caltonjock

 

 

 

 

O flower of Scotland

“When will we see your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit hill and glen, And stood against him, Proud Edward’s army, And sent him homeward, Tae think again. The hills are bare now, And autumn leaves lie thick and still, O’er land that is lost now, Which those so dearly held, And stood against him, Proud Edward’s army, And sent him homeward, Tae think again. Those days are passed now, And in the past they must remain, But we can still rise now, And be the nation again, That stood against him, Proud Edward’s army, And sent him homeward, Tae think again”

 

 

 

 

 

 

1995: Shamateur to Professional – Scottish Rugby Union’s Torturous Process of Change

Scottish Rugby Union hierarchy failed to adjust at the same time as other nations and missed out on at least one season of professional rugby which also saw a number of Scot’s players transferring their contracts of employment to clubs in England, Wales, Ireland, France and Italy. The blundering continued well into the new era of professional rugby as various factions battled for supremacy and as a consequence the performances of the Scottish national rugby team deteriorated.

Attendance at Murrayfield dropped by up to 40% and disillusioned fans found other sports to support. The process of change laid bare to the public extreme right wing attitudes prevalent within Scottish rugby and the areas of Scottish society from which it attracted players and supporters. The prevalence of rugby players and supporters for retention of the Treaty of Union was found to be markedly high in comparison with other sports and this was manifest at the time of the 2014 Independence Referendum. The years of torment:

1995 International Rugby Board announces that the days of amateurism and shamateurism are over and the sport is going open.

1996-97: The organisation tries to come to grips with the new era forming part-time professional district teams to take part in European competition after missing out on the first season of the Heineken Cup.
1998: A momentous year in which the SRU’s first full time chief executive calls for an overhaul of the entire structure of the game and a coup at Murrayfield brings about a number of resignations from the committee.

1999: Lord Mackay comprehensive review of all aspects of Scottish rugby, brings about major changes including, removal of unelected “special representatives” to the SRU committee. Also recommends that the Union formally delegate the day-to-day running of the sport to their executives meeting only four times per year to offer an overview on policy matters.

2000: Ken Scobies appointed as the SRU plc’s first executive board chairman with three more non-executive directors – Andrew Flanagan, Fraser Livingston and Bill Wilson – also introduced at board level.

2002: With friction between the general committee and the executive board growing, Scobie survives challenges from committee members who seize upon newspaper allegations about his munitions company’s involvement distributing land-mines.

2003: After Scobie completes his three-year term David Mackay becomes the SRU’s second chairman, promptly launching a 100-day stocktake at the end of which Watson is asked to resign and agrees to go, Mackay taking over as caretaker chief executive.

2004: With Mackay claiming it represents “the last chance saloon” for Scottish rugby, the Genesis Strategic Review gets under way. Phil Anderton is promoted to the chief executive’s office after a highly acclaimed four-year stint as commercial and marketing director and both chairman and new chief executive receive unheard of applause at the SRU’s annual meeting after unveiling in broad terms the findings of the review.

 

 

 

 

 

10 January 2005: David Mckay resigns from his post as Chairman following a vote of no confidence. it is alleged that some members of the general committee, (which was far from unanimous in registering its no confidence vote in the chairman,) were actually motivated by their opposition to plans to overhaul the governance of the game. That would have removed much of their capacity to interfere in the running of the sport on a day-to-day basis. Mackay is credited with cutting SRU losses, which had reached £10million when he was appointed in 2003, reducing to under £2million at the end of 2004.

11 January 2005: Three members of the Scottish Rugby Union executive board resigned in protest at the `no confidence’ vote which caused the departure of chairman David Mackay. The former SRU chair resigned from his position yesterday in the wake of the vote taken by the general committee of the Union. Now executive board members Fraser Livingston, Andrew Flanagan and Eric Hagman have stepped down in response.

A row has been simmering for months between Scotland’s clubs and the SRU executive, with club sides fearing a loss of policy-making power to the governing body. But the three outgoing executive board members lashed out at the exit of Mackay in their notice to quit. A statement from Livingston, Flanagan and Hagman said: “Replacing the chairman without prior notice or any consultation whatsoever with the executive board flies in the face of good governance.`

In David Mackay’s short term in charge of the board, enormous strides have been made in improving efficiency, planning debt reduction and developing a cohesive and comprehensive strategy for the game. “Sadly, the general committee’s actions do nothing to further the interests of taking Scottish rugby into the 21st Century.”

12 January 2005: Scottish rugby in turmoil with leading clubs threatening to break away from the SRU, senior figures resigning in droves, and a question mark over the future of the chief executive, Phil Anderton, and the technical director, Ian McGeechan.

13 January 2005: Chief Executive Phil Anderton the latest casualty of the bitter battle for power in the game when he resigned yesterday.

 

 

 

13 January 2005: Scottish Rugby in Meltdown – MSP’s to Debate Matter at Holyrood: Susan Deacon MSP tables motion:

“That the parliament notes with extreme concern the current situation within Scottish Rugby which has seen the resignation of a number of senior figures within the organisation, including David Mackay as chairman of the executive board and Phil Anderton as chief executive, following a no-confidence vote in the chairman by the SRU general committee.

Recognises the importance of rugby at both a local and national level as one of Scotland’s major sports and applauds the efforts which had been made by the former chairman and chief executive to take forward a strategy which would secure a sustainable future for rugby in Scotland.

Believes it is vital that effective leadership and direction is restored within Scottish rugby at the earliest possible date, and supports calls for the reinstatement of David Mackay as chairman of the executive board and Phil Anderton as chief executive to secure this objective.”         (http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/15377062/sru-row-becomes-political-issue)

17 Jan 2010: Five years on David Mackay looks back after he lost the battle but won the war in Scotland rugby’s revolution: There are many more pressing demands on Scottish Rugby’s resources right now, but if the big cheeses of the SRU’s administration ever wanted to scrape the bottom of the shortbread tin for funds for a work of public art they could do worse than raise a statue in honour of the 14 gentlemen who sat on their own general committee at the dawn of 2005.

The only drawback is it would take a sculptor of uncommon dexterity and craft to capture the myopia that characterised the actions of those individuals at the time. A handful – four, to be exact – came out of the administrative meltdown they had provoked with reputations intact, but the others could still serve, quite literally, as monuments to vainglorious stupidity.

Five years have now passed since the old committee unwittingly signed their own death warrants with a vote of no confidence in David Mackay, the much-respected businessman who had been called in as chairman a year earlier to steady a Union ship that had been holed below the financial waterline by the bungling of previous managements. ( http://old.glasgowhawks.com/news/7391)

 

 

 

 

 

11 March 2017: Why is the Scottish Rugby Union So Strongly Anti Independence?

“O’ flower of Scotland, when will we see your like again?” Scottish fans of rugby union must find their nostalgic pre-match anthem, which commemorates the history of Caledonian resistance against the English, especially poignant. But In sport, patriotism is not always the same thing as separatism. A number of Scottish athletes opposed independence in 2014. Why? The primary reason was money. Gordon Brown, (Scottish born former prime minister,) warned that a divorce could cost Scottish sport its funding from the National Lottery.

But rugby is a rich game, with little need for Lottery handouts. So its unionism is partly explained by demography. Poor voters are the most likely to back independence, and rugby players and fans are a posh bunch. Only one of Scotland’s 37-man squad was born in a local authority that voted to leave in 2014. Rugby also embraces internationalism more than most sports. Nineteen of Scotland’s players were born outside Scotland, eight of them in England. Nine play for clubs outside Scotland. (The Economist)

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 February 2013: Phil Anderton Joins Better Together

Phil Anderton, who currently works as a management consultant based in Scotland, has been appointed to the board of the cross-party Better Together organisation. He will have specific board responsibility for the interaction between Better Together and the business community. The Edinburgh-born businessman, who has a degree in management and international relations from St Andrews University, has also worked in brand management for both Procter and Gamble, Coca-Cola and the Scottish Rugby Union which he joined in 2000 and was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer in February 2004, after several years of successful marketing within the SRU. He was nicknamed “Firework Phil”, because he provided lavish firework displays and entertainment before rugby games at Murrayfield Stadium. He resigned as CEO in January 2005 after David Mackay (Chairman of the SRU) was forced to resign by the SRU General Committee. (He retains strong links to Scottish rugby)

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 October 2013: Gavin Hastings – Avid Opponent of Scottish Independence

He stated: “it’s all about exposure to the bigger picture, and Scotland is not the bigger picture. It never will be. We will not be able to do it amongst ourselves – we need to see the global picture in front us and be part of that picture, and, in my opinion, we will never be part of that were we to be an independent nation – which, by the way, we won’t be. “People say ‘what’s the greatest honour you had as a rugby player?’ Being captain of the British Lions. That’s bigger than being captain of Scotland, so you know what I’m saying.”

Reader Rebuts Hastings Assertions: With respect, I disagree. We don’t need a larger neighbouring nation to govern us. I believe the Scots have the wits and ability to control their own affairs. We are every bit as good as any other nation. I happen to believe strongly that ALL countries should have the right to democratic self determination. We are not too wee, too poor, and too stupid, as the No campaigners spent two years telling us. We are not “subsidy junkies”, reliant on hand outs. I find the idea that we are “not genetically programmed to make political decisions” offensive. At the end of the day, I am simply fed up of people telling us that we can’t do it, that we’re scroungers who can’t survive without the generous hand-outs from our neighbours. Independence is about self respect. About belief in yourself and in your nation. I just wish more people had the courage to believe in themselves and their fellow countrymen. Yes, let Scotland take its place on the world stage, but lets do it standing shoulder to shoulder with other countries as friends and equals. (The Scotsman)

 

 

 

 

 
13 September 2014: Scottish Rugby Stars Tactical Strike 5 days before the Independence Referendum: Scottish Rugby Legends Urge Scots to Vote No

The all-star line-up re-enacted the national side’s iconic 1990 march in a show of support for the Better Together campaign. Stars backing the anti-independence vote also included Kenny Logan, Scott and Gavin Hastings, Andy Nicol and Finlay Calder. Speaking, Sole – who captained Scotland’s Grand Slam-winning side of 1990 – said: “I think the Yes campaign almost feel they have exclusive rights on the Saltire which I think is completely unjustified. “I’ve played for Scotland, I’ve played for my country, I’ve split blood for my country and I’m very passionate about that. (The Record)

• What a stupid thing to say.  Many hundreds of young men and women killed or injured in Iraq and Afghanistan spilt their blood for their country he cut his head playing a game of sport.

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 September 2014: Scottish Rugby Players Attack Childless SNP chiefs Claiming That They ” Have no Feel For the UK family”‘ and Want to Break Up the Union Because They do Not Understand Families

Former Scottish rugby players said Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon do not have to worry about future generations of Scots as they are childless. At a pro-union campaign event outside Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh, Steve Munro, who earned 10 caps for Scotland, said the pair ‘don’t have any understanding of kids as they don’t have children’. The 56-year-old former winger added: “I’ve got children and I’m thinking about their futures. Salmond and Sturgeon have re-established divisions in our country.”

Andy Irvine, 62, a former president of the Scottish Rugby Union who earned 51 Scottish caps, added: ‘I’m a parent of four children and four grandchildren. I may be coming towards the end of my life, but they’re starting theirs and they’d be better in the Union. I’m a proud Scot and a proud Brit too. I have to think about the impact on their livelihoods.” (The Daily Mail)

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 Sep 2014: Scottish Rugby’s Bullingdon Boys Club Score an Own Goal

Much as I love the egg-chasing game, it has always struck me as rugby’s most profound weakness that it has nothing in its repertoire to match the sublime moment of sporting purity that is football’s own goal. Rugby is denied all this. Or rather it was until last week, when a group of Scottish ‘legends’ – a term that has clearly acquired a certain flexibility of late – gathered at Murrayfield to pledge their support for the referendum No campaign. Finally, rugby had its own goal.

As it happens, I have a lot of time for people such as David Sole, Gavin Hastings, Finlay Calder and the rest of them, just as I had a lot of admiration for them as individuals in their playing days. I also couldn’t really care less whether they favour Yes, No or Maybe. But for them to come together as they did, and where they did, was a monumental misjudgement.

By way of clarification, they weren’t actually in Murrayfield, the Scottish Rugby Union having made it crystal clear that they wanted nothing to do with the stunt. Instead, they hung about in Roseburn Street, just outside the stadium, which is where most of the photographs you might have seen were taken.

Now it can be dangerous to generalise but, from a brief look at the group shots of the former players, I reckoned that between two-thirds and three-quarters of them had attended private schools. A clear majority are Edinburgh-based. All had been retired a long time. All, of course, were male. Or, to put it another way, a bunch of well-off, middle-aged blokes want things to stay just the way they are. Staggering, isn’t it? Who knew? Well, most of the pollsters for a start. Which is why the number of votes added to their cause by this gathering is probably about the same as the number of points Scotland put on the scoreboard against England last February.

“What on earth were they thinking of?” was the comment of someone I met the following day. Now I have absolutely no idea whether the fellow who said this was in the Yes or No camp, but politics was not the issue for him. Instead, what incensed him was the fact the grey-templed Roseburn flash-mob’s reinvention of themselves as some sort of rugby Bullingdon Club only reinforced an image of the sport as the game of a privileged elite.

