caltonjock

 

 

 

 

 

 

May 2014: Tomkins – 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.

 

 

 

Jun 2014 Not getting involved Obama gets involved

Speaking alongside David Cameron, Obama publically stated that the interest of the US in the Scottish independence referendum was to ensure it retained a “strong, robust, united and effective partner”.

But the decision was “up to the people of Scotland”.

Obama was asked what the decisions on Scottish independence meant to him and the American people.

He replied: “There is a referendum process in place and it is up to the people of Scotland.

But the United Kingdom has been an extraordinary partner to us. From the outside at least, it looks like things have worked pretty well.

And we obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner.”

Lord Malloch-Brown, former deputy secretary-general of the United Nations expressed “surprise” at Obama’s comments.

Once a foreign office minister in Gordon Brown’s Labour government, he said the US would be wise to keep out of the Scottish independence debate claiming: “foreign, unsolicited advice is only going to anger Scots. I’m surprised that Cameron has got him involved. I don’t think it will be very helpful for anybody.”

 

 

 

Jun 2014: Tomkins – An independent Scotland has no claim to a share of the UK’s assets

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 claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.

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.”

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?

 

 

 

Jul 2014: 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 Tory 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 supposedly 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.”  Why would he say that? An admission England would be poorer without Scotland.

His best result for Scotland? A 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.

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.”

 

 

 

 

Aug 2014 – Tomkins – 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 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.

 

 

 

Aug 2014:William Hague – Scotland is not a Country

Prior to the 1997 referendum William Hague said the official position of a UK government was to retain a right to reverse any or all aspects of power that might be devolved to a Scottish parliament.

The Scottish nation should heed the warnings of history.

A, “no” vote in the forthcoming referendum will send a resounding message to Westminster that Scotland wished to embrace all “National” aspects of UK government policy.

This will lead to a creeping reverse of, “devolution” in respect of a number of powers at odds with and giving difficulty to a Westminster government. As a start health, social, transport, agriculture, fisheries and the environment services are at risk of being taken back to Westminster control.

This will result in the re-introduction of prescription charges.

Extortionate car parking charges would be re-introduced at hospitals. Major restructuring, (privatisation) of health services will ensue so that there is a truly UK national approach to the delivery of health services.

Pensioners will be very badly affected being obliged to sell off their homes to meet the cost of care in the community since existing policies are not in compliance with Westminster.

University education will take a major financial hit, students will need to finance their attendance in further education.

There are many other aspects of Scottish life that will be adversely affected by the reversal of devolution but the Westminster government will simply refer moaners to the, “no” vote in the referendum.

 

 

 

Aug 2014: Crawford Beveridge, Chairman of Scotland’s Fiscal Commission and Council of Economic Advisers speaks out

Beveridge said Scotland could refuse to accept any UK debt and comfortably use sterling without a formal deal.

But 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.

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.

 

 

 

August 2014 – Tomkins – 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.

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 Scots to vote “Yes”, Scotland would 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 Union.

Comment:

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

 

 

 

 

Aug 2014: French Minister for European Affairs destroys Tomkins the EU will back an independent Scotland for EU membership

The former Chief of Staff of the French Minister for European Affairs, argued that the independence of Scotland would not cause their immediate expulsion from the European Union

He said: “the most reasonable solution” would be to negotiate independence and the EU membership at the same time. This way implementation of EU Treaties would not be interrupted.

He argued that, according to European jurisdiction, the EU is also a union of citizens underlining that there are legal and political arguments to defend that an independent Scotland would not be expelled from the EU.

He also discussed 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 analysed the succession of states and their effect on international treaties.

He assumed 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.

He concluded that, while Scotland would have to be recognised by the United Nations, he believed that, regarding the EU, the issue had 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.

He highlighted 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.

He admitted there are arguments to defend the necessity to reapply for membership but he also stated they weree neither “realistic” nor followed “common sense”.

He pointed 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, he stated: “this legal argument is not absolute, since there are other legal and political arguments to be taken into account.”

He cited 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 rejected Scotland’s automatic expulsion from the EU and advised a negotiated independence and EU membership at the same time.

The 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. “A good will negotiation would be in everybody’s interest”

The French expert also firmly rejected 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”.

He argued 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 backed 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, he highlighted 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 he presented, refers to “the founding principles of the Union: freedom, democracy, equality and rule of law”.

He emphasised 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 pointed out that by doing so, the EU would in fact be interfering with the Member States’ interior policy, something it wants to avoid.

In “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.

In closing he pointed 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 argued 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.

 

 

 

 

Sep 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.

 

 

 

Sep 2014: Gordon Brown makes an appearance

Labour sources admitted David Cameron had “played a blinder” in his measured interventions.

But the campaign was faltering and the three Unionist parties, agreed to announce a timetable to further devolution in the final full week of campaigning.

It was late in the day, but if presented well it could look statesmanlike. And then the wobble:

On the evening of 6 September, the Sunday Times released details of its next day’s splash: a YouGov poll had given yes its first lead. “It was 48 hours of chaos,” admitted a senior Liberal Democrat adviser.

George Osborne, appearing on Sunday morning’s Andrew Marr show, gave the impression that a package of powers was soon to be announced, rather than a mere timetable.

Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael, speaking at lunchtime on the BBC, chuckled and looked evasive when asked what was coming down the line, “with a wire coming out of his head that gave him a Mickey Mouse ear”, said one Labour source.

Miliband sent more staff to Scotland get a grip of “Better Together” in the final stages then spoke with Cameron, in his Commons office, where they agreed to cancel prime minister’s questions to travel to Scotland.

And then Gordon Brown pounced. Handed free lengthy, BBC Scotland prime-time television slots and hand picked audiences he took it upon himself to announce that there would be home rule for Scotland.

Indeed he not only promised a timetable, but sketched one out. “It looked very much like an attempt to steal the glory. He completely jumped the gun,” said a Downing Street source.

Whether that was the former prime minister’s intention, or not, Cameron, Miliband and Nick Clegg could only endorse it, no doubt grimacing at the emotive and potentially problematic issue of what home rule meant for Scotland – and the rest of the UK.

Brown had certainly “hit the mark”, as he did again in another barnstorming speech before the referendum. In his mind he savedthe union in its darkest hour.

 

 

 

 

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

“My view is that the Union can be saved once,” Tomkins, 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.”

Cameron’s greatest fear was that he would go down in history as the man who lost the Union.

However, the concessions he had to make to save it irritated many Tory back benchers.

 

 

 

 

Sep 2014: What the Hell is the point of a referendum when the outcome is decided before the vote???

Willie Rennie’s health and wellbeing reached its lowest ebb on September 7, when a Sunday Times YouGov poll put “Yes” ahead for the first time, on 51 per cent – a month earlier “No” had been 22 points in front.

But Tory Leader Ruth Davidson arranged a Unionist party conference call later that afternoon in which Rennie and Labour’s Johann Lamont participated.

Davidson and Lamont were evidently in the information loop informing Rennie that “Better Together” would win 55/45.  How could they know that?? before the voting had started.

Bit weird that Rennie and the Lib/Dem Party were not kept informed by Labour and the Tories.

 

 

 

Sep 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 was too closeand 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.

Patrick Harvie MSP,  co-convenor of the Scottish Greens was, 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 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 secondly, the “No” side of the argument never produced anything close to the range of the 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 it 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. (newstatesman)

Comment:  This letter was published one day before the referendum vote.

 

 

 

 

Sep 2014: The Quebec Tactic tricks gullible Scots

An English punter placed bet of £900K on No Vote and won £193k

He said he had studied the Quebec referendum in 1995, when the yes vote spiked sharply close to polling day. and decided the Scottish referendum was following the same cycle.

He admitted that the final polls showing a brief “yes” lead and then a very tight advantage to “no” had made him nervous.

But as in Quebec, the “no” campaign made a STRONG OFFER OF NEW POWERS at the final stage of the campaign, enough to cement their lead and too late to allow the “yes” campaign to respond.

Then the Unionists released “The kraken,” a Norse mythic god called Gordon Brown, who came with exactly the “political presence” the “no” campaign needed.

All of the new proposals were illegal since they were made well within the “purda” period but the Electoral Commission failed Scotland taking no action to declare the referendum null and void (Guardian)

 

 

 

Sep 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 also dramatically and permanently moved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012:  The Independence Referendum

The Scottish government’s offer to include, “Devo Max” in the questions, to be put to the Scottish electorate was firmly rejected.

It had to be “all or nothing.” and there was no intention on the part of any of the Unionist parties, to give Scotland any new powers.

What will be devolved will be “tiny titbits”, giving the appearance of power but without substance.

 

 

 

2012: The gathering at Abbotsford

The, “Yes” campaign faced the might of, The Abbotsford Team, backed by the entire UK political system, the civil service, media barons, commercial and financial institutions, The City of London, Heads of State and senior politicians of countries world wide and just about anyone or anything that David Cameron and Sir Jeremy Heywood could muster in their mission to deny Scotland it’s rightful place in the world as an independent country.

At the beginning of 2012,(at his house in Edinburgh) former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling, David McLetchie, late Scottish Tory Leader, David Cameron’s, Director of Political Strategy, Andrew Cooper, Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, Shadow Defence Secretary, Jim Murphy and special adviser to Alistair Carmichael, Euan Roddin: “That’s right the same person that “leaked” the infamous “Frenchgate” memo the week before the 2015 General Election,” met in secret to “prepare a battle plan” which when enacted would, “kill off, Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party once and for all time”,

Those in attendance readily agreed that the only way to defeat Alex Salmond was to put their party political differences aside and to join forces so that he would be faced with the full might of the, “Union”.  The, “Abbotsford Agreement” was born.

It was agreed the campaign would be coordinated through the Prime Ministers Office in London, but Mr Cameron would be kept clear of any overt campaign activities.

Darling, considered to be more than a match for Alex Salmond would front the tri-party campaign and it would be run by Scottish based politicians.

It was further agreed each political party would also be free to run their own pro-union campaign.

The meeting was then briefed that former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, had declined an invitation to join the, “Better Together” campaign.

He would restrict his role to the Labour Party’s own anti-independence campaign, being reluctant to share a platform with the Tories and Lib Dems.

JK Rowling, (author) had committed significant funds to Gordon Brown’s campaign.

