The Scottish Executive has spent almost £150 million on travel, hospitality and office costs in the 6 years since devolution.
The figures, show that nearly £34m has been spent by ministers, special advisers and civil servants on travel, and more than £3m on hospitality since 1999.
The cost of office accommodation including utility costs, rates, maintenance and repairs was more than £111m. 16.9.05 Evening News Edinburgh
Scottish Executive Expenses
MSPs run up £500,000 bill on hotels since devolution.
Figures obtained reveal that MSPs have claimed £500,000 in hotel expenses since devolution.
The figures also reveal the amount claimed for taxis (£193,865), rail fares (£359,276) and telephone calls from home (£187,149). 24.4.05 The Sunday Times
Scottish Parliament Expenses – MSPs claim nearly £52k in taxis.
The amount MSPs spend on taxis has doubled since the first year of the Scottish Parliament figures reveal.
Last year, MSPs claimed £51,716.97 to cover their taxi fares, compared to £25,514.38 in 1999.
Tory leader David McLetchie has racked up the largest bill, claiming £11,565.19 over the six years, an average of nearly £2,000 a year. 30.9.05 The Scotsman
Scottish Parliament Expenses – McLetchie finally quits over taxi row
David McLetchie has resigned as the Scottish Conservative Party leader following the controversy over his taxi expenses.
McLetchie had been under pressure since February 2005 when details of his travel claims were requested under the FOI (Scotland) Act.
On 21 April, the Scottish Parliament provided copies of claims totalling £10,448 but blacked out many of the destinations, claiming Mr McLetchie’s safety would be compromised.
But on 7 October the Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion ordered the destinations to be disclosed.
It then emerged that Mr McLetchie had already paid refunded over £250 in travel claims for party political events.
He had also claimed for trips to the home of Lady Sian Biddulph, a Tory activist. 19.6.05 Scotland on Sunday
MSPs expense claims to be posted online
Invoices and receipts for all MSPs’ expenses claims will be published on the Internet in the future, George Reid, Holyrood’s Presiding Officer has announced.
Mr Reid said the current system of disclosing total figures annually was not adequate to meet the demands of the FOI (Scotland) Act.
The move to make expenses more open and accountable follows the resignation of the Scottish Conservative leader David McLetchie for using taxpayers’ money to fund taxi journeys for personal or party political business. 2.11.05 The Scotsman
Outrage over council’s taxi bill of £71,000
East Lothian Council spent £71,000 on taxis over the past financial year.
A spokesman for the council said that “not all councillors are drivers and…when public transport…(is) not available it is more economical and efficient to use taxis”. 13.6.05 Evening News Edinburgh
Agency chief Laird spent £260 on a taxi
The cost of Lord Laird’s official taxi journeys whilst chairman of the Ulster-Scots Agency have been disclosed.
The bills from 2000 and 2001 include fares of £240 and £260 for Belfast to Dublin return trips and £272.50 for a Co Derry journey.
In total, £2,505 was spent over a 10 month period.
The peer defended some of his taxi use on personal security grounds, linked to his practice of wearing a kilt for functions.
“Am I going to turn up somewhere, get out of a car and walk half a mile to a function wearing a kilt? That would be drawing attention to me,” he said.
Lord Laird resigned as Ulster – Scots Agency chairman in 2004. 7.2.05 Belfast Telegraph
Labour Councillor who ate for free in canteen to pay money back
A Glasgow councillor who claimed expenses for lunches despite eating for free in the council’s canteen, has agreed to pay the money back.
Council records show that Gary Gray had lunch in a special City Chambers’ buffet on at least seven occasions when he also claimed a lunch allowance of £6.99.
The discrepancies were revealed when the Mr Gray’s expense forms were cross – referenced with records showing the number of times he had entertained visitors in the councillors’ buffet. 29.8.05 Evening Times Edinburgh
Ulster-Scots Agency cash rap revealed
The scale of past cash control failings at the Ulster – Scots Agency has been revealed.
A 2001 internal audit concluded that the cross – border body had been spending “with no apparent regard to the fact that public monies are involved”.
It stated that government investigators were seriously concerned about a number of issues, including hospitality spending, credit card use and travel expenses.
The Agency was established in late 1999 to promote Ulster-Scots language and culture. 10.3.05 Belfast Telegraph
Expenses – The strange tale of the huge expenses bill, the pension application and the disappearing MSP
Invoices for travel expenses claimed by the former MSP Keith Raffan have been disclosed.
In December 2004 the Scottish Parliament revealed the Lib Dem MSP had claimed an incredible £41,154.64 in travel costs for one year.
The released invoices show that he claimed for travel in Scotland whilst on a two day break on the Isle of Man.
He also claimed for round trips between Edinburgh and Dunfermline and between Edinburgh and St Andrews on the same day that he flew to Germany on a VIP trip. Raffan resigned as an MSP in January 2005. 18.9.05 The Sunday Herald
Jackson courts questions on travel expenses
A Labour MSP charged taxpayers for travel to the Scottish Parliament on the same days that he earned hundreds of pounds in legal aid as a top QC.
Gordon Jackson billed the Parliament for travel from Glasgow to Edinburgh on nine occasions when he’d been in court.
On two of those occasions, Jackson who earns £264,000 a year in legal aid plus a £50,000 MSP’s salary is recorded as having missed parliamentary committee meetings.
On a third occasion, the parliament was not in session, although Jackson claims he went to his parliamentary office, which would entitle him to claims expenses. 24.4.05 Scotland on Sunday
Revealed: the MSPs’ houses we paid for
Ten ministers in the Scottish Executive are among more than 40 MSPs who claim an allowance to help pay the mortgage on their Edinburgh homes.
MSPs who live too far from Edinburgh to commute are entitled to claim an accommodation allowance of up to £10,600 a year which they can use to pay for hotels, rent flats or pay the interest on a mortgage.
The Scottish Parliament published, in response to public pressure a list of politicians who have bought property with the allowance.
A total of 41 current MSPs and 7 former MSPs have claimed for mortgages since the scheme started in 1999. 4.6.05 Evening News Edinburgh
Scottish Parliament Expenses
Yes, minister, your lunch did cost £426. When Jack McConnell met Gavin McCrone and officials for dinner during his time as education minister in 2000, the Carlton Hotel in Edinburgh presented him with a bill for £426.60.
Meanwhile, the communities minister Margaret Curran last year lodged expenses for £285 for a meal at the Glasgow Hilton.
However, when the then First Minister, Henry McLeish, met Cardinal Thomas Winning, the then head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, for lunch at the Bonham Hotel in 2000, he registered expenses for a very reasonable £25.50. 30.3.05 The Scotsman
Rooth the Mooth Is Determined to Improve the Quality of Tory MP and MSP’s and Introduces Intellect Testing of Potential Candidates
Just before the last election potential candidates were gathered and put to the test.
Davidson briefed those gathered:
“As you know I am about to be promoted by her Majesty the Queen to a high ranking officer grade in recognition of my MENSA membership and my long and faithful Territorial Army service.
I fully expect all of you to display a standard of intellect mirroring my own so that Scottish voters can be satisfied they have elected Tory party members of the highest quality to public office.
It is not possible to allocate all of you to a constituency so there will need to be a cull.
To facilitate this I have devised a game designed to test your reasoning ability.
If I name a fruit, run to the wall on the right of the hall and if I name a colour run to the wall on the left of the hall.
The Ottoman Empire held sway over much of Arabia up to 1800, but due to perpetual unrest within the country they were forced to concentrate their forces in fortified towns and the city of Mecca.
Around 1730, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792) – An Islamic theologian, founded Wahhabism, an ultra pure interpretation of Sunni Islam.
Growth of the sect within Arabia was assisted by expansionist policies over the lifetime of its founder assisted by Muhammad Ibn Saud, ruler of a small Arabian sub-state who converted his family to Wahhabism and established a political dynasty with Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab.
Ensuring the future of the sect the son of Ibn Saud, Abdul Aziz married Imam Wahhab’s daughter in 1746. Abdul Aziz was determined to rid Arabia of the Turks and conducted a military campaign attacking and capturing Riyadh in 1773, the Holy City of Makkah in 1803 and Medina in 1804.
In 1806-1807 he released his forces against the Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala attacking them on a number of occasions inflicting many casualties and hardship on their citizens.
In 1811, the Turks, fed up with the constant unrest, sent a large Egyptian army to Arabia and in a short campaign, Muhammad Ali Ottoman, Viceroy of Egypt, removed the Wahhabis and re-established Turkish control over Arabia in 1813.
Saud ibn Abdul Aziz died in exile in 1814. His son was taken to Istanbul where he was tried and executed for treason and armed insurrection.
The Saud’s later re-established the family in Riyadh but were forced into exile in Kuwait once more due to pressure from the Turks who still controlled most of Arabia.
Towards the end of the century, having concluded a pact with Turkey, Muhammad bin Rashid took up the reins of power.
One of his first acts was to force the leader of the Al Saud family, Abdul Rahman bin Faisal and his dependents, into exile in Kuwait for a third time.
But the Saud’s were persistent and in 1902 Abdul Aziz (ibn Saud) left Kuwait with a small but determined force and attacked and captured Riyadh.
He quickly increased the size of his force and harassed the Turks in Nejd and Hasa throughout the next decade.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement and After Effects
Signed in 1916 the Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret understanding between the governments of Britain and France defining their respective spheres of post-World War I influence and control in the Middle East.
Britain and France carved up the Levant into an assortment of monarchies, mandates and emirates.
Syria and Lebanon were put into the French orbit, while Britain claimed Jordan, Iraq, the Gulf states and the Palestinian Mandate.
In 1916, Sharif Hussein, Arab Emir of Mecca, led the Great Arab Revolt, in Mecca against a much weakened Turkish occupation force.