Yes, you can pick through the pictures and find John Rutherford and Colin Deans – both state-schooled in the Borders – in there as well, but the clear majority are from a different social sphere. Does this matter? Hugely. You can quibble over just about anything in this game – tactics, selection, league structures, governance – but the one overwhelming issue that holds Scottish rugby back is that its social and demographic base is far too narrow. It always has been. (The Herald)

 

 

 

 

 

 

But hold on “Yes” Scotland had one supporter:

“Jim Telfer, a former coach of the national side, has suggested that any Scot seeking reasons for secession should spend ten minutes with smug English fans at Twickenham. The English don’t help themselves: they banned bagpipes from stadiums when hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2015.”    (Mercatornet)

 

 

 

 

 

30 November 2016: Scottish Rugby Agree New 10-year Hospitality Deal With Elior UK

Further confirmation supporters of independence will be whistling dixie to any help from the Scottish Rugby set. Based in Macclesfield, Cheshire PLC, Elior UK has provided corporate hospitality, conference and event and match day catering at BT Murrayfield for the last seven years and the new 10-year hospitality contract extension will deliver in excess of £1million each year to Scottish Rugby substantially growing its commercial income. (The Insider)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Mantra of Unionist Supporters in Scottish Politics

“Ask not what I can do for Westminster,
But, what can Westminster do for me?”

Mundell to get a peerage for selling out his country? Ruth Davidson after? and what about the rest of them It’s all me me me me me!!! Oh and Annabel Goldie got her reward.

 

 

 

 

 
October 2011:Tory Party in Scotland in Crisis

The Scottish Conservatives are looking for a new leader after Annabel Goldie decided to step down from the post in the wake of the party’s poor performance at the last UK and Scottish elections. As the Scottish government’s referendum approaches, the Scottish Conservatives are now fighting their own battle for independence, over whether the party should carry on as it is or disband in favour of a new, right-of-centre political group. Here is a look at the 2 leading contenders for the leadership of the party:

 

 

 

 

 

Ruth Davidson:

Key backers: Lord Sanderson, Lord Strathclyde, leader of the House of Lords, John Scott MSP, and deputy Holyrood presiding officer, John Lamont MSP, Murray Tosh, Lord Forsyth, Michael Ancram.

As a 32-year-old, newly elected, openly gay Tory MSP, Ruth Davidson has been described as the fresh-faced, new generation of the Scottish Conservative Party. But can looks be deceiving? When compared to Murdo Fraser’s radical plans for the party, Ms Davidson almost seems more of a status quo candidate. The former BBC journalist opposes further new powers for Holyrood, describing those to be delivered through the Scotland Bill as “a line in the sand”.

Ms Davidson, who became a Glasgow list MSP in May, says the leadership campaign has become distracted by the debate over disbanding and rebranding the Scottish Conservatives, arguing that real change only comes from asking people what matters to them, and bringing fresh thinking to important issues, such as health, education and justice. At a time when increased powers for the Scottish Parliament has become a popular issue, Ms Davidson is hoping party members will want a leader intent to make the best of what Scotland already has.

 

 

 

 

Murdo Fraser:

Key backers: Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP, Jamie McGrigor MSP, Liz Smith MSP, Gavin Brown MSP, Alex Fergusson MSP, Alex Johnstone MSP, Nanette Milne MSP, David McLetchie MSP, Struan Stevenson MEP.

As the long-serving deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Murdo Fraser was seen a frontrunner – but has he scared the horses too much with his radical plans? Essentially, Mr Fraser wants to get rid of the “Scottish Conservatives” – the so-called toxic brand – in favour of a new, right-of-centre progressive party. He says the Conservatives carry too much baggage in Scotland and splitting from the UK party means they stand a better chance of attracting more voters. Not only that, but the former UK Young Conservative chairman has taken a very different tack to his opponents when it comes to the constitutional question, currently all the rage in Scottish political debate. Mr Fraser favours more financial powers for Holyrood, but stops short of backing full fiscal freedom – “independence in disguise”, as he puts it.

The former lawyer, who became an MSP in 2001 after a vacancy arose on the mid-Scotland and Fife list, is seen by colleagues, commentators and others as a skilled debater and politician. His plans to set up a new party, which would ally itself with the UK Conservatives come election time, has been praised by many. But while the UK party leadership seems relaxed about the idea, Scotland’s sole Tory MP, David Mundell, has his reservations. Questions still remain, the biggest one being whether the approach will chime with long-serving Tory party members in Scotland when the time comes to vote in a new leader?

 

 

 

 

 
Glasgow Conservatives Reject Davidson

Davidson is facing hostility from party activists in what should be safe home turf in Glasgow. Of the city’s five constituency association chairmen and women, two are supporting Davidson’s main rival, Murdo Fraser, two are behind Jackson Carlaw, and one has nominated Margaret Mitchell.

Supporting Fraser are Richard Sullivan, chairman of Glasgow Central & Eastern, and Archie McIntyre, of Glasgow South West association. Barbara McCulloch, in Glasgow North West, and John Anderson, in Glasgow North, back Carlaw. In Glasgow South, Alastair Mackenzie signed Mitchell’s nomination papers, though it is understood he will vote for Fraser.

In contrast, Fraser is backed by three in his Mid-Scotland and Fife region, while Carlaw is backed by two in West of Scotland. Sullivan said: “Ruth’s support does appear to be lacking in Glasgow.”

 

 

 

 

 
Ruth Gets her Feet Under the Table – Malcolm Macaskill (35 years a Tory Party stalwart in Glasgow) on being deselected from the “Party List” in Glasgow in favour of Ruth Davidson:

“The Conservative party in Scotland is rotten to the core and I serve notice to Davidson that I intend to seek a judicial review of my dismissal since in my view the meeting leading to my removal did not have the quorate number of officials present to make the dismissal ruling. It is also my contention to prove that party rules do not contain any provision to remove a list candidate, therefore the party acted unconstitutionally.”  Despite protestations from many party members Davidson was confirmed as the number one list candidate for Glasgow and was subsequently elected to Holyrood then later to party leader.

Commenting Macaskill said: “Some have suggested that there was perhaps always a greater plan. In dismissing me, the next in line on the regional list was Ruth Davidson, who had earlier failed to be selected as a constituency candidate in other parts of Scotland. History shows that not only was Ruth elected in my stead, but she also went on to become the party leader in Scotland.”

Macaskill was also scathing of Davidson’s experience “I can’t help but feel that the leadership role requires greater experience and that it may have been better suited to any one of the other three candidates. It remains to be seen how she will fare as leader. Early signs are not promising. she has damaged her authority with ill judged comments about drawing a “line in the sand” over devolved powers to Holyrood.” Prime Minister David Cameron later contradicted the novice leader by suggesting more powers could be devolved.

A few weeks later, in a statement confirming he had quit the party he said: “All I ever wanted from the party was an apology. An admission that they were wrong in dismissing me and that they had on this occasion failed to follow their own procedures. This was never forthcoming. After discussions with my family, friends and legal team, I decided not to go to the Court of Session. This decision was made because I have now decided that I’ve had enough of the Tory Party. Over the past year, the treatment that I have been subjected to, along with the evidence that I have gathered, has convinced me that the party machine in and around Edinburgh central office is rotten to the core. I no longer wish to remain a member of such an inept and morally corrupt organisation.”

It is believed the Conservatives gave Macaskill a five-figure sum as an out-of-court agreement. “Rotten to the core and corrupt” the Scottish people realised this years ago after Thatcher laid waste to our industrial infrastructure”.

 

 

 

 
A Leader without the Backing of a Majority of Party members has no credibility in the eyes of the electorate.

There were 8000 eligible Party member in Scotland at the time of the leadership election: Murdo Fraser secured 2,096 (26.20%) first preference votes against Ms Davidson’s 2,278 (28.48%). A win by 182 votes. Hardly a landslide victory. But she claimed it was that anyway. Only stretching the truth a little bit.

In an early statement she said: “I campaigned with a pledge to fight against further new powers for Scotland. The Scotland Bill to increase Holyrood’s financial responsibility, currently going through Westminster, is “a line in the sand and I strongly oppose Mr Fraser’s vision for a new party.”

 

 

 

 
Al fair in Love and War, If You’re Blessed

In the campaign for the Scottish Tory leadership, Ruth Davidson was accused of illegally accessing party members data by searching and utilizing email lists to contact potential voters to her cause. Despite warnings from the party chairman reminding him of the need to remain impartial the party’s spin doctor, Ramsay Jones, was suspended. then sacked after attending a meeting of campaign strategists at Davidson’s Glasgow home. The sacking did not last long since he simply transferred to London taking up a £65K + expenses post within David Cameron’s inner office. All courtesy of the Taxpayer. She was also fined by the Electoral Commission after donations she received were not formally declared within the regulation time period.

 

 

 

 
Other Davidson Boobies

She claimed (on BBC Radio Scotland’s ‘Good Morning Scotland’) that Conservatives were part of Stirling’s council administration saying: “We think that there are areas in which local councils can make a difference, for example in Stirling we are part of the administration.” The Stirling group of SNP councillors rebutted her assertion reminding her that Conservatives have only four out of 22 councillors in Stirling, which has been overseen by a minority SNP administration since 2008. An embarrassing gaff!!

 

 

 

 
Davidson Supports Use of Sterling in an Independent

A few day’s before David Cameron’s visit to Scotland she said she supported the use of the pound in an independent Scotland, directly contradicting briefings by her Westminster colleagues. In comments made in the Sunday Post, the Scottish Tory leader “seized on” a YouGov poll showing that a large majority of Scots favoured Scotland continuing to use the pound. However the poll in question was about an independent Scotland continuing to use sterling – matching SNP policy – and also showed that there was support across the UK for an independent Scotland to use sterling.
SNP MSP John Mason, a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee, said at the time: “Ruth Davidson has now created even more confusion in the ranks of the anti-independence parties by endorsing the SNP’s policy for sterling. Sources at Westminster have briefed that Scotland wouldn’t be able to use the pound, followed by Michael Moore conceding we would. Now Ruth Davidson backs sterling as the answer to the poll question “Which of the following do you think would be best for an Independent Scotland?”. Just what is the position of the Tory party on this?”

 

 

 

 

 
Davidson Supports Alex Salmond’s Referendum Question

Amid attempts by anti-independence parties to claim that the Scottish Government could not be trusted to propose a fair and straightforward question in the independence referendum, when First Minister Alex Salmond revealed the question to Holyrood, Ms Davidson responded that it was “a fair and decisive legal question, which I welcome.” Ms Davidson’s statement seriously undermined attempts by the Conservatives in Westminster to claim that the question was biased and unfair.

An SNP representative commented: “The Tories don’t know if they are coming or going when it comes to Scotland. No wonder Mr Macaskill walked out on them. You might think it wasn’t possible for the Tories to sink any further but that is exactly what is happening here.”

 

 

 

 

Paul McBride (high-profile QC) Quit the Scottish Conservatives following the election of Ruth Davidson

Voicing deep concern about Tory opposition to the SNP’s legislation to tackle sectarianism he was also critical of Ms Davidson’s campaign manager, MSP John Lamont, (the party’s justice spokesman) who recently called for an end to faith schools in Scotland. He described the party as “a bunch of unreconstructed morons” and said: “They have replaced one nice woman with one not so very nice woman.” Following up he added: “The Scottish Tories are no friends of the people of Scotland. The MSP group is divided and dysfunctional. Their only policy is to oppose everything and contribute nothing. Half the membership wants the party abolished and 87% of the electorate despise them. Their naked opportunism regarding the minimum pricing bill and the offensive behaviour bill demonstrates why they will remain unelectable. Nothing suggests they have the insight to change and I want nothing to do with them.”
Credits to: Newsnet,  BBC News

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 March 2017: NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates call for UK-wide framework to replace Common Agricultural Policy

Westminster Policy Forward Planning

Scotland’s farmers and landowners are in support of the repatriation of agricultural policies from Brussels to Westminster, with the provision that support should then be devolved within the union.

A UK-wide framework replacement for the Common Agricultural Policy should also be put in place by Westminster so the British market will not be fragmented. This will also remove any need for the creation of internal UK trade barriers which would result as a consequence of maintaining entirely different systems of agriculture support north and south of the Borders.

The Prime Minister indicated that Westminster would set up the frameworks for the replacement schemes to the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy to ensure there was no fragmentation of the British market. Further powers over delivering would be devolved to give the Scottish Parliament flexibility.

 

 

 

 
Scottish government Policy Forward Planning

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Agriculture and rural policy are fully devolved areas and the Scottish Government must retain its power to manage policy and determine funding levels appropriately. “We will strongly oppose any attempt to repatriate powers from Brussels to Westminster instead of the Scottish Parliament.”

 

 

 

 
Farmers Union and Landowners Proposals

Scottish Land & Estates agreed there needed to be “some sort of UK wide agricultural policy framework. This is simply a pragmatic position based on our belief that it is important to maintain a functioning UK-wide agricultural system. We believe that, ultimately, some level of UK cooperation or policy co-ordination will be required and that it should be possible to achieve that without Scotland losing any powers.”

NFU Scotland also said there must be a commonly agreed framework, with the UK and Scottish governments agreeing what measures should be included in it. “It is equally vital that, in order to prevent distortion of intra-UK trade, that devolved agricultural policies do not diverge significantly,” its submission said.

It said there were different ways of achieving this goal, including Scotland gaining total control over agriculture then bargaining with the UK Government, or via an agreement to share power through a CAP replacement. But offered a view that a complete devolution of agriculture powers repatriated from Brussels may make it more difficult for the UK Government to negotiate international trade deals and create internal barriers to trade. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/scottish-farmers-call-uk-wide-framework-replace-common-agricultural/)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subsidy Payments to Farmers in Scotland – Convergence Uplift

A major row has broken out over the distribution of subsidies specifically allocated by the EU for the farming sector in Scotland. The Tory government, took control of the new finance and announced that any payments from the new funds would be made through the common agricultural policy (CAP) and would be applied UK wide. The government’s decision means that farmers in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland will receive the same proportion of the CAP budget over the lifetime of the present agreement.

Scottish government ministers and the NFU in Scotland claimed farmers north of the border would be deprived of hundreds of millions of euros in “convergence uplift” subsidies that were “rightfully theirs”, adding that the only reason the UK qualified for the uplift was because of Scotland’s low payments under the current system.

Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead described Westminster’s decision to share out Scotland’s money across the UK as “a disgrace”. and said: “I do not know how UK ministers will be able to look Scottish farmers in the eye after this outrageous decision that amounts to pocketing Scotland’s farm payments,” he said.

“I am also aghast that Alistair Carmichael, can welcome the UK government’s decision to give Scotland the lowest farm payments in the whole of Europe and the UK.

“If Scotland had been a member state in our own right during those negotiations, we would have benefited from a one billion euro uplift. We have been denied that uplift and now we are even being denied up to 230 million euro uplift that the UK gets because of Scotland.”

NFU Scotland said farmers had been dealt “a bitter blow” by failing to win an immediate boost in European cash.

Scottish Conservative rural affairs spokesman Alex Ferguson said he was disappointed that all the extra convergence money did not go to Scotland.

Scottish Labour rural affairs spokeswoman Claire Baker said: “I am disappointed that Scotland has not received an immediate uplift as called for on a cross-party basis by MSPs.

 

 
Queen Elizabeth – The Welfare Queen

Do Queen Elizabeth II and her children till the fields or milk cows? The answer is of course no! But qualifying conditions for the (European Common Market Policy (CAP))farming support says that the Queen and her family members are farmers. This allows them to claim large financial farm subsidies annually from taxpayers, in complete disregard of the fabulous financial fortunes worth many hundreds of millions of pounds that they inherit with their titles.

Subsidies are sold to the electorate as their duty to help struggling small farmers and is achieved through the media brainwashing of consumers convincing them that they need to possess a deep awareness of and sympathy for the long suffering rural community.

But when Westminster enacts the subsidies, the major share is allocated with well practised stealth to wealthy landholders and corporate interests. Robbing the poor and rewarding the rich is the mantra of Westminster governments and this will never change.

But the irony is that there are many farmers in Scotland struggling to stay afloat within the existing system and they throughly deserve more financial support. The irony is that they will be fleeced by Westminster forever unless they support an independent Scotland.

 

 

 
Rural Payments Agency – Acres and acres of madness – and they call this reform – Boris Johnson

At the bottom of the garden we have a paddock, and on evenings like this I can think of no lovelier place on earth. The buds have budded. The trees are in leaf. The lambs are making a racket. The rabbits show a boldness that verges on insolence. Everywhere I look I see nature transpiring at every pore with the green joy of photosynthesis. I see the hawthorn blossom, rolling for miles in great gun-smoke clouds. I see the shade starting to lengthen from the old oak, and the lovely rickety fence, on which I sometimes balance champagne bottles and shoot them off with an airgun, and I lie down on the springy grass and look up at the pale moon in the blue sky and I breathe a sigh of deep and unchallengeable contentment.

Sometimes, you know, I just can’t believe my luck. Because it turns out that I am not only the possessor of a magnificent paddock. I am a farmer. Yes, folks, I am a Tibullan agricola. I am Marie-Antoinette. I have managed to hitch my wagon to the gravy train of the CAP and clamp my jaws about the hind teat of Defra. By virtue of possessing 0.3 hectares of grass, excluding the dilapidated outside privy, I am apparently eligible for subsidy!

You think I am mad; but read the 98-page booklet provided by the Rural Payments Agency and you will find your lungs tightening and your lips blibbering into a pant-hoot of pure amazement at the insanity of our masters.

The government – Brussels – the taxpayer – whoever – is seriously going to pay me 10 euros a year merely for being the owner of this blissful patch of grass and rabbits. I don’t have to farm it, in any meaningful sense.

I don’t even have to graze a pony, though I could. I can use it for clay pigeons. I can use it for hot-air ballooning, it says here in the pamphlet. I can organise motocross events or nature trails across the paddock. Provided I don’t do it for more than 28 days a year, I can even have car-boot sales. I can invite Billy Smart’s circus to pitch their big top in the paddock, or I can let it out as a location for television. Year after year, the cheque will come in from Brussels via Defra, 10 princely euros, as a thank you to me and my family for doing – well, for doing absolutely nothing except luxuriating in the existence of this paddock.

Weeping with laughter, I decide to ring the Rural Payments Agency to find out if I can possibly have read this right. Yes, they say, it sounds like you qualify. Yes, they say, there are plenty of people who have been given subsidy entitlements for having pony paddocks, just like the one you describe. Yes, it is OK to mow it. Yes, it is acceptable to use the land for having barbecues, playing rounders or nude sunbathing. Yes, says the Rural Payments Agency, you can have a pony paddock and attract the subsidy, without going to the trouble of having a pony. Yes, says the agency (now with a tremor of exhaustion in its voice), you are right in thinking that you are getting the money for nothing at all except keeping the land in “good environmental condition”.

Fantastic! I say. Where do I send the form? And it is only then, of course, that I discover the catch.

My paddock qualifies in every respect. This beautiful, if tiny, corner of Oxfordshire is entitled to all the dignity that goes with being a CAP-funded estate – except that, like a complete fool, I missed the deadline, in May 2005, for registering my claim. Through sheer stupidity, I failed to grasp that last year the government changed the basis on which agricultural subsidy is to be paid. Under the reforms of the CAP, farmers are no longer rewarded for growing barley or rearing suckler cows. It is the end of paying Greeks for growing acres of fictitious olives.

Under the brilliant new single farm payment, the Greeks and the rest of us are to be rewarded simply for having grown acres of fictitious olives in the past. You no longer need even to pretend to grow the olives; you simply have to show that you have title to the land and that you are keeping it in good nick, olives or no olives; and that is why the pony paddocks of England are now accompanied by EU subsidy.

If I missed the deadline, there were thousands of paddock-owners who were quicker off the mark, who whanged those forms into the Rural Payments Agency – and who caused the monumental chaos with which you will be familiar. Across Britain there are farming families who have been driven deep into debt, and farmers who have contemplated suicide, because of the government’s disastrous failure to send out the single farm payments.

They were told they could expect the payment in December; then it was February; then March; and when, by mid-March, Margaret Beckett was forced to come to the Commons and apologise, it was obvious that the system was in meltdown. And the reason it was in meltdown was at least partly because no one had predicted that the number of subsidy claimants would rise – from 80,000 to 120,000 – as the paddock-owners, the raspberry-growers, the filbert-growers and the possessors of 0.3-hectare marrow patches piled in to register their land.

And, of course, there will be some optimists who point out that the expense can’t be overwhelming, not at 10 euros a paddock. But if you look at the Rural Payments Agency booklet, you will see how ever more of our countryside is now being sucked into a bureaucratic vortex of madness.If you claim a subsidy for your orchard (as you may), you have to prove that your trees are 10 metres apart and that the trunks are one metre in circumference; and if you have more than 50 trees a hectare, you’ve got to prove to the inspector that the bases of the trees have previously been nibbled by sheep. You can grow cucumbers, cabbages and cauliflowers, but not strawberries or mint!

Think of the new legions of bureaucrats being created, who will have to check whether or not you are running your subsidised nudist colony for more than 28 days.

Forty thousand new dependants have been created! Untold acres are now under new and pointless subsidy! And they call this reform? No wonder Margaret Beckett was promoted.

http://www.boris-johnson.com/2006/05/11/rural-payments-agency/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beyond 2020

The Common Market Farming policy is scheduled for a major shake up, from 2020, as a direct result of the UK withdrawal from the EC and the culmination of discussions with World Trade countries including; Russia, China, South Africa, Brazil, India, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and a host of developing countries, for European negotiators to set a firm date for ending farm subsidies that effectively lock poor farmers around the globe out of profitable markets.

The USA, currently lukewarm on discussions operates a farm subsidies policy which also sustains a small percentage of farmers who earn more than $350K annually, and subsidies have notoriously benefited only the millionaires of US society. Which way will Trump jump?

 

 

 
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, to devote at least 5 per cent of their arable land to “ecological focus areas” like hedges and fallow land, and to 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.

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct-support/direct-payments/docs/direct-payments-schemes_en.pdf)

 

 

Farming Subsidy Payments 2015/2016
Support in excess of £1million (12)

A P Jess (Brechin) Ltd DD9 BRECHIN £1,429,303.00

Ballindalloch Distillery LLP AB37 Ballloch £1,273,123.30

Catrine Community Trust KA5 Catrine £1,253,793.00

Frank A Smart & Son Ltd AB31 BANCHORY £2,986,506.48 Owns 85,000 acres+ from Aberdeenshire to the Western Isles. Claimed over £12million since 2010. A “slipper farmer”.

Glenfeshie Estate Ltd IV2 INVERNESS £1,781,486.64

Isle of Harris Distillers Ltd EH10 Edinburgh £1,539,049.00

John F Hartz OX18 OXON £1,318,912.12

John Fergus & Company Ltd KY13 MILNATHORT £1,263,294.00

R J & T J & M T Feakins TD9 HAWICK £1,270,281.64

RSPB EH12 EDINBURGH £3,584,031.90 Claimed 1,961,450 in 2014/15

SG:RPID:Futures EH11 Edinburgh £4,110,035.34

Strathvaich Farms LLP CO10 SUDBURY £1,429,303.00 English company. Owns Stravaich Estate at Garve, Ross-shire. Bulk of grant was for planting trees on its land.

 

 
Support in Excess of £500K (29)

A F Gospel DG13 Langholm £737,776.48

Adephi Distillery Ltd PH36 Ardnamuchan £623,236.00   Adelphi Distillery Ltd received a grant of  £1,148,736 (in 2014/15) for its new Ardnamurchan Distillery.

Balnagown Castle Prop Ltd IV18 KILDARY £605,942.89

Broadland Properties Ltd PH33 ARDGOUR £591,545.45

G Barbour & Co DG2 DUMFRIES £821,174.90    Claimed £649,306 in 2014/15. Farm in Dumfries

Gairloch & Conon Estate IV7 CONON BRIDGE £739,231.81

Genoch Mains Farms DG9 STRANRAER £857,168.32

Heidi Beers Ltd G40 Glasgow £575,623.00

Invercauld Estates AB35 BALLATER £761,179.11

J & T F Macfarlane Ltd TD3 GORDON £582,476.65     Major Livestock breeder. Claimed £525,567 in 2014/15

John Mark Gibson KA6 DALMELLINGTON £565,611.53

K & J Walker PH16 PITLOCHRY £600,768.71

Kevan Forsyth DG8 NEWTON STEWART £577,884.01      Dairy farmers in Dumfries and galloway. Claimed £473,929 in 2014/15.

Moray Estates Development Co IV36 FORRES £644,106.      19 John Stuart, 21st Earl of Moray, claimed £661,579 in 2014/15. Owns about 28,000 acres including 18 farms let to 16 tenants.

Mr A J Duncan (A Firm) AB53 TURRIFF £575,060.21          Ex Grampian Foods owner Claimed £565,650 in 2014/15

Mrs E V McCorquodale Trs PH2 PERTH £706,751.28

Novar Farms IV16 DINGWALL £755,103.23

Pitcastle Estate Management PH1 PERTH £551,496.32

Quality Meat Scotland EH28 Newbridge £507,060.58

Ross Bros AB43 FRASERBURGH £978,076.03           Large family owned business Claimed £978076 in 2014/15

Scottish Borders Council SRDP TD6 Newtown Bos £529,658.81

Soil Association EH12 EDINBURGH £526,616.46

SRUC/SAC Commercial Ltd AB21 BUCKSBURN £622,553.37           Claimed £412432.53p in 2014/15 Farms run by the Rural College

Strathdee Properties Ltd AB38 ABERLOUR £852,900.58           Owned by Stephen Strathdee, Claimed £976,917 in 2014/15.

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. Claimed £487,961 in 2014/15

William Hamilton And Son (No 2) KY15 CUPAR £692,816.62       Claimed £692,816 in 2014/15.

 

Support 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

Auchmacoy Estate AB41 ELLON £372,293.27
Auchtydore Farms AB42 PETERHEAD £340,550.19
B Q Farms Ltd. DG3 THORNHILL £292,614.19
Backmuir Trading Ltd AB55 BANFFSHIRE £451,457.60
Balbirnie Home Farms KY15 CUPAR £258,820.66

Balcaskie Farms KY10 ANSTRUTHER £294,706.39
Balgreggan Farms Ltd DG9 STRANRAER £310,045.07
Balnaboth Home Farm DD8 KIRRIEMUIR £442,333.57
Baltier Farming Company Ltd DG8 NEWTON STEWART £433,694.67
Barstobrick Farms DG7 CASTLE DOUGLAS £251,631.32

Belcher Food Products Ltd KA9 Prestwick £250,079.00
Benson Wemyss Farms EH32 Longniddry £255,624.34
Birsay Community Association KW17 ORKNEY £288,426.77
Blackford Farms Ltd FK15 DUNBLANE £252,633.53
Blacklidge Brothers PR6 Chorley £271,131.21

BQ Farming Partnerships Ltd TD7 SELKIRK £325,210.34
Braegrudie Common Grazings IV27 Lairg £455,651.40

 

Buccleuch Estates Ltd DG3 THORNHILL £390,820.71   Scotland’s largest private landowner,Richard Scott,the 10th Duke of Buccleuch,routinely claims around £400K. Company value £85Million..

 

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 Claimed £455,712 in 2014/15

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 Claimed £471,821 in 2014/15

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 £389,233.27 Livestock breeder. Claimed £375,271 in 2014/15
Innishewan Farms EH26 PENICUIK £286,117.32

J C Innes & Sons AB54 HUNTLY £424,531.11 Claimed £455,712 in 2014/15
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 Lord and Lady Rosberry Claimed £390,557 in 2014/15. Recently sold a Turner painting for 20million.

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

 

 

 

 

Scotland: 17847 Payments: £609,965,556.45p Scottish results do not include payments to the Royal Family

http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx

England: 86139 Payments: £1,953,454,147.31p

Wales: 14271 Payments: £281,644,359.43p

N.Ireland: 24282 Payments: £315,484,690.68p

Total £3.2Billion Approx

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petition to the Westminster government

“Another Scottish independence referendum should not be allowed to happen. We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely.” Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate. 217,000 signatures were added.

