2 March 2015 – Prof Tomkins close links with Jewish society brings unwelcome results

The Palestine Alliance, formed by the Association of Palestinian Communities in Scotland and a number of Palestine solidarity groups, has called on Glasgow University to halt plans to develop links with an Israeli University. Collaboration between the universities is believed to be behind a planned visit to Glasgow University by the Israeli Ambassador to Britain, Daniel Taub, on 2 March 2015.

The plans to link Glasgow University with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem have long been promoted by Professor Adam Tomkins of the university’s law faculty. Tomkins, a prominent no campaigner who served as one of the Tory Party nominees on the Smith Commission, was the recipient of a prestigious scholarship prize from the Hebrew University in 2011 following a period as a visiting professor the previous year. He is reported as saying that the prize would facilitate the next stage of what he hoped would be “a lifelong series of collaborations with colleagues at the Hebrew University. If, as a result, links between Glasgow Law School and legal scholars in Israel are strengthened, this will be an added bonus.”

Dr Essam Hijjawi of the Palestine Alliance, and chair of the Association of Palestinian Communities in Scotland said “Far from being a seat of learning the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has shown itself to be a discriminatory body, denying equal treatment to Arab Palestinians who are citizens of Israel; failing to provide teaching services to the local Palestinian population in Jerusalem whilst providing such services to Jewish groups and has part of its campus is built land stolen from Palestinians and now housing illegal settlements. “Glasgow is home to Palestinians who have been denied the right to live in their home city of Jerusalem and cannot access education at the Hebrew University.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Israeli+Ambassador+to+Face+Protests+at+Glasgow+University.-a0403795918

http://glasgowguardian.co.uk/2015/03/02/university-denies-protesters-claims-that-israeli-ambassador-is-here-formalise-links-with-hebrew-university/

 

 
24 March 2015 – Professor Adam Tomkins comments on Salmond’s threat to install the labour party in Downing Street

Alex Salmond pledged to lock David Cameron out of Downing Street by saying he would be “voting down” any Conservative minority government using provisions in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act that would allow Labour to try to form a government.

Professor Adam Tomkins, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Glasgow and a Tory delegate to the Smith commission on extra powers for Scotland, said Salmond’s gambit was “designed to anger the English. He is being very clever. He is modelling the strategy on moves by Charles Stewart Parnell, Irish nationalist leader whose Irish Parliamentary Party used disruptive tactics and filibustering in the Commons in the 1880s to anger British politicians.

He wants the English to give him what he wants, with his fun and games, just to get the English to say bugger off. The threat for us Scottish unionists is that the English aren’t ready for this and the English will overreact in the way that Salmond calculates. He’s going to carry on doing this for as long as he possibly can.” http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/24/conservatives-slam-salmond-deeply-sinister-threat-miliband

 

 

 

 

12 May 2015 – Scotland ‘will not consent’ to Tory plans to scrap Human Rights Act

The Scottish government has said that it will withhold legislative consent on the Conservative proposals to scrap the 1998 Human Rights Act, as it emerged that the SNP has already had informal discussions with Tory backbenchers who oppose the move. The social justice secretary, Alex Neil, told the Holyrood chamber on Tuesday afternoon:  “The Scottish government’s position is that implementation of the Conservative government’s proposals would require legislative consent and that this parliament should make clear that such consent will not be given.”

Tory plans to repeal the act and replace it with a UK bill of rights could lead to a “complete standoff” between Westminster and Holyrood, according to a Scottish government source. A senior SNP source confirmed that the party had been in contact with potential Conservative backbench with a view to bolstering cross-party opposition to the move.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/12/scottish-government-human-rights-act-conservatives

Comment: sanz1820

Tompkins is being disingenuous in his assumption that the UK is somehow a family of nations. It is not – it is a completely unbalanced polity where the dominant nation – England – is ten times the size of all the others. Thus the claim that ‘England is not a state’ may be accurate from a constitutional lawyer’s perspective, but ignores the truth that the English do indeed think of themselves as living in a state – one which is variously called ‘England’ or Britain’, the two terms being seen as interchangeable.

The result of this lack of balance within the ‘family’ is the cultural hegemony which manifests itself in ways which probably seem trivial to the good Professor, but which –repeated day after day and year after year – are profoundly dispiriting and ultimately enfeebling.

Whether it’s shipping in southern journalists to BBC Scotland to cover the referendum, employing that ludicrous weather map on BBC TV which makes Skye look half the size of the Isle of Wight, claiming that there exists something called ‘received pronunciation’ which by definition denigrates those of us who speak in our own nation’s voice – I could go on all day.  Sorry Prof – but this is a dysfunctional family, and I want out.

http://derekbateman.co.uk/2014/08/04/write-of-reply/

 

 

 
25 May 2015 – Appointment of Scottish Tory Party Chair Richard Keen QC to the post of Advocate General for Scotland signals Tory backtrack on powers

His appointment follows yesterday’s publication of the Scotland Bill – which falls far short of implementing the Smith Commission recommendations. Previously, Richard Keen stated  “I don’t think it’s the answer just to say ‘more powers’” and has also argued that the rest of the UK should be consulted on what powers should be transferred.  In February last year, Richard Keen said: “I don’t think it’s the answer just to say ‘more powers’. What is the answer to the devolved settlement is to ensure that the powers that Holyrood has are used properly and there is accountability.”

He also stated that any future transfer of powers to Holyrood must involve the rest of the UK, particularly if that involved a federal solution. “I’m not saying no to federalism, because if that’s what the majority want by way of a devolved settlement, that’s what we’ll have,” he said. “But if you want to go that far then you have to consult everybody in the UK, because it affects everybody.”

Richard Keen QC

 
Earlier in the week, Professor Adam Tomkins, who was appointed as an advisor to Scottish Secretary David Mundell, made fun of the fact that the current devolution settlement results in the Scottish Government having to mitigate swingeing cuts made by the UK Government as part of their austerity regime.

See his Twitter exchange with Ian Smart,  a prominent Labour supporter:

* Adam Tomkins: Key test of new Scotland Bill will be whether the welfare clauses deliver Smith. This was where January’s draft clauses fell short.

* Ian Smart?: Indeed. Let’s allow the virtuous Scottish Government to restore the benefits of those sanctioned by the evil UK government

* Adam Tomkins: Exactly. Money where mouth is. https://twitter.com/ianssmart/status/603680320739737600

http://snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/may/keen-appointment-signals-tory-backtrack-powers

 

Ian Smart Labour friend of  Prof. Adam Tomkins

 

Adam Tomkins

 

 
Earlier this month, the Tories ennobled then appointed Andrew Dunlop – the architect of the hated Poll Tax – to the position of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Scotland. Poll tax peer ‘scandal’

Responding to the ennoblement of Andrew Dunlop, and his appointment as the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Scotland, the Leader of the SNP Westminster Group Angus Robertson MP said: “This appointment is a scandal. If one thing demonstrates how out of touch the Tories are, it’s the appointment as a government minister for Scotland of an unelected Lord who played a leading role in the imposition of the hated Poll Tax on Scotland. It is hard to believe that following the worst Tory result in a General Election in Scotland since universal sufferage that they could have fallen further in people’s estimation, but they just have with this appalling and anti-democratic appointment. It’s further evidence of the need for a strong Scottish voice at Westminster to hold the Tories to account, that only SNP MPs can provide.” http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/may/poll-tax-peer-scandal

 

Dunlop & Cameron

 

 

 

Questions over Cameron’s new independence adviser’s link to poll tax

David Cameron’s right hand man in the fight to save the Union was last night under pressure to explain his role in bringing the hated Poll Tax to Scotland.  Dunlop, who graduated in economics from Glasgow University before moving south, was a special adviser to former Defence Secretary George Younger. By 1988, he had graduated to Mrs Thatcher’s inner circle as one of the seven members of her “policy unit”, specialising in defence, employment, tax reform and Scotland. In that capacity, he must have played a key role in the discussions over the introduction of the hated Poll Tax in Scotland in 1989 – a year earlier than the rest of Britain. After leaving No 10 Downing Street, Dunlop became the managing director of top lobbying firm Politics International. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/308827/Questions-over-Cameron-s-new-independence-adviser-s-link-to-poll-tax

 

 

Tories used Scotland for poll tax experiment

Secret files released under the 30 year rule have confirmed that senior Tories plotted to “experiment” on Scotland by introducing the Poll Tax. Oliver Letwin – who was then part of Margaret Thatcher’s Policy Unit – wrote a letter in which he suggested using Scotland as an “experiment”, to avoid accusations of “being rash” by proposing it for England and Wales at the same time. The letter concludes “we therefore recommend that, if you are not willing to move to a pure residence charge in England and Wales immediately, you should introduce a mixture of taxes but should rather use the Scots as a trailblazer for the real thing.” Meanwhile his colleague David Willetts – who was part of the same Policy Unit – wrote a memo stating “Scotland and Northern Ireland have their snouts well and truly in the public expenditure trough. The challenge is to find a politically acceptable way of putting them on the same diet as the English.” http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/dec/filestories-used-scotland-poll-tax-experiment

 

David Willets MP

 

 
20 May 2015 – Study by Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law says UK has reached constitutional crossroads and needs major changes to work effectively

There should be English votes for English laws, according to the study report, whose authors include Prof Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, the centre director; the historian Prof Linda Colley; Prof Adam Tomkins, professor of public law at Glasgow University; and Prof Tony Travers, director of British government at the London School of Economics. “The United Kingdom has reached a constitutional crossroads and needs major changes to work effectively,” the report says. “The piecemeal development of devolution means that the overall constitutional fabric of the UK has been weakened. “The process should start with a new charter of the union to provide the framework for a fair and durable settlement between the four nations [England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland].”

Further transfer of powers to the Scottish parliament at Holyrood could endanger relationships, the report points out. The SNP’s preferred “extreme form of devolution would seem not designed to preserve the union with the rest of the United Kingdom but to break it” it says. The report, entitled A Constitutional Crossroads: Ways Forward for the United Kingdom, also warns that a constitutional clash between Westminster and the Scottish parliament could be triggered by plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a UK bill of rights.

A refusal by the Scottish parliament to pass a motion of consent could establish different human rights regimes in different parts of the UK, it suggests. “There is a growing sense of unease that the union is at risk of becoming unstuck,” the study notes. “A new settlement is urgent because the present lack of clarity conveys an impression of instability, which can harm our dealings with the outside world.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/20/urgent-action-needed-to-preserve-united-kingdom-thinktank-says

 

Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell KCMG QC, the founding Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law,

 
20 May 2015 – Second independence referendum should not be held for at least 15 years, according to a group of devolution experts.

The academics also warned that the SNP’s call for ‘devo max’, or full fiscal autonomy, would break up the Union, in a new report published today. Called A Constitutional  Crossroads: Ways Forward for the United Kingdom it calls for the abolition of the Barnett formula, which helps to calculate the block grant to Scotland, because it does not offer a fair solution across the UK. The group also recommend a new ‘charter of the Union’ to protect the UK, English votes for English laws at Westminster and greater decentralisation within England.

Last night the SNP said that a second referendum on independence would be a matter for future Holyrood elections and the Scottish people. Last week SNP sources suggested that Scottish ministers did not need David Cameron’s permission to hold another vote. Technically, the legal right to stage a referendum lies with Westminster. In recent days the Prime Minister outlined his opposition to another vote. But First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said he has no right to rule one out.

The report, compiled by experts including Professor John Kay, a former adviser to Alex Salmond, Prof Sir Jeffrey Jowell, director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, Prof Linda Colley, from Princeton University, Prof Adam Tomkins, from Glasgow University, Prof Tony Travers, from the London School of Economics and devolution expert Alan Trench, suggests a Scottish independence referendum be held “no more than once in a generation…. (and) a generation should be considered at least 15 years.”

SNP Justice and Home Affairs spokesman Joanna Cherry said: “Westminster needs to deliver the additional powers which Scotland has been promised – and the recent election result is a huge mandate for further powers beyond those recommended by the Smith Commission. “In terms of a second independence referendum, that is a matter for future Holyrood elections, and whether or not there will be one is ultimately a matter for the people of Scotland.”

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13308486.Experts_call_for_no_new_independence_referendum_for_15_years/

 

Rule of Law

 

 
25 May 2015 – Smith Commission academic who pushed for more devolved powers is to advise Tories on turning them into law

Professor Adam Tomkins, who negotiated for the Tories alongside peer Annabel Goldie on the cross-party Smith Commission, has been invited to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on constitutional matters. The unpaid advisory role will see Prof Tomkins provide advice on a range of constitutional matters, with a primary focus on the passage of the Scotland Bill through Parliament and the delivery of new powers for the Scottish Parliament. He is a legal scholar and John Millar Professor of Public Law at the School of Law of the University of Glasgow. Professor Tomkins said: “It is a great privilege to have been asked to support the Secretary of State for Scotland through this crucial period for Scotland. I look forward to working with the minister and his wider team to provide support for the Scotland Bill process.” The Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell said: “Professor Tomkins brings unparalleled expertise and depth of knowledge to further support the Scotland Office. His advice and insight will be invaluable as we deliver new powers for the Scottish Parliament.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/smith-commission-academic-who-pushed-5760869

 

Adam Tomkins

 

 
7 June 2015 – From Roundhead to Cavalier: how Tory Scottish Secretary’s advisor wanted to axe the Royal family

The Scottish Secretary’s adviser on the constitution has tried to distance himself from his fiery republican past, admitting some of his views on the monarchy were “a bit extreme”.

Professor Adam Tomkins, who became an unpaid adviser to David Mundell last month, had previously railed against “the weirdness of the present generation of Windsors”. Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University, also attacked “the degrading rituals of pomp and servility that accompany majesty”, the “sheer unfairness” of an hereditary head of state, and claimed the royals had a “long history of tax avoidance”. He complained that monarchy was “fundamentally incompatible with democracy” because the Queen confers huge power on ministers allowing them to bypass parliament and escape scrutiny. “You’re either a monarchist or you’re a democrat. You can’t be both,” he wrote. “If you want an accountable government you have to choose to abandon the monarchy.”

Tomkins laid bare his feelings in an article in May 2004, in which he listed the “many arguments against monarchy”. Five months later, he spoke at the ‘Declaration of Calton Hill,’ an event staged by the Scottish Socialist Party to rival the Queen’s official opening of the new Holyrood building.

 

 

The Declaration began: “We the undersigned call for an independent Scottish republic”. According to a contemporary report, Tomkins “delivering a damning indictment of the monarchy” and said it was incompatible with democracy. Tomkins also met the artist and author Alasdair Gray at the event, and they went on to co-author a book arguing for a republic called “How we should rule ourselves”. In it, the pair said they were both “of the left” but neither belonged to or endorsed to any party. Tomkins is now an active Conservative.

Gray said he was “sorry” that Tomkins had dropped the republican cause. “I suppose it depends on your degree of prosperity,” he told the Sunday Herald. Tomkins’s past views are sharply at odds with those of his Tory boss in the Scotland Office. In 2013, Mundell said pro-independence republicans were “out of touch… with the people of Scotland” and insisted “the Royal Family are part of the fabric of Scottish life”.

Asked about his republicanism, Tomkins said his interest had been of a “dusty, antiquarian academic” kind and he “didn’t know” if he ever signed the Declaration of Calton Hill. I quite like the pomp and ceremony these days. My republicanism has softened,” he said. Reminded of his written article, he said: “Yes, that sounds like me. That sounds a bit extreme. “It’s the kind of thing I probably would used to have said, but I wouldn’t say that [now]. One of the reasons I don’t worry as much about these things as I did 10 years ago is because many of the legal powers of the Crown have been taken into parliament. The Fixed Terms Parliament Act (FTPA) is a really good example. It used to be the case that the Prime Minister could decide when the next general election was…because they effectively wielded the old prerogative Crown power of dissolution.

“The FTPA rips all that up and it puts that power in the hands of backbenchers. “In the sense of being a parliament man, who thinks parliament should make [key] decisions and not judges or members of the royal family or even ministers, I’m still fully signed up. “But in terms of getting rid of the Queen and having a presidency, I’m probably not signed up to that anymore, because I just don’t see the point. It’s not a priority. It’s not happening.” Former Socialist MSP Colin Fox, who spoke alongside Tomkins at the Declaration of Calton Hill, said: “He’s gone from Cromwell’s side to the Cavaliers. He should be ashamed of giving up on democracy in favour of the divine right of kings and hereditary privileges. Although that does make him pretty much at home in the Tory party.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13411783.From_Roundhead_to_Cavalier_how_Tory_Scottish_Secretary_s_advisor_wanted_to_axe_the_Royal_family/

 

 

Comment: Lorna Campbell,
Odd, to say the least. Youthful rebellion? Perhaps. The kind of One Nation Britain/UK, where Scotland is North Britain, absolutely depends on its structure for our hierarchical society, with the Royal Family at its apex and the hoi polloi at the base. Adam Tomkins has never shown the slightest sensitivity towards separate Scottish institutions, and his entire thrust of argument vis-a-vis human rights is based wholly on English constitutional principles.

He reminds me constantly of a British nabob during the Raj. His adulation of Magna Carta as, seemingly, the foundation on which all our “British” freedoms rest may explain a little his anti royalty views. Unfortunately, it also goes some way to explaining his determined efforts to keep Scotland within the Union.

 

Adam Tomkins

 

8 June 2015 – Scottish devolution is finally about to come of age.

Our adolescent politics of grievance is at last to mature into grown-up responsibility. This is what the Smith Commission promised and it’s what the new Scotland Bill delivers. No longer will Scottish ministers be able to blame Westminster for tax and spending decisions they claim not to like. The First Minister and her team will have all the powers they need to take action to reverse their effects or to point Scotland in a different direction.

This for two critical reasons.  Firstly, Scottish ministers will have the power to top up any welfare benefit which they consider to be insufficient. They will also have the power to create wholly new welfare benefits. And secondly, they will have the power to raise taxes in Scotland to pay for this additional public spending.

If John Swinney objects to the Chancellor’s cuts, the new Scotland Bill will enable him to do something about it. He can bring a budget of his own to Holyrood, put up taxes for Scottish taxpayers and spend as lavishly as he wants. Finally, we will find out if the SNP’s actions will meet their rhetoric and, if they do, we will find out if Scotland really is any more Nordic in its commitment to social justice than the rest of the UK is.

Will Scots vote for higher taxes? This is a more pressing – and a far more important – question than whether we might have a second independence referendum any time soon. This is what real, adult politics is about – not the gesture politics of nationalism, but the tough, grown-up questions of what public services we want and how do we propose to pay for them.

The Smith Commission and the new Scotland Bill bring these questions home to Scotland. That’s what home rule is and that’s what it’s getting. All of this will change the nature of the political conversation in Scotland. No longer will it be dominated by bleating about the powers it doesn’t have. Instead, it will focus much more sharply on the ways in which the SNP Government are making such a mess of the powers they do have.

The new Scotland Bill is important because it means the SNP can no longer pretend that governing requires no more than finger-pointing and childish blame-game politics. It’s time for Scotland to come of age, for the Nationalists’ bluff to be called and for home rule.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/now-vow-adam-tomkins-changes-5844557

 

John Swinney

 

 

Swinney’s rebuttal
8 June 2015 – Now The Vow: John Swinney: The UK Government has failed miserably in implementing the Smith Commission

Delivering the Smith Commission recommendations was the minimum the UK Government had to deliver – and they have failed miserably. Backed by all parties in the Scottish Parliament, the report proposed new, limited powers for Holyrood in areas such as welfare, employment support and income tax.

Published 10 days ago, the Scotland Bill serves Scotland badly and falls well short of fully implementing the Smith proposals. With our existing powers, we have demonstrated we can make a difference for hard-pressed families – through boosting childcare, freezing the council tax, encouraging more employers to pay the living wage and spending more than £100million a year just to mitigate UK welfare cuts.

With new powers, we can make even more of a difference by using additional economic and welfare policies to protect vulnerable households but also to create jobs, boost investment and grow the economy. Yet the Scotland Bill badly lets Scotland down.

It restricts who the Scottish Government would be able to pay certain benefits to. It fails to devolve the full range of employment support services currently delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions. It contains no powers to create new benefits in devolved areas, if we wanted to, having considered how new welfare powers will complement existing devolved services.

It is missing or restricts powers in areas of consumer protection, energy and the Crown Estate. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the proposed Bill gives Westminster a veto over key policies.

That means I or my Scottish Cabinet colleagues would still have to seek the explicit approval of the relevant Secretary of State before implementing new policies – such as scrapping the bedroom tax. By any definition, that isn’t devolution.

That is why the Scotland Bill must be improved. And if it is to have any credibility, it must be changed to implement the Smith Commission recommendations in full. Doing so should not be seen as some kind of concession from David Cameron’s Government. It would only be delivering what they have already signed up to and already promised the people of Scotland.

This week, the Scotland Bill will be debated at Westminster – and the real work begins to get it into shape. If the Westminster parties are not prepared to honour the promises they made to people of Scotland in the days before the referendum, then SNP MPs will seek to amend the Bill to do just that. We want to remove the UK Government’s veto over key decisions, give the Scottish Parliament an explicit power to create new benefits in devolved areas and ensure that the Scottish Parliament cannot be abolished without the consent of the Scottish people.

These basic changes to the Bill will give future Scottish governments the freedom to exercise new powers without interference. But going forward, we regard what is currently being proposed as the floor – not the ceiling. That’s why we’ll also put forward proposals shortly for more powers to be devolved through the Scotland Bill including employment policy, the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes, national insurance and equality policy – the powers we need to create jobs, grow revenues and lift people out of poverty.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/now-vow-john-swinney-uk-5844469

 

 

 

 

 

15 June 2015 – UK Government rejects SNP call for full fiscal autonomy

The UK Government has confirmed it is to reject the SNP’s call for full fiscal autonomy, while describing the controversial policy as a “shambles”. David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, said ministers would not accept an SNP amendment on the issue when the Scotland Bill is debated in the House of Commons on Monday.

Prof Adam Tomkins, a constitutional law expert and adviser to the Scottish Secretary, said that allowing fiscal autonomy would effectively reverse the result of the independence referendum. “What we said last year in the independence referendum was no thanks to independence, and full fiscal autonomy isn’t devolution max, it is independence light,” added Prof Tomkins.

John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, will call this week for extra powers to give Holyrood further “levers to grow our economy and tackle inequality”. Speaking at the weekend he said: “The Scottish Government believes we should move towards full fiscal autonomy as the best route to fulfil Scotland’s potential. “In the meantime, we are prioritising the transfer of additional powers to incentivise key sectors, raise productivity and attract investment. “Powers over the minimum wage, employment policy and benefits would allow us to build a coherent approach to training, education and support for people out of work or experiencing in-work poverty.”

