Wednesday, 08 February 2012 00:35
141 Comments
By a Newsnet reporter
According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, senior Westminster civil servants are under instructions to freeze out their Scottish counterparts when they attend official meetings.
The order for Westminster civil servants to refrain from discussing the future of Scotland with senior Scottish civil servants is thought to have come directly from David Cameron's office.
Last year fears were expressed in Westminster that Scotland's senior civil servant, Sir Peter Housden, had "gone native", a phrase many in Scotland considered at best patronising and colonial, at worst racist. English born and educated Sir Peter is the Scottish Government's permanent secretary.
Sir Gus O'Donnell, then the Prime Minister’s most senior civil servant, rejected the opposition complaints before he retired as Cabinet Secretary at the end of last year.
A "senior Whitehall source" quoted by the Telegraph said:
"It has come from the top that if there is anything very sensitive about Scotland then it cannot be discussed in front of [Sir Peter Housden].
"Concerns have been expressed at the highest level about this individual. People cannot serve two masters ultimately and he has been put in a very difficult position by Salmond."
According to the Telegraph, the permanent secretaries from all Whitehall departments will no longer discuss Scotland in meetings if Sir Peter Housden is present.
Another "senior source" quoted in the Telegraph added: "The other permanent secretaries only discuss Scotland, nowadays, when Sir Peter is not there."
The source told that Telegraph that Whitehall's permanent secretaries believe they can no longer have "free and frank discussions" on Scotland in front of Sir Peter. The heads of other Westminster departments now hold ad-hoc meetings in private to discuss Scotland, without informing the Scottish civil service of the outcome of their meetings.
The instruction not to not discuss any Scottish matters with Scotland's most senior civil servant was issued after Mr Cameron being briefed by three former Government ministers with links to Scotland. The Telegraph did not name the former ministers concerned. Their identity will now be subject to speculation in Scotland.
The ban means that the Scottish civil service is no longer kept informed about the policies and plans of its English counterpart, meaning there is a serious risk that the good government of Scotland is prejudiced as the Scottish civil service is no longer aware of actions being planned or implemented by Whitehall.
As the communication ban extends to all Whitehall departments, confusion and duplication of effort is the most likely consequence, leading to inefficiency and waste of public money.
Comments
#
2012-02-08 08:50
Hi AL,
My sentiments exactly. Where is the "respect agenda" now? "I'm not speaking to you!" Childish beyond words.
Regards,
My sentiments exactly. Where is the "respect agenda" now? "I'm not speaking to you!" Childish beyond words.
Regards,
#
2012-02-08 20:35
is it really as insignificant as childish? is the question not, what is it so called neutral civil servants are discussing that they would prefer not to reveal to someone who might publicise their discussions.
#
2012-02-08 08:53
To paraphrase an old saying:
"All what good Scots need to do for Independence to triumph...is nothing (the brits are doing it for us)"
How on earth can they expect common people hearing of this not to react against, is beyond all sense.
"All what good Scots need to do for Independence to triumph...is nothing (the brits are doing it for us)"
How on earth can they expect common people hearing of this not to react against, is beyond all sense.
#
2012-02-08 16:03
The thing is the "common people" arn't hearing of this type of thing because the media at large are ignoring them and not publishing details of them. The sad fact is that most people in the UK gather their political knowladge from the tabloid media and the BBC, both of whch are very pro-union and will never make any negative stories about it public knowledge.
#
2012-02-08 09:03
On the other hand I hope he wont be giving way any sensitive details to the whitehall civil servants about Sotlands intentions.
Anyhow, so far their strategies have been a bit daft and boomerang shaped, causing more trouble for them than us.
Anyhow, so far their strategies have been a bit daft and boomerang shaped, causing more trouble for them than us.
#
2012-02-08 09:03
The civil service in Scotland is part of the same organisation as that in Whitehall. It is not a separate service. However, Westminster has now made it clear, it regards the civil service in Scotland as a different organisation.
However, the real insult from all of this, is that phrase, allegedly used by London, that the head of the civil service in Scotland had "gone native". I'm sorry, but what century are we in?? That comments is not only racist, it also betrays the patronising arrogant COLONIAL attitude that Westminster has towards Scotland.
If Westminster doesn't want to talk to high ranking officials in Scotland, then they need to get out of the way, stop trying to block the referendum and malevolently influence the voting process.
London is right now, in the 21st Century behaving towards Scotland in EXACTLY the same way they did with Ireland in the early 1900's, and India up to 1947.
Westminster is a disgrace, a cloying, cynical, patronising colonial outfit, who have yet to understand that NOBODY in Scotland likes them anymore.
However, the real insult from all of this, is that phrase, allegedly used by London, that the head of the civil service in Scotland had "gone native". I'm sorry, but what century are we in?? That comments is not only racist, it also betrays the patronising arrogant COLONIAL attitude that Westminster has towards Scotland.
If Westminster doesn't want to talk to high ranking officials in Scotland, then they need to get out of the way, stop trying to block the referendum and malevolently influence the voting process.
London is right now, in the 21st Century behaving towards Scotland in EXACTLY the same way they did with Ireland in the early 1900's, and India up to 1947.
Westminster is a disgrace, a cloying, cynical, patronising colonial outfit, who have yet to understand that NOBODY in Scotland likes them anymore.
#
2012-02-08 09:09
the real insult from all of this, is that phrase, allegedly used by London, that the head of the civil service in Scotland had "gone native"
Presumably they meant British...
Erm... no... that wouldnt work would it...
I guess they meant Scottish and that they dont think of us as British (Because everyone knows Britain = England).
At least we can all be UKanian together when it comes to paying taxes to Westminster...
Presumably they meant British...
Erm... no... that wouldnt work would it...
I guess they meant Scottish and that they dont think of us as British (Because everyone knows Britain = England).
At least we can all be UKanian together when it comes to paying taxes to Westminster...
#
2012-02-08 09:29
It is they, the unionists who have gone native - 'Saxon' - barbaric and illiterate.
#
2012-02-08 09:57
Quoting Robert Louis:
The Telegraph reported:Quote:
Which would be a lot more telling if true
However, the real insult from all of this, is that phrase, allegedly used by London, that the head of the civil service in Scotland had "gone native".
The Telegraph reported:Quote:
Sir Peter has been accused by opposition leaders in Scotland of having ‘gone native’
Which would be a lot more telling if true
#
2012-02-08 12:01
Quoting Robert Louis:
No "alleged" about it. This from 26th January in the H of L Lord Foulkes of Cumnock:
"..I had occasion to raise this with Sir Gus O'Donnell, now the noble Lord, Lord O'Donnell, in a question about the Permanent Secretaries-first Sir John Elvidge and, more recently, Sir Peter
Housden, who has gone native since he moved. He is from Shropshire originally, a lovely county of England, as I know only too well. They seem to be advising the Scottish Executive on how to move towards independence. They seem to be giving them all the advice, guidance and
detail that they need and, in Sir Peter's case, almost encouragement to
move towards independence. I hope that Sir Jeremy Heywood - he has a more pragmatic and sensible view on this than Sir Gus O'Donnell, but perhaps I should be careful about saying that - will look at things in a more pragmatic and sensible way and remind Sir Peter Housden that he is still a member of the UK Civil Service and still owes some loyalty to the Crown and the United Kingdom Parliament although he has been seconded to the Scottish Parliament and should not be dealing with these matters."
(Seems Foulkes in his reference to loyalty, doesn't realise the monarchy is Scotland's monarchy too. And do civil servants take an oath of loyalty to "Parliament"? I think not.)
However, the real insult from all of this, is that phrase, allegedly used by London, that the head of the civil service in Scotland had "gone native".
No "alleged" about it. This from 26th January in the H of L Lord Foulkes of Cumnock:
"..I had occasion to raise this with Sir Gus O'Donnell, now the noble Lord, Lord O'Donnell, in a question about the Permanent Secretaries-first Sir John Elvidge and, more recently, Sir Peter
Housden, who has gone native since he moved. He is from Shropshire originally, a lovely county of England, as I know only too well. They seem to be advising the Scottish Executive on how to move towards independence. They seem to be giving them all the advice, guidance and
detail that they need and, in Sir Peter's case, almost encouragement to
move towards independence. I hope that Sir Jeremy Heywood - he has a more pragmatic and sensible view on this than Sir Gus O'Donnell, but perhaps I should be careful about saying that - will look at things in a more pragmatic and sensible way and remind Sir Peter Housden that he is still a member of the UK Civil Service and still owes some loyalty to the Crown and the United Kingdom Parliament although he has been seconded to the Scottish Parliament and should not be dealing with these matters."
(Seems Foulkes in his reference to loyalty, doesn't realise the monarchy is Scotland's monarchy too. And do civil servants take an oath of loyalty to "Parliament"? I think not.)
#
2012-02-10 00:44
Quoting Robert Louis:
If David Cameron is going to call us natives and treat us like a Colony well........Most Scots by the Oxford and other dictionaries definitions would be Indigenous and as such would be entitled to the rights of such. Newer Scots would also be fully entitled to the same rights in the equality based culture we wish in Scotland.
