Scotish independence

[David Guyatt]

Please God!

[Malcolm John]

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the debate, very enlightening.

[Magda Hassan]

Scottish independence: Queen was asked to intervene amid yes vote fears

Amid No 10 meltdown, cabinet secretary and monarch's private secretary crafted words that voters should think very carefully'

The long read: insiders reveal the full story of how the union was won





The Queen with David Cameron, who talked to her about the Scottish referendum during a visit to her Balmoral estate in Scotland. Photograph: Jeremy Selwyn/AFP/Getty Images Nicholas Watt, Patrick Wintour and Severin Carrell
Wednesday 17 December 2014 08.23 AEST

• Share on Facebook
  
• Share on Twitter
  
• [email=?subject=Scottish%20independence%3A%20Queen%20was%20asked%20to%20intervene%20amid%20yes%20vote%20fears&body=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F449vq%2Fsbl] Share via Email [/email]
  
• Share on LinkedIn
  
• Share on Google+
  

Shares

2,696

Comments

706



Senior figures in Whitehall and Downing Street became so fearful that the Scottish independence referendum could lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom that the Queen was asked to make a rare public intervention in the final days of the campaign.
Britain's most senior civil servant and the Queen's private secretary crafted a carefully worded intervention by the monarch, as No 10 experienced what one senior official described as "meltdown" in the closing stages of the campaign after polls showed growing support for a yes vote.
The discussions between Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, and Sir Christopher Geidt for the palace, led the Queen to issue an appeal to the people of Scotland four days before the referendum in September to "think very carefully" before casting their vote.
The delicate negotiations in the runup to the intervention by the Queen, which were described by one senior Whitehall source as a warning to voters that they were facing "a decision filled with foreboding", are revealed by the Guardian on the final day of a two-part series about the Scottish referendum campaign.
The Queen, who has been scrupulous during her 62-year reign in observing the impartiality expected of a constitutional monarch, intervened publicly on 14 September. Speaking after Sunday service outside Crathie Kirk near her Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire, the Queen told a wellwisher: "Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future."
She spoke out after senior Whitehall figures, who were apprised of David Cameron's concerns that the yes camp was developing an ominous momentum in the final period of the campaign, suggested to the palace that an intervention by the Queen would be helpful.
The suggestion was made during thelast few weeks of the referendum after a YouGov/Times poll on Tuesday 2 September reported a six-point fall in support for the pro-UK side in a month. Key figures in Downing Street and Whitehall, led by the prime minister and the cabinet secretary, assessed all the options they could deploy to halt what appeared to be the yes side's momentum.
Cameron discussed the referendum with the Queen a week before her public intervention when he travelled to Balmoral with his wife, Samantha, for their annual visit. On that trip, there was a particular focus on the referendum when the campaign was electrified by the publication of another poll, a Sunday Times/YouGov survey on 7 September, the final day of the prime minister's Balmoral visit, which gave the yes side its first lead by 51% to 49%.
The Whitehall source added that the referendum was discussed during Cameron's Balmoral stay. "I don't think it was frosty. I think there might have been the odd humorous comment over the porridge about supposing he had some work to do next week."
The prime minister is said to have talked about the Queen's humour on the occasion to friends. There was also a suggestion that the atmosphere had, at times, been frosty. You could imagine the chilly atmosphere at the breakfast table, the prime minister is said to have remarked to friends afterwards.
Discussions about interventions by the monarch are by convention a matter for the cabinet secretary and palace officials. This explains why the contacts in the runup to the Queen's public comments took place between Heywood and Geidt, described by the Whitehall source as the two key figures at the heart of Britain's "deep state".
The two men are understood to have initially discussed the wisdom of a public intervention by the monarch, who is scrupulously impartial. Once it became clear that the Queen was minded to speak out, Geidt and Heywood then needed to fashion language which, while broadly neutral, would leave nobody in any doubt about her support for the union.
There was a determination to ensure she did not cross a line, as some said she did when she spoke of the benefits of the UK in her silver jubilee address to a joint session of parliament in 1977. In remarks which were seen as an attempt by the Labour government of Jim Callaghan to warn of the dangers posed by the Scottish National party after it had won 11 seats in the October 1974 general election, she said: "I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom."
The Whitehall source said the Queen's intervention was carefully calibrated. "She knew exactly what she was doing, which is, there are two possible responses on the referendum. [They are] either: one, you buy into this is a fantastic festival of democracy, or two, you suggest this is a decision filled with foreboding. So by saying I hope people will think carefully you imply the second. So if they'd said: What do you think of the referendum ma'am?' and she'd said: Oh it's lovely', that would be very different. Without her taking a side, it cast just the right element of doubt over the nature of the decision."
The final day of the Guardian's Scotland referendum series also highlights Gordon Brown's pivotal role in helping to save the UK in the final period of campaigning. Cameron and George Osborne were so nervous about a yes vote, which would have thrown his premiership into a potentially fatal crisis, that camp beds were laid on for senior officials in Downing Street on the night of the referendum count.
The dominance of the referendum explains why a relieved Cameron told the former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, in an overheard conversation days after the referendum, that the Queen had "purred down the line" when he told her the result.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the discussions between Geidt and Heywood. A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: "We do not comment on discussions between the Queen's private secretary and civil servants." A Downing Street spokesman said: "No comment."
A palace spokesman said of the prime minister's discussions with the Queen at Balmoral: "As is the convention, we do not comment on conversations between the prime minister and the Queen." A Downing Street spokesman said: "We do not discuss the prime minister's conversations with Her Majesty the Queen."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014...CMP=twt_gu