T E Lawrence was assigned as the British liaison. In 1917-1918 Lawrence, Arab forces and Bedouins attacked the Turks relentlessly and captured the port of Aqaba.
The retreating Turks were then defeated by Arab forces in Jordan then Syria before the end of the 1914-18 World War.
In 1921, Britain and France carved up Arabia and handed the crown to King Hussain (Sherif of Mecca) they went on to create Jordan under Emir Abdullah, his brother Faisal became King of Iraq.
France was given influence over Syria and Jewish immigration was allowed into Palestine.
King Hussain’s reign over Arabia was short lived when in 1924 he abdicated in favour of his son Ali. Ali himself, was unfit to lead abdicated and left the country.
The Saud Family Take Control of Arabia
The departure of King Hussain in 1924 provided opportunity for the Saud family to take control and King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud (d1953) declared Wahhabi rule over Saudi Arabia.
He then appointed himself King of Hejaz and Sultan of Nejd and its Dependencies.
Under his leadership, with the signing of the treaty of Jedda in 1927 Arabia became independent of Great Britain.
In 1927-1928 he crushed an uprising by fanatical Islamist tribes of central Arabia.
He fathered 44 sons. six of whom have ruled Saudi Arabia.
The family has increased in size over the years and there are around 5,000 princes in place, who control all power and resources.
The Kings:
Saud ibn Abdul-Aziz 1902-1964. King 1953-1964
Faisal ibn Abdul-Aziz 1904-1975. King 1964-1975 Assassinated by a nephew (later beheaded) who had a history of mental illness
Khalid ibn Abdul-Aziz 1913-1982. King 1975-1982
Fahd ibn Abdul-Aziz 1921-2005. King 1982-2005 Ruled until 1996. Suffered a stroke. His half brother, Abdullah took over responsibility for the country.
Abdullah ibn Abdul-Aziz 1921-2015. King 2005-2015
Salman ibn Abdul-Aziz 1935- King 2015- His health is deteriorating due to dementia and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, (b1985) is gradually taking control of the Country.
Saudi Arabia holds the Koran as its constitution. The capital is Riyadh. Sunni Muslims comprise the majority. Shiite Muslims are the minority and live mostly in impoverished villages in the oil-rich eastern part of the country..
Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, A King in Waiting
Prince Mohammad was appointed Defence Minister, Minister of State and Secretary of the Royal Household in 2015.
This was followed with a promotion to deputy Crown Prince in 2016 then to Crown Prince in 2017.
His rise to power is not universally supported by the Saud family and it is expected there will be difficulties when King Salman dies.
He is a lone wolf when it comes to politics and sharing of responsibilities.
Proof of this is his March 2015, launch of Operation Decisive Storm, part of which was an attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen, in support of the Yemen government.
The attack was uncoordinated across all the relevant services and without even informing his cousin, Prince Mutaib bin Abdulla, the leader of the most efficient military force, the 250,000 strong Saudi National Guard.
According to the UN and human rights groups, direct war crimes have been committed during the conflict including an indiscriminate major bombing campaign resulting in the killing of many thousands of civilians
To date, the war has already cost Saudi Arabia tens of billions of dollars and has destroyed much of Yemen’s infrastructure whilst failing to dislodge the Shiite Houthi rebels and their allies from the Yemeni capital.
Prince Mohammad saw the war as a short sharp campaign against the Houthi rebels in Yemen bringing an end to the civil war in the country and returning its leader, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi back to power.
In failing he has committed Saudi Arabia to a long war of attrition the outcome of which is uncertain.
Further complicating matters he announced an anti-terrorist military alliance of Islamic countries against the Houthi rebels in December 2015, without first consulting each of the countries involved.
Other indications of his aggressive and warlike thoughts is his early 2015 launch of the “Army of Conquest”, against Syria.
The force, comprising the “Al-Nusra Front” and Aurar Al-Sham won a series of victories against the Syrian Army in Idlib Province, massively supported by the US air force and a Western Alliance, including Great Britain.
But, with the assistance of the Russian air force the President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrians battled on and are winning the fight against all the odds.
Prince Mohammad should be careful. There is clear evidence oil producing states are almost impossible to reform and as such they should avoid war if they wish to remain intact.
King Salman flanked by Mohammed bin Salman (right) and Mohammed bin Nayef.
29 Jun 2017: Deposed Crown Prince Confined to Palace
Deposed Saudi crown prince, Mohammad bin Nayef, 57 has been confined to his palace in the Red Sea city of Jeddah, as his young successor seeks to consolidate his newfound power.
The movements of the former heir to the throne have been restricted since his cousin Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, 31 replaced him last week denying the Crown Prince of his right of succession to the throne.
Senior Saudi officials denied Bin Nayef was under house arrest but offered: “It’s just in the changeover period. Crown Prince Mohammad Salman does not want to take any risks. It is not house arrest. Nothing like that at all.”
Prince Mohammed bin Salman, newly appointed crown prince, kisses former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef’s hand.
Prince Mohammad Bin Nayef was the kingdom’s most influential security official over the past 15 years. He maintained close intelligence connections with the US and UK and was seen by Saudi allies as an assured and trusted hand.
His ties to Saudi allies are far more extensive than those of his successor, a possible factor in the decision to keep him isolated while the power transition takes effect.
The House of Saud had been determined to convey the image of a seamless handover, with a government video showing Bin Salman bowing and kissing the hand of his cousin after being named crown prince.
In the lead up to the change, however, a mutual rivalry has eroded trust. “It was never daggers drawn,” said the Saudi official. “It was that a younger man wanted the job and the older man did not support it.
It is reported that guards loyal to Prince Bin Salman had replaced those of his predecessor outside the Jeddah palace to where the ousted royal had returned.
It is understood that Bin Nayef and his close family members have been prevented from leaving the kingdom.
“If he is seen as benign, this will change quite quickly,” the official said. “I suspect they don’t want him jetting off to Washington in a bad mood and telling anyone, even our allies, the state secrets.
“There is too much risk in letting a disgruntled figure talk at a time like this.”
Bin Nayef’s insights into his own exit as well as political machinations within the opaque Saudi inner circle would be keenly sought by Riyadh’s allies and rivals and he would likely be welcomed in western capitals, should he leave the country.
The upheaval follows a dizzying series of moves from the usually cautious kingdom, which in recent weeks has recalibrated relations with Washington and embarked on a diplomatic offensive against Qatar, led by Prince Bin Salman himself.
has been central to the changes, which have helped his profile and powers grow rapidly under the tutelage of an 81-year-old monarch who has given him an almost free hand over most aspects of society. Central to his mandate is a plan to use capital from the partial privatisation of the world’s largest company, Aramco, to revitalise the Saudi economy.
However, cultural and societal reforms have also been flagged as paramount – in particular
Bin Nayef had not opposed the reform programme, but had been considered by the Royal Court – and Saudi allies – as a measured voice who had urged a more painstaking process, which had characterised past overhauls.
“He played the bad cop role,” said the Saudi official. “But that did not contribute to his downfall. He had to go because he was in the way. That’s all.”
Political and Economic Reforms
Prince Mohammad was named the chair of the newly established Council for Economic and Development Affairs in 2015,replacing the disbanded Supreme Economic Commission.
He was also given control over Saudi Aramco by royal decree 48 hours after being appointed deputy crown prince.
His stated concern in 2015–2016 was to reform Saudi’s economy towards a more diversified and privatized structure.
His reform blueprint, “Vision 2030”, detailed goals and measures in various fields, from developing non-oil revenues and privatization of the economy to e-government and sustainable development.
In an interview with Al Arabia he also shared his idea for “Green cards” for 800,000 non-Saudi foreigners.
His most ambitious plan is to restore Saudi Arabia’s dominance in global oil markets by driving any new competition into bankruptcy, by keeping the oil price low for a long enough period.
Saudi Arabia persuaded OPEC to do the same. A few small players went bankrupt, but American frackers only closed their less-profitable operations temporarily, and waited for oil prices to go up again.
However, Saudi Arabia, which had been spending $100 billion a year to keep services and subsidies going, admitted defeat in November 2016 and cutting production significantly asked its OPEC partners to do the same.
He followed up by slashing the state budget, freezing government contracts and reducing the pay of civil employees as part of drastic austerity measures.
Other changes included new taxes and cuts in subsidies, a diversification plan, creation of a $2 trillion Saudi sovereign wealth fund, and a series of strategic economic reforms called the National Transformation Programme.
His plans to raise capital for the sovereign wealth fund include selling off shares in Saudi Aramco.
It is this aspect of the economy that suggests trouble in near future for the Saudi royal family.
He proposes austerity and market reform in the Kingdom, but in the context of Middle East autocracies and particularly oil states this breaches an unspoken social contract with the general population.
He is pledged to introducing a work ethic into a state where a large migrant labour force plays a disproportionate role in productivity.
A senior official in Riyadh said that what is being envisaged is
People may not enjoy political liberty, but they do get a share in oil revenues through well paid government jobs and subsidised fuel, food, housing and other benefits.
Greater privatisation and supposed reliance on the market, with no accountability or fair legal system, means a licence to plunder by those with political power.
But he enjoys all the advantages of a young and forceful politician, including the ability to connect with the country’s younger population.
He lobbied with some success, for regulations restricting the powers of the religious police and established an entertainment authority that has hosted comedy shows, pro wrestling events, and monster truck rallies.
But his future success will hang on his ability to fulfil expectations, particularly in terms of human rights, social, the economy and a successful: “cultural revolution.
Philanthropy
He established himself as the chairman of the Prince Mohammed bin Salman Foundation,(MiSK), which aims to help disadvantaged youth.
