Scottish Tory Leadership Candidate Rejects Call For Greater Economic Powers

Ruth Davidson distances herself from rival contender Murdo Fraser's proposal to scrap ties with UK Tory party.












Ruth Davidson the first openly gay Tory to stand for the party leadership, opens her campaign.

A contender to become Scotland's next Tory leader has rejected demands for far greater economic powers for the Scottish parliament in an open appeal to traditional Tory voters.

Ruth Davidson, at 32 the youngest of the three candidates and the first openly gay Tory to stand for the party leadership, would draw "a line in the sand" at new powers to give modest control over income tax and borrowing.

She also repeatedly distanced herself from Murdo Fraser, the favourite, by dismissing his dramatic proposal to scrap the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party and replace it with a centre-right party separate from the UK Tory party.

That was a "distraction" which would "tie the party in knots" for a year, Davidson said before rejecting the suggestion for more financial autonomy for Scotland, also supported by Fraser.

Portraying herself as the fresh-faced saviour, Davidson said: "Under my leadership, there will be no existential crisis, no wringing of hands. [The] values which made me an instinctive Conservative - that drive my politics - are shared by Scots the length and breadth of the country."

She predicted, however, that it would take a decade before the Tories were strong enough to share power at Holyrood. Her primary objective was to defend the United Kingdom in the run-up to the independence referendum being proposed by the Scottish government.

She described the measures being debated in the Lords to give Holyrood powers over income tax and new £2bn borrowing powers as a one-off "MOT" for the Scottish parliament.

She also dismissed proposals to set a second question on increased financial powers at the referendum.

"I believe that the United Kingdom is a force for good in this world. I believe that we in Scotland walk taller, shout louder and stand stronger for being part of that union," she said, as she became the last of the candidates to launch her campaign.

At the referendum, there would be "no half-way house, no second question, no march to fiscal autonomy. When the referendum is done and Scotland in the union has won the day, let that be an end to it."

Davidson is said to be the candidate most favoured by David Cameron but is the least experienced and least well-known.

Fraser has held a series of prominent party positions, been an MSP for 10 years and is deputy leader at the Scottish parliament.

Jackson Carlaw, the other contender, is seen as the most right-wing and traditional. Twice elected deputy chairman of the Scottish party and a list MSP since 2007, he has a strong base in the west of Scotland party but is seen by senior party figures as too reactionary to suit modern Scottish voters.

Davidson, a former BBC journalist and Territorial Army officer, has a female life partner was elected to Holyrood in May on the party list for Glasgow. She has attracted the fewest well-known supporters, besides John Lamont, one of the few Tories to win a constituency seat outright in May.

She said she was the only candidate who can present herself as one of a new generation of Tories who could convince Scottish voters to rejoin the party.

Younger voters knew little and cared little about Margaret Thatcher's premiership, a period many Tories concede destroyed the party's reputation in Scotland.

After losing every Westminster seat in 1997, the Scottish Tories have had only one MP for the last three elections. In Scotland it lost two seats at the May Holyrood elections, bringing their numbers down to 15.

"There's not just one but two generations of voters after me who have no knowledge of Margaret Thatcher ... Scotland has moved on. The Scottish Conservative party has moved on," she said.

George Osborne Cheers Alistair Darling For Stabbing Ed Balls

It is not often that one sees a man enter the Chamber with a dagger protruding from the back of his neck. Ed Balls attempted to make light of this encumbrance, but without success.












The Tories loved reminding everyone that Mr Balls has been stabbed in broad daylight by a member of his own side. The attack was launched by the mild-mannered Alistair Darling, whose work as Labour’s last Chancellor of the Exchequer was persistently sabotaged by Mr Balls, and by Mr Balls’s patron, Gordon Brown.

Beware the vengeance of a mild-mannered man who has been treated abominably for years on end. Not since Sir Geoffrey Howe finished off Margaret Thatcher has a former Chancellor done such damage to a member of his own party as Mr Darling has done to Mr Balls.

George Osborne wasted no time, at Treasury Questions, in taking advantage of this opportunity. When Mr Balls called on the Chancellor to “repeat the bank bonus tax” imposed by Labour, Mr Osborne replied that he was not going to rely on the advice of Treasury officials, but on “the advice I’ve been given by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer”, someone Mr Balls was known to be “very close to”, namely Mr Darling, who had said the bank bonus tax would “have to be a one-off”.

