caltonjock

 

 

 

Scotland’s – Claim of Right Act 1689 states: “That the sending of an army in a hostile manner upon any part of Scotland in peacetime is contrary to law”

The Birth of Red Clydeside

Before and during the First World War, there was no statutory standard working week in the UK although it was generally accepted that the norm was 54 hours.

In the course of the war the coalition government attempted to impose upon workers, ” the Munitions Act,” “the Dilution of Labour Act” and the “Defence of the Realm Act,” all giving the government draconian powers to negate long-fought-for pay rates and conditions for skilled work, and to crack down on opposition.

The measures were resisted strongly by the Clyde Workers’ Committee (CWC) in Glasgow.

At the war end the armed forces were demobilized and returned home to the labour market.

The infusion of the large body of new workers seeking work in an rapidly shrinking economy base resulted in a steep rise in the unemployed and resultant hardship and discontent.

In the absence of any initiative from the government in Westminster, a number of Trades Unions in Glasgow addressed the issue and brought forward proposals which if accepted by the government and employers would reduce the working week to 40 hours expanding the labour market and reducing unemployment.

After weeks of negotiations a provisional agreement was achieved, between the government, employers and some Union officials, providing for the introduction of a 47-hour week, (applicable to shipbuilding and engineering trades only) at some time in 1919.

Shop Stewards of the (CWC) in Glasgow rejected the offer and tabled a counter bid supported by limiting the standard working week to 40 hours with paid tea breaks (removed under the 47-hour week offer) restored.

 

A strike meeting (over 3,000 attended) was held at the St Andrews Halls on Monday 27 January 1919.

Immediately after the meeting 40,000 workers downed tools, answering the call to strike.

By Friday 31 January 1919 the number of workers on strike had risen to 60,000 plus.

United action by workers, (on this scale) had not been seen in Scotland since the Weavers of Glasgow’s Calton District had engaged their employers in a long and bitter dispute over wages and basic justice in 1787, which ended with the murder of a number of weavers by government forces.

A later insurrection in 1820 again ended in the death of protestors and deportation to the colonies of activists and their families.

On Friday 31 January the strikers were invited to a meeting in George Square at which it was intended that the Lord Provost Sir James Watson Stewart would issue the official response from the Westminster government to the unions’ request for government intervention in the dispute.

A large crowd of strikers (marshalled by a large police force) gathered in George Square to witness the statement. But faced with a noisy crowd the Lord Provost instead invited representatives of the CWC (led by David Kirkwood) and the Glasgow Trades Council (represented by Emanual Shinwell) into the Glasgow City Chambers for a briefing. 

Kirkwood knocked to the ground outside the Glasgow City Chambers

Kirkwood and Shinwell under arrest outside the Glasgow City Chambers

Not long after the start of the briefing the Lord Provost was alerted to trouble outside the City Chambers and asked Kirkwood and Shinwell to intervene and establish order.

They agreed, left the meeting and ventured outside, to be immediately ambushed by a group of police who knocked Kirkwood to the ground and arrested the delegation on a charge of “instigating and inciting large crowds of persons to form part of a riotous mob.

What sparked the riot has never been formally established but many witnesses (independent of the incident) blamed the actions of mounted police, who it is alleged (acting on secret government orders) launched a baton wielding charge on the crowd without provocation.

What is fact is the impact of the confrontation between the protestors and the police.

The crowds attempts to get away from George Square were thwarted by “night stick” wielding police who had deployed forces at each of the potential escape routes effectively “Kettling” the protestors.

This resulted in pitched battles between armed police and unarmed demonstrators.

The folly of precipitating the confrontation dawned (to late) on the police as a riot then ensued, over which they had no control.

Iron Railings, cobble stones and bottles were used in defence against the police truncheons and dispersing the crowd proved to be beyond the police presence.

The fighting between the police and protestors spread to other parts of the city and throughout the day and well into the evening many men women and children suffered injury from the police.

There were many arrests and Duke Street Prison was filled to capacity.

Many strikers were later tried at the High Court in Edinburgh and sentenced to varying jail terms.

English soldiers posing with their tanks Glasgow 1919

An uneasy calm returned to Glasgow, over the weekend but the intervention of the “Scottish Secretary” who described the rioting as a “Bolshevist Uprising” proved to be the catalyst for deploying the armed forces to the streets of Glasgow.

The Coalition government (led by David Lloyd George) over-reacted, sending 10,000 English soldiers (heavily armed with heavy machine guns, howitzers and Tanks) to Glasgow.

The “Battle Group” (the largest deployment of English soldiers on Scottish soil since the Battle of Culloden) arrived on Friday 7 February 1919. 

Tanks at the Cattle Market  Glasgow 1919

Martial Law was imposed on Glasgow and this was strictly enforced on the public by the English soldiers who speedily took control of the City Centre positioning heavy machine guns on the top of the Post Office building and The North British Hotel.

A large howitzer was placed at the entrance to the City Chambers. City-wide English soldiers were deployed in force patrolling the streets, completing stop and search and ID checks on Glaswegians and guarding the docks, power stations and other key installations.

An eyewitness said ‘the whole city bristled with tanks and machine guns’.

The force was withdrawn from Glasgow on 16 February 1919 and located, for a time in barracks elsewhere in Scotland.

The government fearing that Scottish soldiers might not obey orders to take action against their countrymen issued orders that they would be confined to barracks for the duration of the deployment of the English force to Glasgow.

The Highland Light Infantry (almost exclusively Glaswegian) were disarmed and detained in Maryhill Barracks.

English soldiers being transported to Glasgow  1919

After the Riot

Manny Shinwell, William Gallacher and David Kirkwood were jailed for several months.

The striking workers returned to work with the guarantee of a 47-hour week, ten hours less than they were working beforehand.

Three years later, in the 1922 GE, Scotland elected 29 Labour MPs, (including the 40 Hour Strike organizers and Independent Labour Party members Manny Shinwell and David Kirkwood.).

The epithet of Red Clydeside was established.

100 years later – Are there parallels to be drawn?

Scottish society has changed little in the last 100 years. Much of the poverty that existed at the time of the riot is still present today.

Unionist governments in Westminster have taken Scotland’s young men to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Serbia and other countries, without justification, spending obscene amounts of money whilst imposing massive cuts in key services such as education, welfare, infrastructure, and the NHS.

Social housing building in Scotland was stagnant under successive Unionist Tory & Labour) governments and this has placed many families, (struggling to cope) at the mercy of greedy landlords who raise rents without justification.

In Glasgow at 2019 there are many hundreds of newly refurbished flats lying empty, the cost of purchase being well beyond that of the typical Glaswegian.  A situation that forces many families onto the streets.

Where is the affordable housing promised by the Tories and Labour governments?

The banking crash of 2007/8 brought with it many job redundancies and house repossessions as the resultant depression impacted on the economy.

Yet not one UK banker went to jail for participating in the biggest banking frauds in history.

Instead they were rewarded for their efforts, being allowed to operate much as before including awarding themselves and their fraudulent colleagues with undeserved massive multi-million pound bonuses whilst many thousands of Scots were thrown of society’s scrapheap never to work again.

Ten years later the Unionist government in Westminster is still intent on asset stripping the poor using as excuse the “Austerity Plan” put in place by the Tory Party.

A plan which took on a debt from Labour of around £800 billion and increased it to nearly £2 Trillion and rising.

Iceland meantime jailed the bankers, imposed massive restrictions and returned their economy to balance within 5 years.

 

 

 

 

Gary Smith (the grey man)

 

 

 

Gary Smith – BBC in Scotland’s Head of News and Current Affairs

The new Head of News at BBC in Scotland, (succeeding “bully boy” John Boothman) is a 54-year-old Scot who grew up in Glasgow and attended Kelvin-side Academy.

He went on to study English at Glasgow University and did a post-graduate journalism course at Cardiff University.

He is a London based Scot who has been with the BBC news and current affairs team in England for over 17 years.

In that time he has been the, Political Editor of BBC News, Assistant Editor BBC Nine O’clock News and UK News Editor at the Television Centre in London.

A company man whose loyalty to the corporate body of the BBC is unquestionable he will strengthen the already strong links between London and Scotland.

The chain of command will start and end in London.

It is rumoured Gary was not the choice of senior managers at the BBC in Scotland, their preference being to promote from within.

To that end a well established fiery, female journalist and news presenter was encouraged to believe she was a “shoo in” applied and had been interviewed for the post and rejected by the London based selection panel.

If true portents for the future are not good.

But Gary is a proven team leader possessing excellent communication skills and it expected he will soon win the team over. (BBC Speak)

The infusion of “new blood” is also touted to be the start of a process leading to the elimination of the invidious influence on the present News and Current affairs team of the Labour Party in Scotland replacing it with the political dogma of a more reliable Unionist minded party.

The introduction of Gary will be followed by journalists, selected from approved sources outwith BBC Scotland.

The coup will not be bloodless but  career conscious incumbent personnel will be sifted out silently without protest, over time.

 

 

At interview Gary won over the interview panel by offering this vision;

“I’ve a passion and commitment for providing accurate, clear, informative, honest journalism with integrity and impartiality.

After 30 years in broadcast journalism, this is the job I’ve always wanted.

The story of Scotland in a devolved UK is one of the most important themes of this decade.

Reporting and analysing this with insight, accuracy and impartiality for audiences both in Scotland and the rest of the UK is one of the biggest challenges faced by the BBC now and in the coming years.

I am very keen to focus on not just one platform ahead of others but to share content across the different platforms we provide our news on, whether that is TV, radio, the web or social media.

Content is at the centre of what we do and the best journalism has to be spread across all our platforms as much as possible to ensure we reach the biggest audience.

We also have to ensure our journalism is relevant to our entire audience.

That means different content in different places.

Younger people get their news differently from the way we have traditionally delivered news in the BBC.

So connecting with a younger audience through social media is crucial.

We have to keep abreast of developing platforms.”

 

BBC Management

 

 

 

BBC in Scotland Management – Realistic or Wishy Washy?

Managers at the BBC in Scotland have been pressing the executive in London to commission a flagship “Scottish Six” news programme to help answer ever growing complaints about its weak coverage of Scottish affairs.

They have also been seeking a substantial expansion of the BBC in Scotland’s news and programme-making budget, including funding a third national radio service for Scotland.

Ambitious plans adding an extra digital television channel and new online programming have been abandoned in the wake of swingeing spending cuts.

But their proposals are encountering substantial resistance from BBC executives in London.

It is also rumoured that any extra funds for news and current affairs are being ear-marked towards other projects, including a beefed up Korean service.

Questioned by the media, Smith said that no decisions had been taken on what BBC news output for audiences in Scotland will look like in future.

But a BBC news review is underway and, forming part of that different programme formats and audience research will be conducted before any conclusions are arrived at.

