The Scottish National Party

A law graduate of the University of Glasgow, Sturgeon worked as a solicitor in Glasgow. After being elected to the Scottish Parliament, she served successively as the SNP's shadow minister for education, health and justice. In 2004 she announced that she would stand as a candidate for the leadership of the SNP following the resignation of John Swinney. However, she later withdrew from the contest in favour of Alex Salmond, standing instead as depute (deputy) leader on a joint ticket with Salmond.

Following the defeat of the "Yes" campaign in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, Salmond announced that he would be resigning as party leader at the SNP party conference that November, and would resign as First Minister after a new leader was chosen.^[1] No one else was nominated for the post by the time nominations closed, leaving Sturgeon to take the party leadership unopposed at the SNP's annual conference. She was formally elected to succeed Salmond as First Minister on 19 November.^[2]

Forbes magazine ranked Sturgeon as the 50th most powerful woman in the world in 2016 and 2nd in the United Kingdom.^[3]^[4]

Centralising, illiberal, catastrophic the SNP’s one-party state [ 17 October 2015 ]
QUOTE
Centralising, illiberal, catastrophic: the SNP’s one-party state
For years, the Scottish government has used the independence argument to avoid proper scrutiny. That has to stop
Imagine a country where the government so mistrusted parents that every child was assigned a state guardian — not a member of their family — to act as a direct link between the child and officials. Imagine that such a scheme was compulsory, no matter how strongly parents objected. Imagine that the ruling party controlled 95 per cent of MPs, and policed the political culture through a voluntary army of internet fanatics who seek out and shout down dissent.

Welcome to Nicola Sturgeon's Scotland in 2015. The First Minister is admired the world over. She has a few curious notions — chiefly, the idea that the political and cultural differences between Scots and the English are so great that the only solution is to sue for separation. But there is no denying it: she is intelligent, thoughtful and spirited. She has even mastered the Billy Connolly technique of giving a little giggle to her own jokes. Those outside Scotland have the sense of a charismatic insurgent, already looking forward to a new referendum that she’d have a good chance of winning.

But what is far less known south of the border is that the SNP have been in government since 2007 — and that its rule has been a disaster. Their central premise, that control from Edinburgh is inherently better, has been tested to destruction. Their stream of illiberal reforms and their mistrust of the Scottish people has led to power being centralised to an unprecedented degree. The SNP avoid proper scrutiny by always steering the conversation back towards independence.

For years, I have watched this with increasing alarm from my position as a professor of constitutional law at Glasgow University. I have decided to fight the SNP, and their pernicious ideology, by standing for the Scottish parliament as a Conservative candidate. What follows are my reasons for joining not just a fight for the survival of the union, but to preserve the basic notion of liberty that Scots have done much to define and defend.

The proposal for a ‘named person’ — i.e., a state guardian for children — is a classic example of what is going so wrong. The person will, in the Scottish government’s chilling words, ‘monitor what children and young people need’. That parents, families, doctors and teachers do this already is not enough: the state must do it, too. Badged under the ghastly Orwellian acronym Girfec (Getting It Right For Every Child), the ‘named person’ will ensure a child’s wellbeing is ‘assessed’ according to the extent to which the child is ‘safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included’.

So Ms Sturgeon’s ‘named persons’ will not focus only on harm, risk or even neglect — but the entire human condition. If my child is judged to be underachieving, inactive or somehow lacking in respect or responsibility, the ‘named person’ can discuss my child not only with the NHS, a social worker or the police, but with bodies including the Scottish Sports Council and something called Skills Development Scotland Co. Ltd.

The illiberal control-freakery of this measure might have attracted more attention had it been unusual. But it is typical of the Scottish National Party in power. From policing to higher education, the SNP are archetypes of the top-down, authoritarian, one-size-fits-all school of government.

If you want to know what England would be like under Jeremy Corbyn, the answer would not be far off what the SNP is doing to Scotland. Stridently anti-austerity, the party’s populist and highly successful general election campaign pitched them as Britain’s progressive beacon. It won them 56 of Scotland’s 59 MPs. It also helped Mr Cameron’s return to Downing Street.

The SNP know more than anyone else what they want to achieve: independence. Almost all their statements are geared towards this goal. For example, the SNP say that Scots should vote for independence to save the NHS. But Holyrood has complete control over the NHS in Scotland, as it does over the whole of Scottish education. And policing, transport, environmental policy — a whole gamut of powers that has been accurately described by the UK Supreme Court as ‘ample’ and ‘generous’. Yet in the eight years in which the SNP have been in power, next to nothing has been done to reform the health service in Scotland, save that SNP ministers’ controls over Scotland’s 14 health boards have been tightened. (Their motto: When in doubt, centralise.)