But Prof Tomkins told the BBC’s Sunday Politics programme it would be irresponsible of the British government to “devolve the national minimum wage, or employers’ national insurance contributions or corporation tax”. He said: “We talked about all of these things around the Smith Commission table and Mr Swinney brought all of these things to the Smith Commission. “We didn’t reject them because of some blind unionist intransigence, we rejected them because they significantly undercut the reason why we have the Union that we voted to stay in last September.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11674501/UK-Government-rejects-SNP-call-for-full-fiscal-autonomy.html

 

 
17 June 2015 – The BBC is a major problem for Scotland because so many Scots believe it is not impartial.

Well what do you know, we’ve barely had time to recover from the air-raid bombardment that was Project Fear Mk1 when along comes its equally terrifying sibling. Project Fear, you may recall, was what the anti-independence Better Together campaign informally christened its strategy of instilling fear into Scottish voters during the referendum.

Project Fear Mk2 was launched last week and the target of this attack was not independence but its little cousin, Full Fiscal Autonomy. Full Fiscal Autonomy is also known as Devo Max. It is also sometimes technically referred to as Federalism or Home Rule. For those who may not recall, Devo Max/FFA/Federalism/Home Rule was what Scots were promised if they voted No in the independence referendum, as the clip shows. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKC93MzuILk#t=17)

 

You’ll note that the clip shows senior BBC presenters telling Scots what was on offer in the event of a No vote. It was garbage. None of the three London based parties had any intention of handing over Devo Max or anything like it. But it was presented as though pledged as such by the BBC.

Thus, the SNP entered May’s General Election pledging to hold these three parties to account. Nicola Sturgeon very specifically spelt out what the SNP would pursue on behalf of the Scottish people. In the short term SNP MPs would seek to have the spirit of the Smith Commission honoured. With more austerity looming the SNP would seek to obtain powers initially in the draft report from Smith, but that were subsequently removed after pressure from Labour. The First Minister also made it clear that the SNP would seek a mandate to pursue what Scots were promised prior to the referendum. The SNP group at Westminster would seek Full Fiscal Autonomy.

During the election campaign, there was much debate surrounding this pledge. Unionists appeared across the media warning Scottish voters that a vote for the SNP would mean a loss of £7.6 billion to Scotland. The message from Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems was hammered home in phone-ins, debates, interviews and news bulletins.

 

 

There was worse though when Ultra-Unionist Professor Adam Tomkins appeared on the Sunday Politics Show in order to provide his views on the SNP’s proposals. Tomkins’ Unionism is of the hard-line variety. The views he expressed on BBC Scotland were not surprising.

But why was he there at all?  Tomkins is an advisor to David Mundell, the sole Tory MP in Scotland. Mundell is also the Secretary of State for Scotland. Mundell has a mandate to represent his local constituents and nothing more. Tomkins doesn’t even have that. Yet here he was making pronouncements on how the UK Government would be responding to the SNP mandate.

During his interview, Tomkins stated that the SNP had not accepted the referendum result. He wasn’t challenged by Gordon Brewer. The irony of his politically bigoted comment was lost on Mundell’s advisor. The SNP is seeking FFA precisely because they have accepted the referendum result. Tomkins and his ilk are in fact refusing to accept the General Election result which saw Scottish voters hand the SNP a whopping mandate.

 

 

In fact it isn’t just Tomkins who wants to ignore the General Election result, the BBC in Scotland seems intent on doing the same. The BBC destroyed its reputation during the referendum. It hasn’t changed in any way shape or form.

On Monday June 15th, Radio Scotland covered the issue of FFA. Quotes from Mundell claiming FFA would mean a £5000 bill for all Scottish people peppered news bulletins. But the Tory MP was nowhere to be seen. He apparently refused to be interviewed. There was no representative from the UK Government whatsoever throughout the broadcasts. However in another quite bizarre clip Tomkins was apparently presented as the voice of the UK Government.

The academic appeared again in another clip just before Deputy First Minister John Swinney was interviewed by Gary Robertson. Robertson adopted a now familiar tone and threw every Unionist argument he could find at Swinney. Not one solitary representative of the UK Government faced any scrutiny at all. Whether Mundell’s deputy at the Scotland Office was asked to appear was never revealed. The coverage of FFA was an all-out attack on the SNP.  http://www.ponsonbypost.com/index.php/comment/29-bbc-scotland-is-continuing-where-it-left-off

 

Bernard Ponsonby

 
18 June 2015 – JK Rowling in Twitter row after questioning claim SNP no longer has ‘anti-English sentiment

Following the general election result – the English-born author, who lives in Edinburgh – spoke out about the abuse she had received after Labour’s crushing defeat. She claimed she was described as “Blairite scum”, a traitor to Scotland and urged to leave the country. She also said that she had SNP friends for whom it was “all about self-determination” and she respected their view, and said she hoped the overwhelming majority of the SNP were not anti-English. However, independence supporters told her to “grow up” and claimed they were tired of her using her influence to “mislead the public”.

Prof Adam Tomkins, an expert on constitutional law and an adviser to David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, tweeted that as a high profile No voter and an Englishman who had spent 12 years in Scotland he had “experienced no anti-Englishness from SNP”.

Nigel Don, the SNP MSP, said the party counted many people originally from England among its supporters, adding “There is no place for personal abuse of any kind in politics on any side of the debate and the SNP has been crystal clear that such abuse must stop, full stop.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11684501/JK-Rowling-in-Twitter-row-after-questioning-claim-SNP-no-longer-has-anti-English-sentiment.html

 

 

 

 

 

14 June 2015 – Adam Tomkins on FFA: Sunday Politics Scotland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HAgntSmuK4
2 July 2015 – Another imbalanced ‘debate’ – Scotland2015.  Sarah Smith Out of Order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20p3F3Jk_U

 

 

 

 

28 August 2015 – Joining us now is North Britain’s most impartial Tory.

Spare a thought today for the media.  It was stretching credulity for them to wheel out Adam “IT’S THE LAW!!!!” Tomkins as an ‘impartial expert’ when he was working for the Tory party.  It was even harder for them to do it when he became a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland.  But can they still pull it off now that he’s planning to stand as a Tory candidate in next year’s Scottish Parliament election?  Rest assured that they’ll give it a go.

Tomkins’ announcement of his intentions comes in possibly his funniest blogpost to date.  He tells the story of how he became a Tory, and it basically consists of : “I offered my services to all the unionist parties, and it was the Tories who wanted me unconditionally, so clearly their instincts are correct.”

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/joining-us-now-is-north-britain-most.html28 August 2015 – I am seeking election to the Scottish Parliament.

 

Scottish Conservative Party Conference 2015 – Anyone under 65 awake!!!?

 

 

 

 

 

25 January 2014 – Opinion on the SNP’s White Paper Professor Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD5iH8YSqiw
30 January 2014 – The hidden costs of independence – Adam Tomkins. https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/1wjoin/the_hidden_costs_of_independence_adam_tomkins/

 

 

 

 

2 April 2014 – Reasons to be Cheerful

The mood music in much of the Scottish press is that it’s all doom and gloom for the No campaign, and that “momentum” is building in favour of a Yes vote in September. Some of my Nationalist friends are making the basic political mistake of believing their own propaganda and are beginning to lose their heads. One even wrote to me last weekend suggesting that it was time I self-administered some Hemlock. Such a lovely thought, that even one’s friends wish upon their political opponents the curse of suicide.

Never has it been more important to remember that we Unionists will win this referendum campaign by being the reasonable ones. Let the petty Nationalists trade in poison. The one thing we won’t do is to win the argument by descending to their gutter level. So … time for a cool, hard-headed and clear-eyed analysis of why it is that the media mood has turned up the heat on the No campaign.

There are four reasons for it:

The polls.

The Labour party’s latest proposals for further devolution.

Tensions within the Better Together campaign.

The idiot rogue minister who told the Guardian that there could be a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK.

In this post I consider each of these in turn and I show that, on analysis, none is actually bad for the No camp and, moreover, that none will help Yes.   https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/reasons-to-be-cheerful/

 

 

 
1 April 2014 – United Kingdom(s)? Scotland’s Referendum & Britain’s Future (Part 1). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yXgZtTTTs8&list=PLTJ17sZJveQNiKHEOuHs-1Ewlt4qV0Qv-

United Kingdom(s)? Scotland’s Referendum & Britain’s Future (Part 2). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDXT5qcI6E&index=2&list=PLTJ17sZJveQNiKHEOuHs-1Ewlt4qV0Qv-

United Kingdom(s)? Scotland’s Referendum & Britain’s Future (Part 3). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEzSDQ6GHss&list=PLTJ17sZJveQNiKHEOuHs-1Ewlt4qV0Qv-&index=3

United Kingdom(s)? Scotland’s Referendum & Britain’s Future (Part 4). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI2BQRcPm90&index=4&list=PLTJ17sZJveQNiKHEOuHs-1Ewlt4qV0Qv-

 

 

 
1 April 2014 – Nicola Sturgeon withdrew from her debate with Adam Tomkins. https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/21yra9/it_appears_nicola_sturgeon_has_withdrew_from_her/

2 April 2014 – The Legal Implications of Scottish Independence Professor Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWc1jKXU4E

7 April 2014 – Scottish Independence: Q&A (Part 1) Tomkins 3.35. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZYjylpovfQ

7 April 2014 – Scottish Independence: Q&A (Part 2) Tomkins 4.20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTxO9kQgYs

 

 

 

 

14 June 2014 – An independent Scotland would have no claim to a share of the UK’s assets

Professor Adam Tomkins, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland. Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory. He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.

First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum. But Professor Tomkins said:  “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas. International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland). The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.” The UK Government backed the claims, saying: “A vote to leave the UK is a vote to leave its institutions.”

But a Scottish Government spokesman said: “Scottish taxpayers have contributed to funding all the assets owned by the UK state over many years. It is only fair and reasonable that Scotland should receive a fair share of the value of these assets on independence.” http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/457842/Breakaway-Scottish-state-could-not-claim-a-cut-of-UK-assets
Comment:  Tomkins quoted:   International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).”

But if the UK splits into its constituent parts then Scotland and England are the result (as the UK is a treaty joining the countries), no treaty, no UK . No Continuator State. At the ending of the treaty England and Scotland, the new countries would be entitled to a fair share of the former UK’s assets.

If Westminster persisted on insisting Scotland had been extinguished when the UK was formed (but England was not), then how could Scotland continue to have its own laws, courts, borders etc? In fact how can there be a border if Scotland is no more?

Will the EU recognize the former UK government as representing the English? They are neither elected nor recognized as such. Or will the non-existent Scotland walk away from any residual debt held by the Bank of England as they are fully entitled to do?

 

 

 
2 June 2014 – Scottish Tory tax plans Marco Biagi and Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waXe_UGiW44

13 June 2014 – Tomkins given hard time by Scottish Parliaments European and External Relations Committee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5bfewl6cjw

11 July 2014 – Devolution and an Evolving UK – Professor Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmPAWq3gpV0

 

 

 

 

 

20 July 2014 – Adam Tomkins – I am being forced to choose … would I want to stay in an independent Scotland as a No voter?

It is not difficult to tell which side Adam Tomkins is taking in the independence debate. The professor of public law at Glasgow University is sporting a wristband from the pro-union campaign Vote No Borders, while his office in the university’s law school is adorned with a “No thanks” postcard and large Team GB union flag. On his website he describes himself as one of the leading constitutional law scholars in the UK and he’s certainly one of the leading voices arguing the union’s case on the internet. He does so under his own name on Twitter and in various blogs, and he is the force behind Notes From North Britain, the website which bears the tagline “Confessions of a Justified Unionist”.

That said, the pro-union space on the internet is not exactly crowded. There are no pro-union campaigns on the web to rival those of independence supporters such as Wings over Scotland. Tomkins had 3385 followers on Twitter. Wings Over Scotland had 15,200, and fellow independence supporter Bella Caledonia had 16,300.

Tomkins says he could have decided not to take part in the referendum debate, a decision he describes as perfectly valid. Instead, he declared as a No voter early on in the debate as he did not want to “just be an observer”. “I decided I cared so much about this particular issue I was not going to approach it from the position of independent neutrality,” he explains. “Although I hope I have been objective, fair and accurate in my assessment of the legal issues. “I am not a partisan, in the sense I don’t toe anybody’s line.”

Tomkins has been involved in various aspects of the independence debate, including advising the UK Government on legal issues surrounding independence as part of an informal group of lawyers put together by Advocate General Jim Wallace. He was one of two independent advisers to the Strathclyde Commission – the Conservative review of how Scottish devolution should work – and has written a series of blogs for Vote No Borders tackling topics such as such as the legal and political “realities” of what independence would mean.

But his views on the issue have a personal basis. Tomkins was born in England and spent the first 33 years of his life south of the Border, before moving to Scotland in 2003.”I am English and British, but I live in Scotland,” he said. “My wife is Jewish and American, but lives in Britain as she would see it. My kids have dual US and UK nationality and they are Jewish: so multiple identities feel natural and normal. “For me, that is what the independence referendum is all about – it is forcing me to choose, would I want to stay in an independent Scotland as a no supporter? I really don’t want to have to choose between staying in an independent Scotland and returning to the much diminished rump of the UK.”

His best result for Scotland? A “narrow-ish” win for the No campaign – an outcome he argues would trigger much-needed discussion where devolution should go. He says devolving income tax to the Scottish Parliament would transform politics in the country by triggering a “grown-up” argument about tax and spend. He would like to see unionists and nationalists work together to develop devolution further, arguing there has been a “silo” approach to constitutional politics for too long. “The independence referendum has been divisive – it is necessarily divisive because it is a very emotive issue and because it is a binary question of yes or no – so it is necessarily polarising,” he says. “Once we have moved on from that polarising nature of the referendum, we need to move on to something we have never had – an all-party conversation about where we take Scotland’s constitution next.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13170868._I_am_being_forced_to_choose___would_I_want_to_stay_in_an_independent_Scotland_as_a_No_voter__/

 

 

 

 

 

24 July 2014 – Public Institutions after Separation – Professor Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBhqTsuEy2k

28 July 2014 – What would happen to the Border? – Professor Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gUKR7tb1PE

 

 

 

2 August 2014 – My Country is Britain

‘For me Scottish independence means putting an international border across my country. My country is Britain.’ And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the definitive statement of Unionism in this whole campaign. It comes, not from a BNP online nutter, but from one of the most esteemed Unionist commentators in the debate, the Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University, Adam Tomkins.

Tomkins was hailed by Angus Macleod, Scottish editor of the Times, as the best brain on the subject when he opined against Holyrood having the powers to stage a referendum. He was chosen as the key adviser on the constitution by Ruth Davidson when she set up her devolution commission. He is adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. He is commentator of choice for the BBC on legal issues surrounding independence.

He is the definitive Unionist, happily domiciled in Scotland and totally committed to the retention of the United Kingdom. He makes his declaration at the very top not of a pro Union production but in the intro to Scotland Yet, a documentary on the referendum story from the Yes perspective featuring many faces from the campaign. http://derekbateman.co.uk/2014/08/02/my-country-is-britain/

 

 

 
8 August 2014 – Scotland and the EU – Professor Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chYmNSfVlWk

25 August 2014 – Experts say No Thanks – Prof Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqgfvDDyg0

 

 

 

 

19 August 2014 – Crawford Beveridge, Chairman of Scotland’s Fiscal Commission and Council of Economic Advisers says Scotland could refuse to accept any UK debt and comfortably use sterling without a formal deal

Adam Tomkins, a pro-UK constitutional lawyer and adviser to the Tories, said that Sterlingisation would raise significant problems for Scotland’s entry to the European Union, because currency stability is an essential requirement for new member states. He said any doubts about Scotland’s long term currency and its failure to have its own central bank would raise significant questions about its ability to meet the EU’s legal tests for new member states.

“This doesn’t mean that an independent Scotland can’t become a member of the EU; it means that an independent Scotland’s negotiations would be more difficult,” Tomkins said. He claimed that using sterling informally, a policy known as  “sterlingisation”, would require Scotland to have its own financial authorities, use international banks to lend, and to have its own central bank rich enough to bail out Scottish financial institutions in an emergency.

Crawford Beveridge insisted that Scotland had several viable options for its currency, and could refuse to carry forward any of the Bank of England’s debt after independence, if UK ministers vetod a sterling pact after a yes vote. He said the country could comfortably use sterling without a formal deal, or move to set up its own currency as an alternative after independence.

He added that if “politics trumped economics” and the UK rejected a formal sterling pact, an independent Scotland would have the right to pay much less of the UK’s historic debt – or none at all. “There are many other viable options so I’m not that worried about currency, because every other country has one and we’re going to have one too,” Beveridge said, accusing UK ministers of “posturing” over a currency deal.

Fuelling the controversy that Scotland would favour using sterling without a currency union as an alternative “plan B”, Beveridge said sterlingisation could clearly work, as could a new Scottish currency. Pressed during a question and answer session on why the Scottish Fiscal Commission said last year that sterlingisation was only a temporary, transitory option and not a permanent solution, Beveridge agreed that was still the position. “It would be an unwanted transition issue,” he said. “It could last a short period or it could last a long period, I don’t have a specific number of years in my mind.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/19/scotland-chief-economics-adviser-renege-uk-debt.

 

 

 

 

 

29 August 2014 – Scotland and the EU

I have no doubt that, were there to be a Yes vote in next month’s referendum, an independent Scotland would accede to membership of the EU. Eventually. But how this would be done, how quickly it could be done, and on what terms it should be done are three of the “known unknowns” of the independence debate. To pretend otherwise – by insisting that there would be a straightforward, smooth and seamless transition – lacks all credibility. What is clear, however, is that were we to vote Yes, we’d inevitably not be a full member state of the European Union by the SNP’s projected independence day in March 2016. An independent Scotland would start life outside the EU; even thereafter Scotland would enjoy EU membership on terms far less beneficial and generous than those enjoyed now by the UK. https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/scotland-and-the-eu/

 

Comment: Tomkins view of Scotland and the EU demeans his status as an expert in contitutional Law. The European view would take precedence.

 

 

 
Comment: – French Minister for European Affairs and British Expert on Constitutional Reform back EU membership of an independent Scotland

The former Chief of Staff of the French Minister for European Affairs, Yves Gounin, argues that the independence of Scotland would not cause their immediate expulsion from the European Union but neither could it result in their automatic inclusion. Gounin states that a political negotiation should be undertaken; it would be “the most realistic” approach, he says. Therefore, according to this study published in the journal Politique Étrangère, “the most reasonable” would be to negotiate independence and the EU membership at the same time; therefore the implementation of EU Treaties would not be interrupted at any moment.

Gounin underlines that there are legal and political arguments to defend that an independent Scotland would not be expelled from the EU. He argues that, according to European jurisdiction, the EU is also a union of citizens. He also discusses the founding principles of the EU (such as freedom and democracy), the obligation to negotiate a Member State’s withdrawal from the EU and the “interior enlargement” concept.

In this study, the French expert in EU affairs analyses the succession of states and their effect on international treaties. He assumes that the United Kingdom would be the “continuing state”, while Scotland would be the “successor state”. However, the United Kingdom has not signed the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties.

Gounin concludes that, while Scotland would have to be recognised by the United Nations, he also believes that, regarding the EU, the issue has to be resolved following the EU’s own rules. However, there are no precedents of such case within the EU, since the withdrawal of Greenland from the Union, which continued to be part of Denmark, is not applicable.

The former Chief of Staff of the French Minister for the European Union highlights that EU Treaties do not explicitly deal with the issue of secession within a Member State and the membership status of such part. Therefore, the matter is open to interpretation.

Gounin admits there are arguments to defend the necessity to reapply for membership but he also states they are neither “realistic” nor follow “common sense”. He points out that “Brussels” is traditionally not in favour of “state implosions” and that the European Commission has publicly stated that “if a part of a territory of a Member State is no longer part of this State, the [EU] treaties would no longer be applicable”. However, Gounin states that this legal argument is not absolute, since there are other legal and political arguments to be taken into account.

In this vein, Gounin cites the report drafted by David Edward, who used to be the British Judge within the Court of Justice of the European Union between 1992 and 2004. Edward was rejecting Scotland’s automatic expulsion from the EU and was advising for negotiating independence and EU membership at the same time.

Those negotiations would be held between the referendum day and the day independence would be effective, having more than a year to amend EU Treaties accordingly. The former Chief of Staff of the French Minister for European Affairs is supporting such a way out for both Catalonia and Scotland. “A good will negotiation would be in everybody’s interest”

The French expert firmly rejects the idea of placing Scotland in the accession queue. “Common sense prohibits assimilating Scotland to Moldavia, Montenegro or Turkey regarding their right to (re-)accessing the Union”. Gounin argues that is “not realistic” to imagine the return of border controls, the cancellation of EU fundamental rights for citizens or abandoning the Euro. In this vein, he backs the concept of “interior enlargement”, although he acknowledged that this concept is not defined in the treaties.

However, this idea makes a clear distinction between states that are not part of the EU and therefore might not have their legislation in line with the EU and territories that are currently part of the Union, whose citizens are EU citizens and their laws follow European legislation. In addition, Gouning highlights the legal argument resulting from article 50 of the EU Treaty, which deals with the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union.

The Treaties clearly say that the withdrawal is not automatic and has to be negotiated, specifically regarding the relationship of the State with the EU. Therefore, automatically excluding Scotland, without a negotiation, would be quite problematic regarding Article 50.

A third argument presented by the former Chief of Staff of France’s European Affairs Department refers to “the founding principles of the Union: freedom, democracy, equality and rule of law”. Gounin emphasises that it would be “a paradox for the EU to deny the people of Scotland the right to self-determination or, to be more precise, by linking this right to the automatic expulsion from the Union, [which] decreases its effectiveness to zero”.

On top of this, he points out that by doing so, the EU would in fact be interfering with the Member States’ interior policy, something it wants to avoid. By “vetoing” Scotland’s continuity within the EU, Brussels would completely interfere with the self-determination debate.

Finally, “the strongest argument” to support the continuity of Scotland within the EU is that referring to the link between the Union and its citizens. The Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the EU is “a new” international law entity where “subjects are not only the States but also their people”. This makes the EU a completely different international organisation, since there is a European citizenry.