[Magda Hassan]

Disbarred

by craig on December 27, 2014 in Uncategorized
Upset and depressed after being barred from the SNP candidates' register by the hierarchy for "lack of commitment to group discipline".
I was asked at assessment whether, as part of a Westminster deal with another party, I would agree to vote for the bedroom tax if instructed by the Party. I replied "No." End of SNP political career. Problem is, I really believed we were building a different kind of politics in Scotland. I also knew that a simple lie would get me in, but I couldn't bring myself to utter it.
I had very, very strong support from ordinary members to be the candidate in Falkirk or in Airdrie, and had 17 requests to stand from other constituencies, several from branch meetings. I wonder what the SNP new membership will think of this?
I had intended to keep this a private grief if possible, but I was phoned at 8am this morning by the Scotsman, who had plainly been briefed in some detail from within the party hierarchy. I was also phoned by the Sunday Herald, who were coming from a different direction, having picked up a whiff of Tammany Hall about the SNP selection process in several constituencies.
In the interests of full openness, these are the complete communications I have been sent regarding my rejection as a candidate:

Craig
Thanks for coming along to the Assessment Day on 6 December and apologies for not being able to get back to you before now.
I'm afraid to say that the Panel did not feel able to recommend you for approval as a potential parliamentary candidate at this time. While you showed excellent qualities, you could not give a full commitment on group discipline issues, and for that reason the Panel could not recommend approval.
There is scope to appeal this decision, and if you wish to do so then contact my colleague Susan Ruddick (email address deleted) who will be able to put that process in train.
Best wishes
Ian
Ian McCann
Corporate Governance and Compliance Manager
Scottish National Party

Then:

Dear Craig,
Thank you for attending the Appeals Panel yesterday.
Unfortunately your Appeal was not upheld.
I wish you luck in your future endeavours.
Sue

