The other side’s rules
Alert readers may recall a piece yesterday in which we highlighted the strange nature of this weekend’s Sunday Post front-page lead story. It appeared to regard the Scottish Government pursuing the policies on which it had stood for election as some sort of illegitimate guilty secret, and made great play of the fact that the Scottish Government had attempted to withhold the cost of some expert advice it had sought.
There are, of course, two protagonists in the independence debate, so it would seem only fair to examine the UK government’s conduct in preparing the reports with which it seeks to counter the Scottish Government’s documents, and the transparency thereof.
So we’re most grateful to the reader who uncovered the answer for us today. It comes through Hansard, the official record of the UK Parliament, and relates an exchange in April this year between SNP MP Dr Eilidh Whiteford and the Conservative government minister David Lidington, concerning the “Scotland Analysis” programme, which is the UK government’s series of anti-independence reports.
“Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of his Department’s staff have been allocated to work on the Scotland Analysis programme; and at what cost to the public purse.
Mr Lidington: Work on the Scotland Analysis programme is being carried out across Government by officials in relevant areas. There is a small team in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) which works on devolution-related issues, including the FCO’s contribution to the programme. The cost of carrying out the work is being funded from existing departmental budgets in the normal way.”
Firstly, then, we get an acknowledgement of what this site said yesterday – enacting the policy goals and choices of a democratically-elected governing party is the normal and legitimate business of government. A department’s budget is at the service of whatever the government wants to do with it.
“Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he or his officials have had with the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West as part of the Scotland Analysis programme; and what was discussed at each such meeting.
Mr Lidington: There have been no such meetings.”
The Member in question is Alistair Darling. Interesting.
“Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work his Department has commissioned by external consultants in relation to work on the Scotland Analysis programme; which consultants were used; and at what cost to the public purse.
Mr Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Office of the Advocate-General and Cabinet Office, commissioned work from independent legal experts, Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle. The opinion of Professors Crawford and Boyle on the international law aspects of the debate on Scottish independence was subsequently published in annex A to the first paper in this series and can be found here.
It is not standard practice to disclose the cost of any legal advice obtained.“
We’ve added a little emphasis to that last line. Note that there’s no mention of a “tender” being put out inviting bids for the advice, because (as we also pointed out yesterday) such a notion is obviously silly. But more to the point, the minister bluntly refuses the request for details of the cost, and the matter ends there.
In the light of the Sunday Post having its request for identical information granted under a Freedom of Information request, we’ll be most intrigued to see what response we get when we file a similar one later today.
“we’ll be most intrigued to see what response we get when we file a similar one later today.”
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss miiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnn!
Hehe, looking forward to hearing the results of that tbh… 😀
Other things they should have been asked:
– Who prepared the instructions to counsel?
– What did the instructions say?
– Did you approach any other lawyers with the same brief (i.e. have you been opinion shopping)?
You won’t. The Scottish Government got advice from defence experts which is not covered by the legal advice waiver. Disappointment looms.
Almost certain the response you get will be something along the lines of:
“Err, I’m sorry, we can’t hand out that sort of information… Umm, it’s, err… We lost it. Yep, the dog ate it! That’s it. Sorry, goodbye! Have a nice day!”
“You won’t. The Scottish Government got advice from defence experts which is not covered by the legal advice waiver. Disappointment looms.”
Quite possibly. Request sent anyway. Let’s see.
“Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss miiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnn!”
OFFICIAL FORMATTING WARNING.
Nice Rev. 🙂
Look forward to any follow up.
Slightly off topic .. but really on .. a wee bit … We’re frequently told that the Scottish Government have a “terrible record” in replying to FOI requests. We know these requests have risen exponentially recently .. it’d be interesting to find out the relative PERCENTAGE of requests that HAVE been answered … by both sides.
“OFFICIAL FORMATTING WARNING.”
*tweets 140 Ms in a row without a space*
@Doug Daniel
You look brand new min!
That’s incredible. I wasn’t aware of that.
Has anyone asked Scottish journalists how they feel about the more restrictive FOI practices at Westminster?