Scottish Secretary response:

“The UK Government is clear that now is not the time for a second independence referendum. We need to work together, putting all our energies into ensuring we get the right deal for the UK and for Scotland in our negotiations with the EU. In 2014, the Scottish people decided in a legal, fair and decisive referendum to remain a strong part of the UK. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 committed both the UK and Scottish Governments to respecting the outcome of the Scottish referendum.

Calling for a second referendum is creating damaging uncertainty for the economy, and most people in Scotland do not want the country to be plunged into another divisive campaign. All our focus should be on our negotiations with the EU and working together to get the right deal for Scotland and the right deal for the UK. It would be unfair to the people of Scotland to ask them to make a crucial decision without knowing what our future partnership with the EU will be or what the alternative for an independent Scotland would look like.

As the Prime Minister has set out, we will strengthen the Union of the four nations that comprise our United Kingdom. We will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK. When it comes to the powers that we will take back from Europe, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be passed on to the Devolved Administrations.

This will be an opportunity to determine the level best placed to take decisions on these issues, ensuring power sits closer to the people of the UK than ever before. It is the expectation of the Government that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will see a significant increase in their decision-making power as a result of this process.

David Mundell: Secretary of State for Scotland https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642

 

 

 

After-note: The total number of signatures accepted by Mr Mundell is fraudulent to the extreme. A large number do not qualify since they do not reside in Scotland or indeed the UK. An examination of the submission identified 140,708 qualifying signators.

 

 

 

 

An Analysis of the Petition Submission

The passage of time might reveal that the petition was a “spoiler” prepared and submitted to the internet social media by Ruth Davidson’s recently appointed high profile media manipulation team headed by Gordon Hector. But fair play the ploy worked since it succeeded in raising the public profile of the possibility of another Independence referendum, which (at the time) had not been given mention by anyone other than Ruth Davidson.

The bellicose behaviour of Ruth Davidson at First Ministers questions, in the period after publication of Mundell’s pronouncement gave impetus to a review and analysis and report gathered from the petition.

Information was sourced from official lists and records providing numbers of acceptable signatories by Scottish constituency. Electorate totals were included and a percentage signator total was established for each constituency.

From that a mean figure of 4% was used to forward project the outcome of an Independence referendum, should one be held as projected by Brexit.

Figures suggest that from an electorate of 4,021,203 the outcome of another referendum would result in a: 60.45% “Yes” vote in favour of independence with 39.55% preferring to remain with the Union.

Full details are included below.The information would be best used to forward plan strategy.

Edinburgh, Aberdeen, East Renfrewshire and East Dumbartonshire recoded higher than average figures favouring remaining with the Union. Others appear to be less dogmatic which is encouraging.

 

 

 

 

For Independence – 60.45%

34551: Orkney and Shetland”,”ons_code”:”S14000051″,”mp”:”Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP”,”signature_count”:1062-3.07%

21744: Na h-Eileanan an Iar”,”ons_code”:”S14000027″,”mp”:”Angus Brendan MacNeil MP”,”signature_count”:674-3.10%

47558: Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross”,”ons_code”:”S14000009″,”mp”:”Dr Paul Monaghan MP”,”signature_count”:1679-3.53%

77268: Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey”,”ons_code”:”S14000039″,”mp”:”Drew Hendry MP”,”signature_count”:3073-3.98%

54109: Ross, Skye and Lochaber”,”ons_code”:”S14000055″,”mp”:”Ian Blackford MP”,”signature_count”:2038-3.77%

67745: Aberdeen North”,”ons_code”:”S14000001″,”mp”:”Kirsty Blackman MP”,”signature_count”:1829-2.70%

65792: Angus”,”ons_code”:”S14000004″,”mp”:”Mike Weir MP”,”signature_count”:2355-3.58%

66960: Dundee East”,”ons_code”:”S14000015″,”mp”:”Stewart Hosie MP”,”signature_count”:2029-3.03%

66287: Dundee West”,”ons_code”:”S14000016″,”mp”:”Chris Law MP”,”signature_count”:1338-2.02%

78037: Dunfermline and West Fife”,”ons_code”:”S14000017″,”mp”:”Douglas Chapman MP”,”signature_count”:2890-3.70%

69781: Glenrothes”,”ons_code”:”S14000036″,”mp”:”Peter Grant MP”,”signature_count”:1523-2.18%

75941: Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath”,”ons_code”:”S14000041″,”mp”:”Roger Mullin MP”,”signature_count”:2193-2.89%

75249: Dumfries and Galloway”,”ons_code”:”S14000013″,”mp”:”Richard Arkless MP”,”signature_count”:2498-3.32%

75985: North Ayrshire and Arran”,”ons_code”:”S14000048″,”mp”:”Patricia Gibson MP”,”signature_count”:2631-3.46%

72985: Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock”,”ons_code”:”S14000006″,”mp”:”Corri Wilson MP”,”signature_count”:2751-3.77%

75283: Kilmarnock and Loudoun”,”ons_code”:”S14000040″,”mp”:”Alan Brown MP”,”signature_count”:2285-3.04%

69982: Central Ayrshire”,”ons_code”:”S14000010″,”mp”:”Dr Philippa Whitford MP”,”signature_count”:2728-3.90%

70378: Glasgow East”,”ons_code”:”S14000030″,”mp”:”Natalie McGarry MP”,”signature_count”:1970-2.80%

58875: Glasgow North”,”ons_code”:”S14000031″,”mp”:”Patrick Grady MP”,”signature_count”:1582-2.69%

66678: Glasgow North East”,”ons_code”:”S14000032″,”mp”:”Anne McLaughlin MP”,”signature_count”:1300-1.95%

68418: Glasgow North West”,”ons_code”:”S14000033″,”mp”:”Carol Monaghan MP”,”signature_count”:2126-3.11%

70945: Glasgow Central”,”ons_code”:”S14000029″,”mp”:”Alison Thewliss MP”,”signature_count”:1717-2.42%

74051: Glasgow South”,”ons_code”:”S14000034″,”mp”:”Stewart Malcolm McDonald MP”,”signature_count”:2175-2.94%

66208: Glasgow South West”,”ons_code”:”S14000035″,”mp”:”Chris Stephens MP”,”signature_count”:1960-2.96%

66715: Airdrie and Shotts”,”ons_code”:”S14000003″,”mp”:”Neil Gray MP”,”signature_count”:2296-3.44%

73813: Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill”,”ons_code”:”S14000011″,”mp”:”Philip Boswell MP”,”signature_count”:2158-2.92%

83071: East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow”,”ons_code”:”S14000019″,”mp”:”Dr Lisa Cameron MP”,”signature_count”:3157-3.80%

70269: Motherwell and Wishaw”,”ons_code”:”S14000047″,”mp”:”Marion Fellows MP”,”signature_count”:2169-3.09%

82701: Rutherglen and Hamilton West”,”ons_code”:”S14000056″,”mp”:”Margaret Ferrier MP”,”signature_count”:2918-3.53%

69193: West Dunbartonshire”,”ons_code”:”S14000059″,”mp”:”Martin Docherty-Hughes MP”,”signature_count”:2060-2.98%

59350: Inverclyde”,”ons_code”:”S14000038″,”mp”:”Ronnie Cowan MP”,”signature_count”:2230-3.76%

61281: Paisley and Renfrewshire South”,”ons_code”:”S14000053″,”mp”:”Mhairi Black MP”,”signature_count”:2031-3.31%

66178: Edinburgh East”,”ons_code”:”S14000022″,”mp”:”Tommy Sheppard MP”,”signature_count”:1854-2.80%

82373: Livingston”,”ons_code”:”S14000044″,”mp”:”Hannah Bardell MP”,”signature_count”:3065-3.72%

67875: Midlothian”,”ons_code”:”S14000045″,”mp”:”Owen Thompson MP”,”signature_count”:2182-3.22%

67009: Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East”,”ons_code”:”S14000012″,”mp”:”Stuart C. McDonald MP”,”signature_count”:2140-3.19%

83380: Falkirk”,”ons_code”:”S14000028″,”mp”:”John Mc Nally MP”,”signature_count”:2764-3.32%

 

 

 

Against Independence – 39.55%

80978: Edinburgh North and Leith”,”ons_code”:”S14000023″,”mp”:”Deidre Brock MP”,”signature_count”:4280-5.29%

65846: Edinburgh South”,”ons_code”:”S14000024″,”mp”:”Ian Murray MP”,”signature_count”:3579-5.44%

72178: Edinburgh South West”,”ons_code”:”S14000025″,”mp”:”Joanna Cherry QC MP”,”signature_count”:3283-4.55%

71749: Edinburgh West”,”ons_code”:”S14000026″,”mp”:”Michelle Thomson MP”,”signature_count”:4388-6.12%

67236: Stirling”,”ons_code”:”S14000057″,”mp”:”Steven Paterson MP”,”signature_count”:3175-4.72%

86955: Linlithgow and East Falkirk”,”ons_code”:”S14000043″,”mp”:”Martyn Day MP”,”signature_count”:3570-4.11%

79481: East Lothian”,”ons_code”:”S14000020″,”mp”:”George Kerevan MP”,”signature_count”:3676-4.63%

66208: Paisley and Renfrewshire North”,”ons_code”:”S14000052″,”mp”:”Gavin Newlands MP”,”signature_count”:3158-4.77%

69982: East Renfrewshire”,”ons_code”:”S14000021″,”mp”:”Kirsten Oswald MP”,”signature_count”:4241-6.06%

66966: East Dunbartonshire”,”ons_code”:”S14000018″,”mp”:”John Nicolson MP”,”signature_count”:3977-5.94%

78037: Lanark and Hamilton East”,”ons_code”:”S14000042″,”mp”:”Angela Crawley MP”,”signature_count”:3272-4.19%

68875: Argyll and Bute”,”ons_code”:”S14000005″,”mp”:”Brendan O’Hara MP”,”signature_count”:3277-4.75%

68483: Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale”,”ons_code”:”S14000014″,”mp”:”Rt Hon David Mundell MP”,”signature_count”:2816-4.11%

74179: Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk”,”ons_code”:”S14000008″,”mp”:”Calum Kerr MP”,”signature_count”:3026-4.08%

62003: North East Fife”,”ons_code”:”S14000049″,”mp”:”Stephen Gethins MP”,”signature_count”:2937-4.74%

72447: Perth and North Perthshire”,”ons_code”:”S14000054″,”mp”:”Pete Wishart MP”,”signature_count”:3033-4.19%

77379: Ochil and South Perthshire”,”ons_code”:”S14000050″,”mp”:”Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh MP”,”signature_count”:3645-4.71%

68609: Banff and Buchan”,”ons_code”:”S14000007″,”mp”:”Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP”,”signature_count”:2772-4.04%

79393: Gordon”,”ons_code”:”S14000037″,”mp”:”Rt Hon Alex Salmond MP”,”signature_count”:3711-4.68%

71685: Moray”,”ons_code”:”S14000046″,”mp”:”Rt Hon Angus Robertson MP”,”signature_count”:2995-4.18%

68056: Aberdeen South”,”ons_code”:”S14000002″,”mp”:”Callum McCaig MP”,”signature_count”:3618-4.65%

73445: West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine”,”ons_code”:”S14000058″,”mp”:”Stuart Blair Donaldson MP”,”signature_count”:3961-5.40%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Unionist leader Ruth Davidson has hired a spin doctor from a controversial private healthcare firm to work for her at Holyrood.

Gordon Hector will head up her press and research team, from offices based at Holyrood. He was previously head of communications for Circle Healthcare, the first private company to run an NHS hospital in England in an experiment that went badly awry.

Circle took over struggling Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridge, which had 250 beds, 1,500 staff and a Pounds 111 million budget, in a 10-year contract in 2012. Three years later the Care Quality Commission branded the hospital “inadequate”, it was put into special measures. Circle then pulled out of the deal early admitting it could not find the savings needed to make the hospital financially sustainable.

He was previously a senior speech-writer at the Department for Education, writing for Conservative junior ministers and Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State. He also worked for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, where he was its public affairs manager. He began his career at Fishburn Hedges (Media Management), working on public affairs and media accounts.

 

 

 

 

 
Ruth Davidson and Profiling

Davidson’s profile has risen in recent months, in recognition of her parties improved performance at the last Scottish parliamentary elections. She has also moved the party to the “right” of Scottish politics and now claims, with some pride that she leads the only Unionist party in Scotland.

Labour and the Lib-Dem’s have been sidelined in preference to their support of a “Federalist” UK within Europe. The result in Scottish political terms is a return to the two party system.

Ruth Davidson now has a media Svengali (Gordon Hector) who provides advice, direction and guidance, in the presentation of her policies in Holyrood, the media and in public. Under his mentoring she has distanced herself from the images of, “Buffalo Bill from Maryhill” and “Tommy the Tank Engine” to stateswoman.

Evidenced from her recent bellicose performances in parliament she is basing her character on Margaret Thatcher and in this venture she could have no better mentor than Gordon Hector who wrote his thesis at University on his favourite politician. (https://conservativehistory.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/chj-winter-2009-10.pdf)

Other aspects of promoting the new image include referring to the party as “Unionist” since the word “Conservative” still rankles Scots of all political persuasion.

Another tactic favoured by Hector is the use of the “Content Seeding” strategy through the extensive broadcasting of good news items (using internet social media sites Facebook and twitter are two examples) greatly favouring Ruth Davidson whilst attacking Nicola Sturgeon.

In Nicola Sturgeon’s case this entails allocating a group of staff to search Facebook and Twitter creating a database of any any person that may have posted a negative comment about Nicola. The database is the driver for negative “Content Seeding”. Time consuming but effective.

