caltonjock

Sir Brian Souter

• Context:The European Union awaits a decision from President Trump regarding potential tariffs on its goods, threatening a significant trade relationship valued at trillions of dollars.
• These tariffs, if implemented, could dramatically increase costs for consumers and companies on both sides of the Atlantic, sparking retaliatory measures from the EU. The core issue lies in trade imbalances and regulatory differences.
• Detailed Summary:
  • Trade Volume:The EU-U.S. trade relationship is the most important globally, with goods and services valued at $2 trillion in 2024, averaging $4.6 billion daily.
  • Trade Imbalance:The U.S. has a trade deficit with the EU, largely due to a goods imbalance of approximately $233 billion, although the U.S. has a surplus in services.
  • Tariff Threats:Trump initially imposed a 20% import tax on EU-made products, later reduced to 10% but threatened to raise it to 50%. The EU is prepared to retaliate with tariffs on American products.
  • Key Issues:
    • The U.S. criticizes EU agricultural barriers, particularly health regulations.
    • Trump has also criticized EU value-added taxes (VAT).
  • Potential Impacts:
    • Higher tariffs could lead to increased prices for U.S. consumers.
    • Companies like Mercedes-Benz and Campari Group are considering their pricing strategies.
    • Some companies, like LVMH, may shift production to the U.S. to avoid tariffs.
  • Perspectives:
    • Economists warn of negative consequences.
    • Trump aims to stimulate American manufacturing with tariffs.
    • EU officials express a desire for a deal, but are prepared to retaliate if needed.
    • AP News

Scotland – The fight for home rule a stepping stone to independence

The movement for home rule evolved in the 1980s and 1990s with the Scottish Constitutional Convention emerging as a key player.

The Convention published the Claim of Right for Scotland, asserting the right of the Scottish people to determine their own form of government.

The Convention produced a report with detailed proposals for a devolved Scottish Parliament, which ultimately led to the 1997 referendum and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.

The Scottish Covenant and the subsequent Constitutional Convention was led by Paisley born, Canon Wright, an inspirational figure who played a crucial role in the long-term push for devolution and the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.

Canon Kenyon Edward Wright -Born: 31 Aug, 1932; Died: 11 Jan, 2017

Canon Kenyon Edward Wright was born in Paisley, the son of a technician for the major local employer J&P Coats, he attended Paisley Grammar, studying later at both Glasgow and Cambridge universities.

He was the man who had possibly the strongest claim to have been the godfather of devolution. He will be remembered for his role in cajoling disparate Scottish opposition groups to work together and moulding a single coherent case for constitutional change.

He was invited to lead the seemingly impossible task of creating a consensus that was to drive the path towards a second devolution campaign and the resulting creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.

In doing so, he set a mark for political campaigning in Scotland. By the second referendum, he had even brokered the return to the fold of the Scottish National Party, which had boycotted the convention.

The arrival of Canon Wright to the political stage, as executive chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, kick-started the home rule campaign with an assertion of the sovereign right of Scots to determine their affairs. Although hardly a household name, he was recognised then as an articulate Church figure and an energetic campaigner fascinated by politics and community activism.

At 23, newly married, he travelled with his bride, Betty, to India as a Methodist missionary. Their sojourn was to last 15 years.

In 1970, he returned to the UK as director of urban ministry at the prestigious Coventry Cathedral. He was quickly promoted, and directed the cathedral’s international ministry.

Now a Canon, he returned home to Scotland in 1981 as general secretary of the Scottish Churches Council, an appropriate post for an Episcopal priest well used to working with other denominations to achieve shared goals. He was still in his forties and keen to make his mark. His arrival came as the Christian churches were experiencing decline. A once notably pious nation was lapsing rapidly into secularism, even agnosticism.

Inspired by the efforts of Roman Catholics aiding the Solidarity movement in Poland and at odds with the right wing politics of Margaret Thatcher which she proudly espoused to the General Assembly in her infamous Sermon on the Mound. He decided it was time Scots had a voice in decision making within the UK

The Conservatives had long opposed devolution, and relied on the internecine warfare between the opposition parties – particularly Labour and the SNP – to continue what was effectively “direct rule” from Westminster.