Gounin points out that this dimension has been strengthened over time by numerous treaties and charters. “Even though the European citizenship is added to the national” one and “it does not replace it”, the French expert argues that Scottish citizens could not have their EU rights taken away without seriously “harming” the case-law issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union and therefore damaging the EU’s legal and democratic principles.

http://www.catalannewsagency.com/politics/item/french-study-backs-eu-membership-of-independent-catalonia-and-scotland

 

 

 

 

3 September 2014 – Scotland might vote no, but the key question is ‘what happens next?’

If there is a Yes vote in September, everything changes. The shock to the rest of the UK will be profound and the asymmetries of the country will be even more pronounced: England would constitute 92 per cent of the rest of the UK instead of its current 85 per cent. If there is a No vote this will mark Scots’ collective recommitment to the Union. But the Union would be foolish to react by breathing a sigh of relief and carrying on as if nothing had happened. The United Kingdom needs a sustainable solution to its territorial constitution: one that works for each of the four nations comprising the state, and one that works for the centre, too.

At the moment we do not even have the institutional architecture through which such a solution may found. We need to build it and we need to set it to work. It should aim at nothing less than a new Act of Union: a framework for the coming generations that will set the nations of the UK at ease with one another. Something extraordinary is happening in Scotland, but it may yet be that its result will be extraordinary for the whole of the United Kingdom. http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=7774

 

 

 

 

 

13 September 2014 – A shattered union: the final days of the Scottish referendum campaign

“My view is that the Union can be saved once,” Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow and an adviser to the No campaign, said. “If No win narrowly, the British state must reinvigorate itself – and that means more devolution. If circumstances require a second referendum in a parliament or two’s time, (5-10 years) “Yes” will win by a country mile.”

Alex Salmond highlighted in his resignation speech, some of the guarantees made in Brown’s timetable already appear hollow – and if the grassroots activism of the continued “Yes” campaign is to have a role, then one must be to ensure that the British state stands by its promises of meaningful devolution.

Cameron’s greatest fear was that he would go down in history as the man who lost the Union. However, the concessions he’ll have to make to save it may be seen among irritated Tory back benchers (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/david-cameron-faces-backbench-pressure-over-english-votes-for-english-laws-following-scottish-referendum-vow-9747266.html) as exactly that – losing the asymmetrical Union they know and cherish.

Time will tell whether they see 45% of Scotland as nearly half of one of the nations in the Union, or merely less than 4% of the UK population as a whole. http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/09/shattered-union-final-days-scottish-referendum-campaign

 

 

 

 

 

14 September 2014 – Legal consequences of Scottish independence, Prof Adam Tomkins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqpQclCnb6s
16 September 2014 – Professor Adam Tomkins, University of Glasgow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS36FqVn7ek

 

 

 

 

 

17 September 2014 – Adam Tomkins – What Better Together learned too late

I suspect that when the history of the Scottish independence referendum campaign is written neither of the official “designated lead organisations” will come out of it shining. Yes Scotland’s relationship with the Scottish National Party government in Edinburgh has been far too close. Their attempts to make the argument for Yes into a cross-party affair failed.

In the final weeks of the campaign, Yes Scotland disappeared from the airwaves almost entirely, as SNP minister after minister dominated the TV debates (with Patrick Harvie MSP, co-convenor of the Scottish Greens, more or less the only non-SNP Yesser on prominent display). Away from the official Yes Scotland outfit, it is certainly true that the broader Yes movement has been cross-party, but that has had much more to do with the plethora of unofficial grass-roots groups (Women for Independence, National Collective, Common Weal, Bella Caledonia, etc) than it has had to do with the Yes Scotland leader, Blair Jenkins, and his team on Hope Street.

Only 200 metres away, on another of the main arteries in Glasgow city centre, Sauchiehall Street, was the headquarters of Better Together. They had to bear a far greater load than their counterparts in Yes Scotland, for two reasons. First, the government backing them was 400 miles away and led by English Tories. And second, the No side of the argument never produced anything close to the range of grass-roots groups that so galvanised, energised and, indeed, mobilised the campaign for independence. Vote No Borders played its part, as did Working for Scotland and George Galloway’s “Just Say Naw” tour, but their contributions were neither designed nor able to match what was happening on the other side.

There are some things Better Together did brilliantly and some others where, as they say, lessons may be learned. Let’s do the opposite of how the campaign was so often perceived, and start with the positives. First, it should never be overlooked just how unusual a beast in British politics was the Better Together campaign. Even in this era of coalition government in London, can there have been co-operation in peacetime between Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats of the kind we have seen here?

Of course it was sometimes a bit rough. There were disagreements along the way. Yet these occurred as much within the parties as between them. When it was stormy, the calm authority of Alistair Darling anchored the campaign. He may not be the most florid orator, but he had a steady determination and no little steel and, in private, he showed warmth and remarkable generosity. There are few in the No camp more deserving of our admiration than he, whatever the result.

What Better Together did well was to identify the problems with the independence proposals that were put forward by the SNP. Not that this was always very difficult. The No camp’s campaign was about: “What state do you want to live in?” It won that argument hands down. We want to live in a state that keeps the Queen, that keeps the pound, that keeps the UK’s EU membership (opt-outs and all), that stays in Nato and that retains a social union across the whole of Britain.

But the Yes camp wasn’t too bothered if Better Together won all those arguments, because, it turned out, that was not the terrain on which it wanted to fight. For the Yes camp, particularly in the closing weeks, the campaign question was something else entirely: “What kind of Scotland do you want to build, and why do we need to vote Yes in order to build it?”

The nearer polling day drew close, the less the campaign became about statehood and the more it became about policy, from child poverty to social justice, from Gaza to Iraq, and from health service “privatisation” to the bedroom tax and welfare reform. The idea of Yes became a rhetorical vessel into which you could pour all your hopes and aspirations, all your fears and frustrations. What do you want? Vote Yes and you can have it. What’s wrong? Vote Yes and it will go away.

Better Together was slow to see that this was the ground that the Yes campaign found so fertile. Only in the last few weeks of the campaign did it finally realise that we had to do more than explain what was wrong with the other side’s proposals, and that we needed to say something ourselves about the better Scotland we wanted to build, and why we needed to vote No in order to build it. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/what-better-together-learned-too-late

Comment: The letter was published one day before the referendum vote. Clearly Tomkins thought Better Together had lost the argument.

 

 

 

 

 

20 September 2014 – Britain is on borrowed time: the future of Scottish independence

Scotland voted No to independence. In answer to the question, ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’, 1,617,989 voted Yes (44.7%) and 2,001,926 voted No (55.3%) in a massively impressive turnout of 84.6%: the highest ever anywhere in the UK in post-war times.

The result, and campaign, will be rightly mulled over and analysed for years, but in the fast moving aftermath it is important to lay down some thoughts and calm-headed thinking. Scotland has changed and shifted in how it sees itself and its future, as a political community, society and nation. Crucially, how others in the rest of the UK and internationally see Scotland, has dramatically and permanently moved.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/britain-is-on-borrowed-time-future-of-scottish-independence

 

 

 

 

 

10 October 2014 – Strathclyde proposals a ‘floor not a ceiling’

In a letter written by the party’s two nominees – Prof Adam Tomkins and constitution spokeswoman Annabel Goldie MSP – the party sets out a vision for reform rooted in the principles of “responsibility, transparency and accountability”. The letter makes clear the party’s commitment to deliver on pledges made prior to the independence referendum to deliver more power to Holyrood. The party’s clear policy, they add, is to ensure the Scottish Parliament is responsible for setting the rates and bands of personal income tax. A share of VAT should also be assigned to Edinburgh, the letter confirms.

The letter from Prof Adam Tomkins and Scottish Conservative constitution spokeswoman Annabel Goldie MSP states:

“We stand by the recommendations and analysis of the Strathclyde Commission. We regard its recommendations as a starting point for further discussion – as a floor rather than a ceiling. It remains our clear policy that the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for setting the rates and bands of personal income tax for Scottish taxpayers and that a share of VAT receipts should be assigned to the Scottish Parliament.

Any plans for further devolution which undermined the Union would run counter to the clearly expressed, settled and sovereign will of the Scottish people. Further, a new constitutional settlement for the Union must accommodate not only the interests and aspirations of Scots, but also the legitimate interests and aspirations of our fellow citizens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would be mistaken to imagine that further devolution for Scotland is of no consequence to the other nations of the United Kingdom.”

http://conservativefriendsoftheunion.com/2014/10/10/strathclyde-proposals-a-floor-not-a-ceiling/

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 October 2014 – One by one the consequences of a No vote are coming home to roost with extraordinary predictability.

The Smith Commission, pictured in the Scotsman squeezed into what looks like a small glass shed boasts all of the talent of Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott, alongside the egregious Adam Tomkins who managed to squeeze the most contorted and bizarre nonsense about ‘ethnicity’ into his commentary over the past year. His blog ‘Notes from North Britain’ (sic) of August 29 railed against the idea that Scotland – with 1% of the population and 60% of the oil / 25% of the renewable resource – would be allowed to stay within the EU.

Tomkins, who nobody elected to sit on a commission to decide our constitutional future, wrote on May 26: “I am of the view that political differences between Scotland and her southern neighbour are much exaggerated; that it suits those who seek the break-up of Britain to perpetuate such exaggeration; and that arguments seeking to set Scotland up as if it is some sort of northern cure for English diseases are both deluded and dangerous.”

Today he is proved comprehensively wrong after The Times reports: “The results of academic research suggest that an in/out referendum on EU membership would generate a different result on either side of the border — which the first minister has said could trigger a fresh bid for Scottish independence. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/10/23/eurotrash/

 

 

 

 

30 November 2014 – Hard talk, hokey cokey and a naked Tory…welcome to Scotland’s future.

In the end it didn’t go down to the wire. One negotiator at last week’s Smith Commission talks offered a wry smile: “The wire was eight o’clock, we walked out of the room at 10 to eight.” But after weeks of bargaining behind closed doors and, frustratingly for the media, with barely a leak about what was going on, the story of what went on is beginning to be told. The SNP were first to break the consensus with John Swinney criticising the package agreed very shortly after putting his name to it. And that has brought forth a tide of niggles, nuggets and naked Annabel Goldie stories as each party jostles to claim credit for what was produced.

It’s worth looking first at whether the Smith Commission proposals are worth claiming credit for. Hogging the headlines are the steps on income tax and welfare. Scotland will get the power to set income tax bands and will collect what’s raised in Scotland. The power to set the tax-free allowance remains with Westminster, though Holyrood can vary it upwards by setting a 0% band which would have the same effect. For all that it looks like a grand gesture handing Scotland control of income tax, there are sceptics.

Professor David Bell of Stirling University and part of the Centre for Constitutional Change explained: “The most likely outcome is Scottish income tax rates will mirror those set at Westminster in the short-term and not move significantly away.” He says a 1p increase in income tax would raise around £400 million. In the grand scheme of things that won’t pay for a lot but it will lose a lot of voters. Professor Bell added: “Politically, it’s become very difficult to change the rate of income tax. It has only reduced over many years. And you have to ask how different the Scottish electorate really is to the rest of the UK. The losers from any tax change make more fuss than the winners.” However, Professor Bell believes the welfare changes are significant. And that part of the agreement was one of the most hotly-contested. The power to create new benefits has been dubbed the “hokey cokey clause” as it was often in the agreement and then back out again.

 

The Conservative team of Annabel Goldie and constitutional lawyer Adam Tomkins infuriated their fellow commissioners by constantly shifting position, apparently at the behest of Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne in Westminster. One opponent called them The Grand Old Duke and Duchess of York. As negotiations became increasingly heated in the final days a break was called at one point in order to try and pin down the Conservative position on whether all elements of the new Universal Credit including unemployment benefits were up for discussion. A so-called “coffee break compromise” was drawn up, only for the Conservatives to trash it soon after on the orders of Westminster. But that then left them with little room to manoeuvre when it came to granting Scotland the power to create its own benefits, essentially giving Holyrood the power to create a separate Scottish welfare system as long as they can raise the money to pay for it.

The SNP were apparently fairly cool on the idea. One negotiator sneered: “The nationalists hate the idea there’s a power but no money with it.” Personality politics played a large part in the outcome. Many on the unionist side are poisonous about John Swinney now since he was apparently a pleasure to work with until the agreement was signed then he started slagging it. Tory Professor Tomkins particularly got up the nose of some negotiators with a number lining up to deride him as a hot shot constitutional lawyer but unused to practical politics. One person who was in the room said: “One of his contributions saw the whole room laughing. But we weren’t laughing with Adam.”

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/the-smith-commission-what-really-happened-behind-the-scenes-1.710504

 

English votes for English laws: a Tory power grab dressed up in constitutional jargon

 

 

Adam Tomkins

 

 

 

About Professor Adam Tomkins

Professor Adam Tomkins is a British legal scholar and John Millar Professor of Public Law at the School of Law of the University of Glasgow. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2014. He was educated at the University of East Anglia (LL.B.) and the London School of Economics (LL.M.). He taught at the School of Law of King’s College London between 1991 and 2000 and became a fellow at St Catherine’s College, Oxford in 2000, before being elected to the John Millar Chair of Law at Glasgow in 2003. His research interests lie in British, EU and comparative constitutional law.

He has published numerous books in the areas of constitutional, administrative and European Union law, including two, Public Law (2003) and British Government and the Constitution (2007, with Colin Turpin), which are amongst the most widely used by law students in the United Kingdom. He has held visiting appointments at the Universities of Toronto, Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian National University, as well as in several Israeli law schools. He has lectured throughout the world. In 2014 he was a member of the Smith Commission and in the summer of 2009 he was appointed legal adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. He resigned from that position in 2015 in order to become an unpaid constitutional adviser to the Scotland Office in the UK Government.

His political track record persuades the writer that he is a republican who believes in the supremacy of the people over politicans and royalty. Westminster is not therfore the best advert for democracy since it functions solely to meet the needs of the Monarchy, Politicians, business and other lobbying entities over that of the citizens of the country. But needs must and he has tempered his views in recent years advancing the belief that the 1707, “Union of the Crowns” treaty should remain to be the force driving the politics of England and Scotland in the twenty first century and beyond.

His only concession is the qualified support of a limited devolution of powers to England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. A gifted academic his recent appointment to the post of unpaid advisor to the Scottish Secretary can assist in an enhancement of the performance of the Scottish Secretary, David Mundell. Evidently his recent foray into the jungle that is politics, (taking on a high profile role in support of the Better Together campaign) has triggered a long held desire to actually bring about change he has previously only written of. To achieve the foregoing he joined the Conservative Party in Scotland and will stand for election in a Glasgow constituency. Covering the bases he is also registered as a Conservative Party List member so that he is guaranteed membership of the Scottish Parliament post the 2016 Scottish elections.

He is married to Lauren Apfel. They have 4 children, including one set of twins. Lauren is an American Jew. She was born in New York. Her parents Richard Apfel & Sharon Bickler were married in 1966. They had 3 children. The marriage ended when Lauren was still young. Her father departed the scene to operate his own Media Services Company not far from Florida. Sharon went on to marry Dr CJ Abraham. See: (http://www.scientificadvisory.com/about.html) The combined “new” family increased in size to around 8-9 in total. They reside in Great Neck, New York.

Lauren was a very gifted scholar who graduated from a number of “Top” universities in the USA. She then moved to England attending Oxford University studying the classics, literature and ancient history. It was there she met her future husband, Adam Tomkins. She put a very promising career in journalism on hold so that she would be able to raise her ever increasing family giving them all of her attention. A sacrifice, gleaned from her writing she does not regret. She publishes an excellent magazine for thinking mothers at:

(https://www.facebook.com/brainchildmagazine?pnref=lhc) and a learningsite for children at: (http://www.brainchildmag.com/)

 

 

 

 

2003 – Public Law – Adam Tomkins – Clarendon Press.

The content of “Public Law” is focused quite firmly on the public law of England. It is ambitious within its sphere but his discussion of general principles is illuminating. There is content that is focussed sharply on the distinctions between written and unwritten constitutions, and between legal and political constitutions. Careful consideration of the way those distinctions play out in the English system can help shed light on important debates in Scotland. English public law deals with the dual constitutional conundrums of European integration and far-reaching internal constitutional reform through devolution, revision of the House of Lords, and the like. The fundamental task of English public law at the dawn of the 21st century is to adapt a venerable and largely successful constitutional order to the fundamental challenges of globalization and the modernization of domestic society. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Public+Law.-a0145882920

 

 

 

 

 
9 October 2004 – Adam Tomkins – Scottish Socialist Party members and other far left groups attend a – Declaration of Independence on Edinburgh’s Calton Hill

On Saturday 9th October Liz (oops, sorry, her maj) officially opened the new £431 million Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood. It was revealed that no one would face criminal charges over the fiasco of overcharging. The Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal have found no grounds for complaint after a probe into the awarding of contracts for the Holyrood site. It had been claimed that one company, Bovis, was given an unfair advantage when bidding for work on the project.

There was an alternative event just over a mile away atop Edinburgh’s Calton Hill. The Scottish Socialist Party drew up a declaration of independence calling for “an independent Scottish republic built on the principles of liberty, equality, diversity and solidarity.” The declaration of Calton Hill ran from 11am till 1pm and there was a signing ceremony at noon. A crowd of around 500 gathered on a dry, overcast autumn day to hear speakers and entertainers. Constitutional law professor Adam Tompkins of Glasgow University reminded the crowd of the Queen’s previous reluctance to pay tax despite her massive income. He said that the queen had special powers or `prerogatives`, which included being able to appoint anyone she liked as Prime Minister. You cannot sue the monarchy. He said Tony Blair used these special powers to attack Iraq and there would have no Iraq war without the crown. In a democracy it is the people who are sovereign and not the crown! He urged the abolition of the monarchy. “If you want democracy down with the crown!” https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/scotland/2004/10/298867.html

 

 

 

 

 

August 2007 – Memorandum by Professor Adam Tomkins – Putting the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill in Context

Perhaps of more concern however, is the fact that there appears to be considerable slimming down of ambition. It was stated that “the Government believes that the executive should draw its powers from the people, through Parliament” But there is nothing in the Draft Bill to write such a principle into constitutional law. It was further stated, of the Government’s prerogative powers to deploy troops and to ratify treaties, that “In a modern 21st century parliamentary democracy, the Government considers that basing these powers on the prerogative is out of date.” Again, while changes of detail are proposed in regard to both powers, it is clear that both are intended to remain firmly based on the prerogative, albeit that the exercise of these prerogative powers will be subject to moderately enhanced parliamentary oversight.

One of the most striking features of the discussions were the citations of history. The proposals explored were explicitly set in the context of the United Kingdom’s ongoing, historical constitutional development. A major theme of that development is the transfer of power from Crown to Parliament. A view expressed was that, “reforms have developed the country from a feudal monarchy where the King’s word is law and only a tiny minority had any real influence, to a representative democracy governed through a sovereign Parliament elected by universal suffrage” As matters stand, however, the transfer is incomplete. Britain’s constitution, even now, is not a full parliamentary or democratic one.

The Crown retains very significant powers. Some continue to be exercised by the Monarchy itself (eg, appointment of the Prime Minister, dissolution of Parliament, and royal assent to legislation) but the bulk of the Crown’s powers are now exercised by the Prime Minister and by other Cabinet Ministers and officials (eg, the making of treaties, the deployment of the Armed Forces, the conduct of diplomacy, the governance of Britain’s overseas territories, the appointment and removal of Ministers, the appointment of peers, the grant of honours, the claiming of public interest immunity, and the granting and revoking of passports, as well as others).

It is clear that, as the Government accepted “when the executive relies on the power of the royal prerogative it is difficult for Parliament to scrutinise and challenge government’s actions”. This is a reflection of the view established by the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration, which reported in 2004 that, when exercising the Crown’s prerogative powers, Ministers have “very wide scope to act without parliamentary approval” If, as the Government claims, the country is a “representative democracy governed through a sovereign Parliament” then it follows that current constitutional practice with regard to the royal prerogative is contrary to principle.

The transfer of power from Crown to Parliament must be completed. In a representative democracy governed through a sovereign Parliament such a claim would surely be axiomatic. There would be no reason to regard it as either bold or controversial. The starting principle for executive power should be the same for central government as it already is for local government: namely, that the government may exercise only those powers which are expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon it by statute. If this is sufficient for local government why should it not also be for central government?

The personnel of central government is already drawn from Parliament and once in office the government is of course accountable to Parliament for its policies. Given this, there is no reason not to extend the control by Parliament over the government also to its powers. Thus, Government should possess only those powers which the people, through their elected representatives in Parliament, have expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon it by statute. This, it is respectfully submitted, is the constitutional principle on which the governance of Britain and on which a programme of constitutional renewal should be based.

The “national conversation” initiated by the Scottish Executive in August 2007 has at least the potential to lead to radically more fundamental constitutional reform than any proposal contained in the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. Parliamentary scrutiny of the future of the Union is a matter for another day, no doubt. Nonetheless, a sense of perspective is called for. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtconren/166/8051304.htm

 

Comment: And he argues that Scotland should be content to remain with Westminster????

 

 

 

 

 

26 May 2010 – Protecting Individual Liberty through Constitutional Reform – Getting Rid of the Human Rights Act

Adams Tomkins sought to ground his defence of parliamentary democracy in political theory. “Our Republican Constitution’, Tomkins (2005, Hart Publishing).” In it he seeks to persuade the reader that that a Bill of Rights and a written constitution fail to give effect in the way that parliamentary democracy does. With whom should power ultimately reside? Should the Courts have the power to strike down Acts of Parliament that are incompatible with our fundamental rights or should our elected representatives have the final say on where the balance between liberty and security lies?

Believers in the judicial protection of human rights, would enhance the power of the Courts with a Bill of Rights, along with a written constitution that would, together, confine the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament to the dustbin of history. the theoretical work of Tomkins represents a profound challenge to the belief that protection of liberty is best ensured by weakening the power of parliament in relation to the Courts, rather than strengthening the power of Parliament in relation to government.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/daniel-jones/protecting-liberty-through-constitutional-reform-response-to-stuart-weir

 

 
Comment: Tomkins, a constitutional lawyer, was on the Smith Commission, and is currently an advisor to the Secretary of State for Scotland. His selection by the Scottish Conservatives may be due to the Conservatives policy for a UK Bill of Rights. That requires the repeal of the Human Rights Act. Although, the SNP are signatories to the Smith Agreement they say they would withhold legislative consent with regard to the Human Rights Act. I don’t know what the other parties position is, but the Conservatives plans for a UK Bill of Rights and the impact on the Human Rights Act in Scotland could play a big part in next years elections.