A core essential will be the ambition to deliver the best possible news offering for the audience in Scotland.

Announcing big changes in the corporation’s coverage of public life in Scotland Smith said, “the news is to be sharper in style, tougher and more analytic.

The BBC has become “overstretched” in recent years, with reductions in staffing but no fall off in output.

It’s time now to live within our means, time to focus on our core programmes”.

 

 

 

 

The Infamous “Scottish Six”

Under media pressure in Scotland the BBC executive in London confirmed it is pressing ahead with controversial plans for a Scottish Six flagship news programme.

Corporation bosses said they would soon begin trialling a new hour-long news programme that could replace both Reporting Scotland and the Six O’clock News north of the Border.

Three options for a new format, are under consideration but no decision had yet been taken on which, if any, would be introduced.

Some staff in the BBC in Scotland, News and Current Affairs team are said to be angry that they presently do not have the manpower or resources to handle new programmes and have threatened to boycott the project unless senior management agree to a full consultation.

BBC Scotland’s head of news Gary Smith is understood to have spoken to staff yesterday in a bid to allay fears.

Critics fear the change is likely to lead to more parochial programming and Scottish Labour culture spokeswoman Claire Baker MSP said: “Whilst I have welcomed the review of news coverage in Scotland as a result of new powers coming to Holyrood, I have always said that any change must strike a balance between Scottish news coverage and the continuing demand for quality international and relevant UK wide reporting.

A Scottish Six must be fully consulted with staff and more importantly the general public, with focus groups showing a clear desire for a UK perspective on UK and international stories.

Any changes to BBC news coverage must be made for the right reasons and quality must always be maintained.”

A BBC Scotland spokesman said: “We’ve said very publicly that we are conducting a news review at present and we’ll be looking at various different programme formats and carrying out audience research as part of that process.

We have told our news teams that we will be carrying out some non-broadcast pilots and we’ll obviously talk to staff as we proceed with this work and discuss fully any implications on them.

No decisions on our future output will be taken until that work is concluded, but ultimately our aim is to deliver the very best news for our audiences here in Scotland.”

 

Extract from: Prof John Robertson Expose of BBC bias

 

 

The Scottish Six – An Insiders Comments

Proposals for a “Scottish Six” submitted for consideration and approval, by the BBC in Scotland management were met with derision by executives in London.

But accepting political reality required a debate, draft proposals were not rejected but were “put out to the long grass” with a loose commitment to arrive at a final decision towards the end of 2016.

Difficulties to be resolved are associated with implementation and how content from overseas will be gathered and shared with material from the UK network.

It was suggested that Scottish correspondents employed as foreign correspondents or as specialists in London might routinely contribute to the presentation of the new programming.

Overall control of direction and editorial decision needs to be firmly established together with lines of responsibility between staff based in Scotland and management, journalists and presenters in London.

An option to be given consideration is the introduction of a direct replacement for the BBC1 Six O’clock news or a stand-alone programme which might air on BBC2 Scotland mid-evening, possibly replacing the nine-o-clock news..

But, regardless of whichever option is finally chosen the BBC’s current regional news programme “Reporting Scotland” on BBC1 will be scrapped after less than three years on air.

The competition from the S.T.V. news programme, “Scotland Tonight” has rendered the flagship current affairs show Scotland 2016 (anchored by Sarah Smith) unviable with less than 30,000 viewers and reducing.

Staff associated with the programme will be redeployed to other projects.

News night will be resurrected and broadcast nightly throughout the BBC network, (including Scotland).

Radio Scotland’s The Big Debate with Gordon Brewer and Douglas Fraser’s Business Scotland weekend slots will also be shut down.

Sarah Smith will be given yet another chance to succeed at something justifying her huge salary transferring to the newly created non-job post of “Scotland Editor.”

Her role will reflect the re-alignment of UK politics following the 2015 General Election.

The key purpose of the new look service is to provide greatly enhanced UK coverage and analysis of significant stories for the pan-UK audience across all network output, including the Six and Ten O’clock News, the Today programme, the radio bulletins and the BBC News website.

Seems to be simply an input of news content, (with a slightly Scottish bent from time to time) from the BBC in London.

 

 

Disgraceful broadcast by the BBC

 

 

Gary Smith Recruits two new managers to the BBC in Scotland team in Glasgow

The reorganisation of the News and Current Affairs team is underway with a vengeance.

As projected Gary Smith is determined to stamp his authority and style on the weak team he inherited.

He has recruited (S.T.V.’s) Howard Simpson to be the team’s News Editor.

Simpson was instrumental in the launch of “Scotland Tonight” the S.T.V. programme that wiped the floor with the poor BBC offering chaired by Sarah Smith.(now shut down)

 

 

 

Simpson, in a public statement said:

I am a strategic, creative thinker and a journalistic leader who inspires strong teamwork.

I have over fifteen years experience in TV production and nearly ten years in senior management.

I have an exceptional record in change management and in the discipline of meeting financial targets that serve business requirements.

Above all I am a great communicator who creates opportunities and delivers results.

I have managed and adapted the S.T.V news team for the best part of the last decade.

This has meant leading change through licence renewal, the onset of a bespoke Edinburgh 30 minute daily news programme, the conceptualisation, launch and ongoing success of Scotland Tonight, as well as the genesis of a multi platform news-gathering model.

I have worked with I.T.V. Sport in discussing our opt outs for U.E F.A.  Champions League and International Friendlies and the S.P.F.L for securing unique S.T.V. content.

I maintain that a news division can only ever be as good as its people.

I have found that newsrooms work best from the bottom up.

I believe that a news assistant is as important as a senior editor.

They all have to be facing the same way and believe in the project.

In conclusion, I can lead and react to an ever changing news agenda.

I led S.T.V. news to an R.T.S. Scotland award for news programming last year for our coverage of the Clutha tragedy.

I am a programme maker – one of the most successful is Scotland Tonight which is superior to its rivals in tone, style and depth.

I think strategically and want to play a part in shaping Scotland’s news and current affairs output within the wider changing political and technological culture.

I am a leader – I have an unblemished record in change management; building and crucially, rebuilding team cultures that are highly motivated and results focussed. In short, people like to work for me.

 

 

 

Matt Roper has also been recruited from ST.V. to the News and Current Affairs team and appointed to the newly created post “Editor of Mobile and Online.”

Roper was formally digital editor of S.T.V. with responsibility. for online news, current affairs and sport output.

He was also involved in the launch of S.T.V.’s “News App.” and was a key player in the successful launch of Scotland Tonight’s online presence.

 

 

 

 

Where are we now?

Scotland’s relationship with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has travelled full circle and we are effectively back at 1926.

Scottish broadcasting autonomy is a duck that never flew under the strict corporate governance of a State controlled entity.

The introduction of Gary “the grey man” Smith and his centralised policy driven agenda to the Glasgow News and Current Affairs Team is the ultimate betrayal of Scotland. It is now a dead duck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A young Duchess of Sutherland: Between 1811 and 1820, about 15,000 crofters were forcibly removed from their Sutherland-shire homes, opening up thousands of profitable sheep-farming acres. The statue of the 1st Duke near Golspie – “The Mannie” – is regularly vandalised to this day.

 

 

 

 

 

Scotland’s Holocaust

Throughout the 17th and 18th century’s a huge part of Scotland, to the South, North and West of Glasgow and to the North, West and South of Edinburgh was divided into large estates and formally given over to the ownership of a rich elite group of English Baron’s, Earl’s and Scottish Lairds who swore an oath of fealty to the the throne of England.

Similar loyalty was not assured of Scots whose presence on the estates pre-dated the new ownership by many centuries and remedial measures designed to eliminate the problem were approved. The remedy selected by the Westminster Unionist government was the removal from the land of many thousands of Scots families.

This would be coupled with transportation of those affected to Canada, Australia and other parts of the “new world”.

A consequence of the brutally enforced forced removal of entire families from their homes meant that those affected had to live rough in the open over many months. In consequence many thousands of Scots died of starvation, disease and cold. To ensure there would be no return their homes were destroyed leaving tens of thousands to an uncertain but hazardous fate.

Survivors were later transported, (many in bondage) to Canada, Australia and other parts of the “new world” never to return to the land of their birth. A substantial number failed to survive the voyages being forced to remain below the decks in the squalor of hopelessly overcrowded, unseaworthy ships. The, “clearances” as they were later called were Scotland’s holocaust.

Buoyed by the success of their measures the Unionist government in Westminster went on to inflict similar policies on countries large and small in the course of expanding the Empire.

 

 

 

An image of an evicted Scottish family circa 1895 photographed on the ruins of their house

 

 

 

 

 

Over Half of Scotland Is Owned by Just 500 Individuals and They are Primarily Foreigners

Starting just after the end of WW2 the wealth of England’s great land-owning aristocratic families rapidly declined and a new breed of foreign laird exploited Scotland’s arcane land laws to buy up huge tracts of the Highlands and islands.

At the beginning of the twenty first century a majority of lairds no longer hail from England’s tweed-clad huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ classes. These days the local feudal overlord is more likely to be a self-made continental millionaire or an entrepreneur from Dubai, Egypt, Malaysia, Hong Kong or plain old America. Sad events indeed in Europe’s last great wilderness.

All over Scotland there are now glens and peaks that are forever Swiss, Danish, Malaysian, Middle-Eastern and American. A small selection:

* The owner of the 50,000-acre, Strath Conon estate in Ross-shire, is Kjeld Kirk-Christiansen, who runs the huge Danish Lego corporation.

* The Hebridean island of Eigg, was recently sold (as part of a divorce settlement) by Keith Schellenberg, (the fantastically wealthy former captain of Britain’s Olympic bobsleigh team) who once described “his” islanders as “drunken, ungrateful, lawless, barmy revolutionaries”. The new laird is the chain-smoking, beret-wearing “fire” painter, “Professor” Marlin Eckhard Maruma from Stuttgart.

* The 40,000-acre Queen’s View estate in Glen Avon was recently purchased (for £6m), by a mysterious businessman, (Mr Salleh) reputedly behind the Kuala Lumpur-based Andras conglomerate.

* The 30,000-acre Braulen estate around Glen Strathfarrar in the North-west Highlands in Inverness-shire is owned by non-Scot of no name. It was the scene of a legal battle over land access. The owner took Scottish Natural Heritage to court to prevent the agency sending in nature conservation inspectors on parts of its land.

* The Dunecht Estates, spread over 77,000 acres, in Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire are owned by the Hon Charles Pearson who resides in England on Shotters Farm, Lickfold from which he spends a deal of his time managing a large Estate in Sussex.

* Blackford Estate, home of Highland Spring mineral water is owned by, His Excellency Mahdi Mohammed Al Tajir, from the United Arab Emirates. He stands accused of abandoning farms on the slopes of the Ochil Hills.