Are the frustrated at how Westminster just seems to think they can sit on anything?
It would be interesting to see some replies from them to questions like that and how often they have been stonewalled by Westminster.
Andrew Picken regularly decries the Scottish Government for its FOI record, we now know why, he was obviously waiting on their reply for his “scoop” in yesterdays Post. The Sunday Post is such a disappointment over the last couple of years.
I mean if our press are under the gun and don’t have the time to follow up stonewalling by Westminster we could volunteer to put FOIs and appeals in for them?
Why don’t we offer them that opportunity? Free research and assistance to get information out of Westminster?
Be really, really interesting to hear their tales about Westminster obstruction on this issue if folks want to ask them on Twitter.
Look forward to seeing what they say about the system we’d have on reserved issues if there is a No vote.
But in the meantime guys let’s volunteer to help them get past the wall of silence at Westminster. It would help build bridges.
Yes,it would be great to have a genuine and serious answer to your request,but it is likely to be a fudge of some sort, this is Westminster after all.
However, what is really needed is an expert accumulated total to date, cost of the UK’s efforts to thwart democracy in Scotland, for that must be indeed huge!
Take all the time, effort and costs across UK controlled departments, that are embroiled by Westminster to cause mayhem in Scotland. The costs of the “Bitter Together team “( funding contributions ) that accrue from the UK tax base, A.Darling’s costs and all the spin doctor mis information and downright lies.
By their nature there will be costs and indeed open ended costs for the concoction of all these things.
I think that there will be immense costs which would come to light, if some bright person could put all of that together. Now,that WOULD SHOCK the Scottish public and would give us something nearer the truth and the depth of their conspiracy.
I wonder how many and at what cost, the BBC must cost the time of their staff, iff only for internal allocation purposes, all the Scottish NHS FOIs Pacific Quay has made on behalf of the Better Together team?
Scotland now has virtual independence.
The campaign group DOT.SCOT have been successful in having the internet domain “.scot” accepted by ICANN.
https://twitter.com/dot_SCOT
Well done them.
Don’t something like 1 in 8 SG FOIs come from just one Labour poltroon?
There seems to be a rather disturbing trend in Westminster to not release material relating to Scottish devolution and independence because it would not be in the national interest…eg people would see they are telling porkies. We need some way to smack their fingers so they will let go of the information.
I remember at FMQs months ago that A.S. hinted that about 60% (roughly but cant remember exactly) of FOI requests at Holyrood originated from one individual in SLab. He didnt name the individual responsible, but would be fun to submit a FOI to find out for ourselves lol.
Letter to editor sent – be interested to see how they reply.
Good bit of work!
This sounds shady as all hell. Coming from an American Scottish man who has to send his taxes tomorrow even though THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN…..Independence is something Scotland has a chance to do right!
food 4 thought
When the American Revolution broke out, at least in the Scotch-Irish version of the story, the Ulster natives leaped at the opportunity to attack the British crown. “Call this war by whatever name you may. . . ,” observed one Hessian officer, “it is nothing more or less than a Scotch Irish Presbyterian rebellion.” King George allegedly called the conflict “a Presbyterian war,” and another official stated that cousin “America has run off with the Presbyterian parson.” In spite of these comments, the actual Scotch-Irish population was a bit more divided in their loyalties than legend would have it, especially in the South. Still, the Scotch-Irish generally emerged from the Revolution with an enhanced local reputation.
Here is the link to the ‘Scotland Analysis’ (sic) propaganda programme:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/scotland-office/series/scotland-analysis
which has a link to each of the 6 ‘research and analysis’ documents produced so far.
I was a UK government official a few years ago and was regularly involved in drafting contracts for consultants/experts/academics, and managing the commenting of Whitehall officials on reports. Here are some back-of-a fag-packet figures to get the ball rolling:
I reckon that the ballpark figure average cost for the out-sourced research and writing of these documents is £50k. Plus civil servant staff time costs (on management and commenting) of around £10k. So a total for the 6 documents so far of £360k.