That is it. I have asked for more detail of why I was refused, but been given none. All I have is "you could not give a full commitment on group discipline issues", and the only question to which I gave an answer that could possibly be interpreted that way, was the one above on the bedroom tax. There was, incidentally, no corresponding question designed to test the loyalty of right wing people.
I should note that I was astonished by the hostility of the appeals board, chaired by Ian Hudghton MEP and flanked by two MSPs. They could not have been more personally unfriendly towards me if I were Jim Murphy: their demeanour was bullying. They were less pleasant to me than was Jack Straw or anybody in the Foreign Office when they were sacking me for blowing the whistle on extraordinary rendition and torture. It was a really weird exercise in which these highly taxpayer paid professional politicians attempted to twist every word I said to find an excuse to disqualify me. I found it a truly unpleasant experience.
My analysis is that those in the SNP who make a fat living out of it are terrified the energy of the Yes campaign may come to threaten their comfy position. I think there is an important debate here on how the 80% of the SNP who are new members can affect its existing gatekeeping structures. No new members were involved in deciding if I was a fit candidate, and the 1500 new members in each of Falkirk and Airdrie were denied any chance to vote for me as their preferred candidate.
This also makes a complete nonsense of the SNP's much publicised move at the Perth conference to allow non-members to stand as SNP candidates in an "opening out" to the wider Yes campaign.
I do worry that the idea of Whitehall ministerial limousines in a coalition is of more interest to some in the SNP than independence. I also am really concerned that the SNP has become, like other parties, a source of lots of taxpayer-funded careers. A significant proportion of those that do pass the vetting process are Special Advisers or work in SNP MP's, MSP's or MEP's offices. The SNP is developing its own "political class" which is the opposite of the citizen activism of the Yes campaign. It became clear to me that a lot of SNP insider thought around the selection process is not about furthering independence, but about jobs for the boys (and girls).
Every candidate for selection is allowed a 350 word statement including cv to be given to members with their ballot paper. This is the 350 word statement which I had submitted to HQ for distribution to SNP members in Falkirk, prior to my disqualification. It has never been distributed, but I would like every SNP member to read it. If you know one, send it to them:

My aim is to achieve Independence. The Smith Commission shows we will never be given the control of our own economic resources required to achieve our aims of social justice, or to stimulate the economy, within the Union.
I think we have to avoid the trap of managerialism of being just another political party but a little more competent and fair. We should maintain a firm thrust towards the goal of national freedom.
I will vote with the SNP group, but my voice within the party will be against any coalition agreement with Labour or Tories.
I want to defeat Labour, not sustain them. I want to end the Union, not to run it.
Within the SNP we must guard against success leading us to develop our own careerists. Professional politicians in Westminster have become a parasitic class with interchangeable beliefs, out for themselves. There are too many of them Special Advisers, research assistants etc. The number of politicians paid for by the taxpayer has quadrupled in 30 years.
The best MPs contribute from a wide variety of life experience.
I want the dynamic citizen activism we saw in the Yes campaign to lead to a new kind of politics in Scotland. Bubbling up from ordinary folk. And I want that energy from the people to defeat the forces of the mainstream media and the unionists here in the coming election.
Together, we can do it.
If selected as our candidate I will immediately move my family home to Falkirk and begin campaigning. Once elected MP, my home will become my constituency office and open to all, and no MP will work harder for his constituents. No Scottish MP will have lower expenses. I shall regularly attend the Commons and speak in debate.
Craig Murray
Writer, Human Rights Activist.
Chairman, Atholl Energy Ltd
Rector, Dundee University 2007-10
Honorary Research Fellow, University of Lancaster School of Law 2006-10
British Ambassador Uzbekistan 2002-4
HM Diplomatic Service 1984-2005
MA 1st Class Hons Modern History
Declined LVO, OBE and CVO as a Scottish nationalist and republican

Maybe that statement is what really got me disqualified?