This has not led to improved service. The latest figures show waiting times rising alarmingly. When the SNP came to power, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health than England, but under the nationalists this has been reversed. The Institute for Fiscal Studies ran the numbers last September, and found England’s health budget this year is 4.4 per cent higher than before David Cameron came to power; Scotland’s is 1.2 per cent lower. When given the choice, Ms Sturgeon has cut the NHS budget — and protected it from much-needed reform.

The same is true in education. Scottish schools and colleges are going from mediocre to poor. Numeracy scores are plummeting, 140,000 college places have been cut, colleges have merged and campuses have been closed. These are calamitous policies to have pursued in an economy crying out for a more highly skilled, better-trained workforce. The SNP’s famous ban on tuition fees means that a Scottish teenager from a poor background is now half as likely to go to university as an English one. And the gap is widening. The decision not to charge fees has been paid for in part by cutting grants for poorer students.

The rot has set in at primary schools: at the ages of nine and 11, the literacy skills of the poorest are getting worse. Nicolas Sturgeon boasts that ‘the attainment gap is reducing’ because richer children are getting worse even faster. Yes, the SNP talk non-stop about their ‘progressive’ credentials, and how the main reason they want separation from England is because they place greater emphasis on a ‘fairer’ society. But the reality is very different. Under the SNP, Scotland is becoming the worst place in Britain to be bright and poor.

On the relatively rare occasions when the SNP reform, two tendencies are striking, both exemplified in last year’s ‘named person’ legislation. The SNP’s illiberality should not, perhaps, surprise us — nationalism in Europe all too often having sacrificed individual freedoms on the altar of national self-determination. The party’s centralising tendencies, however, are remarkable given the SNP’s vocal opposition to rule from London.

Under the SNP, Scotland’s eight regional police constabularies were merged into a single force. While Theresa May was creating locally elected police and crime commissioners in England and Wales, increasing the accountability of the police to local voters, the SNP was doing the opposite. The chief constable of Police Scotland is accountable to a single police authority whose members are appointed by Scottish ministers. The one force now polices both the UK’s third-largest city and its most remote communities, notwithstanding the obvious and huge diversity of policing needs.

Recorded crime is falling the world over — and Scotland, happily, is no exception. Despite having fewer offences to investigate, however, Police Scotland manages to clear up 50,000 fewer crimes each year than the eight old constabularies did a decade ago. Basic policing mistakes that just were not made in the old days now fill the newspapers: in July a woman was left lying next to her dead boyfriend in a car in Bannockburn for three days after the crash was reported to police; she later died. A few weeks ago an elderly disabled woman died when police waited 20 hours after a call from a concerned family member before forcing entry to her home, where she lay collapsed next to her dead husband. A recent survey found that a third of Police Scotland’s staff planned to leave the force within three years: the merger, as Theresa May put it, is a case study in what not to do.

This is why it suits the SNP to talk about independence: any other conversation would be about how they have betrayed the country they purport to champion. Having lost last year’s referendum, Ms Sturgeon immediately demanded more powers for the Scottish Parliament. These are being delivered in a Scotland Bill nearing the end of its passage through the House of Commons. But while the SNP make a lot of noise about devolution to Scotland, they are silent when it comes to devolution within Scotland.

Scotland returns to the polls yet again next spring, when a new Scottish Parliament will be elected. The shell-shocked state of Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats means the SNP will probably do well. Increasingly, the strongest voice of opposition is that of Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, whom I hope to serve in the next parliament. Her principles are those of the Scottish Enlightenment: that countries do best when the public stand tall and the power of government is kept in check.

SNP activists love to invoke the concept of freedom, but they support a party that brings no such thing. For those who believe in liberty, competition, diversity, localism and accountability, there is no point in voting for Ms Sturgeon. Fundamentally, her party places its trust in the state, rather than in the people. It’s an odd kind of patriotism, one which makes Scotland poorer and less free. It’s time for the rebellion to begin.
Adam Tomkins is the John Millar professor of public law at the University of Glasgow.
UNQUOTE
The good prof puts a convincing case in a moderate tone. He is Adam Tomkins. Given his background he understands political mechanisms better than the average man.
PS the headline is verbatim while the comments are opposed. Sturgeon convinced the voters somehow. Bread and circuses perhaps. Or is it importing Third World aliens and bribing them to vote SNP, using Vote Rigging? See e.g. SNP Bungs Islamic Terrorists £400 Thousand