Unlimited finance was available, £4 million plus including significant donations from Tory backers and senior financiers.

 

 

 

2012: Better Together Officers

Blair McDougall. Campaign Director. Went on to become Head of Policy and Strategy for the Labour Party in Scotland, (reporting to Jim Murphy). Jobless after the 2015 General Election debacle.

Treasurer-Peter Dunphy: Lib/Dem activist for over 20 years, served as a Councillor, Parliamentary Candidate and Chair of both the Parliamentary Candidates Association and the party youth section. A member of the National Secular Society and CEO of an international recruitment business.

Craig Harrow; Convener and Vice President of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Bags of lobbying experience. His P.R. company hit the headlines in Scotland when it emerged the Coalition government had handed a £30,000 contract to it for “communications support” on the referendum.

Nosheena Mobarik: Formerly, Chair of CBI Scotland, Director of Better Together. Co-founder of Glasgow software company M Computer Technologies stirred up a considerable hornets’ nest for the then Labour-controlled Scottish Government when she, along with others, publicly criticized its procurement processes in a speech at a Business in Parliament conference. Got her reward.  Elevated to the Lords as Baroness of Mearns in recognition of her efforts blocking independence.

Richard Baker: Labour member of the Scottish Parliament (List – MSP) for the North East Scotland region. Labour Party in Scotland losing candidate in the 2015 General Election. Unsuccessful bid for the vacant post of Deputy Leader of the labour party in Scotland.  An unmitigated disaster, his election to the post of deputy would have been a gift to the SNP but he left politics.

Jackie Baillie.  A Labour party in Scotland MSP from the date Parliament first convened in 1999. An opportunist who sits in the background until an opening provides her an opportunity to claim other peoples work as her own. Not a nice person.

 

 

 

2013: British Army Media and Psychops Elite Unit Formed

Headquartered near Newbury, in Berkshire. Numbers around 1,500 personnel (including regulars and reservists) recruited from military units across the army.

The force influences the narrative against a background of 24-hour news, smartphones and social media and has gained excellent working skills from expertise acquired by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) which is presently active on 30 internet platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Instagram.

 

 

 

2013: Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) – The Mission

It’s declared mission is to provide behavioral research and change programmes, strategic communication “data, analytics and strategy to governments, the UK armed forces and military organizations worldwide.

In 2005, the company, went public at the UK’s largest weapons conference, a showcase for military technology, with an impressive demonstration of how the UK government could use a sophisticated media campaign of mass deception.

A freedom of information request from August 2016, recorded that the MOD twice bought services from SCL in recent years. Namely:

1. In 2010/11, the MOD paid £40,000 to SCL for the “provision of external training.”

2. In 2014/2015, the MOD paid SCL £150,000 for the “procurement of a “target audience analysis.” The MOD refused to provide an explanation of the use of the large summ of money.

It was further confirmed that SCL had also been granted “Top secret” clearance as a “list X” contractor for the MOD which allowed the company commercial access to and use of highly classified UK government information.

Comment:

2014: The only significant single political event requiring an expenditure of £150,000 with SCL by the MOD for the “procurement of a “target audience analysis,”  was the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum.

And, as evidenced by the dubious activities of the Civil Service in England (see below), it is entirely possible the newly formed British Army Media and Psychops Elite Unit made use of the comprehensive “target audience analysis” provided.

 

 

 

Jun 2013: Better Together” Gains Unfettered access to Experian’s Database

Experian is one of the largest data collection companies in the world, and provides credit worthiness reports for its subscribers.

Blue State Digital, a US data-mining agency that had worked for US President Obama on his successful election campaigns was asked by “Better Together” to devise an enhanced data management tool further developing its “Patriot” software which had contributed so much to Obama’a election.

Experian extracted extensive personal data of millions of Scots from its database and supplied it to Blue State Digital who then developed a data-mining software programme which they titled, “Mosaic” and sold it to the UK government supported “Better Together” campaign for use in the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. Cost £500,000.

“Mosaic” allowed “Better Together” to identify lifestyle indicators, categorize voters and link them with activists of a similar age or with similar social media friends in order to greatly enhance voter targeting and canvassing.

The data was used on, Facebook and UTube with the purpose of recruiting volunteers who were subsequently provided with the personal details of Scots and asked to cold-call them in order to canvass them for support. All information gleaned by the calls was then stored in the campaign database and transmitted to the three parties involved in Better Together.

Comment:

The Scottish electorate should be concerned about the abuse of personal information by State supported bodies:

“Anyone with a credit card, bank account, loan, mortgage, store card or monthly/quarterly mobile phone will likely have an Experian profile.  The company conducts millions of credit checks each year on many hundreds of thousands of UK citizens.

The level of data they collect and hold is frankly staggering.  Making matters worse, the information Experian retain is very often gathered without our knowledge.

Companies run credit checks on potential customers whenever a new application for credit is made, yet it is rarely explained what “doing a credit check” actually entails. In fact, the consumer has little to no choice over which company actually undertakes the credit check. They are chosen by the bank, estate agent, mobile phone network or any other commercial organization.

Not engaging with a credit reference agency is almost impossible. It would entail not having a bank account, not having any direct debits, not having a credit card, not renting or owning a property. We have to, whether we like it or not, engage with these companies.

The consumer needs to be able to trust companies such as Experian that handle massive levels of personal data, more acute when we have little to no say over what data they hold.

 

 

 

Jul 2013: Scottish independence: “Better Together” Targets Voter ‘Tribes’

The group campaigning for a “no” vote in Scotland’s Independence Referendum has said it will embark on the most sophisticated targeting of voters seen in British political history.

Pro-union “Better Together” has launched its new “Mosaic” system.

It will divide Scotland’s four million voters into 40 different tribes.

This will then allow the campaign to speak directly to undecided voters using letters, emails and face-to-face discussions.

Better Together said the technology, developed with information purchased from credit rating agency Experian at a cost of £500,000 and further improved by additional input from political and strategy advisers of the successful President Obama campaign will allow it to identify lifestyle indicators such as, the number of cars a family owns and other personal information.

Voters will then be “linked” to activists of a similar age or with similar social media friends.

 

 

 

2014: Better Together Campaign Director Blair McDougall

“We have to make sure that we are on the doorsteps and high streets, but also that we are also on peoples’ smartphones, tablets and PCs.

This new tool will help bring our thousands of volunteers together with the key voters who will decide the outcome of the referendum.”

It is estimated “Better Together” had 10,000 volunteers signed up by the start of the campaign. IT expertise was utilized through the on-line presence of a significant number, including UK government staff based in England.

Social media (Facebook) played an important role in local campaigning especially as it enabled “Better Together” to more effectively mobilize more volunteers and disseminate information using the “Patriot” software.

 

 

 

2014: Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) – The Board

In a scandal that cuts to the heart of British society Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers, defense contractors, the Tory Party and the military establishment. Including:

Mark Turnbull:

Provides the “Atlantic Alliance” link. Spent 18 years at Bell Pottinger, heading up a Pentagon funded PR drive in occupied Iraq which included the production of fake al-Qaeda videos. He is the head of SCL Elections and Cambridge Analytica Political Global.

His profile at the University of Exeter Strategy and Security Institute boasts of his record in achieving “campaign success via measurable behavioural change” in “over 100 campaigns in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean”.

Nigel Oakes:

An old Etonian, he is the head of the group. According to the website “PowerBase” and has links to the British royal family. Rumoured to be an Mi5 spy. In 1992 he described his work in a trade journal as using the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. … “We appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level.”

Sir Geoffrey Pattie:

Former Tory MP and Defence Minister in Thatcher’s government. He is the President of SCL. He also co-founded “Terrington Management” which lists BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin amongst its clients.

Roger Gabb:

A former British special forces officer in Borneo and Kenya the wine millionaire is a company director. In 2006 he donated £500,000 to the Tory Party. He was fined by the Electoral Commission for failing to include his name on an advert in a number of local newspapers arguing for a Leave.EU vote in the Brexit referendum.

Julian Wheatland:

A venture capitalist, he is the company’s chairman. He is also the chairman of Oxfordshire Conservatives Association.

Jonathan Marland:

The former Conservative Party Treasurer, was a trade envoy under David Cameron, and a close friend of Tory election strategist Lynton Crosby.He provides financial support to the company

Vincent Tchenguiz:

A property tycoon and Conservative party donor he was also the single largest SCL shareholder for a decade.

Gavin McNicoll:

Director. Founded counter-terrorism “Eden Intelligence” a firm who, at the behest of the British government, ran a G8 Plus meeting on Financial Intelligence Cooperation

Sir James Allen Mitchell:

A retired board member, he is the former Prime Minister of the previous British colony St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He is also a privy counsellor on the Queen’s advisory board.

Rear Admiral John Tolhurst:

A former assistant director of naval warfare in the Ministry of Defence and aide de camp to the Queen.

Lord Ivar Mountbatten:

The Queen’s third cousin, was also named as a member of SCL’s advisory board but it’s unclear if he still holds that role.

 

 

 

2014: President Obama campaign contractors, awarded, “Better Together” exclusive media strategy contract.

Blue State Digital, a USA media strategy and technology company specializes in online fundraising, social networking and constituency development. The Company provided digital strategy and  technology services for the Obama presidential campaign.

Directed by co-founders, Joe Rospars and Jascha Franklin-Hodge. The mission statement of the Company states:

“Blue State Digital develops and executes multi-platform digital marketing and online engagement campaigns for non-profit and advocacy organizations, political candidates, causes, brands and businesses. Our work inspires and mobilizes people, increases revenue, and cements lasting support and loyalty.”

The UK Director of Blue state Digital is Falkirk born, Gregor Poynton, a former Labour party election strategy manager and Scottish Labour Party organiser. He is married to Labour MP, Gemma Doyle.

https://caltonjock.com/2015/05/04/gemma-doyle-labour-party-candidate-west-dunbartonshire-more-right-wing-than-jim-duffy-she-failed-her-constituents-and-has-the-neck-to-ask-them-to-overlook-her-appalling-record-i-dont-think/

 

Gregor Poynton

 

Jan 2014: Tory government protects the nation

Sir Jeremy Heywood, cabinet secretary to David Cameron also leads the UK’s civil service and wields immense power exercising it in defence of government and in furtherance of his own agenda.