In this context, Canon Wright made his now-celebrated comment: “What if the other voice we all know so well responds by saying ‘we say no, and we are the state’? Well we say ‘yes – and we are the people’.”

When he arrived, the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly had produced the Claim of Right for Scotland, which was to be the basis of the convention’s work.

Canon Wright pulled together its constituent partners, including political parties, trade unions and other interests. He did so with a certain style, and produced the convention’s final report in 1995. Its main points were adopted by the New Labour government in 1997, and approved by referendum that same year.

2014: Protecting the Children-the regime’s first attempt at gaining control of children

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 was an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed on 19 February 2014.

The legislation was part of the SNP Government’s “Getting it right for every child” policy implementation.

The scope of the act made provision for the rights of children and young people.

The provision of services and support for or in relation to children and young people. Children’s hearings, detention in secure accommodation and consultation on certain proposals in relation to schools.

The provisions of the act gained the support of parents, professionals involved in childcare provision, children’s organisations and charitable institutions and implementation of the new measures was scheduled to be implemented from 2015.

But the public became increasingly concerned about the wisdom of a “Named Person” when press coverage revealed the propensity for the abuse of children.

Press Report:

Dayna Dickson-Boath was appointed one of the first Named Persons in Scotland, but is now banned from working with children for the rest of her life. 

She had held a senior position at a secondary school in Moray, but yesterday consented to being struck off by the General Teaching Council for Scotland on the charge that, between 8 August 2014 and 10 September 2014, she “did send, by means of a public electronic communications network, messages to another person that were grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, in that you did converse regarding the sexual abuse of children”.

Dickson-Boath was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register and ordered to undergo treatment when she was convicted in Elgin Sheriff Court.

A trickle of protests reached tsunami strength at the start of 2015 as concerns were raised about aspects of the legislation which were draconian, poorly drafted and “Big Brother State”.

The SNP government ignored requests for a dialogue and forced the new measures through.

But the public would not be denied and a number of Scots parents and Christian organisations took the SNP government to court in an effort to get parts of the act repealed.

They failed in their efforts and all appeared to be lost. But they gathered strength from increasing support of Scots who had been alerted to what the SNP government was seeking to impose on the nation.

They appealed to the UK Supreme Court.

2016: The Supreme Court Judgement – The Named Person Scheme

In their summary ruling against the introduction of the scheme the Supreme Court judges noted that the appropriateness of the novel new legislation hinged on the government’s assertion of a need to ensure the “wellbeing” of the child.

But “wellbeing” was not defined and reliance on SHANARRI indicators (standing for Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible and Included) were also not defined and were in some cases notably vague.

A unanimous ruling of Supreme Court judges also stated: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world.

They were also agreed that the idea that parents must comply with any advice given “could well amount to an interference with” Article 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life).

The Court also held that the legislation’s data sharing provisions, which they held were central to the role of the named person, “are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.

And yet, In his 2016 speech to the Scottish Parliament following receipt of the judgement Swinney insisted that the judgment itself did not require current policy to change.

His message to local authorities and health boards was to continue to develop and deliver the named person service.

Encouraging the disregard of the Supreme Court ruling set a dangerous precedence since in continuing the development of the named person provision, its information gathering and sharing processes the Deputy First Minister encouraged unlawful practice by state bodies.

Dr Jenny Cunningham, a recently retired community paediatrician from Glasgow said that the named person scheme was “illegitimate and illiberal” and argued that an open democracy depended on the principle that “parents ought to be autonomous in relation to their own families”. he continued saying: “The underlying assumption by the SNP government is that adults are unable to identify vulnerable children – so the state has to intervene! This belittles parents. She concluded: “We should strongly resist and argue against this idea that parents are incapable of assessing children’s wellbeing needs and accessing services – parenting is about establishing good relationships with children and establishing parental authority.”