Then we should insist on all the rights afforded to indigenous people per the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (link is: www.un.org/.../DRIPS_en.pdf
For starters Article 8.2(e) says
“States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them” (them being indigenous people. Propaganda being the scandalous unionist campaign of black PR being bandied about to discredit Scots and our aspirations for self determinism)
There are mountains of other rights that indigenous peoples are entitled to as well, that Scots seem to be not receiving at the hands of Westminster when we do not classify ourselves as Indigenous.
More nationalist minded people should have a good close read of that UN declaration and compare the rights indigenous people should have to what we have as Scots today.
However, the real insult from all of this, is that phrase, allegedly used by London, that the head of the civil service in Scotland had "gone native". I'm sorry, but what century are we in?? That comments is not only racist, it also betrays the patronising arrogant COLONIAL attitude that Westminster has towards Scotland.
If David Cameron is going to call us natives and treat us like a Colony well........Most Scots by the Oxford and other dictionaries definitions would be Indigenous and as such would be entitled to the rights of such. Newer Scots would also be fully entitled to the same rights in the equality based culture we wish in Scotland.
Then we should insist on all the rights afforded to indigenous people per the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (link is: www.un.org/.../DRIPS_en.pdf
For starters Article 8.2(e) says
“States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them” (them being indigenous people. Propaganda being the scandalous unionist campaign of black PR being bandied about to discredit Scots and our aspirations for self determinism)
There are mountains of other rights that indigenous peoples are entitled to as well, that Scots seem to be not receiving at the hands of Westminster when we do not classify ourselves as Indigenous.
More nationalist minded people should have a good close read of that UN declaration and compare the rights indigenous people should have to what we have as Scots today.
#
2012-02-08 09:04
This is already happening with regards pensions. In particular the police and fire pensions, which come from the internal Scottish budget and have nothing to do with westmonster are being included in the Treasury blackmail of SG. To add insult to injury the Scottish representatives have been reduced to "observer" status and kicked off of all sub-committees.
#
2012-02-08 09:06
came across this .. dont know how valid it is.
Europe asked to monitor referendum
[It is with regret that we have had to remove this link. It will be allowed once some legal issues are checked out and clarified. NNS]
Europe asked to monitor referendum
[It is with regret that we have had to remove this link. It will be allowed once some legal issues are checked out and clarified. NNS]
#
2012-02-08 09:48
Feer and desperation in Westminster and Whitehall are becoming more palpable by the day.
This approach to Europe will not go down well at all. At the very least it keeps the sovereign right of Scots to determine Scotlands future in focus across Europe.
Westminster will have to tread very warily indeed the more they are being seriously scrutinised.
It all helps turn the screws on the Unionists, the more pressure on them, the less likely the truth can be twisted or denied by the FUDs.
This approach to Europe will not go down well at all. At the very least it keeps the sovereign right of Scots to determine Scotlands future in focus across Europe.
Westminster will have to tread very warily indeed the more they are being seriously scrutinised.
It all helps turn the screws on the Unionists, the more pressure on them, the less likely the truth can be twisted or denied by the FUDs.
#
2012-02-08 10:05
Agreed up to a point Jim,with the screw being turned, my own view is that West Minster being what it is will get even more silly with the natives and as usual will end up driving even more people to vote aye.
#
2012-02-08 12:42
Isn't this just another would be POLITICAL Party, trying to horn in on the present referendum consultation?
Who gave them a mandate to approach ANYONE on our behalf.
Alex Sloan
Who gave them a mandate to approach ANYONE on our behalf.
Alex Sloan
#
2012-02-08 13:20
I can't imagine why anyone of an independent mind would be against the idea of the SDA approaching the CoE and the OSCE regarding the referendum. ??
The SDA have a lot of common sense policies and some very compelling arguments on their website. Their intervention at this stage is to be welcomed, particularly as those involved in SDA policy making were those same folks who made representations to the CoE as the Scotland UN committee in the past, and who have some very sound reasoning in behind the claim that it was in fact themwho brought about the necessary conditions that forcedthe UK government to give Scotland a parliament.
Frankly, we all know that the Electoral Commission is stuffed full of unionists and that their track record is patchy at best. They cannot be trusted to run the referendum, full stop.
Much is made of the arguments over the legal competence of Holyrood and the finer legal implications of the Treaty of Union, and of course the role of the electoral commission, however, when ever I do see these tired old arguments trotted out, I note that the mention of international law and the role of the international community in upholding it is conspicuous by it's absence.
I'm no legal expert, but my reasoning is as sound as it is straight forward: The UK government, it's peripheral agencies and it's lawmakers have no part to play in a Scottish referendum on independence because there is a clear conflict of interest. The entire process, in the interests of fairness to all concerned, must be overseen by representatives of the international community.
I'm glad that representations are being made to Europe at this early stage, as the SNP's apparent concessions on the role of the Electoral Commission fill me with dread.
The SDA have a lot of common sense policies and some very compelling arguments on their website. Their intervention at this stage is to be welcomed, particularly as those involved in SDA policy making were those same folks who made representations to the CoE as the Scotland UN committee in the past, and who have some very sound reasoning in behind the claim that it was in fact themwho brought about the necessary conditions that forcedthe UK government to give Scotland a parliament.
Frankly, we all know that the Electoral Commission is stuffed full of unionists and that their track record is patchy at best. They cannot be trusted to run the referendum, full stop.
Much is made of the arguments over the legal competence of Holyrood and the finer legal implications of the Treaty of Union, and of course the role of the electoral commission, however, when ever I do see these tired old arguments trotted out, I note that the mention of international law and the role of the international community in upholding it is conspicuous by it's absence.
I'm no legal expert, but my reasoning is as sound as it is straight forward: The UK government, it's peripheral agencies and it's lawmakers have no part to play in a Scottish referendum on independence because there is a clear conflict of interest. The entire process, in the interests of fairness to all concerned, must be overseen by representatives of the international community.
I'm glad that representations are being made to Europe at this early stage, as the SNP's apparent concessions on the role of the Electoral Commission fill me with dread.
#
2012-02-08 15:07
I'll give them my mandate.
Who gave the Tory and Libdem parties the mandate to meddle in Scottish affairs
Who gave the Tory and Libdem parties the mandate to meddle in Scottish affairs
#
2012-02-08 23:46
Quoting Mei:
Who ever it was it was not Scottish voters, One blue tory and 11 yellow Tories out of a total 59 members is in no way a mandate.
I'll give them my mandate.
Who gave the Tory and Libdem parties the mandate to meddle in Scottish affairs
Who ever it was it was not Scottish voters, One blue tory and 11 yellow Tories out of a total 59 members is in no way a mandate.
#
2012-02-09 17:22
Why does anyone need a mandate to report to international organisations that Westminster is breaking international law?
We (Scotland) are entitled to hold this referendum without external interference so its about time Westminster got its backside felt over its recent behaviour.
We (Scotland) are entitled to hold this referendum without external interference so its about time Westminster got its backside felt over its recent behaviour.
#
2012-02-08 13:14
The SDA's proposal is common sense. The Scottish Government should set up their own Electoral Commission and ask the EU in for independent oversight. Having a body which is appointed by a government from which we wish to secede overseeing the referendum makes no sense.
I would suggest that any NNS readers who intend making a submission to the Scottish Governments referendum consultation refer to the SDA's proposal.
It would help if the SDA had a specific reference page on their website (I couldn't find such on a quick look). Maybe UPSPAKE could help.
And no, I'm not a member of the SDA and have no intention of being so. I had this thought in my head long before I came across the SDA's submission.
I would suggest that any NNS readers who intend making a submission to the Scottish Governments referendum consultation refer to the SDA's proposal.
It would help if the SDA had a specific reference page on their website (I couldn't find such on a quick look). Maybe UPSPAKE could help.
And no, I'm not a member of the SDA and have no intention of being so. I had this thought in my head long before I came across the SDA's submission.
#
2012-02-08 15:15
scottishdemocraticalliance.org/
near the bottom of the home page
SDA Memorandum to Council of Europe and the OSCE.doc
near the bottom of the home page
SDA Memorandum to Council of Europe and the OSCE.doc
#
2012-02-10 11:16
The EU is the absolute last organisation the SDA wants involved in the referendum, because it is not neutral like the CoE and OSCE. It has a political agenda revolving around the unification of Europe into a single political unit - the exact opposite of what the Scottish national movement is about. To this end it has its eye on Scotland's national waters with their fish, energy and mineral resources. Let's keep the EU a boathook's length away from the independence referendum.
#
2012-02-08 09:07
I couldn't quite get my head around this one...
Whenever UK civil servants discuss "sensitive" issues about Scotland they will not let the Scottish Civil Service know what they think is sensitive??!
What are they even doing discussing Scotland if they are not going to interact with the Scottish Civil service to get things done!!!
Whenever UK civil servants discuss "sensitive" issues about Scotland they will not let the Scottish Civil Service know what they think is sensitive??!
What are they even doing discussing Scotland if they are not going to interact with the Scottish Civil service to get things done!!!
#
2012-02-08 09:34
Aye, that statement struck me as odd too. Just what the hell are they discussing that should be deemed top secret to the guy who's meant to be running the civil service in Scotland? The obvious implication is that it couldn't be anything good, indeed that they obviously already deem us hostile and a threat.
Remind me again, why we should put trust in Westminster?
