reserves For A Pittance – A Large Group of SNP MP’s Will Be Able To Moderate Their Behavior



Browns Bottom – Sale of Britains Gold

Newspaper headlines, at the time summarised Gordon Brown’s decision to sell off Britains gold reserves at the bottom of the market as “the worst economic judgement ever made by a chancellor.”

Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor and Ed Miliband, Leader of the Labour Party, were close aides to Brown when, between 1999 and 2002, he ordered the sale of almost 400 tons of the gold reserves when the price was at a 20-year low. Since then, the price has increased manyfold meaning the decision cost taxpayers an estimated £20 billion. A huge amount which would have eased the burden of austerity which has been borne by the taxpayer in the period 2010-15 and is expected to continue until at least 2020.

It is understood that Brown pushed ahead with the sale despite serious misgivings at the Bank of England. It is not thought that senior Bank experts were even consulted about the decision, which was driven through by a small group of senior Treasury aides (Balls & Miliband) close to Brown.

After a public outcry and many aborted “freedom of information” requests the Information Commissioner was finally forced to hold a series of “private” meetings with the Treasury following which he agreed for much of the paperwork to remain hidden from the public so there has only been a “limited” release of information.


Where did it go wrong?

* The price of gold has increased markedly since Brown sold more than half of Britain’s reserves.

* The Treasury pre-announced its plans to sell 395 tons of the 715 tons held by the Bank of England, which caused prices to fall.

* The bullion was sold in 17 auctions between 1999 and 2002, with dealers paying between $256 and $296 an ounce. In January 2015 gold was selling at $1400 an ounce.

* The taxpayer has lost an estimated £20 billion, five times the amount lost when Britain left the ill-fated Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992.,_1999%E2%80%932002



A brief history – England and Wales Voted To Leave The EU – Scotland Voted To Remain – Early indications are that the Unionist parties will opt to remain with the UK – This could be the start of another bitter battle for independence

EU_flag-0011             20111029_brd001_0           images4


11 February 2013: The Labour Party Has Not ruled out a referendum On EU Membership

The Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said the party could not afford to be painted as against letting people have their say and it would be “stupid” to rule out a referendum on Europe. He said Labour should be arguing for reform in Brussels without being against a referendum in principle.

Mr Balls’s remarks came as David Cameron today attacked Labour’s position on a future referendum. He said leader Ed Miliband could not criticise him for creating “uncertainty” – without saying if Labour was in favour of a poll or not.

Mr Balls insisted Labour had “absolutely not” ruled out a referendum. He said: “As long as we don’t allow ourselves to be caricatured as an anti-referendum party, which we’re not – we’ve absolutely not ruled out a referendum – I personally think that for now this is quite a comfortable position for us. “If we allow ourselves either to be the ‘status quo party’ on Europe, or the ‘anti-referendum party’ on Europe, then we’ve got a problem. “But I think we would be pretty stupid to allow ourselves to get into either of those positions.”

Mr Balls’s remarks appear to contradict Labour’s original position on holding a referendum. After Mr Cameron announced his plan to hold an in-out referendum by 2017, Mr Miliband said Labour’s position was: “We don’t want an in/out referendum.”

He said such a move would put “Britain through years of uncertainty and take a huge gamble with the economy”. A Labour source said it was “ridiculous” to suggest there was a difference between Mr Miliband and Mr Balls’s remarks.

The source said Labour was against announcing a referendum that would take place in four years time. The source added: “As Ed Miliband set out in his speech at the CBI in November, Labour believes our priorities should be to promote growth at home and secure influence abroad. “Both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls believe announcing an in/out referendum at the moment will not help either of these priorities.”


126392_600                  Steve Bell 28.11.14            jose-manuel-garcia-scottish-independence



29 October 2014: Cameron rejects giving Scotland veto in EU referendum

Prime Minister David Cameron rejected on Wednesday a proposal by the Scottish National Party (SNP) that the United Kingdom should only quit the European Union after a future referendum if a majority in each of its four constituent parts vote to do so.

Cameron has promised a referendum in 2017 on Britain’s continued EU membership if his Conservative Party, which has grown increasingly Eurosceptical, wins a 2015 national election.