Plus almost all the time of (I’d guess) 6 ‘Scotland Office’ officials gives another £240k.
Plus most of SoS for Scotland’s time plus travel, etc. another £200k
Plus (for the next year I am working ‘full-time’ on BT) Darling’s MP salary and expenses of around £80k.
Plus (being charitable) 50% of the UK Scottish Affairs Committee’s time (on anti-independence reports and rabble-rousing) = £100k
So a total estimate so far of £980k – of which Scotland’s ‘population share’ of the cost is around £82k.
O/T.
Hasn’t Phil Hammond just been up in Jockland lecturing us on how we will lose defence orders when we vote YES.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458594/Japan-strikes-deal-sell-millions-pounds-worth-machinery-Royal-Navy.html
Seems more shipyard jobs would be saved building & maintaining our own smaller defensive navy.Found this interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Scots_Navy
This discussion triggered a memory of George Foulkes, criticised frivolously putting in FOI requests to embarrass people he disagreed with.
It highlighted this on NNS:
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/6278-p24k-wasted-on-one-persons-foi-requests
Apparently a Labour party researcher is responsible for13.5% of all FOI requests in the Scottish Parliament, thought to amount to £24K.
I suppose listening to the Labour Party’s terrible contributions to Scottish democratic life is just too much effort, even for their hirelings.
Canvassing central belt – 1000 people
30% No
30% Yes
30% Don’t Know (Likely either Yes or Non voters)
10% Non voters
Don’t believe the Polls
It will be a Yes vote. The majority will be decidedly by the turnout
Don’t believe the Polls
Don’t take them at face value anyway. As you are canvassing for Yes, people will be much more happy to freely admit they are Yes or thinking about it to you than they would be to someone from TNS-BMRB who knocks on their door / someone from MORI who phones them up. You can see this in polling data.
@S_S
Been meaning to ask you; do people not tell pollsters, political activists what they think you want to hear? If they knew you were canvassing for the Yes side would some Nos not say they were either Yes or Don’t knows because they felt awkward? Obviously the same would apply if No were canvassing as well.
@scottish_skier
Might be worth organising some people to canvass their local areas. Making sure to keep it strictly impartial so that people don’t feel obligated to answer one particular way.
Would certainly be more accurate than the so-called “official” polls.
Thought of doing that around Stevenston, but support for Yes isn’t looking too healthy around here thanks to the plans to shut down some of the local schools being attributed to SNP councillors…
(I know full well that the SNP doesn’t equal the Yes campaign, but until we can convince everyone not to believe the propaganda, anything the SNP are seen to be doing can potentially make or break the Yes campaign in an area. At least until some of the other parties in Scotland are seen to be more active in dealing with local issues in these areas, such as the regular SSP stalls in Irvine).
The Don’t knows are more likely to be voting Yes or not voting.
There is no 40%+ No vote.
If people don’t want to say – they don’t. There is no pressure.
Plus the North, NE are SNP stronghold. Less voters? But hard core YES
Muttley – I’ve yet to meet a No voter who didn’t take great delight in telling me how Scotland couldnae dae it. I think when your position is the status quo, it gives you much more confidence to state it outright.
The Defense Minister whose government voted against their own policies
Don’t confuse local issues with the Referendum. People know the difference. Voters are more savvy than they are being given credit. Surprisingly the people from elsewhere seem to be non voters. They consider it a Scottish issue and are non voters or not interested.
Been meaning to ask you; do people not tell pollsters, political activists what they think you want to hear?
Yes, this is a problem that in theory works both ways. However, my experience (and what I see in polling data) is people are far more happy to say ‘No’ or ‘DK’ than they are admitting Yes. After all, the union is being portrayed as ‘the norm / what the majority support’ whereas independence is for ‘crazy anti-English separatists’… Which view is more likely to generate a degree of shyness?
Anyway, the polls show definitely voting No at best ~1/3 if you go digging. That ties in with what people are finding on the streets.
The Scottish Office costs £100K of Scottish taxpayers money for absolutely nothing. Some Scottish Secretary spent their time learning French and getting their hair done.