Remind me again, why we should put trust in Westminster?
#
2012-02-08 09:53
Apparently, they're planning their strategy for the independence referendum. Why a supposedly non-political civil service in Westminster would need a 'strategy' to deal with a Scottish independence referendum is not explained.
#
2012-02-08 09:08
Both the actions of Whitehall and the way it has been leaked by 'sources' are astonishingly childish.
Well, if you think the UK is run by grown ups that is!
Well, if you think the UK is run by grown ups that is!
#
2012-02-08 09:10
So we're already being treated as a "foreign" country without the benefits of actual independence. Doesn't this qualify as Westminster picking fights with Holyrood?
#
2012-02-08 09:42
The unionist complaint is not that Sir Peter Housden has 'gone native' but that he fails to bat for the empire. It hasn't occurred to them that Sir Peter, being highly intelligent (and you don't get that high in He Majesty's Civil Service if you are not), and being in full possession of the facts has concluded that independence is inevitable, and is doing his job by preparing for it.
It seems that each day dawns with another story of ludicrous Unionist petulance and puerile temper tantrums. SAOR ALBA!
It seems that each day dawns with another story of ludicrous Unionist petulance and puerile temper tantrums. SAOR ALBA!
#
2012-02-08 09:43
sad, pathetic, childish, imature, desprate, now all you lovley unionistas at the civil service, remember not to talk to thoes nasty nationalist jocks they will corrupt your purity and have you singing flower of scotland in no time, BEWARE!!!!
#
2012-02-08 09:47
I was looking for some background on the phrase ...I searched google using the search words: (history british civil servant goes native)
There was a link to a Scotsman article from October 2011
""1 Oct 2011 ... 185000-a-year mandarin accused of 'going native' - A FURIOUS ... O'Donnell, the Cabinet secretary and head of the UK civil service"
The article no longer appears to exist.
So that begs the question .. Why this 'news' .. repeated now .. in the daily torygraph?
There was a link to a Scotsman article from October 2011
""1 Oct 2011 ... 185000-a-year mandarin accused of 'going native' - A FURIOUS ... O'Donnell, the Cabinet secretary and head of the UK civil service"
The article no longer appears to exist.
So that begs the question .. Why this 'news' .. repeated now .. in the daily torygraph?
#
2012-02-09 00:02
Quoting xyz:
The phrase comes from the old colonial days. One example being the Hudson Bay Company which at one time was 100% maned by Scots. The Scots, Welsh and Irish would convert the natives to Christianity and marry one of the American/Canadian natives. They were refered to be the English as Squaw men, and said to have gone native. Same thing in Inda, Australia and New Zealand. The English way was to kill as many, "Indians", as they could. To this day the Northern Isles of Scotland have a good number of North American native genes in the gene pool. The work was dangerous and when a husband was killed or died from disease the family was sent, "Home", usually to Orkney and Shetland. Even up until the 1940s- 80s there were, "Bayboys", recruited by the Hudson Bay Company.
www.bbc.co.uk/.../b017ptsn
I was looking for some background on the phrase ...I searched google using the search words: (history british civil servant goes native)
There was a link to a Scotsman article from October 2011
""1 Oct 2011 ... 185000-a-year mandarin accused of 'going native' - A FURIOUS ... O'Donnell, the Cabinet secretary and head of the UK civil service"
The article no longer appears to exist.
So that begs the question .. Why this 'news' .. repeated now .. in the daily torygraph?
The phrase comes from the old colonial days. One example being the Hudson Bay Company which at one time was 100% maned by Scots. The Scots, Welsh and Irish would convert the natives to Christianity and marry one of the American/Canadian natives. They were refered to be the English as Squaw men, and said to have gone native. Same thing in Inda, Australia and New Zealand. The English way was to kill as many, "Indians", as they could. To this day the Northern Isles of Scotland have a good number of North American native genes in the gene pool. The work was dangerous and when a husband was killed or died from disease the family was sent, "Home", usually to Orkney and Shetland. Even up until the 1940s- 80s there were, "Bayboys", recruited by the Hudson Bay Company.
www.bbc.co.uk/.../b017ptsn
#
2012-02-10 12:08
I think this phrase goes back to British India. In the 18th Century, under the East India Company and before the memsahibs were encouraged to take ship for Bombay, there was a great temptation for young boxwallahs, subalterns etc' to adopt native manners and take up with an Indian woman. Greatly frowned upon after the Mutiny and the Company's eclipse.
The origin of the present day class of Anglo-Indians.
The origin of the present day class of Anglo-Indians.
#
2012-02-08 09:51
"A "senior Whitehall source" quoted by "the Telegraph said:
"It has come from the top that if there is anything very sensitive about Scotland then it cannot be discussed in front of [Sir Peter Housden]."
What could they possibly be discussing that should not be heard?
Oh, I see now! Could it be that they would be discussing how to stab Scotland in the back? The range of dirty tricks that they would be putting in place to foil the will of the Scottish people and subvert democracy?
"It has come from the top that if there is anything very sensitive about Scotland then it cannot be discussed in front of [Sir Peter Housden]."
What could they possibly be discussing that should not be heard?
Oh, I see now! Could it be that they would be discussing how to stab Scotland in the back? The range of dirty tricks that they would be putting in place to foil the will of the Scottish people and subvert democracy?
#
2012-02-08 09:53
Isn't this story just made up ? I mean , 'a senior Whitehall source', how reliable is that ?
I think what we are seeing is beginnings of collusion between the press and Downing Street. These scare stories keep being released from, like this report, either 'a source close to Cameron', or ' a senior spokesperson' and so on. It's just not credible some how.
Remember, Cameron has seen first hand the effect of what happens when he becomes involved in the fight, SNP support and membership just go up. So if he can't directly join in, why not get the torygraph to help out ? Keep releasing the scare stories from un-named sources and it can't be attributed back to Downing Street.
I think what we are seeing is beginnings of collusion between the press and Downing Street. These scare stories keep being released from, like this report, either 'a source close to Cameron', or ' a senior spokesperson' and so on. It's just not credible some how.
Remember, Cameron has seen first hand the effect of what happens when he becomes involved in the fight, SNP support and membership just go up. So if he can't directly join in, why not get the torygraph to help out ? Keep releasing the scare stories from un-named sources and it can't be attributed back to Downing Street.
#
2012-02-08 16:16
That sound about right tartanfever. It reminds me of the scare story about Spain blocking Scotland's entry to the EU which turned out to come not from Spain but from a "senior Foreign Office" source.
#
2012-02-08 09:57
I say let them keep it up, it says more about them than it does the debate in Scotland. It is very difficult to get the message out, I have enough conversations with people who are believing what they read but the one thing that is really starting to get on people's nerves where I am is the constant talking Scotland down from the 3 so called main parties. I have seen some people getting to the top of the fence in their views and it's not down to the merits of the independence argument, no matter how strong that argument is, it is down to the feeling that they are being told they are too thick to look after their own affairs, can't manage their own budgets, what the unionists forget is that in these extremely difficult times, people are managing to get by , just. So keep telling them that are not cabable of managing and you might just annoy enough of them to tip the balance. I agree with the ' gone native ' comment. That is offensive in my eyes, I am married to a Ghanaian, who's family know all about colonialism, and they are hearing Scotland facing the same arguments they did from Westminister in the 50's. Their view, it doesn't matter what the arguments are, Scottish people need to take back their self-determination and their place in the world.
#
2012-02-08 10:04
If you think that this childish action by Westminster is vengeful it will be as nothing compared to what Westminster has in store for Scotland if we vote against independence at the referendum.
The vengeful actions taken by Westminster against the Scots after the 1745 rebellion will pale into insignificance as Westminster ensures that Scots are taught a lesson they will never forget for having the "effrontery" to challenge Westminster rule.
The vengeful actions taken by Westminster against the Scots after the 1745 rebellion will pale into insignificance as Westminster ensures that Scots are taught a lesson they will never forget for having the "effrontery" to challenge Westminster rule.
#
2012-02-08 10:30
Quoting Marian:
If you think that this childish action by Westminster is vengeful it will be as nothing compared to what Westminster has in store for Scotland if we vote against independence at the referendum.Should we hold onto trident just in case lol Just kidding of course. But this time we will have europe on our side and the rest of the world will be watching Westminster.
The vengeful actions taken by Westminster against the Scots after the 1745 rebellion will pale into insignificance as Westminster ensures that Scots are taught a lesson they will never forget for having the "effrontery" to challenge Westminster rule.
#
2012-02-08 14:35
Not much point - we don't have the launch codes - they're held in.....
Washington?
Washington?
#
2012-02-08 10:38
Quoting Marian:
very apt point marian, however i fear the reason for this childish "coventry" stance is to prepare to implement brutal counter-insurgency plans regardless of the referendum result after all they aspire to be HER MAJESTY'S civil service and its their duty to her that they action "Rebelious Scots to CRUSH"
If you think that this childish action by Westminster is vengeful it will be as nothing compared to what Westminster has in store for Scotland if we vote against independence at the referendum.