Incoming SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said earlier on Wednesday the United Kingdom’s EU exit should only go ahead if approved by majorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as in England, home to 85 percent of the UK population.

“We are one United Kingdom. There will be one in/out referendum (for the EU) and that will be decided on a majority of those who vote. That is how the rules should work,” Cameron told the Westminster-based UK parliament in response to Sturgeon’s proposal.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have varying degrees of autonomy but the British government in London controls foreign policy and is not legally required to consult the regional administrations over issues such as EU membership.

However, the SNP criticised the stance, saying that London’s promises of real constitutional change after Scots rejected independence were being broken. “This knee-jerk rejection by the Prime Minister to a perfectly reasonable and balanced proposal to reflect Scotland’s interests in Europe flies in the face of what he and the No campaign promised during the independence referendum,” said Pete Wishart, an SNP member of the British parliament.

Polls show that Scots, are more likely to back EU membership than the English. The SNP have said that they are not seeking another referendum on Scottish independence, but that this depends on circumstances such as continued EU membership.

Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon said it would be wrong to force Scotland’s five million people to leave the EU against it’s own wishes.


74487894_saltireeu_gettytwo-150x150                      _73026463_73026462                imagesweri



18 February 2015: UK’s Labour under pressure over EU referendum as senior official quits

Britain’s opposition Labour Party came under pressure to offer voters a membership referendum on leaving the European Union on Wednesday after a senior official quit over the issue and a major donor prepared to call for a policy U-turn.

Unlike Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, Labour has resisted offering such a referendum in the run-up to a close May 7 national vote, arguing it would hang a “closed for business” sign over Britain and that an EU exit would be disastrous.

It has said it would only offer a referendum if it deemed there was a substantial further shift of powers from London to Brussels, something that’s neither imminent nor likely.

But some in the left-wing party, parts of which have a tradition of Euroscepticism, argue it’s undemocratic to deprive voters of a say on something polls show many feel uneasy about.

There’s also disquiet — from a tactical viewpoint less than three months before the election — that Cameron’s Conservatives are the only ones offering to renegotiate Britain’s EU ties before holding such a referendum if re-elected.

On Wednesday, a former head of Labour’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee, said she was leaving the party and switching her support to the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) because she was “disillusioned” by its Europe stance.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, former NEC chair Harriet Yeo said she had been told many senior Labour lawmakers favoured a referendum but had been asked not to speak out. “I cannot support this approach,” she wrote. “It is time to decide whether we remain in the EU. The only party I trust to offer us that choice is UKIP.”

Her resignation came as a major Labour donor prepared to urge Ed Miliband, the party’s leader, to commit to hold a referendum. “If Ed Miliband becomes prime minister in May and renegotiates without committing to a referendum, he will inevitably weaken the UK’s bargaining position,” businessman John Mills, who donated 1.65 million pounds to Labour in 2013, will tell a conference in London.

In remarks prepared for delivery to the event on alternatives to EU membership, he will say that other EU members will be more likely to take renegotiation seriously if there’s a substantial risk of Britain leaving the EU.


Ed Miliband and shadow chancellor Ed Balls                          arton5776


10 March 2015: Brown warns against making Scottish referendum mistakes with Europe

Gordon Brown has warned that those in favour of the UK’s membership of the European Union are running the risk of losing an referendum on the issue. In an article for this morning’s Guardian, he writes that Eurosceptics are using the same tactics of the pro-independence campaign in the Scottish referendum, which was closer than many predicted.

The former Prime Minister wrote:

“A poll that started off as a contest between two patriotic visions of Scotland’s future – one inside Britain one outside – descended into a choice: are you for Scotland or against Scotland? Thousands were persuaded that a yes vote was the only way to show themselves to be patriotic Scots.

“Anti-Europeans are slowly, and with surprisingly little public acknowledgement, pulling off the same trick by framing Europe – the subject of what could be the next referendum – in the same way. What should be a choice between two patriotic futures for Britain – one as part of Europe and one outside it – is already descending into a more basic emotional choice: are you for Britain, or are you for Europe?”