This was followed by repeated references to Mr Darling’s newly published misery memoir, in which he describes how he was undermined by Mr Brown, and by the former Prime Minister’s brutal henchmen, notably Mr Balls.

Mr Osborne assured us that we are “going to be hearing a lot more” about this book. One rather doubts whether Mr Darling wanted the present Chancellor to plug his work with such enthusiasm, but it is too late now.

Mr Balls flushed, shook his head and ran his hand in a horizontal motion from side to side with the palm facing downwards: a gesture indicative of his conviction that the economy is flat-lining.

Labour MPs tried their hardest to embarrass Mr Osborne by pointing to the recent, disappointing growth figures: but the Chancellor just retaliated by pointing to Mr Darling’s memoirs.

Iain Wright (Lab, Hartlepool) attempted to change the subject by referring to Harold Macmillan as “the most successful Chancellor and Prime Minister that Eton has ever produced”, and by quoting Macmillan’s reply when asked what was most likely to blow a government off course: “Events, dear boy, events.”

Mr Osborne accused Mr Wright of “being rather unfair on Hugh Dalton who I think also went to Eton”. It is true that Dalton, who was a rather unappealing Labour Chancellor, went to Eton.

But Mr Osborne ought to have said Mr Wright was being far more unfair to William Gladstone, an Etonian whose achievements as Chancellor and Prime Minister make Macmillan’s look distinctly modest.

The trouble with Mr Osborne is that he is only really interested in the unhappy history of the period 2007-10, as related in Mr Darling’s memoir. By the time this is over we are all going to be bored rigid.

John McAleese

John McAleese, who died on August 26 aged 61, led the SAS team that ended the Iranian embassy siege in central London in 1980, an event watched live on television by millions of spellbound viewers.












The SAS storming the Iranian embassy on May 5 1980.













John McAleese

The embassy, at 16 Princes Gate, Knightsbridge, had been taken over on April 30 1980 by six separatists from the oil-rich region in west Iran known as Arabistan. For six days, armed with machine guns, pistols and grenades, they held 26 people hostage as they demanded international recognition for their demands for independence.

Margaret Thatcher’s government was adamant that it would not make deals with terrorists, and as tense negotiations with the separatists continued, police surrounded the 56-room, five-storey building.

At the same time, an SAS team was assembled to launch a possible assault on the embassy under the code name Operation Nimrod.

Some 60 troops of 22 Special Air Service Regiment 56, among them then Lance-Corporal John McAleese, drove from their base in Herefordshire. They were equipped with ladders, climbing ropes and battering rams, as well as with machine guns, grenades and gas-canister launchers.

A few doors along from the embassy, the Royal School of Needlework was meticulously examined by one of the SAS soldiers, Stuart MacVicar (known as “Squash Ball” for his compact physique), because its layout was identical to that of the embassy.

Microphones were drilled into the embassy walls; commercial aircraft flying overhead were ordered to travel at lower altitudes, to drown out any suspicious noises caused by the preparations for an assault.

Meanwhile, the soldiers studied long-lens photographs, taken through the embassy windows, of the hostages in the hope that they would be able to distinguish them from their captors.

Then, on the evening of May 5, a team led by McAleese stormed the building. The assault had been ordered by the Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, after the terrorists killed a hostage and threw his body outside the building.

For the first time, an SAS operation was shown live on television as both ITV and the BBC (which interrupted its coverage of the final of the world snooker championships) broadcast footage of black-clad troops in balaclavas — among them McAleese — abseiling down ropes on to the balconies on the first floor of the embassy, where it was thought that most of the hostages were being held.

In order to disorientate the terrorists, the SAS first exploded a so-called “distraction” charge, which they had lowered through a skylight.

The front window of the room were blown out by McAleese and CS gas canisters fired in through the gap. The soldiers then stormed in amid a hail of gunfire.

The raid lasted 17 minutes. All but one of the hostages were rescued. Five of the terrorists were killed; the only one to survive, Fowzi Nejad, was sent to prison — he was released in 2008.

Returning after the assault to their temporary London quarters at Regent’s Park Barracks, the SAS team was visited by the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who told them: “Makes us proud to be British.” McAleese later said: “We knew what our mission was — it was to release the hostages. My only job at this point is to get on to the balcony, place the charge, get back, blow it, turn around and go back in through the window.”