Edward Snowden became disillusioned with President Obama’s NSA judging it’s policies to be counter productive, invasive and illegal. Having gathered sensitive information he disappeared, surfacing in HongKong from where he leaked copious amounts of information to “the Guardian” newspaper, who in turn released much of it to the UK public, revealing that the British spy agency (GCHQ) monitored, collected and stored vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook data, internet histories and calls, and shared it with the NSA.

Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, the UK’s senior civil servant went to the offices of the Guardian and explicitly warned the Guardian’s editor, to return the Snowden documents. He also told the editor to stop publishing articles based on leaked material from American’s National Security Agency and GCHQ.  he pointedly said: “We can do this nicely or we can go to law” adding: “A lot of people in government think you should be closed down.”

Some time later, acting on instuctions from David Cameron, Heywood, visited the Guardian offices again this time accompanied by secret service officers and ordered the destruction of all information, computers, hard drives and all other equipment used in the storage of information/data.

Footage was later released of Guardian editors destroying Snowden hard drives – GCHQ technicians watched as journalists took angle grinders and drills to computers. See video:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jan/31/snowden-files-computer-destroyed-guardian-gchq-basement-video

 

 

 

 

 

Fulton and Cameron  (Thatchers cronies)

 

 

Sep 2011: Davidson and Fraser Slugging match

The loss of Annabel Goldie, to the “House of Lords” created a leadership vacancy and the application of Murdo Fraser, supported by a majority of Scottish Tory Party members and officials and Ruth Davidson, the hopelessly inexperienced choice of David Cameron and Andrew Fulton.

Fraser, in his bid for the leadership of the party said that if elected, he would disband the party in favour of setting up a new centre-right party that would be fully autonomous of the UK Conservative Party, but it would take the Conservative whip at Westminster.

Fraser stated that this would be carried out in order to ‘de-toxify’ the party in Scotland, stating that it would have a distinct Scottish identity, represent Scottish values, support devolution and decentralisation, and fight to maintain Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom. He also suggested the name “Conservative and Unionist” should be ditched.

His proposals represented a major challenge to the “Union” and London based Tory leaders and the secret services decided it would have no truck with him and decided Davidson, whose supporters included Thatcher-era grandees such as Lord Forsyth, Lord Sanderson, and the party’s biggest Scottish donor, Sir Jack Harvie and Prime Minister David Cameron would win the leadership vote, no matter the cost. She duly won the day.

But many party members objected to the outcome of the contest and Davidson faced an inquiry after it was revealed that her campaign team had illegally used the private email addresses of party members.

A Tory councillor and dozens of Tory party activists complained to the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that Davidson’s team had sent unsolicited material to their personal accounts.

If the allegations were confirmed this would be an illegal extraction and inappropriate use of data secured with Party membership records.

The Scottish Conservative Party is registered with the ICO as “data controllers”, and must keep their data secure and leadership candidates are not registered to view the data.

Under Tory leadership rules, candidates were allowed to send a single “election communication” to the party’s 8500 members.

But the Davidson campaign team sent regular emails over and above the permitted level blanketing members via a commercial marketing service called Mail-Chimp. One, sent September 12, only four days after her campaign launch, claimed there was “a real groundswell of opinion” behind her.  Another, sent a week before, highlighted her national tour of constituencies and a third said she had secured the 100 signatures needed to be a formal candidate. “I promise I won’t let you down,” she wrote.

A friend of the unnamed councillor who lodged the ICO complaint said: “He was concerned because there was not a level playing field for candidates. “Where did Ruth’s campaign team get his email address ? He has never ever met Davidson.”

Another Tory source said there were “widespread concerns” about her campaign and a third said several activists had complained to the party HQ in Edinburgh and received “incredibly defensive” responses.

A spokesman for the Scottish Tories confirmed a “query” had been received by Central Office about the issue of Davidson’s team and personal email, adding: “The member was told to complain to the relevant campaign team” Hows that for a brush off ???

The Assistant Commissioner for Scotland for the ICO, said: “All organisations that handle personal data, including political parties, have a legal obligation to keep it secure.

It is also important to understand that marketing emails require the consent of the recipient.

We have received a complaint about this matter and will now make enquiries.”

Nothing ever came of the complaints and the outcome of the ICO investigations was never published.

Michael Crow, Director of Strategy for the Scottish Tory Party, (later identified as the person that had recruited Davidson to the party) was accused of inappropriate behaviour by his attendance at clandestine strategy meetings in support of Davidson’s leadership challenge.

He was censured about his behaviour and lost his job with Tory Party in Scotland only to be hired shortly after, by David Cameronon on an increased £100k+ salary. Fingers up!! to the Scottish Tories!!

 

Adam Tomkins

 

 

2011: Tomkins and Israel

Tomkins married into an American Jewish family. His children are raised and schooled in the Jewish faith in Glasgow and he is very public about his support of the state of Israel.

In 2011, he won the Hebrew University’s Hailsham Scholarship for his work promoting links between the UK and Israel. In his acceptance speech he spoke of his desire to “strengthen ties between Glasgow Law School and legal scholars in Israel”.

In the period up to 2015 he actively developed a close working relationship with prominent Israeli’s culminating in a formal visit to the University by the Israeli Ambassador with the purpose of signing an concorde formally linking the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to Glasgow University.

The visit was disrupted by protests from pro-Palestine groups, including the Glasgow University Palestine society who called on the University not to allow the use of their platform to legitimise the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Protestors also claimed that the agreement would convince the Israeli Government to continue its illegal practices of occupation and the legal framework to deny Palestinian people’s rights to freedom and for return of their lands.

They further claimed the visit to be a propaganda drive by Israel to improve its image in Scotland assisted by the Conservative Friends of Israel. Favouring an aggessor over the oppressed…. et tu, Adam!!

 

 

2012 Scottish Independence Referendum early discussions – Tomkins shows his Colours

On the Good Morning Scotland, hosted by Derek Bateman, Tomkins claimed that the law was clear and insisted that the Scottish Parliament could not hold a referendum without Westminster permission.

Another 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.

Tomkins, irked and angry that someone would dare challenge his understanding of the constitution argued back saying that: “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 provided for the powers that the Scottish parliament has.”

He went on to say: “the Scottish Parliament’s legislative power is limited to that which was devolved to it and as the Constitution is a reserved matter, it has no power to hold a referendum on independence and any attempt to try to take on more powers would be in breach of law and would be liable to end up in court.”

Ms McHarg hit back pointing 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, she said: “There is an argument that there is a difference.” and 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 debate became heated as Mr Tomkins angrily tried to talk over McHarg and Derek Bateman asserted that he would conduct the interview and not Tomkins. An irritated Tomkins insisted that the proposed referendum was not about consulting the Scottish people calling it a “myth that’s got to be scotched”.

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” he insisted.

However when pressed on whether the Scottish Parliament had the power to hold a consultative referendum, Tomkins conceded 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.”

Tomkins behaviour exposed Westminster thinking when set against the behaviour of Labour MP Ian Davidson, who in an angry exchange with the BBC presenter Isabel Fraser made it 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.

He further stated that anti-independence supporters believed a rushed referendum would ensure a win for the No campaign.

He said: “we want to have a speedy referendum… We want to have a referendum because we’re going to win quite frankly”.

 

 

Feb 2013 – Adam Tomkins in the Scotsman – An independent Scotland will fail

He wrote: “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.

 

 

 

Mar 2013 – Adam Tomkins: A West Lothian Answer?

As the House of Lords Constitution Committee pointed out in a recent bill whilst the devolutionary principle of home rule is now accepted and 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 issues remaining open are:

1. The funding of devolution.

2. The future of the Barnett formula.

2. The West Lothian question.

In a recent speech Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Tories gave the Tory game away saying: “the much-derided and little understood Barnett formula is in its death throes as it stands”. The future is decided. But when??

Davidson and her Glasgow Unversity backers for the leadership

 

Sep 2013: Adam Tomkins in the Scotsman – backing the Union

Tomkins: “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.

If Scotland were no longer to be part of the rest of the UK I don’t know if I would feel comfortable staying. I totally buy the core message of the pro-UK campaign that Scotland gets the best of both worlds.”

Comment: Because the people of Scotland prefer to extend devolution to its optimum Tomkins thinks he may not wish to live here. Quite incredible.

He enjoys life in Scotland, it benefits him and his family, he believes that limited government has been successful…but feels that he might have to give this all up and all because Scots choose self determination?!

His “reasons” for voting against Scottish self-determination do not add up, indeed, they are clear examples of muddled thinking probably created by the anti independence alliance’s “Project Fear” and its constant dissembling and misinformation.

 

 

Sep 2013 – Tomkins in the Sun The rural lords own Scotland?

Tomkins predicted that a vote for independence could spark a bitter tug-of-war between Scotland and England over property rights since, under international law, all government buildings, institutions and organisations in Scotland could be up for grabs.

 

 

 

Jun 2014: Tories Experimented on the Scots

Secret files released under the 30 year rule 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.”

 

Cameron and (Dark money) Cook 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May 2008: Increasing Nationalist support in Scotland alerts and alarms Westminster and the US.

The Labour Party in Scotland was in meltdown and it was entirely possible a majority SNP government would be in place in 2011 which would bring with it calls for Scottish independence and a referendum.

There were also on-going problems within the Scottish Tory Party, which had suffered yet another bad election and voices within the Party raised the spectre of a split from Westminster control so that the Party in Scotland would be able to decide upon policy.

A strategy, designed to deal with the potential problems was rapidly evolved and put into action by Tory grandee Sir Malcolm Rifkind, other high ranking politicians and the Secret Service.

In a surprise move, former high ranking MI6 intelligence officer, Andrew Fulton whose last post was “head of station” in the MI6 office, in Washington was appointed Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party by David Cameron replacing Peter Duncan who had stood down after the 2007 election.

The appointment of a senior intelligence officer to the post of Party Chairman, was viewed by many Scottish Tory supporters as a Westminster hatchet job with David Mundell at its core, pulling the strings.

Fulton, with extensive physical resources assistance and Mundell, applied himself and his team over a period of 18 months, to the task of completing a root and branch reorganisation of the party in Scotland, removing any person, (no matter how senior) who did not promise full compliance with the Westminster Party ideal.