The vengeful actions taken by Westminster against the Scots after the 1745 rebellion will pale into insignificance as Westminster ensures that Scots are taught a lesson they will never forget for having the "effrontery" to challenge Westminster rule.
very apt point marian, however i fear the reason for this childish "coventry" stance is to prepare to implement brutal counter-insurgency plans regardless of the referendum result after all they aspire to be HER MAJESTY'S civil service and its their duty to her that they action "Rebelious Scots to CRUSH"
#
2012-02-08 10:42
Quoting Marian:
I'm not sure this sort of scaremongering is helpful. I have no doubt that a 'No' vote will reinforce the Westminster attitude that Scots can be safely ignored and that Scotland can be treated as a resource colony. It's probable that things would get worse rather than better. But it won't be armageddon; the 'retribution' and disrespect is likely to be subtle and the closer the result, the more subtle it will be. Exaggerated 'vengeance' would only fuel the independence movement and lead to the question being asked again, with a different answer.
The vengeful actions taken by Westminster against the Scots after the 1745 rebellion will pale into insignificance as Westminster ensures that Scots are taught a lesson they will never forget for having the "effrontery" to challenge Westminster rule.
I'm not sure this sort of scaremongering is helpful. I have no doubt that a 'No' vote will reinforce the Westminster attitude that Scots can be safely ignored and that Scotland can be treated as a resource colony. It's probable that things would get worse rather than better. But it won't be armageddon; the 'retribution' and disrespect is likely to be subtle and the closer the result, the more subtle it will be. Exaggerated 'vengeance' would only fuel the independence movement and lead to the question being asked again, with a different answer.
#
2012-02-08 10:13
I should say my final search term was (history british civil servant +'going native')
#
2012-02-08 10:18
Is this not the kind of behaviour that happened in primary school when the bullies would pick on someone and ignore them,but making it known they were talking about them.
And these people are meant to be the elite and educated of our society..ffs
Yesterday after reading the BBC debacle regarding the censorship of Alex Salmond in regards to the rugby. I sign up as a member of the SNP.
Never though I would say or do that,but change is needed once and for all.
And these people are meant to be the elite and educated of our society..ffs
Yesterday after reading the BBC debacle regarding the censorship of Alex Salmond in regards to the rugby. I sign up as a member of the SNP.
Never though I would say or do that,but change is needed once and for all.
#
2012-02-08 14:14
Good on you ian. A common response, which I find really heartening. We'll get there. One day we'll look back at all this and laugh... :)
#
2012-02-08 10:28
Radio 4 (0815 ish today)
A Quatari comedian pointed out, when a BBC comentator said his material would bomb in London, "The English have to get, the world does not revolve around them!" Ouch!
A Quatari comedian pointed out, when a BBC comentator said his material would bomb in London, "The English have to get, the world does not revolve around them!" Ouch!
#
2012-02-08 10:32
The SDA are begining to engage gears and as a recognition of this to Upspake and all you should give this a bit of time and consideration:
[It is with regret that we have had to remove this link. It will be allowed once some legal issues are checked out and clarified. NNS]
[It is with regret that we have had to remove this link. It will be allowed once some legal issues are checked out and clarified. NNS]
#
2012-02-08 11:09
It'll be interesting to see if there's any response. The SDA couldn't have laid it out any clearer.
#
2012-02-08 13:50
Macart 2012-02-08 10:09
“It'll be interesting to see if there's any response. The SDA couldn't have laid it out any clearer.”
Hi
Isn't this just another would be POLITICAL Party, trying to horn in on the present referendum consultation?
Who gave them a mandate to approach ANYONE on our behalf?
Personal information removed - NNS Mod Team
“It'll be interesting to see if there's any response. The SDA couldn't have laid it out any clearer.”
Hi
Isn't this just another would be POLITICAL Party, trying to horn in on the present referendum consultation?
Who gave them a mandate to approach ANYONE on our behalf?
Personal information removed - NNS Mod Team
#
2012-02-08 14:36
exel - I'm also wondering what the SGs take on this approach on their behalf might be?
#
2012-02-08 19:25
I agree with you on this. The SDA for all their nice 'policies' on their website, have never even been elected, yet presume to do such things.
Arrogant.
Incidentally, I doubt their true motives in everything they do.
I've read their draft constitution some time ago, and it was a bit uber right wing for my liking.
Just for the record, the SNP AND the Scottish Government are both well aware of the council of Europe, and I'm sure are capable of requesting assistance on their own.
I find the fact that the SDA have taken this rather presumptive step to be a little odd.
Arrogant.
Incidentally, I doubt their true motives in everything they do.
I've read their draft constitution some time ago, and it was a bit uber right wing for my liking.
Just for the record, the SNP AND the Scottish Government are both well aware of the council of Europe, and I'm sure are capable of requesting assistance on their own.
I find the fact that the SDA have taken this rather presumptive step to be a little odd.
#
2012-02-10 05:58
Robert Louis 2012-02-08 18:25
"Just for the record, the SNP AND the Scottish Government are both well aware of the council of Europe, and I'm sure are capable of requesting assistance on their own.'
I'm sure they are too, but they haven't done it.
"I find the fact that the SDA have taken this rather presumptive step to be a little odd."
So it's not done every day. So what? Now it has been done. There is nothing to prevent anyone else, including you, from doing it.
"Just for the record, the SNP AND the Scottish Government are both well aware of the council of Europe, and I'm sure are capable of requesting assistance on their own.'
I'm sure they are too, but they haven't done it.
"I find the fact that the SDA have taken this rather presumptive step to be a little odd."
So it's not done every day. So what? Now it has been done. There is nothing to prevent anyone else, including you, from doing it.
#
2012-02-10 04:02
exel 2012-02-08 12:50
You ask "Isn't this just another would be POLITICAL Party, trying to horn in on the present referendum consultation?"
Fpr your information, the SDA IS a political party registered with the Electoral Commission (Edinburgh 9/07/09).
"Who gave them a mandate to approach ANYONE on our behalf?"
Nobody gave us a mandate. You may not be aware that Scotland still has freedom of speech.
You ask "Isn't this just another would be POLITICAL Party, trying to horn in on the present referendum consultation?"
Fpr your information, the SDA IS a political party registered with the Electoral Commission (Edinburgh 9/07/09).
"Who gave them a mandate to approach ANYONE on our behalf?"
Nobody gave us a mandate. You may not be aware that Scotland still has freedom of speech.
#
2012-02-08 12:14
Aye, ah’ve been watching these guys & grudgingly I’ve got to admit that post independence they may actually get my vote; theres a lot of suff on their website that I agree with. But this move was good, they’ve kicked the ba’ right across the medias heeds an’ right into Europe. All good - good for us wanting a fair debate, good for them positioning themselves as a long term player in Scottish government. Even good for Salmond and Co who wont be subjected to the predictable abuse from the MSM for doing something many have been arguing here for.
And yet……auld habits die hard. Even wie the endorsement of one or two nationalists whose intelligence & integrity I admire and respect, I’m still wary of supporting any party whose senior members came through the torry ranks. Heres hoping theres more substance to them than simply a ‘spoiler party’.
And yet……auld habits die hard. Even wie the endorsement of one or two nationalists whose intelligence & integrity I admire and respect, I’m still wary of supporting any party whose senior members came through the torry ranks. Heres hoping theres more substance to them than simply a ‘spoiler party’.
#
2012-02-10 09:30
Do you mean Tory ranks? Not a single member of the SDA leadership has voted other than SNP in their lives.
#
2012-02-10 16:07
Quoting James:
And what's more, were voting SNP when most of you were still a glint in yer faither's ee. I was a party worker in the '60's. Where were you?
Do you mean Tory ranks? Not a single member of the SDA leadership has voted other than SNP in their lives.
And what's more, were voting SNP when most of you were still a glint in yer faither's ee. I was a party worker in the '60's. Where were you?
#
2012-02-08 10:43
I have said before, if Scotland votes No in the referendum, then the Westminster Government will seek revenge on Scotland. It looks like I was wrong, they are starting already.
One can only wonder what devious plans are being discussed if they are that sensitive that they can't include Scottish Civil Servants, they certainly won’t be in Scotland’s interests, that’s for sure.
This is all the more reason that we have no choice but to vote Yes, I don't want to find out what these plans are the hard way.
One can only wonder what devious plans are being discussed if they are that sensitive that they can't include Scottish Civil Servants, they certainly won’t be in Scotland’s interests, that’s for sure.
This is all the more reason that we have no choice but to vote Yes, I don't want to find out what these plans are the hard way.
#
2012-02-08 19:28
I agree. What will happen to Scotland if we vote NO, at the hands of a vengeful Westminster Tory Government doesn't bear thinking about.
It's a bit like the Eddie Izzard sketch with Darth Vader, offering 'cake or death'.
It's a bit like the Eddie Izzard sketch with Darth Vader, offering 'cake or death'.
#
2012-02-08 10:45
People cannot serve two masters ultimately and he has been put in a very difficult position by Salmond."
This speaks volumes. Sir Peter is there to serve the Scottish Government not Westminster and he has not been placed in a difficult position by Alex Salmond. It was the Scottish people who placed Alex Salmond in office.
However, it is good that this is out in the open. People with things to hide like to whisper in corners. Westminster clearly recognises that the things they say and plan will not be well received by the Scottish people.
Westminster is not our friend and every word they say should be treated as suspect. The chances are it is just lies and cover up.