The foundation was a partner of the 9th UNESCO Youth Forum for Change in 2015.
It focuses on the country’s youth and provides different means of fostering talent, creative potential, and innovation in a healthy environment that offers opportunities in arts and sciences.
It pursues these goals by establishing programs and partnering with local and global organizations.
It intends to develop intellectual capability in youth, as well as unlock the potential of all Saudi people.
Controversy
24 September 2015: over 2,000 Hajj pilgrims were killed in the 2015 Mina stampede.
Sources claim this was due to attempts by the personal convoy of Prince Mohammed bin Salman to force itself through the crowd, as well as several road closures in the area.
2 January 2016: It was the execution of the Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and 46 others – mostly Sunni jihadis or dissenters that alerted governments to the extent to which Saudi Arabia had become a threat to the status quo.
It appeared to be deliberately provoking Iran in a bid to take leadership of the Sunni and Arab worlds while at the same time buttressing domestic power by appealing to Sunni sectarian nationalism.
Iran’s Shia population replied by setting fire to the Saudi Arabia embassy in Tehran. Since then, the two countries have cut off diplomatic ties.
The confrontation with Iran shows no sign of receding.
The attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and its consulate in Mashhad might not have been expected but the Saudis did not have to break off diplomatic relations.
Then there was the air strike that the Iranians allege damaged their embassy in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen.
None of this is too surprising, Saudi-Iranian relations have been at a very low ebb since 400 Iranian pilgrims died in a mass stampede in Mecca in 2015.
But the Saudi leadership appear to be intent on increasing the political temperature by putting four Iranians on trial, one for espionage and three for terrorism.
The four have been in prison in Saudi Arabia since 2013 or 2014 so there is no reason to try them now, other than as an extra irritation against Iran.
Prince Mohammed, seeking to reassure the rest of the World, said: “A war between Saudi Arabia and Iran is the beginning of a major catastrophe in the region, and it will reflect very strongly on the rest of the world. For sure, we will not allow any such thing.”
The cause of Saudi Arabia acting unilaterally is its disappointment that the US reached an agreement with Iran over Tehran’s nuclear programme.
Again this looks naive: the alliance with the US is the prime reason why the Saudi monarchy has survived nationalist and socialist challengers since the 1930s.
Aside from the Saudis’ money and protective alliance with the US, leaders in the Middle East have always doubted that the Saudi state has much operational capacity.
This is true of all the big oil producers, whatever their ideological make-up.
Experience shows that vast oil wealth encourages autocracy, whether it is in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya or Kuwait, but it also produces states that are weaker than they look, with incapable administrations and dysfunctional armies.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Personal life
He enjoys a lavish lifestyle. One incident illustrating this is his spur-of-the-moment purchase of an Italian-built and Bermuda-registered yacht “Serene” from Russian vodka tycoon Yuri Scheffler, for a price of €500 million.
Politics is Broken – Theresa May’s former chief of staff breaks her silence
Greenock born, Fiona McLeod Hill, is reputed to have provided Theresa May with the reply to Nicola Sturgeon request seeking permission for another Scottish independence referendum, “Now is not the time” .
She and her colleague, Nick Timothy) were sacked by Theresa May in the summer of 2017.
The demand for their heads had been placed on her by Tory high command as a condition of her remaining in office following the 2017 general election debacle at the insistence of Tory “high heed-yins” after the 2017 General Election.
She has kept her counsel until recently when she sounded off big time about the rapid decline in the politics of the so-called United Kingdom.
Meantime Fiona and Nick were rewarded by Theresa May in her honours list each gaining a prestigious CBE in reward for their silence.
I wrote an article on Fiona and Nick which is included below. It provides damming evidence of the political corruption of the Westminster parliament and those who are caught up in the financial rip-off of Scotland which has been and still is, ongoing.
The full report is well worth a read and is to be found here:
SPAD’s were created by “New labour” at the start of their period in government in 1997. There was a great furore at the time.
The press and public believed the new posts to be entirely political and that apart from that the posts simply duplicated the duties of many thousands of Civil Servants already in place.
Blair argued differently and with his huge majority in parliament he forced through legislation creating the new “political beast”.
He did, however, commit to keeping the numbers of SPAD’s to an absolute minimum and said only Ministers of State would be allowed a SPAD in support and that all appointments would be authorized by himself.
The appointment of SPAD’s (unelected and very often useless) now cost the taxpayer around £12 million each year and rising.
SPAD’s are classed as “temporary civil servants” and add a political dimension to advice and assistance available to ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.
They are supposed to observe the Civil Service “Code of Conduct” in the discharge of their duties. But they don’t.
In return for this commitment, all expenditure incurred (salaries, transport, expenses, etc.) in their employment is paid for by the central government.
The Rise and Fall of a Wee Glasgow SPAD – The Fiona Hill Story
Fiona McLeod Hill was born (1973). Unlike many behind-the-scenes wielders of power in Westminster (and indeed many journalistic interns), Hill does not hail from a privileged background.
Born in an insalubrious area of Greenock, she later attended St Stephen’s RC Secondary in Port Glasgow, before making her way into newspapers.
So what lies behind her meteoric rise? How did she blaze a trail from the bowels of The Scotsman building through the ranks of the Conservative Party press operation to become Theresa May’s, right-hand woman?
It is a fascinating story of hard work, ambition, the kind of confidence that cares not a whit for other people’s opinions, and not a little intrigue.
Along the way, she embarked on a relationship with a former MI6 officer, engaged in several public spats and helped shape May’s wardrobe.
But her career trajectory has not been entirely straightforward and her refusal to give an inch has occasionally cost her dear.
Hill’s journalism career didn’t really start to take off until she joined Sky TV – a fertile breeding ground for SpAds – where she started to become interested in politics and ended up on the news desk.
While there, she met and married executive producer Tim Cunningham, now head of branded content at Princess Productions, holding their reception in upmarket Wentworth Golf Club in Surrey.
For the duration of the marriage, she used his name, going back to her maiden name after her divorce. (Dani Garavelli)
Fiona At The Home Office
Fiona joined the Conservative Party press office in 2006, before spending a period at the British Chamber of Commerce.
She returned to work for the Conservatives and from 2010-2014, she worked alongside Theresa May in the Home Office as a SPAD.
Hill’s loyalty to May and to Hill’s then-lover, diplomat and counter-terrorism officer Charles Farr, lay at the heart of a bust-up in June 2014.
It began when the then education secretary Michael Gove briefed Times journalists that it was the failure of the Home Office to tackle the problem of radicalization that had led to terrorism plots in so-called Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham.
In his briefing, Gove singled out Farr for criticism. In revenge, Hill posted a private letter from May to Gove on the Home Office website.
In the letter, May accused his department of failing to act when concerns about the Birmingham schools were brought to its attention in 2010.
Furious the public fall-out had overshadowed the Queen’s Speech, Cameron demanded an apology from Gove but insisted Hill resign.
Outside Government but Inside Politics
From the Home Office, Hill went to the right-wing think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, founded by Iain Duncan Smith, where, as associate director, she continued her work on modern slavery.
She produced a report in which she suggested legislation alone was not enough to tackle the problem and pushed for more cooperation between police, borders and immigration officials across Europe.
Later, she sparked another controversy by joining, without seeking permission from her former department, the high profile lobby group Lexington Communications (in 2015), which represents a host of blue-chip companies with an interest in government policy
Tougher rules demanding SPAD’s apply for permission from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) had been amended by the Cabinet Office before the election to exclude all but the most senior advisers.
But SPAD’s are still required to seek permission from the permanent secretary before taking any new job within two years of leaving Whitehall.
Such permission often comes with conditions that prevent former SPAD’S from lobbying government or using privileged information to help their new employers.
Hill’s failure to obey the rule angered campaigners who complained of a lack of transparency.
But her time away from the Conservative Party was, in any case, to be short-lived.
When May announced her leadership bid, Hill took time out to help with the campaign, reaping the benefits after May’s victory when Hill was appointed SPAD. joint chief of staff alongside SPAD Nick Timothy at a salary of £140,000 each.
Inside Government
Britain’s new Prime Minister entered Downing Street pledging herself to be a unionist.
Theresa May confirmed her commitment to the UK as she praised the record of her predecessor David Cameron.
Speaking minutes after he left Number 10, she said: “From the introduction of same-sex-marriage to taking people on low wages out of income tax altogether, David Cameron has led a One Nation government and it is in that spirit that I also plan to lead.
Because not everybody knows this but the full title of my party is the Conservative and Unionist Party and that word unionist is very important to me.
It means we believe in the Union, the precious, precious bond between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — but it means something else that is just as important.
It means we believe in a union not just between the nations of the UK but between all of our citizens — every one of us — whoever we are and wherever we’re from.” (The Belfast Newsletter)
Nick Timothy – Strategist
New prime minister Theresa May’s top SPAD’s include the Brummie son of a steelworker who thinks politicians can learn valuable lessons from the relegation of Aston Villa.
His name is Nick Timothy, an ex-grammar school pupil at King Edwards VI Aston.
He helped manage Mrs. May’s campaign to become Conservative leader, and now he has joined her as joint chief of staff in 10 Downing Street.
Political commentators say that he has “great sway over her political agenda” and believes the Tories must be a party not of the rich, but of working people. (The Mirror)
Formidable “Fi and Nick”
According to Westminster insiders, surviving the Home Office is a mark of Theresa May’s steel.
MP Frank Field says: “Nobody survives at the Home Office as Theresa May has, unharmed. That in itself is exceptional.”
Field attributes a significant part of this feat to the team around the Prime Minister, particularly her current SPAD’s, joint chiefs of staff, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy.
‘Fi and Nick’ as they are known, have worked with May since her days in the Home Office and are said to be key to shaping her vision for the country.