 

 

 

 

 

6 May 2011 – British legal scholar Professor Adam Tomkins discusses the country’s constitutional monarchy.

Tomkins is a supporter of Republic (https://republic.org.uk/) – an organisation which calls for the people of Britain to be granted the right to democratically elect their head of state.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhVbamFf40E

 

 

 
11 November 2011 – Adam Tomkins: Unionist stooge?

Now it is Adam Tomkins’ turn. The University of Glasgow public law professors argument that under its current powers, Holyrood’s referendum on Scottish independence could be – and they argue, probably successfully – challenged in the courts. Despite the calumny and dismay of the newspaper headlines, Professor Tomkins argument should come as no surprise. The Scotsman invites nationalists not to deride Tomkins as a “Unionist stooge”.

There are a number of very good reasons not to do so, and to engage with the arguments he actually makes. However, I’m left with a general sense that folk are uncertain and unclear about Tomkins is actually arguing, and why. Better to understand his case, I thought it would be handy to generate a lightweight(ish!) account of the potential legal controversy surrounding the independence referendum, and to answer a few of the familiar objections many have raised. http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/adam-tomkins-unionist-stooge.html

 

Articles of Union with Scotland, 1707  First 3 pages

 

 

 

21 November 2011 – Scottish Independence Debate – Glasgow University Union celebrates 30 years of world-class debating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swWhEBbz5sk&index=12&list=PLB5d97rZOjDabYaN3O3MMLNkJO9p2lIgl

 

 

 
11 August 2012 – Constitutional experts in disagreement over whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold an independence referendum.

Speaking on Good Morning Scotland Saturday edition two constitutional experts failed to agree on the issue that has enveloped the BBC and the Labour party in a row over bias. Interviewed on the programme by show joint-host Derek Bateman, Adam Tomkins of Glasgow University claimed that the law was clear and insisted that the Scottish Parliament could not hold a referendum without Westminster permission. However, fellow guest Aileen McHarg of Strathclyde University disagreed and said that the debate was a matter of interpretation and it was possible for the referendum to be held by Holyrood.

“The Scottish Parliament was created by the Scotland Act 1998, and the Scotland Act 1998 is the instrument which delivered devolution for Scotland, it created the Scottish parliament and it provides for the powers that the Scottish parliament has.” said Mr Tomkins. He explained that the Scottish Parliament’s legislative power was limited to that which was devolved to it and as the Constitution was a reserved matter, it had no power to hold a referendum on independence. The academic claimed that to attempt to try to take on more powers would be in breach of law and would be liable to end up in court.

However, Mr Tomkins insistence that the debate was clear cut was challenged by Ms McHarg who pointed out that there was a difference between a consultative referendum, which was what the SNP were proposing and would have no power to bind the Westminster parliament and a legally binding referendum which would compel Westminster to act on the result. Arguing that the Scottish Parliament had the power to hold the former, Ms McHarg said: “There is an argument that there is a difference.” She explained that if the Scottish Parliament legislated to hold a referendum then it had first to be determined what the purpose of the legislation was. The academic explained that this was the key in determining legality.

“The argument that Adam and other people are putting forward is that the purpose of a statute to set up a referendum on independence is to end the Union, because the declared intention of the Scottish government is to bring about independence. “But the counter argument is that that’s not the purpose, the purpose is to consult the Scottish people on their views.”

The debate then became heated as Mr Tomkins angrily tried to intervene. In an exchange reminiscent of Tuesday night’s interview with Labour MP Ian Davidson, Derek Bateman asserted that he would conduct the interview and not Mr Tomkins. A clearly irritated Mr Tomkins insisted that this was not about consulting the Scottish people calling it a “myth that’s got to be scotched”. Mr Tomkins claimed that referendums were formal decision making devices which were about making decisions and not about being consulted. “The Scottish parliament does not have the power to make decisions” insisted the academic.

However when pressed on whether the Scottish Parliament had the power to hold a consultative referendum, Mr Tomkins appeared to concede that such a power was within the Scottish government’s competence answering, “I didn’t say it couldn’t consult, I said it does not have the legislative power to pass an act providing for a referendum on Scottish independence.”

Mr Tomkins assertion was again challenged and it was implied that he was confusing legal effect with political effect. Ms McHarg said: “The legal effect of a referendum which could be passed by the Scottish Parliament is quite clearly, purely and simply to ascertain the views of the Scottish people. It has no legal effect beyond that.” The academic explained that the political effect was something quite different, and that it was an important difference.

In short, Westminster are under no legal obligation to act on the result and thus it may or may not have an impact on the Union. Ms McHarg said that key to the debate was to determine what the referendum related to, whether it was to determine the views of the Scottish people or to end the Union.

The exchange between both academics is sure to have implications for both Government’s in that Westminster’s role is not at all clear cut. Speaking on Tuesday evening, Labour MP Ian Davidson made clear the Unionist intention was for London to take control of the referendum and to apply conditions on the ballot that related to the timing and the question posed.

The Scottish Labour MP conceded that the anti-independence parties believed a rushed referendum would ensure a win for the No campaign. In his interview with Isabel Fraser, Mr Davidson said: “we want to have a speedy referendum… We want to have a referendum because we think we’re going to win quite frankly”.

The debate has implications for both the Yes and the No campaigns, in that if Unionists are seen to be trying to wrest control of the referendum it may result in a backlash at the ballot box. The Yes campaign must ensure that any referendum is seen by the public as legitimate and that accusations of uncertainty and possible legal wrangling are removed.

However the Westminster government may already be in a catch 22 situation in that any assertion that the Scottish government’s ballot has no legally binding authority may in fact unwittingly remove any threat of legal challenge – the ballot will then very clearly be consultative. Similarly, should the Westminster government formally acknowledge that they will recognise the result of the ballot then they could be seen to be bestowing a de-facto legality on the referendum.

http://www.newsnet.scot/nns-archive/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5574:experts-split-on-scottish-parliament-referendum-power&catid=40:referendum&Itemid=112

 

 

 

 

8 February 2013 – An independent Scotland can never hope to manage it’s affairs within the SNP’s suggested timescale and to suggest otherwise is just irresponsible, writes Adam Tomkins

In contrast with the SNP’s deliberate obfuscation, we can be clear about what it would mean in legal terms for Scotland to leave the UK. The rest of the UK would continue and, legally, it would continue as the UK. It would need a new name (the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and a new flag (there would be no blue on it anymore) but, in international law, it would be the continuing state. Scotland, by contrast, would be a brand new state. The continuing UK would inherit all of the international legal obligations currently in place in respect of the UK, including its EU membership, its UN and NATO memberships, its seat at the Security Council, as well as treaty obligations under 14,000 different instruments of international law. http://www.scotsman.com/news/adam-tomkins-independence-a-road-to-nowhere-1-2779831
An opposing view: SNP timescale for Scotland’s EU membership “tough but realistic”. “http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-25952472

 

 

 

 

28 March 2013 – Adam Tomkins: A West Lothian Answer?

As the House of Lords Constitution Committee pointed out in its short report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldconst/184/184.pdf) on what was then the Scotland Bill in 2011, while the devolutionary principle of Home Rule has now been accepted, indeed embraced, by all three of the UK’s main political parties, the consequences of devolution for Whitehall and Westminster continue to be unresolved. For Government the key issue that remains open is the funding of devolution and, in particular, the future of the Barnett formula. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/139.pdf)

For Parliament, the main ongoing tension concerns the age-old West Lothian Question. This week has seen a potentially significant intervention on each of these matters. In a breakthrough speech delivered in Edinburgh on 26 March Ruth Davidson MSP, the leader of the Scottish Tories, said that the “much-derided and little understood” Barnett formula is in its “death throes as it stands”. Well, I’m not sure about that – I detect no appetite either in Government or Opposition for the Barnett formula to be revisited for the time being – although everyone knows that it will have to be looked at one day.  http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1395/Adam-Tomkins-A-West-Lothian-Answer.aspx

 

 

 

 

29 March 2013 – Policies, not Powers

The McKay Commission has published its answer to the West Lothian Question:
http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1395/Adam-Tomkins-A-West-Lothian-Answer.aspx).

Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Tories, has said that her party was on the wrong side of the argument in seeking to resist devolution in 1997-99 and has joined the Lib Dems and Labour in pledging that devolution will continue to grow and develop — and not stand still — after we vote No in 2014. Margaret Curran, Shadow Secretary of State, delivered a speech in which she showed how difficult it still is for Labour simultaneously to oppose both the Tories in Westminster and the Nationalists in Holyrood.

I’m a constitutional lawyer. I don’t mind constitutional nerds, and I count several constitutional anoraks among my friends. But I happily recognise that these are minority pursuits. Most politics — quite rightly — is not concerned with constitutional questions, but with matters of tax and spend, social justice, public services, etc. Arguments about what powers should be devolved to Holyrood and what powers reserved to Westminster may keep us small band of constitutionalistas happy and awake into the night, but most folk would much rather hear their politicians talking about something else — anything else — whether it be the. https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/policies-not-powers/

 

 

 
7 September 2013 – Adam Tomkins – Reasons for backing the Union

Father of four Adam Tomkins, a professor of law at Glasgow University. “I regard my country as Britain. I feel neither English nor Scottish. I was born in England and I lived there for 33 years. I know I am in a minority but I don’t regard myself as English or Scottish,” he says. If Scotland were no longer to be part of the rest of the UK, he adds, “I don’t know if I would feel comfortable staying.” He “totally buys” the core message of the pro-UK campaign that Scotland currently “gets the best of both worlds”. He adds: “I have four young children and when I look at them growing up and then I look at friends in London and see the way of life down there, I thank God I don’t live in London. That’s because things have been devolved.” The way Scotland has evolved since devolution is a success story, not a stepping stone, he argues. http://www.scotsman.com/news/eddie-barnes-reasons-for-backing-the-union-1-3081868

 

 

Comment:

Mr Tomkins is very happy in Scotland. He’s glad he lives here, especially for the sake of his children. Devolution has proved to be beneficial for the people of Scotland. BUT, because the people of Scotland choose self-determination thus choosing to extend devolution to its optimum; Scottish self-determination, he feels that he may not want to live here. This is quite incredible. He enjoys living in Scotland, it benefits him and his children, he believes that limited government has been successful…but feels that he might have to give this all up because our people choose self determination?!  Sir, your “reasons” for voting against Scottish self-determination do not add up, indeed, they are clear examples of muddled thinking probably caused by the Anti-Independence Alliance’s “Project Fear’s” constant dissembling and misinformation.

 

 

 
14 September 2013 – Who owns Scotland? ..Scandal of the hidden rural lords

A Vote for independence could spark a bitter tug-of-war between Scotland and England over ‘shared’ UK property, a leading law expert warned this week. Glasgow University professor Adam Tomkins predicts that under international law, all government buildings, institutions and organisations could be up for grabs. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/5432768/Who-owns-Scotland-Scandal-of-the-hidden-rural-lords.html

 

 

 

26 October 2013 – University Links with Israel – the debate – a bonus for whom?

On 4th February 2011, the Jewish Chronicle Online reported that Glasgow University professor Adam Tomkins was the year’s recipient of the Hailsham Scholarship by the British Friends of the Hebrew University for work promoting understanding between Israel and the UK. The previous year he had been a visiting professor at the Jerusalem university, where he ran a course on national security.

It was reported that the Scholarship would facilitate the next stage of what Prof Tomkins hoped would be “a lifelong series of collaborations with colleagues at the Hebrew University”. In addition the comment “If, as a result, links between Glasgow Law School and legal scholars in Israel are strengthened, this will be an added bonus.” was attributed to Prof Tomkins. It should be noted that Prof Tomkins neither confirmed nor denied the statements attributed to him.

 

 

For over two years, Scottish Friends of Palestine questioned the nature of this bonus with Professor Tomkins and the head of the School of Law, Professor Rosa Greaves. We questioned the apparent mandate which Prof Tomkins had to speak on behalf of the School of Law at Glasgow University. While Professor Tomkins was prepared to enter into dialogue, Professor Greaves adopted the mantra of academic freedom and the need to protect free exchange of ideas.

For over two years we supplied information to every single member of the School of Law in relation to the denial of educational opportunity and academic freedom by Israel to the Palestinian under occupation. On this subject the whole University remained mute.

The debate: The question as to why the sacrosanct nature of academic freedom with a state which consistently denies it to others remains unanswered.

Prof Jonathan Rosenhead has been asked to discuss the nature of any bonus for those academics who choose to collaborate with Israel. Why Boycott Israel’s Universities?

Prof Ilan Pappe will argue the case for the academic boycott of Israel. http://www.palestinecampaign.org/events/university-links-israel-bonus/

 

Adam Tomkins addresses Scottish Republican Rally

 

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/28/bbc-media-bias-protest/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/17/the-state-and-media-barons-abuse-of-the-electorate-the-fightback-begins-media-manipulation-is-unacceptable-to-scots/

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/12/04/bbc-presenter-kirsty-wark-is-still-around-bbc-2016-election-coverage-to-be-impartial-dont-count-on-it-their-record-is-appalling/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/05/bbc-scotland-and-labour-party-in-scotland-network-powerful-politically-corrupt-and-biased-shameful-abuse-of-the-scottish-electorate/

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/30/the-fall-of-the-bbc-serving-its-own-ends-the-greatest-financial-ponzie-scheme-in-history-cancel-the-licence-fee-let-the-subscriber-decide-its-future/

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/29/bbc-scotland-post-the-referendum-and-a-no-vote/

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/30/is-the-bbc-impartial-not/

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/30/cash-keeps-rolling-in-for-bbcs-six-figure-big-shots/

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/08/18/bbc-intends-to-retain-and-gather-yet-more-money-to-its-moneypit-through-an-increased-licence-fee-the-joke-is-on-the-public-nothing-changes/

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/06/02/the-new-bbc-chairman-sir-jeremy-heywood-cabinet-secretary-takes-charge-of -recruitment/

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/19/bombshell-brian-taylors-bbc-blog-wendy-alexander-leadership-the-reason-bbc-banned-the-public-any-public-comment-and-the-reasons-for-the-labour-party-meltdown/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/11/the-new-world-order-part-two-the-british-american-project-bap-the-bbc-disinformation-service/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/03/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-andrew-brown-brother-of-gordon-brown-bbc-media-politics-nuclear-energy-he-gets-around/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/09/17/the-whistleblower-the-bbc-herald-and-the-scottish-health-service/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/02/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-well-connected-laura-kuenssburg-bbc-newsnight-senior-correspondent-dad-an-admirer-of-wendy-alexander/

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/02/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-tavish-scott-not-so-liberal-msp-and-his-bbc-political-journalist-wife-take-liberties-with-the-public/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/02/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-david-martin-longest-serving-labour-mep-married-to-lorraine-davidson-bbc-journalist-labour-party-spin-doctor/

 

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/01/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-carol-craig-one-time-girlfriend-of-gordon-brown-husband-alf-young-bbc-labour-party-activists/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/01/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-james-naughtie-bbc-presenter-used-to-be-a-scot-lost-his-way-now-a-unionist/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/01/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-andrew-marr-bbc-presenter-labour-party-supporter-you-bet-he-is/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/01/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-sarah-smith-bbc-presenter-does-the-labour-party-leaning-show-do-pigs-grunt/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/03/31/media-coverage-of-politics-in-scotland-unionist-party-agendas-promoted-positively-by-the-bbc-any-contrary-opinion-ridiculed-and-attacked-by-bbc-editorspresenters/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/01/26/the-war-game-the-reality-of-a-nuclear-war-the-harrowing-film-produced-by-the-bbc-but-never-shown/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/01/18/there-is-an-urgent-need-to-introduce-an-independent-bbc-authority-to-investigate-decide-the-outcome-of-level-2-complaints-the-bbc-should-not-be-investigating-themselves/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/16/the-british-american-project-bap-the-bbc-and-new-trust-chairman-rona-fairhead/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/15/mexican-drug-cartels-money-laundering-hsbc-new-bbc-trust-chair-appointment-akin-to-putting-bankster-foxes-in-charge-of-the-bbc-henhouse/

 

 

 

Rolf Harris A BBC Favorite

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/01/people-of-influence-whom-you-hardly-know-wendy-alexander-one-time-labour-stalwart-suffered-from-foot-in-mouth-retired-from-politics/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/03/30/douglas-alexander-superior-intellect-but-no-soul-senior-office-holder-in-a-labour-party-devoid-of-any-worthwhile-policies/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/10/11/monetary-policy-on-the-hoof-trusty-bbc-always-on-hand-to-assist-government-in-its-imposition-of-order-media-is-a-dirty-business/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/09/30/bbc-and-the-scottish-press-consign-truthful-political-reporting-to-the-rubbish-bin-in-pursuit-of-a-quick-buck/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/10/the-cia-call-the-tune-and-the-labour-party-dances-to-it-scotland-sold-for-american-gold-but-to-the-deep-pockets-of-the-party-not-the-public/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/31/media-manipulation-use-of-doctored-and-selective-photographic-imagery/

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/12/24/blair-mcdougall-threats-of-an-alien-act-by-westminster-created-a-climate-of-fear-in-scotland-and-bitter-together-prevailed-for-now/

 

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2015/12/06/broadcast-media-in-scotland-time-for-change-the-scots-are-getting-done-dom/

 

 

 

 

Broadcast Media and the Press in Scotland – The Scottish Electorate Places Its citizenship In Trust With Journalists – But Is the Trust Misplaced

 

 

 

 

Rigged Scottish Referendum? Why the Anglo-American Establishment is Opposed to an Independent Scotland

It is evident that Scotland’s referendum on independence was “rigged.” neutral observers said there was evidence of electorial fraud. According to observers who were present at the polling offices, there were many more “Yes” votes during the vote count. Scotland, in the course of the referendum, found itself under immense pressure… Those on the UK side campaigning for a No vote had resorted to every violation conceivable.”

Washington and London have a vested interest in Scotland remaining in the UK and referendum results were always going to be tampered with. The Anglo-American military alliance would prevent any possibility of Scottish Independence under their watch. Scotland is a strategic military location. The British government call it ‘Democracy in action” and are content Scotland wishes to remain united with England.

Independent observers said the results were heavily influenced by “Westminster state controlled propaganda” since with the exception of Glasgow and Dundee, those supporting independence failed to register a majority. It was also reported that Prime Minister David Cameron had, (with the illegal clandestine support of the nation’s Civil Service) coordinated a secret propaganda war against Scottish Independence.

 

 

 

He also broadcast an improper speech shortly before the referendum, (ignoring referendum protocol) in which he (almost in tears) publicaly pleaded his case that; the shared history of both countries was worth retaining. He said:

“Our nations share a proud and emotional history. Over three centuries we have built world-renowned institutions like the NHS and BBC, fought for freedom and democracy in two World Wars, and pioneered and traded around the world. Our ancestors explored the world together and our grandfathers went into battle together as do our kith and kin today – and this leaves deep, unbreakable bonds between the peoples of these islands.”

Scotland sadly lost its bid for independence. The final result of Scotland’s referendum was: 55% ‘No’ to remain in the union and 45 % who voted for independence and the mainstream media lead by the BBC will make every attempt to bury the matter. They will produce stories about the growing threat of ISIS in the Middle East or on the personal life of one of the royal’s.

Scotland’s historic vote after 307 years of British rule inspired people across Europe and the World alerted other succession movements including Catalonia and Basque country in Spain to Veneto, South Tyrol, and the island of Sardinia in Italy to Flanders in Belgium.

The reason Westminster opposes independence for Scotland is that they would lose the power of control. They would also lose the benefits of Scotland’s vast natural resources. But it’s not over for Scottish Independence. It is just the beginning and Scots proved it by turning out to vote in huge numbers. What happen’s next? How about a call for a new referendum to be monitored by the international community? That might work.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/rigged-scottish-referendum-why-the-anglo-american-establishment-oppose-an-independent-scotland/5403299

 

 

 

 

Why an Independent Scotland is Inconvenient for NATO and American Foreign Policy

Firstly, Britain’s nuclear arsenal would no longer be deployed at Faslane, in the west coastline of Scotland where British nuclear-armed submarines are stationed. This would weaken NATO’s position in the North Sea and Arctic regions as it would also limit the usage of Scotland’s ports for U.S. submarine fleets.

Scotland has been a staging ground for NATO’s defenses including “early warning stations” to supposedly counter a Russian attack. The Scottish National Party (SNP) had rejected the idea that Scotland would serve as a nuclear deterrence by banning nuclear weapons. Scotland would not be able to participate in NATO’s defense by contributing just 2 percent of its GDP to join the organization; NATO could refuse its entry on economic grounds.

Scotland would establish its own defense at a cost of £2.5 billion. According to an article by the Telegraph titled ‘Scotland will be powerless to defend itself’ which was written by John McAnally, a former Commandant of the Royal College of Defence Studies. He described Scotland’s military plans if independence were to become a reality:

If the SNP wins independence, it plans to establish a new defence force of some 15,000 regulars and 5,000 reserves. The naval base at Faslane would become the joint headquarters. The Scottish army would include restored infantry regiments, army vehicles, artillery and air defence systems. The air force would have fighter jets, maritime patrols, transport aircraft and helicopters. The navy would include frigates, conventional submarines and marines. There would also be some special forces, and provision for intelligence, counter-terrorism and cyber-security. All this is to be achieved within an annual budget of about £2.5?billion – a fraction of the MoD’s current spending of £34?billion.

Mr. McAnally also explained it would cost the British government billions to rebuild the necessary infrastructure needed to house its nuclear arsenal. He says it would be difficult to find an alternative to Faslane naval base which would also become costly just to relocate:

 

 

 

 

It is also difficult to envisage a workable alternative to the Faslane naval base, currently home to Britain’s nuclear deterrent and the Navy’s hunter-killer submarines. It would cost many billions to relocate the infrastructure built up over decades, such as the Coulport Naval Armament Depot, which stores torpedoes, missiles and nuclear warheads. If Britain were expelled from Faslane, there is every possibility that it could be forced into unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Why is Britain worried about Scotland’s defense and from whom? Who would attack Scotland? The Western funded ‘ISIS’ terrorist organization? Or from Russia who is threatened by NATO’s expansion close to its borders? Scotland wants peace, not war. They will be diplomatic in every sense when it comes to foreign policy. Whereas Great Britain’s history has only shown to be a force for war and occupation.

As we have seen in the past, countries that don’t want to operate under the ‘New World Order’ apparatus are considered to be enemies of “Democracy,” (Russia is an example.) So to is China, Ecuador, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Syria and Iran are also enemies of Democracy according to the Anglo-American empire, because the “enemies of Democracy” want their nations to remain a “Sovereign entity”. Not under an “international Order controlled by the West.