This speaks volumes. Sir Peter is there to serve the Scottish Government not Westminster and he has not been placed in a difficult position by Alex Salmond. It was the Scottish people who placed Alex Salmond in office.
However, it is good that this is out in the open. People with things to hide like to whisper in corners. Westminster clearly recognises that the things they say and plan will not be well received by the Scottish people.
Westminster is not our friend and every word they say should be treated as suspect. The chances are it is just lies and cover up.
#
2012-02-08 10:52
Have people not seen this article in the Scotsman on "bias" rules in the civil service ("bias" meaning Scottish government views). Scottish knuckles have been rapped!
scotsman.com/.../...
Among other things, it says:
"Yesterday, it emerged that Sir Bob met Scottish Government staff, including Sir Peter, last Thursday and discussed the challenges of dealing with the conflicting views on Scotland held by those in power in London and Edinburgh.
At the meeting, Sir Bob said: “We’re well used to serving the elected ministers of the day, whether in the Scottish Government or the UK government. It’s part of the core values of the civil service to do that with integrity and openness, giving honest and direct advice and professional support to the ministers we serve, wherever we work.”
Opposition politicians have expressed alarm over Sir Peter. Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie MSP said: “Peter Housden’s behaviour could end up costing Scotland its place at the heart of civil service.
“It’s no surprise that the rest of the UK civil service view him with suspicion now, given that he has ‘gone native’.”
Scottish Labour’s culture and external affairs spokeswoman, Patricia Ferguson, said: “If the constant wrangling about the referendum is getting in the way of government operating and co-operating in other areas, that is really problematic. ”
In a way, it's a more worrying example of withdrawing Salmond's appearance on a rugby programme - putting the Scottish government in quarantine as if they were apprentice terrorists. And with an added whiff of being on the moral high ground in doing so!
scotsman.com/.../...
Among other things, it says:
"Yesterday, it emerged that Sir Bob met Scottish Government staff, including Sir Peter, last Thursday and discussed the challenges of dealing with the conflicting views on Scotland held by those in power in London and Edinburgh.
At the meeting, Sir Bob said: “We’re well used to serving the elected ministers of the day, whether in the Scottish Government or the UK government. It’s part of the core values of the civil service to do that with integrity and openness, giving honest and direct advice and professional support to the ministers we serve, wherever we work.”
Opposition politicians have expressed alarm over Sir Peter. Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie MSP said: “Peter Housden’s behaviour could end up costing Scotland its place at the heart of civil service.
“It’s no surprise that the rest of the UK civil service view him with suspicion now, given that he has ‘gone native’.”
Scottish Labour’s culture and external affairs spokeswoman, Patricia Ferguson, said: “If the constant wrangling about the referendum is getting in the way of government operating and co-operating in other areas, that is really problematic. ”
In a way, it's a more worrying example of withdrawing Salmond's appearance on a rugby programme - putting the Scottish government in quarantine as if they were apprentice terrorists. And with an added whiff of being on the moral high ground in doing so!
#
2012-02-08 11:14
This is counter to what happened under the outgoing Gus O'Donnell
GOD said that Sir Peter was acting perfectly properly
He's out and these chaps are in and the story may change, all in a matter of a couple of months
GOD said that Sir Peter was acting perfectly properly
He's out and these chaps are in and the story may change, all in a matter of a couple of months
#
2012-02-08 18:23
Quote:
Sounds to me as if Sir Bob is taking the same line as Sir Gus and backing Sir Peter.
As to the opposition politicians they are clearly trying to neutralise him. Margaret Curran had an article in Scotland on Sunday at the week-end on the 'politicisation of the Civil Service'. So sounds like a concerted attack on Sir Peter and by extension the Civil Service but as Sir Bob says it is their job to help the Ministers whoever they are. it is also the job of the Civil Service to plan for various outcomes. For example, they had plans in place for a possible Coalition Government after the 2010 General Election. Not to have done so would have been a deriliction of their duty to ensure aa smooth transition whatever the nature of the incoming Government and to ensure that all parties are aware of the protocols and rules surrounding a given situation. That also applies tro independence.
Not to have plans in place for what happens in Scotland and the rUK in the event of a Yes vote would be a gross deriliction of the Civil Services duties and responsibilitie s to ensure the smopoth running of the Government - any Government irrespective of its political hue.
At the meeting, Sir Bob said: “We’re well used to serving the elected ministers of the day, whether in the Scottish Government or the UK government. It’s part of the core values of the civil service to do that with integrity and openness, giving honest and direct advice and professional support to the ministers we serve, wherever we work.”
Sounds to me as if Sir Bob is taking the same line as Sir Gus and backing Sir Peter.
As to the opposition politicians they are clearly trying to neutralise him. Margaret Curran had an article in Scotland on Sunday at the week-end on the 'politicisation of the Civil Service'. So sounds like a concerted attack on Sir Peter and by extension the Civil Service but as Sir Bob says it is their job to help the Ministers whoever they are. it is also the job of the Civil Service to plan for various outcomes. For example, they had plans in place for a possible Coalition Government after the 2010 General Election. Not to have done so would have been a deriliction of their duty to ensure aa smooth transition whatever the nature of the incoming Government and to ensure that all parties are aware of the protocols and rules surrounding a given situation. That also applies tro independence.
Not to have plans in place for what happens in Scotland and the rUK in the event of a Yes vote would be a gross deriliction of the Civil Services duties and responsibilitie s to ensure the smopoth running of the Government - any Government irrespective of its political hue.
#
2012-02-12 21:47
Sir Peters sin is that he wouldnt bend over and play weap fwog with the Tories and Fibby Dems. He doesnt know how to, he didnt go to private schools and graduated from Essex University. He clearly isnt one of them as he hasnt been educated in the finer points of fagging!
#
2012-02-08 10:55
My reading of this situation is subtally different. Westminster are out for Sir Peter's head! Why this is I can only surmise, Sir Peter is too truthful in all his dealings with Hollyrood and Westminster? Guess who has something to hide!
#
2012-02-08 11:02
Housden seems certainly to have had a shot over his bows. Is this acceptable? Personally I find it outrageous, but I obviously don't have a view on the ground of what's happening.
#
2012-02-08 13:37
I've heard of the "messenger" being shot, but this is the first time I've heard of the "intermediary" being shot!
This does beg the question, is the Rt Hon. Jim Hacker MP the prime minister by any chance??
This does beg the question, is the Rt Hon. Jim Hacker MP the prime minister by any chance??
#
2012-02-08 18:28
Quote:
I am not sure it is Whitehall that wants his head but someone does. There have been several articles in the Daily Telegraph over the last few months that have been highly critical of him over a range of issues.
The reason for this seems to be his performance in the post he had in the Civil Service prior to coming to Scotland to head up the Civil Service here. The DT seemed to think he should have been fired over what happened in that post. I think it had something to do with regional fire stations that ended up costing a lot of money and not working.
The fact that he is now in Scotland just added to the toxic mix and the venom directed against him.
Dubai_scot 2012-02-08 09:55
My reading of this situation is subtally different. Westminster are out for Sir Peter's head! Why this is I can only surmise, Sir Peter is too truthful in all his dealings with Hollyrood and Westminster? Guess who has something to hide!
I am not sure it is Whitehall that wants his head but someone does. There have been several articles in the Daily Telegraph over the last few months that have been highly critical of him over a range of issues.
The reason for this seems to be his performance in the post he had in the Civil Service prior to coming to Scotland to head up the Civil Service here. The DT seemed to think he should have been fired over what happened in that post. I think it had something to do with regional fire stations that ended up costing a lot of money and not working.
The fact that he is now in Scotland just added to the toxic mix and the venom directed against him.
#
2012-02-08 11:09
Just a wee note on your story. Do you not think it would be nice to link the The Telegraph story on which your whole piece is based. This is essentially just a re-write of their story which is pretty low.
I see you've credited them, but a link would look more professional.
I see you've credited them, but a link would look more professional.
#
2012-02-08 11:17
"The ban means that the Scottish civil service is no longer kept informed about the policies and plans of its English counterpart, meaning there is a serious risk that the good government of Scotland is prejudiced as the Scottish civil service is no longer aware of actions being planned or implemented by Whitehall."
I reckon it's more sinister than that. It means they can plot and conspire against Scotland in secret.
I reckon it's more sinister than that. It means they can plot and conspire against Scotland in secret.
#
2012-02-08 11:22
Exile 2012-02-08 10:17
"It means they can plot and conspire against Scotland in secret."
Nothing new there then.
"It means they can plot and conspire against Scotland in secret."
Nothing new there then.
#
2012-02-08 15:24
"The ban means that the Scottish civil service is no longer kept informed about the policies and plans of its English counterpart, meaning there is a serious risk that the good government of Scotland is prejudiced as the Scottish civil service is no longer aware of actions being planned or implemented by Whitehall."
I reckon it's more sinister than that. It means they can plot and conspire against Scotland in secret.
Also it is another thing that the Welsh and N Irish assemblies should be concerned about.
I reckon it's more sinister than that. It means they can plot and conspire against Scotland in secret.
Also it is another thing that the Welsh and N Irish assemblies should be concerned about.