He also designed and put in place a long term strategy, with the support of unionist supporting media and press outlets with the purpose of undermining the SNP government ensuring any referendum for independence would fail in the belief that the SNP would fall apart in the aftermath of a failure to gain independence.

 

Annabel Goldie & Richard Cook

 

 

2008: Tomkins has an Epiphany and Converts from Roundhead to cavalier

No longer having a need for his erstwhile political friends Tomkins abandoned the SSP and gave up his rejection of the Queen as head of state. Then, having hitched his reputation to the unionist cause.

All that remained to be decided was the political party to which he would commit his future.

After a period of flipping and flopping between Tory and Labour he finally opted to support the Tory Party.

Former colleague, SSP Leader, Colin Fox, who spoke alongside Tomkins at the 2004 Declaration of Independence, on 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.”

 

Tony Blair

 

 

2009: House of Lords Constitution Committee contracts a special adviser

Tomkins was formally appointed adviser to the peers of the realm, Constitution Committee.

Not a bad result for a chap who firmly rejected the concept of majesty only a few short months before.

He also cultivated political alliances in Westminster providing political guidance in support of the Union as the UK constitution came under increasing scrutiny from nationalist activists.

His evidence on the sovereignty of Parliament was extensively cited in the House of Commons during the legislative passage of the European Union Bill (2010-11).

 

Annabel Goldie canvassing

 

 

May 2010 – Tomkins – Protecting Individual Liberty

Tomkins based his defence of parliamentary democracy in his book: “Our Republican Constitution”.

In it he sought to persuade the reader that that a “Bill of Rights” and a “written constitution” would fail to provide effect in the way that the Westminster parliamentary democracy does.

Questions to be asked and answered:

1. With whom should power ultimately reside?

2. Should the Courts have the power to strike down Acts of Parliament that are incompatible with an individuals fundamental rights or should elected representatives have the final say on where the balance between liberty and security lies?

Answers:

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, confine the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament to the dustbin of history.

But Tomkins presented 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. So the state is paramount thinks Tomkins.

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 Conservative 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.

 

 

 

2010: The UK General Election

The election was held against the background of the world banking disaster.

The failure of the Labour government to bring greedy bankers to account.

A betrayal by politicians that had approved the banking bailout resulting in a financial deficit of nearly £1 trillion, repayment of which would imposed on every individual voter in the UK bringing with it the imposition of 20+ years of financial austerity and accompanying hardship on the electorate.

The bankers continued to enjoy unjustified benefits of obscene financial bonus schemes which exceeded the limits of reason or necessity.

The witnessing of 20-30 year old bankers swanning around london in flash new motors, spending wads of cash in nightclubs and purchasing ever more expensive houses was galling to the poorer members of society who had to struggle to survive saddled with an unfair monetary system driven by governments whose ideology was to get the financial debt down to sustainable levels whatever the consequence.

The foregoing resulted in a polarisation of voting driving voters back to the arms of the two parties capable of forming a government.

In Scotland this manifested in the traditional return of a large number of Labour MP’s who promised to fight for Scots in the Westminster parliament.

The fortunes of the Tory Party in Scotland did not improve, when it asked the Scottish electorate to support a manifesto formulated in Westminster containing nothing of note for Scotland’s economy.

The result was at odds with the rest of the UK where the Tory Party did well enough to join with the Liberals forming a UK government taking control for 5 years.

And the accompanying brutal austerity measures that were imposed by Cameron/ Osborne and the Liberals led by Clegg.

Blame for the poor performance of the Tory Party in Scotland fell upon Goldie, but in truth the damage was done by Thatcher who had dumped “one nation” Toryism a long time before turning it into a London and South East England party.

In the years that followed Thatchers demise the pattern intensified but the Tory Party in Scotland learned nothing and stumbled from crisis to crisis surviving on the electoral support of older voters.

These older voters expired over time but were never fully replaced resulting in the terminal decline of the party..

But Cameron snookered Goldie before the election, adding her to his cabinet,  with result that she was bound by party rules to accept and implement Shadow Cabinet decisions.

In cabinet she advised, without success that a number of proposals contained in the manifesto were wrong for Scotland and rumours were circulated widely throughout the period of the campaign that Cameron and his advisors had scant regard for the abilities of Goldie and her team and moves were afoot to replace her regardless of the outcome of the election.

Goldie’s nemesis, Mundell, the sole Scottish Tory MP at Westminster, held on to his seat in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale by a whisker.

At interview he made a telling statement: “It wasn’t my intention five years ago to be the only Conservative MP in Scotland and it certainly wasn’t my intention tonight.

I’m not complacently brushing aside the fact that we haven’t made progress in the number of seats of Scotland, we haven’t and I accept that’s something we have to look at very seriously in the aftermath of this election.”

Cameron speedily commissioned the anticipated investigation (without reference to Goldie) into the poor performance of the party in Scotland and fully supported recommendations contained in the “Sanderson Report” which advised a radical leadership and party structure overhaul forming part of a battle plan implementation of which would improve its future electoral prospects.

Power would be transferred to a group of Thatcherite driven slick Young Turks in Glasgow University, (that place again) a number of whom would work out of Goldie’s office with immediate effect.

This included Ruth Davidson who had only recently returned to Scotland having failed to gain a seat in an English constituency.

The die had been cast against Goldie. Cameron’s long held plans for Scotland did not include her as leader of Scotland’s Tory Party.

The word “Union” was dropped from the Scottish Tory Party title. One wonders why!!!!

 

 

 

2010 – 2011: Scottish Tories strike back at Cameron and Westminster

The ever growing dysfunctional nature of relationships between Westminster and Scotland became public knowledge as the party in Scotland attempted to divorce itself from its London masters.

On at least two occasions, major policy decisions impacting Scotland were implemented by Conservative leaders in London in direct contradiction to Scottish Tory policy.

On both occasions sources said the Scottish branch had no idea what was going on before the decisions were taken and had no chance to influence policy direction.

A party insider said: “There is no communication between the party leadership in London and the leadership in Scotland.”

Before the election, Annabelle Goldie used to sit in the Shadow Cabinet. She doesn’t now. There is a Cabinet but she is not part of it. She has been cast adrift.”

The revelation that it had been cut loose by its parent body in London plunged the Tory Party in Scotland into a fresh crisis since from the time of the general election senior figures in the UK Conservative Party no longer consulted or communicated with their Scottish colleagues.

Scottish party leaders had been shut off from decision-making and were no longer invited to top-level strategy and policy meetings.

Indeed, the isolation of the Scottish branch reached scandalous levels when it was revealed Goldie had not spoken to David Cameron since the election. This when SNP First Minister Alex Salmond had five conversations with the Prime Minister since he took office.

Presented with a poisoned chalice to hold close to her chest the ever loyal Goldie put a brave face on the situation but admitted she had not spoken to the Prime Minister since the election, then denied there was any “disconnect” between the Scottish and London parties, insisting that she had a “line of communication” to No 10 which she could use at any time.

She said: “there is not a disconnect. We retain very good communications. I am in the position where I can communicate with him in his office any time I want and, obviously, I am not going to be on the phone every five minutes to the Prime Minister, he has an important job to do. The important thing is that I have a line to communication to him if I need to use it.”

She then emphasised that David Cameron had, at the 2010 general election taken on leadership of the Tory Party with his manifesto, not that of the Tory Party in Scotland.

The implication being: “It wasn’t my fault we only got one seat, it was David Cameron’s.” She also pointed out that the Tory vote in Scotland had increased over her time in office as leader citing a rise in the number of members, councillor’s and MSP’s as evidence of progress.

In issuing a statement critical of Cameron and his Westminster team Annabelle had effectively sealed her fate and Mundell, acting on instructions from Westminster orchestrated her removal from office ensuring the promotion of Ruth Davidson who had been waiting in the wings, (working out of Annabelle’s office for nearly a year.)

 

 

 

29 Mar 2011: Tory Party’s Holyrood election campaign in disarray

The gerrymandering of the party candidate list, orchestrated by the new party chairman, agent, Andrew Fulton was implemented with increasing haste forcing previously nominated individuals to step down.

One hopeful, David Meikle withdrew his nomination for the Rutherglen seat, in Glasgow because he was upset that his allegations of vote rigging on the list for Glasgow had not been investigated properly.

His complaints centred on the Conservative Rutherglen Association, whose membership shot up by around 150 members, from a starting point of 17 in the months before the selection of persons for the Conservative list in Glasgow.

Malcolm Macaskill, a Glasgow businessman, justice of the peace and a Tory of long standing in the West of Scotland was removed from the top of the Glasgow list and replaced by the former BBC journalist, Ruth Davidson a newcomer to the party with less than 2 years political experience.

Goldie admitted that she did not have any say in the deselection of MacAskill who subsequently resigned from the party and sued it.

But the Tory hierarchy in London, who were directing the changes were quoted to be “delighted” with the way it was being conducted.

Party Chairman, Fulton made no mention of the reason for McCasskill’s dismissal, merely saying he had been dropped “following discussions between the candidate and the party’s candidates’ board”.

The Tory leadership in London also insisted the budget for the 5 May 2011 Scottish election was in place despite many reports that wealthy donors, including former Dundee FC footballer and property magnate Tom Coakley and airport car park magnate John McGlynn, had withdrawn their party funding, protesting against the Westminster “putch”.

An SNP spokesman said it was the “worst possible” start to the Tory campaign, adding: “The first day and they have lost three of their top candidates, amid party infighting and internal allegations of malpractice. The Tories are not fit for purpose, fit for Glasgow, or fit for Scotland.”

 

 

 

May 2011: The Scottish General Election

Scottish politics was transformed when the SNP won a previously unthinkable overall majority in the Scottish parliament, taking 69 out of the 129 seats.

The impact of the victory was devasting for the three other political parties and resulted in the forced resignation of the Labour leader, the hapless Iain Gray, Tavish Scott, the discredited leader of the Lib/Dem’s and the gallant Annabel Goldie, despite her party doing better than Labour and the Lib Dems, losing only two of its 17 seats in the landslide SNP victory.

It was Goldie that had established a successful working relationship with Salmond during the SNP minority government the SNP, relied on the support of the Tories to pass their financial budgets, in return, Goldie was able to claim responsibility for ensuring shops and small businesses did not pay business rates, increasing frontline police numbers by 1,000 and reforming the drugs rehabilitation policy in Scotland, fuelling speculation of a power-sharing deal if the SNP had failed to win a majority.