 

 

 

 
Public Relations Strategy – Content Seeding

The internet and the accompanying fast growth of Social media provides opportunity for the rapid spread of information targetted at specific individuals and groups and is being increasingly used by marketing and journalist professionals to get their messages across to a widespread community numbered in the millions. The title of the innovation is “Contract Seeding”.

Content Seeding aims to ensure widespread awareness for a politician by planting positive “seeds” across the web. These “seeds” consist of little content pieces, aiming to trigger the interest of a pre-determined target group. To ensure control all seeds are linked back to the main platform of corporate communication (this can be an article, a landing page or even the website itself).

Content Seeding triggers the interest of target groups reaching well beyond press releases and written content to promote the politician. Strategic planting of content on targetted platforms ensures fast forward sharing of the information through its target audience.

Balance is imperative and Content Seeding uses multimedia content across channels. The primary focus is to create content which target groups will be keen to receive, and consume, for information and strategic purposes but also for sharing with its peers. The result can be an instantaneous sharing of seeded content well beyond that which the information was designed to reach.

Seeding campaigns can be time consuming and staff intensive, ranging from the use of free sites to costly ventures.It is imperative that a cost benefit analysis is completed and presented to the client for approval before the event.

 

 

 

 
Contract Seeding in Action

Forsyth challenged the way in which Cameron played the English card in the immediate aftermath of the Scottish independence referendum by offering English MPs a greater say over English only laws. Later toughened up to a “veto” in the Conservative 2015 election manifesto.

He said: “David Cameron, instead of going up to Scotland the next day [after the referendum] and saying ‘look we’ve got to look at this now from the point of view of the whole United Kingdom’, started the English votes for English laws thing which was not a unionist position and that shattered the unionist alliance in Scotland against the breakup of the United Kingdom.

I personally don’t support English votes for English laws. It doesn’t seem to me to be a very good policy to try and deal with the rise of Scottish nationalism by stirring up English nationalism. We need to find ways of binding the United Kingdom together, of binding that partnership together.”

He added: “questioning the legitimacy of SNP MPs is unwise and runs counter to the assurances offered during the referendum about guaranteeing an inclusive UK. And I have limited sympathy for Labour, which is paying the price for adopting the language of nationalism in the 1980s then claiming that the Tories had no mandate to govern in Scotland. They now find themselves being devoured by the nationalist tiger.” Forsyth’s remarks add resonance because he is an ardent Thatcherite and unionist who played a leading role in fighting Labour’s plans for a Scottish parliament in the 1997 election campaign.

 

 

 

Thank you Michael Forsyth! This is pretty much exactly what I thought the morning after the Scottish referendum – that Cameron was playing a partisan game that was certain to inflame Scottish nationalism with an English betrayal only hours after the vote, and damaging the Union he claimed to champion in the interests of a short-term electoral gain. The only question I’ve never quite been able to settle in my head is whether when he made his little play to English nationalism he was stupid enough not to see what this would do in Scotland, arrogant enough to assume that it didn’t matter now the referendum was done, or insincere enough in his professed concern for the Union (which is part of his party’s name) that he didn’t actually care as long as it boosted his chances of re-election this time round. So, David Cameron, fool or knave? It’s a hard choice (though there is an obvious answer).

 
Cameron blundered hugely: having actually signed a vow promising Scotland substantially extended devolution, the very day after the result, he turned around and retrospectively slapped conditions on it. Forsyth’s point is — Cameron took a giant public dump on a signed pledge just days old. A huge kick in the teeth to the “no”voters in Scotland. Not wise.

 
The British Nationalists of the Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem parties are determined to continue with their unparalleled economic incompetence holding the union together regardless of the adverse impact of their policies, promoting austerity, inequality and privatisation.

 

Nicola Sturgeon said that it would be up to the people of Scotland, at some future date to decide if there would be another independence referendum. But even provided with an explicit statement of intent Unionist politicians continue with their ridiculous claims that those that Scots choose to send to Westminster to represent them are akin to fifth columnists infiltrating parliament. This is offensive, beyond understanding and will bring forward the date when the Scottish parliament will be petitioning for another referendum.

 
Scots are only a part of the Union just as long as they do not have the temerity to attempt to participate in its governance.

 

 

 
The Conservative position on Nicola Sturgeon is starting to sound a bit like: Tory HQ: She’s a witch! Burn her! Electorate: Did you dress her up like this? Tory HQ: No, no, no! Yes, yes. A bit. But she’s got a wart.

 
Independence is not all about the SNP. The Scottish Greens also support independence and they now have more members than the Scottish branch of the Labour party.And there are one or two smaller parties that are also pro-independence.

 

 
The Tories burned their legitimacy in Scotland, promising devolution that they had no intention of delivering then, when their votes in Scotland plummeted, they indulged in petty acts of revenge, using Scotland as testing site for their most bloody minded policies. ……Tories making dishonest promises to Scotland and then indulging in petty acts of spite…sounds familiar.

 
It is ironic that during the 2014 referendum the “yes” side was persistently accused by better together and other Yes supporting entities of paranoia and seeing conspiracy’s everywhere against them. In some cases, their fears were entirely justified, in others the right wing press, covering the outcome of the referendum in the months before Xmas 2014 confirmed their fears. So it is amusing in 2017 to witness the Unionists seeing secret plots, pacts and alliances everywhere…..”The SNP have been negotiating secret deals with Labour” say the Tories,……”No, the SNP are actually in unholy alliance with the Tories” say Labour……….”Actually it’s both of them !!” claim the Lib-Dem’s…….Any wonder that people in Scotland see and hear this and then decide to support the SNP

 

 

Cameron has started “Operation Totally Terrified”, demonising Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. Entire pages of daily newspapers are devoted to the “evolution” of Nicola, complete with “comments” such as “jimmy crankie” “mary doll” to the “vile” “nasty” and wishing she has an accident or car crash. Over the top.

 

The one thing that’s increasingly obvious is that the only way the UK can survive is as some form of federal system….But nevertheless the article nails the fact that Cameron is playing a dangerous and stupid game. His idiocy on the steps of Downing street the morning after the referendum showed how the Tories planned to put partisan considerations before the national interest and bridge building, but the rhetoric used in the last few days has reached a new low even for the Tories.The SNP have every right to send elected MPs to Westminster and to vote how they see fit…them’s the rules. However I don’t believe Cameron actually give two hoots about the Union based on his deliberate machinations and incendiary comments (or if he does he’s even more of an idiot than I thought) … But I’ll bet he does care about keeping the neo-liberal gravy train rolling for a few more years and is evidently prepared to risk breaking up the Union to achieve this…Can anyone remind me what you call someone who deliberately betrays their nation for ideological and personal gain?

 

Which highlights the point I have been consistently making for well over 4 years, that David Cameron is dangerously impulsive, and has appallingly poor judgement. He really is a dangerous politician who just makes it up as he goes along, simply to look good, and then just flippantly ditches his previous position, when it no longer suits his temporary purpose.

 

 

Not only is David Cameron the cause of Scottish resentment, highlighted by his stupid boastful claim that the Queen purred down the the phone, after he grabbed the referendum with a mixture of blackmail, dire threats and deceit, but he swings in opposite directions on almost everything. So he claims to be a “compassionate, moderate Conservative, whilst simultaneously boasting about going further than Thatcher. He claimed to be green, and claimed to want the “greenest ever government” from the “bottom of his heart”, and then was reported to be going around saying, “let’s get rid of the green crap”. His hugging a hoodie posturing saw him claiming that young people shouldn’t be demonized, before his lock’em up hysteria after the looting, and stopping housing benefit for the young.

 

 

 

 

How can you trust a politician who is so flippantly contradictory about so much. David Cameron in his impulsive attempt to keep Scotland in the UK, has so upset and angered the Scottish people, that he’s given the SNP a landslide. David Cameron is the SNP’s best recruiting agent.

 

David Cameron is a reckless and dangerous politician who has done massive damage to the social fabric of this country, with his reckless and flippant make it up as he goes along with it policy. The only thing you can be certain of with Cameron, is that what he’s saying now, is going to be entirely different than what he will be saying next year, or the year after that. If David Cameron didn’t have such massive support from the media, or rather their Tory leaning proprietors and executives, he would be electoral toast.

 

Scotland voted against Labour because they felt that Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem Parties had done next to bugger all for Scotland. When they voted Tory they got shafted when industry got shut down down and when they voted Labour they got punished yet again when the Labour government failed to produce policies replacing the disaster left by the last lot. Instead they got empty promises, zero-hours contracts and ATOS. Nothing got any better. Rather than vent against the Scottish electorate, it would be far better if the parties actually listened and tried to deliver something that the Scottish voters want – rather than offer them the same old same old.

 
Cameron stands accused of having “shattered” the pro-UK alliance in Scotland and stirring up English nationalism after the Scottish independence referendum last year. It was obvious what he was trying to achieve: a “Permanent Tory Supremacy” in England. None of the arguments against that premise are convincing, and Cameron is just the type of big-headed slime-ball who would prance around wearing a crown, while the rest of the nation disintegrates around him. He couldn’t give an airborne copulation about the United Kingdom – it’s all about him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

England Blackmails Scotland

There were a number of poor harvests in Scotland in the 1690s and Scotland’s economic position was then drastically worsened by the ill-fated Darien Scheme to create a Scottish colony in Panama. Scotland lost 25% of its liquid assets.

The Act of Union undertook to pay £400k pounds in compensation to those who had incurred these losses. This was of course blatant bribery as the people who were to benefit from this compensation were amongst those who voted in favour of the Union.

Scotland relied on 50% of its exports going to England. In an act of blackmail in 1705, the English Parliament closed their market to Scottish cattle, coal and linen and declared that all Scots would be treated a aliens. It showed the vulnerability of Scotland to a trade war.

In addition, Scotland was excluded from England’s colonial territories – indeed early moves towards a union of the parliaments stumbled in England as they were reluctant to allow open access.

 

 

 

 
Act of Union 1707

A commission representing the two bodies met and thrashed out the details. The Scots lost the argument for a federal arrangement but did manage to secure the continuation of the Scottish legal system, education and church.

These were important elements in allowing the country to continue to regard itself as a separate entity. The privileges of the Scottish royal burghs were also to be maintained.

Debates in the Scottish Parliament were heated and lengthy while the crowds in the streets burnt copies of the treaty and threw stones at the Parliament windows. The people of Glasgow refused to accept the change and closed the city for a month before the military established control and martial law

But on January 16, 1707, the Treaty of Union was passed by 110 votes to 67 (with more than a suspicion that some of the poorer Members of Parliament had been bribed – though this was nothing new for those days). The Treaty was passed in Westminster without opposition and the Scottish Parliament met for the last time on 25 March 1707.

When the Act of Union was given the Royal Assent by the Earl of Seafield, he touched the document with the royal sceptre saying “There’s the end of an auld sang.” Nearly 300 years later, at the “re-convening” of Parliament in Edinburgh in 1999, the Presiding Officer was to remark that it was the “start of a new sang”.

 

 

 

 
Sir Walter Scott’s Challenge to the Scots

With the hopes of Bonnie Prince Charlie extinguished at Culloden, various influences were at work to bring the peoples of the North and South of Scotland into closer association, but much bitterness and misunderstanding persisted and it was an important epoch for Scottish national life, when Walter Scott crossed the Highland line.

He became enraptured by the grandeur of the Highland scenery, by the purple heather hills, the rush of water through the gorges, the brown heath and shaggy wood. He felt, too, the heroic valour and high-souled fidelity of its people.

The results of these Highland influences were given to the world in The Lady of the Lake, and more powerfully continued in Waverley, Rob Roy, the Fair Maid o f Perth, and the Legend of Montrose. It may be that only the Highlander can understand fully the Highlander, and that even Sir Walter may have missed certain subtle qualities that lie in the Highland nature, but in so far as land and people lay open to the Lowlander, Walter Scott realized and recorded it.

To the people of the Lowlands the Highland race and region became a new fact and factor in the national life. They learned to admire the splendid devotion of many of the Highland chieftains and their clansmen to the Stuart race (devotion misplaced, it may be, but deep and sincere.) And when they read of the high-souled fidelity of Clansmen to the Chieftain; of Evan Maccombich who offered to die on the scaffold in place of his beloved Chieftain; of Torquil of the Oak who devoted all his sons to die in defence of the Chief; they learned to know the Highland spirit at its best.

At last, and in part, at least, through this leavening, there emerged a Scottish nation, diverse in race, but one in spirit and into this united people, Walter Scott did much to infuse a noble type of patriotism, ‘a patriotism that seeks not its own. Through his influence the Lowlander glories not only in the south-land with its memories of Wallace and Bruce, Knox and the Reformers, but in the heather hills and glens.

The Highlander, brought into association with the south, appropriated the best traditions of Lowlands and Highlands alike and it was with a deep sense of possession of all the land that Sir Walter Scott summed up the attitude of the Scottish “man in the street” with these words:

“I ken, when we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament – men o’ our ain, we could aye peeble them wi’ stones when they werena gude bairns – But naebody’s nails can reach the length o’ Lunnon”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oil Finds In the Scottish Continental Shelf –  Billions of Barrels to be Recovered From Fields Off the Shetlands

Only with independence will Scotland benefit from the abundance of oil yet to be recovered from the Scottish Continental Shelf. Delays will only benefit the UK Treasury to the detriment of Scotland as was the case with the North Sea oil. It is important the the Scottish electorate does not believe the negative hype of the Westminster based and directed media outlets.Potentially more oil in these few fields than there is left in Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hurricane Energy

Hurricane is an oil and gas company focused on hydrocarbon resources in naturally fractured basement reservoirs. The Company’s focus is to discover, appraise and develop oil reserves in basement rock.

Hurricane has already successfully discovered substantial volumes of oil on the UKCS. The Company has 444-470 mmboe of 2C Contingent Resources and 432-442 mmboe of P50 Prospective Resources on acreage it controls 100%.