#
2012-02-08 11:18
The Herald had an online article saying that the charge re exclusion from London civil service meetings had been denied. On reading the article I concluded that nowhere did it say that he had NOT been excluded from talks when Scotland and Independence was discussed. I posted an appropriate comment to this effect.
On checking later the article had been dropped!
On checking later the article had been dropped!
#
2012-02-08 18:15
The article was in the paper edition of the Herald and is still on-line. See here:
heraldscotland.com/.../....
As to the article in the Daily Telegraph it soes sort of chime with an article in Scotland on Sunday by margaret Curran which was on the subject of the politicisation of Scotland's Civil Service by the Scottish Government. In the course of the article she managed to list all the claims about what the SNP was doing to the Civil Serfvice without once saying that they had all been investigated and refuted.
So it does look sort of co-ordinated except that the Daily Telegraph appears to have takin agin the current head of the Scottish Civil Service for some time and there has been a whole series of critical articles about him in the paper over the last few months.
heraldscotland.com/.../....
As to the article in the Daily Telegraph it soes sort of chime with an article in Scotland on Sunday by margaret Curran which was on the subject of the politicisation of Scotland's Civil Service by the Scottish Government. In the course of the article she managed to list all the claims about what the SNP was doing to the Civil Serfvice without once saying that they had all been investigated and refuted.
So it does look sort of co-ordinated except that the Daily Telegraph appears to have takin agin the current head of the Scottish Civil Service for some time and there has been a whole series of critical articles about him in the paper over the last few months.
#
2012-02-08 11:47
Is the Civil Service in London not beginning to accept the reality of our march to independence and will do whatever is necessary to stall it. Here is a quote I posted on another Newsnet thread which deserves the the widest circulation. "History clearly shows that referendums on independence led to secession in the cases where there is public support for it. Since the First World War there have been 76 referendums on independence. Most of these, 70 to be exact, have resulted in a yes vote." It comes from the article in yesterday's Herald by Prof. Matt Qvortrup and can be accessed here. heraldscotland.com/.../...
#
2012-02-08 12:04
I wonder which particular Civil Service "Gauleiter" issued this decree? Just a thought. Mind you, this is good ammunition for the First Minister to use at FMQs - as if he needed any to dismiss the ineffectual attempts of the unionist party leaders to criticise him.
#
2012-02-08 12:38
Oh dear. This reads to me that London-based civil service mandarins now think that Peter Housden cannot be trusted to keep quiet about Whitehall plots against Scotland. I struggle to think of another reason for this.
The key phrase is 'you cannot serve two masters'. David Cameron thinks he should be able to dictate to the Scottish Civil Service, which completely misses the point of devolution. As for Housden preparing the civil service for independence - God forbid a civil service should implement a government's wishes!
I am glad if Peter Housden has gone native. An independent - or soon to be independent - Scotland needs a civil service working for the country and not throwing spanners in the works out of spite. Mon yersel Sir Peter.
The key phrase is 'you cannot serve two masters'. David Cameron thinks he should be able to dictate to the Scottish Civil Service, which completely misses the point of devolution. As for Housden preparing the civil service for independence - God forbid a civil service should implement a government's wishes!
I am glad if Peter Housden has gone native. An independent - or soon to be independent - Scotland needs a civil service working for the country and not throwing spanners in the works out of spite. Mon yersel Sir Peter.
#
2012-02-08 12:51
They are most likely discussing the asset stripping of Scotland in preparation for the referendum. I would imagine that that is a large topic of conversation in certain circles...
John
John
#
2012-02-08 13:11
Did we actually expect this NOT to happen eventually ?
Even in the civil service it iis down to a "you and us" scenario.
Expect ALL Westminster departments and functions to be
Anti-independence at every available opportunity.
Even in the civil service it iis down to a "you and us" scenario.
Expect ALL Westminster departments and functions to be
Anti-independence at every available opportunity.
#
2012-02-08 14:08
The civil service role is to be completely impartial and apolitical, and to serve the Government of the day.
To criticise the civil service in Scotland for carrying out the Scottish Government policy goes against EVERYTHING the civil service stands for.
They are the servants of the democratically elected Government of the people of Scotland, They would NOT be doing their job, if they chose instead to do something else, to keep David Cameron happy.
Westminster is treading a very dangerous path here. Very dangerous.
To criticise the civil service in Scotland for carrying out the Scottish Government policy goes against EVERYTHING the civil service stands for.
They are the servants of the democratically elected Government of the people of Scotland, They would NOT be doing their job, if they chose instead to do something else, to keep David Cameron happy.
Westminster is treading a very dangerous path here. Very dangerous.
#
2012-02-08 14:21
It seems to me that this is a matter requiring the immediate resignation of The Secretary of State for Scotland.
#
2012-02-08 16:51
Me too.
I think that is a great idea and should be implemented.Quoting Embradon:
Take a number and wait in line, Embradon.
I think that is a great idea and should be implemented.Quoting Embradon:
It seems to me that this is a matter requiring the immediate resignation of The Secretary of State for Scotland.
Take a number and wait in line, Embradon.
#
2012-02-08 14:23
"It has come from the top that if there is anything very sensitive about Scotland then it cannot be discussed in front of [Sir Peter Housden].
Very sinister. In fact it seems Westminster is unofficially putting itself on a war footing against Scotland. The thing is, we are still part of the UK as we speak and they are acting like they are the Government of England instead of the UK, which still includes us and so should be representing our interests until such time as the people vote yes for Independence. The dirty tricks departments are in full swing it seems. The freezing out of our Head of the Scottish civil service is outrageous behaviour by Westminster but then they are well known for these practices all around the world. Thats why their Empire is crumbling to absolutely nothing. If thats their best shot at persuading Scots to stick with their farce of a Union then their goose is cooked big time.
Very sinister. In fact it seems Westminster is unofficially putting itself on a war footing against Scotland. The thing is, we are still part of the UK as we speak and they are acting like they are the Government of England instead of the UK, which still includes us and so should be representing our interests until such time as the people vote yes for Independence. The dirty tricks departments are in full swing it seems. The freezing out of our Head of the Scottish civil service is outrageous behaviour by Westminster but then they are well known for these practices all around the world. Thats why their Empire is crumbling to absolutely nothing. If thats their best shot at persuading Scots to stick with their farce of a Union then their goose is cooked big time.
#
2012-02-08 16:26
Quoting EdinScot:
That's unfair. Everyone knows the sun never sets on the British Empire (except at night).
Thats why their Empire is crumbling to absolutely nothing.
That's unfair. Everyone knows the sun never sets on the British Empire (except at night).
#
2012-02-10 16:33
[quote name="EdinScot The thing is, we are still part of the UK as we speak and they are acting like they are the Government of England instead of the UK, which still includes us and so should be representing our interests until such time as the people vote yes for Independence.
That wee extract hits the nail very squarely indeed. That is, without doubt, the most important aspect of the whole matter.
It begs the question that ANY official government BritNAT action must be anti-democratic, and thus illegal. If for no other reason it is against our human rights. Westminster is every bit as much Scottish as it is English. The Treaty of Union did not get signed by a superior and an inferior nation. It all probabillity it is against the treaty that England has more Members in the chamber than Scots.
That wee extract hits the nail very squarely indeed. That is, without doubt, the most important aspect of the whole matter.
It begs the question that ANY official government BritNAT action must be anti-democratic, and thus illegal. If for no other reason it is against our human rights. Westminster is every bit as much Scottish as it is English. The Treaty of Union did not get signed by a superior and an inferior nation. It all probabillity it is against the treaty that England has more Members in the chamber than Scots.
#
2012-02-08 14:59
Anybody caught the article in scottishtimes.com ? The cat is definately amongst the pigeons now !.
#
2012-02-08 15:21
Quoting UpSpake:
[Online Editor - It is with regret that we have had to remove this link. It will be allowed once some legal issues are checked out and clarified.]
Anybody caught the article in scottishtimes.com ? The cat is definately amongst the pigeons now !.
[Online Editor - It is with regret that we have had to remove this link. It will be allowed once some legal issues are checked out and clarified.]
#
2012-02-08 17:15
Yes, Upspake, I have seen it and read Scotland's Times article in full.
All I can say, is that I hope there has been a meeting of minds betwixt the SDA's Dr Wilkie and Alex Salmond on the process this will trigger.
My gut feeling is, such an overture to the CoE is more than welcome news.
I now understand what you were alluding to in another recent article and any concern I have is this SDA action is unilateral and out of kilter with what the SNP are planning to do.
Problematic or not, I think what it will do, needs to be done as soon as possible.
As you say - the cat's really out of the bag!
All I can say, is that I hope there has been a meeting of minds betwixt the SDA's Dr Wilkie and Alex Salmond on the process this will trigger.
My gut feeling is, such an overture to the CoE is more than welcome news.
I now understand what you were alluding to in another recent article and any concern I have is this SDA action is unilateral and out of kilter with what the SNP are planning to do.
Problematic or not, I think what it will do, needs to be done as soon as possible.
As you say - the cat's really out of the bag!
#
2012-02-10 09:36
Wilkie and Salmond had a meeting in Elgin not so long ago. They have known each other for decades, since Wilkie's role in the Scotland-UN action in Strasbourg, which met with Salmond's full approval.
#
2012-02-08 15:21
BBC Radio 4 Today programme actually gave it a passing mention yesterday morning between 6-9 am --- TWICE !!