One insider says “they deliver for May on her own terms” and another adds that she has licensed them to fight her battles for her. So who is this pair — and how far does their influence stretch? (Belfast Courier)
The Knives Are Out For Fiona
It is difficult, according to those who work closely with Downing Street, to overestimate Hill’s closeness to and influence over the prime minister – a degree of access matched only by Nick Timothy, with whom she shares the role of SPAD, chief of staff at Number 10. Her loyalty to the prime minister is absolute.
But loyalty can have its flip side. The adjectives most commonly applied to Hill by those who work with her are “pugilistic”, “ferocious”, control freak even “terrifying yet her high standing with the Prime Minister is unquestionable
Home Office minister Ben Wallace, who has known Hill since before she worked in government, says some of the reporting about Hill is unfair. “Chiefs of staff are supposed to be loyal and defensive of the people they work for.
They wouldn’t be any good at it if they weren’t. She’s come up through the ranks, she’s worked hard at it and … she is determined. There are people venting their criticism of No 10 through the staff that work there, and I think that’s not a very grown up way of doing business.”
With May as loyal to her aide as Hill is to the PM, few think the release of her texts puts her position in any jeopardy.
And yet, in a business where the number one rule for aides is to stay out of the news, Hill’s texts have shone an unwelcome light on the messy business of day-to-day governing.
With an enormous fight looming over Brexit, they also reveal an operation that is rather nervier than the PM and Hill would like it to appear.
Hill is thought to have been behind May’s confrontational stance over Nicola Sturgeon’s call for a referendum and her “Now is not the time” message. (The Guardian)
The Knives Are Out For Theresa May
Theresa May’s Tory pals are sharpening their knives and will turn on her if she fails to deliver a hefty majority next week.
Conservative candidates are grumbling privately that the PM has cost them votes with her stuttering performances and disastrous attacks on older people’s incomes.
One said: “People are getting to know Theresa May in this campaign and the truth is, quite a few don’t much like what they see.
Since our manifesto was launched it has got tighter and tighter.
We’re still going to win but if she does not deliver the big majority she promised she is going to come under pressure to resign.” (The Mirror)
The 2017 General Election – It All Goes Wrong
Within a few days of announcing the general election, three of May’s team – director of communications SPAD, Katie Perrior, press secretary SPAD, Lizzie Louden, and SPAD, Hayden Allen – resigned.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesperson SPAD, Helen Bower, had left in December 2016 following reports of bad feeling in the team.
Undeterred. Hill plugged on and took responsibility for keeping May from the press and public, which is said to have been her undoing.
A tactic not great for democracy, but subsequent events suggest that from the Hill’s point of view it was a shrewd political move.
May was accused of hiding when she held a rally for 200 supporters in a hut in Banchory in Aberdeenshire where there was no phone signal last month.
Shortly afterwards, the press ran a story suggesting that – after seeing the itinerary for her visit – she shouted at Hill to “stop cutting [her] time on the doorstep”. “I am a doorstep campaigner and from now on I want to spend proper time knocking on doors and seeing people,” she is supposed to have said.
The risk of allowing May to engage, however, was perfectly demonstrated the following day when the Tory leader, now being tailed by a Sky TV crew, knocked without success on the doors of a row of empty houses, and was snubbed by the only resident who appeared.
From then Hill tried to control events, barring reporters from campaign events, refusing to take questions she hadn’t pre-approved and – on one occasion – freaking out when she saw a pen in someone’s hand.
“The thing is though – in their own terms it was a good strategy,” says one seasoned political commentator. “Theresa May was well ahead, and it was clear she didn’t have a great rapport with the press or with ordinary people, so what was to be gained by putting her in situations that could backfire.”
According to reports, Hill irritated the Scottish Conservatives in particular.
They complained of her excessive “interference” and of being told not to run a campaign too detached from the one run from London.
Nevertheless, their leader Ruth Davidson chose to ignore the demand, to achieve a considerable increase in the number of Scottish MPs.
This result was crucial in mitigating the loss of seats south of the border and appeared to question key elements of Tory election strategy.
But, as her boss was seeking a bigger mandate for her Brexit plans, and the Tories looked to be heading for a landslide, Hill’s loyalty to May was unwavering, and her influence on the Prime Minister undiminished.
The general election saw the return of the Conservatives as a minority government, with their majority now being dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party, leading to widespread calls within the party Fiona Hill to be sacked. within days, and in the face of the growing backlash, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy resigned.
In the Hands of the DUP
British Prime Minister Theresa May struck a deal, with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party to prop up the Conservative government which had been stripped of its majority in a disastrous election.
The result demolished May’s political authority, and she lost her two top aides, sacrificed in a bid to save their leader from being toppled by a furious Conservative Party.
The moves buy May a temporary reprieve. But the ballot-box humiliation has seriously and possibly mortally wounded her leadership just as Britain is about to begin complex exit talks with the European Union.
May’s office said Saturday that the Democratic Unionist Party, which has 10 seats in Parliament, had agreed to a “confidence and supply” arrangement with the government.
That means the DUP will back the government on key votes, but it’s not a coalition government or a broader pact. Downing St. said the Cabinet will discuss the agreement on Monday.
The announcement came after May lost Downing Street, SPAD’s, chiefs of staff Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, who resigned Saturday.
In a resignation statement on the Conservative Home website, Timothy conceded that the campaign had failed to communicate “Theresa’s positive plan for the future,” and had missed signs of surging support for the opposition Labour Party.
Some senior Tories made the removal of Hill and Timothy a condition for continuing to support May, who vowed to remain prime minister. (A.P.)
10 Jun 2017:
May announced that Gavin Barwell a former housing minister who lost his seat in Thursday’s election would be her new SPAD, chief of staff. She said Barwell would help her “reflect on the election and why it did not deliver the result I hoped for.”
Conservative legislator Nigel Evans there needed to be changes in the way the government functioned in the wake of the campaign. He said. “Our manifesto was full of fear and the Labour Party’s manifesto was full of promises.”
May called the early election, in the hope of increasing her majority and strengthening Britain’s hand in exit talks with the EU. Instead, her failure means the government must now take a more flexible approach to the divorce.
The election appears to have been, among other things, a rejection of the vague but harshly worded prospectus for Brexit for which Mrs. May sought a mandate.”
Downing Street has said that the most senior Cabinet members including Treasury chief Philip Hammond, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, and Home Secretary Amber Rudd will keep their jobs, but she is expected to shuffle the lower ranks of ministers.
The arrangement with the DUP makes some Conservatives uneasy. The DUP is a socially conservative pro-British Protestant group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage and once appointed an environment minister who believes human-driven climate change is a myth.
It was founded in the 1970s by the late firebrand preacher Ian Paisley, and in the 1980s was a key player in the “Save Ulster from Sodomy” campaign, which unsuccessfully fought against the legalization of gay sex. (AP)
12 Jun 2017:
Theresa May has endured one humiliation after another since the general election, as the party makes her the target of all its anger and contempt.
Her tone-deaf statement outside Downing Street on Friday in which she failed to acknowledge Conservatives who had lost their seats forced backbench MPs to order her to call the cameras back to record her apology.
Her cabinet colleagues told May that her closest advisers SPAD’s, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, who had behaved high-handedly towards ministers, had to go and they were dispatched without ceremony.
Then yesterday, alone and friendless in Downing Street, the prime minister faced the deepest humiliation of all as she invited her arch-nemesis, Michael Gove, to return to the cabinet as environment secretary. (The Irish Times)
12 Jun 2017:
SPAD’s, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy divided the four lobes of Theresa May’s brain between them. Every thought that the PM had originated with these little-known key aides. Now they have gone, we do indeed have a zombie prime minister.
13 Jun 2017:
Divisive SPAD’s who quit after running Theresa May’s disastrous election campaign are in line for payouts of around £35,000 each.
Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, who were the Prime Minister’s joint chiefs of staff, resigned amid intense Tory criticism in the wake of the snap election that cost the Conservatives their Commons majority.
The aides, appointed to the roles by Mrs. May when she succeeded David Cameron, were earning a salary of £140,000 as of December last year.
Under government rules, they are entitled to severance pay equivalent to three months’ pay. The part Mr. Timothy and Ms. Hill played in the general election has been severely criticized by disgruntled Tories. (The Scotsman)
10 Jun 2017:
Theresa May’s closest advisers, SPAD’s, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, resigned after a disastrous election result that ended with the Conservative party losing their majority.
The two were joint chiefs of staff in Downing Street before heading up Theresa May’s campaign in the snap General Election and came under fire today for being involved in some of the campaign’s biggest mistakes, according to reports.
In a statement on the Conservative Home website, Timothy said he had resigned yesterday. A Tory spokesperson confirmed Hill had also quit.
Nick Timothy called the result a “huge disappointment”, and blamed the loss of Tory MPs on “an unexpected surge in support for Labour” due to division in the country.
He said “ironically, the Prime Minister is the one political leader who understands this division, and who has been working to address it since she became Prime Minister last July.
The Conservative election campaign, however, failed to get this and Theresa’s positive plan for the future across.”
Timothy helped draft the Tory manifesto. Its failures, including the so-called dementia tax, have been cited as the turning point in the campaign.
He said: “I take responsibility for my part in this election campaign, which was the oversight of our policy programme.
In particular, I regret the decision not to include in the manifesto a ceiling as well as a floor in our proposal to help meet the increasing cost of social care.”
He continued “It’s been a pleasure to serve in government, and a pleasure to work with such an excellent Prime Minister,” I have no doubt at all that Theresa May will continue to serve and work hard as Prime Minister – and do it brilliantly.”
Hill was reportedly involved in internal rows, including one with Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland. The atmosphere in the Conservative Campaign HQ was said to have turned toxic.