The company was founded in 2005 by Dr Robert Trice with the help and encouragement of a private investor, in the belief that fractured basement reservoirs represent a significant untapped resource. Beginning with just a few highly expert staff, Hurricane gradually established a team of specialists with the skills, experience and determination to locate and develop this resource potential.

Through successful participation in a series of UK licensing rounds it has built a portfolio which includes third party verified Contingent Resources, ready to drill prospects and exploration leads.

In a short time Hurricane energy has achieved a great deal. During 2009 and 2010, the average size of oil discovery within the UK Continental Shelf was 20-23 million barrels.

In the same period, Hurricane discovered around 200 million barrels, twice ( figures extracted from an independently produced Competent Person’s Report (CPR). Since inception, Hurricane energy company has identified basement prospects, discovered oil and, most importantly, validated its model for basement exploration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Halifax Field
Seismic interpretation indicates the presence of a well-defined fault network within the fractured basement of the Halifax Prospect, analogous to that seen in Lancaster. Encouragingly, a previous well drilled on the Halifax structure encountered oil and gas shows in sandstones immediately above the basement. In addition, Hurricane’s analysis of basement cuttings indicates the presence of oil thus mitigating the oil charge risk to the Halifax Prospect.

The recently drilled Lancaster Pilot indicated that the Lancaster oil accumulation is likely to extend beyond the Lancaster licence boundary. The Company believes that if mobile oil can be demonstrated outside of local structural closure at Halifax, then the Lancaster Field could extend further North East along the Rona Ridge.

Recognising this, Hurricane has identified a well location on Halifax and acquired a site survey over the prospective well location in preparation for the drilling of an exploration well. On the basis that permits can be obtained in time, Hurricane intends to drill the Halifax Well immediately following the Lincoln Well.

Below is a 3D depth surface of the Halifax prospect indicating its position on the Rona Ridge in relationship to the Lancaster field and the Westray Transfer Zone. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Operations/HurricaneAssets/HalifaxBasementProspect/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lincoln Field
The Lincoln basement prospect is geologically similar to the nearby Lancaster structure. Seismic interpretation indicates the likely presence of fracturing within the basement and, encouragingly, a previous well drilled on the down-dip flank of the Lincoln structure found oil in sandstones immediately above the basement, thus mitigating the oil charge risk to the prospect. Traces of oil were also noted in the short interval of basement that was drilled below the oil bearing sandstones.

Given its proximity to Lancaster (approximately 7kms) and its resource potential (150 mmbo) Lincoln is an attractive prospect that could deliver significant incremental value via tie-back to a Lancaster development hub. Recognising this, we have already identified a well location on Lincoln and acquired a site survey over the site in preparation for drilling an exploration well, the timing ofwhich will be influenced by the results of the Lancaster appraisal drilling programme. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Operations/HurricaneAssets/LincolnBasementProspect/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Lancaster Field
Located in relatively shallow water depths of 160 metres, Lancaster was the first basement prospect drilled by Hurricane and proved to be a significant discovery. The results of the drilling also indicated that significant upside potential could exist within Lancaster as oil shows were encountered at depth within the basement.

The Competent Person’s Report (CPR) assigns 207 MMboe of 2C Contingent Resources to Lancaster and concludes that individual well flow rates up to 8000 bopd are achievable from the basement. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Operations/HurricaneAssets/LancasterBasementDiscovery/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

             

The Whirlwind Field

Whirlwind is mapped as a large (approximately 33 km2) basement structure that is approximately 2000 metres deeper than Lancaster, although it is likely to be charged from the same source. Whirlwind was drilled during 2010 . The well flowed light oil/gas-condensate from an open hole test conducted over Lower Cretaceous limestone. The CPR has assigned 2C Contingent Resources of 205 MMboe (oil case) or 179 MMboe (gas –condensate case) to Whirlwind. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Operations/HurricaneAssets/WhirlwindBasementDiscovery/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Strathmore Field

Strathmore is an undeveloped oil field first discovered in 1990. Strathmore is a sandstone reservoir, not a fractured basement. The field contains oil in Triassic-aged sandstones. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Operations/HurricaneAssets/StrathmoreSandstoneDiscovery/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Typhoon Field

Typhoon is primarily a basement prospect but also offers potential in overlying Jurassic sandstones. Previous drilling during the 1980s on Typhoon resulted in heavy oil being discovered in both the basement and the Jurassic sandstones. A subsequent well deep on the flank of the structure encountered oil in the basement indicative of a light oil charge. These previously drilled wells lead Hurricane to believe that significant volumes of lighter oil could be present deeper within the prospect, as a flank accumulation. The 2011 CPR has assigned unrisked P50 Prospective Resources of 149 MMboe to Typhoon and 1,266 MMboe for the P10 volume acknowledging the material. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Operations/HurricaneAssets/TyphoonBasementProspect/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Warwick Field
The Warwick basement prospect is geologically similar to the nearby Lancaster and Lincoln structures. Seismic interpretation indicates the presence of faulting within the basement and, by inference from Lancaster, an associated fracture network is expected to be present. Given its proximity to Lancaster, Warwick is an attractive prospect that could deliver significant incremental value via tie-back to a Lancaster development hub.

Recognising this, Hurricane intends to undertake further fault mapping and volumetric assessment, with the objective of locating a Warwick drill location. Drilling of Warwick is expected to be aligned with progress on the Lancaster Early Production System. https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Operations/HurricaneAssets/WarwickBasementProspect/

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Operations/HurricaneAssets/LincolnBasementProspect/
“https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Communications/RegulatoryNewsService/”
“https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Company/Ourstory/”
“https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Communications/Glossary/”
“https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/Communications/Presentations/”
“https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/assets/Documents/CorporatePresentation1Q2017.pdf?1483986577”
“https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/assets/Documents/ConceptualisingnewInfrastructureHubWoSPDF2.pdf?1445336331”
“https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/assets/Documents/PGC30Sep15PDFnospeakernotes.pdf?1445335372”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Scottish Liberal Democrats Independence and Europe

I am bewildered and exasperated by the opposition party’s in Scotland. It is painful to watch once great party’s completing Hari-Kari in the arena of political challenge. Lagging hopelessly behind in last place in public support, seemingly oblivious to the danger of oblivion in Scotland.

The Labour party appears to be made up of “lemmings” happy to jump from a cliff drowning their sorrows in self pity for a millennium. And the Lib-Dem party lacks the courage to embrace the radical policies which brought it so much success in Scotland in past years.

Ruth Davidson and her Unionist Party (the toxic word “Conservative” no longer features in its vocabulary) have claimed the “Union”. The Unionist party is now in the driving seat
and there is no room on their stagecoach for any passengers. Tactically Labour and the Lib-Dems have been outflanked and sidelined for the foreseeable future.

It is still possible for the LIb-Dem party to accept that there has been a significant change in the political scene in Scotland and support calls from their members for an independence referendum.

Such a change would strengthen the case for independence and ensure the party’s future at the centre of Scottish politics. The founding principles of the party provide guidance on the matter stating:

“Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security. Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles.”

Willie Rennie is adamant that the Lib-Dem party (under his stewardship) will do nothing that might run contrary to the policies of the Lib-Dem party in England/Wales and the perception in the party hierarchy south of the Scottish border is that support of an independence referendum would be depicted as an anti-Westminster vote further damaging any prospects of a revival of the party in England/Wales.

So Scot’s Lib-Dem’s are lumbered with a policy forced on them by their English “big brothers”.

This week, the Scottish Parliament will vote on whether to seek a Section 30 order, the device in the UK Parliament’s power that would give it the right to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence. The SNP Government is expected to win with the support of the Greens.

The Lib-Dem party are involving themselves in the affairs of another party mischievously claiming that the Greens do not have a mandate to call for a referendum given that three conditions in their manifesto have not been met.

They called Greens leader Patrick Harvie out for voting with the SNP, challenging him to justify his abandonment of the relevant parts of his party’s manifesto. The message from the Green Party was clear and unambiguous: “We believe that the best way to build a more prosperous and equal Scotland is to be a full independent member of the EU.”

The stupidity of the Lib-Dem attack on the Green party is also breathtakingly awesome since if the Green party simply abstained the motion would still be carried.

 

 

 
The Scottish Lib-Dem Party Response to the Outcome of the European Referendum

In the early hours of the morning of June 24th, everything we understood about the UK’s relationship with the rest of Europe changed. The European Union and our belief in its goals of peace and economic prosperity is an enormous part of what it is to be a Liberal Democrat. We are internationalist, co-operative, tolerant. And as that reality sank in we realised there was another consequence: What did this mean for our relationship with the rest of the UK?

And that is why Liberal Scotland in Europe has put forward a motion to this autumn’s Scottish Conference which aims to keep the party’s, and Scotland’s, options open.

Other parties may only be about unionism or nationalism, but the Liberal Democrats are about more than that. Our policies are decided by the membership, and as a membership we need to live up to our radical traditions and take on the challenge of finding a creative way forward for Scotland. We want to encourage our leadership to explore all possibilities, with all parties, to pursue the best possible outcome for Scotland.

This period of political history may prove to be the most significant for our constitution in 300 of years. It is for the Scottish Liberal Democrats membership to decide what role the party will play and what route we will choose. But if we are to secure the best future for Scotland and the strongest relationship with both the UK and EU, we will need to leave no possibility unexplored.

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Lib-Dem Conference – Attended by Approximately 120 Delegates

A motion was placed before the conference by MSP for Edinburgh Western, Alex Cole-Hamilton encouraging the party to:

– seek to win support for a public vote across the whole UK on the final EU deal;

– persuade the rest of the EU to be pragmatic in response to such demands;

– work with colleagues across the UK to be the UK-wide rallying point for all those who are pro-EU;

– and campaign for re-entry in the event of EU withdrawal.

The motion was carried by conference and included in the Lib-Dem party manifesto.

 

Paddy’s had enough

 

 

But the inclusion of the policy was in direct contravention of party rules which require that policy is decided by all party members.

It was evident, at the meeting held not long after the EU referendum that a majority of the Lib-Dem membership favoured adoption of the SNP policy but this was deprecated by Rennie and his boss in England.

Hence the backdoor conference motion bypassing the party membership. So much for party democracy

 

 

 

 

 

Many years ago I used to travel by rail, on a Friday (late night train) between London and Scotland. I was allowed a first class ticket on the only such carriage on the train. One journey stands out.

Charles Kennedy and a minder shared a table with me. Initially he was very quiet taking up his time studying thick tomes of correspondence. After a hour or so he folded his paperwork and secured it in his briefcase.

I carried on reading my novel “Operation Barbarossa”. He leaned towards me and said, “Glasgow is it”? I put down my book and confirmed my nationality.

We shared a dram or two and a longish conversation covering just about all aspects of life on the planet earth, including Iraq. I was struck by his ability to explain complicated matters in very simple terms and was persuaded to give my vote to his party at the next election. Was I easily won over? Not at all. He believed in what he said and I believed in him.

Addressing the predicament the Lib-Dem party is in over the matter of another Independence referendum I would commend Charles Kennedy’s address to the party in 2013 ( view the video). I believe it was one of his best. Willie Rennie would be best guided guided by Charles Kennedy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4poB2T-ohVw

 

 

The Conference at which the manifesto was decided

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abuse of Holyrood Parliamentary Protocols by the Tory Party in Scotland

February 2015: 700+ artistes (authors, poets entertainers,lecturers) formed a group “Artistes for Palestine” and announced a boycott on Israel cutting all cultural ties until such time as they complied with all UN resolutions.

October 2015: Israel hit back. “Culture for Coexistence” surfaced claiming it had 150 signatories calling for a strengthened Israeli-Palestinian Dialogue Rather Than Boycotts. Investigation revealed that the new entity was in fact a front for an Israeli “Hasabara”. The committee includes Neil Blair (Literary Agent for JK Rowling) and a number of other prominent persons with strong Israeli connections. JK Rowling is listed as a signatory to the markedly smaller list. And it requires a deal of stretching of the imagination to identify the names as artistes.

October 2015: Danny Cohen, director of BBC Television, and a number of other senior executives declared their support for the aims and objectives of the “Culture for Coexistence organisation”. questions were raised with BBC about impartiality rules and clearly evident pro-Israel reporting. Answers were unsatisfactory.

February 2016: Very recently formed “Scottish Tory Friends of Israel” group Invited the Jewish Lobby Group “Culture for Coexistence” to Holyrood to debate a motion “against the Palestinian, Boycott, Divest and Sanction campaign”. There was pandemonium outside Holyrood, involving protestors. The first ever pro-Israel debate was conducted in the presence of only 30 MSP’s, of whom 17 backed the motion. It is of note that, Jackson Carlaw, (deputy leader of the Tory party in Scotland) was the Tory candidate for Eastwood, near Glasgow, home to the bulk of the 12,000 Jewish community. He was duly elected to office in May 2016.

November 2016: Ruth Davidson Approves High-Level, Ill Judged Scottish Tory Fact Finding Team Holiday visit to illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Golan Heights

Hosted by the Conservative Friends of Israel, nine Conservative MSPs, including several shadow cabinet ministers, the chief whip and the party’s director, met with Israeli MKs, local businessmen and security officials and received briefings by the Israeli Defence Force(IDF) on the occupied Golan Heights.

John Lamont was interviewed by The Times of Israel. He said: “In recent years, many debates over the Middle East in the Scottish parliament have been “very unbalanced or biased toward the Palestinian perspective. Conservatives tend to be more sympathetic to Israel than members of the SNP or the Labour party. But there is a job to be done to ensure that [Conservatives] are as well informed as they possibly can be about the issues that face this region. Anti-Israel sentiment is being spread in Scotland mainly by church groups and marginal organizations advocating for a boycott of Israel. These people are telling the [Scottish public] that Israelis are bad and Palestinians are good and then sign up to some boycott.