Don't cheer---it was merely a mention as the daily newspapers were being discussed.
Don't cheer---it was merely a mention as the daily newspapers were being discussed.
#
2012-02-08 15:28
There is no Scottish Civil Service. Why not? Create one Northern Ireland has its own.
#
2012-02-08 19:36
If I remember correctly, the first SNP Government tried to do this, but was blocked by London (surprise, surprise).
#
2012-02-08 16:22
Does this action by the Westminster based civil service not demonstrate that a unitary civil service cannot work in these testing times, and that it creates a very strong argument that the civil service should be completely devolved to Holyrood at the earliest possible opportunity?
#
2012-02-08 16:22
"Cameron orders civil service to send Scotland to Coventry"
Wow!The Highland Army only got as far south as Derby in the '45. Cameron plans to give us all of England, as far south as Coventry! :-)
Wow!The Highland Army only got as far south as Derby in the '45. Cameron plans to give us all of England, as far south as Coventry! :-)
#
2012-02-08 16:27
No, we're just getting Coventry. It was the one bit of England none of the English wanted.
#
2012-02-09 21:32
Aye, getting south Britain back, that would clear the damage and debt of 300 years of colonial occupation.
#
2012-02-08 16:47
Look at this from a different perspective - we now have in effect an independent Scottish civil service.
Perhaps we can set up a Scottish Foreign Office to deal with the English Embassy in Edinburgh (formerly known as the Scotland Office).
Perhaps we can set up a Scottish Foreign Office to deal with the English Embassy in Edinburgh (formerly known as the Scotland Office).
#
2012-02-08 17:19
If all of this is true Mac, it must seem that way too to all our Jockland Civil Service chappies. As I've said before, Irvine Welsh would be struggling to come up with the daily scenarios we're being blessed with!
#
2012-02-08 17:36
Of course Dover House in London becomes the de-facto Scottish Embassy, with the head Scottish government official there now being elevated to ambassador status.
This independence lark is much easier than I thought.
This independence lark is much easier than I thought.
#
2012-02-08 20:00
A recognised Scottish Civil Service needs to be set up. Northern Ireland has one. Why should be wait until 2014 to start creating the institutions of an independent country?
#
2012-02-08 18:09
1314 2012-02-08 12:14
“The SDA's proposal is common sense. The Scottish Government should set up their own Electoral Commission and ask the EU in for independent oversight. Having a body which is appointed by a government from which we wish to secede overseeing the referendum makes no sense.”
Common sense or not, there is a consultation process in progress. If the SDA wish to participate, they should address their comments to the appropriate authority, in Scotland.
As none of the POLITICAL PARTIES have a vote; I would suggest that the Scottish Parliament should handle the consultation on how we wish to change the constitutional position of Scotland.
We did after all vote for that devolved parliament.
Personally I think all the political parties should “butt out” and await the result like the rest of us
Maybe the first thing that needs to be settled, during this consultation phase of the referendum, should be who are the sovereign people of Scotland?
What none of the parties or the interest groups (Civic Scotland etc.) seems very certain of is to whom the question is to be addressed?
I would suggest Scottish citizenship as the base. At the moment residence seems to be acceptable, but that can be a very transient state.
The constitutional future of Scotland is being decided the most important question in 300 years is being asked.
Why is it being left to people who just happen to be living in Scotland in the
autumn of 2014?
Alex Sloan
“The SDA's proposal is common sense. The Scottish Government should set up their own Electoral Commission and ask the EU in for independent oversight. Having a body which is appointed by a government from which we wish to secede overseeing the referendum makes no sense.”
Common sense or not, there is a consultation process in progress. If the SDA wish to participate, they should address their comments to the appropriate authority, in Scotland.
As none of the POLITICAL PARTIES have a vote; I would suggest that the Scottish Parliament should handle the consultation on how we wish to change the constitutional position of Scotland.
We did after all vote for that devolved parliament.
Personally I think all the political parties should “butt out” and await the result like the rest of us
Maybe the first thing that needs to be settled, during this consultation phase of the referendum, should be who are the sovereign people of Scotland?
What none of the parties or the interest groups (Civic Scotland etc.) seems very certain of is to whom the question is to be addressed?
I would suggest Scottish citizenship as the base. At the moment residence seems to be acceptable, but that can be a very transient state.
The constitutional future of Scotland is being decided the most important question in 300 years is being asked.
Why is it being left to people who just happen to be living in Scotland in the
autumn of 2014?
Alex Sloan
#
2012-02-08 21:46
Personally I think all the political parties should “butt out” and await the result like the rest of us
A good point exel. The first question has already been asked - what do you think of this question and format? Replies on a postcard please. Its going to be some time before the consultative period is complete and people need this time to process this document.
A good point exel. The first question has already been asked - what do you think of this question and format? Replies on a postcard please. Its going to be some time before the consultative period is complete and people need this time to process this document.
#
2012-02-10 04:12
exel 2012-02-08 17:09
"Common sense or not, there is a consultation process in progress. If the SDA wish to participate, they should address their comments to the appropriate authority, in Scotland."
The consultation process you refer to is open to all interested people and parties. The SDA is an interested party and speaks on behalf of its members.
You are exercising your freedom of speech in these threads. I am exercising mine. Sorry if you want to shut me up.
"Common sense or not, there is a consultation process in progress. If the SDA wish to participate, they should address their comments to the appropriate authority, in Scotland."
The consultation process you refer to is open to all interested people and parties. The SDA is an interested party and speaks on behalf of its members.
You are exercising your freedom of speech in these threads. I am exercising mine. Sorry if you want to shut me up.
#
2012-02-10 09:51
The last thing the SDA wants is any involvement by the EU in the referendum, because it would inevitably be motivated by power politics relating to the EU's policy of extending its takeover of Scotland's territorial waters with their energy and mineral assets.
The CoE and the OSCE are intergovernment al institutions with a totally different approach to European cooperation. Unlike the EU they are not out to create a centralised European state. Furthermore, they represent the whole of Europe, unlike the half-European EU, and their authority is correspondingly greater. The OSCE is also a Chapter VIII organisation under the UN Charter, and reports to the Security Council on European affairs.
As for "appropriate authority", the Scottish Government could not have undertaken such an initiative without considerable political complications arising, even if it had had the diplomatic know-how to carry it through. Remember that the entire diplomatic expertise of the highly successful Scotland-UN Committee is now vested in the SDA.
The CoE and the OSCE are intergovernment al institutions with a totally different approach to European cooperation. Unlike the EU they are not out to create a centralised European state. Furthermore, they represent the whole of Europe, unlike the half-European EU, and their authority is correspondingly greater. The OSCE is also a Chapter VIII organisation under the UN Charter, and reports to the Security Council on European affairs.
As for "appropriate authority", the Scottish Government could not have undertaken such an initiative without considerable political complications arising, even if it had had the diplomatic know-how to carry it through. Remember that the entire diplomatic expertise of the highly successful Scotland-UN Committee is now vested in the SDA.
#
2012-02-08 18:40
Parsonrussell: This is where you and others come into the picture. Run off a thousand copies of this and pass along to those you know are undecided.
#
2012-02-08 18:55
jings
Amazing all these people appearing to tell us what splendid common-sense fellows these SDA folk are
From my understanding the SDA is not some new creation, but the old right wing fit-in-a-phone-box Scottish Enterprise Party
Having won no seats they have no mandate, moreover, over on Rev Stu's blog there is some history that makes some interesting reading and suggests that neither they, nor their sock-puppets, should not be taken too seriously
Amazing all these people appearing to tell us what splendid common-sense fellows these SDA folk are
From my understanding the SDA is not some new creation, but the old right wing fit-in-a-phone-box Scottish Enterprise Party
Having won no seats they have no mandate, moreover, over on Rev Stu's blog there is some history that makes some interesting reading and suggests that neither they, nor their sock-puppets, should not be taken too seriously
#
2012-02-08 19:06
As I mentioned in various post above there seems to be a concerted effort to discredit Sir Peter and the Daily Telegraph appears to be leading the effort.
Here are some of the articles which have appeared about him from various sources but mainly from the DT.
Sep 2011holyrood.com/.../...
Quote:
Sir Peter was the accounting officer for this project and much of the criticism of him seems to stem from this time.
24 Sept 2011
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Since this article in the DT there has been a regular run of articles in the DT all criticising Sir Peter for something or other
30 Sept 2011
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Oct 2011
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Jan 2012
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
8th Feb 2012
scotsman.com/.../...
Here are some of the articles which have appeared about him from various sources but mainly from the DT.
Sep 2011holyrood.com/.../...
Quote:
"" Scotland’s most senior civil servant has been singled out in a House of Commons report highly critical of a programme to centralise fire services in England which “wasted” £468m on eight command centres that may never be occupied.At the time, Housden was Permanent Secretary to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott also had responsibility for the Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions, which oversaw the FiReControl project.""
Sir Peter Housden, Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government since July 2010, is referred to in the Public Accounts Committee’s report ‘The failure of the FiReControl project’, which describes it as “one of the worst cases of project failure that the Committee has seen in many years.”
Sir Peter was the accounting officer for this project and much of the criticism of him seems to stem from this time.