 

 

 

          Scottish Lairds enjoying their land                                                            Destruction of Scottish society in favour of wool and mutton,

 

 

 

 

The findings sparked a political row in Scotland. Nationalist politicians saying Scotland’s free market in land, (it is one of the few countries in Europe which allows wealthy foreigners to buy up unlimited amounts of land with no questions asked) had created a “land lottery” and new measures should be introduced limiting the size of holdings, coupled with a policy of removing ownership from absentee land-owners found guilty of neglecting their land. But Westminster politicians repeatedly refused to abolish feudal structures regulating land use since this would be to the disadvantage of an ultra-rich Westminster backed elite.

Following a transfer of control of land use to Holyrood a frustrated SNP government acted and set up an independent land commission determined upon introducing legislation designed to limit foreign land ownership. A comprehensive public land registry needed to be compiled to facilitate the legislation.

The wind of change has unsettled the rich landowners who are campaigning hard to counter reformers’ demands. The convenor of the Scottish Landowners’ Federation, which represents 4,000 estate owners north of the border, who manage some seven million acres, are claiming that the debate over land ownership is based on “dangerous generalisations and misleading assertions”.

The argument they are advancing in defence of retaining the “feudal System” purport that the majority of landowners are committed custodians of natural heritage who provide jobs, housing and security for remote communities often at a personal financial loss.

Meanwhile the Scottish Crofters’ Commission is encouraging crofting communities to raise money to take over their marginal plots as the potential of a reforming Scottish parliament looms, the battle for the Highlands is only just beginning. It would be a bold move but entirely justified if the Scottish government confiscated all estates without recompense with a commitment to return Scots to the land of their fathers.   http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/who-owns-scotland-1320933.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The era of the Highland Clearances is one of  the most controversial times in Scotland’s history. The fallout after the Jacobite rising of 1745 had led to a hammering of Highland culture, including determined efforts to wipe out the tartan dress and Gaelic language of the north.

Clan chieftains, who’d held lands in trust for their extended family, were advised that under the laws of the United Kingdom they actually owned the land themselves – and it could make them rich.

With the Empire expanding and troops engaged in wars across the world, there was more money to be made from sheep’s wool than from the clansmen the chiefs had formerly protected.

The clearances saw thousands of people dispossessed, and many left to die of poverty. And one of the darkest characters to oversee the driving out of men, women and children was lawyer Patrick Sellar.

After a particularly vicious eviction, which led to the slow and painful death of 67-year-old Margaret McKay, he was called to answer for the crime of murder.

But a jury of his peers quickly found him innocent – and the judge apologised to Sellar for having taken up his time.

In a bar in Glasgow Sellar’s name is engraved in a urinal in the gents’ toilet… so that modern Scots may do to him what he did to their ancestors 200 years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EU summit confronts US surveillance scandal after claims that Merkel mobile was tapped and French calls were intercepted

The spiralling scandal over mass US surveillance of digital communications was recently moved to the top of European politics for the first time, with the EU’s two key leaders, Angela Merkel and François Hollande, seeking a joint response to the spying claims.

With Germany and France reeling from allegations that the US National Security Agency tapped Merkel’s mobile phone and intercepted the calls and text messages of millions in France, a EU summit in Brussels was forced to grapple with the issue.

The Germans made plain that they were unhappy with the White House cavalier response to the tapping allegations following a 20-minute phone call between Merkel and Barack Obama. “Spying on friends is not on at all,” Merkel said going into the summit in her first public comment on the row.

The EU acted quickly fast-tracking draft rules regulating how digital data would be transferred between Europe and America, aimed at curbing the ability of big US internet providers and social media corporations to retain European data and make it freely available to the NSA.

France and the European commission led the push for an introduction of the new European legislation on data protection by the spring of 2015, but, true to form Britain dragged its heels, arguing that it was more important to get the complex legislation right than to rush it through. “The UK is leading the charge against it,” a senior EU official said. “The UK position is bewildering. They’re trying to delay it.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The US Conducted Surveillance Against its European Allies Because They Thought Germany was Secretly Planning to Join BRICS

NSA surveillance controversy centred on U.S. fear that Europe’s economic powerhouse intended to dump the dollar in favour of joining the BRICS nations, and that this is why the NSA was caught spying on Angela Merkel and other EU leaders.

The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), recently announced the creation of a new $100 billion dollar anti-dollar alternative IMF bank to be based in Shanghai and chaired by Moscow.

Putin launched the new system by saying it was designed to, “help prevent the harassment of countries that do not agree with some foreign policy decisions made by the United States and their allies,” a clear signal that Russia and other BRICS countries are moving to create a new economic system which is adversarial to the IMF and the World Bank.

In another sign that BRICS nations are moving to create an entirely new multi-polar model adversarial to the west, the five countries are also constructing an alternative Internet backbone which will circumvent the United States in order to avoid NSA spying.

 

 

BRICS Keeps on expanding

 

 

 

 

 

BRICS is an acronym for: (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.)

In the last 20 years the US, in it’s self appointed role as the World’s policeman has (aided by Britain) invaded or bombed into submission Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria. The level of destruction and death exceeds that of WW2 and there is no sign of an end to it

In this same period President Putin worked hard, studiously avoiding armed conflict with any other country. His efforts were rewarded since he is now the accepted leader of over half of the worlds largest economies including, (China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, India, Argentina, South Africa, many emerging African nations, much of South and Central America and South East Asia.)

In November 2010 Russia and China agreed a free trade deal using an electronic currency which translates the value of each currency at the time of transaction allowing financial business to be completed without the need to use the US dollar as a world reserve currency. The group of countries is expanding rapidly and now includes well over half of the World’s nations.

The US dollar is largely marginalised by result and is in deep trouble. Prospects for the US economy are not bright unless the Federal Bank of America adjusts to the new reality. Many millions of US citizens presently struggling to survive on a fixed income will suffer increasing hardship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dumping the US Dollar

There is disquiet in Europe about the constant pressure of the U.S. and Britain pushing for ever increasing stringent sanctions on Russia despite the fact that they have had little effect so far and only appear to be harming the trade interests of countries in mainland Europe.

The EU is “caught between a rock and a hard place.” and confronted with the reality of a prolonged recession it will need to act soon, either retaining the policy of backing the American dollar or opting to join the BRICS nations.

If Germany and France opt to join the BRICS countries and the rest of the EU follows there is a distinct possibility that the American dollar will crash and the US would then be forced to join BRICS as an equal member.

It appears that the aggressive policies of the President Bush and Obama administrations over the last 20 years may have sealed the fate of the US as the leader of the free world. There is a growing consensus that the US is the “rogue” nation and not Russia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Is the American Led Globalisation Agenda Defunct?

Social and philosophical beliefs and structures cannot be forced on people with result that the American concept of “Globalisation” was never going to succeed. since in order for it to become universal it had to be accepted and it wasn’t.

BRICS countries now wield much more power and the policy makers of the world will need to give urgent attention to addressing the new world order.

The abandonment, by the world’s nations, of American leadership and moral values coupled with the introduction of a new order will take time to evolve. In the best case scenario the US President Trump led administration will accept it’s new place in the World order concentrating its efforts on domestic issues and trade.

Foreign policy no longer requires the US to act as judge, jury and executioner in disputes between countries and/or within regimes, the conduct of which might not be agreeable with the standards of the US.

There are many issues between and within countries needing addressing and resolving without the influence of external agencies and there are concerns that the US may refuse to accept a future in which it is no longer the leader in which case portents of disaster should be heeded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Impact of a Trump Presidency

Donald Trump’s successful 18 month campaign for the presidency of the US was a battle of conflicting ideologies and his bombastic style and abrasive conduct earned him the open animosity of much of the Western establishment, something no U.S. President has ever had to face before taking office.

The British tabloid press lampooned Trump portraying the “Statue of Liberty” on their front pages one with her head in her hands, smoke rising over the New York City skyline behind her another with Trump’s hands up her skirt. The Germans were also complicit in the attacks, Der Spiegel magazine cartooning Trump as a flaming orange asteroid hurtling open-mouthed toward Earth accompanied with the caption. “The end of the world (as we know it).”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The World Leaders Congratulate Trump on his Victory Or Do They?

Angela Merkel  issued a critical statement making clear Germany’s intention to hold Trump to account for his behaviour in office. She said “Germany and America are tied by values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and human dignity, independent of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views. I offer the next President of the United States, Donald Trump, close co-operation on the basis of these values.”

The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau was more succinct confining his comments to saying that he looked forward to working with Trump, indicating his willingness to renegotiate the North American Free-Trade Agreement, which Mr. Trump had been critical of on many occasions in the course of the campaign.

President Putin and many other World leaders enthusiastically welcomed Trump’s victory, or at worst wisely offered no comment. Middle East countries cautiously welcomed the outcome hoping US foreign policy would bring about a speedy withdrawal of their armed forces from countries such as Syria, Iraq and Libya.

On 20 January 2017 President Trump, a business man with no experience of governance or diplomacy will take up office in an unstable World, similar to that preceding the two World wars of the previous century.  Will Germany and France take the EU into the BRICS camp? We live in interesting times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876

The House of Lords historically has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the lower courts.

Theoretically, the appeals are to the Sovereign-in-Parliament, but the House of Commons does not participate in judicial matters.

The House of Lords does not necessarily include judges, but it was formerly attended by several judges who gave their opinions when the Lords desired.

They did not, however, have the power to vote in the House and “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,” commonly known as Law Lords, were appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to the House of Lords of the United Kingdom in order to exercise its judicial functions, which included acting as the highest court of appeal for most domestic matters.

To be appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the 1876 Act, an individual is required to have been a practicing barrister for a period of fifteen years or to have held a high judicial office (Lord Chancellor (before 2005) or judge of the Court of Appeal, High Court or Court of Session) for a period of two years.

They are required to retire from judicial office at 70 or 75 years of age, though as peers under the style of Baron they continue to serve as members of the House of Lords in its legislative capacity for life.

 

 

 

The Constitutional Reform Bill – A duplicitous “New Labour” designed to subjugate Scots

In 2003 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer brought forward the “Constitutional Reform Bill” which contained proposals for reforming the powers of the Lord Chancellor and the dismantling of his office.

The argument advanced in support of his initiative was that this would formally separate the powers of law makers from the judicial authorities.

A major part of the reformation was the repeal of existing legislation replacing it with a “Supreme Court.”

At that time the, “Appellgate Jurisdiction Act 1876” acted as the final court on points of law for all UK jurisdictions in civil cases (and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases.)

In debate the Lords perceived there to be no need for a “Supreme Court” to replace the House of Lords as the final court of appeal.

They were also discontented about a lack of adequate warning of the proposed changes to remove the Law Lords from the upper house to a new court and the absence of public debate.

Warning was also given that the legislation, as drafted threatened the independence of Scots law which was guaranteed in perpetuity by the, “Claim of Right.”