Islam in Scotland ex Wiki
Islam in Scotland includes all aspects of the Islamic faith in Scotland. The first Muslim known to have been in Scotland was a medical student who studied at the University of Edinburgh from 1858 to 1859. The production of goods and Glasgow's busy port meant that many lascars were employed there.^[1] Most Muslims in Scotland are members of families that immigrated in the later decades of the 20th century. At the 2011 census, Muslims comprised 1.4 per cent of Scotland's population (76,737).^[2]

History
The first named Muslim known in Scotland was Wazir Beg from Bombay (now "Mumbai"). He is recorded as being a medical student who studied at the University of Edinburgh in 1858 and 1859.^[1] Manufacturing and Glasgow's busy seaport meant that many Lascars were employed there. Dundee was at the peak of importing jute, and sailors from Bengal were also seen at its port. Records from the Glasgow Sailors' Home show that nearly a third (5,500) of the boarders in 1903 were Muslim Lascars.

However, the immigration of Muslims to Scotland is a relatively recent event. The majority of Scottish Muslims are members of families who immigrated in the late 20th century. Scotland's Muslims in 2001 represented just 0.9% of the population (42,557),^[3] with 30,000 in Glasgow.^[4] By 2011, the Muslim population had increased to 76,737, accounting for 1.4% of Scotland's population.^[5]

Demographics
Muslims in Scotland are an ethnically diverse population. Although a majority of Muslims are of Pakistani (58%) origin, 9.8% are Arab, 7.8% are White European and 7% are Black. Glasgow has the highest Muslim population of any city in Scotland with 5% of residents identifying as Muslim in the 2011 census. Pollokshields and Southside Central are the wards with the highest concentration of Muslim residents – 27.8% and 15.7% respectively. 37.3% of Muslim in Scotland were born in Scotland, with another 7.3% born elsewhere in the United Kingdom.^[2]

Identity
According to information from the 2011 Scottish census, 71% of Muslims in Scotland consider their only national identity to be Scottish or British (or any combination of UK identities). The census concluded "Muslims have a strong sense of belonging to Scotland in particular and the UK more generally [ at the dole office in particular? ]."

Education and Employment
In 2011, 37.5% of Scottish Muslims held degree level qualifications compared to the Scotland average of 27.1%. 21.4% of Muslims in Scotland had no qualifications, slightly lower than the 22.9% average for Scotland. Only 4.5% of Muslims in Scotland had poor English language skills.^[2]

Muslims in Scotland in 2011 were less likely to be employed full time (31%) than the general population (51%). Contributing factors for this include Muslims being more likely to be students (19%) than the general population (6%), and 25% of Muslim women 'looking after the home or family', in comparison to 5.6% of women from the overall population.^[2] 8.7% of Scottish Muslims were unemployed, whereas 6.3% of the general population were unemployed.^[2] Approximately a third of Scottish Muslims working full-time are self employed, compared with 12% of the general population.^[6]

Islamic lobbying group with links to SNP faces closure
QUOTE
A CONTROVERSIAL Islamic lobbying group with close links to the SNP leadership is being wound up after spending £200,000 of taxpayers' money with almost nothing to show for it [ apart from richer Pakistanis ].

The Scottish Islamic Foundation (SIF), which was launched by Alex Salmond and includes an SNP minister among its former directors, is in "pre-dissolution" and six months late in filing its annual accounts at Companies House.

All but one of its board members have resigned, and its phone line and website are offline.

Background
Saeed was born and brought up in Glasgow and went to school in Bishopbriggs.^[1] He was an advisor to former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and a prominent media figure. He has been listed as one of Scotland's Top 100 thinkers and opinion formers by the Scotsman newspaper, one of the country's "Brightest and Best" by the Sunday Herald, and has been described as "Scotland's most influential Muslim" by the Sunday Times. The Evening Times referred to him in 2010 as one of the SNP's "bright rising stars".^[2] His blog, "Rolled up Trousers" was named top Scottish political blog in 2007.^[3] He is also an alumnus of the US State Department's International Visitor Leadership Program. After an attempt to be elected to the House of Commons in 2010, Saeed joined Al Jazeera in Qatar.

Al Jazeera career
Saeed manages Al Jazeera's global communications,^[4] and his tenure has seen the network's strongest period of worldwide publicity. He was responsible for promoting the network's coverage of the Arab uprisings which won global plaudits, and culminated in awards including Royal Television Society News Channel of the Year and a Peabody. That year, Al Jazeera English also won a DuPont, a George Polk, and a Four Freedoms Award.