Over the years, political and financial elites from the U.S. and Europe have planned for a single global power to control every nation on earth. In the last century, the establishment has called for a single power of authority that can dominate the financial, political and social landscapes of every nation. In 1992, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot was quoted in Time magazine and said “in the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.

National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” Well not according to the Scottish people. Although they lost the ‘Yes’ vote, freedom and independence from British rule can still become a reality in the future.

 

 
Another Referendum – But a Different Time, A Different Place and A Different Outcome, (Will the Scots Ever Learn?)

The result was 99% yes, but that was in another time, another place, and another independence referendum. This referendum took place a hundred and nine years ago, in Norway, in 1905, where 368 208 voters chose “yes” and only 184 chose “no”.

Only men had the right to vote, but, just as in the Scottish independence debate, women were very much engaged. Not having the right to vote, Norwegian women organised a petition, which gathered nearly two hundred and fifty thousand signatures.

The pace of Norway’s journey towards greater autonomy was slower than that of Scotland. Like Scotland, Norway had shared both the formal head of state (the king) and the parliament with a neighbouring country.

Until 1814, Norway was part of Denmark and political decisions were made in Copenhagen. This year, in 2014, however, Norway celebrated the 200th anniversary of having its own constitution, and its own parliament. Norway broke the bonds to Denmark, but instead entered into a looser union with Sweden, sharing its king and foreign policy and representation abroad. It was nearly a hundred years before this union was also dissolved, and the way in which this happened is what this article is about.

 

 

 

 

Dissatisfaction was brewing in Norway from the 1860s onwards. As in Scotland of today, the political left was strong. The party which was simply named “Venstre” (“Left”) had a strong presence in the Norwegian parliament and lots of support in the population, whereas Swedish politics were more conservative than it was prepared to tolerate.

This movement thought the Swedish king had too much power. So radicalism and anti-unionism went hand in hand, just as I have observed in the weeks and months leading up to the Scottish referendum. Swedish conservatives were not very happy about this, and became sceptical towards the union as well. It was as if the union was being pulled apart by two sides that were diametrically opposed to one another.

From 1884, “Left” came to power in Norway and from started a hard fight against the union. They demanded that Norway should have its own foreign policy. This was especially important because Sweden at the time wanted a close relationship with Germany, while Norway was looking more towards Britain.

In 1895, it nearly came to a war between the two countries. Sweden terminated the common market that had existed within the union, and this was met with fury in Norway. War was narrowly avoided, and the union shakily continued for another decade.

 

 

 

However, in 1904 things came to a head again when the Swedish prime minister stated that if Norway were to have its own consulates, they would have to stick to Swedish foreign policy. This caused so much political commotion in Norway that the government resigned, and Christian Michelsen came to power as a new and radical prime minister.

The radical Norwegian government dealt with the disagreement over the consulates by passing a law which said that Norway should have independent consulates. This law needed to be signed by the Swedish king, which he refused, and the government then refused to sign his refusal and handed in their letters of resignation, which the king in turn refused to accept because he couldn’t form another government.

Back in Oslo, prime minister Michelsen realised how he could use this as a lever to split up the union: He declared that as the Swedish king was not able to put together a Norwegian government, he had ceased to function as Norwegian head of state.

Both sides had seen where this was going for a while, and the Swedish Crown Prince Gustav was not against dissolving the union. But neither side wanted to take the final responsibility and the “blame” for the breakdown of the union. This twist by Michelsen allowed the Norwegian government to lay the formal “blame” on Sweden, while also being celebrated by the people of Norway for their cleverness.

And Sweden, this time, was not interested in fighting. However, the Swedish people thought the Norwegian government had played dirty. Sweden set down a committee which was to settle the conditions under which Sweden would be willing to accept Norway’s breakout from the union.

Two conditions that Sweden set was that all Norwegian fortresses along the border should be demolished, and that there should be a referendum in Norway. Norway felt it would be a pity to demolish two old fortresses of particular historical interest, and the compromise was that only relatively new fortresses were demolished while the old ones were spared as historical monuments.

 

 

 

Also, the referendum went ahead of the 13th of August, with a landslide win for the “yes” side. In the spirit of peace, a younger member of the Swedish royal family was offered the new position on the Norwegian throne, but he declined. The job instead went to a Danish prince, who became King Haakon the 7th.

The Swedish king Oscar II was much admired internationally for having avoided a war, and he was honoured for his brave and mature handling of the situation at a peace congress in The Hague in 1907.

Although the two countries needed some years to find their feet again without each other, the relationship gradually improved. Today, Norway’s tongue-in-cheek nickname for Sweden is “Sweet Brother”. The borders are open, with no passport controls, and Sweden is among Norway’s closest trading partners and greatest sources of immigration.

In 1905, Norway started out as a tiny independent state of two million people. The two world wars which were soon to follow also took their toll, but an enormous effort, led by the Labour Party, after World War 2 in getting the country back on track and building industry and jobs and the welfare state took Norway out of austerity.

Topped up with the lucky discovery of oil in the 1960s, Norway has now become a nation of 5 million people which sits comfortably at the top of league tables as one of the richest and happiest countries in the world.

http://www.uhi.ac.uk/en/research-enterprise/cultural/centre-for-nordic-studies/mimirs-well-articles/another-referendum-but-a-different-time-a-different-place-and-a-different-result

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The Special Relationship”

The phrase was first used by Churchill in a 1946 speech. It was his way of selling to the British electorate his belief in a high level of trust and cooperation that prevailed between the USA & Britain in economic activity, trade and commerce, military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology and intelligence sharing.

Many politicians and large numbers of the Scottish public were less enamoured of the USA having been saddled with meeting the massive cost of the “lease lend contract” negotiated by Churchill & Roosevelt at the start of the war. (The final repayment to the USA was not made until 1966, twenty years after the end of WW2. So much for the special relationship more akin to inviting the placement of a Trojan Horse at the heart of Westminster.

There were many in the Tory Party who questioned Britain’s decision to go to war with Germany in support of Poland since the policy had not been debated at length in Westminster. Such doubts were speedily squashed by the Labour government which was determined to bask in the glory of winning the War with Germany, Japan and their allies. It is said that “the Victor writes the history” and questions such as, could war have been avoided?  were ignored in the glory of triumph.

But in 1982 Robert Harris released an explosive BBC “News-night” report providing previously unknown information about events in the period 1938-45. The report was centred on a former US intelligence officer, Tyler Kent who, up to 1940 was employed as a diplomat, (cyber decoding) in the US Embassy. In 1940 he was arrested, tried and convicted of violating the British Official Secrets Act, (which as an American citizen he was not bound to) by a secret court in London.

In an unprecedented act, again decided upon, in secret, at Presidential level, Tyler Kent’s diplomatic immunity had been removed so that he could be arrested by MI5 and kept secure in a British prison until after the war. There is no record of his trial, which was held in secret. But he was sentenced to 7 year’s in prison, without appeal. He was released in 1945.

The Video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00ctr04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Strange Case of Tyler Kent was subsequently written up and published – Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt – Their Conspiracy to Take Britain to War

In May 1940, a 29-year-old American code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London was arrested by British authorities in his apartment. Tyler Kent was charged with having violated the British Official Secrets Act. “For a purpose prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state,” the charge stated, Kent had “obtained a document which might be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.” He was sentenced to seven years in prison, but was released and returned to the United States after serving five.

Between June 1940 and December 1945, the Kent case was the subject of numerous American newspaper articles. Most were sensational or highly speculative, since reliable information was hard to come by. (At the time, the British press was strictly censored.) Many Americans wanted to know how a foreign government could secretly arrest and put on trial a U.S. citizen who held diplomatic immunity. Congressmen and newspapers speculated as to what the code clerk really knew about rumoured secret arrangements between President Roosevelt and British leader Winston Churchill.

Many wondered if Kent had been jailed to keep him from talking. But preoccupation with the war and official government statements satisfied the curiosity of all but a handful. When Kent returned to the United States in 1945 from British imprisonment, almost all interest in the case had evaporated in the general euphoria of Allied military victory. For many years the Kent story was virtually forgotten.

 

 

 

 

 

The passage of time and a more sober awareness of how American presidents operate have encouraged new interest in the case. Dramatic revelations of illegal Presidential actions that emerged from the Vietnam war and the Watergate affair shocked Americans into a bitter realization that their Chief Executive could lie and break the law. In recent years the Kent case has been the subject of several scholarly and semi-scholarly articles.

Highly acclaimed author John Toland devoted several pages to the affair in his 1982 revisionist book on Pearl Harbor, Infamy. In December 1982 the British television program “News-night” examined the Kent case. The broadcast included excerpts from an interview with Kent filmed near his Texas home. Several books about the Kent story are reportedly in preparation. All this testifies to a healthy, growing readiness to critically re-examine President Roosevelt’s fateful path into the Second World War.

Tyler Gatewood Kent was born on March 24, 1911, in Yingkou (Newchwang), northern China, where his father, William P. Kent, was serving as the American Consul. The family had strong roots in Virginia. Kent’s English forebears settled there in 1644. President John Tyler was a distant relative. A grandfather was Speaker of the Virginia Assembly and lieutenant governor.

Tyler Kent attended St. Alban’s School in Washington, D.C., and received his higher education at Princeton (AB, 1931), George Washington University, the Paris Sorbonne, and the University of Madrid. From an early age he showed a remarkable aptitude for languages. Eventually he learned numerous ancient and modern languages. Like his father, Kent chose a career in the State Department foreign service.

His first assignment was to the American embassy in Moscow. From 1934 to 1939, Kent learned first-hand in the Soviet capital about life under Communism. His fluent command of the Russian language helped young Kent to know the Russian people and the realities of Soviet life much more intimately than most diplomats. He developed an intense hatred for the Soviet system and for those who had foisted this monstrous tyranny on Russia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like many Americans, Kent was appalled at Roosevelt’s support for Stalin’s cruel and despotic regime. Kent’s personal experience and careful study convinced him that Communism represented a mortal danger to the world, and to the West in particular. President Roosevelt, though, considered the Soviet system a rougher but more progressive version of his own New Deal, both motivated by the same lofty humanistic ideals.

From Moscow Kent was transferred to the U.S. embassy in London. From October 1939 until that fateful 20th day of May, 1940, he served as a code clerk. This was an especially important position there because all diplomatic dispatches from American missions across Europe to Washington were routed through the London embassy’s code room.

When Kent began work, war had already broken out in Europe. U.S. law and overwhelming public sentiment seemed to insure that America would avoid entanglement in the conflict. But from his special vantage point in London, Kent quickly learned that President Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to subvert the law and deceive the people in order to get America into war.

Kent decided to make copies or summaries of diplomatic dispatches documenting Roosevelt’s secret policies and somehow bring them to the attention of sympathetic congressmen and senators. And so he took the course that led to his untimely arrest, briefly made him something of a celebrity, and cost him five years in prison. As he puts it, he got “tangled up in history.” In fact he came very close to changing its course.

As code clerk, Kent intercepted hundreds of diplomatic dispatches between the embassies in Europe and the State Department in Washington. He made verbatim copies of most of the messages and paraphrased summaries of the rest. The most important and incriminating of these was the top secret correspondence between Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which began with a letter from the President dated September 11, 1939.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until May 11, 1940, Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty (or head of the British navy). Thus, the exchange of communications between him and Roosevelt until that date was highly irregular because it took place behind the back of the head of the British government, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Officially, heads of state communicate only with their counterpart heads of state, and any communications otherwise are understood to be for the ultimate attention of the counterpart head of state.

In the case of the Roosevelt-Churchill correspondence before May 11, 1940, not only was that exchange designed to be kept secret from Prime Minister Chamberlain, it was indeed something of a conspiracy against him. Churchill wanted to supplant Chamberlain, and Roosevelt himself desired this end. For this reason the exchange was kept especially secret. Until he became Prime Minister himself, Churchill signed his messages to Roosevelt simply, “Naval Person.”

The public revelation of the mere existence of a secret Churchill-Roosevelt exchange behind Chamberlain’s back would have been highly embarrassing to both correspondents. But if Kent had somehow succeeded in making the contents of the exchange known to the American public, there would have been loud demands for Roosevelt’s impeachment.

Kent intercepted and made a complete copy of Churchill’s message to Roosevelt of December 25, 1939 (Telegram 2720) in which Churchill informed the President that British warships would continue to violate American sovereignty to seize German ships within the U.S. three mile maritime territorial zone. However, in order to keep these violations secret, Churchill promised that the seizures would take place out of view from the American shore. “We cannot refrain from stopping enemy ships outside international three-mile limit when these may well be supply ships for U-boats or surface raiders, but instructions have been given only to arrest or fire upon them out of sight of United States shores.”

In his message to Roosevelt of February 28, 1940 (Telegram 490), which was also intercepted and copied out by Kent, Churchill wrote that the British would continue to seize and censor U.S. mail from American and other neutral ships on their way to Europe. “All our experience shows that the examination of mails is essential to efficient control,” Churchill told Roosevelt. This was, of course, a blatant violation of American neutrality and international law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was considerable astonishment in the United States when the full extent of Roosevelt’s connivance in the illegal British seizure and censorship of American mail to Europe became known many years after the war. If this message intercepted by Kent had been made public in 1940 or 1941, there would have been a first-rate scandal.

In the secret correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt intercepted by Kent, the two leaders conspired to insure that the United States government would secretly tolerate British violations of American territorial sovereignty and restrictions on neutral American shipping. The two men wanted to avoid any embarrassing incidents that would provoke public indignation in America over the illegal British actions. They also worked out procedures for joint British-American naval reporting of the location of German surface raiders and submarines which violated at least the spirit if not the letter of United States neutrality.

The fact that Kent’s diplomatic immunity was waived by the U.S. government so that British authorities could throw him into prison is itself proof that the Roosevelt administration was neutral in name only. If Kent had been discovered intercepting dispatches at the American embassy in Berlin, it is inconceivable that the U.S. government would have waived his immunity so that German authorities could imprison him. To the contrary, the Roosevelt administration would have done everything it could to protect him from any possible prosecution and imprisonment by the German government.

In response to a growing clamour in the press and among the public about a possible official government cover-up in the Kent case, the State Department issued a lengthy public statement on September 2, 1944. The cleverly worded document implied, without ever actually making the charge, that Kent had been a German spy. The State Department in effect admitted, however, that it had put British interests ahead of American interests and law in the case.

Kent’s trial had been held in secret, the statement said, “because of the harmful effects to British counter-espionage efforts which were to be anticipated if certain of the evidence became public.” Even more revealing was the official admission that Kent’s extraordinary treatment was because “The interest of Great Britain in such a case, at a time when it was fighting for its existence, was therefore pre-eminent.” At a time, it must be remembered, when the United States was publicly and legally neutral in the conflict between Britain and Germany, the State Department considered British, and not American, interests in the Kent case to be “pre-eminent.”

In 1939 and 1940, the vast majority of the American people wanted to avoid involvement in the European war. They felt that U.S. participation in the First World War had been a catastrophic error and wanted to insure that the mistake would not be repeated. The Congress was likewise committed to a policy of firm neutrality and had passed the Johnson and Neutrality Acts to make sure that America kept out of war in Europe.

The President is constitutionally charged with the duty to execute the will of the American people as expressed through the Congress. The Constitution reserves the power to make war and peace exclusively to Congress. But with brazen contempt for the will of the people, the law and the constitution, President Roosevelt conspired with a small circle of confidants to incite war in Europe and bring the United States into the conflict. He broke his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the years, numerous lies have been invented and spread about Tyler Kent. The most slanderous is that he was a traitor to the United States and a spy for Germany. In fact, Kent was a genuine patriot who put the welfare of his nation above his own personal happiness and security. He was never charged with violating any American law. Kent acted on the traditional principle that for United States government officials, American interests (and not those of Britain or any other country) come first. He was sacrificed to foreign interests by his own government.

In London Tyler Kent faced a painful dilemma: What should a government official do when he discovers that his boss, the President of the United States, is breaking the law? Kent felt a greater loyalty to his nation and its laws than to President Roosevelt. His sense of honour moved him to collect documentary evidence of Roosevelt’s treacherous crimes and try to bring it before the American people. Kent paid for his “crime” with five years in prison and a tarnished reputation for the rest of his life, while Franklin Roosevelt, who violated the Constitution and numerous laws, was re-elected President and praised as a hero.

If Tyler Kent had somehow succeeded in making public his collection of intercepted documentary evidence, he would have unleashed an enormous public outcry for President Roosevelt’s removal from office. At the very least he would have temporarily halted Roosevelt’s campaign to get America into war. Roosevelt might well have been so discredited that Wendell Wilkie would have defeated him in the 1940 presidential election.

It is difficult to say whether the Kent disclosures would have been enough to bring about Roosevelt’s impeachment. Certainly the documents provide proof of criminal activity sufficient to warrant removal from office. Congress would have been virtually compelled to begin at least preliminary impeachment proceedings. This much can be said with certainty: disclosure of the Kent documents would have dealt a powerful blow to Roosevelt’s prestige and credibility. Tyler Kent might then have significantly altered the course of American and world history.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

More of the Special relationship in action

The Suez Crisis – https://caltonjock.com/2014/09/02/the-1956-suez-crisis-the-special-relationship-stretches-in-one-direction-only/

The British American Project – https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/13/the-british-american-project-the-corrupting-secret-alliance-hidden-from-the-public/

The Atlantic Bridge – https://caltonjock.com/2015/08/01/the-scots-theft-of-our-freedom-by-westminsters-self-serving-elite-can-we-ever-be-free/

The BBC – https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/16/the-british-american-project-bap-the-bbc-and-new-trust-chairman-rona-fairhead/

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Snowden Files – https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/29/sir-jeremy-heywood-edward-snowden-whistleblower-nsa-gchq-data-collection-surveillance-of-individuals-worldwide/

C.G.H.Q. – https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/05/uk-spymasters-keep-tabs-on-you-because-they-love-you-read-this-lot-then-lie-down-in-a-darkened-room-to-recover/

The CIA – https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/10/the-cia-call-the-tune-and-the-labour-party-dances-to-it-scotland-sold-for-american-gold-but-to-the-deep-pockets-of-the-party-not-the-public/

The Influence of the media – https://caltonjock.com/2015/03/25/how-the-media-manipulates-controls-the-minds-of-the-uk-public/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 July 2016: Scottish Labour at war: Relations between Dugdale and her deputy have “completely broken down”

The relationship between Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and her deputy has completely broken down, according to a senior party source. Her friend’s claim that Alex Rowley has been undisciplined and cannot be relied on to support her.

But her deputy hit back robustly, saying: “I think it’s absolutely shocking. I am not going to get into the gutter. That’s where these people want to be. They are destroying the Labour party.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14594955.Scottish_Labour_at_war__Relations_between_Dugdale_and_her_deputy_have__completely_broken_down_/?ref=ar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Alex Rowley

Alex Rowley Born in Dunfermline and raised in Kelty. He attended Edinburgh University, graduating with an MA Honours in Sociology and Politics, and an MSc in continuing education. He was a local councillor with Fife Regional Council between 1990 -2012. And was elected in 2012, to the post of first leader of the new Fife Council and served the Council until his election to the Scottish Parliament in 2014. He worked for five years as an assistant, election agent and constituency manager to Gordon Brown MP.

 

 

 

 

 
Alex Rowley – The Elephant in the Room

It is entirely possible there will be civil war in the Labour party in England if Corbyn is elected leader. The fallout will most likely spread rapidly to it’s branch office in Scotland where the newly appointed Scottish Labour front-bench team is predominately comprised of “Blairite” members including the leader Kezia Dugdale.

The 2016 Scottish elections are just a few months distant and it is likely Dugdale will insist (without much argument from London) on taking her party forward with a manifesto limited in vision, that will be firmly rejected by the Scottish electorate. In the event this scenario is enacted Dugdale will most likely resign together with many of her supporters. Alex Rowley is an obvious choice in this case, to take up the reins of power. He is an astute politician of conviction who has argued for many years for a fully autonomous Scottish Labour Party. He is, as her unwanted Deputy leader a very serious rival to Dugdale’s leadership. It is of note he is not a member of her Front-Bench team.

 

 

 

 

Donald DewerGordon Brown

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 May 1999 – Rowley Sacked by Labour Party Bosses in London

He was elected to the post of General Secretary of the Scottish Labour Party (1 May 1998 – 31 May 1999). Outlining his vision for the future growth of the party in Scotland he expressed a view that having modernised Scotland’s political institutions and introduced a Scottish Parliament, the party needed to change it’s structure including proposals giving the Labour Party in Scotland freedom from London control. All hell broke loose and he was summoned to Millbank in London, where he was told the party had nowhere for him in its future planning. He was then invited to resign from his post as General Secretary of the Scottish Labour party a decision which provoked anger in Scotland.

Senior Labour sources in London denied that the general secretary of the Scottish Labour Party had been sacked on the instructions of London-based officials. They said that Alex Rowley had left the post of his own volition saying his task of helping the party win the Scottish Parliamentary elections had been completed and he wanted to move on to new challenges.

At interview Alex Rowley said “after the election there was a discussion about the future direction of the party. The “discussion” continued for a couple of weeks and I decided it was best for me to leave.” He added “I am not getting into a debate about this now. But there is a discussion for the Labour Party in Scotland to hold. If you modernise the political institutions it is only natural to see how the party organisation has to change. You ask yourself if the party is still in line with the political institutions. All I have ever said is that there needs to be far greater discussion about that.”

Saying it would be wrong to go into detail, he said “a number of factors” were involved in his departure from the party after only a year in the job. “I think the party has to change quite a lot. We have to have a good look at this and also at how policy is made. There must be a real partnership in power in Scotland. We have the Scottish Policy Forum and that can be seen as positive. But we also need to look at the membership and how it can have a greater say. “I point to the fact that 30,000 members is not something to be proud of. We need to increase the membership. “I flagged up at the Scottish conference that there should be a root and branch rethink about the party organisation in Scotland. But it became apparent in recent weeks and months that this was going to be difficult. I won’t go into the reasons, but I decided it was in my best interests to leave. “Now I have a number of things to consider and I have been having discussions with various people. There are several options for me to consider. But in the meantime I will be taking a well-earned rest.”