That’s not based on any properly informed position, because nobody’s given them the alternative views. So part of this exercise [taking Scottish lawmakers to Israel] is making sure that more and more people are getting at least a balanced position and a positive view of Israel. There is a “small but very vocal minority” in Scotland that is hostile toward Israel. But the vast majority of Scots are relatively passive on issues, but are influenced by that very vocal minority. Those few activists succeeded in airing their views in the Scottish Parliament, which then influenced public opinion, he posited. It’s not because people have very strong views on either side of the debate, but because they only hear one perspective and that influences their thought process about Israel, about Gaza and the West Bank.”

 

 
Arab Human Rights Centre in The Golan Heights (Al-Marsad)

Al-Marsad, the only human rights organisation operating there, is at loggerheads with the Scots Conservatives’ leader after raising concern about the group’s visit to the Golan Heights winery in Katzrin. They say the delegation did not contact Al-Marsad or other representatives of the Syrian community in the “occupied Syrian Golan” to get a “balanced view”. And they say they have repeatedly failed to get an explanation for the visit to the territory from Ms Davidson or any condemnation of the illegal settlement.

The group, which is described as an independent, not-for-profit international human rights organisation, said it was “highly concerned” that it sends the message that the Scottish Conservative party endorses the illegal activities of such settlements. The UN, in 1981, issued a resolution saying that Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights was illegal. The strategic ridge was captured by Israel from Syria during the 1967 Six Day War and formally annexed in 1981. Since then, every year the UN passes a General Assembly resolution titled “The Occupied Syrian Golan” which reaffirms the illegality of the Israeli occupation and annexation.

Al-Marsad, which has previously voiced concern over what it deems Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” of the Syrian Arab population in the Golan, say they have written two letters to Ms Davidson asking in particular about the visit to “occupied Syrian Golan” but without response.

 

 
November 2016: Row as pro-Israel lobby group approved at Holyrood

A row has broken out after a pro-Israel lobby group was approved at Holyrood in a bid to counter claims that MSPs are overly hostile to the state.

Politicians from all parties, with the exception of the Scottish Greens, will be represented on the “Building Bridges with Israel” group, which aims to establish closer cultural, academic and economic links with the country. It has been set up in a bid to oppose anti-Semitism and offer an “alternative viewpoint” to what it says is a pro-Palestinian stance that has been dominant since the Scottish Parliament’s inception in 1999. The group will hold its first meeting early in the New Year.

There are questions that need to be asked about the trip to Israel. Why was the group “artists for Palestine” not invited to debate the motion providing balance?  The one-sided motion was unacceptable in that context!!! Who met the estimated £30K costs of the trip to Israel? What did Israel get in return? Is Israel financing the Tory party in Scotland? Is Ruth Davidson aware that the trip, the conduct of her delegation in Israel and her discourteous failure to reply to letters from the official Arab Human Rights monitoring Group (Al-Marsad) might possibly create a diplomatic incident, bringing the Holyrood parliament into disrepute.

 

 

Preamble: The comprehensive story is detailed below:

 

 

 
February 2015: Artistes for Palestine Sign Up To A Cultural boycott of Israel

Mission Statement:

The call for a boycott by artistes is focused on the free World’s cultural ties to the Israeli state and is in response to Israel’s brutality against Palestinians (similar to that of the South African Apartied Regime.) Culture is an important factor in the political sphere of Israel’s society and morality and the boycott will send a clear and unambiguous message that Israel does not enjoy impunity from the law and advance the cause of Palestinian freedom.
Artiste’s Statement:

“Along with more than 600 other fellow artists, we are announcing today that we will not engage in business-as-usual cultural relations with Israel. We will accept neither professional invitations to Israel, nor funding, from any institutions linked to its government.

Since the summer war on Gaza, Palestinians have enjoyed no respite from Israel’s unrelenting attack on their land, their livelihood, their right to political existence. “2014,” says the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, was “one of the cruellest and deadliest in the history of the occupation.” The Palestinian catastrophe goes on.

Israel’s wars are fought on the cultural front too. Its army targets Palestinian cultural institutions for attack, and prevents the free movement of cultural workers. Its own theatre companies perform to settler audiences on the West Bank – and those same companies tour the globe as cultural diplomats, in support of “Brand Israel”.

During South African apartheid, musicians announced they weren’t going to “play Sun City”. Now we are saying, in Tel Aviv, Netanya, Ashkelon or Ariel, we won’t play music, accept awards, attend exhibitions, festivals or conferences, run masterclasses or workshops, until Israel respects international law and ends its colonial oppression of the Palestinians.” See the full list of over 700 supporters at: artistsforpalestine.org.uk

Statement of Support From Signatories Including – Liz Lochhead – Playwright and Maker (National Poet for Scotland):

“It is essential to use every tool we have to communicate to the Israeli Government and the people of Israel, as well as our own complicit government and that of the USA, the deep repugnance felt by all who value basic human rights, international law and freedom of speech at the Apartheid and injustice under which the Palestinian people continue to exist. This goes far beyond even the hell of the situation in Gaza. As communicators and lovers of Free Speech it pains us to have to support this necessary boycott. We deeply resent being accused of anti-Semitism when we criticise the actions of the State of Israel. Liz Lochhead, playwright and Makar (national poet for Scotland)” https://artistsforpalestine.org.uk/introduction/signatories-statements/

 

 

 

 

 

October 2015: Culture for Coexistence Organisation Created

Mission Statement: Culture has a unique ability to bring people together and bridge division, and the organisation wanted to be a tiny part of the jigsaw that can work towards breaking down barriers.

Author’ Statement: “Cultural boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory and will not further peace. Open dialogue and interaction promote greater understanding and mutual acceptance and it is through such understanding and acceptance that movement can be made towards a resolution of the conflict.”

Authors Call for Israeli-Palestinian Dialogue Rather Than Boycotts:

A number of British artists and authors (including JK Rowling) have backed the newly formed network promoting coexistence and dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, partly to counter support for a cultural boycott of Israel. https://cultureforcoexistence.org/media/

 

 

 

 

 

The Culture for Coexistence Organisation – Committee:

Loraine da Costa: (the Chair) was on the executive board of Conservative Friends of Israel until recently. She was also on the executive board of One Family UK, an organisation “dedicated to working in the face of terror to facilitate a resilient Israeli society.

Neil Blair is a literary agent, most famously for JK Rowling. Founding Partner, The Blair Partnership – Founding Partner. Director, Pottermore Limited (JK Rowling’s new business). Partner (2001 – 2011) Christopher Little Literary Agency. European Head of Business Affairs, Warner Bros. Director, Lumos (JK Rowling’s charity.)Director, UK Friends of The Abraham Fund – Development Committee Member, The London 9/11 Project.

Rob Suss: Investment banker. Director Pace Holdings Corp. formerly Managing Director, Goldman Sachs. Committee Member “Culture for Coexistence”, an organisation that opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Trustee of Lumos,(children’s charity founded by JK Rowling).

Mark Smith is an executive director of Chime Communications Plc and has been a Chartered Accountant since 1978 having qualified with Touche Ross & Co (now Deloitte & Touche LLP). Following two years as European Finance Director at RCA Records, he joined Good Relations Group plc in 1984 and became its Group Finance Director in 1985. In 1986, he became Finance Director of Lowe Bell Communications (now Bell Pottinger Communications) and Finance Director of Chime Communications at the time of the management buy-out in 1989. Mark is a non-executive director of Holiday Extras Holdings Limited.

John Levy: Joined the Zionist Federation, in 1970. Executive Director of The Academic Study Group on Israel and the Middle East, and the Friends of Israel Educational Foundation. The Educational Foundation was established in 1976; the Academic Study Group in 1978. The Trusts seek to promote an informed and analytic understanding of Israel and the Middle East; and forge closer collaborative ties between academics and other experts in the UK and their professional counterparts in Israel.

Yigal Elstein: Educated (MBA), Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. EMEA Vice President (Hi-Tec cloud platform development)
Da Costa statement:

“supporters of Culture for Coexistence) reject boycotts. Culture has a unique ability to bring people together and bridge division and the organisation wanted be a tiny part of the jigsaw working towards breaking down barriers”. The network is planning a seminar to discuss the merits or otherwise of boycott as a political tool, to which pro-boycott artists will be invited. It also hoped to take people to Israel and the Palestinian territories to have a dialogue with cultural counterparts there”. https://cultureforcoexistence.org/media/

 

 
October 2015: Director of BBC television – Danny Cohen – signs the “Culture for Coexistence Organisation” – pro-Israel letter

Cohen, a member of the BBC’s executive board and one of the most senior figures in the organization,(whose salary is funded by license fee payers) joined top Israel apologists — including the chair of Conservative Friends of Israel and the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel — adding his name to a highly politicized letter (looking suspiciously like a front for a much larger hasbara “propaganda” organization) which states: “Cultural boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory, and will not further peace,” and calls for “cultural engagement” in place of boycotts. In response to an enquiry asking if Cohen was in breach of BBC guidelines requiring employees to show impartiality regarding the situation in Palestine and Israel, the BBC Press Officer said: “Danny Cohen was expressing his view about his belief in the importance of creative freedom of expression.”

Other signatories to the letter (which also declares support for a new organization called “Culture for Coexistence” include Eric Pickles MP, chair of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), a pro-Israel lobby group which, according to its website, “works to ensure that Israel’s case is fairly represented in Parliament.” Another 13 members of parliament also signed the letter. Seven of them are CFI’s parliamentary officers, five others are either members of CFI or have recently been on one of its delegations to Israel, and the 13th, Michael Dugher, is vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel — the Labour Party’s equivalent group.

Cohen’s position at the BBC, demands neutrality and if he supports Israel in its suppression of the Palestinian people, those views should not be allowed to affect his work at the BBC. And yet, here he is, with others, very publicly arguing for a continuation of the status quo which favours the Israeli state against the occupied Palestinian people, employing vacuous terms such as “building bridges” to hide the fact that Israel is a serial violator of international law and Palestinian human rights, whose senior politicians openly declare that there will never be a Palestinian state. It is a stupefying display of favouritism towards Israel from the BBC’s director of television, a man whose job supposedly demands impartiality.

His influence within the BBC is huge. He oversees the BBC’s four main TV channels, BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three and BBC Four, in addition to BBC iPlayer, and online content for BBC Television. He also oversees the drama, entertainment, knowledge and comedy genres and BBC Films. Further responsibilities include the BBC Television archive and BBC Productions, Europe’s largest television production group. And his views on Israel and the occupation are now out in the open. His behaviour is yet another example of the Endemic bias against Palestine, rife within the BBC. There are many other senior figures at the BBC known for their pro-Israel sympathies.

 

 

 

 

The BBC’s director of news and current affairs, James Harding, once told a conference organized by the pro-Zionist Jewish Chronicle newspaper: “I am pro-Israel and I believe in the State of Israel.” In 2011, (when he was still editor of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Times) Harding added, “I would have had a real problem if I had been coming to a paper with a history of being anti-Israel. And, of course, Rupert Murdoch is pro-Israel.” He is responsible for the entirety of the BBC’s news and current affairs output across BBC radio, TV and online, including its current coverage of October’s violence in Palestine and Israel. The position he holds at the BBC is described as “arguably the most important editorial job in Britain.”

The BBC’s director of strategy and digital Purnell is a former Labour MP and minister who, for two years, served as chair of Labour Friends of Israel.

Another signatory of the letter in last week’s Guardian is Michael Grade, who served as chair of the BBC between 2004 and 2006. As well as calling for Israel to be protected from boycotts, Grade last week publicly complained that the BBC was too pro-Palestinian in its coverage of events in October which have seen at least 61 Palestinians killed in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, as well as 10 Israelis. The Jewish Chronicle reported that Grade had written to the BBC’s director general, Tony Hall, accusing the BBC of failing to show stone-throwing Palestinians in its reports and creating an “equivalence between Israeli victims of terrorism and Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli security forces in the act of carrying out terror attacks.”

Ironically, as close monitoring by Palestine Solidarity Campaign has demonstrated, the BBC’s coverage in October focused almost exclusively on Israeli stabbing victims, and its flagship radio news program Today even attempted to fool its audiences into thinking that all those killed during October were Israeli. But it would seem that, whatever lengths the BBC goes to in order to present the occupying Israeli state as a victim, it can never go far enough for some who have worked at the organization. It cannot be denied that support for Israel runs deep through the top layers of BBC management, both past and present, and that support probably trickles down through the rest of the BBC as a matter of corporate culture.

This could explain why BBC editors failed to see the pro-Israel bias of commissioning historian Simon Schama to make a five part series for BBC Two in 2013, during which he made what he called “the moral case for Israel” and announced, in one episode, “I am a Zionist and quite unapologetic about it.” Schama, unsurprisingly added his name to the letter on cultural boycotts.

The same corporate culture could also explain why BBC Online’s Middle East editor, Raffi Berg, felt comfortable enough to send his colleagues an email during Israel’s November 2012 assault on Gaza asking them not to “put undue emphasis” on Israel for starting the prolonged attacks. And it may explain why Cohen feels he can sign a letter in support of Israel without fear of reprisal from his bosses for breaching impartiality requirements.

Consumers of BBC news and current affairs may often wonder why the number of Israeli spokespersons appearing across the BBC’s output far outnumber Palestinian spokespersons, why Palestinians, when they do make a rare appearance, are constantly interrupted by BBC presenters, while Israelis such as diplomat Mark Regev are given free rein to speak almost without challenge. They may wonder why the killing of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers goes unreported by the BBC, while rockets fired from Gaza which cause minor damage to roads make headlines. The biased views of those at the top of the BBC have created a corporate culture of pro-Israeli bias throughout its editorial ranks and its one-sided reporting is no longer a surprise.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/director-bbc-television-signs-guardians-pro-israel-letter

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 February 2016: The Scottish Tory Friends of Israel Party and the Jewish Lobby Group at Holyrood

Early 2016 Ruth Davidson manipulated the Holyrood debating agenda and arranged a formal invitation to the Jewish Lobby Group (Culture for Coexistence) and Britain’s deputy Israeli ambassador Eitan Na’eh to meet with MSP’s and debate and vote in support of a motion “against the Palestinian, Boycott, Divest and Sanction campaign” tabled on their behalf by Jackson Carlaw, deputy leader of the party.