The government was defeated and the matter was remitted to the “Constitutional Affairs Committee” for discussion and amendment.

The committee interviewed a number of eminent figures from the political and judicial system, including Scotland’s most senior judge Lord Cullen.

An amended bill was finally introduced into law in 2009 (roughly 5 years after). 

From that time there has been an amount of controversy in regard to the operation of the court and the matter of the Scots “Claim of Right” , that pre-dates the 1707 “Act of Union” and dictates that the “Independence of Scots law” is guaranteed, in perpetuity and remains extant.

Afternote: On 4 July 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland’s needs.

 

 

 

Tuesday 9 December 2003: Constitutional Affairs Committee – Examination of Witness – Rt Hon Lord Cullen, (Lord Justice General of Scotland and Lord President of the Court of Session)

Chairman: We are particularly pleased to have the head of judiciary in Scotland.

Lord Cullen: we have met before when we were carrying out our inquiry into the judicial appointments in Scotland before the Government announced its plans for England and Wales.

What we thought we might do is start by looking at the Supreme Court issue and initially looking at it in general terms before coming on to those aspects which are particular to Scotland.

Lord Cullen: It all depends what kind of Supreme Court we are talking about.

We seem to be talking about one which is simply taking over lock, stock and barrel the existing functions of the Appellate Committee and perhaps also the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, so what is happening is to happen somewhere else in a different atmosphere and I do not quite see how that takes you any further.

There may be opportunities possibly for making pronouncements which would be of use to the whole of the United Kingdom, but one has to remember that the existing civil jurisdiction as far as Scotland is concerned is that the Appellate Committee functions as a Scottish court (with a wall, as it were) between it and its functioning as an English court.

Q: Could I address my comments to you, Lord Cullen. I understand from your evidence that you are not wildly enthusiastic about the proposed changes?

Lord Cullen: That is right.

Q: Many of us were astounded that the Government could come up with proposals to reorganize our court of final appeals without consulting the outgoing Lord Chancellor, the incoming Lord Chancellor, the present members of the Judicial Committee of the Lords, and I think we would do better to discuss this in terms of a court of final appeal and leave the title to be chosen afterwards. Referring to perceptions. What would be the minimal changes that might meet the perception point?

Lord Cullen: I am not sure what you mean by “minimal changes”.

Q: Largely that the Lord Chancellor should not be able to sit as a law lord.

The minimal change is the Lord Chancellor saying “I will not sit as a law lord” rather than throwing the whole system in the air.

People argue that having the law lords meeting in the House of Lords is somehow the executive interfering, forgetting of course that Parliament is not the executive and that any arrangements are likely to be more expensive. Could they be cheaper than the present arrangements?

Lord Cullen: I cannot say because I do not sit as a Lord of Appeal but my impression is that it would be cheaper to leave things as they are than to create something free-standing outside, and there also is the advantage at the moment, as I understand it, that the Appellate Committee is funded through the House of Lords whereas if it is to be exported to some other place it would then be funded by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, hence you get a closer association or greater association with the executive which did not previously exist. Now that itself raises a problem of independence.

Chairman: Turning, Lord Cullen, to the Scottish aspects of this, are the Government’s proposals compatible with the Act of Union, Article 19 and the “Claim of Right” and, if not, what would have to be done to them to make them compatible?

Article 19 of the Act of Union states “… that the Court of Justiciary do also after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges as before the Union, subject nevertheless to such Regulations as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain, and without Prejudice of other Rights of Justiciary…”

Lord Cullen: I venture this matter in my response really in order to make the point that this aspect ought to be considered by the Government.

Before the “Act of Union” there is the “Claim of Right”, which was a Scottish provision at the time when the monarchy was returning to Scotland in 1689 and there was then a declaration by the Scottish Parliament as to the right of subjects to protest for remede of law to the King and Parliament and that is the ancestor, so far as Scotland is concerned, of the hearing of civil appeals from the Court of Session to the House of Lords.

The “Act of Union” was silent on the question of appeal from the “Court of Session” or, indeed, the “High Court of Justiciary” but it was later, much later, interpreted in such a way as to indicate that the “Court of Session” and its decisions should be subject to review whereas the “High Court”, the criminal court, would sit its decisions to be regarded as final and conclusive, so what you have, firstly, is an interpretation of the “Act of Union.”

The second point is that, until now, it has been recognized that there are some situations, not easy to define, where certain elements in our constitution may be unalterable – that is a possible view.

It arises from time to time, most recently in the case involving Lord Gray’s Motion where certain members of the “Committee for Privileges” reserved their view on that matter.

So however strange it may seem there is an argument that Parliament might not be able to alter or undo certain elements of a constitutional nature. That is a sketch of the argument: whether it is good or not I do not propose to advance, but simply say it is there to be considered.

Chairman: Are you proposing any way in which the Government’s proposals might be modified to avoid collision with that argument?

Lord Cullen: I am inclined to think that it may very well be that so far as civil appeals are concerned there is not a problem, but it is simply something that ought to be looked at. Therefore my answer to that is probably that no alteration is, in fact, required.

Chairman: Do you agree that legislative competence so far as any changes to leave to appeal and things of that kind are concerned does not lie with Westminster under the devolution settlement but with the Scottish Parliament?

Lord Cullen: That is quite a difficult matter. If you look at the Scotland Act you will find that what is reserved is the continued existence of the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.

The way that the Scotland Act is constructed certain matters are specifically reserved: the rest is not, and therefore it appears on the face of it that matters other than the continued existence of these courts is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Nobody is entirely clear as to that being the case but that seems to be the position, in which case there seems to be a role here for the Scottish Parliament.

Now I would hope that the matter was not, so to speak, nodded through in Scotland but given serious consideration, but that is the position, as I understand it.

Chairman: Lord Hope expressed the view that the Scottish Parliament would need time to deal with this matter before it proceeded at Westminster?

Lord Cullen: I would agree with that and the consultation paper, whereas it makes clear what the executive’s attitude is and we have seen the executive’s response since then, so far as I know as yet there has not been a considered discussion in the Scottish Parliament.

Chairman: There is a phrase which I think you may have challenged already which the Government use in respect of constitutional issues where they say that the establishment of the new court “accordingly gives us the opportunity to restore a single apex to the United Kingdom’s judicial system where all the constitutional issues can be considered”.

That is in the consultation paper. Is it your view that, leaving aside the devolution issues, there ever was or should be a single apex which combines the judicial systems of England and Scotland?

Lord Cullen: I do not think that is correct. The position until now is that the Appellate Committee functions sometimes as an English court and sometimes as a Scottish court, and I say that because what is binding in England is not binding in Scotland.

You have two completely separate jurisdictions so that whatever decision the House of Lords reaches in regard to a civil matter it does not bind in Scotland, and vice versa, so you really have two apices rather than one apex and, if the position is that that is to be taken over by the Supreme Court, it will have those two high points, whereas the paper tends to talk as if this is the opportunity for the United Kingdom court.

Well, I say that is obscuring the point: that you have two separate jurisdictions each with its own head happening to be administered under one device, namely the Appellate Committee.

That is what we have: it is a result of the separate growth of two legal systems, and it is preserved, of course, by the Act of Union.

 

 

 

 

1 October 2009: The Introduction of the UK Supreme Court

A new United Kingdom Supreme Court, separating the judicial function from Parliament (those who make the law from those who interpret it in courts).

It will be based in the Middlesex Guildhall, (opposite the Houses of Parliament in Parliament Square.)

From 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed jurisdiction on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the Law Lords) are the first justices of the 12-member Supreme Court and are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords.

When they retire from the Supreme Court they can return to the House of Lords as full Members but newly-appointed Justices of the Supreme Court will not have seats in the House of Lords.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1603/contents/made

 

 

15 April 2015: Lord Carloway attacks Supreme Court and its ‘depressing influence’ on the Scottish legal system

The lord justice clerk has attacked the UK Supreme Court, calling it remote and “far removed” from the realities of Scots law.

Lord Carloway said the court had a “depressing influence” on the legal system in Scotland.

The remarks came in a speech made by the judge at a conference of Commonwealth Law Reform Agencies in Edinburgh.

He said: “The Supreme Court, which has hitherto sat only in London, may be deemed to exercise greater autonomy in the selection of topics for the reform of Scots civil law than the Scottish Law Commission itself.

While the criminal law court hierarchy in Scotland ends with the High Court of Justiciary, the Supreme Court can deal with particular questions relating to devolution and arising from civil or criminal proceedings.

In some respects, the oversight of Scots Law from a position that is relatively remote, far removed from the practical realities of operating the Scottish legal system and of Scots society as a whole, is apt to have a depressing influence on the efforts of those operating positively within the jurisdiction.”

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/04/15/lord-carloway-attacks-supreme-court-as-having-depressing-influence-on-scottish-legal-system/

 

Lord Carloway Blasted Supreme Court Interference in Scottish law

 

28 November 2015: UK Supreme Court overrules Scottish judges on two human rights cases

The UK Supreme Court has today over-ruled Scotland’s highest appeal court in two important human rights cases.

In both, judgements passed in Edinburgh were unanimously overruled by a five-judge panel sitting in London on fundamental legal issues.

Their decisions raise the possibility of another judicial and political cross-border row.

Senior political figures such as First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have already raised concerns about what they see as the Supreme Court interfering in Scottish legal affairs.

The Supreme Court bench in both cases was headed by Lord Hope, deputy president of the London-based court and former Lord President of the Court of Session in Edinburgh who has previously spoken out against the “corrosive anti-English sentiment” in Scotland’s courts, describing it as an obstacle to legal progress, and has been the subject of biting criticism by Mr Salmond, who accused Lord Hope of allowing “some of the vilest people on the planet” to win compensation from the taxpayer.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13082711.UK_Supreme_Court_overrules_Scottish_judges_on_two_human_rights_cases/

 

UK Supreme Court in London

 

8 November 2016: Scotland applies to join Brexit triggers court battle

Scotland is to apply to the Supreme Court to be allowed to table a legal challenge at the Court on 5 December 2016, against the UK Government as it tries to overturn a Brexit court ruling.

The attempt is to make sure MPs and Scotland’s parliament have a say on triggering Article 50.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said “it simply cannot be right” that European Union membership “can be removed by the UK Government on the say-so of a Prime Minister without parliamentary debate, scrutiny or consent”.

She added: “So legislation should be required at Westminster and the consent of the Scottish Parliament should be sought before Article 50 is triggered.

Let me be clear – I recognize and respect the right of England and Wales to leave the European Union. This is not an attempt to veto that process.