It is interesting that the premise of Brown’s piece seems to be an acceptance that an EU referendum is, if not inevitable, then at least likely. This would be at odds with Labour policy, as the party is heading into the election with a firm opposition to a referendum.

Brown says that if untackled, UKIP would engender widespread feeling that “blames foreigners, targets immigrants, engenders a siege mentality against the outsider and says that Britain is barely recognisable to those who believe in it.”

He is not the first major Labour figure to lend his support and advice to the pro-EU cause; Better Together chair Alistair Darling said on announcing his retirement from the Commons that he wanted to be more active campaigning for EU membership, while Alan Johnson is understood to share similar sentiments from inside Parliament.

Brown, who is standing down from Parliament this May, argues that there is a danger of “fighting with the wrong weapons” and that a “fact-based campaign” could alienate those who already feel left behind by politics:

“Sadly we pro-Europeans are in danger of fighting with the wrong weapons: a worthy, London establishment-led corporate-financed fact-based campaign of “the great and the good”, whose commitment to Europe is admirable but whose prominence will be used by anti-Europeans to justify the allegation that Europe is for an elite who don’t understand the real Britain.”

While all of this is an intriguing intervention from the former Chancellor, it has been largely overshadowed by his belief that Britain leaving the EU would make the country like North Korea, “out in the cold with few friends, no influence, little new trade and even less new investment.”



daily-express-23012013                            imageshiol                                imagesrghio



31 January 2015: What are we going to do about the EU?

It would be reasonable to expect that austerity measures would be top of the 2015 GE agenda but the truth is that there is little difference between the big Westminster parties on austerity.

Sure the Conservatives are looking to claim Labour will raise the deficit with un-costed policies, but Labour also seem to be keen to show themselves as strong on the economy by denying that they will tax and spend.

Normally the parties would look for a unique selling point such as the SNP’s “Stronger for Scotland” but the Westminster parties have no substantial points of difference on key policies.

The exception being UKIP, the party that David Cameron really has to beat to win a majority, and that is why the UK General Election arguments will largely focus on the EU.

Last year Ipsos – Mori stated that 53% of Scots would vote to stay in the EU and 34% to leave, and Survation found that Scots were 5% less likely to support leaving the EU than the average for the rest of the UK.

I believe that if Labour doesn’t also offer a referendum on EU membership they won’t win outright, so I predict that regardless of who wins in May we will have an EU referendum.

That support for EU membership will rise in Scotland, especially given the SNP Government’s popularity and its full on commitment to EU membership, and that the rest of the UK will, through UKIP’s influence, move towards the exit door but it is too tight to call.

But will the Labour referendum include a veto for Scotland & Wales. If the Labour Party line is the same as the Tory and Lib/Dem Party’s will the Scottish Labour Party conform with the London labour Party or will it support the will of the Scottish electorate?


images33                                        imageshiol                               imagesnnnnh






Ruth Davidson – Ardent supporter of remaining in the EU Sees her future with the UK

Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth Davidson said she was strongly against a second referendum in a hastily arranged speech outside her party’s headquarters following Sturgeon’s address.

Davidson said: “I do not believe a second independence referendum will help us achieve that stability nor is it in the best interests of Scotland.

“The 1.6 million votes cast in this referendum in favour of Remain do not wipe away the two million No votes that we cast less than two years ago.

“Also, we do not address the challenges of leaving the European Union by leaving our own union of nations, our biggest market and our closest friends. I believe in Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom today as much as ever.

She added she believes the “strength, security and durability” of the United Kingdom will endure.



Results by Country



24 June 2016: Cameron resigns (in October 2016) as Prime Minister following referendum defeat

The secretary of state for Scotland David Mundell has offered to meet the Scottish Government to discuss the country’s “next steps”.  Mundell said: “David Cameron has been a great leader of my party and of our country. I was proud to be one of his first supporters during the 2005 leadership election and I have never regretted that decision for a moment. “His achievements in rescuing our economy and in social reform will stand the test of time. Today he has once again put country before self.  “As the Prime Minister made clear this morning, the UK Government is absolutely committed to working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure they are fully involved in the negotiation process. The Prime Minister has already spoken to the First Minister and I have today offered to meet with the Scottish Government in Edinburgh to discuss next steps. The United Kingdom has fundamental strengths and this is a time for calmness and deliberation – not pushing other personal or political agendas.”