Maggie Mellon, an independent social work consultant said: “It’s important that we understand the rationale and the ideas underpinning the legislation. The SNP government has made it clear it thinks the Supreme Court judgment is purely technical and they’re going to plough on regardless. But there is no duty under the Act to consult or collaborate with parents. It’s just not there. We’ve been treated to flights of complete fancy about the voluntary nature of the scheme. We were told it was in response to parents’ demands – then we were told it was to save children from their parents. A Named Person can’t provide a hot meal, a pair of shoes, a warm home but they can spend time doing SHANARRI somersaults with 300 wellbeing outcome signifiers and 200 risk indicators! It wont work.”

Aug 2018: Plan B to by-pass MSP’s and implement the Named Person Scheme by the Backdoor

The SNP Scottish Government is considering controversial proposals to implement the detested named person scheme “by the back door” even if MSPs refuse to support changes to the law.

Discussion of a so-called “Plan B” is revealed in documents which were only made public, after a Freedom of Information (FoI) request was submitted.

The papers were produced following a meeting of unnamed top level government officials and advisors in February 2018. An annex under the headline “CONTINGENCY” stated: “Contingency plan?

What if the legislation is not passed?” And adds: “Plan B for if Bill fails to make sure parts 4&5 can be implemented without information sharing.” The scheme was riddled with problems and a delay was revealed.

Swinney set up a panel to produce a Code of Practice by September 2018, after Holyrood’s Education and Skills Committee said it would not pass the legislation without one.

But Professor Ian Welsh, chair of the panel, wrote to Mr Swinney to inform him that the panel would not be able to meet this deadline.

Lesley Scott of the TYMES Trust, said: “These worrying documents show the focus is clearly on implementing Named Person Scheme by the back door, regardless of whether the new Bill gets through Parliament.

Clearly, we are now dealing with a Government which is ignoring the UK Supreme Court, has no regard for the elected representatives of the Scottish people and is determined to shun public opinion. They are riding roughshod over the democratic system in pursuit of a flawed, failed and discredited project.”

Lesley asked to be provided with details from three key meetings of the Statutory Guidance Framework Group tasked to review the named person scheme in October and December 2017 and in February 2018.

Subsequently only one set of minutes was released and was useless since the names of all persons in attendance had been redacted. An appeal was submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office seeking a review of this decision to withold the documentation.

Maggie Mellon, former chair of the Scottish Child Law Centre, said: “The names of all present including the chair are all redacted. So much for open government. There is no way of identifying which agencies are providing wrong advice or whether the persons present represent their colleagues and agencies properly.

Is it now so toxic to be associated with the named person scheme that people are not willing to have their names made known”? Adding: “These are presumably many of the same people who advised the government so badly first time round, that breaching confidentiality is ok even when any concerns fall well below the proper threshold. What is so important about this flawed scheme that it has to be pushed through” ?

Sep 2019: Named Person Scheme Scrapped?

Deputy First Minister John Swinney announced in the Scottish Parliament:

“We will now not underpin in law the mandatory named person scheme for every child. We will withdraw the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill and repeal the relevant legislation. Instead, existing voluntary schemes that provide a point of contact for support will continue, under current legal powers, when councils and health boards wish to provide them and parents wish to use them.”

Summary

The July 2016 UK Supreme Court judgment stated:

“The sharing of personal data between relevant public authorities is central to the role of the named person scheme” and concluded that the information-sharing provisions were incompatible with the rights of children, young persons and parents under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and may in practice result in a disproportionate interference with the article 8 rights of many children, young persons and their parents, through the sharing of private information were “not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”, deeming the legislation “defective” and blocked it from coming into force:

Bizarrely, Swinney responded to the ruling saying:

“I welcome the publication of today’s judgment and the fact that the attempt to scrap the named person service has failed”.

So after nearly three years of battling against the wishes of Scots and an order from the Supreme Court he refused to accept that his mandatory named scheme, with legal powers to grab and share private information could not be imposed without breaching the human rights of children and families. It had to be scrapped.

So, where did we go from there? Swinney, issued his dictate saying:

“Existing schemes that provide a point of contact for support will continue, under current legal powers, where councils and health boards wish to provide them and parents wish to use them.”