But the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland and the national Parliament of Scotland cannot be brushed aside as if they do not matter.”

http://news.sky.com/story/scotland-will-apply-to-supreme-court-to-overturn-brexit-court-ruling-10649998

 

 

 

 

13 Dec 2018: Brexit Legislation – UK Supreme Court Upholds  Scottish Parliament – But its ruling is thwarted by the Westminster Government’s Introduction of Counter Legislation, (with Royal Assent) before the Supreme Court Judged the Westminster Government Appeal.

 

Preamble:

Brexit legislation was drafted as an alternative to Westminster’s EU Withdrawal Bill, which MSPs refused to give their consent to following a row over how powers currently exercised from Brussels will be used after Brexit.

Holyrood Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh wrote an official memo saying the bill was “not within the legislative competence of the parliament”.

His assertions were denied by the Scottish government’s legal advisers.

But the delay paved the way for UK law officers to apply to the Supreme Court to provide “legal certainty” about whether the Holyrood vote was valid. A two-day hearing was held in London in July, with the UK government arguing that the bill should be struck down.

“On 4 July 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland’s needs.”

 

Lord Keen Advocate General argued the case for the Westminster government.

 

The Supreme Court judgement

Lady Hale said the judges had unanimously rejected all but one section of the UK government’s arguments.

She said “the whole of the Scottish bill would not be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”, but that one section – relating to MSPs having to give consent for UK Brexit laws – was not within Holyrood’s remit.

The judges explained in their ruling that changes had been made to the UK legislation, (before the appeal hearing) adding a special schedule of protected legislation which MSPs could not modify , returning to Westminster authority over 21 previously devolved provisions.

This meant that the bill was entirely competent when it was passed by MSPs in March 2018.

 

Lady Hale Supreme Court Judge

 

 

Review the disgraceful series of events, from March-December 2018

• Read the Supreme Court judgement in full
• Supreme Court showdown over Holyrood Brexit bill
• Look back on the statement on the judgement on Holyrood Live

The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – known as the “continuity bill” – was passed under emergency procedures

Only the Tory’s and a single Lib Dem MSP voted against it.

 

Lord Advocate James Wolffe

 

 

What will happen now?

The ruling means that the EU Withdrawal Act remains the basis on which Scotland’s statute book will be prepared for Brexit.

MSPs could potentially bring the continuity bill back for reconsideration at Holyrood, provided they take action on the areas highlighted by the Supreme Court.

Lord Advocate, Mr James Wolffe said ministers would seek talks with all opposition parties about “whether that’s the right way forward”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2014 Scottish Independence Referendum Analysis

An academic study into the independence referendum was conducted by Professor Ailsa Henderson of the University of Edinburgh. The research, which surveyed 4,849 voters, examined how voting linked to demographics, risk aversion, national identity, and attitudes to change. It interviewed people before and after the referendum result and assessed why people voted the way they did. Findings:

* The typical “yes” voter was male, Roman Catholic, and living in social housing.

* The typical “no” voter was more likely to be female, Presbyterian and more well-off.

* The gender gap played out with 53% of men voting yes, and 56% of women voting no.

* Religion was a factor, most Roman Catholics supporting independence and most of those identifying with Church of Scotland favouring the union.

* A narrow majority of native Scots were yes voters.

* Voters qualified through residence in Scotland but born elsewhere in the UK overwhelmingly backed the union.
The analysis indicated that a minority of Presbyterian voters supported an Independent Scotland. This was attributed to the influence of the “Orange Order and “Rangers Football Club” supporters.

Assuming there will be another referendum it is crucial that “Yes” campaigners work hard to get the Rangers support onside. Failure to achieve this might well bring about a similar result. What follows is an informed treatise on the Rangers Football Club.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Glasgow Rangers: How an illustrious football club became the emblem of a faltering belief in the United Kingdom and lost its identity. The Start of  the Downfall – Rangers V Maribor

Rangers FC, the Scottish club that is one of the most famous names in world football, were 15 minutes away from being knocked out of Europe by the champions of Slovenia. The team needed one more goal to take the game into extra time. This was the moment that, traditionally, a home team would be rallied by its fans bellowing, baying, singing a rousing song. Instead, the Glasgow crowd struck up a weary chorus of the British national anthem, “God Save the Queen”. Rangers failed to score.

Soon, the whole club was in need of divine intervention. Without the funds from lucrative European cup competition, years of hubris and inept leadership caught up with Rangers. In February 2012, it entered administration. Four months later, it was liquidated. Following votes by other clubs, a new incarnation of the club that had been champions a record 54 times started the 2012/13 season in Scottish football’s fourth tier.

Three years on, the sense of crisis persisted. Administration left a void in the boardroom, through which passed a procession of businessmen, many claiming to be “Rangers men”. No one ever took full control of the club, which remained in desperate, monthly need of cash to pay its high wage bill. According to Harry Reid, an author of books on Scottish football and religion, “Rangers became a magnet for every chancer in town.”

Many football fans like to think that their team is “more than a club”. In Rangers’ case, the claim was true. For much of its 143-year history, its successes were a source of pride for fans throughout Scotland, if not for supporters of Celtic, Glasgow’s other big club. “Rangers were the unofficial sporting champions of a different Scotland,” said Alasdair McKillop, the co-editor of “Born Under a Union Flag”, an anthology about the club’s place in the UK.

The club, like the nation, had a comfortable dual identity as both Scottish and British. At its most famous game, the 1972 European Cup Winners’ Cup victory over FC Dynamo Moscow, fans sporting kilts and Robert Burns T-shirts waved the Union Jack alongside the Lion Rampant, Scotland’s royal flag. “There was then an unquestioning acceptance of a strong Scotland within an overarching Britishness,” said Graham Walker, a renowned historian of politics in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as a life-long Rangers fan.

Off the pitch, Rangers was run in unspectacular fashion. It exemplified traditional Scottish Protestant virtues such as “strength, solidity, pride, decency and probity”, said Harry Reid. “This was turned on its head.”

For many fans, it was the European game against Maribor which foreshadowed the subsequent decline. Only three years previously, Rangers had reached the final of the same competition, but it wasn’t just the bad result that stayed in people’s minds.

Rangers drew much of its support from working-class fans in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, many of whom identified themselves as Protestant unionists. Graham Walker, who saw the game that night, said: “It seemed to me that too many fans are more concerned about defending Britishness than supporting Rangers.”

Today Rangers is a faded emblem of a faltering belief in the UK: a Scottish institution in Britain and a British institution in Scotland. Its rise and fall reflects not only how a football club lost sense of financial reality but much of its identity, too. Its story represents an imperfect microcosm of contemporary Scottish and British history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Success – Arrogance and – Unionism – The modern transformation of Rangers was dominated by two men

* Graeme Souness, the cocksure, moustachioed Scottish football legend who was appointed player-manager in 1986 after the club had gone eight years without a league title.
* Sir David Murray, an industrialist who in 1988, encouraged by Souness, bought a controlling stake in the club for £6m.

Rangers — and Scottish football — would never be the same again. Murray’s money bought star players on high wages, including the England midfielder Paul Gascoigne and Mo Johnston, the first openly Roman Catholic player signed by Rangers since the end of the first world war. Between 1989 and 1997, Rangers won nine league titles in a row. Sustained success on the pitch set the club apart, and the arrogance that accompanies serial winning undoubtedly alienated other football fans in Scotland.

But changes in society also threatened the sense of a dual Scottish and British identity that Rangers represented. Memories of the British empire and the second world war — both of which encouraged a pro-union sentiment — were growing distant. And falling church attendances, especially Protestant, spoke of Scotland’s rising secularism. According to the historian Sir Tom Devine, the “centralising drive of Margaret Thatcher eroded Scotland’s distinctiveness”, too, and provoked today’s left-wing Scottish nationalism.

Partly in response, a growing minority of Rangers fans displayed a more defiant type of Britishness. Religious sectarianism ran through the clubs fierce rivalry with its city neighbours Celtic, formed by an Irish Catholic priest in 1887. And, influenced by the deepening “Troubles” in Northern Ireland, fans sung “Rule Britannia” alongside rejoicing in the deaths of popes. The strident unionism that Rangers fans displayed was anomalous.” It wasn’t that Britishness was dead .. . …… but the kind of flag-waving unionism that some Rangers fans indulged in was exposed as a minority taste in contemporary Scotland, and it robbed [the club] of a lot of sympathy in the country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Disaster

Yet the ordinary Rangers fan was deserving of sympathy. “Rangers suffered from every financial calamity imaginable,” said Henry McLeish, Scotland’s former first minister, who in 2009 conducted a review into the state of the country’s football. “It is the longest running business saga in football history.”

Despite its footballing success, spending on star players in the absence of stellar revenues meant that, by 2002, Rangers were £80m in debt. Murray appeared to have adopted the right strategy in the wrong country. Satellite television had turned the English Premier League into a big business. Rangers indicated a wish to join the English league but the entity enthusiastically embraced by the Rangers supporters rejected the approach. The United Kingdom was disunited when it came to soccer. The inevitable result was that the club became over-leveraged within the smaller market of Scottish football. By 2006, Murray was ready to sell. A situation which became critical when the financial crisis hit in 2008. when Murray International Holdings (MIH), suffered severe losses to its property portfolio.

Rangers had indeed spent beyond its means in a time of easy credit — and fans paid the price. “As far as I’m concerned, the bank is running Rangers,” Walter Smith, then the club’s manager, said in 2009. Two years later it was revealed that Rangers had used Employee Benefit Trusts, a tax avoidance vehicle, to reward staff. HMRC launched an investigation which is still not fully resolved at 2016.

In May 2011, Murray sold Rangers to Craig Whyte, another Scottish businessman, for the sum of £1. At first, Whyte appeared to be like Murray but with even more money. Yet promises of investment proved hollow and worse was to follow. Whyte failed to comply with tax obligations, ran the club without proper reference to the board, and caused the club to effectively fund the purchase of its own shares, according to a UK court verdict in 2014.

Under Whyte’s ownership, the club ran up a tax bill of £9m. This was the direct cause of Rangers entering administration in February 2012. Four months later, the club’s creditors, owed £124m, voted to liquidate the old company. That same day in June 2012, a consortium bought Rangers ’ remaining assets for £5.5m. But this new incarnation of the club has, said Henry McLeish, “been unable to attract stable finance backed by stable personalities”. In April 2013, yet another consortium leader Charles Green resigned as chief executive and the two men that followed him lasted only a combined total of 18 months.

The most recent power struggle featured Mike Ashley, a retail billionaire who owns English Premier League club Newcastle United, as well as a 9 per cent shareholding in Rangers. In 2012, the enigmatic sportswear mogul entered a joint venture to sell the team’s merchandise. It was a deal that led to a boycott of official gear by some fans, who claimed that the club only received 75p from every £10 spent on kit. Ashley wielded power disproportionate to his holding by acting as Rangers’s short-term creditor. He reportedly offered the club a further £10m loan, in exchange for taking Ibrox and Rangers’ training ground as security. The Scottish FA prevented him from increasing his stake in the club, citing rules on dual ownership

Sandy Easdale, a businessman convicted of non-payment of VAT in 1997, controlled 26 per cent of the shares in Rangers, mostly via the proxies of mysterious institutional investors. In December he loaned the club £500,000 to avoid a winding-up order by HMRC, an amount repaid after Rangers sold its best player to an English Championship club. Dougie Wright of the website Rangers Media forum, puts it this way: “Twenty years ago we were buying players from Barcelona, now we’re selling them to Brentford!”