He coordinated the noted freeajstaff press freedom campaign after Al Jazeera journalists were jailed in Egypt, a campaign which won an award in issues management.^[5]^[6] He has organised brand campaigns around the world - including in the United States, Australia, India, MENA and sub-Saharan Africa^[7] - and is a speaker at international PR conferences.^[8]^[9]

Views and activities
After the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Saeed organised what is considered to be the first ever Muslim-organised demonstration against Al-Qaeda terrorism in the world.^[10] In March 2008, he called for legislation to be enacted against forced marriages,.^[11] The Scottish Government announced a consultation on the issue a few months later, and law was passed in 2011.

In 2009, Saeed organised the response^[12] to the [ allegedly ] far-right Scottish Defence League holding protests in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Along with lawyer Aamer Anwar, he brought together a broad coalition called Scotland United to stage a celebration of multiculturalism including the STUC, Church of Scotland, Equality and Human Rights Commission, all the major political parties and many others.^[13] He also organised a response to the attack by two Muslims youths on an Edinburgh synagogue by offering to protect the building.^[14]

Osama had a role in the Stop the War Coalition, speaking at the anti-war demonstration on the eve of the Iraq war on 15 February 2003 which drew 1 million marchers. He was formerly a volunteer spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain in Scotland, and before Anwar Al-Awlaki openly embraced terrorism, he called for his release from incarceration in Yemen.^[15] Years before the Arab uprisings, Saeed was a proponent of democracy and freedoms in the Muslim world.^[16] He wrote a 2005 article in The Guardian suggesting that the restoration of a caliphate^[17] could be based on democracy and human rights in response to comments by prime minister Tony Blair saying that it was the preserve of Al Qaeda. In 2009, Saeed said that Islamism was “irrelevant”, and that laws and public policy have to be made by leaders accountable to the people they govern.^[18]

Saeed founded the Scottish-Islamic Foundation which was launched with cross-parliamentary backing in June 2008. The leaders of the SNP, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties gave their support.^[19]

Saeed's time at the Scottish-Islamic Foundation was dogged by allegations of cronyism after the organisation was awarded hundreds of thousands of pounds of grants by the SNP Government, the party for whom he was a parliamentary candidate. The funding was investigated by Audit Scotland who concluded that the appropriate procedures were followed in allocating the grant.^[20] The grant was provided to organise an Islamic cultural festival and a trade expo to attract investment from the Muslim world. Saeed suggested that Scotland hold a 'Tartan Week' in the Middle East to increase trade and investment.^[21] After delays in delivery, the SIF returned much of the funding, but organised Salaam Scotland, Scotland's first national festival of Muslim cultures.^[22] An independent auditor's report found no issues in the way Scottish Government grant money was accounted for.^[23] Saeed resigned from the SIF in February 2010 before contesting the General Election in May 2010. The SIF closed in January 2011.^[24]

In the 2010 General Election he stood as the SNP candidate for Glasgow Central. He finished in second place, improving the party's third place from the previous election and increasing their share of the vote by 2.7%.^[25] His campaign concentrated on opposing public spending cuts proposed by the Conservative and Labour parties,^[26] connecting Scotland to the high-speed rail network to London and Europe,^[27] and attracted high profile endorsements.^[28]^[29]^[30] First Minister Alex Salmond said of Saeed: "I don't think I've ever met anyone better suited to face down the rigours of Westminster and to make a presentation of principle for his community and for his country. I've never met anyone better endowed with the qualities required to be an outstanding member of parliament."
PS The Wiki may well delete this source of evidence.

In contrast, the UK Parliament has a considerable Scottish presence, has at times been led by Scottish members, and Scotsmen have over the decades, held all the key cabinet positions.

Since the Act of Union in 1707, we have as the United Kingdom ignited the industrial revolution, defeated hostile enemies, and built the greatest empire in the history of the world.

• Canada in the early 1800s: the North West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company were both trade firms operated mostly by Scotsmen. These are all things we should remember, be proud of, and celebrate.

Despite all this, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) believes that the European Union better represents the interests of Scotland than any UK government ever could. So, the SNP plans to leave one union and join another union.

This is because the SNP politicians and hierarchy are not nationalists at all; indeed, independence is only useful insofar as it can push Scotland further into multiculturalism and ultra-PC authoritarianism – that is, at a slightly faster than the rest of the UK.

Evidence of this can be seen in the original SNP plans for the Named Person’s scheme, published a few years ago, which is aimed at making sure parents are adhering to the SNP’s state-approved agenda. For example, the scheme proposed that an appointed person (a social worker or teacher) would monitor whether a child was able to have a say in home décor, or was being kept away from fire.