@Doug
Muttley – I’ve yet to meet a No voter who didn’t take great delight in telling me how Scotland couldnae dae it. I think when your position is the status quo, it gives you much more confidence to state it outright.
I don’t get why people here are delighted to say that Scotland could not manage independence? Is that not like pissing in your own chips?
AnnDon
would that one Labour Resea rresearcher not answer to the sobriquet of FiffiLaBonnrbonne, and by her real name of Keira knightly?
I’ve yet to meet a No voter who didn’t take great delight in telling me how Scotland couldnae dae it.
This type of person thinks independence is perfectly viable. It’s just they are ‘British’ so must invent reasons why it’s not.
@Bugger (the Panda):
I’m pretty sure that Keira Knightly isn’t part of SLAB!
Perhaps you mean Kezia Dugdale… although how you got confused between the two is mightily confusing to me…
BtP For writing FOI requests I understand that’s not costed because it’s part of their staff’s job to write them. On the other hand the people who answer the FOI questions usually always calculate how long it will take to answer. This cost is calculted at approx 20 pounds per hour. So if the request takes more than 18 hours you can pay/or they will exempt the information from disclosure unless requestor pays. Usually if its going to take more than 18 hours the authority should write and advise you of this and suggest other ways to answer your request.
HTH
I’m no expert in political minutiae but it strikes me that London can respond to this FOI request in one of three ways:
They could comply with openness and honesty.
Alternatively they could refuse to comply while citing ‘national security’ or some such excuse.
Finally, they could arrange to lose the relevant documents down the back of a sofa then release simple lies.
My money is on the third option. Am I being unduly cynical?
Dugdale it was, I just couldn’t remember her surname and Dugdale just humped onto the screen.
Looking at the cash China has available to spend and the way Osborne is pushing for links, after the SG has done so much, there is nothing to stop the UK Government selling the future of the oil in the North Sea etc.
If they thought they were going to lose it with Independence in Scotland, there is no reason for them not to do this.
Labour in Scotland and the rest of the UK have now conclusively aligned themselves against Independence and with being British they couldn’t argue.
There is no political action Labour could take to oppose this action on the part of the UK Government.
Westminster would see it as protecting the future of the UK.
Scotland doesn’t own the oil until we are Independent.
Westminster would have the immediate revenue to use now.
I’ll bet they never fought so hard to retain Eire in the Union…mmmm…..I wonder why that could be, they have never fought so hard to keep any of their provinces before.
There are International Laws and agreements governing countries assets and resources. Including the European Court of Human rights, established by the UK, of which Scotland is a member.
Scotland got the right to Devolution because of EU membership.
Scotland and England have different legal systems. Scotland’s is based on Latin Law. England’s on Rome Law. There is a legal argument which gave Scotland the right to Devolution and a Referendum. Under Scottish Law the people are sovereign. The fourth Estate. The King, the Nobles, the Church and the People. Under English Law the people are subjects of the Crown.
@Ken500.
Never forget.
Power devolved is power retained.
What Westminster giveth, Westminster can remove.
The Irish wanted Home Rule. There was a strong Home Rule movement in Ireland in the 19C, led by Charles Stuart Parnell a Protestant Landowner. The Catholics were treated as second class citizens, with no rights. Lloyd George, a Liberal, partitioned Ireland in 1922. It led to a Civil War in Eire. Westminster put in the Black and Tans in a brutal repression in NI.
Brian Powell – “Selling the future’ If I understand you correctly that would be difficult , because to sell a geograhical part of a country’s continental shelf to another country is just bat shit mental even for Osborne!. The Chinese however are free to buy the companies operating the rigs, extracting and processing the oil and gas though. I’m also sure the Americans would have something to say to the UK govt if they even thought of it. 🙂
@Sneddon
The Yanks want the UK to drop Trident and keep the troops. Not happening so Brave Dave would happily sell off the North Sea. After all real Torys sell their grannies, don’t they.