In the firing line Previously, the pair known as “Nick and Fi” was criticized for holding too much power and being too close to May.
But Katie Perrior, former Downing Street director of communications, (who resigned days before the start of the campaign) criticized their “rude, abusive, childish behavior.”
For two people who have never achieved elected office, I was staggered at the disrespect they showed on a daily basis.
I never hated them. I felt sorry for them and how they measured success by how many enemies they had clocked up,” Perrior said.
Tory backbench MP Sarah Wollaston said May needed to abandon her “small inner circle of mostly unelected and discredited special advisers”.
Mundell Officially the Guardian of Scotland – and that’s Youse telt
The recent release of important information from Downing Street to the press (through an unnamed Westminster political source) was seized upon with hearty gusto and hit the front pages of just about every major newspaper in the UK.
The headline; “Nicola Sturgeon will no longer be allowed to meet on equal terms with Theresa May.
From now on the First minister will be required to consult with the Scottish Secretary, Mundell who is at her level of importance.”
The Downing Street response to enquires was confusing. A spokesman stated; “We do not recognize the comments.” Hardly inspiring.
A more positive “The Prime minister will continue to meet with the first Minister to discuss matters of importance” would have been acceptable.
But Mrs May and Nicola Sturgeon have met only once since their difficult meeting in March 2017 and If the press release has foundation it promotes the lie of the Unionist “Better Together” campaign statement that Scotland and England benefited greatly from a “partnership of equals.”
But the new “call Dave not Theresa” policy is inconsistent since Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party (MSP representing Edinburgh Central) joins Cabinet meetings, accompanied by Mundell..
So there we have it. The First Minister of Scotland, representing the people of Scotland, (appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Presiding Officer, after a vote of the Scottish Parliament) is a nonentity so far as the Tory Government in Westminster is concerned.
But the foregoing should not have come as a surprise to Scots who were alerted to potential difficulties with the Scotland Act by senior Scottish politicians and Mundell’s assertions of his importance just after the 2014 referendum.
And Scots are reminded of their place in the Little Englander society represented by the Westminster elite..
21 November 2001: Taking a look-back – and the early warning that the Scotland Act was not fit for purpose and needed to be strengthened
Lord Steel, the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer, criticised the devolution settlement, claiming that Scotland’s institutions should have more power to act without seeking Westminster approval.
Lord Steel, who was giving evidence to a parliamentary committee for the first time, indicated that Holyrood was fettered by the Scotland Act.
He told the parliament’s procedures committee that the Act should be altered to allow Scottish institutions to be changed without the permission of Westminster.
His objection to the current position became clear when his attention was drawn to the provisions of the Scotland Act, which state that the number of MSPs at Holyrood should be reduced from the current level of 129.
Lord Steel has always disagreed with plans to cut the number of MSPs to keep the Scottish parliament in line with proposed changes in the number of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons.
He said: “There’s one problem with the position of the parliament and that’s that it is still set up under the Scotland Act and we have to go back to that if we want to introduce changes in our structure.
I don’t think in the long run that’s a sensible way to proceed.
Even if we are all agreed on a sensible change here it means we have to persuade both Houses at Westminster that they have got to give up time.
I think the real answer lies in that if and when the Scotland Act is reviewed, one of the changes that should be made is that the constitution of our own proceedings should be transferred to us, full stop.” (The Telegraph)
11 February 2002: Impact of Devolved Government to Scotland – Scotland’s Deputy First Minister Lib/Dem Jim Wallace Calls for Abolition of the Scottish Office
The Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, said last week that there was no longer any need for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.
The leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats said Scottish ministers were already working closely with their counterparts in London, bypassing the need for a Scottish Secretary. (The Telegraph)
October 2014: Mundell self defines his and the role of the Scottish Office as decided by the Tory party in Westminster
My role as Scottish Secretary of State is to ensure the smooth working of the devolution settlement in Scotland. and to represent Scottish interests within the UK Government and representing the UK Government in Scotland
And to ensure that when it comes to reserved matters (the issues that the UK Government deals with in Scotland), the people of Scotland’s voice is heard at the highest level in UK Government. My objectives are;
To strengthen and sustain the union.
To act as a custodian of the devolution settlement.
To be Scotland’s voice in Whitehall.
To represent Scottish interests within Government and support the rest of Government on UK matters.
To champion the UK Government in Scotland
To represent and advocate for the UK Government’s policies and achievements in Scotland.
November 2014: Top Civil Service Award goes To a team of senior civil servants, around 29 in total – seconded from the Treasury to the Scottish Office establishment to actively participate against Scotland’s interests in the UK Government’s 2014 referendum dirty tricks campaign
Sir Jeremy Heywood presented the team with “The Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award 2014” in recognition of their outstanding achievements in making a marked difference on an issue of national importance. A number of officials were interviewed after the presentation;
Mario Pisani Deputy Director at HM Treasury said:
“In the Treasury, everyone hates you. We don’t get thanks for anything. This is one occasion where we’ve worked with the rest of Whitehall.
We all had something in common, we’re trying to save the Union here, and it came so close.
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 don’t get involved in politics.
For the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign.
We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications.
I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation.
This being recognised (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 on the Scotland referendum agenda.
The reality was 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 a very special event for all of us.”
Shannon Cochrane; Senior Treasury Official
“we’ve learned that it is possible for civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult, and you’re very close to the line of what is appropriate, 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 don’t get involved in politics.
But, for the first time in my life, suddenly we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications.
I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation.
This being recognised (at the Civil Service Awards), makes me feel just incredibly proud.”
July 2015: The role of the Joint Committee for Scottish Affairs (Westminster) – requires It to be aware of and report to Parliament on matters of importance pertaining to Scotland.
Fulfilling their duties the Committee interviewed Francesca Osowska OBE, Director, Scotland Office to discuss financial matters arising from the Scottish Referendum
Chair: Welcome to the Scottish Affairs Committee; we are very grateful for you both coming along today.
If you would like to introduce yourselves and say what you do, and if there are any initial statements that you want to make to the Committee, please feel free to use that time.
Francesca Osowska: The Annual Report sets out five objectives for 2014-15 and I think our work continues in that vein.
We have a strong constitutional role, primarily in relation to the Scotland Bill, which, as you are aware, is passing through these Houses at the moment.
This is a key priority for the Scotland Office. In addition we continue to be the voice of Scotland in Whitehall, so our work with other Government Departments across Whitehall, in terms of ensuring that they appreciate the devolution settlement and that they are conscious of the Scottish context, will continue.
Similarly, we are the voice of the UK Government in Scotland and, again, we work co-operatively with other Government Departments who have reserved responsibilities in Scotland to ensure that the UK government can work effectively in Scotland.
Chair: Thank you. Obviously, we are here to talk about the Annual Report, which we have all digested and know inside out and back to forward, and so on.
We are grateful that we are able to ask you a few questions about what is included in the Annual Report.
One of the things that struck me, perhaps you could explain to me how this works is that there are 100 staff currently employed within the Scotland Office. Is that correct, roughly 100 staff?
Francesca Osowska: Across the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate General, yes.
Chair: Across the estate that is operating the Scotland Office. None of them are permanent. Does that create any difficulties or problems or issues for you?
I would imagine it must, and why has the decision been taken that they have no permanent staff in the Scotland Office?
Francesca Osowska: Since devolution and since the creation of the Scotland Office this has been the case, that the Scotland Office does not itself directly employ staff, but we second or take staff on loan from other Departments. In the Scotland Office in London most of our staff are on loan, but we also benefit from arrangements with Sir Jeremy Heywood and the Cabinet Office gaining access to external expertise and indeed access external HR expertise, which is effective and efficient for us.
Margaret Ferrier: The 2015-16 budget for the Scotland Office was set at £5.8 million, but the most recent main estimate asked Parliament to approve an additional £3 million for capability enhancement. What were the additional funds for?
Francesca Osowska: In terms of the out turn for 2014-15 the total combined out turn for the Office of the Advocate General and the Scotland Office was £7.7 million.
You will appreciate that that did include an uplift from the original budget setting process that occurred in 2010.
At that point, a referendum was not anticipated; a lot of the work in terms of 2014-15 has been the follow through or was related to the referendum, so the work in the run up to the referendum, contributing to the Scotland analysis papers for example, supporting Ministers as they gave public information to inform the debate about the referendum, and that explains the increase in that provision.
(So entire wage bill and ancillary costs of the 29 civil servants deployed to assist the “better together) was charged to Scottish financial allocations. Utterly disgraceful abuse of the Scottish electorate. And there was no mention of this expenditure in the returns to the Scottish Electoral Office.)
Margaret Ferrier: These public Ministers, are you meaning UK Ministers?
Francesca Osowska: Yes.
Margaret Ferrier: Not Scottish Government?
Francesca Osowska: No.
Margaret Ferrier: The Annual Report and Accounts show that General Administration costs rose by about 8% from £7.2 million in 2013-14 to £7.7 million in 2014-15.
Why did the General Administration costs rise? Is there another reason, other than the referendum debate that was taking place?
Francesca Osowska: No. As I said earlier, the initial budget was set in 2010 as part of that spending review.
The referendum was not anticipated at that point and this increase represents the resources dedicated by the Scotland Office to supporting the work of the UK Government, overall, in informing the referendum debate.
Kirsty Blackman: The Scotland Office had allocated to it and spent an extra £3 million helping UK Government Ministers with information about the referendum, mainly?
Francesca Osowska: In terms of the increase, there are a number of different figures being talked about here.
It might be helpful if I wrote to the Committee after this hearing to set out the sequence of events, because there were uplifts granted and changes in the Budget made from the original 2010 provision at different periods, including during the course of 2013-14, so I do not think it is entirely correct to say it was a single jump of £3 million.