[Magda Hassan]

Clarification

by craig on December 29, 2014 in Uncategorized
A few points:
1) Contrary to Margaret Curran, it was entirely plain to me that the Westminster deal "loyalty test" in the SNP vetting process related entirely to a possible deal with Labour. There was no discussion of any possible deal with the Tories.
Personally I am just as opposed to the Red Tories as the Blue Tories and their extremely similar austerity agendas.
2) It has been widely circulated that the reason for my disqualification from the approved candidates' list was articles written on this blog or speeches made during the Yes campaign. At no stage during either the vetting or appeal process was there any mention of this blog or of anything else I had ever said or written. So if that was indeed the reason, they failed to address it with me.
3) The same is true with regard to those claiming the circumstance of my divorce ten years ago was the reason. There was no mention at all of my personal life at any stage.
4) I have been given no other explanation in writing or orally other than an email with the single sentence:
"While you showed excellent qualities, you could not give a full commitment on group discipline issues, and for that reason the Panel could not recommend approval."
So to those saying they wish to hear both sides of the story; so do I. I have told you all I know. I am I think entitled to the assumption that the reason was the one stated, rather than the myriad alternative reasons people are putting so much effort into promoting.

[David Guyatt]

Having a lack of group discipline, is a credit to Craig Murray. It is "group think" that makes voters so carry of political parties and todays democratic process. Submitting to the leadership is simply a recipe for dictatorship.

[Magda Hassan]

UK Intelligence Services Attack SNP

by craig on April 4, 2015 7:18 am in Uncategorized
The fake FCO memo has MI5 written all over it. This is the worst example of British security services influencing an election campaign since the Zinoviev letter.
For those whose history is a bit shaky:

The Zinoviev letter one of the greatest British political scandals of this century was forged by a MI6 agent's source and almost certainly leaked by MI6 or MI5 officers to the Conservative Party, according to an official report published today.[4 Feb 1999]
New light on the scandal which triggered the fall of the first Labour government in 1924 is shed in a study by Gill Bennett, chief historian at the Foreign Office, commissioned by Robin Cook

Ever since Treasury Permanent Secretary Nicholas MacPherson stated that civil service impartiality rules do not apply in the case of Scottish independence, I have been warning the SNP that we are going to be the target of active subversion by the UK and US security services. We are seen as a danger to the British state and thus a legitimate target. I spelled this out in my talk to the Edinburgh SNP Club on 6 March, of which more below.
The FCO "memo" reporting that Nicola Sturgeon would rather have a Tory government, is a remarkable document. Firstly, its provenance is very strange. It has been leaked ostensibly by the FCO to the Telegraph. According to the Guardian:

"The leaked document was drafted by a Whitehall official after Coffinier called the FCO, as protocol requires, to pass on a confidential account of several of the ambassador's meetings in Edinburgh, which included a meeting with Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish secretary."

The extraordinary thing is, this is just a lie. As someone who worked in the FCO for over twenty years and was an Ambassador myself, I can assure you there is absolutely no protocol requirement on the French Ambassador to give the FCO the content of the meetings she, her Consul-General or anybody else from the French Embassy held in Edinburgh. That claim is absolute nonsense.
Look at it from the Embassy's point of view. If you repeated everything Nicola Sturgeon told you to the FCO, do you not think she would shortly stop telling you anything at all interesting? That is why diplomats absolutely do not retail such conversations to their host governments.
The second quite extraordinary thing is that both sides of the alleged conversation categorically deny it was said. Nicola Sturgeon denies she said it and the French Embassy deny she said it. So we have a leaked account of a conversation which all the participants say is untrue, yet the unionist media all feel this evidently untrue account is worth splashing as their lead story? The collusion of security services and corporate media is terrifying.
Timing is all. I was wondering how the security services would react to the seemingly unstoppable SNP momentum, following Nicola Sturgeon's brilliant performance in the leaders' debate. When I gave that talk to the SNP club, I warned that, as the main threat to the British state, we would suffer the full panoply of dirty tricks from MI5 and CIA. This would include increased penetration, communication interception, agent provocateur activities, forgeries and eventually might include false flag violence blamed on nationalists.
We are at a crisis in our constitutional history. I believe the momentum towards a Scottish exit from the UK is unstoppable. The British state is seeking to appear on the surface to agree to give Scots a free and democratic choice, while using every dirty trick to subvert that choice. Those tricks range from complete control of state and corporate media to the darker arts of the security services.
As I also stated to the SNP club, the USA has decided it is in their interest for the Unionists to prevail, not least so Scotland remains a base for the American controlled Trident missiles the UK taxpayer so obligingly funds. A large part of the CIA's existence has been and is dedicated to covert activity to keep the forms of government it wants in power in the world. It does not want the SNP.
That the attempt to destabilise Nicola Sturgeon originates with the UK government and the Telegraph should give everyone pause. It is very obviously a security service effort. How otherwise is an account which the French Embassy says is completely false, contained in an official memo to be leaked?
This episode raises very serious questions. But they are not questions about Nicola Sturgeon. They are questions about the subversion of democracy by the security services, and the willing complicity of the corporate media.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/...ttack-snp/