So schools are still able to operate a voluntary named person service, but it will have to adhere to current data sharing frameworks. There will no longer be a statutory Named Person service imposed on every child in Scotland.

As the 2016 Supreme Court judgment stated:

“Care should therefore be taken to emphasise the voluntary nature of the advice, information, support and help which is offered”.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html
https://no2np.org/ Comprehensive coverage here

The SNP government’s agenda for change

Nicola Sturgeon and her personal advisors decided the WOKE agenda for change would be fully supported by the Scottish government

When complete Scottish society would be turned on its head fitting the concept of a fully integrated society modelled to the thinking of the WOKE activists.

But all of the electorate had to be on-board or there would be stress unhappiness and strife. The breakdown of the electorate in Scotland:

Heterosexual: 95%. LGBTQ/WOKE: 5%, of which 0.5% are transgender.

The adoption of the WOKE agenda by the SNP Government required full transparency in public life, (since WOKE was a campaigning body within the Party) and the change would introduce a legal obligation for any person seeking public office to declare their sexuality so the electorate would be informed before choosing a candidate at an election. A requirement callously ignored by Sturgeon.

Political representation

Why should Scots care about what is happening in the SNP? Canaries in coal mines springs to mind!

Political coups can be achieved through violence or WOKE style!! by abusing the institutions of democracy circumventing and ultimately destroy it.

Sturgeon responded to younger members leaving the Party with an extraordinary video saying she would personally deal with ‘transphobia’ within the Party, but she neglected to say what that meant. This would decided on by the National Executive Committee (NEC).

But her comments were widely taken to be a warning to feminist SNP politicians such as Joanna Cherry. The ‘dog whistle’ was followed up by action.

Joanna Cherry was sacked as shadow spokesperson on justice and home affairs by Ian Blackford, the SNP’s Westminster leader.

It was left to Cherry herself to inform the world. She tweeted: “Despite hard work, results & a strong reputation I’ve been sacked today from @ the SNP front bench.”

On 31 January 2021, the National Executive Committee of the SNP passed an extraordinary motion for the Scottish elections in May.

Members of the Scottish Parliament were to be elected through a combined constituency and list system. This meant that each constituency had an MP, the numbers being topped up through a regional list to ensure equity in terms of the votes. There were eight regions.

The NEC decided that in four of the regions, the SNP person at the top of the list (and therefore likely to get elected) would be BAME, in the other four they would be disabled.

The NEC were advised by a QC that the proposal would almost certainly be ruled illegal if challenged in court. Despite this they passed it through a casting vote of the chair.

two problems arose!

First; the changes were discriminatory. In half of the regions, all are excluded unless they were BAME (even though they might be disabled).

Second; in the other four all were excluded unless they were disabled (even if they were BAME). If they happened to be white and non-disabled, they were excluded from standing at all!

It is the second reason that was astonishing. The SNP – following the WOKE guide to self-declaration declared that disabled status would be granted by ‘self-declaration. The list included, asthma, depression, Tourette’s syndrome, borderline personality disorder, and diabetes.

The changes resulted in open warfare within the SNP between WOKE activists and traditional members which included feminists who were disparagingly referred to as TERFS (Trans-Exclusionary Reactionary Feminists).

The self-identification process meant that any wrong headed individual could legally self-identify as a disabled, BAME woman in order to get a job or political position and there would be nothing that anyone could do!

And in the night of the long sgian dubhs, Blackford, got rid of Joanna Cherry one of the most effective and intelligent politicians within the shadow cabinet.

The gerrymandered WOKE activist takeover of the NEC, heralded early dismissal from the Party for anyone not in support its agenda.

Scotland had morphed into Sturgeon’s WOKE Republic

SNP WOKE representation at Westminster

The demographics of Scotland indicated 95% of the population were heterosexual. LBGTQ/WOKE factions took up 5%, of which 0.5% claimed to be transgender.

The population of Scotland was around 5.5 million providing a split of 5,225,000 heterosexuals and 275,000 LBTQ/WOKE. The latter group would comprise 1375 people claiming to be transgender.