At the start of 2015, several groups emerged as potential opponents to the combined control of Ashley and Easdale. These included:

* Dave King, a businessman, guilty of contravening South African tax laws.

* Robert Sarver, an Arizona billionaire who also owned the Phoenix Suns basketball team.

* A trio of rich Rangers fans who go by the name of the “Three Bears” (one of Rangers’ nicknames is the “Teddy Bears”).

The “Three Bears and Dave King emerged the winners after a corporate goalmouth scramble, but the question “why are we still in crisis? remained on the lips of many Rangers fans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2014 Independence Referendum and Rangers Supporters

In the course of the 2014 independence referendum campaign in Scotland “Better Together” campaigners used the term “silent majority” to describe pragmatic voters who cared little for romantic Britishness but ultimately saved the union, which was preserved by a 55 to 45 per cent vote.

In consequence parallels are drawn between the referendum vote and the club’s supporters continued state of angst. This was manifest in the unacceptable anti-social behaviour of some Rangers fans (witnessed throughout the referendum campaign) who repeatedly taunted other fans by singing, “You can shove your independence up your arse.”

But Glasgow was one of the few Scottish cities where a majority voted “Yes.” Given the class divide in votes (the poor are more likely to vote “Yes”), pollsters said, it would be surprising if an institution in Govan, a large working-class area, did not reflect that in some way. It follows that some Rangers fans must have voted “yes.”

It is accepted that Scots reluctantly affirmed the union. But it is a different sort of unionism to that of the past. For the majority a quieter, contingent belief in the UK has replaced the default bellicose Britishness of the past and it is expected (not with confidence) that the public behaviour of Rangers supporters will reflect the new reality. Extracted from:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cfbddcce-9c12-11e4-a6b6-00144feabdc0.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first parliament

 

 

 

 

Gerrymandering the Newly devolved Scottish Parliamentary Electoral System

In recent times Unionist party MSP and activists have been constantly bleating about the unfair electoral system in Scotland which they allege has allowed the establishment of an SNP one party state. But they had been hoisted on their own petard plotting and scheming for many months under cover of the Calman Commission, working in secret designing a voting system which (they delightfully assured themselves) would prevent the election to office of an SNP majority. Having guaranteed their supporters a Labour/ Lib/Dem government would be elected in Scotland in perpetuity they committed their efforts to backing the successful devolution process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 1999 Election

Predictably, as planned, the election of the first devolved government to Holyrood in 1999 returned a Labour/LibDem  government.  A secret, secure future, free of the influence of the SNP had been delivered. Self satisfied and smug, members of the new government went about their business with breathtaking incompetence. Scandals, graft, nepotism, fraud and in fighting were prevalent. All the vices of unaccountable, dismissive despotic governance were deployed to the detriment of Scots.

 

 

 

 

 

 
The 2003 Election

Reflecting increasing dis-satisfaction with the Labour/LibDem government a number of new parties, Greens, SSP and Independent candidates were elected reducing the number of SNP and Unionist supporting parties. The timely warning from the electorate was ignored by the government and the level of largesse, waste and incompetence increased.

The SSP imploded with the leader and membership bickering endlessly. The Greens appeared to be overwhelmed by the election of MSP’s which required them to give up protesting, substituting the loss with constructive dialogue, which did not suit the agenda of the Party.

The SNP completed a root and branch analysis of the party which had not gained the seats projected in the campaign period. This brought about a party reorganisation. Senior officers were appointed to posts more complimenting their abilities. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon took on leadership roles together with John Swinney. The fightback had begun.

 

 

 

2007/2011 elections

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2007 Election

Attempts at gerrymandering the 2007 election in favour of the Labour party were made by the Labour Party Secretary of State for Scotland, Douglas Alexander who employed the most complicated set of voting papers ever presented to an electorate combining two totally different elections on the same day.

The resulting debacle exposed the weakness of an electoral system put in place by Westminster civil servants and the Labour/ Lib Dem leaders to thwart the electorate. Scots, (fed up with the incompetence) returned SNP MSP’s in a majority.

With no overall control the SNP Party formed a minority government which (if defeat in parliament was to be avoided) would require the employment of first class political skills. Alex Salmond and his leadership team were up to the challenge and provided effective government in Scotland despite the odds being stacked in the favour of the unionist parties who resorted to spoiling tactics throughout the duration of the parliament.

Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, believing he had all the power refused to acknowledge or meet with Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond in any capacity whilst enjoying friendly relationships with the leaders of other devolved governments. Hardly the behaviour of a statesman.

 

 

 

 

 

2011 Election

 

 

 

 

The 2011 Election

The 2011 election delivered the first majority government since the opening of Holyrood, which was truly remarkable since the “mixed member proportional representation system” used to elect MSPs had been implemented by Westminster with the purpose of preventing the SNP achieving an overall parliamentary majority.

 

 

 

 

2016 election

 

 

 

 

 

The 2016 Election

The outcome of the election was manipulated by the Unionist Press and Media who in the course of the campaign, relentlessly promoted the concept of “tactical voting” seeking to persuade the electorate to give their votes to the new girl on the block: Ruthie (put in place by MI6) Davidson (no mention of the Tory Party).

The tactics worked and the Tory alternate vote increased at the expense of the Labour and Lib/Dem vote which was significantly reduced but not transferred to the SNP.

The SNP was still returned to government in another landslide victory. but an increase in the Green Party vote meant that the SNP did not enjoy an overall majority in parliament.

This was construed by the Unionist Tory Party to be a signal from the electorate that their manifesto had been approved by Scots and the days of the SNP in government in Scotland were numbered.

The Unionist press, media and Tories, emboldened by a new found confidence that they are the next government of Scotland (in waiting) attacked the electoral system that in their view had failed, yet again to deliver the government it had been designed for. But the voting system had in fact saved the Unionist parties from electoral oblivion.

However, true to form the selective arguments they advanced in support of their whining conveniently failed to mention that, (had the election been conducted under the much vaunted “First Past the Post” voting system strongly supported by the Unionist parties in Westminster) the SNP with 42% of the overall vote would have swept the board and the unionist parties would have been wiped out. Indeed in the 2015 UK general election the Tory Party formed the next government with only 37% of the vote.

Scotland has been lumbered with an electoral system proven to favour poorly performing political parties with many more MSP’s than deserved. It is also evident that there is a democratic deficit in Scotland which needs to be urgently addressed. Wise counsel recently proposed the introduction of transferable voting and open lists, (allowing voters freedom of choice in their selection of transfer candidates) abandoning regional weighting which has been widely abused by the Unionist parties who persist in nominating questionable, poorly performing characters previously rejected by the electorate.

But the Unionist parties continue to deny Scots the benefits of progressive policy changes which would do much to improve the performance of Scottish parliamentarians, preferring to reward self interested party nobodies nominated through nepotism, with seats in Holyrood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parliamentary Committees

The 2015 election brought Prof Tomkins to Holyrood (as a Tory list MSP). Proclaimed by the Unionist Media and Press to be an expert in constitutional affairs they widely broadcast to the Scottish electorate that he had a deal of input, through the Secretary of State for Scotland’s office, to the 2015 Scotland Act which delivered a limited range of newly devolved powers.

The Holyrood parliamentary committee system of political accountability, (through which the views of the electorate, media, business and opposition political parties can be fed back to government ensuring good governance) works well. But it is under attack by the Media Press and Unionist parties who constantly disrupt and frustrate the good work of committees.

The foregoing gives credence to reports that Prof Tomkin (with not at lot to do for his large salary) had been tasked to create alarm and despondency at Holyrood, undermining and discrediting the committee system so that he would be able to bring forward proposals for change which, if implemented as planned would weaken SNP control in committees, increasing the second placed opposition Tory party membership. A form of job creation for Unionist party MSP’s who would have nothing to do otherwise. This he has duly done. He doesn’t hang about this chap.

 

 

Deputy Leader of the Tory Party in Scotland

 

 

 

 

 

28 October 2016: Tories set out proposals for Holyrood reform

A review, announced by presiding officer Ken Macintosh, follows concern that Holyrood is failing in its task of effectively holding the Government to account.

Backbenchers who represent the governing party at Holyrood should be banned from holding the key jobs on major committees, the Scottish Tories have said. The party also set out preliminary proposals that they said would ensure Scotland had a “parliament with real teeth” following the announcement that structures at Holyrood are to be reviewed.

If the measures are accepted SNP politicians such as James Dornan, convenor of the education committee and Local Government convenor Bob Doris would be stripped of their roles. The Conservatives also said that ministers should be quizzed by their opposition counterparts more regularly and that MSPs should serve on committees for the full parliamentary term.

Scottish Conservative chief whip John Lamont said: “The last parliament, when the SNP had a majority, exposed the flaws in our democracy. SNP MSPs toed the party line, put party before parliament, with the result that bad laws were railroaded through.”

* He conveniently forgets to refer to the Westminster, House of Commons legislative committees who’s membership also reflects the proportion of MP’s at Westminster.

He went on: “The Scottish public ended the SNP’s majority, and we now have a more balanced parliament. So we welcome the Presiding Officer’s plan to ensure we get a parliament with real teeth. We don’t need yet more politicians in Scotland. We do need a parliament with more clout which can hold this Government to account. Our proposals will help do that – and we hope they will attract cross-party support.”

* But this example of the 2015 Holyrood election reveals the inadequacies of the existing system. North East Scotland:

Tories: 85,848 votes returned 4 additional Regional member MSP’s ( 21462 votes per MSP)

Lib/Dem: 18,000 votes returned Mike Rumbles as a Regional member MSP.

SNP: 137,085 votes returned 0 additional Regional member MSP’s (effectively disenfranchising a very significant number of voters).

The Commission on Parliamentary Reform will study the role of Holyrood in scrutinising legislation, the committee system and parliament’s independence from the Scottish government. The study will be led by the outgoing Electoral Commissioner John McCormick.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/NEWS/14831047.Tories_set_out_proposals_for_Holyrood_reform/?commentSort=score

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So You Want To Be A Soldier – The Recruiting Process – Streaming by Ability

An understanding of the recruiting policies of the British military is necessary so that any judgement of soldiers in the Scottish regiments can be arrived at from a position of knowledge.

At the recruitment stage applicants are required to complete a number of written and oral tests each of which is compiled by psychologists, designed to allow an individual to be grouped into one of four classes. There might be changes in the process from time to time but the purpose remains the same.