Chair: It would be helpful if you write to the Committee to explain properly what that £3.3 million did account for.
What we are hearing is that this might have been the figure that was used for the referendum campaign, for the “No” campaign, and used by UK Ministers to take part in the referendum.
Would that be roughly a correct characterisation of that spending?
Francesca Osowska: I don’t think it would be, if you don’t mind. What I am saying is that, if we look at page 54 of the Annual Report and Accounts, then you see the trajectory of the Scotland Office and Office of the Advocate General accounts.
You can see, in terms of general administration costs, that they have more or less been around the £7 million.
That is why I feel it is important that I write and set out the explanation of the £3 million figure.
Chair: Please do.
Francesca Osowska: However, in answer to your question, Mr Chairman in relation to “Was this a way of the Government funding the ‘No’ campaign?” this was to fund the activities of UK Government civil servants, in line with the civil service code.
*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 increases our activity and that is why there was an increase between the 2013-14 out turn and 2014-15 out turn.
* But reflect on the disgraceful actions of the UK Cabinet Office and Treasury Civil servants (in the previous note) 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.
July 2015: what a con – the Civil Service and their Janus faced illegal politics
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 retains 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.
State Pension Qualifying Age Increased. Yet Again Scots are Hammered by the Little Englander Chancellor
Those who have paid their national insurance contributions throughout their working life build an entitlement to a state pension and politicians should not seek to find ways to deny them it.
But the UK government continue do so with apparent impunity.
Admittedly retirement, for some, is a boon, a blessing and a hugely enjoyable later stage in life.
But for many it becomes a struggle to survive, living in poverty, on an inadequate and ever reducing State Pension.
Poor health is another factor with approximately 45% of people over the age of 65 entering this stage of their lives suffering some kind of serious long term illness.
Pensioners in good health are not a drain on the nations resources since well in excess of a million continue to work well beyond retirement age.
A similar number provide unpaid care for grandchildren, other members of the family or friends saving the state many millions of pounds.”
And it is a fact that charities and communities would find it difficult to function effectively without massive support from unpaid pensioner volunteers.
Mortality Rates & Pensions – England and Scotland
Up to the early 1950’s, Scottish mortality rates were broadly comparable with the rest of the UK.
But from that time, (attributed to increased levels of deprivation) life expectancy, in Scotland has hardly increased over a period of 60+ years.
In England, (over the same period) rates steadily increased year on year and there is now a very significant gap in life expectancy between England & Scotland.
Male pensioners in affluent London & the South East of England enjoy a life expectancy of approximately 80 years. Female life expectancy is approximately 84 years.
In Scotland, male life expectancy is approximately 73 years. Female life expectancy is approximately 78 years.
The UK Pension Ponzi Scheme – Scottish Pensioners Heavily Subsidize Pension Payments To English Pensioners.
Substantiating the case I selected one, (similar in population density) conurbation in each country, namely,”Glasgow & West of Scotland & London & S/East England”.
Pension assessment: allow approximately £60,000, individual pension contribution payments (assume 40 years @ £1500 per annum).
Maximum pension payments to male English. £6K x 12 years = £72K
Maximum pension payments to female English. £6K x 16 years = £96K
Maximum pension payments to male Scots. £6k x 5 years = £30K
Maximum pension payments to female Scots. £6k x 10 years = £60K
Life Span of Scots is Much Less Than the English.
Life expectancy indicates many Scots children may not survive beyond age 68y with result that around 30% will contribute to a State pension all of their working lives but get little or nothing in return by way of pension.
It Doesn’t Need to Be This Way
An independent Scotland would be freed from the heavy burden of subsidising English and Welsh State pensions.
A Scottish government blessed with greatly reduced State pension commitments would be able to increase pensions significantly or reduce the retirement age.
In the UK there is no written constitution with result that there are no legal safeguards ensuring the maintenance of government budget deficits within specific limits. e.g. A % proportion of GDP.
There is also no legislation preventing governments from gaining electoral advantage through excessive borrowing, effectively mortgaging the nation’s future to the hilt.
Which is exactly what Chancellor’s Darling and Osborne did between 2007-2017.
UK bankers, through greed, incompetence and criminal activities over-committed the country’s finances through many millions of questionable contracts and mortgage Ponzi schemes.
When the dodgy business was called to account by short changing adventurers the proverbial s..t hit the fan and the UK was bust.
Alistair Darling, the Labour government Chancellor of the Exchequer consulted his team of advisors, (led by Fred the Shred) who were of the view that 98% of the UK public would be largely unaffected by allowing the Banks and other financial organisations to fail, but the remaining 2% of taxpayers, financial organisations and bankers stood to lose very significant amounts of money.
Darling decided to protect the richest 2% of the UK society.
The bulk of the population would suffer the effects of a massive borrowing regime and 10 years after citizens of little financial means are being strangled by austerity measures introduced by government.
Conversely, the richest 2% have become richer beyond their wildest dreams since austerity is a word unused in their society.
But how does financial debt accrue?
The Treasury prints guaranteed bonds and sells them to private investors and countries.
Over 40% of UK debt is owed to foreign countries and corporations.
Why Does the EU Get a Bad Press?
The EU Stability and Growth Pact (S.G.P.) was finalised and implemented by EU member States in 1999.
This required members to commit to deficits not exceeding 3.00% of GDP and debt not more than 60.00% of G.D.P.
The inherent weakness of the measure was that it was only a pact and as such not legally enforceable and in the period 1999-2012 many member countries regularly posted deficits well in excess of 3.00 %, (including the UK)
One such country was Greece whose economy completely collapsed under the burden of debt requiring the intervention of the EU Central Bank who introduced drastic austerity measures with the purpose of rescuing the (basket case) Greek economy.
Austerity is still harshly active in Greece at 2017.
At the beginning of 2011 Italy’s public debt had increased to approximately £1.70 trillion (approximately 120% of GDP).
This compared unfavourably with the agreed maximum limit of 60.00% in the EU’s Stability & Growth Pact (S.G.P.)
Meeting the challenge the EU decided in 2012 to standardise borrowing within the EU.
Twenty-Six of the EU’s Twenty-Eight member States signed a landmark treaty (the “fiscal compact“) committing them to co-ordinating their budget policies imposing penalties on rule-breakers from 2013.
The Czech Republic and the UK opted out of the legally binding treaty.
Tory Chancellor Kenneth Clark presided over a period of austerity in the latter part of the 1990’s and handed over a stable economy to the incoming labour administration.
1997-2002
Gordon Brown, The Labour Chancellor maintained the same financial regime as his predecessor and by the end of the first parliament (1997-2002) public sector debt as a % of GDP was reduced to 29%.
2002-2007
The second Labour government (2002–2007) relaxed fiscal rules and national debt increased to 37% of GDP.
The rise was primarily due to the government’s decision to greatly increase spending on health and education.
There was also a significant rise in social security spending.
2007-2010
The third Labour government (2007-2010 was an unmitigated disaster.
There was a very sharp increase in public sector debt because of:
The 2008-2010 recession which was incurred by the financial bailout of Northern Rock, R.B.S., Lloyd’s and other banks resulted in greatly reduced tax receipts, much increased spending on unemployment benefits, and other welfare support.
Falling house prices resulting in much reduced stamp duty, income tax and lower corporation tax collection.
Other factors included a hidden deficit caused by the Labour government spending more than tax revenue.
2010-2015
The Tory Party agreed a coalition with the Lib-Dems and governed from (2010-2015).
The Tory Chancellor, George Osborne declared that austerity would be maintained and indeed strengthened across all sectors of society, (all in it together) declared the Prime Minister, David Cameron).
His campaign slogan proved to be a false dawn when the burden of increased austerity was placed firmly on the shoulders of the 98% of the public previously hammered by Alistair Darling and the Labour party in 2008.
2015-2017
The 2015 General Election was a watershed in UK politics and austerity.
In Scotland Unionist party’s were virtually wiped out by a massive turnout of the electorate in favour of the SNP.
Unfortunately the Labour party in England was poorly organised and fraught with in-fighting with result that the electorate abandoned them in favour of the Tory Party who were then able to form a government, albeit with a small majority.
True to form Tory Chancellor, Osborne announced that austerity measures would remain in place for at least another 5 years.
The majority would continue to be punished for the criminal actions of the bankers who would be rewarded yet again.
David Cameron made a cock-up of the EC referendum in 2016 and was forced to surrender his leadership role, passing the chalice to Theresa May who formed a new government.
Osborne was dropped from his role as chancellor and there was brief hope things would change.
No chance, multi- millionaire, Hammond, the new Chancellor, opted to pursue and indeed threatened to extend the period of austerity without end.
2017-2021
In 2017, Theresa May asked the electorate for a new mandate.
She managed to get her government re-elected but without a overall majority which she gerrymandered in her favour gaining a majority through the qualified support of the D.U.P.
Hammond remains in office, (but under pressure) and the future is just as dismal as before.
In December 2016, politicians in the UK passed The Investigatory Powers Bill
The Act, (heavily criticised by civil rights groups, privacy experts and over 100,000 people for the intrusive and draconian levels of surveillance of the private lives of individuals), was passed by Westminster in December 2016.
As expected, legal challenges against the powers of the act have been submitted to the relevant controlling authority in anticipation the government will amend aspects of the act causing most concern to the public.
The European Court of Justice has ruled the collection of bulk data to be unlawful.
The British government has refused to amend the act, the response being that provisions contained within it are necessary to help protect the country’s national security and oversight is provided for the protection of individuals.
Many aspects of the legislation have yet to be implemented but it is expected the act will be fully in force before the end of 2017 which is worrying when considered against the slow moving Brexit talks.