Accepting Sturgeon’s declaration of equality for all, the split of MP’s at Westminster should have been; Heterosexual: 42: LBGTQ/WOKE: 2:

But the gerrymandered NEC had done its job. The bulk of candidates selected were LGBTQ/WOKE. Sturgeon had succeeded The SNP was now a political Party in her own image.

The General Election contingent sent to Westminster comprised around 40% WOKE/transgender. The Party was unrepresentative of Scottish society.

Exacerbating the situation all but two were appointed to senior posts within the SNP Westminster leader’s Shadow Cabinet, (straight from the dole to cabinet status office). and there were financial perks/rewards.

Shadow ministers are not normally remunerated for duties additional to their MP commitments, (since there are none), but favoured WOKE/transgender MP’s were provided with additional payments using £1.5m short money allocated to the party which was a misuse of the finance and provided a motive explaining the methodology behind the group’s reluctance to fight for an independent Scotland.

The SMP shadow cabinet

Stuart McDonald: Home Secretary. LGBTQ

Stewart McDonald: Defence Secretary. LGBTQ

John Nicolson: Culture, Media and Sport. LGBTQ

Alyn Smith: Foreign Secretary. LGBTQ

Martin Docherty-Hughes: Industries Future/Blockchain LGBTQ

Joanna Cherry: LGBTQ

Angela Crawley: Attorney General. LGBTQ

Hannah Bardell: Foreign Affairs Team. LGBTQ

Mhairi Black: Secretary of State for Scotland. LGBTQ

Kirsten Oswald: Deputy & Minister for Women & Equalities. LGBTQ

Kirsty Blackman: Economy Team. LGBTQ

Patrick Grady: Chief Whip LGBTQ

Owen Thompson: Chief Whip. LGBTQ

Not declared status

Stephen Flynn: Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Dave Doogan: Defence Team and Agriculture
Brendan O’Hara: Cabinet Office
Allan Dorans: Foreign Affairs
Steven Bonnar: Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Stewart Hosie: Independence campaigning
Chris Law: International Development
Douglas Chapman: Small Business & Innovation
Tommy Sheppard: Cabinet Office Minister
John McNally:  Environment Spokesperson
David Linden:  Work and Pensions
Chris Stephens: Fair Work & Employment
Peter Grant: Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Richard Thomson: Northern Ireland and Wales
Ronnie Cowan: Infrastructure & Manufacturing
Drew Hendry:  for International Trade
Alan Brown: Energy and Climate Change
Martyn Day: Public Health & Primary Care
Angus MacNeil:
Gavin Newlands: Transport and Shadow Sport Spokesperson
Pete Wishart: Leader of the House of Commons
Ian Blackford: Westminster
Dr P. Whitford: Health, Social Care and Europe
Amy Callaghan: Pensions & Intergenerational
Dr Lisa Cameron: Mental Health
Deidre Brock: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Alison Thewliss:  Chancellor
Carol Monaghan: Education and Armed Forces and Veterans
Marion Fellows: Deputy Whip and Disabilities
Patricia Gibson: Housing, Communities, Local Government

Westminster controlled Scotland with an iron fist from 1707 through to the 1920s: The only thing devolved was contempt, poverty, poor housing and starvation.

Hope of change for the better arose in the early 1920s as a direct consequence of Irish indpendence, which encouraged debate and activism within intellectual communities.

Through this medium discussion evolved in differing ways leading to an expansion of , “the Scottish Home Rule Association (SHRA) which embraced the concept of “home rule” and the recently formed and fast growing Scottish National League (SNL) which was adamant that independence, (as the Irish had achieved) was the only way forward.

The political differences between the two groups was fundamental and discouraged any coordinated political activity.

The first sign of positive connection between the SHRA and SNL arose in 1930 when both groups marched together for the first time, in Stirling.

The message the parade broadcast was that the SHRA under the leadership of Roland Muirhead, a Westminster parliamentarian had given up trying to grow the movement with support of the Labour Party.

Muirhead and Thomas Gibson, leader of the SNL met soon after the march and were agreed the best tactic to take both groups forward was to form a new political party.

But the gap in the aspirations of their supporters was a difficult nut to crack. Would the way forward be devolved governance or independence. Discussions between the two sides was protracted and seemingly impossible to resolve.