24 Sept 2011
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Since this article in the DT there has been a regular run of articles in the DT all criticising Sir Peter for something or other
30 Sept 2011
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Oct 2011
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Jan 2012
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
8th Feb 2012
scotsman.com/.../...
#
2012-02-08 21:52
They are working hard at it Legerwood. I've dropped a couple of posts over there in the past few days about their dedication to trashing all things Scottish. Its like chipping at Ben Nevis with an icepick.
#
2012-02-08 19:08
oooops, seems westminister really has its pantaloons in a twist....Tut Tut....overiding FoI law and IoC commisioner by invoking a rarely used Veto on cabinet documents relating to Scottish devolution.....Whatever are they trying to hide????
scotsman.com/.../...
scotsman.com/.../...
#
2012-02-08 19:58
I've often thought if ever there was a need for Scotland-UN to be reconvened. It's now.
#
2012-02-10 02:01
The entire diplomatic expertise of the Scotland-UN Committee is now vested in the SDA. I myself am a veteran of the Council of Europe action in 1993 that resulted in the establishment of the present devolved systems in Scotland and Wales. The SDA team that worked on the present action in the CoE and OSCE used the same Scotland-UN tactic of "saturation bombing" the two organisations in order to ensure that the issue could not be swept under the carpet (William Hague is chairman of the CoE Committee of Ministers till 14 May). By sending the Memorandum not only to the two general secretariats, but also to every foreign ministry of the 56 member states, we made sure that it could not be ignored.
#
2012-02-08 23:18
Cheers for that one Stevie, haven't been on their site for a while and had never read the bit about the Scotland-UN committee/group.
Its humbling when you think how much has been done by so many people to get us to the amazing times we are now witnessing as Scotland (hopefully) walks those last few steps back to freedom.
Here is another link to today's memorandum sent by the SDA to the Council of Europe, it is in a small highlighted box halfway down.
.../?searchword=memorandum&ordering=&searchphrase=all
Mods-I'm presuming this wasn't the contentious issue with the earlier link. ;)
Its humbling when you think how much has been done by so many people to get us to the amazing times we are now witnessing as Scotland (hopefully) walks those last few steps back to freedom.
Here is another link to today's memorandum sent by the SDA to the Council of Europe, it is in a small highlighted box halfway down.
.../?searchword=memorandum&ordering=&searchphrase=all
Mods-I'm presuming this wasn't the contentious issue with the earlier link. ;)
#
2012-02-08 19:47
O/T was reading a story today about US drone attacks on Pakistan. Obviously Pakistan are not happy and are making noises about retaliation. Maybe I'm being a bit cynical but I wonder when the spiel about us really needing trident as Pakistan is a nuclear power will filter through. Just another reason to be rid of this abomination , between this and Iran it is just another episode of trying to cow people , and horrifying to think that we are providing a platform for this type of action by just keeping them in Scotland.
#
2012-02-08 21:08
the British Establishment has a habit of offering people opportunites who in time use the experience to undermine the British state. consider Michael Collins who won a scholarship to the Home Office as a lad of 14.
The British civil service is full of Scots sympathetic to an independent Scotland. in the 1990s I was told by a senior member of the uk Chancery in Brussels that no less than 30 per cent of The Foreign Office were Scots
The British civil service is full of Scots sympathetic to an independent Scotland. in the 1990s I was told by a senior member of the uk Chancery in Brussels that no less than 30 per cent of The Foreign Office were Scots
#
2012-02-08 23:34
It's innappropriate for UK civil servants in Whitehall to act in anything other than UK interests. Being clearly seen to be acting in a partisan manner in the interest of London, and implying that Holyrood's main man cannot be trusted to toe London's line is astonishing, and shows they've never accepted the Devolution concept. As far as I remember it was Lord Foulkes who used the phrase "Gone Native". Question - Will "Scottish" members be permitted to continue to sit in the House of Lords after Independence? You dont suppose Lord George has thought this through do you! Aye, just possibly.
#
2012-02-10 17:12
[quote name="ramstam"]
As far as I remember it was Lord Foulkes who used the phrase "Gone Native"./quote]
[quote name="ramstam"]
As from the Scottish point of view the one who has, "gone native", is certainly His Lordship, Tankedupness and his sidekicks. They have become English and are acting against Scotland.
As far as I remember it was Lord Foulkes who used the phrase "Gone Native"./quote]
[quote name="ramstam"]
As from the Scottish point of view the one who has, "gone native", is certainly His Lordship, Tankedupness and his sidekicks. They have become English and are acting against Scotland.
#
2012-02-10 17:17
I would replace "English" with "British" in that last bit.
It is the British establishment that I have problems with, not the English...
John
It is the British establishment that I have problems with, not the English...
John
#
2012-02-10 17:18
Quite. There are plenty of Scots in the British establishment who have not become 'English'. They've become 'established'.
#
2012-02-09 12:12
We have been ostracised by Westminster!
Is this a responsible way for central government to behave? They have not even the wit to disguise what they are doing so it will came back to hit then in the face.
Is this a responsible way for central government to behave? They have not even the wit to disguise what they are doing so it will came back to hit then in the face.
#
2012-02-10 17:14
Quoting J Wil:
It comes from the belief that England & United Kingdom are one and the same entity.
We have been ostracised by Westminster!
Is this a responsible way for central government to behave? They have not even the wit to disguise what they are doing so it will came back to hit then in the face.
It comes from the belief that England & United Kingdom are one and the same entity.
#
2012-02-09 13:58
"Cameron orders civil service to send Scotland to Coventry" This rather silly headline reminds me of that scene in MacBeth.
"MACDUFF
Stands Scotland where it did?
ROSS
Alas, poor country!"
"MACDUFF
Stands Scotland where it did?
ROSS
Alas, poor country!"
#
2012-02-09 21:31
See the maggots festering in the rot of England's Wastemonster.
A "senior Whitehall source" quoted by the Telegraph said:
"It has come from the top that if there is anything very sensitive about Scotland then it cannot be discussed in front of [Sir Peter Housden].
No name provided.
"the top" lets have a look at that...
The sovereign is representative of the peoples as the head of the monarchy. Parliaments have to be officially engaged each year by the monarch. The elected representatives have sworn service under an oath of office to the monarch- therefore the people, if these servants are found to be operating outside of this oath of office, their oath of office can be terminated. Besides Cameron was not elected.
Or MI5 twist....
Whitehall outputs media mis-information to engender a sympathetic reaction from Scots, to allow and Englishman continue his dirty work under the veil of goodwill?
A "senior Whitehall source" quoted by the Telegraph said:
"It has come from the top that if there is anything very sensitive about Scotland then it cannot be discussed in front of [Sir Peter Housden].
No name provided.
"the top" lets have a look at that...
The sovereign is representative of the peoples as the head of the monarchy. Parliaments have to be officially engaged each year by the monarch. The elected representatives have sworn service under an oath of office to the monarch- therefore the people, if these servants are found to be operating outside of this oath of office, their oath of office can be terminated. Besides Cameron was not elected.
Or MI5 twist....
Whitehall outputs media mis-information to engender a sympathetic reaction from Scots, to allow and Englishman continue his dirty work under the veil of goodwill?
#
2012-02-09 21:39
Come independence, can we offer asylum to parts of northern England? I reckon we could get down to Coventry, bit by bit. We could perhaps incorporate Wales and the southwest as well. England would be left with the only parts Westminster cares about, the Midlands and the southeast, handily connected by a high speed train.
#
2012-02-09 21:52
There should be health and Safety signs emblazoned on tessellated floors with yellow and black chevrons in fives saying in capitals:
- DANGER -
CONFUSION AHEAD
- MI5 AT WORK -
- DANGER -
CONFUSION AHEAD
- MI5 AT WORK -
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- How to make and understand the...
We, as independence supporters, need to ... - How to make and understand the...
The statement “The UK is the seventh wea... - A statement by Justice for Meg...
This whole carnival of arcane blackwash ... - A statement by Justice for Meg...
O /T Aplication for audience participati... - Lockerbie: Abdelbaset Al-Megra...
O /T Aplication for audience participati... - A statement by Justice for Meg...
"Now he should take the next step and in... - How to make and understand the...
It's a pity that Gerry appears to be fal... - Labour group in Aberdeen Counc...
O/T but relevant to Labour shennanigans,... - Yes campaign set to launch as ...
I had a man girning to me about the sepe... - How to make and understand the...
Just been on the Ipsos MORI site and the... - A statement by Justice for Meg...
The Truth is going to be very very diffi... - Lockerbie: Abdelbaset Al-Megra...
Scottish Daily Express on line quote by ... - Lockerbie: Abdelbaset Al-Megra...
Anyone doubting the fairness of Megrahi'... - How to make and understand the...
We know that the economic argument is im... - Lockerbie: Abdelbaset Al-Megra...
No doubt this had been said already but ... - How to make and understand the...
the unionist campaign has no vision for ... - Lockerbie: Abdelbaset Al-Megra...
Reading a bitter comment - not the only ... - How to make and understand the...
Slightly O/T but if only we could have a... - Lockerbie: Abdelbaset Al-Megra...
I feel sick, are people really this vind... - How to make and understand the...
Gerry "Some of the lack of empathy and u...