Rowley said Donald Dewar had been “very supportive”, but, asked about the role of John Rafferty, the strategist who accused of ousting him from the general secretaryship, replied: “I am not prepared to comment on this at all.” He said: “I don’t want any negativism attributed to me. I just want to move on and believe I can still play a part in Scottish Labour politics. I was brought up in the Labour Party and it is bigger than any one individual. The next few years will be a very exciting time of change and I want to play a role in that for the Scottish Labour Party.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12273984.Rowley_was_sacked_over_control_issue/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 May 1999 – Parliament: Scotland: Labour sacks Scots party chief

The Labour Party in Scotland launched a month-long review of its structures yesterday after the dismissal of Alex Rowley, its general secretary. His removal is said to have been engineered by John Rafferty, Labour’s Scottish campaigns director. The sacking, by the party’s London headquarters, provoked consternation in Scotland, where Labour is sensitive to claims that it is run from England.

There were also suggestions Mr Rowley had fallen foul of the continuing battle for power between factions loyal to Tony Blair and those backing the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. Earlier this week, the surprise appointment of “Bully-Boy” John Reid as Secretary of State for Scotland, over the expected candidate, Helen Liddell, was seen as confirmation of the party’s London headquarters strong grip on power in Scotland.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/parliament-scotland-labour-sacks-scots-party-chief-1094881.html

 

 

 

Lord Maxton

Dame  Elizabeth Filkin

 

 
26 January 2001 – John Reid at centre of row over intimidation – new Northern Ireland minister “tried to frustrate standards inquiry”

Only four weeks ago John Reid, the new Northern Ireland secretary, was at the centre of a row for threatening and intimidating witnesses who gave evidence to an inquiry by Elizabeth Filkin, the parliamentary standards commissioner, into the illegal use of taxpayers’ cash for the benefit of the Labour party. She claimed that Mr Reid’s conduct amounted to “an attempt to frustrate my investigation”.

The report contained an extraordinary tape-recording showing an increasingly irascible Reid pressing witness Alex Rowley, the former general secretary of the Scottish Labour party, just before he was due to be interviewed by Ms Filkin on the scandal.

The inquiry began after a complaint by journalist Dean Nelson, then with the Observer. He reported that Reid, then Scottish secretary, and John Maxton, Labour MP for Glasgow Cathcart, had employed three researchers, paying their salaries from the MPs’ official allowances. He claimed that the three, contravening the rules governing publicly funded MPs’ researchers, were involved in Labour party campaigning. One was Reid’s son, Kevin.

The parliamentary commissioner upheld the complaint, but MPs on the standards and privileges committee overturned her findings. The money was about £16,000 to pay the salaries of the researchers; and not all their working time was spent on Labour party campaigning. There is no suggestion that Reid misused the money for any other purpose.

The main body of Ms Filkin’s report, however, concentrated on the way Reid and Maxton – who later apologised – had interfered with four witnesses to the inquiry. They were Alex Rowley, John Rafferty, former Scottish Labour party campaign co-ordinator, Paul McKinney, former Labour party director of communications in Scotland and Willie Sullivan, former Scottish development officer for the Scottish Labour party.

Ms Filkin said “the conduct of Reid caused serious and increasing concern” as her inquiries proceeded. “I was left with the impression that many witnesses felt under considerable pressure as to what they should, or should not, say to me and how far, if at all, they should co-operate with my inquiry.” In a strongly worded conclusion she found that loyal members of the Labour party had been put under enormous pressure not to provide her with evidence that could damage Reid’s explanation.

On Mr Rowley in particular, she said: “It is clear that Mr Rowley felt, and continues to feel, under pressure from Reid to say things to me which he does not wish to say and which he regards as not wholly accurate or even misleading. And so far as other witnesses are concerned, he has told me ‘I have to say to you that I find it quite astonishing that many young people such as Annmarie Whyte [Scottish Labour party office manager] are being put in the position by one of the most senior politicians in Scotland that they are having to give dishonest information to the parliamentary commissioner for standards. I have been told that others whom you have contacted have felt under immense pressure’.”

Ms Filkin commented in her report “I view this conduct by Reid as an attempt to frustrate my investigation.”

She went on “I have, for example, received evidence from Mr Rowley that, during two conversations shortly after my investigation began, Reid made threats of a particularly disturbing kind to Mr Rowley, the thrust of which was that if he “gave evidence which admitted doing wrong” he “could face criminal prosecution and risked not being adopted by the party as a parliamentary candidate.”

She reported “Mr Rowley was so concerned by Reid’s attitude that he decided, albeit reluctantly, to record their next conversation on tape. During these exchanges, which took place during a telephone call .. it is clear, both from his choice of words and the tone he adopts, that Reid is seeking to agree a line with Mr Rowley which falls short of a full and comprehensive account of the events of which they both have knowledge. Thus, at one point Dr Reid says to Mr Rowley “You don’t have to tell any lies. Do you know what I mean?” And later he adds “They cannot prove anything, Alex.” Towards the end of the conversation Reid strongly discourages Mr Rowley from giving evidence to my enquiry on oath.”

She reported “I would add that Mr Rowley’s protectiveness towards former colleagues and his continuing loyalty to the party made him initially unwilling to allow me to treat either his statement alleging threats to him by Reid or the transcript of his telephone conversation with Reid as evidence which I could quote in my report. But after it became clear to him that pressure was being applied both to him and other witnesses and that Reid had impugned his integrity as a witness, he decided reluctantly to change his mind.”

This intimidation of the witnesses was carried out by both Maxton and Reid. Maxton told Filkin that three of the witnesses had been dismissed by the Labour party and alleged that “they apparently bear a grudge against Reid as a result” and he had become “the unlucky and unwilling victim of that grudge.” Reid accused Mr Rowley of only pursuing the case because he had talked to the Observer and that “he may feel he cannot back out from this serious attack on [my] probity.”

Filkin concluded “I have no reason to believe Reid’s explanation of Mr Rowley’s possible motives in giving evidence in support of the complaint. In any case, Reid’s theory begs the question as to why, if they are not true, Mr Rowley should have made the allegations to Mr Nelson in the first place.”

MP’s at Westminster later failed to uphold her complaint on the grounds that it was “not proven.” They said the tape contained no threats, and what Reid said could have had an innocent explanation.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jan/26/uk.northernireland2

 

 

 

19 December 2014 – MSP Alex Rowley MSP writes off travel expenses

The Scottish Parliament has released figures for MSPs’ parliamentary expenses for 2014/15, which has revealed that Cowdenbeath MSP Alex Rowley had not submitted any personal travel claims. Of his decision not to claim for travel expenses, he said “My place of work is in the constituency and in Edinburgh. I take the view that none of my constituents would be paid to get to their place of work. If people were travelling from Kelty to Glenrothes to work they wouldn’t get paid for that. I just take the view that many of my constituents work in the capital and have to pay the cost of getting there, so I will do likewise.”

His staff travel claims, totalled £334 – He explained it was for one Edinburgh-based member of staff travelling to Cowdenbeath during the summer recess. He continued, “I have two members of staff based in Cowdenbeath and the third is in Edinburgh. During the summer recess I spend most of my time working in the constituency and have him come over to work. The member of staff is being treated the same as in any other place of work – if you were based in Dunfermline and were asked to go to an office in Edinburgh, you would get expenses for that.”

Mr Rowley will be putting up the details of his expenses on his website.  He said, “I have no personal expenses that come to me direct but we run up expenses because we’re there to provide a service for people. In terms of me personally gaining from expenses, I think that’s unacceptable. Politicians are viewed as being at it all the time and that they are greedy but I think I have a responsibility to explain to people where the money is going. The key thing for me is that I can look any constituent in the eye and explain any costs I incur doing my job and be sure that I am not expecting anything more or less than any person I represent. Most of all I think it is crucial that we bring about full transparency for all expenses claimed by politicians and that is why I am using the material published by the Scottish Parliament on expenses and giving more detail on this on my website.” A complete list of expenses can be found on the Scottish Parliament website at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/dunfermline/articles/2014/12/19/519369-west-fife-msp-alex-rowley-writes-off-travel-expenses/

 

 

Elaine SmithJim Murphy

 

 
12 May 2015 – Alex Rowley and Elaine Smith warn – the Labour Party in Scotland is heading for “disappearance” in Scotland unless Jim Murphy resigns as leader to resign

Rowley, the MSP for Cowdenbeath, quit his role as Labour’s local government spokesman at Holyrood and urged Murphy to stand down. Another Labour MSP, Elaine Smith, backed his call saying the party needs “new direction.” Scotland’s only Labour MP Ian Murray accused those criticising Mr Murphy of “digging knives into the party”. Pressure has been growing on the Scottish Labour leader to step down following last week’s general election results.

Labour lost all but one of its 40 Scottish seats to the SNP in last Thursday’s election. Murphy’s once-safe majority in East Renfrewshire – a seat he had held for nearly 20 years – was eliminated by the SNP’s Kirsten Oswald.

Unison Scotland has also called for a “radical change in approach” from the Labour party in Scotland. The union said it was not its place “to initiate a change in leadership” but said if there was a wider movement proposing change it would “not oppose it.” The call comes after both the Unite union and the train drivers’ union, Aslef, also called on Murphy to resign.

 

Brian Taylor

 

 
Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland political editor commented:

Alex Rowley is a Holyrood new boy, entering parliament via a by-election in January last year. But he is very far from a beginner in Labour politics. He has been at various times a council leader, the party’s general secretary in Scotland and a senior aide to Gordon Brown. So, when he says that Murphy should quit as Scottish Labour leader, he commands a degree of attention. Only a degree, mind. Among Labour at Holyrood, there are as many views about the future of the party as there are group members. By contrast, the Scottish Labour group at Westminster is entirely united. Rowley is adamant that he is not revisiting the leadership contest which followed the departure of Johann Lamont. (He backed Neil Findlay.) And he praised Murphy’s energy and application.

Rowley is a former general secretary of the Labour Party in Scotland and ran Neil Findlay’s campaign for the leadership against Murphy last year. At the weekend, Findlay also resigned from the Scottish shadow cabinet saying the election had been “a disaster.” Before being elected as an MSP, Rowley was a councillor in Fife and worked as an assistant, election agent and constituency manager to Gordon Brown. He was considered by some to be Brown’s “right-hand man and protégé”.

Rowley said Labour needs “a fundamental change in direction and strategy” but he told the BBC Murphy and his aides had focused instead on loyalty to the leadership. He warned that if Murphy remained leader, Labour would be heading for another big defeat at the Holyrood elections in 2016. The MSP’s resignation letter said he thought Mr Murphy’s post-election result speech, in which he vowed to stay on as leader, was “a mistake.” Rowley wrote “I sincerely hold the view that you continuing as leader whilst not in the Scottish Parliament, and not in an elected position holding a democratic mandate, means you will become an unhelpful distraction from the real issues that Scottish Labour must focus on.”

Murphy met Labour MSPs on Monday to discuss the party’s disastrous election performance. Speaking after losing his East Renfrewshire seat, Jim Murphy said the Labour party would “fight on.” Rowley added “It is clear from the discussion yesterday that dissent in public from the leadership view is perceived as disloyalty, but I am convinced we need a fundamental change in direction and strategy and therefore cannot sign up to your leadership as one of your shadow team.” A spokesman for the Scottish Labour Party said “It’s disappointing that Alex chose to resign. The task for the Scottish Labour Party going forward is to work together to rebuild our movement and regain the trust of the people of Scotland.”

 

Neil Findlay

 

 
Elaine Smith, Labour MSP for Coatbridge and Chryston, praised her colleagues, Rowley and Findlay, for resigning as party spokesmen. She said “They are putting loyalty to the Labour Party ahead of personal career or position and I think Jim Murphy should do likewise and step down as leader. In the face of the worst result for Labour since 1918 we do need a new direction.” She is a member of the Campaign for Socialism which has already called on Mr Murphy to “stand aside.”

Ian Murray, Scotland’s only Labour MP, hit out at those “digging knives into the party.” The shadow Scottish secretary said the last thing any party should do after a heavy election defeat is make “knee jerk reactions and turn in on themselves.” He said: “Everyone who is looking for a camera and a TV studio to dig knives into the Scottish Labour party should go home, sit in a darkened room, reflect how the election was lost and work together.”

A statement from Unison Scotland’s Labour Link said: “It is unprecedented for a party leader not to stand down after such a defeat, particularly when he loses his own seat. The campaign may have been energetic, but it lacked focus and clearly voters do not regard Jim Murphy as a credible messenger of Scottish Labour values. Scottish Labour has a limited period of time to reorganise itself to provide a credible challenge in the Scottish Parliament elections next year.”

At the weekend, the Unite union said the Labour leader should go “without delay” and warned that, otherwise, “extinction looms” for the party.

After Monday’s three-hour meeting of Labour MSPs, finance spokeswoman Jackie Baillie told the BBC that the “overwhelming majority of MSPs were very clear, they want Jim Murphy and Kezia Dugdale to lead us forward into the future.”

 

Dugdale

and her new Blairite Front Bench Team

 

 
22 May 2015 – Alex Rowley: Labour in Scotland must become the party of Home Rule or Labour will not survive

AS I watched the General Election results come in on the television in the early hours of May 8, I was not shocked there was a move away from Labour and we were getting beaten, but shocked by the scale of the defeat.

It is clear we need a fundamental review of both strategy and practice. To me, it was obvious this defeat was not just a question about leadership, although the strategy which had been followed by the leadership was an issue that did need to be reviewed. I questioned what had happened after the major review led by Jim Murphy in 2011. We could not say the strategy there was sound. We bounced from focus group to focus group making policies up as we went along with no real clarity of what Labour in Scotland actually stood for. We needed then, as we need now, a proper analysis of where we are and what went wrong.

If the General Election result is to be applied to the 2016 Scottish election, the outcome could lead to Labour losing every constituency seat and seven MSPs and the return of a SNP Government with an overwhelming majority. Even with a disastrous low of 24 per cent of the vote, the PR system would be kinder to us than first past the post and we would get somewhere in the region of 31 list seats while the SNP would have around 74 seats.

However, that does not take into account the fact the Greens and others may do better. Thirty-one seats for Labour may well be very ambitious. The prospect means many in Labour who have their sights set on Holyrood are keen to get onto Labour’s list. But this is a short-sighted strategy which will solve nothing in the longer term.

If it is the case that by May 2016 we have been unable to progress from the current all-time low, my view is we will just sink even lower. Some may well save their careers for a wee bit longer, but the party will not survive.

So what to do? Some were rather annoyed about Johann Lamont’s comment last year about the UK party leadership treating Scottish Labour as the branch office. I have heard many say this is not a description they recognise. However, I am afraid I do and believe it must be addressed in order for Labour in Scotland to move forward with a more progressive approach that sets the future agenda.

We need to move beyond tinkering with party rules and learn the lessons from sister parties across Europe where there is a strong federal system. It is crucial we take a far greater degree of control of the policy and decision-making while remaining committed to being part of a wider UK party where appropriate.

We need to become the party of Scottish Home Rule and our opening salvo to Westminster and the UK Labour Party must be that the current relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK is untenable and will require radical change.

Defining what Labour in Scotland stands for is key. Labour exists to advance the social and economic case of working people across the country through an agenda that puts fairness and equality at its heart.

Labour must fundamentally move its approach to one that focuses on issues and solutions that we represent, as opposed to focusing on what other parties do. The party should exist not to oppose the SNP but to address the issues in our communities and bring about a more inclusive and prosperous country. The attack-style politics is not working.

Where we can work with the SNP, such as finding a long-term solution to funding local government, then we should, and where we think their approach will be damaging, such as ending the Barnett formula, then we should make the case. Where we believe the SNP is not delivering, we must put forward our alternative, not simply attack their failure.

On the constitution, we must move away from the politics of fear to the politics of hope and ambition through pressing the case for further devolution and setting out how we will use the powers, both in Edinburgh and in London, to deliver our vision.

We must build a radical and progressive movement for change in Scotland that embraces devolution, progresses localism and delivers fairness. We must also encourage open debate, whether that is over the renewal of Trident or over the role of the welfare state. Labour in Scotland must reflect the views of members and the communities we seek to serve.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/alex-rowley-labour-in-scotland-must-become-the-party-of-home-rule-or-we-will-not-survive.3249

 

 

 
7 June 2015 – Rowley backs Scottish Labour ‘autonomy’

A Senior Labour MSP has called yet again for the party in Scotland to become autonomous to help it to rebuild after last month’s SNP landslide. Speaking at a conference of Labour members in Fife, Alex Rowley called for support for “a transformation of Labour and how it functions within the UK with the party in Scotland becoming an autonomous political party in its own right.”

Kezia Dugdale, favourite to be elected to the post of Scottish leader, contradicted his call and warned against separating Scottish Labour from the UK party. She argued that the independence referendum had been won on the basis of pooling and sharing resources across the whole of the UK and that the same logic applied to the Labour party.

Unsurprisingly the SNP welcomed Rowley’s comments, calling on Labour to have an “open discussion” about full fiscal autonomy. This followed last night’s votes on the Scotland Bill in the House of Commons where Labour twice failed to vote on full fiscal autonomy, abstaining on both votes.
Commenting, Stewart Maxwell MSP, said “Alex Rowley’s comments on the merits of Scotland being in control of its own finances are to be welcomed – now the other candidates to form the next Labour leadership in Scotland should follow his lead. At Westminster last night, Labour twice failed to vote against full fiscal autonomy – despite attacking it week in and week out in the Scottish Parliament. That is the sort of incoherence that has landed them in their present crisis, and it begs the question – what are Labour now for?

“Labour are all over the place on more powers for Scotland – they are facing an identity crisis, but they should use this confusion as an opportunity for change. In the aftermath of Rowley’s comments – and the bizarre performance of Labour MPs in the House of Commons failing to vote against something they continually attack – Kezia Dugdale should now commit, at the very least to Labour having a full and open debate the merits of full fiscal autonomy, which is about growing the economy and delivering better policies. The alternative is leaving George Osborne and the Tories in charge of Scotland’s resources.”

http://snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jun/labour-identity-crisis-opportunity-change

 

 

 

 

8 June 2015 – Kezia Dugdale rejects calls for a separate Scottish Labour party

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has dismissed calls for a separate Scottish party. Her comments were in response to Cowdenbeath Labour MSP Alex Rowley saying the best way to rebuild after May’s election defeat was to free the party from the “constraints” of UK Labour. Dugdale said: “I’d like to see us on more regular occasions have a slightly different, a more nuanced position on the issues in Scotland, standing up for Scotland’s interests. We can do that with greater party autonomy, that doesn’t mean we are an independent party, that would mean completely separating ourselves off from our UK colleagues and I don’t want to do that, I don’t think that’s right.” Dugdale, further said she believed a separate party would go against the logic of the result of the independence referendum.

Dugdale accepted responsibility for her role in the general election debacle that saw Labour lose all but one Scottish seat, and admitted that Scottish Labour’s problems can not be fixed overnight. But she believed she is the best qualified person to turn Scottish Labour’s fortunes around.

At a UK Labour leadership hustings at the weekend, candidate Andy Burnham agreed with Dugdale position despite saying last month there was a case to be made for two separate parties. This position was also backed by deputy leader hopeful Tom Watson.

At the same hustings Jeremy Corbyn was the only leadership candidate not to dismiss the notion of a separate party, pointing out many Labour supporters had voted yes in the referendum and for the SNP in the general election.

https://commonspace.scot/articles/1546/kezia-dugdale-rejects-calls-for-a-separate-scottish-labour-party

 

Dugdale and Gray

 

 

16 June 2015 – Labour Scotland’ should be open to full fiscal autonomy, says Alex Rowley

Scottish Labour deputy leader front runner threw down a challenge to his opponents that the party must fully embrace devolution and be open to discussions about full fiscal autonomy. Alex Rowley, MSP for Cowdenbeath and former shadow spokesman for local government, said Labour needed to turn the political debate around and focus on what powers should stay at Westminster, rather than on what powers should come to Holyrood. The powers that come with Smith need to be delivered to the letter and we need to make sure that happens, and post-Smith – as I don’t see Smith as the end of devolution – we need to take that agenda forward. Rather than arguing for what powers should come from Westminster to Scotland, we should instead be arguing what powers should be kept at Westminster.”

Rowley, former general secretary of the Scottish Labour party, sensationally quit his front bench role last month following Murphy’s failure to stand down after the devastating General Election defeat. He has since drawn up a strategy for the future of the party, arguing for it to become independent from UK Labour. He has also written a discussion paper on the subject, calling for a new “Labour Scotland” to become the party of Home Rule. “Labour Scotland needs to lead the agenda in terms of devolution and we can’t lead the agenda when we continually have to check with UK Labour about what we can or cannot say. An autonomous Scottish Labour party would be driving the agenda in Scotland,” he said.

“Our focus should be on what powers we need for success as a nation, and then argue for those based on that premise. We need to set that out in our 2016 manifesto agenda. We should not be talking Scotland down and telling Scotland what it can’t have. Post-Smith we need to have an open discussion, including about full fiscal autonomy. However, Rowley denied his position amounted to a split from the UK party. He said: “I want to work in a devolved country in a strong Scottish Parliament but remain in the UK and have an autonomous Scottish Labour party which is setting the agenda in Scotland for Scotland. There is a big difference in that and breaking away from the Labour party in the UK. I am not arguing for a breakaway party and I think people who interpret my position in that way are trying to muddy the waters.”

Rowley’s views are likely to be popular among grass roots Labour members – many of whom were opposed to the party standing alongside the Conservatives in the Better Together alliance. Last night party members welcomed Rowley’s stance. “Alex is a serious politician and deep thinker who recognises the serious trouble the party is in and is giving some clear answers about how it should move forward,” said one. Another added “I like what Alex Rowley is saying. His views may alienate some, but get the support of others. He is also the only politician who appears to be coming up with something fresh, something apart from ‘we need to listen to what people are saying’.”

Meanwhile, in the party’s leadership contest almost three-quarters of Scottish Labour’s parliamentarians have backed Kezia Dugdale to be their next leader. Dugdale, now has the support of 27 MSPs as well as Labour’s only Scottish MP Ian Murray and the party’s two MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler.

Rowley is among a group of MSPs throwing their weight behind Dugdale. Dugdale said: “Politics in Scotland has changed fundamentally and the Scottish Labour Party have only one chance to get it right. But this leadership election isn’t just about transforming Scottish Labour, it is about stepping up and regaining the trust of the people of Scotland.”

It was recently yesterday that the party had around 13,000 members north of the Border, about a tenth the size of the SNP membership.