In her resignation speech Goldie said “The Scottish election result was seismic. Nobody thought that the SNP would win an overall majority at Holyrood.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives are returning to the parliament with fewer MSPs than last time, but I am heartened by the observations of many independent commentators that our result was, by comparison to the other opposition parties, credible.

As a party I believe that we ran the right campaign. We focused on trying to maximise our votes on the regional list. Unlike others, we had a narrative of common sense, telling it like it is, and a record of delivering for Scotland. But being the least worst was, in the end, not good enough.”

The stage was set for a round of Party leadership contests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annabel Goldie and Ruth Davidson

 

 

Nov 2005: Crisis in the Scottish Tory Party

Press and Public attention transferred away from the SSP, now in terminal decline, to the Tory Party when the Party leader in Scotland David McLetchie was forced to resign from office facing a scandal associated with his misuse of the Holyrood expense’s claims system.

His resignation created yet another crisis in the ranks of an already near decimated Tory Party in Scotland.

lumbered with a Leaderless, powerless, despondent and desperate party that had lost it’s way in Scotland and rejected yet again by the Scottish electorate the controlling Westminster elite, with very little recent knowledge or experience of Scottish affairs within the new Holyrood parliament were at a loss as to the way forward.

The first final decision arrived at by Tory Central Office was to transfer leadership of the party in Scotland to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, but the favoured option was swiftly abandoned when rejected by a recently formed Tory MSP group at Holyrood led by Murdo Fraser.

Melt down of the Tory party in Scotland beckoned. But rescue manifested in the unlikely form of a hitherto undiscovered middle aged, grey haired spinster called Annabelle Goldie.

Her view of politics in Scotland was completely at odds with her predecessor, who had slavishly followed the Westminster Party line which was that devolution was an ever present odious threat to the Union and doomed to fail.

Annabelle worked hard, first off convincing her colleagues, garnering their thinking to the view that devolution was a reality and that it presented new opportunities for the Tory Party to become once more a “Tartan Tory” powerhouse providing Scotland with a centre-right alternative to an increasingly left leaning SNP and an incompetent Labour/Lib/Dem coalition government.

Annabelle’s “new way” was actively supported by her deputy leader, Murdo Fraser and reflected her many years of politicking in Scotland, stretching back to the heady days of 1980/90 when Tory MP’s in Scotland numbered in double figures.

Facing the reality that, with only one MP left in place, (desperately clinging on for dear life down near the border) the future for the party in Scotland appeared gloomy and depressing.

It was against this background of unmitigated disasters that at the time she took up the reins of leadership, she said “the wheels are back on the wagon and the nag hitched up to tow it”.

She also gave warning, that “disloyalty or disobedience will not be tolerated so long as I am leader”. “I think you may take it matron’s handbag will be in hyper-action.”

Speaking directly to the Scottish public she said, “There is work to be done tackling the huge frustrations about what devolution is not delivering for Scotland and the Tory Party under my leadership will be united in doing it’s best to ensure there is a robust opposition presence in Scotland. The Tory party was back!!

In parliament, she proved to be a skilled debater. Possessing a dry wit and self deprecating humour, “the matron” very quickly established a positive image of herself and the party at Holyrood and with the Scottish public and press.

But the first test of her leadership was not long delayed when after only a week in office she had to deal with the “deep throat” Tory who had released damaging evidence of David McLetchie’s improper expense claims to the press.

David Monteith MSP, (a right wing Thatcherite friend of Michael Forsyth) admitted to being the source of the leak.

Annabelle immediately withdrew the party whip but forced him to remain at Holyrood, as an independent until his resignation at the time of the 2007 Scottish elections.

In banishing Monteith she reopened wounds that had barely healed and set her on a collision course with a small core of Thatcherite s remaining in Scottish politics, including David Mundell.

 

Murdo Fraser

 

Mar 2007: Only weeks before the Scottish General Election Mundell launched an attack on Party leader Goldie and her team at Holyrood

Murdo Fraser MSP had raised the possibility of a split from Westminster control so that the Party in Scotland would be able to decide upon policy.

Countering the Fraser challenge Mundell delivered a damning statement in a four-page memo to leader David Cameron (leaked to the press) revealing that Tory chiefs had lost confidence in the Holyrood team which was comprised of a “bunch of no-hopers” further claiming there was a “lack of thinkers” among the Tory MSPs who were utterly incapable of coming up with new policies.

He added: “There are more obvious problems than solutions emanating from Scotland from a party point of view. And I see little in the short term that can be done to improve the MSP group situation.”

And he was scathing about Tory MSPs’ abilities saying: “Whilst it is possible to agree in principle that the party in Scotland can make its own policy on devolved matters, the simple lack of strategic thinkers is apparent.”

He went on to urge a purge of lame-duck MSP’s,  the speedy appointment of a new Scottish Party Chairman, new Scottish Party leader and a new management team comprised of strategic thinkers.

Party members and some MSP’s demanded that his suspension and dismissal from office, or hanging from the Forth Road Bridge but Cameron refused to criticise him instead offering his support.

Cameron, Mundell, Osborne and others then conducted a war of attrition against Goldie and (in their view) her outdated Unionist views of the UK which, whilst maintaining the Union gave precedence to the interests of Scotland over the wishes of Westminster.

 

Douglas Alexander

 

 

 

May 2007: Scottish General Election and Local Council Elections held on the same day

The Labour Government was in crisis fending off press and public critisism over the failed Iraq invasion and inceasing military and civilian casualties.

Afghanistan another military and political disaster and Westminster scandals, (cash for honours) requiring Tony Blair to be interviewed by the police, gave warning of a humiliating SNP victory in Scotland.

But Labour had a secret weapon who would turn things around in Scotland.

Douglas Alexander was promoted to the UK Cabinet as Secretary of State for Transport and Scotland.

The SNP lobbied Westminster seeking that the election process, in all respects be transferred to the authority of the Scottish Parliament.

This was refused and the duty was subsequently delegated to, “Wee Douglas” who would also run Labour’s electoral campaign in Scotland.

Elections to Holyrood, in 1999 and 2003 had, (preventing voter confusion) used two separate ballot papers for the constituency and regional lists.

Alexander and Scottish (Labour) government ministers decided that Local Council Elections would be held at the same time as the parliamentary election and both election selections would be printed on one ballot paper.

Civil servants and an independent marketing firm warned that the ballot forms would lead to confusion and a higher-than-average number of rejected votes.

Their advice was ignored, Alexander and the governing, (Labour) Party hit back claiming their changes would prove to be extremely popular. Civil servants and the, “Electoral Commission” were subsequently silenced.

In the election the SNP won by a single vote.  Alexander was hugely praised by Labour Party mandarins since he had almost, “saved the day” for Labour. The elections, were however badly tainted by a chaotic voting process,  blamed on the Scottish Office’s design of ballot papers.

In excess of 146,000 votes were declared void. The largest in electoral history.

Seventeen MSP’s were elected to Parliament with majorities lower than the number of spoiled ballots in their constituency.

There was a public outcry and, “Returning Officers” voiced their discontent about the election process.

Wee Alexander, “Scottish Secretary”, the accountable person that organized the elections, stated there would be a statutory review of the election under the auspices of the Labour Party loaded Electoral Commission.

The Scottish Electorate was outraged and demanded an independent inquiry. Tony Blair was forced to concede and an inquiry was commissioned.

Following an extensive, lengthy inquiry, an official report submitted by, Ron Gould, (a senior Canadian election official), heavily censured Alexander and the Labour Party stating that ministers in the Labour Scottish Government and at Westminster together with Mr Alexander’s political, “self-interested” moves, (as the Labour Party in Scotland’s election supremo), had abused their, “offices of state” making decisions about the election on “party political interest grounds”, with voters treated as an “after-thought.”

So be warned. Alexander and the Labour Party are akin to “snakes in the grass”. They care only for the Party. The voter is a means to an end.

 

Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon

 

Gordon Brown

 

 

May 2007: SNP Gains Power in Scotland

In a dramatic and chaotic general election the SNP became the largest party in Scotland pipping Labour by one seat, putting the country on an uncertain course towards independence.

Nineteen hours after the polls had closed, and following see-sawing results, a disconsolate Labour conceded that the SNP had secured 47 seats to its 46 – a desperate setback for Gordon Brown in his backyard as he prepared to take over as prime minister.

Staking his claim to become first minister, Alex Salmond said; “It is very clear indeed which party has lost this election, and the Labour party no longer has any moral authority left to govern Scotland.

Scotland has changed for ever and for good. Never again will we say that the Labour party assumes it has a divine right to rule Scotland.”

The Scottish National Party (SNP) then proceeded to form a minority government which entailed governing via negotiation, garnering support from other parties on each single policy.

Passing annual budget statements became difficult due to continual competing demands often for amendments of little consequence.

It was also possible for Parliament to approve opposition motions effectively blocking or frustrating nationalist ‘control’, with the second, third and fourth largest parties all being unionist, in a co-aligned majority on the constitution.

The major difficulty of cohabitation confronted both the SNP and Labour governments since the Westminster measures attaching to the devolved powers designed to ensure a permanent unionist majority in Holyrood preventing the SNP ever gaining control had failed.

A disgruntled Gordon Brown’s answer was to declare war on the SNP devolving Scottish business for discussion and or decision to civil service mandarins avoiding any contact with Alex Salmond setting the scene for the duration of the parliament making things even more difficult for the minority SNP government.

 

Adam Tomkins

 

 

August 2007 – Republican – Adam Tomkins attacks the Westminster Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill

The “national conversation” initiated by the Scottish Executive in August 2007 has the potential to lead to radically more fundamental constitutional reform than any proposal contained in the Draft Westminster Constitutional Renewal Bill.

In which 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 the constitutional law of the country.

If, as the Government claims, the country is to be 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 complete transfer of power from Crown to Parliament must be done.

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, is the constitutional principle on which the governance of Britain and on which a programme of constitutional renewal should be based.

Comment:

Well! well! Tomkins truly is a republican who believes in the supremacy of the people over politicans and royalty.

Westminster is not therefore 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.