They needed someone to hold their jackets and John McCormack, former member of the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association ( GUSNA) and the Independent Labour Party (IDP) was available and willing to take the task on.

McCormack had been active in Scottish politics for some time and persuaded Muirhead and Gibson to his view that there would be no progress without compromise.

They achieved this agreeing the best thing to do was to unite their supporters under one flag, (the saltire) other less pressing matters would be resolved at a later date.

The two groups, together with the Scottish National Movement (SNM) formed the National Party of Scotland (NPS) in 1928.

Bickering continued in the newly formed Party. One side preferring to campaign for home rule. The other, for independence, like Ireland.

A majority of Party members backed McCormick and Muirhead’s claims that the election of NSP, MP’s to Westminster provided the best opportunity with the assistance ot the Labour Party, to gain home rule within the Union.

The NSP had decided its political future. The nationalist faction went along with the policy in the belief that independence would evolve from a devolved government.

But the new party failed to make an impact. It had no clear policies to offer Scots beyond home rule, campaigning was uncoordinated and mixed messages promoted by candidates who reverted to advancing views at odds with Party policies.

McComack, a shrewd political operator knew urgent changes were required to ensure a future for the Party after the Labour Party ended its political friendship with Muirhead, compromising his usefulness.

There was another nationalist cause, the Scottish Party (SP) with policies much in line with those of the NSP. The barrier to linking the two parties was the radical members of the NSP. McCormack, agreed and in 1933 he banished independence activists from the Party.

An election opportunity surfaced providing an early test for the two Party’s, who agreed to campaign together. Their candidate did well gaining seventeen percent, exceeding anything previously achieved.

The Party’s merged in 1934 forming the Scottish National Party (SNP). Unity of purpose, home rule within the UK had been achieved, albeit without the independence activists on-board.

Graham Mann: Crime reporter for the “Scottish Sun” published a report on 24 Jun 2025, In it he made a number of allegations including the statement:

“Sex crimes in Scotland have rocketed with a shocking eight rape incidents reported every day. The shameful figures show almost 15,000 sickening incidents were logged by cops in just 12 months, the second highest level on record since 1971. Rape and attempted rape surged by 15% in the past year from 2,522 to 2,897 in 2024-25 – representing a 60% rise over the last decade.

My comment advises caution since Police Scotland, unlike England does not record crime statistics, including sex crimes, by nationality or specific ethnicity of offenders in their standard recorded crime data making detailed analysis by groups like Asian, Romanian, Scottish, English, Welsh impossible. The limitation renders claims about immigration not causing increased crime rates unreliable for verification, as there is no direct evidence to support such claims. The practice highlights the gap between perception and the paucity of available facts, with the evidence being warped toward other more acceptable factors to the Government like “increased reporting” and “socioeconomic conditions.”

Scottish Conservative shadow justice secretary Liam Kerr MSP commented:

“These shocking rises are the inevitable consequence of the SNP’s savage and sustained cuts to frontline policing. Whether it’s sexual crimes, other violent offences, shoplifting or domestic abuse, the trend is up, and Scotland’s streets are becoming less safe. “

“Worse still, the SNP’s use of diversion of prosecution orders often means criminals are not being properly punished – and therefore not deterred.”

“The increase in weapons being carried by school pupils exposes the epidemic of violence in Scotland’s schools – and the woeful inadequacy of nationalist ministers’ response to it. The buck stops with the SNP, who have undermined our police and left our justice system at breaking point.”

The Recorded Crime in Scotland 2024-25 bulletin shows that total crime remains at similar levels to 2023-24. However, overall sex crimes rose by 3% from 14,484 in 2023-24 to 14,892 in the latest annual tally.

Elsewhere the document reveals shoplifting shot up by 16% from 38,674 to 44,730 in the past year and 57% in the past 10 years.

There was a 50% increase in handling and using an offensive weapon within Scotland’s prison system from 72 cases to 108. And schools were also blighted by weapon-carrying offences with 152 crimes committed – an increase of 11%.