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/labour-scotland-should-be-open-to-full-fiscal-autonomy-says-deputy-leadership-candidate-alex-rowley.4128

 

 

 

 

13 July 2015 – Alex Rowley – Scottish Labour deputy leadership candidate condemned Labour leadership for abandoning commitment to tax credits.

The announcement by Harriet Harman that Labour will not oppose the Tory attack on Tax Credits left many Labour members confused and angry. Alex Rowley said “We must unite in our condemnation of her stance which as so many are now saying #notinmyname.”

For many, being in work is not a safeguard against poverty. A recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed of the 920,000 people living in poverty in Scotland on average in the three years up to 2012/13, 41 per cent were working-age adults or children from working families.

The report highlighted the scale of low pay in Scotland – 600,000 were paid below the Living Wage in 2013/14; 250,000 men and 350,000 women. These numbers represent 23 per cent of male employees, 31 per cent of female employees and 27 per cent of employees overall.

In Scotland today under employment is also a real issue with substantial numbers of Scots who are in work but who would prefer to work more hours than they do. Over 215,000 (216,500) people in Scotland in 2014 were deemed ‘underemployed’, and although the rate slightly decreased from the previous year it still effected 8.6% of the workforce.

And although the Scottish Government hold no official records on the numbers of people employed on zero-hour contracts, it is estimated that there are currently 80,000 workers in Scotland suffering these insecure working conditions.

It is vital that we continue to focus on the issue of in-work poverty, alongside tackling unemployment and the associated poverty. Tax credits – now under threat from a Tory Government committed to ending them – are key to fighting in-work and child poverty.

 

 

 

Tax credits, introduced by Gordon Brown when Chancellor of the Exchequer, played a major part in one of the biggest improvements in poverty alleviation seen in Britain since the war. Child poverty had rocketed between 1979 and 1997. When Labour came into office in 1997, 33 per cent of Scottish children lived in relative poverty, after housing costs.

This had fallen to 21 per cent by 2010, which represented a fall of over 30 per cent. After housing costs, relative child poverty in Scotland fell from affecting 360,000 children in 1996-1997 to 210,000 in 2010-11. Since 2010, as recent figures confirm, the gains made in tackling child poverty have stalled and the number of children in poverty has remained at 210,000.

Overall in 2013/14, 18 per cent of people in Scotland were living in relative poverty after housing costs. This equates to almost 1 million Scots (940,000) living in poverty and is at a higher level than in 2010/11.

Today in Scotland, 350,000 people receive tax credits, 71 per cent of whom – 250,000 – are in work. So make no mistake, the majority of those who receive tax credits are on low paid work.

When the financial crash came, tax credits were what enabled families to get by, and now they persist at a time when the working poor outnumber, for the first time, those out of work who are living in poverty.

So we must recognise the importance of tax credits in supporting low paid workers and whilst I agree that our ultimate goal must be to end poverty low pay, that will not happen immediately but removing tax credits or elements of the entitlement will hurt children and drive people out of work.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/labour-must-unite-condemn-harriet-harmans-stance-tax-credits-alex-rowley-msp

 

 

 

18 August 2015 – Alex Rowley will push for more “devolution” for Scottish Labour to set own agenda

Alex Rowley will continue to fight for a more autonomous Scottish Labour in his new role as deputy leader of the party north of the Border. Rowley, (who significantly has no role in Keiza Dugdale’s newly appointed front bench team), believes shaking off the perception of the party in Scotland being ‘‘branch office’’ of the UK Labour Party is necessary after its disastrous General Election. That would mean the party’s MP Ian Murray and any future MPs would take direction from north of the Border, even if this contradicted stances taken on those issues at the UK level.

Launching his deputy leadership campaign message in The National in June, Rowley said: “We must build a radical and progressive movement for change in Scotland that embraces devolutions, progresses localism and delivers fairness. We must also encourage open debate and discussion, whether that is the renewal of Trident, the role of the welfare state and how to build a fairer more equal society. Labour in Scotland must reflect the views of members and the communities we seek to serve and we will do that by engaging in an open and transparent approach rebuilding the trust that once made Labour the workers’ party and put us at the heart of every community.”

Last night a source close to Rowley said in his new role he would be pushing for a more autonomous Scottish party. “He very much believes that policy for Scotland has to come from Scotland and the party needs to be completely run by the leadership in Scotland. In terms of MPs, he is very much of the view that they should be taking their direction from the party in Scotland. It might take time, but he knows that is the direction the party has to move in and there is no going back from that. The branch office label will not be acceptable any-more. Alex will be saying ‘yes, we are united with our Labour comrades across the UK, but if the party members in Scotland are thinking a certain way that is the approach MSPs and MPs should take’.”

Rowley, MSP for Cowdenbeath and a former aide to ex-prime minister Gordon Brown, defeated fellow MSP Richard Baker and Glasgow city council leader Gordon Matheson to win the deputy leadership race on Saturday, while Dugdale beat Eastwood MSP Ken Macintosh to become leader. The contest followed former leader Jim Murphy’s resignation in June, following the loss of 40 of the party’s 41 MPs at the General Election. Rowley quit Murphy’s front-bench team in protest at the leader continuing in his post for several weeks after the defeat.

Murphy’s predecessor Johann Lamont resigned following last September’s referendum, accusing her London bosses of treating the party in Scotland like a “branch office”. Rowley said “Some were rather annoyed about Johann Lamont’s comment last year about UK party leadership treating Scottish Labour as the branch office. I have heard many say this is not a description they recognise.” However, I recognise it and believe it must be addressed in order for Labour in Scotland to move forward with a more progressive approach. We need to become the party of Scottish home rule and our opening salvo to Westminster and the UK Labour Party must be that the current relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK is untenable and will require radical change.”

http://www.thenational.scot/news/alex-rowley-will-push-for-more-devolution-for-scottish-labour-to-set-own-agenda.6516

 

Scottish Front Bench Team August 2015

 

 

 

19 August 2015 – Kezia Dugdale unveils new Scottish Labour frontbench

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has unveiled her new “Blairite” gender-balanced team – but there are no front bench seats for any of the party’s MSPs who are backing Jeremy Corbyn in the race to be UK party leader.

Prior to choosing her cabinet, Ms Dugdale said: “I want a Scotland where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. I want a country where a young person’s ability to get on in life is determined by their potential, work rate and ambition, not by their background. The idea of simply shadowing government ministers is outdated. Of course we must hold the SNP government to account for its failings on schools, our NHS and policing – and we will do that. But I want to shake things up and have a fresh start. We need to be out and about across Scotland. The key focus of every single member of my front bench team will be setting out a positive Labour vision of transforming Scotland.”

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/kezia-dugdale-unveils-new-scottish-labour-frontbench-1-3862457

 

 

 
22 August 2015 – Scottish Labour deputy backs Trident referendum and says Corbyn would make “first class” leader

Scottish Labour’s new deputy leader, Alex Rowley has called for a referendum to decide whether Britain renews the Trident nuclear deterrent and said left winger Jeremy Corbyn would make a “first class” boss of the UK party. Rowley, who became party number two last weekend, also revealed that he is putting his political career on the line at next year’s Holyrood election by pledging to quit his new job if he is not re-elected in his Cowdenbeath constituency.

In his first major interview since winning the deputy contest, the former Fife Council leader warned that it was “obvious” that his party must change and regain trust or face annihilation in Scotland. On Trident, he said he did not believe the case had been made for renewal, potentially signalling a split at the top of the party. Party leader Kezia Dugdale has said a debate over Trident at October’s party conference is “not impossible”, but is known to favour multilateral disarmament meaning international agreements would be struck before Britain’s nuclear arsenal is reduced or eliminated.

While Labour has not supported unilateral disarmament since 1987, Rowley said party members should have their say over renewal of the Clyde-based weapons system, believing the decision is so significant it should be put to a national vote. “It’s a massive issue, and there’s been no debate within Labour, or within the country. It is a military issue, with serious question marks over whether it is the best way to defend the country, but it’s also a moral issue. On such a massive issue, there should be debate across the party, the country, and a referendum. I have not seen the case made as to why we would renew, but the most striking thing is a complete lack of debate.”

Mr Rowley is to push ahead with plans to create a far more autonomous party north of the border, saying he recognised the stinging criticisms of former leader Johann Lamont when she described Scottish Labour as being run like a “branch office” from London, with previous attempts by Jim Murphy to emphasise Scottish Labour’s independence seen as “a gimmick”. He will move to give members a greater say over policy, in line with a pledge from Ms Dugdale, saying one of the “tragedies” of the New Labour era was that internal debate had been “shut down.”

He would not publicly reveal who he is backing for the UK leadership, saying he would work with whoever won. However, he strongly hinted that he supported Mr Corbyn, despite Ms Dugdale warning that a victory for the MP risked leaving the party “carping on the sidelines”. He added “All I would say is that I’m very encouraged by the type of debate taking place within the Labour Party at grass-roots level… I want to see a progressive Labour Party, and we need change. On the question of Jeremy Corbyn and attacks that have come his way in terms of electability, I have no fears whatsoever that if the Labour membership elect him, he [wouldn’t be] be a first class leader. I have read his policy agenda and there is not a lot in there I would disagree with.”

 

 

 

 

Mr Rowley has already promised not to take the automatic place at the top of the party list he is entitled to, which would guarantee a Holyrood seat. But he went further by revealing he has no intention of seeking a list slot at all, saying it would be “defeatist” and that his position signalled his determination to win back trust. He said Labour would set out a clear policy platform to address unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality in the months ahead, with homelessness, housing, health and social care and youth unemployment key concerns. He did not rule out proposing to use new powers for Holyrood to increase taxes on the rich to fund better public services.

Mr Rowley added that he was unconcerned at reports that Ms Dugdale privately backed Richard Baker for the deputy leadership, saying she had his complete support. The 51-year-old dismissed suggestions that a poor performance next year would lead to pressure for her to resign, saying Ms Dugdale would remain leader for “many, many years” meaning he would be too old to stand for the leadership when she eventually stood down.

On the issue of further devolution, he said measures set out in the Scotland Bill would not be “the end of the journey”, and called for a “friendlier, open discussion” about what should remain under Westminster control. He added: “I campaigned for a No vote because I believed it was in Scotland’s best interest to have significant devolved power. Whether it’s full fiscal autonomy or other powers, if it can be demonstrated it’s in Scotland’s best interest to go down that road then that’s what I’ll support. We can’t keep closing the debate down, and end up with a country divided.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/13620011.Scottish_Labour_deputy_backs_Trident_referendum_and_says_Corbyn_would_make__quot_first_class_quot__leader/

 

Nicola SturgeonBill Kidd

 

 

 

22 August 2015 – Scottish Labour deputy leader calls for referendum on Trident renewal

On Friday, the First Minister became the latest high-profile figure to sign a statement calling for plans to replace Trident to be cancelled. Nicola Sturgeon added her name to the “Rethink Trident” statement, which is organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and Compass. The statement says the country can “ill-afford to be spending in excess of £100 billion on replacing Trident with a new generation of nuclear weapons.” Labour leadership front runner Jeremy Corbyn and Deputy Leader of the labour Party in Scotland Alex Rowley also supported the aims of the “Rethink Trident” statement. Rowley also said the veteran left winger would make a “first class” boss of the UK party. He said “I have no fears whatsoever that if the Labour membership elect him, he wouldn’t be a first class leader.”

SNP MSP Bill Kidd, co-president of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, said “I very much welcome Alex’s rethink on Trident – he joins a coalition of voices from across politics, civic Scotland and military experts calling on the UK Government to abandon its plan to waste £100 billion replacing these morally abhorrent nuclear weapons. I hope now that Alex will join the First Minister in signing CND’s “Rethink Trident” statement. With Labour’s support, Scotland could speak with one voice on this issue and form a powerful collective voice against spending billions on obscene weapons of mass destruction.”

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/scottish-labour-deputy-leader-calls-for-referendum-on-trident-renewal-1.895977

 

 

 

25 August 2015 –  Dugdale’s cringe-worthy interview. Clearly Alex Rowley has hit a nerve

It’s beyond belief that she’s the party leader in Holyrood, another startling selection. It’s so disheartening that in the UK system we have a party that has completely abandoned the people they continuously lie about representing. It’s shameful. I want full nuclear disarmament, I want jobs, I want investment into the NHS, not a new class of nuclear submarines.

Jim Murphy’s pro renewal answer was insulting, Labour want ‘unilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons around the world’ but seek the renewal of our own weapons of mass destruction.

Kezia Dugdale’s going to ‘create more space’ for a debate around the issue. It sounds like, ‘she’s buying time’, because our better together, red Tory labour branch office is in disarray about the idea of Jeremy Corbyn becoming the new leader.

Dugdale has no credibility left, she’s a career politician, she says only plans to stay in politics for 10 years. She’s already passively vilified the campaign of Jeremy Corbyn. I hope he’s elected and gets shot of her right away.

Dudgale is a Red Tory, shamelessly discrediting her own father. Ultimately, she’s leading labour to another wipe-out in Holyrood next year, a split party with the Tory’s being elected again in 5 years time.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6USg9mxfdQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introducing James Kelly

James Kelly grew up in Rutherglen and stays in Cambuslang with his wife Alexa and their two daughters.

He is a Scottish Labour Co-operative politician and Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Rutherglen constituency from 2007.

He is the current Scottish Labour Party Business Manager in the Scottish Parliament and the party’s election co-ordinator for the 2016 Scottish Elections.

He has mastered the art of appearing at just about every positive photo opportunity and sound bite interview, keeping his profile high in the public eye, whilst always ensuring he has available enough  “non-stick teflon” to spread around enabling protection of his political persona in a cloak of invisibility.

He is a very poor public speaker possessing a delivery akin to Mr Sleepy.

 

 

14 June 2007 – Scottish Parliament Motion – Trident Debate

Whilst recognising that decisions on matters of defence are the responsibility of the UK Government.

This Parliament nevertheless calls upon the UK government to reject the proposed replacement of Trident.

71 MSPs voted for the motion.

Including all SNP, Liberal Democrat and Greens,  1 independent and 5 Labour (Bill Butler, Malcolm Chisholm, Marlyn Glen, Cathy Beattie and Elaine Smith).

16 Conservative voted against.

39 Labour MSPs, including James Kelly abstained.

3 MSPs did not register a vote.

http://www.scotland4peace.org/Binthebomb/lobby/MSPs/Motions/jun07detail.htm

 

 

1 December 2009 -Labour MSP James kelly criticised for not declaring he is the brother Tony Kelly the lawyer defending the release of Lockerbie bomber Mohmed Al Megrahi’

Labour’s James Kelly is a member of the the Holyrood committee investigating the Scottish Government’s handling of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi’s release from jail.

In that capacity he questioned  Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on a number of issues.

Kelly told the convener he had no declarations of interest at the time he joined the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee.

But this was untrue. His brother Tony Kelly is defence lawyer for the Lockerbie bomber!!!

Kelly insisted criticism of him was “frankly ludicrous” and that his family relationship was “well known”.

But SNP committee member Stewart Maxwell said:

“In the interests of transparency I am surprised that Mr Kelly did not see fit to declare his personal relationship to Mr Megrahi’s lawyer. In a case which has caused such controversy  any cloud over the hearing is deeply unfortunate.” (The Herald)

 

Kelly’s love of media exposure ensures there is a steady stream of  UTube videos  exposing him as the Scottish labour Party’s Mr Bumble

23 August 2009 – Kelly’s rambling speech of little substance in the debate about job losses at Vion Foods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZDOThJuQ8g

23 August 2009 – Kelly’s speech in the Scottish Parliament debate on a UK general election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqa53MYIBQU

16 June 2012 – Kelly waffling about the Olympic flame passing through Rutherglen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOuXdTSM4bU 

12 September 2013 -Kelly’s audacity seeking to defend Lamont’s FMQ attack on Scottish businessman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTZjXHH0k4I

13 September 2013 – The Johann Lamont Land Deal  fiasco.

Kelly to the rescue of his leader without mention that it was Labour’s Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT)  who forked out £840,000 of taxpayers money for a lump of land worth £50,000. And who was head of (SPT) at the time?  OH!!!! it was Johann Lamont’s Husband.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=870WBqWetc4

27 November 2013 – Kelly drops a clanger over Labour’s house building record.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMeyLKitmyk

10 June 2014 -Kelly hasn’t a clue about Airport Passenger Duty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2raUi4JsMw

10 October 2014 – Johann Lamont tries to make political capital out of a rail contract, awarded to a Dutch firm. Alex Salmond explains, but it all goes over Johann’s wee head. Seeking to add hilarity to the proceedings and oblivious to all that had gone before Kelly rides to the rescue of his leader offering confused and contradictory arguments in his inimitable lugubrious style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkiTQ9WCR4A

31 January 2015 – The Chilcot report debate. Kelly demonstrates abysmal levels of debating skills, and rhetoric.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qzG9nj4-0k

24 March 2015 – Asked repeatedly Kelly fails to answer the question. Would  Labour allow the Tory Party to rule as a minority government?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW7thBDE1m0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29,000 early deaths each year in the UK directly attributable to air pollution. But the Tory (greenest ever government)  government refuses to meet the EU standards

Greenpeace’s head of energy, Daisy Sands said “To protect the profits of a few coal-burning energy firms the self titled “greenest government ever” is lobbying to “water down” air pollution rules that could save hundreds of lives and many millions in NHS costs. Not content with locking consumers into higher bills by undermining the cheapest clean energy sources and home efficiency, ministers are now putting their health at risk by letting big polluters off the hook.” But it’s all about our profits say the carbon production “Captains of Industry.”

 

 

 

 

 

5 March 2015 – UK Industry lobbyists in Westminster weakened Europe’s air pollution rules

New limits on air pollution in Europe have been watered down because governments are allowing some of the worst polluters to help draw up the rules. Despite UK claims to the contrary, energy industry representatives repeatedly and forcefully pushed for weaker pollution limits at meetings in Brussels. As a result of ongoing lobbying, the proposed European Union standards on toxic emissions from coal plants will be less strict than in China.

An analysis of the backgrounds of hundreds of representatives appointed by governments to sit the official group charged with formulating new limits on air pollution across Europe found that out of 352 members of the technical working group, 183 are either employed by the companies that are being regulated, or by lobby groups representing those companies.

Documents released under the “freedom of information act” show that the companies helped to formulate Britain’s position, which was adopted and submitted to the European negotiations two years ago. The UK government maintains that industry representatives did not negotiate but at key meetings in Brussels, they forcefully pushed for weaker pollution limits. Five out of the UK’s nine-strong delegation in Brussels work for companies that are responsible for large-scale emissions, including coal power plant operators RWE, EDF and E.ON. The remaining members of the British delegation are civil servants who are committed to the policies of the UK government.

Officials from energy firms repeatedly complained about the cost of clean air improvements, and a perceived lack of analysis of the economic consequences. They also lobbied to eliminate measures such as ‘coal washing’ from consideration, which would have reduced emissions of ash and sulphur dioxide. Other measures advanced by energy firms included weaker limits for nitrogen oxide emissions from gas plants, and using more polluting plants as the baseline for limits set under the new rules.

Christian Schaible, a senior policy officer for the European Environment Bureau said “Operators of energy utilities shouldn’t sit in the official member states delegation to avoid obvious conflicts of interest in the setting of environmental performance benchmarks that they will themselves have to meet.” But business representatives, members of delegations from Britain, Poland, Czech Republic, Greece, Germany, France and Spain stand accused of being the driving force behind the weakening of proposed controls.

Lawrence Carter, a campaigner for Greenpeace said “This is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Toxic emissions are killing thousands of people across Europe every year, but rather than clamp down on polluters, politicians are allowing them to prioritise profit over public health. People in the UK could now end up paying with their health for our government’s sell-out to the coal lobby on a vital issue like air quality. By leaving the big polluters to write new air quality rules, EU and UK ministers are guilty of a collective dereliction of duty.”

The industrial emissions directive rules were originally proposed in June 2013 and could still be further weakened in a formal proposal which the commission hopes to have ready by the end of July 2015. If implemented across Europe, they would cut sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions. But an EU source confirmed that this would still be much less robust than in other countries.

The new rules govern ‘best available techniques’ for curbing emissions under the directive, which is intended to prevent or reduce pollution. However, a clause in the directive allows rules to be implemented in an “economically viable and technically reliable” way. Some countries argue that the benefits of cleaner air are outweighed by the cost of technologies such as selective catalytic reduction, the most effective way of controlling nitrogen oxide emissions.

Industry groups say that the top 20 energy utilities have already lost €500bn since 2008 because of EU clean energy targets. “Looking at the potentially high number of power plants which we will still have to close and the very limited scope for investing in this area, I think it is logical that industry should have expressed a strong interest in keeping their ability to supply much-needed balancing power alive,” said Hans ten Berge, the secretary-general of Eurelectric, which represents Europe’s electricity companies.

On Tuesday, the European Environment Agency warned that air pollution will still cause hundreds of thousands of people to die prematurely in Europe in the next two decades because of governments’ failure to act.
Comments: With some exceptions, most political parties are funded by corporations of one sort or another – & thus in turn are open to the sort of abuse noted in the article. In the UK, 50% of the people working in DECC come from power companies such as EON, EdF RWE etc. It is they who set government energy policy – which naturally suits the power companies. The Tories and Labourites are highly influenced by the power sector lobby – which cruises around giving money to whoever is in power (or looks as though they will get into power).

Playing with peoples’ lives for profit seems to be part of what big business is all about. A responsible government wouldn’t allow such cynical views to infect their policies and drive their actions, but the Westminster government seems to share the corporate perspective of seeing pound signs where they should be seeing people, fellow human beings.

It’s not simply putting profit before People to say “we want softer targets regardless of what harms our products and actions incur”, it’s treating people AS profit; treating humans as fodder, units of expendable cost against the potential to make money. It’s disgusting, and it has to stop.

I’ll bet there are a number of politicians and highly placed mandarins receiving bungs or later “moving on” to highly paid “jobs” in the companies they helped. This is not just corruption, it’s the kind of corruption that kills tens of thousands of people every year.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/industry-lobbyists-weakened-europes-air-pollution-rules-say-greenpeace

 

 

 

 

 

28 May 2015 – Brussels moves to limit coal lobby’s influence on pollution standards

European countries must not allow industry experts in their national delegations to lobby for weaker coal standards, the European commission’s top environment official has said.

The move follows revelations that big energy lobbyists included in British delegations to Brussels mounted a sustained and aggressive drive for weaker limits on toxic pollutants that are responsible for over 20,000 deaths a year in the UK alone.