These provide the means through which the Recruitment Centre is able to allocate recruits to the arm of the service most suited to their educational abilities. Namely:

Class 1: Gifted and intelligent: Most likely educated to higher level. Qualifiers usually sent for training with specialist services e.g. Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME), Royal Signals (RS) or Royal Engineers.

Class 2: Promising. Educated to ordinary level standard. Those taller than 5.10 are directed to the Guards Regiments (Scots and Coldstream). Others guided to the Royal Artillery (RA) , Royal Tank Regiment (R.T.R.). Recruits with a stated preference for service with the Scottish infantry allowed to join the Regiment of their choice

Class 3: Education problematic. Under achieving but displaying some ability. Dependent on place of residence sent to one of the Scottish Infantry Regiments.

Class 4: Not well educated and or other difficulties. Usually non-combatant (except for personal protection). Earmarked for the Royal Transport Corps, Royal Catering Corps or Royal Pioneer Corps or other supporting service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Scottish Infantryman – Training and Indoctrination

Recruits are sent to a specialised military unit for 3-4 months training at the end of which they are usually (but not always) allocated to the Regiment of their choice. The training is physically intensive, mentally demanding and life changing. Some fail to meet the standards demanded and repeat the training. Persistently poor performers are discharged or sent for training with a less demanding service. The process of creating the Scottish infantry soldier is well planned, well structured, well practised and successful. It comprises:

1. Individual thought process eliminated and replaced with uniformity (thinking as one). Military number allocated and memorised. Civilian clothing and personnel effects confiscated. Head-hair removed. Issue of military clothing and explanation of how to dress uniformly. Bed blocking and locker layout (uniform presentation of kit). Cleaning duties allocated.Square bashing, up to four hours daily. Weapons training. Combat training. Physical exercise, field training. The list is extensive and the process lasts for up to 16 weeks.

2. With the Regiment. More of the same but including weekly indoctrination sessions including, regimental history, espousing glorious past battles and campaigns in which the Regiment was involved, religious education and weekly address to the family by an officer providing reminder of the authority of Commissioned Officers and the requirement for unquestioned obedience to their will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right of passage – Roles and Responsibilities of Officers of the Scottish Regiments

Young men accepted as commissioned officers are usually Public School educated and descended from Scottish nobility and other well connected Scottish families. After 6 months of training at Sandhurst they enjoy a “right of passage” and their commission in the Regiment is almost always handed down from father to sons who are expected to honour their family tradition of military service. The officers form an elite tight knit community, membership of which is exclusive and zealously protected. There is no place in the hierarchy for the common soldier.

The concept of family is heavily promoted and attention is given to training officers in the subtle art of persuading soldiers that their welfare and that of their dependents is paramount in the thoughts of their officers. The intent is to build trust between commissioned officers and their soldiers. The system works extremely efficiently although not always to the benefit of the ordinary soldier. The word of the officer is law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Infantrymen – Brave-hearts

In the course of the 2014 Scottish Independence campaign many contrary views were voiced by the informed and uninformed about the future loyalty of the soldiers of Scottish Regiments. But the dialogue (except by proxy) was not inclusive of rank and file servicemen who were forbidden from any discussion or the expression of any view of independence.

The strictly imposed silence (under threat of disciplinary action) did not however extend to a number of Generals and other senior officers who, with a lifetime commitment and obligation to Her majesty’s forces were vociferous in the Scottish Press and other media in their support of “Better Together.” The measures silencing the voices of the rank and file stifled debate within the military and most likely adversely influenced the outcome of the referendum in favour of remaining in the Union.

The policy must not be permitted at the next referendum. Its removal would be assisted by the publication of a well presented discussion document outlining the make-up of Scotland’s armed forces in an independent Scotland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
A Scottish Infantry After Independence

The infantry make-up of an independent Scotland might comprise 2 divisions (Highland and Lowland) each comprising 4 Regiments with 1 regular battalion of 650 soldiers and 1 Territorial Battalion. This provides a total compliment of 5,200 regular soldiers supported by an expanded force of 5,200 Territorial soldiers. The regimental system butchered by successive Westminster governments would be re-instated.

Regiments would be permanently garrisoned in Scotland and deployed as necessary by the government in support of NATO commitments. Forces families would be provided with married quarters, based within the local community and maintained by the Local Council

A transfer of relevant military personnel, equipment, weaponry, transport and dependents would be agreed through negotiation with the Westminster government and implemented over a period of 1 year from the date of independence. Any soldier that wished to remain with the UKr armed forces would be allowed to do so.

Given freedom of choice it is expected that in excess of 90% of rank and file infantry personnel would exercise a preference to transfer to a Scottish Defence Force.

Not all Commissioned Officer’s will follow the lead of the soldiers and (given their support of the Westminster system of government) it would be reasonable to anticipate that less than 50% would transfer their military loyalty to Scotland. Any shortfall would be made up through the promotion of warrant officers and/or senior NCO’s who are well able to fill the gap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meantime – Soldiers of the Queen

In recent months fanfares have been sounding in the unionist press proclaiming, glorifying the groundbreaking decision by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to allow women to serve as soldiers on the front-line. Much was made in the announcement of the equal rights act and the need to provide opportunity for women to volunteer to fight and die for their country. But the unexpected messenger bearing gifts it is not entirely upfront. The real reason for the new approach to army recruitment is a marked fall off in the number of male volunteers.

This is attributed to the extended over deployment of soldiers to foreign fields of war with little chance of a change of emphasis. Indeed there are many ex- soldiers who at the time of their discharge had been away from the UK at war throughout their entire contract of service.

Another factor is that in the last 20 years Westminster politicians have been complicit in the exposure to the public of jingoistic rhetoric reminding the nation, (usually after yet another military setback, loss or cock-up resulting in loss of life) of its enduring commitment to the Armed Forces, their families and veterans.

But the Westminster politicians pledge to care for servicemen and women, their dependents and veterans, many suffering from the adverse effects of war is not honoured and the jaundiced views of military personnel (serving and discharged) are being increasingly voiced in public warning off those who might be tempted to take the “Queens Shilling.” Hence the need for women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Much Maligned Covenant between the Westminster Government, the Public and the Armed Forces

Soldier dad away for 6 months fined for taking children out of school to spend time with him – http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/soldier-dad-away-6-months-6872096

Wounded British soldier refused a hotel room – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052372/Hotel-forced-apologise-refused-wounded-British-soldier-hotel-room-Army.html

Benefits Cut ‘Took Away Ex-Soldier David Clapson’s Lifeline,’ Says Sister – http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/03/david-clapson-inquiry-crowdfunder-dwp-benefit-insulin_n_9372008.html

Care for UK military veterans is ‘flawed’, medical experts say – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29807947

Government ‘breaking military covenant over veterans’ care’ – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11470842/Government-breaking-military-covenant-over-veterans-care.html

A soldier speaks: ‘The covenant is just words’ – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-soldier-speaks-the-covenant-doesnt-help-anyone-its-just-words-8505845.html

Deal to aid brave British troops is ‘not honoured’ says military report – http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/705046/British-troops-failed-military-covenant-not-honoured

 

 

They all died in Iraq

 

 

 

 

 
Ex Soldiers Add Their Comments About The Covenant

Thieves such as the boss of BHS, and time served wasters in the civil service get lordships, knighthoods and very fat pensions. Forces people who put their life on the line get shafted. This is down to the liars in the lib,lab,con sh*t pile that is parliament.

Sadly, it has always been the British way.

Another one of the thousands of lies that Cameron told. From the speech that won him the Tory leadership to the moment he left Number Ten, he never ceased to treat us like something at the bottom of his shoe.

The Tories are Known As the NASTY PARTY. But they are much much worse that that. They have betrayed our armed forces more times than I want to remember. When A Country Jails It’s own troops to appease the enemy It’s time to get rid of them forever, and never trust them. The Tories are the artists of betrayal. They have a history of betrayal. They dumped our loyal commonwealth countries to join the EU.

Cameron sent redundancy letters to our troops serving In Iraq and Afghanistan and tried to cut the pensions of wounded and limbless veterans.

He housed refugees and EU migrants In houses with gardens whilst the MOD put limbless and incapacitated veterans and their families in flats. The MOD are pure evil.

Cameron even recruited one of his pen pushing Generals to back him, in his decision not overturn the decision to jail Sgt Blackman, Royal Marines for 20 years for shooting a wounded Insurgent after a ambush / firefight in Afghanistan which beggars belief. If there is any justice at all in this country at all, our soldiers that are interned, should be released now:

Its hardly shocking, in fact pretty much of what was expected by this government who seem hell bent on giving as much of taxpayers money as they can on foreign aid, supporting migrants, whether legal or not, in this country and of course their £10 billion per year EU contributions that go towards other basket case countries in club Med or on the Eastern Front, there’s no money left for our own vulnerable people everybody knows that!

Since the days of the Napoleonic wars, successive British governments have promised a land fit for hero’s, and then promptly dumped them onto the streets. The military covenant was supposed to have stopped that,but governments decided that the welfare of 3rd world despots and so-called refugees and asylum seekers were a priority. Perhaps our time served newspaper industry can campaign for some honesty and action?

Lots of county councils across the country are now run by our immigrant friends, whose priorities for housing are not what they should be, Birmingham council housing priorities are:

1. Pakistani – 2. Muslim 3. Friends 4. … etc Ex soldiers are not even on their list because they hate them.

Same here in London. Let’s name and shame all the council’s who are treating our hero’s with contempt.

Go on strike until the issue is resolved, they cant shoot you all.

One former military soldier sleeping rough on the streets is one too many and the people responsible should hang their heads in shame. Meanwhile a black person arriving on our shores, with no paperwork gets to claim asylum is given a fully furnished council house, allowances, legal aid and a free TV license.

The weak and incompetent tool-bags running the show are more concerned with making sure***************coming from Africa and other ding-holes are sorted out first!

Come on Boys you have done your Job for the Country, we don’t require you any more, all our promises to you are off, don’t you forget we now have to support all the filth you fought against, we have got Thousands of them coming into the UK, they need Benefits, Housing and Medical, how on earth can we support you as well. British government shame on you.

Started when Gordon Brown snapped the purse shut, denying the troop proper kit and equipment, and continued by Gideon, the poor clone of Brown, aided and abetted by Cameron.

They would support the illegal migrants and foreign criminals than supporting the troops they demand do their bidding at considerable personal risk. The electors want the troops supported, not illegal immigrants nor foreign criminals.

As a veteran and like my ex military colleagues I have moved on since finishing military service. In any case service charities are an industry with over 3000 organisations with staff and infrastructure to support with a lot of them run for the benefit of those involved

Another Cameron pie-crust promise. Made to be broken.