[Paul Rigby]

Democratic Socialist Federation
Dunoon Unit Report
The Postal Ballot at the Scottish Independence Referendum

This is the written text only. The Full Report will be available for download and hard published shortly.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s...7453581947

Introduction

Some of us took part in the Argyll & Bute area count in the evening and night of the 18-19th September 2014. I was the agent for Labour for Independence (LfI) at that count with six other LfI volunteers and we spent the night at the count in Lochgilphead. This was a valuable experience and gave us a good insight into how the electoral system operates in Scotland.

We in Scotland have a great historical and cultural heritage from our ancestors, and the jewel in the crown' of that heritage is the democratic principles and institutions passed down to us. We therefore have a duty and a firm responsibility to preserve our democratic heritage, nurture it, and pass it on to our children and grandchildren in, at least, as healthy a condition as it was when we had it passed down to us.

Our observations during the Referendum campaign and the count raised a number of concerns in our minds about the security of our democratic institutions and got us thinking about this in a serious way. We made some efforts following the Referendum to investigate the issues we were concerned about and to seek help from the established guardians' of our electoral system, such as the Electoral Management Board (EMB). We soon discovered that if the EMB had any concerns they were making an effort to suppress such concerns and were anxious that others, such as ourselves, should do the same.

We were not however dissuaded from looking for answers to the issues which concerned us and we kept seeking information. The Electoral Commission Report in late December gave us some further information. However all the information we gained since the Referendum did not resolve our concerns; on the contrary it confirmed them. We are now convinced that the Postal Ballot (PB) at the Scottish Referendum was compromised by a UK Government agency, and consequently that the ballot result is not democratically valid.

Our Initial Concerns

Our initial concerns arose out of our experience on the night of the Referendum count. As I have said there were 7 of us at the Argyll & Bute count. We had all been active in the very long campaign in Argyll so we had some considerable experience before the count started. We had also been involved in door to door canvassing and had knowledge of the canvass across Argyll & Bute so we were interested to see from the actual count, if our canvass assessments had been right. We were confident of success before the count and felt sure that a high turnout would be to our advantage.

Our knowledge of the extensive canvassing carried out by the Yes Campaign in Argyll meant that we had views on how the various geographic areas would be likely to vote, and our canvassing had been mainly, although not entirely, in the more urban areas.

Our first big surprise of the night, which hit us like a sledgehammer, was the early opening of PB boxes. The count was organised on the basis of a number of small counts so that we would be able to make progress on the bulk of the counting while still waiting for ballot boxes from remote islands to get to the count centre. This meant that the PB boxes, which were in Lochgilphead, were opened early with the local boxes from the Lochgilphead area.

We were astounded to find that the PB boxes were virtually all a high majority of No' votes, quite distinctly so, probably 70-30% for No. Now we expected a Yes' majority but we expected a relatively small majority 53-47% or something of that nature. So this early massive No' majority within the first hour of the count, gave us the impression that our extensive canvass returns were worthless'.