Just how would the North Sea be sold off? Via the commercial companies etc yes. I can’t think of anywhere on this planet where a country has sold its sector of a sea. Also would the USA want China to have a oil and gas fields of its own, mind you building the pipeline to China might be a bit problematic 🙂 All they can sell is the right to extract. If any of our resident maritime law experts would care to chip in I’d be grateful. This question of selling a part of a continental shelf is really interesting. If you can do it I might sell the sea east of Kent for a laugh 🙂
Ken500 :
This is my experince of casual straw polling of strangers and aquaintences also
The Oil companies work under licence because Scotland is still part of the UK. When Scotland votes for Independence that will change. It will become the Scottish Government responsibility, under International Law. There are Oil companies from many countries working in the North Sea. Chinese companies were touting for business at the recent Oil Exhibition in Aberdeen. Scottish Oil workers have contracts in China, and all over the world. Oil companies based in Scotland win contracts worldwide.
@ Scottish Skier
“This type of person thinks independence is perfectly viable. It’s just they are ‘British’ so must invent reasons why it’s not”.
I concur wholeheartedly.
O/T
Just watched an interview with Jon Snow and a journalist called Eric Schlosser regards U.S. and UK WMD and the cover up of accidents. He says that the Trident missile system has ”safety issues”, mainly that its construction is unusual in that its warhead is not on top of the missile like they usually are, instead, it surrounds the third stage rocket engine and that engine has a propellant which explodes very easily if dropped. He says, ” I hope in Scotland that they are very careful when they load and unload the missiles”.
I hope that the fact he is publishing his book, he is just ”sexing up” things a bit!
Ken500 ‘Scotland got the right to Devolution because of EU membership.’ eh? . A far as I can remember we got devolution because it was in labour’s manifesto. The same as the referendum was in the SNP manifesto. The argument as far as I can remember was around whether the referendum was an ‘advisory’ or ‘binding’ referendum. Nit picking by the unionists to be honest imho.
If we got devolution because of the UK’s EU membership why did we have to vote on it? 🙂 A EU country’s internal constituional structure is of no concern to EU as long as its within the terms of EU membership so I don’t know where you got the right to devolution because of EU membership thing from. English law is based on Common Law and Scots law is based on Roman law . I don’t know who told you it was latin but they must be confusing something with something else. 🙂
There is no specific law regarding scottish sovereignity, it has been established as a legal precedent (and by tradition) but not an actual law passed by parliament of either Scotland pre 1707 or the UK as far I can recall. But happy to be put right.
The very same FCO that sends Scotland Analysis papers to it’s EU missions & wants reactions passed back to London. Democratically being undermined by your own taxes people. See how it works?
@Ken500 5.58
The Scottish legal system is a Civil Law system based on Roman Law. The English legal system is a Common Law system based on precedents.
Sorry, always get it the wrong way round, should have checked. Scottish was influenced by Rome Law. (15th Century) English by Latin Law (William the Conquer – French influence?) Google it. Edward 1, Hammer of the Scots, had vast lands in France – Normandy and was known as an Legalist. Edward 1 was involved in the decision of the right of accession to the Scottish crown after the death of the Maid of Norway. Bailliol was appointed and became a Puppet King. He spent time in imprisoned in London.
Scotland retained it’s own Law and Legal system under the Act of Union.
There is a definite argument concerning Scottish sovereignty, used to give Scotland a right to a Referendum. It was discussed on the Internet. Maybe someone has a link.
There were issues concerning the European Court of Human rights. The right to self determination, which the UK is signed up to, even established. The Civic Convention which was involved in fighting for Independence was involved in the consultation. The Labour Party eventually included Devolution (with limited powers) in the Manifesto to prevent Independence.
The Labour Party eventually included Devolution (with limited powers) in the Manifesto to prevent Independence.
😀
Let’s see how that works out for them.