The new instruction by the commission’s director-general for the environment, Karl Falkenberg, was outlined in a letter to his counterparts in all 28 EU countries, dated 20 May 2015. Falkenberg said that lines dividing national representatives, industry experts and NGOs should be strictly adhered to in the technical working groups (TWGs) that negotiate emissions standards.

“Whilst nothing precludes that the industries concerned or NGOs can assist member state representatives in exchanging information, it must be clear that during TWG meetings and indeed, in all other TWG proceedings, a member state representative presents the views of its national authorities,” he wrote. Industry experts and NGOs in national delegations “should ensure that their expressed views are fully consistent with the views of their member state,” he added.

An analysis earlier this year found that most of the 352 working group members tasked with drawing up new air pollutions controls were either employed by the companies being regulated, or by lobby groups representing those companies. Five out of the UK’s nine-strong delegation worked for big energy firms such as RWE, EDF and E.On.

Although such members are not supposed to negotiate, in practice it was discovered that they made multiple comments, requests and lobby pushes, focused on the purported costs of tighter pollution standards for their businesses. They also advanced measures to weaken limits for nitrogen oxide emissions from gas plants.

Louise Hutchins, a campaigner at Greenpeace welcomed the commission’s rebuke to practices that could allow lobbyists to pose as government representatives. “Thanks to this infiltration, proposed limits on toxic emissions are now so weak they would allow Europe’s coal plants to pollute more than some of their notorious Chinese counterparts,” she said. “The damage has been done, but government officials are still in time to reverse some of it.

With tighter rules, thousands of lives and billions in health and economic costs could still be saved in the EU every year.” A recent study found that the EU’s draft rules for coal plant emissions could result in 71,000 deaths and £52bn in health costs across Europe in the next decade, compared to the best available techniques.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/28/brussels-moves-to-limit-coal-lobbys-influence-on-pollution-standards

 

 

 

 

12 August 2015 – The UK government is lobbying for even weaker EU air pollution laws

The Conservative government is arguing that already watered-down laws (expected to be agreed early next year, before coming into force in 2020) limiting toxic pollution that causes tens of thousands of deaths each year, will cause job losses in the coal mining sector. Leaked documents show the UK is pushing for already watered-down EU air pollution laws to be weakened still further, arguing they would cause pit closures leading to substantial job losses and the need to import coal. The EU rules could help curb toxic nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions, although campaigners criticised them following revelations that they were partly drafted by the same companies they were meant to regulate.

But a confidential Westminster government submission to Brussels says that the UK would have to import coal from Russia, Colombia and South Africa to meet the new standards, because British coal has such a high sulphur content which would prevent indigenous coal being used in any new power plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. This “would therefore lead to the loss of the principal market for UK coal and the closure of the UK’s coal mines,” the paper says. The mine closures would also lead to substantial job losses – directly and indirectly within the supply chain – in areas of the UK with significant levels of unemployment and socio-economic deprivation.” (But carbon capture and storage is not yet ready for operational use. It remains a myth)

However, air pollution is a reality which hits poor people in urban areas and ethnic minorities hardest, and the true early death toll could be even higher than statistics suggest.

Greenpeace’s head of energy, Daisy Sands said “To protect the profits of a few coal-burning energy firms the self titled “greenest government ever” is lobbying to “water down” air pollution rules that could save hundreds of lives and many millions in NHS costs. Not content with locking consumers into higher bills by undermining the cheapest clean energy sources and home efficiency, ministers are now putting their health at risk by letting big polluters off the hook.”

In April 2015, the UK supreme court gave the government until the end of the year to present a plan for cleaning up the country’s polluted air, which is responsible for 29,000 early deaths every year. The government is expected to announce its plan for bringing the UK into line with the EU’s existing air quality directive next month. The UK has been in breach of the EU’s nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution limits since 2010 and will not meet them until 2030 on current trends, according to government figures, raising the spectre of fines of up to £300m a year.

Alan Andrews, a lawyer for ClientEarth, which brought the supreme court case against the government, expressed dismay at the pro-coal stance in the leaked papers. “It suggests that they are not taking the supreme court decision seriously and are not making a genuine attempt to achieve the emissions reductions as soon as possible,” he told the Guardian. “We would seriously consider further legal action if that is the case, after we have analysed the new plan.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/uk-lobbying-for-even-weaker-eu-air-pollution-laws-leaked-papers-show

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ©Steve Bell 2011

 

 

25 June 2010 – Prince Charles opposition to development unwelcome says judge

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/25/prince-charles-chelsea-barracks-planning

 

 

 

 

 

25 June 2010 – Case exposes secret strategies used by ‘meddling prince’ to intervene in public affairs

The Chelsea barracks case has offered a rare glimpse into the otherwise secret strategies used by the Prince of Wales when he wants to interfere in public affairs.

From the typed letters on Clarence House notepaper underlined in his own hand, to the clever blend of courteousness and implied threat used in his own correspondence and by his righthand man, Sir Michael Peat, the case has revealed in detail how the prince wields his power.

The high court ruled today that the Qatari royal family’s property company breached its contract with a partner company when it withdrew a planning application for the £3bn Chelsea barracks development after the prince’s intervention. In describing the prince’s intervention as “unwelcome”, Mr Justice Vos said the Qatari royals immediately recognised that the prince’s complaint “raised a serious political issue that needed to be dealt with at the highest level”.

His verdict on what happened next sheds new light on how tea with the emir last March at Clarence House was conducted in a uniquely royal way, without any of the senior protagonists doing anything as gauche as issuing a demand or an instruction.

“I am sure that in their meeting, the Prince of Wales expressed his dislike for the Rogers Stirk Harbour Partnership’s design, and the emir politely concurred,” said Vos. “It seems likely to me that the emir would have said something more nuanced than that ‘he would have the plans changed’, but I am sure he gave the Prince of Wales and Sir Michael the impression that that would be the outcome.”

At a subsequent meeting between the emir and the chief executive of Qatari Diar, a company which at the time boasted a $40bn (£27bn) investment portfolio with 60 projects in 32 countries, there was no “blunt instruction” from the emir, but the judge said “he was not happy about upsetting the Prince of Wales and that he [the chief executive] should find alternatives to the existing design”.

For others though, the prince’s tactics may seem familiar. For almost three decades Charles has developed a reputation as, in his own words, “a meddling prince” who has waded into issues including farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture.

Given the inherently political nature of such topics, the prince has established a network of 20 charities as a key tactic for circumventing the convention that the royal family, especially the heir to the throne, should stay neutral. Some people have complained that they push the prince’s beliefs much too aggressively.

One of Charles’s most active charities has been the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment, which promotes his belief in more traditional forms of architecture and planning. In the Chelsea barracks case, the court heard how the prince, the charity’s president, encouraged the Qatari royal family to use his charity to make alternative plans.

Recent history shows the same charity also helped carry out the prince’s campaigns against other developments. It became involved in the redevelopment of Smithfield Market after Charles declared himself “confused and bewildered” by earlier plans and wrote about his worries to the then-chairman of English Heritage, a government body that advises on which historic buildings to protect.

Charles also offered the charity as an adviser to Francis Salway, the chief executive of Land Securities, one of the biggest developers in London, when he objected to the modernist design of its office scheme beside St Paul’s Cathedral.

In the controversial area of complementary medicine, the now defunct Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health became involved in trying to change government policy. The charity was paid £1.1m by the Department of Health to advise on the regulation of massage, aromatherapy, reflexology and other complementary therapies as Prince Charles personally lobbied health ministers to use the treatments across the NHS.

It engaged in a public row with the professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University, Edzard Ernst, after Ernst attacked its draft guide to complementary medicines as “outrageous and deeply flawed”.

The Charity Commission was asked to launch an investigation into allegations that the foundation may have breached charity regulations by pursuing a “vendetta” against Ernst. A separate police investigation then saw the former finance director, George Gray, arrested and subsequently charged with theft, fraud and money laundering.

The trustees have now closed down the charity, a sign perhaps that the strategy of devolving the prince’s campaigns to his charities could be damaging his reputation.

The Chelsea barracks case also showed the prince’s use of hyperbole to make his case. In his letter to the Qatari prime minister, he called the designs “a gigantic experiment with the very soul of our capital city”.

Such extravagant claims will be familiar to the scheme’s architect, Richard Rogers, whose designs for the office development beside St Paul’s Cathedral in the 1980s were torpedoed when Charles implied in a public speech that the plans were more offensive than the rubble left by the Luftwaffe during the blitz.

Sometimes, the prince chooses to be more discreet. He was said to be “very unhappy” that his complaint to the Qataris had been leaked, perhaps because he knows how effective he can be pulling strings behind the scenes.

When Rogers, a frequent foe of the prince, was bidding to redesign the Royal Opera House, he believes the prince wrecked his chances using covert pressure.

“We got a phone call from the people at the Royal Opera House one evening, about 9pm saying ‘good scheme, but you’re too risky’,” Rogers has said. “I was basically told: ‘the prince does not like you.'”

Last year the Guardian used the Freedom of Information Act to find out that since 2006 Charles had written to ministers in at least eight Whitehall departments – Food and Rural Affairs, International Development, HM Treasury, Foreign Office, Work and Pensions, Education, Communities, and Culture, Media and Sport. The content of the letters was withheld, under laws which protect royal correspondence (see box).

The royal household insists that Charles will become far less involved in his causes if and when he becomes king, but sources suggest otherwise.

In late 2008, after the prince’s 60th birthday, it was reported that aides at Clarence House and Buckingham Palace had begun informally considering redefining the sovereign’s role to “allow King Charles III to speak out on matters of national and international importance in ways that at the moment would be unthinkable”.

The claim was made by Jonathan Dimbleby, the prince’s close friend and biographer, but Clarence House insisted no plans were being made for the prince’s accession to the throne.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jun/25/chelsea-barracks-trial-prince-charles

 

 

 

30 October 2011 – Prince Charles and the ancient charter that calls for his consent to certain bills

The title and property of the Duchy of Cornwall were created in 1337 by Edward III, and were given by royal charter to his son, the Prince of Wales also known as the Black Prince.

Under the charter, the duchy always belongs to the sovereign’s eldest son who is the heir apparent. If the heir apparent dies without leaving children, the property of the duchy reverts to the crown. So although the duchy belongs to the Prince of Wales, who is also the Duke of Cornwall, there is a theoretical possibility that it could revert to the sovereign, who therefore has a contingent personal interest in matters that affect the property of the duchy.

Bills in parliament that would affect the sovereign’s private interests (or the royal prerogative) require the Queen’s consent; by extension, therefore, bills that would affect the duchy also require consent, and since the Prince of Wales administers the duchy he also performs the function of considering and granting relevant requests for consent.

Queen’s consent and prince’s consent are fundamentally different from royal assent. The consents are required as a matter of parliamentary procedure, as a method of protecting crown prerogative and private interests.

Royal assent is a feature of constitutional law rather than merely parliamentary procedure: it is the method by which a bill that has passed through parliament becomes an act, and it amounts to a formal assent given by the sovereign.

Apart from the special position of property belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duke of Cornwall has no special constitutional position; he is a subject of the crown like any other. The sovereign and the Prince of Wales are the only members of the royal family whose consent is required for bills that affect their private interests.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-ancient-charter-consent

 

 

 

30 October 2011 – Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation

 

 

 

 
31 October 2011 – Reveal Prince Charles’s input on planning law, government urged

The government is facing growing pressure to reveal how the Prince of Wales has used his power of consent over draft legislation after it emerged ministers asked him to approve planning and construction laws because they might directly affect the private £700m property empire that provides his annual income.

Documents reveal that in 2008 Lady Andrews, a Labour communities minister, wrote to Sir Michael Peat, his private secretary, seeking Prince Charles’s consent to law changes that would “affect the interests of the Duchy of Cornwall” and were “capable of applying … [to the] Prince of Wales’ private interests”.  http://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2011/oct/31/letter-prince-of-wales-consent

The draft local democracy, economic development and construction bill proposed to change laws about handling disputes and payments in building contracts and to introduce a new regional strategy for planning permissions. The duchy is a leading builder and has spent more than £18m on property development and improvements in the last two years, according to its accounts.

It also has large developments under way that require planning consent, including 500 new homes at Poundbury, Dorset.

Prince Charles relies on duchy profits to fund his lifestyle and work, and last year received £18m in profits from the estate. Charles has been granted the right to veto draft bills because they might affect his interests or those of the Duchy of Cornwall in what constitutional experts described as the equivalent of a royal “nuclear deterrent” over public policy. On Monday details emerged of five more bills to which the Prince has been asked to grant consent since 2005, bringing the total over the period to at least 17. They covered subjects such as marine navigation, retail development, company law and charities, parliamentary records show.

On Monday night Labour peer Lord Berkeley, who was ordered to seek the prince’s consent over a bill on marine navigation, formally called on the government to “publish all correspondence between the Prince of Wales and the Queen and ministers in connection with bills for which their consent is sought” and to say “whether any bill in the last five years has been altered as a result of comments from Prince Charles or the Queen, and in what way”.

Clarence House and Whitehall seemed to be divided over whether such transparency was a good idea. Clarence House declined to say how the Prince responded to the draft local democracy, economic development and construction bill. A spokesman for the Department for Communities said on Monday “no changes were requested and as such none were introduced”.

Asked if David Cameron – who last week agreed with Commonwealth states to change the rules on succession to the throne – had any plans to reform the system, the prime minister’s spokeswoman said: “I know of no plans at the moment to look into it.”

Clarence House insisted any correspondence was a “private matter” but said the convention was not about seeking the prince’s personal opinions. “Parliamentary procedure determines that the Prince of Wales in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall may be required to give his consent to bills directly affecting the interests of the duchy,” the prince’s spokesman said. “This is not about seeking the personal views of the prince but rather it is a longstanding convention in relation to the Duchy of Cornwall, which would have applied equally to his predecessors.”

Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for a directly elected head of state, said the loophole was fundamentally anti-democratic. “Charles is quite capable of doing the right thing by refusing to exploit his position for personal gain – yet he refuses to do so,” Smith said.

The government and Clarence House have repeatedly refused to disclose correspondence detailing the application of Charles’s power.

The justice, education and food and rural affairs departments are among those to invoke an exemption to freedom of information laws that allows correspondence between Charles and his aides and government to be kept secret, claiming that to do otherwise “would undermine the Prince of Wales’s privacy” and “could have a chilling effect on the way in which he or his representatives correspond with government ministers”.

In a rare exception, the Department for Communities agreed to release its letters to Prince Charles over the local democracy, economic development and construction bill, providing a unique insight into the application of the otherwise secretive protocol. Lady Andrews’s three-page consultation with Charles on draft planning and construction laws begins: “I write to formally request the consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to provisions to be included in the … bill.”

It includes 12 detailed paragraphs on how the new legislation will change laws on adjudication procedures in contractual disputes with builders and laws affecting how contractors must be paid.

Andrews explained: “Granted that these proposed changes … will apply to construction contracts entered into by or on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, we should be very grateful to receive the consent of the Prince of Wales.”

Turning to changes to regional planning law, she spelled out proposed new regional planning strategies and warned Charles that this section of the bill “is capable of applying to the Crown and the Queen and Prince of Wales’ private interests and therefore that consent is required”.

“They were trying to tell him in 2008 that, like everybody else, he will be subject to statutory development plans,” said David Lock, a former government planning adviser. “This was an attempt to make the crown estate and duchy subject to the same planning rules as everyone else, which means they would not get any privileges over any other land owner.” A Clarence House spokeswoman confirmed the duchy enjoys some exemptions from normal planning laws but “has chosen not to exercise these rights since the change in legislation”.

“Since 2006 the duchy has been subject to planning control in the same way as any other landowner and prior to that voluntarily complied with planning laws,” the spokeswoman said.

Labour has called for “complete transparency” about the views, if any, that Charles has expressed in the process of granting consent to bills.

“Most people will be taken aback by what  has been highlighted,” said Wayne David MP, Labour’s spokesman on constitutional reform. “There needs to be a mechanism so that the if the Prince of Wales is expressing a formal position he can do that an open way. We live in a democratic society so any views expressed should be disclosed and should be open to scrutiny and analysis.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/prince-charles-veto-planning-legislation

 

 

 

31 October 2011 – Prince Charles’s veto: bad heir day

In many ways, Prince Charles has an unenviable public role. No one would actively seek out a 60-year career as understudy to a globally famous act, although the remuneration might be some compensation. It is to his credit that while his predecessors left a variety of examples of how to conduct himself, he has mostly avoided them. That makes it all the more extraordinary that letters like the one from the communities minister Baroness Andrews to Prince Charles’s private secretary Sir Michael Peat, seeking the prince’s consent to a change in the planning law, did not set off every warning bell in Clarence House. To almost every citizen in Britain, the idea that the Prince of Wales has the right to veto government legislation – even if it relates only to a handful of bills over a decade or more – is an astonishing discovery. But to those in the parallel universe occupied by communications between government and Prince Charles, it seems not to have been worth a second thought.

That speaks volumes about the magical realism of the relationship between crown and parliament. There is even a constitutional defence, weird it is true, but internally consistent with the vestiges of royal prerogative that thread through the law of the land. This is it: when there is no heir apparent, the Duchy of Cornwall – a large business that is the source of most of the prince’s income – reverts to the throne. Consequently, it retains the protection of royal prerogative and thus the right to be consulted, in areas that might affect its interests, on changes to the law. Those who came across this anomaly perhaps dismissed it as one of those quaint footnotes to our island story. Certainly the royal advisers failed to register that – after the public disquiet at mounting evidence of Prince Charles’s political activism, of the ministerial lobbying and the infamous letters in black spidery writing – disclosure of this meddling prince’s powers of veto would cause genuine alarm.

Or perhaps they thought no one would ever find out. Earlier this year, the information commissioner accepted that, in order to defend the constitutional fiction of his political neutrality when he becomes king, the prince’s correspondence with government should be exempt from Freedom of Information requests. There was talk of the “chilling effect” if correspondence could be published. Yet how much more chilling to the political processes, surely, that the prince can lobby ministers who know – even if he has never exercised it – he has the power of veto. Both Clarence House and Downing Street insist it is the merest constitutional accident. That is a relief. It should be easy to

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/prince-charles-veto-editorial

 

 

 

31 October 2011 – Prince Charles in trouble Again? Two cheers for the Queen

 

 

 

31 October 2011 – Prince Charles is not the people

The monarchy is probably more secure and popular than at any time in the past 25 years. Amid the cacophony of adulation, republicans cannot hope for a hearing, particularly now the Queen and her consort have reached the age where, even if they were found to be running a brothel at Windsor Castle, their status as national treasures would protect them from all but mild popular rebuke.

 

As disclosed on Monday, however, our elected representatives still need to beg consent from the Prince of Wales before passing legislation  deemed to affect his private interests. Which, given the amount he owns through the Duchy of Cornwall, encompasses a pretty wide range, including road safety, the environment, gambling, the London Olympics, and marine and coastal access. For example, consent was requested for changes in laws governing regional planning and contractual disputes with builders. Consent, please note, not assent: the latter (which the Queen gives to all legislation) being more of a formality. There could be no clearer illustration of the underlying truth about our country: we are subjects, not citizens.

The prince’s previously hidden veto might be a mere technicality if we didn’t know that Charles uses every ounce of influence and access to advance his views and interests, and that the deference of our political leaders virtually guarantees him a polite, if not always sympathetic, hearing. All other lobbyists and interest groups – from unions to animal welfare charities and arms manufacturers – compete for access, desperately hoping a minister will read their submissions or spare five minutes. Access is a precious commodity, causing companies and voluntary bodies to spend millions on professional lobbyists and sumptuous dinners.  Prince Charles gets privileged access to any minister’s ear. Automatically, gratis. Moreover, he gets it secretly, since correspondence between ministers and royals is exempt from freedom of information laws.

This is the tip of a very large iceberg. To an extent unprecedented since his great-uncle David (later Edward VIII) held the title Prince of Wales, Charles seeks an active role in public affairs. His private handwritten letters to ministers, known in some quarters as “black spiders”, have covered subjects as diverse as genetically modified food, the Royal Ballet, fire exits in old people’s homes and, inevitably, the countryside, particularly hunting.

His campaign against the redevelopment of Chelsea barracks was described by a judge last year as “unwelcome interference” in a planning application. His private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, responded that the prince’s duty was “to make sure the views of ordinary people that might not otherwise be heard receive some exposure”, which echoes the tyrant’s age-old claim that he embodies the will of the people. Not that Charles has any immediate prospect or even intention of becoming a tyrant, but you see the drift of his thinking.

The most egregious example of how he abuses his position rarely attracts comment. Since 2007 his Prince’s Teaching Institute has promoted “the importance of in-depth subject knowledge” in English, history, science, geography and maths. Schools are invited to show “a clear commitment to subject specialism”, to state “objectives” for improving provision, and to report on progress. Those that satisfy the institute – subject department heads attend a summer school and submit themselves, a year later, for interview – receive its “school programme mark”, allowing use of the Prince of Wales feathers on their notepaper and website. More than 100 schools have passed muster, with the institute’s website currently describing Bexley grammar school in Kent (a county that still has the 11-plus) as “school of the week”.

With schools competing fiercely for parental custom, such branding carries real value. Charles has set himself up as an accrediting body, giving him direct influence over the curriculum. Many educationists question the merits of heavily subject-based teaching, and even more would question the emphasis on traditional academic subjects rather than, say, design and technology or media studies.  Ther is no doubt what the prince was up to when the scheme was launched: it was “a fightback against trendy teaching”, and schools that wanted the royal imprimatur should “shun fashionable education theories”.

The prince’s views on education – he takes much of his advice from conservative figures such as the historian David Starkey and the journalist Melanie Phillips – may or may not reflect those of “ordinary people”. But it is hard to argue they are uncontroversial or lack “exposure”. The same can be said of his opinions on architecture, planning, the countryside and “green” issues generally. You may say his views can be ignored or dismissed as the ravings of an ageing and frustrated eccentric. But as well as access to ministers, all interest groups crave, and often buy, celebrity endorsement. Charles is among the biggest celebrities of all.

It is hard to blame him for trying to put the world to rights. Most of us would do the same if we had the chance and, through no fault of his own, Charles has very little else to do. Without a talent for sport, music, sculpture, scientific discovery or something of that sort (even bricklaying would do), an heir to the throne will be at a loose end, and Charles is not the first to attract criticism for how he occupies himself. But that is all the more reason for constraining him, and closing every little constitutional quirk that allows leeway. Republicanism might then finally triumph as future heirs decide to abdicate rather than die of boredom.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/prince-charles-voice-mel-phillips