(This incredible document can be viewed here, and it is also very much a case of spot the white man).

But as Migration Watch reported, given the opportunity, the SNP would love to “liberalise immigration control across each of the four major migration routes – work, family, student and asylum”.

Easier access to Scotland would become a back door to England. Once in the UK, immigrants can go where they wish.

Such an outcome would be extremely unpopular in England but also in Scotland, where only 5% want to see an increase in immigration and 64% want a reduction.

About half of the famous East India Company was made up of Scots in the 1750s. Scotland is famed and rightly proud of its heritage for ingenuity and intellect.

But how can this identity be preserved if the people who built it are systematically replaced?

It is clear that only the British National Party Party can help preserve Scottish identity, and the British way of life, through a strong and sensible migration policy across the UK.
UNQUOTE
The British National Party tells the truth. That is one reason why it is hated. It is also why Nick Griffin was never prosecuted for fraud; he was too valuable to the Establishment. Breaking the party was his real success.

The Celtic-Rangers football rivalry arguably reflects Scotland’s core fault line. On the one hand there’s the Protestant Scots natives, on the other those of Irish extraction, overwhelmingly Catholic. Of course not all Scots fall into one category or the other but the historical differences still infuse social interactions throughout the country, especially in the highly populated Glasgow/Edinburgh central region. To a considerable degree this bifurcation carries through into the country’s other great divider: The Scottish Independence movement. On this issue you’ll find the hardline Protestant Rangers supporter remains loyal to the Crown, thus opposing independence, a position which explains why the (largely but by no means exclusively) Catholic Celtic follower supports independence.

For close to one and a half centuries the religious and cultural differences embodied in the Celtic-Rangers/blue-green conflict (and its smaller scale versions in Edinburgh and Dundee) have poisoned the political and social life of the country, with serious violence requiring but a spark for ignition, said spark regularly provided by a Celtic-Rangers derby match. The ensuing violence can be severe although never as lethal as its equivalent bifurcation in Northern Ireland, driven by the same cultural/religious imperatives . Despite having attended many such matches at the green end I’m making no judgements on right or wrong on this issue. As far as I’m concerned the black Protestant bastards are entitled to wallow in their bigotry. [To the perpetually outraged out there, this is what’s known as a “joke”]

Although open borders professionalism means the teams no longer reflect their fan-base the rivalry retains its intensity. The country (and a millions-strong TV audience world-wide) almost comes to a standstill when the teams meet. Little wonder then that politicians step into this religious/cultural minefield with the greatest trepidation. Unless you’re Humza Yousaf, the Pakistani Muslim who controls Scotland’s internal affairs. This week he professed himself to be ‘minded’ to cancel tomorrow’s clash at Celtic Park due to the risk of misbehaviour by Rangers supporters, notwithstanding the fact that they’ve been happily misbehaving for more than a century, leaving a trail of devastation behind them wherever they go. Humza’s unprecedented intervention could be classed as an act of cultural insensitivity and/or one of unbridled arrogance. In fact it was probably a bit of both. After all this is the guy who berated the Scottish Parliament for having too many Scots, an act of effrontery which elicited swoons of admiration from the country’s chattering classes. So why would he not ride roughshod over its people and their traditions?

Long after the blue-green football rivalry had taken hold people like Humza, back in their homeland, were still ruled by a mere handful of British bureaucrats (one of whom was Michael O'Dwyer, a farmer’s son from Tipperary, distinctly ‘green’ ethnically, who nonetheless held the position of Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab). Yet now those subjects have abandoned the squalor of their home countries and followed their erstwhile rulers back to Britain with the aim of pillaging an inheritance to which they have no entitlement. And they’re succeeding beyond their most fevered imaginings.

A few weeks ago I read somewhere about a major decision being made by the British Government (can’t remember which one). What struck me was the statement “the decision will come down to three people: Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak”. So this all-powerful trio, determining Britain’s future, contains two Indian Hindus. Any actual Brits capable of filling those positions? And this week an Irish newspaper trilled that ‘exactly one year ago [Irish Prime Minister] Leo Varadker ordered the country closed down due to the Covid crisis’. Varadker’s father is another Indian Hindu. I’m sure Michael O’Dwyer is turning in his grave.

That’s what I’m getting at with my headline. Third World immigrants now hold sway over much of the British political system. While their countries of origin remain unable to rise above their traditional violence, poverty and squalor.

Amazing, isn’t it?

Or is it? Is that a sinister laugh I hear from behind the curtain?