For a view on the issue of sovereignty and Scotland’s right to a referendum, I read this at the time
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/nov/08/uk-supreme-court-scottish-independence
This is by Aiden O’Neill, who seems to be quite animated/emotional on the topic. Another writer, Matthew Happold, writing in 2000, talks also of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and evidence that this concept is clearly recognised in the UK constitution. One might argue, however, that actions since 1707 by the UK Parliament have been based on the pre 1707 concept of Parliamentary sovereignty from England’s tradition, thus in effect being in breach of the agreement that led Scotland to join and that any concession by Scotland has been on account of power rather than law. MacCormack v Lord Advocate contains interesting statements on Scotland’s position.
There’s an interesting discussion here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/09/scottish-independence-legality
However, it’s all a bit academic now, and indeed anyone who talks about law in isolation from society and political reality puzzles me e.g. the classic statement that the UK parliament could outlaw smoking in Paris.
Learned something new tonight from an old historian. Turns out that the Scots can, by virtue of saying no, reject a new (UK) Monarch, suggest an alternative or choose to just not bother to have any. Which makes sense if you think about it given that sovereignty lies with the people. It would entail us all turning up to say no unfortunately! Made me smile though. I’m sure some history buff out there can fill out the measly details that I managed to retain.
Fordie, Yup that’s why it’s always Queen (King) of Scots, NOT Queen (King) of Scotland. The people of Scotland are sovereign (for all time). Declaration of Arbroath, 1320.
Others here will explain it better than I can.
Fordie,
At what point do the Scots “accept” a new monarch then?
OK I was young at the time, but I don’t remember the Scots being consulted in 1953.
@ gerry parker
I think it is all to do with the 1707 Treaty of Union and Westminster’s ‘parliamentary sovereignty’
It’s the Claim of Right, people. 1689. Look it up.
Re – Lallands Peat Worrier – 6 November2011
Lord Cooper’s 1953 judgement in the Court of Session. The Treaty of the Union’s assertion of the independence of Scots Law for all time.
The ‘1689 Claim of Right’, the people of Scotland lend their sovereignty to the Scottish Parliament.
I know that the Queen owns no castles or private estate in Scotland. All castles and historic monuments, with one or two exceptions are owned by the people and managed on their behaff by Historic Scotland.
This begs the question of Balmoral. It is certainly not an historic monument or castle in the accepted sense, but is a big hoose set in the Highlands, one of many scattered throughout Scotland. The big difference is that Lizzie uses it occasionally, goes to the local Kirk and asserts that she is is a presbyterian, in Scotland anyway. Once she crosses the Tweed in a southerly direction she dumps that and become the Head of the Church of England.
To return to Balmoral, I read somewhere that it was set up by Albert and it had to be established within a family trust to avoid death duties. Surely the Sovereign could have just passed it onto the next throne occupant and such trivia such as death duties would be irrelevant. The Trust for Balmoral exists yet?
Could it be that in Scotland, not only is the Monarch not sovereign, she or he is another citizen subject to same laws, responsibilities and requirements as the other citizens?
Any legal beagle or barrack room lawyer out there will to chip in an opinion?
Exactly what mechanisn exists for me to reject a monarch? Sign me up 🙂 Apart from a referendum or voting in a republican party it’s a load of hot air imho. As mentioned above its all a bit avademic. Ken500 I’m confused(easily done admittedly 🙂 ) what the Civic Convention you mentioned was Did you mean Scottish Constitutional Convention?
good link here
http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-sovereignty-for-dummies/
As for Balmoral, haven’t a clue, but wasn’t it purchased by Q. Victoria/Albert?
Thanks Shinty. Hadn’t read that. Interesting additional information he covers on the AXA case that O’Neill omits, despite it being highly relevant to his article. (see my post earlier in the thread
Thanks all for the info.
The Balmoral Estate is the private property of Elizabeth Windsor. She can dispose of it as she sees fit, but will probably follow the family tradition of leaving it to her eldest son in her will. I believe Sandringham has a similar status.
The monarch has three official residences in the UK, and they are Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and Holyrood House. Official residences are the property of the State (Crown Estate?).
All. I shall re consult said historian. And come back to you. There is a mechanism but lost in the mists of time, is my understanding.