On 25 February 2016, Parliament debated the first ever pro-dialogue Israel motion in a year that saw a staggering total of 62 anti-Israel debates at Holyrood. It was attended by 30 MSPs and did not culminate in a vote but a show of hands indicated 17 MSP’s backed the motion.

Motion debated: “Israel Needs Cultural Bridges, not Boycotts”:

“That the Parliament acknowledges the recently published open letter signed by over 150 high-profile cultural and political figures in support of the aims of Culture for Coexistence, an independent UK network representing a cross-section from the cultural world;

Notes that this open letter calls for an end to cultural boycotts of Israel and Israeli artists.

Notes the views expressed in the letter in support of a two-state solution and the promotion of greater understanding, mutual acceptance and peace through cultural engagement.

Notes that one example of this cultural exchange took place in 2015 when the Israeli artist, Matan Ben-Cnaan, won first prize in the 2015 BP International Portrait Award and was given the opportunity to teach art to local school children at the opening of the exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery.

Hopes that, through groups such as the Centre for Scotland and Israel Relations, based in East Renfrewshire, similar educational and cultural programmes will take place in the coming months.

Notes the views expressed in the letter that “Cultural engagement builds bridges, nurtures freedom and positive movement for change. We wholly endorse encouraging such a powerful tool for change rather than boycotting its use”.

The debate

Jackson Carlaw, praised Israel’s contributions to international science and criticised campaigners who “overtly personally blame ‘the Jews’… over the actions of a foreign country”. Stressing the debate’s importance to the Jewish community in Scotland he said: “I think this is a landmark day in the Scottish Parliament because we are able to host the first positive motion in support of Israel since the Parliament was founded in 1999. I think that it is important because it allowed us to actually show Israel in a much more rounded context and also to address the concerns of many who live here in Scotland within the Jewish community who have felt that the language of this parliament has been advertently hostile to Israel.”

Labour MSP’s and one Scottish Nationalist MSP criticised the “depressingly illiberal” tactics pursued by the anti-Israel lobby.

A Green MSP, Alison Johnson claimed boycotts of Israel were “entirely consistent” with holding a “deep and unwavering commitment that none of us should ever downplay or forget the atrocities of the Holocaust”.

 

 

 

 

 

John Finnie, Green Party leader spoke against the motion:

I declare my membership of the Scottish Palestinian solidarity campaign and the Scottish Green Party, whose mantra is people, planet and peace. Peace and security can be achieved only through global justice and the world will never be safe while we allow the obscenity of poverty, economic exploitation and illegal occupations to continue.

I turn to the issue of boycott, divestment and sanctions. Mr Carlaw’s motion is misleading because there is no boycott of Israeli artists such as Matan Ben Cnaan, as long as artists refuse to collude in the Israeli abuse of human rights. There is a boycott of the Israeli state and those who seek to normalise the occupation of Palestine.

The Scottish Green Party supports the Palestinians’ call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, including a boycott of Israeli goods and services and an academic and cultural boycott, until Israel fulfils its obligations under international law. Those obligations are: withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders; withdrawing from east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and other land that was seized in 1967; withdrawing from and depopulating Israeli colonies in the West Bank; dismantling the separation wall; ending the siege of Gaza; granting the right of refugees from 1948, 1967 and other expulsions and their descendants to return to their homes, as required by United Nations resolution 194; and affording equal rights to all citizens within Israel, irrespective of religion or ethnicity, especially Palestinian citizens in Israel.

If I am accused of anti-Semitism because I am speaking like this, I have to say that I have no allegiance to any faith nor would I be critical of any faith.

The Scottish Green Party will campaign for and support divestment by local authorities, other institutions of government—including the local government pension scheme—and civil society organisations from Israel, Israeli companies and companies that support the Israeli Government’s illegal occupation of Palestine.

The Scottish Green Party supports the Palestinian non-violent struggle resisting the colonisation of their lands, resources and peoples by Israel and by Zionist settlers.

The Scottish Green Party will press for European Union legislation to prohibit the import into the EU of products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The Scottish Green Party will work with solidarity groups within Scotland and with political parties and civil society organisations within Palestine and amongst the Palestinian diaspora that share our objectives.

The motion talks of a culture for coexistence; we cannot have that when there are apartheid walls. It talks of greater understanding, but is there an understanding of an imprisoned population? It talks of peace through cultural engagement. I love peace, I campaign for peace, I encourage peace and I condemn violence from whatever quarter—I hope that all other participants in the debate would do likewise.

I want to encourage equality. I support conflict resolution but peace came in the north of Ireland not when the walls went up but when the walls came down. I spoke to someone who was involved in the violence in the north of Ireland and he said, “We killed each other, we maimed each other, we injured each other, and we damaged each others’ property—nothing changed until they bombed the city of London.”

I am not condoning violence from any quarter, be that violence against individuals or violence against property, but there is no doubt that financial imperative can shape minds and change opinions, so I am four-square behind the boycott, divestment and sanctions.”
Visitors observations

Loraine da Costa, Chair of Culture for Coexistence said: “It has been a privilege to spend a day in the Scottish Parliament hearing the motion ‘Israel needs cultural bridges, not boycotts’ debated. I believe that through our initiative, “Culture for Coexistence” is illuminating a path whereby such issues can be discussed in a positive manner looking at what can be done to move peace forward and how culture can help to do so.”

Chargé d’affaires, Eitan Na’eh said “I am honoured to be the first Israeli diplomat to be invited to your parliament. The visit continues to build on the good and historic friendships that exist between Scotland and Israel. These have recently been significantly strengthened through the ongoing work of the Israeli Embassy all across Scotland.”

 

 

 

 

November 2016: Row as pro-Israel lobby group approved at Holyrood

A row has broken out after a pro-Israel lobby group was approved at Holyrood in a bid to counter claims that MSPs are overly hostile to the state. Politicians from all parties, with the exception of the Scottish Greens, will be represented on the “Building Bridges with Israel” group, which aims to establish closer cultural, academic and economic links with the country.

It has been set up in a bid to oppose anti-Semitism and offer an “alternative viewpoint” to what it says is a pro-Palestinian stance that has been dominant since the Scottish Parliament’s inception in 1999. The group will hold its first meeting early in the New Year.

Jackson Carlaw, the Conservative MSP who will act as convenor of the group, said it was “sadly true” that there had been more anti-Israel motions at Holyrood than the other parliaments of the EU put together. He went on: “This is not going to be a group that will simply be an apologist for the government of Israel. This is not a group being set up with a view to having a row with anyone or being antagonistic. It’s genuinely there to seek to have bridges built between the Jewish community, Scotland and the state of Israel. Responding to vocal critics of Israel in Scotland, he added: “I regard Israel as the only democratic state in that region. I’m not a fundamentalist in relation to these issues, I think the more we have an ongoing dialogue and an opportunity for all sides to participate so much the better.”

Mick Napier, a spokesman for the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, strongly opposed the group’s message. He said: “This is an effort to change the subject from what Israel is doing in Palestine to a phony attempt to build bridges.”

 

 

 

 

 

November 2016: Ruth Davidson Approves High-Level, Ill Judged Scottish Tory Fact Finding Team Holiday visit to illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Glan Heights

Davidson has been heavily criticised by a Syrian human rights group after a high-powered group of ten Scottish Tories visited an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied Golan Heights. Al-Marsad, the only human rights organisation operating there, is at loggerheads with the Scots Conservatives’ leader after raising concern about the group’s visit to the Golan Heights winery in Katzrin. They say the delegation did not contact Al-Marsad or other representatives of the Syrian community in the “occupied Syrian Golan” to get a “balanced view”. And they say they have repeatedly failed to get an explanation for the visit to the territory from Ms Davidson or any condemnation of the illegal settlement. The group, which is described as an independent, not-for-profit international human rights organisation, said it was “highly concerned” that it sends the message that the Scottish Conservative party endorses the illegal activities of such settlements. The UN, in 1981, issued a resolution saying that Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights was illegal. The strategic ridge was captured by Israel from Syria during the 1967 Six Day War and formally annexed in 1981. Since then, every year the UN passes a General Assembly resolution titled “The Occupied Syrian Golan” which reaffirms the illegality of the Israeli occupation and annexation. The Israeli government disputes this position. Answering Al-Marsald’s concerns, a Scottish Conservatives spokesman said their position is the same as the UK government position which is “not to support illegal settlements”.

 

 

 

 

The row surrounds a delegation of ten Scottish Conservatives, including nine MSPs were on a Conservative Friends of Israel-funded trip to Israel, the West Bank and Golan Heights in August. It was described by CFI as a trip to “promote bilateral trade between the two countries and bolster the growing pro-Israel advocacy movement in Scotland”.

Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw followed up the trip earlier this month with controversial plans to establish a cross-party group, called ‘Building Bridges with Israel’. It has been set up in a bid to oppose anti-Semitism and offer an ‘alternative viewpoint’ to what it says is a pro-Palestinian stance that has been dominant since the Scottish Parliament’s inception in 1999.

But the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, strongly opposed the group’s message with a spokesman saying: “Israel doesn’t build any bridges, it demolishes homes, farms and is demolishing Palestine.”

The delegation to Israel in August included the director of the Scottish Conservatives, Mark McInnes, Scottish Conservative chief whip, John Lamont along with shadow justice secretary Douglas Ross, shadow economy, jobs and fair work cabinet secretary Dean Lockhart, shadow environment secretary Maurice Golden, tourism and small businesses spokeswoman Rachel Hamilton, community safety spokesman Oliver Mundell, digital economy spokesman Jamie Greene, further education, higher education and science spokesman Ross Thompson and welfare, reform and equalities spokeswoman Annie Wells.

James Gurd, director of the CFI, told the Jewish Chronicle that the trip, reflected a growing sympathy towards Israel north of the border saying: “For years a vocal minority seen as dominating debate there were very pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli.” http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/14884171.Ruth_Davidson_slammed_over_high_level_Tory_visit_to_illegal_Israeli_settlement/

 

 

 

 

Arab Human Rights Centre in The Golan Heights (Al-Marsad)

Al-Marsad, which has previously voiced concern over what it deems Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” of the Syrian Arab population in the Golan, say they have written two letters to Ms Davidson asking in particular about the visit to “occupied Syrian Golan” but without response. Dr Nizar Ayoub director, said “Given this lack of clarification, I am highly concerned that the Scottish Conservative party appears to condone the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements – illegal under international law – in the occupied Syrian Golan.” The group said it was “highly concerning” if human rights issues, in particular, in the occupied territories are “not considered or trumped by business interests”.

Dr Nizar Ayoub told Ms Davidson in his letters: “As I imagine that you are aware, such settlements are illegal according to international law, and their construction and expansion at the expense of the native Syrian inhabitants have been repeatedly condemned by the international community. I am highly concerned that the delegation has visited a winery in an illegal Israeli settlement without providing any explanation of the purpose of the visit. In effect, this sends a message that the Scottish Conservative party endorses the illegal activities of this settlement – built on land illegally appropriated from its original Syrian owners. Even more worrying is the fact that the Scottish Conservative party has refused to answer questions about whether the delegation raised the broader issue of the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Syrian Golan during its visit.”

He was further concerned that, describing the visit, Mr Lamont said “on Israel’s northern border with Syria we witnessed first-hand the devastating civil war raging metres away from Israel”

Dr Ayoub reminded Ms Davidson that: “The only part of Syria that Israel borders is the occupied Syrian Golan. The fighting in Syria is not taking place metres away from Israel, it is taking place metres away from the occupied Syrian Golan. From Mr Lamont’s comments, it appears that he considers that the occupied Syrian Golan is part of Israel, which it is not.”

He added: “I am highly disappointed that the delegation did not contact Al-Marsad or other representatives of the Syrian community in the occupied Syrian Golan in order to discuss the daily challenges faced by the remaining native Syrian population in the Syrian Golan due to Israel’s illegal occupation. This would have ensured that the delegation obtained a more balanced view of the situation in the occupied Syrian Golan.” http://golan-marsad.org/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This England (Shakespeare) 1603

“This royal throne of kings, this scept’red isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by Nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in a silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands ‘

 

 

 

 

 

The Man Who Shaped England’s View Of The World and The Englishman’s Place in It

It was 1603 and King James of Scotland had recently been crowned Monarch of England and Scotland. Shakespeare suitably inspired by events wrote his eulogy to his beloved isle which was and still is the atypical Englishman’s interpretation of the United Kingdom. The poem refers to the United Kingdom as: “This precious stone set in a silver sea”

It was this entity, this “United Kingdom”, resulting from the death of the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth (who had the rightful heir to the throne of England, her cousin Mary executed) that led to the betrayal of Scotland (104 years later) by a privileged elite. The political accommodation called Great Britain.

 

 

 

 

Time passes. And 310 years later many hundreds of new nations and trading blocs have been formed, some from political expediency, but the vast bulk through the will of their people.

The people of Scotland are legally sovereign and they have, (for the last 50 years) expressed the view (through ballot box, at each General Election) that they no longer wish to have their future negotiated by English Tory politicians. But change has been denied Scotland due to a corrupt political set-up, put in place by the much maligned 1707 Treaty of Union. But Scot’s now wish “to be a nation again” and this should not be denied them.

All Scottish based political parties (perhaps with the exception of the Tories) should support the independence referendum motion presently being debated in Holyrood