Clarifying its extent in advance of Royal Assent in December 2016, then home secretary Amber Rudd said:
“This Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.
The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge.
But it is also right that these powers are subject to strict safeguards and rigorous oversight.
The Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection.
I want to pay tribute to the independent reviewers, organisations, and Parliamentarians of all parties for their rigorous scrutiny of this important law which is vital for the safety and security of our families, communities and country.”
The legislation includes:
Hacking power:
For the first time, security services will be able to hack into computers, networks, mobile devices, servers and more under the proposed plans.
The practice is known as equipment interference and is set out in part 5, chapter 2, of the IP Bill.
This may include downloading data from a mobile phone that is stolen or left unattended, or software that tracks every keyboard letter pressed being installed on a laptop.
“More complex equipment interference operations may involve exploiting existing vulnerabilities in software in order to gain control of devices or networks to remotely extract material or monitor the user of the device.”
The power will be available to police forces and intelligence services. Warrants must be issued for the hacking to take place.
Bulk hacking:
For those not living in the UK, but who have come to the attention of the security agencies, the potential to be hacked increases.
Bulk equipment interference (chapter 3 of the IP Bill) allows for large scale hacks in “large operations”.
Data can be gathered from “a large number of devices in the specified location”.
A draft code of practice says a foreign region (although it does not give a size) where terrorism is suspected could be targeted, for instance.
As a result, it is likely the data of innocent people would be gathered.
Security and intelligence agencies must apply for a warrant from the Secretary of State and these groups are the only people who can complete bulk hacks.
Commissioners:
To help oversee the new powers, the Home Office is introducing new roles to approve warrants and handle issues that arise from the new powers.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) and judicial commissioners (part 8, chapter 1 of the IP Bill) will be appointed by Theresa May, or whoever the serving prime minister is at the time.
The IPC will be a senior judge and be supported by other high court judges.
“The IPC will audit compliance and undertake investigations,” the government says.
“The Commissioner will report publicly and make recommendations on what he finds in the course of his work,” guidance on the original bill says (page 6).
“He will also publish guidance when it is required on the proper use of investigatory powers.”
Web records and Communication Services
Under the IP Bill, security services and police forces will be able to access communications data when it is needed to help their investigations.
This means internet history data (Internet Connection Records, in official speak) will have to be stored for 12 months.
Providers, which include everything from internet companies and messenger services to postal services, will have to store meta data about the communications made through their services.
The who, what, when, and where will have to be stored. This will mean your internet service provider stores that you visited “Caltonjock” to read this article, on this day, at this time and where from (i.e. a mobile device).
This will be done for every website visited for a year.
Web records and communications data is detailed under chapter 3, part 3 of the law and warrants are required for the data to be accessed.
A draft code of practice details more information on communications data.
Bulk data sets
As well as communications data being stored, intelligence agencies will also be able to obtain and use “bulk personal datasets”.
These mass data sets mostly include a “majority of individuals” that aren’t suspected in any wrongdoing but have been swept-up in the data collection.
These (detailed under part 7 of the IP Bill and in a code of practice), as well as warrants for their creation and retention must be obtained.
“Typically these datasets are very large, and of a size which means they cannot be processed manually,” the draft code of practice describes the data sets as. These types of databases can be created from a variety of sources.
Real-time surveillance
Draft regulations published in May 2017 reveal how the IP Act’s provisions will work in practice.
The technical regulations, which put obligations on internet communication companies, say “communications and secondary data” about a person will have to be provided “in near real time” to authorities when a warrant has been obtained.
Also, the regulations, which were being consulted on with UK technical groups, say that where possible ‘electronic protection’ (also known as encryption) should be removed by communications companies where it is possible to do so.
Public authorities that can access records
Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
Comments:
Tom Skillinger: Leader of the 100.000 signature petition submitted to the government said:
“This is an absolute disgrace to both privacy and freedom and needs to stop.
It has only made it this far due to it being snuck past the population in relative secrecy. It isn’t too late.
We can fix this before the UK is turned into a dystopian surveillance state.”
Jim KIllock: Executive Director of the “Open Rights Group” said:
“Amber Rudd says the Investigatory Powers Act is world-leading legislation.
She is right, it is one of the most extreme surveillance laws ever passed in a democracy.
Its impact will be felt beyond the UK as other countries, including authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, will use this law to justify their own intrusive surveillance regimes.
Theresa May has finally got her snoopers’ charter and democracy in the UK is the worse for it.”
14 May 2017: Privacy start-up company – Why we decided to leave the UK following election
The company has raised tens of thousands through crowd funding to create a pro-privacy peer-to-peer network and smartphone app that allows users a Facebook experience without handing over personal information.
Aral Balkan, founder and developer on the platform, explains why the company has decided to leave the UK following the 2017 General Election results.
Shortly after winning the election last week, the Tory’s home secretary Theresa May made a commitment to reintroduce the snooper’s charter, an initiative previously blocked by the coalition.
Stances like this, as well as the plans to block encrypted messaging applications as well as a distillation of the Humans Right Act, will lead the Brighton based company to leave the UK.
Aral Balkan, founder and developer recently said: “It would be ironic to stay in a country that just scrapped its “Human Rights Act” when you’re trying to further the cause of human rights, don’t you think?
The possibility of stronger legislation from Europe concerning data protection, privacy and human rights, to be announced this year is not enough to us working within the British Isles.
“I have very little faith that Europe will stand strong on protecting our human right to privacy.”
“There are major and increasing concerns over lobbyists’ influence on the new incoming general data protection and the Tory Manifesto is at severe risk from corporate influences who favour big data over big data protection.”
“They seem to be more interested in keeping Silicon Valley companies happy and being rewarded with investments into ‘start-up’ ecosystems and increased lobbying spends.
If we are to tackle the issue of protecting privacy (and thus human rights) in the EU, we should take a long, hard look at the staggering amounts of institutional corruption at the state and EU levels and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the remove the influence of corporate finance in public policymaking.”
Legislation from the EU is expected to be published before the end of 2017 and it is expected safeguards concerning data protection, privacy and human rights will be greatly strengthened over the UK legislation.
Nothing of the EU bill will be introduced into the UK during the Brexit discussions. But in any event it is saddled with the same drawback as the UK.
The EU appears to be more interested in keeping Silicon Valley companies happy (and being rewarded with investments by them into “start-up” ecosystems and increased lobbying spends).
If the EU is to tackle the issue of protecting privacy (and human rights) in the EU, it needs to take a long, hard look at the staggering amounts of institutional corruption at the state and EU levels and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the remove the influence of corporate finance in public policymaking.”
Balkan blames “multistakeholderism” and “co-regulation” that sees companies like Google and Facebook invited to the EU table to decide how they should be regulated and give advice on what privacy protection should be implemented to protect individuals.
“That’s like inviting the wolf to the table to comment on the welfare of the sheep.
Multistakeholderism, public-private partnerships, and co-regulation are all euphemisms for institutional corruption.
If we’re serious about tackling these issues let’s work to remove the influence of (mainly American, and mainly Silicon Valley) companies from the policy decisions made in Europe that concern the welfare of Europeans.”
Stages in development
Balkan, who has been programming for over 30 years – and working professionally for 15 – is just about to kick off Ind.ie’s pre alpha programme for Heartbeat.
Heartbeat is a social network – one part of the underlying technology the start-up is creating to eventually offer an entirely private smartphone (the Indie phone) .
Pulse – a private version of Dropbox and a bridge tool called Way-stone will follow with the help of crowdfunding.
“I have a couple of days of coding left until I can get there and then we’re going to test it out with the team for a few days before starting to open it up to the 850 or so alpha testers who supported us in the top two tiers during crowdfunding.
It’s taken us about 6 months to get here, which is much longer than I’d originally estimated, but it’s not like anyone has built this before so we’re also learning as we go.”
Private island, Scandinavia or Scotland?
Development aside, now the small firm must think about where to relocate. “We don’t know where we’re moving to yet.
We’ve had a lot of words of support and lots of invitations to come visit,” said Balkan.
So far, a private Island in Panama owned by a friend, a handful of Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden and Iceland due to their human rights credentials as well as Berlin are top of the list for Ind.ie.
Scotland is another option, Balkan adds, “If we could be confident they it would leave the UK and resist the Tory push for ubiquitous surveillance.”
Westminster Governments Sent Scottish Troops Into Afghanistan, Helmand Province on a Wing and a Prayer
In April 2006 the UK deployed over 3,000 military personnel, (the bulk of the teeth armed units being Scottish) tasked with creating a safe base and active participation (as part of a Nato-led peacekeeping force) in direct support a large US-led force already deployed throughout the country aggressively eliminating militants.
Fully aware, from US intelligence briefing, of the dangers facing the force to be deployed and major deficiencies in their equipment and arms, the Westminster government approach was one born of complacency, believing that US forces on the ground would continue to meet the main challenge of the Taliban.
The political mantra was: ” we’ll deal with it if it happens.”
US military command, in Kabul were pleased that the British Army would be actively involved in the war against the Taliban and were more than ready give over responsibility for policing Helmand Province and the South of Afghanistan.
In the process of the force deployment, John Reid, Secretary of State for Defence, addressing the world’s press in Kabul, advised that Britain would remain with the Nato joint forces mission for as long as necessary, emphasising the importance of preventing the Taliban returning to power.
He went on to say: “We’re in Helmand and the South to assist and protect the Afghan people reconstructing their economy and democracy” and, “we would be perfectly happy to leave in three years time without firing one shot.”
Not long after Reid departed to the UK and a new job as Foreign Secretary the unwarranted complacency was quickly dispelled by the shock of cold reality when the Ill equipped, armed and trained young soldiers came under sustained attacks from the Taliban.