Lets Get the Alleged Trump Putin Link-up Into Context – MI6 & G.C.H.Q. Spymasters – Illegally Monitor – Investigate, Retain & Share Internet Data of Scottish MP’s- MSPs, Civil Servants and Everyone in Scotland




13 June 2013: GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world’s communications

British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA, latest documents from Edward Snowden reveal.






25 June 2013: Is ‘The Five Eyes Alliance’ Conspiring to Spy on You?

Did you know that the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand participate together in an electronic eavesdropping cooperative called “The Five Eyes Alliance”? Or that Britain “has secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world’s phone calls and internet traffic and has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information which it is sharing with its American partner, the National Security Agency”? That’s big news, right!






27 January 2014: Snowden docs reveal British spies snooped on YouTube and Facebook

The British government taps into the cables carrying the world’s web traffic at will and spy on what people are doing on some of the world’s most popular social media sites, including YouTube, all without the knowledge or consent of the companies.





4 February 2014: Whistleblower Snowden Documents Show UK Spies Attacked Anonymous, Hackers

The blunt instrument the spy unit used to target hackers, however, also interrupted the web communications of political dissidents who did not engage in any illegal hacking. It may also have shut down websites with no connection to Anonymous.






7 February 2014: Whistleblower Snowden Documents Show British Spies Used Sex and ‘Dirty Tricks’

British spies have developed “dirty tricks” for use against nations, hackers, terror groups, suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into “honey traps.”






24 July 2015: Holyrood targeted by British spooks at GCHQ

SPOOKS have changed top-secret rules so they are free to spy on MSPs. Explosive documents show that the UK’s electronic eavesdropping agency last month dumped guidelines which had constrained spies from tapping MSPs’ phones or hacking their emails.

The revelations about GCHQ will spark fury at Holyrood and reignite conspiracy theories about the role of the security services in fighting the growth of pro-independence feeling.

They are also likely to bolster fears the intelligence community were monitoring politicians’ and activists’ communications during the referendum campaign.

The fact that the change to existing guidelines was made in the aftermath of the September 18 vote might be viewed as an action taken to cover previous activities.

Internal policy documents obtained by the Record show GCHQ – responsible for mass surveillance in Britain – had extended the decades-old Wilson doctrine to MSPs until March of this year.

The convention is named after former prime minister Harold Wilson, who pledged in 1966 that MPs’ and peers’ phones would not be tapped.

In December 1997, then PM Tony Blair said it extended to electronic communication, including emails.

However, the policy was never officially extended to cover the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland once they were set up in 1999.

And while GCHQ said it had voluntarily treated MSPs in the same way as MPs until March this year, it can be revealed that they have now changed the policy so MSPs are no longer included.










In 2013, the late independent MSP Margo Macdonald asked the head of MI5 for assurances that the UK security services would stay out of the Scottish independence referendum.

It is not known what response she received but in an interview at the time, she said she believed the SNP and the Yes campaign had been infiltrated by the intelligence services.

Details of how the UK spooks are free to spy on MSPs emerged as the UK’s most secretive court began a rare public hearing.

It will examine what legal protections are in place to stop interception of elected politicians’ communications by the intelligence community.

The hearing of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in London confirmed the emails and phone calls of MPs and members of the Lords should be protected by Wilson.

But MSPs – along with members of other devolved assemblies and the European Parliament – have no legal protection.

Before March, official guidelines to GCHQ staff said: “As a matter of policy, GCHQ applies the principles of the Wilson doctrine to Members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Lords, UK MEPs, and Members of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.”





But new guidelines issued last month simply state: “The doctrine does not apply to …. the interception of communications of Members of the European Parliament or devolved assemblies.”

In their analysis of the documents, lawyers Ben Jaffey and Jude Bunting said: “All protection for devolved legislators has been removed.”