It beggars belief therefore that he advances the view 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tommy Sheridan

 

 

2003: Shades of Daniel Defoe – The rise and fall of Tommy Sheridan and the Scottish Socialist Party

Tommy Sheridan, Colin Fox and other left wing activists had started making significant in-roads into Scottish politics causing concern in London, triggering long established controlling mechanisms implementation of which would be charged to the British Secret Service (MI5).

Politically active Tomkins established strong links with senior members of a rapidly expanding SSP through the common cause of republicanism.

In the 2003 Holyrood election the SSP increased their MSP representation from one to six and a number of independent MSP’s also entered the new “rainbow parliament”.

In the first year of the new parliament the SSP fought for policies such as free school meals and an end to prescription charges (both introduced in a later parliament by SNP) and campaigned against Home Office dawn raids to remove failed asylum seekers.

But the outward show of unity was deceiving, all was not well, the party was reported to be heavily in debt and in November 2004, its leader, Tommy Sheridan announced his resignation.

A Sheridan supporter of long standing, Colin Fox, who had been elected as a Socialist MSP in 2003, took over and in parliament under his leadership, the SSP continued to pursue its socialist policies, albeit frequently disrupting parliamentary business by way of volatile protest.

Not long after Rupert Murdoch’s, News of the World exposed and destroyed Sheridan’s political career alleging sexual misconduct in office, using information largely gathered through illegal phone tapping of Sheridan and SSP officers.

The editor was Bob Bird, then husband of BBC news-reader Jackie Bird.

Sheridan won a £200,000 defamation action and costs, despite eleven party figures, including Fox, Kane and Leckie, giving evidence against him and later announced he had left the Party.

He went on to set up a new left-wing party, “Solidarity.”

The News of the World refused to give up its attacks on Sheridan and the SSP and the case rumbled on between 2004 – 2016 triggering “Operation Rubicon” which was set up by Strathclyde Police in parallel to a wider inquiry into alleged criminality at the News of the World in London.

The fall out included: A jail sentence for Sheridan. The closure of the News of the World in Scotland then later in England and many charges of illegal phone tapping and fraud being lodged by legal authorities against Sheridan, Bob Bird and Andy Coulson.

A classic MI5 operation possibly never to be proved but the SSP and Solidarity was rejected by the electorate in the 2007 Scottish election and has never recovered its former status.

 

Tommy Sheridan

 

 

Afternote:

After closing arguments and before the jury retired to consider its verdict, Lord Turnbull said the conflicting evidence given to the court may have meant some people had been perjuring themselves – an offence which could lead to a prison sentence.

Tommy Sheridan won his defamation case against the News of the World and the tabloid was ordered to pay him £200,000 damages.

Bob Bird, (husband of BBC news presenter Jackie Bird) then editor in Scotland of the News of the World, said he was “absolutely astonished” at the outcome and indicated he would appeal the verdict.

Days after the closing of the case Lord Turnbull, registered a formal complaint against the conduct of Tommy Sheridan’s legal team, voicing concerns about allegations that had been put to a witness, that she had a conviction for credit card fraud and had served a prison sentence.

These turned out to be false and Sheridan sacked his legal team.

Two months later the Procurator Fiscal ordered police to carry out a criminal investigation into allegations of perjury during the case.

A Crown Office spokesman said it was not possible to speculate on the timescale for the investigation. Tommy Sheridan, dismissed the launch of the formal inquiry as “nothing new”.

In January 2011 Sheridan was found guilty of lying in order to win the £200,000 libel action against the News of the World tabloid, after the longest perjury trial in Scottish legal history.

Lord Bracadale said Sheridan had deliberately committed perjury after ignoring a series of warnings from friends not to sue the News of the World over its allegations about his sex life. He was jailed for three years. He served one year.

Sheridan who was denied the right of appeal, claimed he was the victim of a “conspiracy” involving the News of the World and other unspecified individuals.

Sheridan’s lawyer, Aamer Anwar, announced he would appeal and would start legal proceedings against News International, the owner of the tabloid, as well as the Metropolitan police and Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator jailed for hacking mobile phones for the paper.

The trial had been told that Sheridan’s home address, phone number and pin code appeared in Mulcaire’s notebooks when the paper was preparing its exposés of Sheridan’s sex life.

A senior Metropolitan Police detective, admitted at the trial that the force never investigated why Sheridan’s name and details appeared in Mulcaire’s  notebook.

Andy Coulson, until early January 2011 David Cameron’s chief media adviser had given evidence during Sheridan’s trial about the hacking scandal – he had been the paper’s London editor when the stories of Sheridan’s sex life were published and it lost the defamation action.

Referring to Coulson’s very recent resignation as David Cameron’s head of communications, because of an escalating hacking controversy, Sheridan said Coulson should face “real justice” and be prosecuted for the alleged hacking.

The paper’s legal team confirmed it would be appealing against Sheridan’s libel victory and would demand that Sheridan pay all its legal costs if it wins, potentially bankrupting him. Under electoral law, Sheridan would be barred from standing again for parliament if he became an undischarged bankrupt.

The case rambled on for years and finally ended in 2018 with Sheridan retaining the £200k and costs awarded to him in the defamaton case. The News of the World closed.

 

Andy Coulson

 

 

About Andy Coulson:

Coulson became the Conservative Party’s director of communications in July 2007 and following the 2010 general election, he was appointed by David Cameron to the post of Communications Director at 10 Downing Street.

It is alleged Cameron was persuaded by Rebekah Wade to appoint Coulson. The paper quoted: “an individual intimately involved in Mr Coulson’s recruitment” as saying “Rebekah indicated the job should go to Andy.

Cameron was told it should be someone acceptable to News International. The company was also desperate to find something for Andy after he took the rap when the phone hacking first became an issue. The approach was along the lines of, ‘If you find something for Andy we will return the favour”

About a year later, he was arrested over phone-hacking allegations. He was charged with conspiracy to illegally intercept communications and, in 2014, was sentenced to 18 months in prison, eventually serving just under five.

His arrest and subsequent conviction led some to question the prime minister’s judgment.

Coulson was also charged with having committed perjury during the trial in 2010 of Tommy and Gail Sheridan. He was scheduled to stand trial in April 2015 but the trial was postponed to 11 May 2015 because of the general election.

On 1 June 2015, Lord Burns, acquitted Coulson. Explaining his ruling, Lord Burns said that for Coulson to be found guilty it was necessary for the Crown to prove that the allegedly untrue evidence he had given at the 2010 Sheridan trial had been relevant to the issues in it.

Weird this!!! Surely the Crown needed only to prove Coulson to be a liar.

The judge added that it was for him, and not the jury, to decide on this aspect of the case and that the Crown’s legal submissions had failed to satisfy him that Coulson’s evidence had been sufficiently relevant to the Sheridan trial. (So the state intervened and closed all avenues of investigation)

Coulson was defended by the most senior judge in Scotland Richard Keen QC (an old friend of whom there is much more to come)

 

 

 

 

Oct 2004: The Calton Hill Independence Rally

On the day her majesty, Queen Elizabeth 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.

As expected the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal declared there was no grounds for complaint after a probe into the awarding of contracts for the Holyrood site.

The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) co-ordinated a rally for independence at Calton Hill in October 2004 at which the “Declaration of Calton Hill”, setting out a vision of an inclusive and outward-looking Scottish republic was presented.

The case was advanced for a Scottish socialist republic without a monarchy or nuclear weapons, with a currency independent of England, a much reduced level of military spending and a relationship with the European Union safeguarding Scotland’s independence.

Addressing a cheering crowd, Law Professor, Adam Tompkins of Glasgow University, reminded them 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 preaching, “If you want democracy down with the crown!”

 

Adam Tomkins addressing the rally

 

 

Oct 2004: The Declaration of Independence was presented to the rally – Did Professor Adam Tomkins Co- Write It With the SSP?

We the undersigned call for an independent Scottish republic built on the principles of liberty, equality, diversity and solidarity.

These principles can never be put into practice while Scotland remains subordinate to the hierarchical and anti-democratic institutions of the British State.

We believe these principles can be brought about by a freely elected Scottish Government with full control of Scotland’s revenues.

We believe that the right to self-determination is an inherent right, and not a boon or a favour to be granted to us whether by the Crown or the British State.

We believe that sovereignty rests in the people and vow to fight for the right to govern ourselves for the benefit of all those living in Scotland today, tomorrow and in future times.

The Government of a country is servant to the people, not master of the people.

We believe that a written Constitution will guarantee, under law, everyone’s right to freely vote, speak and assemble; and will guarantee the people’s right to privacy and protection, and access to information on all its Government’s doings.

We vow to fight for the power to refuse to send our sons and daughters to kill and die in unjust wars in foreign lands.

We vow to fight for the power to banish nuclear weapons of mass destruction from our land.

We vow to fight for the power to acquire and restrict the use of property or lands controlled by individuals, corporations or governments from beyond Scotland’s borders.

We vow to fight for the power to turn our depopulated land into a haven for those fleeing famine and persecution.

We vow to fight for the power to build a more equal society, free of poverty, through the redistribution of our vast wealth.

We vow to fight for the power to protect our soil, seas and rivers for our children and for the generations to come.

We swear to oppose all forms of national chauvinism, imperialism and racism.

We swear to oppose all forms of discrimination on the grounds of gender, ethnic origin, religion, place of birth, age, disability, sexuality or language.

We aim for an independent Scottish Republic in which people may live with dignity and with self-respect, free from exploitation, assuming the responsibilities of free women and men.

An independent Scottish republic will negotiate freely and as an equal with governments of other lands.

Our aim is not to erect walls of separation, but to build an outward looking, Scotland that will extend the hand of friendship to all the peoples of the world.

We vow to continue the struggle for a free, democratic Scottish republic for as long as it may take. The fight is for freedom.

Adam Tomkins

 

Calton Hill rally

 

 

2005: Pamphlet, “How we Should Rule Ourselves” praising the benefits of a republic over the monarchy co-authored and produced by Prof Adam Tomkins and Alisdair Gray

Rafael Behr of the Observer reviewed the work and said.

Authors, Alisdair Gray and Tomkins make a strong case for establishing a Republican nation writing:

“Courtesy of Queen Elizabeth II, we will elect a new parliament on 5 May.

By Her Majesty’s leave, a victorious leader will then form a government. No royal assent, no power.

That’s the rule.”