Policing went out the window to be replaced by 12 years of brutal counter-insurgency resulting in the death and injury of many British Armed forces.
A simple policing mission gone badly wrong. British Armed Forces betrayed by Westminster governments whose default setting firmly fixed at: “muddle”
The Disastrous Legacy John Reid Left the Army and the Nation
446 British soldiers met their deaths – a higher figure than in Iraq, or the Falklands
The maximum acceptable level of major combat casualties is 6 deaths per 1000.
USA forces suffered 3 deaths per 1000.
UK forces suffered 13 deaths per 1000.
British army casualties four times the rate of US troops, a statistical disparity which nobody at Westminster seems anxious to explain.
3560 soldiers were wounded. In one year: (between April 2012 and March 2013)
29 British soldiers had limbs amputated.
12 were classified as “significant multiple amputees”.
the average age of those who died was 22.
31 were teenagers, 200 in their 20s.
Of the Afghan veterans who made it home more or less in one piece, the most common cause of death in 2012 was suicide.
One reason for the very high British casualty rate – in the absence of written evidence – could be the ignorance and stupidity of British politicians and their carelessness about the lives of the young people they were sending into battle, the disgraceful failure to provide basic equipment and the deployment of personnel in ways which made no military (or any other sort of) sense.
The Scottish farming community is apparently on its knees, the bulk of farmers having barely two coins to rub together. It is surely unacceptable that Scottish society is unable to provide adequate financial support to these poor individuals who struggle to survive in the unforgiving harsh climate of Scotland.
Listed below is a summary of farmers claims for financial subsidy support in 2015/16. which provides the evidence backing the farming community. They clearly need urgent assistance.
How are Payments calculated?
From 2015 – 2020, the single payment scheme was replaced by the “basic payment scheme” (BPS), which was intended to close some of the loopholes in the previous system and give greater weight to the provision of environmental public goods.
However, the new system remains largely based on land ownership.
Under the basic payment scheme around 30 per cent of a farmer’s payment depends on them meeting three “greening” rules. These require farmers to:
Grow two or three different crops.
Devote at least 5 per cent of their arable land to “ecological focus areas” like hedges and fallow land.
Take some responsibility for maintaining the proportion of permanent grassland in the country.
The new scheme also bars some businesses from claiming the subsidy if they also operate airports, railway services, waterworks, real estate services, or permanent sports grounds.
However, these businesses are still able to claim BPS if, for example, they have more than 36 hectares of eligible.
The Church Commissioners For England DG1 DUMFRIES £649,987.98
The Woodland Trust PH2 PERTH £861,182.61
Torsa Holdings Ltd IV3 INVERNESS £876,006.69
Valley Fields (Scotland) DG4 SANQUHAR £518,791.88 Farm in Dumfies.
William Hamilton And Son (No 2) KY15 CUPAR £692,816.62
Claims in Excess of £250K (117)
A Macgregor(Allanfauld) G65 GLASGOW £266,295.14
Andrew B. Young KA26 GIRVAN £296,724.52
Andrew C Smith IV2 INVERNESS £399,979.58
Auchencheyne Ltd DG3 THORNHILL £408,690.54
Aucheneck Estate G63 GLASGOW £281,834.26
Burghill Farms DD9 BRECHIN £315,597.64
C & S Adams DG9 STRANRAER £387,116.82
Cadzow Bros PA34 OBAN £323,893.54
Careston Ltd DD9 BRECHIN £262,856.69
Charles M Kirkpatrick DG11 Lockerbie £330,990.95
Clan Donald Land Trust PH33 FORT WILLIAM£ £305,727.73
Conagleann Ltd t/a Dunmaglass Estate DD9 BRECHIN £381,778.87
Conon Brae Farms IV7 DINGWALL £350,919.53
Craigton IV20 TAIN £250,098.91
Crochmore Farms Limited DG2 DUMFRIES £329,887.10
Culfargie Estates Ltd PH1 BALBEGGIE £258,680.83
D R F Farmers Ltd AB43 FRASERBURGH £455,712.44
Dalhanna Farming Company DG7 CASTLE DOUGLAS £268,660.72
Dalmahoy Farms EH27 KIRKNEWTON £365,143.43
Des J Donohoe PH1 PERTH £346,455.01
Dindinnie Farming Co DG9 STRANRAER £375,329.03
Drummuir Home Farms AB55 KEITH £324,147.76
Dunecht Home Farms AB32 WESTHILL £435,616.34
Dunlossit (Farming) Ltd PA45 ISLE OF ISLAY £325,579.98
F Laing PH26 MORAYSHIRE £376,214.50
Fersness Farms KW17 ORKNEY £286,391.66
Firm Of Ardtornish Farms PA80 OBAN £264,412.58
Firm of John G Hamilton EH42 DUNBAR £400,986.88
Firm Of Peter Alexander PH10 BLAIRGOWRIE £317,887.47
Floors Farming TD5 KELSO £296,482.70
G Mcdougal (Bassendean)Ltd TD3 GORDON £323,977.62
Glenapp Estate Company Ltd KA26 GIRVAN £396,238.87
Glencorse Association EH26 Penicuik £387,806.96
Glenkiln Farms DG2 DUMFRIES £282,363.64
Glenrath Egg Products Ltd EH46 West Linton £381,876.00
Glenrinnes Farms Limited AB55 DUFFTOWN £315,699.68
Grahams the Family Dairy FK9 BRIDGE OF ALLAN £251,239.30
Greenshields Agri Ltd TD11 DUNS £269,463.58
Hawk Farming Ltd FK16 DOUNE £351,031.06
Iain Service & Co Ltd DG8 NEWTON STEWART £374,961.10
IAN WHITE LTD PH2 PERTH Livestock breeder £389,233.27
Innishewan Farms EH26 PENICUIK £286,117.32
J C Innes & Sons AB54 HUNTLY £424,531.11
J P Campbell & Sons EH45 PEEBLES £348,194.87
J R Graham Ltd KY14 AUCHTERMUCHTY £487,327.33
James Forbes PH16 PITLOCHRY £252,139.45
James H Fowlie ( A Firm ) AB43 FRASERBURGH £401,331.85
John A Wallace & Sons DG8 NEWTON STEWART £257,713.43
John C Forbes-Leith PH2 PERTH £281,992.25
John C McIntosh AB21 ABERDEEN £441,636.85
John W McEwen & Son G63 GLASGOW £257,207.78
John Watson AB43 FRASERBURGH £278,749.59
John Wight & Sons ML12 ABINGTON £299,928.96
Kingsbarns Company Of Distillers KY10 Anstruther £252,156.00
Klondyke Farms Limited DG3 THORNHILL £382,434.94
L G Litchfield Bowland Farms TD1 GALASHIELS £404,513.54
Langholm Farms Ltd TD7 SELKIRK £380,679.45
Linlithgow Farms Ltd ML11 LANARK £320,504.39
Lour Farms DD8 FORFAR £299,271.17
Luss Estates Company G83 ARDEN £266,473.34
M & M Dudgeon KW8 SUTHERLAND £330,542.99
M/S A S & H M McGimpsey DG12 ANNAN £288,634.44
M/S John Stevenson & Co KY10 ANSTRUTHER £251,690.55
Macfarlane Farms Ltd TD11 DUNS £294,049.18
Malcolm Allan Ltd FK5 LARBERT £390,000.00
Mansionhouse Farm FK15 BRACO £256,410.11
MBM Farms Ltd KW1 WICK £297,687.44
Messrs A & J Craig DG7 CASTLE DOUGLAS £275,624.59
Messrs D G & J D Walker DG4 SANQUHAR £270,540.64
MESSRS GRAY & DALE DD11 ARBROATH £475,344.06
Messrs J Swanson KW14 THURSO £260,516.32
Messrs R & B Dickie DG4 SANQUHAR £329,657.20
Messrs S & J Fisher DG13 LANGHOLM £269,140.22
MR J D PATERSON KA27 SLIDDERY £293,268.23
Mr R McBride & Son DG1 DUMFRIES £274,391.10
Mr W J Henderson & Sons DG2 DUMFRIES £294,389.75
Ms E J Mackenzie & Co IV19 Ross-Shire £354,610.86
N Forsyth & Son DG8 NEWTON STEWART £299,104.20
Norman Thow & Partners AB30 LAURENCEKIRK £309,802.25
Old Cullen Farms AB56 Buckie £267,270.39
OLD HALL FARMS DG9 STRANRAER £401,173.37
Ordens Farms Ltd AB45 BANFF £261,091.96
Pat Wilson Farms PH1 ALMONDBANK £319,382.34
Perthshire Farms PH2 £402,561.05
R & J McDonald TD11 DUNS £276,383.15
Rottal Estates Partnership DD8 KIRRIEMUIR £283,956.04
Southesk Farms DD9 BRECHIN £308,234.51
Strathmore Farming Company DD8 FORFAR £354,520.35
T D Girvan & Sons IV63 GLENMORISTON £286,663.10
T W & T B Edgar Limited TD5 KELSO £290,977.81
THE ARDNAMURCHAN ESTATE. IV30 PLUSCARDEN £262,589.18
The Firm of Innerwick PH1 PERTH£ £276,240.81
The National Trust For Scotland EH11 EDINBURGH £462,693.71
The Rosebery Estate Partnership EH30 SOUTH Q/FERRY £348,235.88.The Talla Farming Partnership TD1 GALASHIELS £315,732.88
Trustees of Cawdor Marriage IV12 NAIRN £311,234.23
W & A Oag KW14 THURSO £272,841.76
Welbeck Scottish Farms Ltd KW7 BERRIEDALE £350,731.21
WHS Hotts DG11 LOCKERBIE £291,629.98
caltonjock 