John McAleese was a Scot, originally from Laurieston, in Stirlingshire, and served in the Army for 23 years, including 17 in the SAS. He was awarded a Military Medal in 1988 for his service in Northern Ireland. After leaving, he worked as a security consultant in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had a brief media career as a host of the 2003 BBC series SAS: Are You Tough Enough?, a documentary in which members of the public experienced the proverbially gruelling SAS selection process.

He also acted as an instructor in Airsoft, the outdoor game which offers people a taste of what it is like to experience battle conditions. Participants dressed in combat gear and carrying real weapons (loaded with plastic BB pellets) mimic close-quarter modern infantry fighting.

McAleese said: “You might as well make it realistic. People read books about this SAS stuff and now they can do something similar.”

The last two years of McAleese’s life were marked by the death of his son, 29-year-old Sergeant Paul McAleese, who was serving in the 2nd Battalion the Rifles and hoped to join the special forces like his father before him. Paul was killed by an explosion in Afghanistan on August 20 2009 while attempting to rescue a wounded comrade.

After his son’s death, John McAleese appealed to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown for better resources for the troops serving in Helmand province. He said that his son had complained that there were not enough troops in Afghanistan to monitor areas for explosive devices.

John McAleese, who died in Thessaloniki, Greece, is thought to have suffered a heart attack.

As well as his son Paul, he had a daughter with his first wife. He also had a daughter and a son by his second marriage.

What are they hiding? Time for some truth.

The government is facing a backlash following its decision to appeal against an order to release documents from 22 years ago relating to the Hillsborough disaster. The documents reportedly include correspondence and reports sent to and from the Prime Minister of the time, Margarget Thatcher, in relation to the disaster that saw 96 people die.













The order to release the documents came from the Information Commissioner, who looked at whether or not the Cabinet Office had dealt appropriately with a request for information made by the BBC under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. The request was made in 2009, shortly after the 20th anniversary of the disaster.

The information asked for was, “Copies of all briefings and other information provided to Margaret Thatcher in April 1989 relating to the Hillsborough disaster,” and, “copies of minutes and any other records of meetings attended by Margaret Thatcher during April 1989 at which the Hillsborough disaster was discussed.”

The Cabinet office was supposed to answer within 20 days. They took nine months – and refused to supply the information requested.











The BBC, in response, requested an internal review. Internal reviews should “be carried out within 20 working days, but that this period may be extended to 40 working days in exceptional circumstances”. The Cabinet office didn’t take 20, or even 40 days. They took just short of seven months, and again refused to supply the information requested.

The Information Commissioner then received a complaint from the BBC and in January 2011 asked the Cabinet Office to reply (within 20 working days) with further details of their reasons for refusing the request and also with copies of the information in question.

30 working days later and the Information Commissioner had not had a reply from the Cabinet Office, so they issued an ‘Information Notice’, giving the Cabinet Office another 30 working days to supply the information requested in January. It took them 54 working days to do finally do this.

It had now taken just short of two years from the date of the original BBC request to the point where the Information Commissioner could look at the Cabinet Office’s reasons for refusing to supply the information.

The Information Commissioner ruled that the Cabinet Office “did not deal with the request in accordance with the Act.” The Commissioner wrote that the government office had “applied the exemptions provided by [various sections of the Act] incorrectly and in so doing breached the requirements of [various sections of the act].”

The Commissioner ruled that although it was correct to withhold one piece of information, due to it containing sensitive personal information of a member of the public (one of the survivors), that it should still be realised in a form that blanks out the name of the member of public.

The Cabinet Office was told to “disclose all information falling within the scope of the request, apart from… the cover note to the survivor’s letter [which] should be disclosed in redacted form.”

They Cabinet Office were given 35 calendar days to comply (by August 24th) and the report noted that the previous delays were “matters of concern”. The Commissioner pointed out that any appeal had to be made within 28 days – that day being August 17th, the day the appeal was announced. For once the Cabinet Office had met a deadline, but only just.

In announcing the appeal a spokesman from the Cabinet Office said: “The Government’s view is that it is in the public interest for the process that is underway through the Hillsborough Independent Panel be allowed to take its course. The terms of reference for that process includes the intention to disclose information to the Hillsborough families first.

“The Cabinet Office absolutely agrees with the principle of providing information to families about the Hillsborough stadium disaster, but we believe it is important that any release of information should be managed through the Panel’s processes and in line with their terms of reference. The Cabinet Office is fully committed to the disclosure process in line with the Terms of Reference and is working with the Panel to achieve that.