The pair are representing Green Party politicians Caroline Lucas and Lady Jones, who claim disclosures by whistleblower Edward Snowden made it clear GCHQ was capturing their communications – in breach of the Wilson agreement.









14 October 2015: GCHQ given green light to spy on MSPs, court rules

GCHQ is legally allowed to collect and read the private communications of MSPs, MPs and Lords, a court has ruled, overruling a decades old rule which forbade snooping on Westminster politicians.

In a surprise decision, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) said the ‘Wilson doctrine’ did not preclude the bulk collection of data through programs such as Tempora, as exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, who brought the issue to court alongside Baroness Jenny Jones, called the ruling a “blow for parliamentary democracy.

Established by former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1966, the rule forbids the interception of communications between MPs and their constituents by police or intelligence agencies. It came in response to complaints from MPs who were concerned their telephones were being tapped by security services.







Home Secretary Theresa May recently assured MPs that the decades-old convention remained in force.

The Wilson doctrine applies, but of course it is subject to proceedings that are taking place at the moment.

In its judgement, the IPT ruled that the Wilson doctrine has in practice “no legal effect.”

The Wilson doctrine does not operate so as to create a substantive legitimate expectation.”

The Wilson doctrine has no legal effect but in practice the [intelligence] agencies must comply with the draft code and with their own guidance. The regime for the interception of parliamentarians’ communications is in accordance with the law.”

The IPT added that unlike journalists’ and lawyers’ communications, there is no [European court of human rights] authority for enhanced protection of parliamentarians.


© Kieran Doherty



The Wilson doctrine, as now enunciated and put into effect, highlights a need for caution and circumspection in respect of parliamentarians’ communications. But such caution and circumspection will be called for in respect of many other types of confidential and sensitive private communications, which come to be considered under the interception regimes.”

Green MPs Caroline Lucas and Jenny Jones condemned the ruling as “deeply worrying.”

This judgement is a body-blow for parliamentary democracy. My constituents have a right to know that their communications with me aren’t subject to blanket surveillance – yet this ruling suggests that they have no such protection,” said Lucas.

The prime minister has been deliberately ambiguous on this issue – showing utter disregard for the privacy of those wanting to contact parliamentarians.”



A dispute among senior officials at the Government's top-secret listening post are to be exposed in a tribunal case brought by a civil servant.




20 January 2016: European human rights court rules mass surveillance illegal -Decision may kill off UK government spying law

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that mass surveillance is illegal, in a little-noticed case in Hungary.

In a judgement last week, the court ruled that the Hungarian government had violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy) due to its failure to include “sufficiently precise, effective and comprehensive” measures that would limit surveillance to only people it suspected of crimes.

Under a section of the 2011 National Security Act, a minister of the government is able to approve a police request to search people’s houses, mail, phones and laptops if they are seeking to protect national security.

That process does not require judicial review or approval and the law does not provide the circumstances under which the surveillance can be ordered (unlike other parts of the same law). A minister can order the surveillance for 90 days and extend it by another 90 days and there is no obligation to delete any of the information gathered during that time once the surveillance is ended.





So what does this mean for the UK?

The decision cannot stop the UK government, for example, from passing legislation that allows for mass surveillance.

But it does mean that if the UK does, it will almost certainly be taken to the ECHR and found to have violated the European Convention. The UK government can of course continue to ignore that ruling, but it would face fines and it would lose international standing and reputation.

The Tory government is not a big fan of the court, having previously complained that it is interfering in national issues, as it did when it found that the UK government’s effort to extradite convicted terrorist Abu Qatada to Jordan was a violation of human rights, as he would be unlikely to get a fair trial.

In the end, the UK and Jordan agreed to a treaty that meant information extracted from him under torture could not be used in a trial (shortly after he was deported to Jordan and put on trial, found not guilty and released from jail in September 2014). Complete waste of many hundreds of thousands of pounds by the UK government.

As such, the ECHR’s rulings have been shown to have a direct and significant impact on the behaviour of countries within the European Union.



Surveillance graffiti image via shutterstock