Typical Cameron and government promise to the people who protect us, hot air and lies. We should protect the people who protect us, if it was a politician they would be no shortage of money, vigils or services, no wonder everybody hates politicians.

The Armed Forces should have all the support necessary. It is a disgrace that many are sleeping rough. Some of the foreign aid budget could be utilised to give them a roof above their heads.

We can look after and give houses to people who have not been born or worked here. But we can’t look after our own. While the lords and MP’s milk the system for all its worth.

Our military veterans and their dependants Must be put at the top of the queue for housing and welfare when they retire. It is totally unacceptable they are not, especially as priority seems to be given to other people who have contributed little or nothing to this country.

Of course the covenant is not being honoured. Because the establishment politicians of the legacy parties are dishonourable traitors !

The armed forces covenant and the so called remit should be written up as a policy document as a minimum requirement, not as a remit that can be twisted and even ditched all together by the local councils etc:

We put our lives on the line & we have no guarantee on a fair deal for our families or even ourselves.

We cannot get decent housing or proper food to eat.

At least when we had our own cooks we decent food, the civilian contractors are screwing the troops and seem to be doing it expressly in the eyes of the troops. Bring back the ‘Catering corps’.

Rob16: The Military Covenant is a waste of time and only pays lip service to personnel leaving the armed services, it’s the governments way of showing that they are doing something, something that doesn’t really mean anything. I spoke to my GP and he had never heard of it, that’s how good it is, if no one buys into it then it’s total waste of time.

He’s right And Most Likely a Tory Traitor? But that’s what I was told after serving 12 years and not residing in the UK for 3 consecutive years. Because I was overseas in the Army. The Council told me we were aliens in our own country. The Council Regulations are you have to live in England for 3 years or U don’t qualify for housing. Unless you are a EU migrant or a Refugee. That’s the rules in this land. Made up by people Like Rob16 . This Country is full of people like him. They are obsessed with EU rules and regulations.They are not really British. Just like the remain students in London they say they are not British but European. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/705046/British-troops-failed-military-covenant-not-honoured

 

 

 

Casualties of War Iraq & Afghanistan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
In Bed With the Unionist Scottish Tories – Rangers Football Club Supporters reveal their hand

The 2016 Scottish Cup Final was marred by the bad conduct of a large section of Rangers supporters who, throughout the match baited Hibernian fans with sectarian chants The songs (clearly audible to television viewers) contained the phrases ‘Fenian bastards’ and ‘up to our knees in Fenian blood’.

Despite the foregoing the game was played in a good spirit by both teams and the final result was in the balance up to the final minute when Hibs scored the winning goal. At the final whistle (seconds after the restart) a number of Hibs fans invaded the pitch. They were mainly exuberant, but a few sought to re-enact the events of 1977, when Scotland beat England at Wembley. This brought Rangers supporters onto the pitch and the resultant confrontation was inevitable. Many watchers and television viewers were horrified at the violence between both sets of supporters and allocated blame equally between them.

But not Prof Adam Tomkins. He made it clear, when writing to the Rangers Forum that the Scottish Tory Party absolved Rangers and their supporters of any blame. He then basked in the adulation of Rangers fans who commented favourably about the Tory party and Tompkins in particular.

But a subsequent investigation, completed by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen QC made it clear that there was fault on all sides and he could not attribute blame to either club or to any individual, or group.

The Scottish government and First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon were castigated in a statement issued by Rangers Football Club shortly after the incident which stated:

“It must also be said that it was not at all helpful to see leading members of the Scottish Government, including the First Minister whose parish is Govan, passing comment on social media without any attempt to condemn the behaviour of Hibernian’s fans. These failures are unbecoming of our elected representatives.”

The comments made were: “Ms Sturgeon “condemns unreservedly any act of violence or disorder by anyone who attended the cup final”. “Violence has no place in football, either on or off the pitch,” Justice Secretary Michael Mathieson. The foregoing statements were vindicated by the later findings of Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen QC.

Prof Adam Tomkins MSP comments were unbecoming of a member of the Scottish Parliament but, as yet no disciplinary action has been taken against him by his Party leader. Shame!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 September 2016: Hibs and Rangers in the clear over Cup Final disorder at Hampden

Hibernian and Rangers escaped punishment by the football’s governing body in relation to the disorder at the Scottish Cup Final at Hampden.

Hibs triumphed 3-2 to win the Scottish Cup but the post match celebrations were marred by scenes of crowd disorder and a pitch invasion.

A report by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen QC into the disorder said it was impossible to attribute blame to either Club or to any individual or group.

He suggested a reserve of police should be ready to deal with possible pitch invasions in high profile matches and said new laws should be brought in to make pitch invasion a criminal offence.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14770011.Hibs_and_Rangers_in_the_clear_over_Cup_Final_disorder/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Events of 21 May and Follow up.

23 May 2016: The Rangers Forum – Scottish Cup Final – Rangers v Hibernian – A supporter Sent Adam Tomkins (MSP) an e-mail

I’m writing to hopefully discuss the disgusting scenes witnessed at Hampden yesterday. I would write to Nicola Sturgeon, but she’s already made it quite clear that she has no interest in condemning it, in fact, on the contrary.

At the age of 29, and having attended hundreds of football matches at both Ibrox and Hampden, I’ve never seen scenes like yesterday. As a Rangers supporter, it’s safe to say I feared for my safety, and to watch Rangers player getting attacked was my worst moment as a Rangers fan.

I appreciate there’s not a huge amount that can be done with the SNP in control, but I was curious to hear your thoughts on the matter, none the less, and hoped as the main opposition, you would be the best person to contact (I should mention I’m a local constituent).

Any suggestions on what can be done to take the matter further would be greatly appreciated. I think I speak for the majority of Rangers fans when I say that we can’t accept what happened yesterday getting swept under the rug by the SNP.

Adam Tomkins responded:

I was at the game: not on a corporate freebie but with Rangers season-ticket holders in the Rangers end. I used to be a season-ticket holder myself at Ibrox.

I have tweeted several messages about the disgraceful and dangerous actions of the Hibs fans in storming the pitch at the final whistle. Like you, I was appalled by what I saw. It is important that the police and SFA inquiries proceed without political interference, but I will be looking for answers to two sets of questions in particular:

* Why Hibs fans were allowed to reach Rangers players who were still on the field of play?

* Why the police seemed (to me) to take quite a while to restore order?

It is the job of MSPs to press for answers to questions such as these and you may be assured that I will not rest until I have them. I will be discussing with colleagues in the Parliament tomorrow morning what further action we as MSPs should take at this stage. As the father of four young children, a number of whom enjoy coming with me to football matches, I share your concerns. What follows, in case of interest, are the lines the Scottish Conservatives have put out today:

“The events after the final whistle at Hampden on Saturday ruined what should have been a day of celebration for the whole of Scottish football; not only the culmination of a long cup competition but the first time that two teams outside the top tier have competed in the final. While Hibs supporters will rightly wish to celebrate winning their first Scottish Cup in 114 years that can be no excuse for the reported assaults on players and officials, nor the destruction of the fabric of our national stadium.

l understand that Police Scotland have set up a unit to track down the perpetrators, and I would urge them to ensure that all routes are taken to identify and charge those involved in these criminal acts. Thereafter, it will be for Parliament to determine how best to review the performance of Police Scotland in responding to this disorder.

The hard work of the footballing authorities, the police, football teams and their supporters has meant that significant progress has been made in the past two decades in making attending football matches in Scotland safer and more enjoyable, sadly the scenes on Saturday represent a significant setback for that progress.” This is not the end of this matter, but I hope you can see from the above that we have made a start in getting to the bottom of this, with a view to ensuring that all relevant lessons are learned. With very best wishes: Adam Tomkins MSP: Conservative MSP for Glasgow :

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?1084645-Adam-Tomkins-MSP

 

 

 

 

 

 
Forum members comments:

Can’t argue with that, its set the bar for other MSP’s to respond to similar questions with the same respect and attention to detail.

Bravo Mr Tomkins, I actually trust this guy to do his best for us, most unusual for a politician.

I’m heartened to read that response from Adam Tomkins MSP

Thank you Mr.Tomkins and I trust that you will be vigilant when the SNP and Labour attempt to whitewash this affair.

Excellent response but where are SNP and Labour in their condemnation of the events or even acknowledge them.

Puts his party leader to shame. If this guy was in charge, they would get more votes.

The problem with police Scotland the route they will be taking will be mostly directed at our support.

Future leader of the Scottish unionist party

One of the reasons why I voted Conservative for the first time in recent elections.

That is the difference between a real political party and a shower of charlatans (SNP and Labour).

Impressed with that response. Wee Nic is my constituency MSP. I emailed her. Still waiting.

He was on one of my lecturers at uni. Full of his own self importance and loves the sound of his own voice however very committed to the union. Didn’t know he was a bear. That reply is very good. Hope he delivers.

Good reply, I hope he shares it with his party leader. She could learn from Prof Tomkins.

I’ve written to mine whose constituency covers Hampden. Not expecting much … he’s an SNP asslicking knobend

Just remember this is the result of voting Conservative in the Glasgow region. Far from a wasted vote.

Just remember this is the result of voting Conservative in the Glasgow region. Far from a wasted vote. Correct, don’t give SNP or Labour your votes, they despise Gers fans.
He is one of the reasons I voted conservative for the first time

Puts his party leader to shame. If this guy was in charge, they would get more votes. She was too busy getting married. Don’t suppose she gave much thought to the game.

Good reply. Fair play to him.

Decent reply, hope he follows it up.

Excellent response. I don’t know why we don’t vote more conservative in Scotland. SNP are fascist. Labour/liberals a joke.

That is a good reply. Glad to see that we have someone our side. I was at the game (as I was in 1980) and Saturday was a lot worse.

Best political response so far…..sadly maybe the only one. Saturdays troubles and concerns should transcend politics.

Excellent reply from Mr Tomkins, it’s good to know we have a politician on our side, I may need some advice later.

Just read about him in today’s Daily Mail said that he is a constitutional lawyer (whatever that is ) and academic who is probably the cleverest person at Holyrood. Just so happens that he is up against Angela Constance who is probably about the thickest person at Holyrood

Just gained a vote for Tory next elections. Bravo to him, hopefully he keeps his word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/09/02/professor-adam-tomkins-a-visionary-or-a-plonker-the-scottish-jury-is-still-out-but-a-verdict-is-expected-very-soon-part-1/

https://caltonjock.com/2015/09/02/professor-adam-tomkins-a-visionary-or-a-plonker-the-scottish-jury-is-still-out-but-a-verdict-is-expected-very-soon-part-2/

https://caltonjock.com/2015/09/02/professor-adam-tomkins-a-visionary-or-a-plonker-the-scottish-jury-is-still-out-but-a-verdict-is-expected-very-soon-part-3/

 

 

 

 

Prof Tomkins