Later on in the night, when all the postal votes had gone, the pattern which we expected from our canvass began to emerge. Polling stations in Dunoon, Campbelltown, Rothsay and Oban all showed a Yes' majority, Helensburgh showed a No' majority; but this also was predicted from our canvass.

We recognised that our canvass was fairly accurate, but we could not understand the postal vote. Of course the postal vote was on an Argyll & Bute wide basis while our canvass returns had been on a district by district basis. However on our canvass we had talked to many people with postal votes as well as those who were voting at the polling station and we had not observed a distinct difference in voting intentions.

Our second big surprise of the night was when we heard the turnout. The PB turnout had been a staggering 96.4% which had pushed the overall turnout up to 88.2%

So we came away from the count with 4 questions on our minds:

(1) Why had there been such a difference between the postal voters and those who voted at the polling stations?
(2) Why had the Postal vote had such a massive turnout 96.4%?
(3) If the No campaign had been so motivated in Argyll why had we seen no sign of that during the campaign?
(4) Could the postal vote have been tampered with' in some way?

19th September

I have to say point 4 above did not figure very much in our thinking initially. We did not think that there was any way that anyone could compromise the PB to any great extent. We thought the security systems in operation would be very effective in stopping anyone from being able to abuse the PB system, unless they had massive co-operation from Ballot staff and officials, which we rejected out of hand. We just could not accept that anyone could get such co-operation. So although we thought the PB could have been abused; we could see no way that such a thing was possible.

No BBC Exit Poll?

However, by lunch-time on Friday 19th of September we heard the news of the election coverage from the night before, which of course we had not seen as we had been in Lochgilphead. The first thing that struck us was that there had been no BBC Exit Poll. I have never known an election in the UK before when there was no BBC Exit Poll. Election reports with politicians sitting in the studio with nothing to talk about until a result comes in, need an Exit Poll. These usually get the discussion going and tend to be quite accurate.

Inside Knowledge From UK Establishment Figures

We were therefore surprised that there had been no Exit Poll. This gap however in the programme had apparently been filled by Ms Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Tory Party in Scotland, telling people that the PB votes, which had yet to be counted, were strongly supporting the No' camp and giving some explanation as to how she knew that.

We were of course astonished to hear that, because we knew that it was true, or at least, we knew it was true in Argyll & Bute count area, where we had seen these boxes opened. But how did she know about this before the boxes were opened for the count? She gave an explanation about Tory supporters sampling' the ballot papers while the PB returns were being checked for validity. This would have been illegal and those doing this would have been committing a criminal offence and in addition, it would not have been practical to any significant extent. So we knew that her story was nonsense.

We then discovered that Mr John McTernan, ex-advisor to a UK Prime Minister had also made public predictions about the contents of the PB boxes on the 14th of September, 4 days before the boxes were opened for counting and while the ballot was still open. Well this was interesting. Again, what McTernan is reported to have said, needs our consideration. He allegedly claimed that even if the Yes' vote had been ahead when the postal vote opened, that the postal vote was moving heavily towards No', and went on to say that while the PB was only numerically around one fifth of the total ballot it was going to be very high and could form around one quarter of the count.

Now is that not a remarkable prediction'? Particularly now that we can see from the actual figures that it was correct. McTernan did not say where his remarkable information came from, but clearly people who could supply him with that information at that time, were involved in criminal activity designed to undermine Scotland's democratic institutions. Does this give us any ideas of who gave McTernan his information? Given his experience at No 10 he would undoubtedly have had good MI5 contacts. We subsequently discovered that Susan Dalgety, a Labour spin-doctor, appointed by Jim Murphy, an associate of John McTernan, had also been making public announcements about the contents of the PB, before the boxes were opened.

When we saw that people in high places in the UK establishment were prepared to treat Scottish values and Scottish law with utter contempt and that they appeared to have information which addressed some of the issues we were concerned with, we decided to give this matter more attention and to look for the objective facts.