There was a 26% increase in domestic abuse crimes in the past year, 20 serious assaults on police officers and 12 serious assaults on emergency workers in the past year.

Supplying drugs increased by 14% in the past year from 4,223 to 4,802 crimes.

Another disturbing trend is a rise in crimes of indecent photos of children – up 11% from 747 to 828.

Other alarming increases noted in the Scottish Government report include youth violence, weapons in schools and shoplifting.

More positively, levels of non-sexual crimes of violence dipped slightly over the year and continue to be 23% lower than in 2006-07.Serious assault and attempted murder now at their lowest level since 1977.

Justice Secretary Angela Constance admitted ‘concern’ over the rise in sex crimes, adding:

“Violent crime is down significantly in the past 20 years, with serious assaults and homicide levels at record lows. However, we cannot afford to be complacent and I have been consistently clear that any instance of violence is one too many. That is why we are taking a wide range of actions to prevent, reduce and tackle violence, with more than £6 million funding invested over the past three years.”

“I am concerned these figures also show a rise in reported sexual crimes.
Multiple factors lie behind this and our action to tackle sexual offending includes increasing confidence in the justice system so more victims come forward, improving support for victims and modernising the law on sexual offences. “

“Police Scotland has also had a £3 million budget boost to work with the retail sector and the Scottish Government has invested £4.2 billion across the justice system including a record £1.64 billion for policing – an increase of £70 million on 2024-25.”

National Police Force

In 2013 all eight of Scotland’s regional police forces were replaced with just one authority, Police Scotland a merger at odds with the long-established tradition of community-based policing and local accountability in Scotland.

The change brought with it the potential for damaging conflict between the new force lead officers and the unelected Scottish Police Authority Quango, which was given executive powers over finance, recruitment and personnel policy.

Control and oversight of 18,000 police and 6,500 civilian support staff was transferred to politicians in the Scottish Government.

The novel, untried system of providing policing support to the community through the Government has been a disaster from the time the changes were implemented, confirming the fears of many Scots who were opposed to the establishment of a national police force accountable only to a Government appointed authority. The changes should be abandoned and responsibility for policing returned to the regions and local communities.

A National Specialist Crime Team and police training unit should be retained at Tulliannan headed by a senior police officer accountable to the Chair of the Regional Police Leadership Authority.

Humza Yousaf – The Early Years

Yousaf worked in a “Call Centre” for a short time before becoming a spokesman for the controversial Islamic Relief. Controversial because in 2020 the entire UK board were forced to stand down after an antisemitism scandal.

As a Government minister, in 2013, he signed off a Scottish government donation for the organisation, totalling £398,000.

He was the President of the Glasgow University Muslim Students Association and a member of the Student Representative Council when he attended Glasgow University, where he graduated with a degree in Politics in 2007.

After graduating, he worked from 2007 as a parliamentary assistant to the first Scottish Muslim MSP Bashir Ahmadin, until the MSP’s death two years later.

He was first elected to Holyrood as a list MSP for Glasgow in 2011 and then the MSP for Glasgow Pollock in 2016.

The Increasing Influence of Islam

The Yousaf family acquired influence in the planning and execution of SNP politics soon after Humza joined the Party in 2007. A situation created by the rapid and continuing growth in the West of Scotland in the number of Muslim immigrants from Pakistan and Southeast Asia.

Muslim votes greatly assisted the SNP in its efforts to gain political power and governance in Scotland. All good things come at a price and the Yousaf family, (shades of the Kennedys in the USA) and their supporters called in favours.

They duly did so when Yousaf, as Justice Minister brought forward his flagship policy, “The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill” in 2019, which he promised would add many additional protections to minorities while maintaining existing rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The bill becomes effective at the beginning of 2024 and despite many amendments, there are still concerns among many Scots about its draconian content, aspects of which continue to be subject to criticism by the Scottish public, the Catholic Church, the National Secular Society, the media and writers.