It is, say Gray and Tomkins, a rum do. We are all subjects of the Crown, and the power that parliament and the courts wield over us is borrowed from hereditary sovereignty.

Should it not be the other way around, with sovereign people lending power to their leaders on condition of good behaviour?

The book makes the case for republican reform robustly and breathlessly, burning through the story of democracy from ancient Athens to the present day in one drag of a left-wing pamphleteer’s cigarette.

The merits and failings of the English Civil War, the French, American and Industrial Revolutions are emphatically flicked into the ashtray of history.

And, at the end of the yarn, the butt is stubbed out contemptuously on New Labour’s record of constitutional tampering.

What we need, argue the authors, is a parliament without whips and aconstitution without the Crown.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The British Secret Services (SIS)

The security services are comprised of three branches each of which provide graduates, post graduates, linguists, IT specialists and writers a wide range of career opportunities in intelligence work.

MI5:  Staff 4000: It is responsible for protecting the UK against covertly organized threats to national security encompassing terrorism, espionage and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

MI6: Staff 3500: Operates in secret overseas, recruiting and developing foreign contacts and gathering intelligence. An opportunist organization it identifies then exploits favourable circumstances avoiding risks to national security, military capability and prosperity. Its remit also includes counter terrorism, resolving international conflict and prevention of the spread of nuclear and other non-conventional weapons.

GCHQ: Staff 6000: It is the UK government’s expert in cyber security, using technical expertise to provide intelligence, protect information and inform government policy.

Note: In the case of MI5 there are probably less than fifty agents fitting the James Bond profile. The bulk of the remaining group of specialist agents operate in England and Ireland with a cadre of around 250 likely to be permanently deployed in Scotland. Contrary to popular perception many agents fulfil mundane duties, such as research, office and other administration work. Once in there is no “out” although the pursuit of other careers is encouraged, if applicable.

There is another group recruited direct from Universities and deployed to intelligence gathering duties, media manipulation and deep penetration of subversive groups. Many of this last lot are “deep throat” agents located career term within the ranks of senior people in Universities, politicians, police, charities and other institutions of power.

About Secret Services operatives

Those who sign up to employment with the services swear allegiance for life to the “Crown” and the preservation of the “Union”. They owe fealty to no political party but, if deployed to that activity they are permitted to exercise a choice of the political dogma they wish to follow and if elected to office they will serve their constituents to the very best of their political ability but always mindful of the criteria that shapes their thinking.

Are secret services persons easy to identify?

Only if information is released into the public domain, which isn’t that often. Unverifiable identification is possible, usually through the “association, utterances or actions” routes and as such assertions need to be taken on trust. The articles that follow will do just that.

1703: Daniel Defoe – The first and very special British secret agent destroyed Scotland 

A close study of the activities and subterfuge of the English government and Daniel Defoe in the period before and after the 1707 Act of Union reveals a similar pattern of events occurred before and after the 2014 Scottish Referendum.

In 1704, Defoe, in jail at the time, offered his services to William Paterson, the London Scot and founder of the Bank of England and part instigator of the Darien scheme.

Dependent on his release from prison and a large fee he would, through his writings and subterfuge encourage a swithering English populace to support a union of Scotland and England and then go to Scotland, where he had extensive contacts with many highly placed sources in government to finish the job.

Paterson,  who had the confidence of Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, leading minister and spymaster in the English Government consulted with his confidant. Harley accepted Defoe’s services and arranged his release in 1703.

Defoe wrote and published “The Review”, which appeared weekly, then three times a week. It soon became the main mouthpiece of the Westminster Government promoting an Act of Union with Scotland.

In an early edition “The Review” claimed an “act of union” with Scotland  would end the threat from the North, gaining for the Treasury an inexhaustible treasury of men for war’s in Europe and other places” and a valuable new worldwide market greatly increasing and expanding the power of England.

In September 1706, Harley ordered Defoe, (who was conscious of the risk to himself) to Edinburgh as a secret agent to do everything possible to help secure acquiescence in the Treaty of Union. His first reports to Harley were not encouraging since they contained vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against any prospect of a Union with Westminster. “A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind”, he reported.

Years after, John Clerk, of Penicuik, a leading Unionist, wrote about Defoe in his memoirs:: “He was a spy among us, but not known as such, otherwise the Mob of Edinburgh would have pulled him to pieces.”

But Defoe, a Presbyterian who had suffered in England for his convictions, was readily accepted as an adviser to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and a number of the more influential committees of the Parliament of Scotland.

He told Harley that he was “privy to all their folly” but “perfectly unsuspected as with corresponding with anybody in England”. He was enabled to influence any proposals that were put to Parliament and reported;

“Having had the honour to be always sent for the committee to whom these amendments were referred, I have had the good fortune to break their measures in two particulars via the bounty on Corn and proportion of the Excise.”

In Scotland, he used different arguments, even the opposite of those which he used in England, usually ignoring the English doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament, for example, telling the Scots that they could have complete confidence in the guarantees in the Treaty.

Some of his pamphlets were purported to be written by Scots, misleading even reputable historians into quoting them as evidence of Scottish opinion of the time.

He disposed of the main Union opponent, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, by ignoring him.

Nor did he account for the deviousness of the Duke of Hamilton, the official leader of the various factions opposed to the Union, who seemingly betrayed his former colleagues when he switched to the  Unionist/Government side in the decisive final stages of the debate.

Defoe made no attempt to explain why the same Parliament of Scotland which was so vehement for its independence from 1703–1705 became so supine in 1706.

He received very little reward from his paymasters and of course no recognition for his services by the government.

Glaschu, described by Defoe as a “Dear Green Place” became a hotbed of sustained unrest against the Union prompting clergymen to urge their congregations “to up and anent for the City of God”. Which Scots did in their thousands tearing up copies of the “Treaty of Union” at every “Mercat Cross in Scotland. The response from Westminster was a deployment of a heavily armed English army to put down the rioters.

Years later he reflected on his experience and betrayal of Scots to write his Tour thro’ the whole Island of Great Britain, published in 1726, in which he admitted that the increase of trade and population in Scotland which he had predicted as a consequence of the Union was “not the case, but rather the contrary”.

Apr 1998: Malcolm Rifkind – special agent never denied calls for political pact to block Scottish nationalists

Rikind: Tory and Foreign Secretary between 1995-2000 and in charge of Britain’s secret services accused Labour of fostering the mood of nationalism within Scotland by exploiting “nationalist language” during its spell in opposition saying; “The genie is out of the bottle and, like all genies, once they are out of the bottle they are difficult to put back in.” He then called for the formation of a cross-party movement to protect the Union and prevent the SNP taking power. He said: “I think there is a need for a non-party movement in Scotland to support the Union.” An agreed cross party action plan was put in place that same year and it has never been rescinded.

In 2009, Rifkind, became Chairman of the British Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which oversees MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – (the most important position in the UK intelligence community) and took overall charge of the “Better Together” disinformation campaign.

Andrew Fulton

2000: Glasgow University – A hotbed of powerful Unionist activity at the heart of Scottish education

Andrew Fulton – Former MI6 Head of Station (Washington) uncovered as a spy working for the University. Former Glasgow University, Law student Fulton, described as “more George Smiley than James Bond” served in Saigon, East Berlin, Bosnia, New York and Washington. At the peak of his career he was the sixth-most powerful official in the British Secret Service. In 1992, Fulton as head of European operations, was one of the MI6 chiefs who handled the aborted plans to kill Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. He was also an adviser to the Armor Group, Chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a secretive organization that provided security services to national governments and large corporations.

He was forced to step down as a member of the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit (LTBU) which provided media briefings on the trial in Holland of the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing.

The revelation raised concerns that he may have been in a position to influence the way the Lockerbie trial was being reported to ensure the minimum of criticism of the British and American intelligence services.

The title, “Visiting Professor” was authorised by Glasgow University Principal Graeme Davis, also a member of the Scottish North American Business Council  (SNABC).*

The unusual thing about the Fulton professorship was that he had never worked in the legal profession in any capacity, had never taught classes and did no research at Glasgow University. So how was it he was considered to be qualified to be a “Visiting Professor of Law?”  The answer is that Graham Davis, Glasgow University Principal permitted MI6 to plant Fulton in the Media unit.

The American ambassador Philip Lader was also a member of the (SNABC) at the same time justifying claims that it was used as a front organization allowing Fulton and Lader to meet without drawing attention, to discuss Lockerbie the handling of the press corps steering them away from the Americans.

* The (SNABC) is the Scottish chapter of the secretive, well connected Atlanticist body aimed at fostering closer relations between the UK the US British-American Business Council and has interesting intelligence connections.

Its current Chairman is former MI6 Washington Station Chief Andrew Fulton. The Council retains Media House International for PR and its executive chairman Jack Irvine is also a former board member. (Powerbase)

Adam Tomkins

2. Professor Adam Tomkins appointed – Chair of Public Law (John Millar School of Law)

Tomkins, with established links to senior officers in the Foreign Affairs branch of the US State Department, is an intellectual and political genius, but perhaps only in his own mind and imagination and a leading constitutional scholar and hard line republican relocated to Scotland from England in 2003, taking up employment with Glasgow University as a lecturer in constitutional law.

His previous employment had been teaching English law in English educational establishments and his appointment to a prestigious post remitting him to inform students of Scottish law created disquiet in the minds of some and raised the question. Is this guy for real or is he a British Secret Service plant?

Adam Tomkins

Spies-R-Us

Is a recently created Glasgow University course covering Security, Intelligence & Strategic Studies – A two year post graduate course: Graduates from the programme are prepared to pursue careers in security-related posts in government offices and public administration, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, transnational business corporations and private security and risk analysis companies.

Andrew Dunlop

Graduated in economics from Glasgow University. Joined Thatcher’s inner circle as one of the seven members of her “policy unit”, specializing in defence, employment, tax reform and Scotland. Was a special adviser to former Defence Secretary George Younger. One  of the architects, together with David Cameon of the hated 1989 Poll Tax.  Left government, appointed managing director of top lobbying firm “Politics International.” David Cameron’s right hand man in the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. Ennobled by Cameron in 2015 then installed as, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Scotland working with Tomkins and Mundell maintaining the subjugation of the Scots.