Information From Electoral Management Board

We wanted to know, first of all, if the experience we had with the PB in Argyll & Bute was a one off, or if it was typical of the whole of Scotland. So we went to the EMB web-site to check on the PB turnout figures. To our surprise there was no record of the PB turnout on their web-site. We had recorded a figure of 96.4% as the turnout for the PB in Argyll & Bute so we assumed that these figures would have been given out at every count and would be recorded in the EMB report of the ballot.

Since we noted that the EMB report of the ballot figures did not contain a figure for the PB turnout at each count, but only an overall turnout figure, we felt that there was a need to find out what these figures were. We were not even sure that the figure we had recorded for the Argyll & Bute count was accurate, we had recorded them from an oral report given at the count after a long and tiring night, we could have got it wrong.

If however we had got it right, it was a remarkable figure, and surely not one to be ignored, or forgotten about. A return of 96.4% of the electorate in any ballot is not a common experience, indeed we had never before heard of such a high return in any democratic election anywhere in the world (other than perhaps North Korea whose figures we thought might be suspect). So if we had recorded this correctly, Argyll & Bute had smashed a world record on turnout in the PB at the Referendum.

We discussed this. Some of the others had also recorded the same high figure for PB turnout, so we thought we needed to check this out with the official figures and to see if this high PB turnout was just in Argyll or if it had happened elsewhere in Scotland. So we wrote formally to Mary Pitcaithly, the Convener of EMB and asked for the figures.

Our first letter to the EMB was ignored, indeed we had to write to them three times, and send a copy to the First Minister, before we got a full response. After our third letter seeking this information, which we had sent to the First Minister for assistance, I got a phone call that evening from Mr Chris Highcock, the Deputy Counting Officer informing me that the figures we had requested had been sent to us by e-mail. These figures confirmed that our recording of the turnout at Argyll & Bute had been accurate, and in addition, that four other counts in Scotland had recorded 96% turnout for PB, or above. These remarkable world record' turnouts have not been celebrated in Scotland; on the contrary they have been hidden away. Why should that be?

EMB Claim Nothing Unusual About Turnout

The EMB told us that there was nothing unusual' about the high PB turnout. They indeed claimed that PBs in Scotland usually had a high turnout. We were interested in that and asked them for some evidence of this. They claimed that PB returns in Scotland were usually above 80%. So we looked for evidence for this.

We were unable to find any evidence for this at all, anywhere in Scotland, indeed all our searching revealed that high postal voting was relatively new in Scotland and had not been separately counted until this Referendum so there was no historical precedence we could draw on. So where did the EMB get their "over 80%" figure, we asked them several times but they would not answer.

The truth is there is no historical evidence for the EMB's assertion.

Real Historical Evidence on Turnout

We did our own checks: In the belief that if there had been a sudden burst of enthusiasm which had wiped out' voter apathy in Argyll, we felt that such a major phenomenon could not have happened suddenly and in isolation. If there had been a public build-up to this destruction of voter apathy, surely it would have registered to some degree immediately before or after the event, so we looked for such evidence in Argyll.

We were fortunate because we did find something of interest to help us measure actual voter apathy accurately in Argyll around the time of the Referendum. It just so happened that there was a local Government By-Election in Oban North & Lorn ward in Argyll on the 17th of July just two months before the Referendum. Unfortunately the elected councillor died shortly after the election. This meant that another election had to be held in the same ward on the 23rd of October, just over a month after the Referendum. So assuming that this ward is fairly typical of the rest of Argyll, and allowing for the usual lower participation for Local Government elections, than for National elections. We have the following interesting statistics: By-election 17th July turnout 30.88%; Referendum 18th September PB turnout 96.4%; By-election 23rd October turnout 30.07%, to which we can add, General Election May 2010 turnout 63.8%

We found nothing there to justify the EMB's figure of over 80%' usual figure and certainly nothing to justify or explain the 96.4% figure. Rabbie Burns told us that "facts are cheils that winna ding" that (facts are lads who will never surrender), so if we stand with the facts we stand on secure ground.