“The Panel have had access to all the information covered by this decision notice.”

This excuse comes despite the Information Commissioner stating quite clearly in its report that the existence of the panel is irrelevant in terms of this request, because: “It did not exist at the time of the request, or within 20 working days following the receipt of the request by the public authority.” It went on to say: “Any factor that did not apply at the time of the request is not relevant. This situation applies regardless of the lengthy delay by the public authority in responding to the request. In addition the Commissioner does not see how this argument is relevant to factors in inherent in the exemption claimed. The Commissioner also notes the panel is not set up on a statutory basis, on the same terms as a formal Inquiry.”

The Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC) released a statement immediately after hearing the government’s decision to appeal:

HJC STATEMENT RE: GOVERNMENT APPEAL:

The Hillsborough Justice Campaign is disgusted but not surprised by the government’s decision to appeal the release of information to the BBC. The fact that it quotes the Hillsborough Independent panel’s work and ‘public interest’ as the reasons to appeal is both illogical and disingenuous. It states that information should be “managed through the panel’s processes”; in what way will the information be ‘managed’? Why is there a need to ‘manage‘ the truth? If the panel is committed to the true facts being revealed then why is there such concern regarding the BBC revealing those facts?

The panel does not have a moral right to ownership of the facts.

The issue seems to be that the BBC would make public the contents of the cabinet meeting minutes immediately, whereas the panel will not release any information before 2012. The government’s action in appealing the decision indicates the close working relationship between itself and the ‘independent’ panel. The decision appears to us as a policing exercise that is not in the best interests of those most affected by the Disaster.

The Hillsborough Justice Campaign will now have to seriously reconsider the relationship it has with the panel. Of paramount concern to the campaign is that the panel, via the government, should seek to police that truth in this way.

Sheila Coleman (on behalf of the HJC)

The government (often referred to as “this Tory government”, despite officially being a coalition government) were criticised heavily by supporters of the campaign for justice. This goes beyond football; those who support the calls for justice aren’t all Liverpool fans or even football supporters. 96 people died, countless more were victims in other ways; real people want real justice for those real victims.

Opposition MPs also joined the calls for the government to stop the cover-up and delaying tactics and release this information.

Andy Burnham MP said, via Twitter, “This is a worrying move. It raises real questions about the Government’s commitment to disclosure and the work of the Hillsborough Independent Panel.

“Families must have the full truth. Nothing less will do. I will write to Prime Minister urging him to intervene and drop this appeal.

“The Government are saying the Panel will ‘have access’. That’s not the same as disclosure.

“The appeal damages trust in the process. The Government could pass [the documents] to families before [passing them onto the] BBC.”

Steve Rotheram MP, asked why he thought the government weren’t releasing the papers, suggested: “There has to be something that someone doesn’t want us to see!” He promised that he and other Merseyside MPs would be joining Andy Burnham in asking David Cameron, the current Prime Minister, to intervene.

A petition had already been set up on the government’s “e-petitions” website calling for the information to be released. It had been signed by around 600 people early yesterday evening, by the time Kenny Dalglish and others had spread the word and asked people to sign it the numbers swelled rapidly. Kenny tweeted: “Please sign this petition and RT [retweet]. Think it is very important that we support this.” The link to the petition is http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2199 and at lunchtime on Thursday it had been signed by close to 23,000 people.

As MPs try to get someone like David Cameron to do the right thing and intervene, the social networking tools that some want banned are helping to inform people around the country of exactly what they can do to help get the right thing done.

The petition can only be signed by UK citizens or those who normally live in the UK, but everybody can spread the word about it being there. Those who can sign it can do so in about 30 seconds – but it’s important that they check their emails to confirm to the e-petition system that they are a real person and not a “spambot”.

Names and addresses of those who sign it are not shown on the website.

Cameron spoke last week, after the unrest around the country, about how “no phoney human rights concerns… will get in the way of bringing… justice.” He also spoke about “swift justice”.

We’ve waited 22 years for justice for Hillsborough. We’ve waited over two years just for this one request for one file of information to be released, and we’re still waiting. We feel like we’re waiting for ever. And the reasons given for the delays all sound very phoney to us.

It’s time to stop the phoney excuses and admit the wrongs that were done. Those helping continue the cover-up are as bad as those who started the cover-ups in the first place.

What are they hiding?