Yousaf’s links to Hamas – Holyrood Meeting With Former Hamas Leader

In 2008, Yousaf, then a parliamentary assistant to MSP Bashir Ahmad and his cousin Osama Saeed, who used to be an aide to former SNP leader and first minister Alex Salmond, arranged a meeting between Linda Fabiani the Scottish Culture and External Affairs Secretary and former *senior Hamas commander Mohammad Sawalha (described by BBC Panorama as the mastermind behind much of Hamas’ political and military strategy)

Sawalha was accompanied by two other Hamas supporting activists, Anas Altikriti and Ismail Patel.

Iraqi-born Altikriti frequently voiced support for Hamas, saying it was “fighting back” against Israeli occupation.

Patel, who founded the Midlands-based Friends of Al-Aqsa said: “The current political map of Palestine… will have to include Hamas and Fatah amongst other political groups. Hamas is a resistance movement against colonial oppression and the backbone of Palestinian resistance.”

Soon after the meeting Yousaf and Saeed established an Islamic lobbying group, The Scottish Islamic Foundation (SIF). Its first chief executive was Saeed who had previously expressed support for Islamists including Anwar al-Awlaki, the extremist preacher who inspired numerous Muslim terrorists, but who, he said, “preached nothing but peace.”

The SIF was awarded £405,000 in grants from the SNP government and announced the country’s biggest ever celebration of Islamic culture in Glasgow for June 2009.

But the project collapsed and SIF was forced to repay £128,000 of the taxpayer funds it had received, with £72,000 already spent.

Yousaf was also a director of SIF Ltd between May 2008 and September 2009.

Afternote: SIF was wound up after spending several hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money with almost nothing to show for it and with large sums unaccounted for. Humza Yousaf’s aunt and mother were employed by the charity which was placed on a watch list after being described as an entry-level group for Islamists.

*Sawalha was Hamas’ West Bank military chief before being appointed to its political leadership. He reportedly fled the Gaza Strip in 1990 after being placed on a wanted list by Israel.

Hamas had at the time been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the US, but the UK did not follow suit until 2021.

Sawalha attended the meeting at Holyrood as a representative of Islam Expo, which was funded by a £2 million grant from Qatar and held in London in 2006 and 2008.

The Expos, run by Sawalha, included an appearance by Sheikh Qazi Hussain Ahmed, a Pakistani politician who praised the Taliban as “just and honourable men.”

Lord Carlisle, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: “Yousaf must address the circumstances in which he judged it appropriate to have close contact with Hamas supporters.

Financial Aid to the Hamas Ruled Gaza Strip

The international community sent billions of dollars in aid to the Gaza Strip in recent years to provide relief to the more than 2 million Palestinians living in the isolated, Hamas-ruled territory.

The aid was intended to ease the burden on civilians of an Israeli-Egyptian blockade imposed on Gaza when the Islamic militant group seized power from rival Palestinian forces in 2007.

Israel says heavy restrictions on trade and movement are needed to keep Hamas from enhancing its military capability, while critics view it as a form of collective punishment. Israel and Hamas have fought five wars since 2008, the most recent in 2023.

Israel closely supervises aid to try to ensure it bypasses Hamas. But the Hamas-run government benefits from foreign countries footing the bill for schools, hospitals and infrastructure, allowing it to conserve its resources, including the taxes and customs it collects.

Scottish Financial Aid to the UN’s Gaza Appeal:

Yousaf pledged to donate $1 million as Scotland’s humanitarian funding to the UN’s Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) appeal.

Cabinet Secretary for Justice (2018–2021)

Rewarding mediocrity, Sturgeon promoted the unqualified Yousaf to the post of Cabinet Secretary for Justice. The first ever person appointed to the role without holding a university degree in Law.

Yousaf, a champion of anti-free speech laws criminalising “stirring up” so-called “hatred” even in a person’s private home, ventured: “Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive, which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims? Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home?”

He also ranted in the Scottish Parliament against the 91.8% of white people in high office in Scotland and asserted that “Scotland has a problem of structural racism.” Full details here:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/07/05/racist-backlash-scotland-white/
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/03/27/anti-free-speech-separatist-who-wants-fewer-white-people-in-office-now-leads-scotland/
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/10/29/scottish-justice-sec-demands-hate-speech-home-be-prosecuted/