Glasgow University Officers’ Training Corps

The University of Glasgow’s links with the British military can be traced back to the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745, when companies of Militia were raised to defend the unionist supporting University against the Jacobites.  During the First World War, Glasgow , by the summer of 1916, around 2,800 officers had been trained by the University. In the Second World War the UOTC’s role was to train officers from University students conscripted into the Army and to provide basic training for those who remained behind as a Home Guard unit. Glasgow UOTC still exists and remains based at the drill hall in University Place.

Ruth Davidson emerges from the shadows of Glasgow University

Davidson, was employed by the BBC for around eight years until 2009. In that employment she was deployed to Bosnia as a correspondent, at the time Andrew Fulton was head of the Secret Service in Bosnia. She resigned her employment with the BBC in 2009 and signed up to a one year post-graduate course in international diplomacy at Glasgow University. In that same year she joined the Tory Party, later claiming “I liked David Cameron’s looks”. A few months later, she assumed, the role of Chair of Glasgow University Young Conservatives. Only a year later she was appointed to the leadership of the Tory Party in Scotland by Andrew Fulton. Does the link to Fulton permit  Davidson to be exposed as a Secret Service agent? How does that smell to you?

 

 

Jeremy Corbyn – The Labour Party and anti-semitism smears

The Tory Party hit back at Labour because of its demands for an inquiry over the Tory Party inaction to interference in British politics by Israel

Israeli state sponsored strategy is focused on controlling public opinion in the UK. Israel’s objective is to harness the resources of grassroots Zionist supporters in order to buttress from below the British government’s traditionally staunch support for Israel and to combat increasing public antipathy to Israel, specifically in its military interventions in Gaza, known colloquially to IDF soldiers as ‘mowing the lawn’ (Rabbani 2014).

 

 

The strategy exposed

Al Jazeera recently broadcast a four-part series of undercover documentaries entitled “The Lobby”.

The series was to shatter any illusions about Israel’s capacity to influence British democratic processes.

Most controversially, the films exposed an Israeli Embassy official in the act of suggesting to a senior civil servant the ‘take down’ of British politicians, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sir Alan Duncan, a known supporter of Palestinian rights, at the top of the list.

The embassy official was Shai Masot, a former intelligence officer for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).

Masot’s interlocutor, Maria Strizzolo, a former ministerial aide employed in the Education Department, was filmed agreeing: ‘If you look hard enough, I’m sure that there is something that they are trying to hide’

The scandal mongering attempts of the pair were hard to deny in the face of the filmed evidence and further footage showed Masot boasting about his recent success in influencing British government policy over local council boycotts of Israeli goods and services through the “Conservative Friends of Israel.”

Equally damaging, he was also seen mobilizing behind the scenes support for Israel through his close involvement with Zionist lobbyists amongst the British political elite and covertly fostering the spread of pro-Israel advocacy groups at the grassroots level of British society.

The documentaries caused outrage on all sides of the Israel-Palestinian debate in Britain and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn demanded an inquiry on grounds of national security.

The public joined the protest arguing, with good reason that had Russia, Iran or indeed any other state been caught behaving in a like manner, there would have been a thorough investigation.

Taking a contrary view the Jewish press to minimized the importance of the exposure, scorning it as trivial and out of touch with the reality of everyday parliamentary lobbying.

Other israeli sources accused Al Jazeera of importing Middle Eastern anti-Semitism to Britain, or berated the deceitfulness of undercover reporting and complained to the communications regulator Ofcom.

The furore was short lived. House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow (Berkowitz) made short shrift of MPs’ demands for an inquiry, telling them it would not be ‘helpful to discuss it further’ (Middle East Eye 2017).

A public petition collected more than 12,000 signatories demanding an investigation into the embassy’s conduct but it too drew a terse response from the Tory controlled Foreign Office.

Stressing Britain’s strong ties with Israel, the response concluded: ‘We consider the matter closed’ (UK Government & Parliament 2017).

Credit: Jane Jackman (University of Exeter)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independence – Now is the Time for Scots to stand up and be counted in

Events in London over the last week have left me feeling more than a bit deflated since I was cruelly reminded by the senior legal advisor of Queen Elizabeth of the reality of political governance in the islands of Britain.

His assertion that Scots, without exception, are nothing more than plebs to be cared for or not at the whim of Queen Elizabeth’s politically appointed masters is soul destroying and renders impotent the aspirations of devolved government in Scotland.

Reflecting on the arguments brought forward I was minded of my long career in business in which organisational and reporting structures mirroring those preferred by the Westminster elite prevailed.

In every case said Companies implementing English “class” driven “top down” management failed to compete with competitors who embraced devolved management systems.

I was once appointed to the post of Business Manager of a publically funded organisation with a remit to bring about organisational change improving efficiency.

Very few people readily adapt to change. The process is akin to the impact of  being informed of a death in the family. Denial; Resentment; Acceptance.

The first two parts of the process need to be handled with great care and must be fully supported by all members of the management team since any weakening of opinion  will be seized upon and the proposed changes will most likely fail.

Within weeks of briefing teams of proposals for change I noted an increasing number of junior managers and supervisory staff exiting the office of the Chief Executive and an marked unwilling on the part of staff represntatives to meet with myself and the “change team”.

I was being thwarted in my efforts by the Chief Executive who insisted on being kept fully informed of all details of any actions I proposed to introduce so that he would be able to decide if a change would be appproriate. Micro-management and undermining the authority of a colleague with a vengence.

Following on from many seemingly endless conversations of matters of little consequence I confronted my senior colleague with the purpose of discussing aspects of managerial styles with him and was shocked by his views.

He stated he had ultimate control of all aspects of the organisation and his chosen style of management was that of a “benign dictator” and any area of responsibility gifted to myself by himself would be subject to my understanding that any remit carried with it a “rider” that I would be held “accountable” for performance and results, but would have only limited  “authority”. I left the organisation soon after.

My bad experience almost mirrors the relationship that exists between Westminster and Holyrood.

Westminster, as the “Sovereign Power” is the “benign dictator” retaining ultimate control of all aspects of government in Scotland.

Like it or not the “benign” part of the power base can and is abandoned as Westminster sees fit and the “Scottish Executive” is in essence only “authorised” to manage a number of devolved powers on behalf of the “Sovereign Power” and then only with the “rider” that Westminster is the “accountable” body.

The “Act of Union” is sacrosanct and the only way forward for Scots is independence since nothing will be done to improve our lot.

 

 

 

 

 

30 Nov 2016: In the Honourable Cause of State Security Westminster Politicians Callously Exempted Themselves From Theresa May’s  New Wide-Ranging Spying Laws.

The Investigatory Powers Act, brought to statute by Home Secretary, Mrs May, and a reactionary Tory government introduced the most extreme and invasive surveillance powers ever given to state employed network eavesdroppers sniffing for individuals private data.

The new law required that those using its powers must be given a warrant signed by any appropriate official but for members of parliament and all UK and MEP politicians, additional protection was provided by the introduction of rules requiring warrants to be personally approved by the Prime Minister.

Essential Reading: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_powers_act_backdoors/

 

Andrea Leadsom

 

 

20 Jul 2018: Yet Again – Westminster MP’s Show Their Contempt for Public Opinion

MPs agreed to the introduction of a new draconian code of conduct for MPs, Peers, Parliamentary Staff and Civil Servants claiming it aspired to stamp out bullying and harassment.

But the new rules also ended the right of the Public and Press to be alerted to and name and shame MPs, Peers and Parliamentary Staff (including Civil Servants) accused of other offences such as fiddling expenses or conflicts of interest.

The new rules replace the previously introduced new rules just introduced in 2010 which replaced the existing ineffective rules that allowed for the mass defrauding of taxpayers by the previously mentioned group of individuals.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has been neutered, to the detriment of the public and press and to the benefit of wrongdoers  by the setting aside of the 2010 commitment of MP’s to the public to ensure a complete transparency of process, listing MPs, Peers, Parliamentary Staff and Civil Servants under inquiry and rulings

First example:

Within minutes of the vote in the Commons all information pertaining to separate investigations into two MPs – Labour MP Keith Vaz and Tory Robert Courts – was removed from the Commissioner’s website.

 

 

 

20 Jul 2018: The Tory Government Statement of Intent

Commons Leader Tory MP, Andrea Leadsom issued a statement proposing the change saying:

“We’re proposing that the Commissioners of both Houses will keep their investigations entirely confidential until such time as there is a finding. This is crucial if individuals are to place their trust in the new system.  There is clearly a balance to be struck between the public interest in transparency and putting the complainant at the heart of the process by protecting their identity. That is absolutely vital.”

Sir Alistair Graham, former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told the press that it would “seriously undermine our democratic system” and that MPs are “using something relating to sexual misconduct to get rid of something MPs haven’t liked for a long time”.

Sir Kevin Barron, chairman of the Cross-Party Committee on Standards in Public Life argued that MPs should not have anonymity over accusations of fiddling expenses or conflicts of interest. and said the new code was “a step backwards”. He also produced a letter written to himself by lay members of his committee:

Dear Sir Kevin,

Confidentiality regarding matters not related to the Behaviour Code

We are writing to you in your position as Chair of the Committee on Standards.

As lay members we wish to express our support to the elected members of the Committee on Standards for the amendment being tabled to the House, regarding matters of confidentiality on investigations, conducted by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards, relating to the Code of Conduct.
Through our involvement in the work of the Committee we recognise the unusual, and sometimes precarious, nature of the role of MPs, the media interest they deal with on a daily basis and therefore, the importance MPs rightly place on their reputation.

We also recognise the importance of the reputation of the House and the impact the actions and behaviours of MPs can have on how this is viewed.

Our experience to date suggests that publication of an announcement that an investigation is taking place does not cause significant damage to an MP’s reputation and, on a number of occasions, the matter is already in the public domain through the media.

Therefore, in our view, the announcement can provide assurance that concerns are being handled independently and in a fair and impartial manner.

Our view is that the current practice followed by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards, and explicitly agreed by the House in 2010, creates the right balance between the individual reputation of MPs and the collective reputation of the House.

Any proposals to limit this approach would be a detrimental step in continuing to build the credibility of the reputation of the House.

The letter, written on behalf of UK citizens was ignored

Lay Members of the Committee on Standards: Tammy Banks, Jane Burgess, Charmaine Burton, Rita Dexter, Dr Arun Midha, Sir Peter Rubin, Paul Thorogood