The available evidence shows that this claim that there was a spectacular world record 96.4% turnout in the PB in Argyll and similar spectacular results in the PB all over Scotland, needs to be carefully assessed, before it can be accepted as a fact. The EMB want us to believe, that there are historical grounds for accepting this at face value, but are quite unable to show this. This indeed appears to have no objective foundation.

The Electoral Commission Report

We were hoping that the Electoral Commissioner's report would answer most of our question. It did give us a lot more information, but, unfortunately it did not address our main concerns.

Let's start with the fact that three well known UK political establishment figures, displaying open contempt for the law, publicly claimed to have knowledge of the contents of the PB before these boxes were opened and made other revealing statements about the PB which subsequently turned out to be true.

The Commissioner fails to address this directly in his report, in four short paragraphs near the end of his report (pages 141/2) he addresses an issue, which arose from this matter, but does not address the matter itself. His report refers to the claim that people "had sampled' votes at Postal Vote opening sessions".

He does not say that this claim' came from the Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party but does point out that "the Commission is unaware of any such allegation having been made by any person who was present at a postal vote opening session" He goes on to set-out that such an act would have been illegal and all such participants would have been advised of this. He closes this section of his report by the statement "This matter is still under investigation by the police at the time of writing and therefore it would not be appropriate for the commission to comment further".

Well, it must be the first time that the Commissioner has had to close a section of a ballot report in the UK with that comment. He can't address further an important matter relating to the ballot because the police are still investigating it, weeks after the event.

His approach however to this, is to address the symptom, not the disease. Ms Davidson, Susan Dalgety and John McTernan all claimed publicly to having had prior knowledge of the contents of un-opened ballot boxes. If there is any truth in this, then our ballot security system has a problem. That is the core issue; but that core issue is not even addressed by the Commissioner in his report.

Are we to take it that he believes that these three UK establishment figures were just lying to the BBC and that they had no such knowledge? He does not say so, indeed he address a most improbable way that such information could have been gathered. So does he believe that they did have this knowledge? If so how does he think they got it?

We believe that they had knowledge of the main contents of the PB and from the points made by John McTernan it would appear that they had knowledge of more than that. If you study what McTernan allegedly claimed, it is more like a plan of action than a prediction. "If the PB can become a quarter of the count instead of a fifth", how was that to be achieved and who was going to achieve it?

Important questions, but ignored by the Commissioner.

The Facts Which Can't Be Covered Up

Let's take the strategy which John McTernan outlines and see what implication it would have had on the overall outcome of the ballot had it been implemented, using only actual figures from the ballot published by the EMB or the commissioner.

If you wanted to make the PB move from being a fifth to a quarter of the count overall in Scotland you would have quite a job to do. If we leave to one side, for the moment, that you would need to be able to post ballot papers, there is an even bigger problem. The registration of postal voters is not at a 20% level all over Scotland. It averages in fact only 18.60% on a Scottish basis, but that ranges from 13.55% in some count areas to 25.20% in others. If you have a plan to secure a strong No vote based on increasing the PB overall to a quarter of the count, then you have to address this.

The remarkable thing we have discovered is that this task was virtually achieved. Even against a high vote at the polling stations, the PB was pushed up to record turnout levels and a massive No vote was inserted into it, ensuring an overall No vote majority at the Referendum. But how was this achieved?

We, who saw the PB boxes opened at the count, know that they were heavily biased towards the No vote, but where is the objective evidence for that now, when all these papers have been mixed up? Does such objective evidence still exist?

Strangely enough such objective evidence does still exists, as Burns told us, "these facts have not surrendered, they are still standing proudly and available for investigation".

Take a look at these tables and charts: It lists all the count areas, but it puts those with the lowest registered postal votes at the top and those with the highest at the bottom, it shows the percentage PB and the percentage PB turnout (in red) and it is divided into 4 groups below:

(Charts and tables are not allowed on FB Notes. Are in the published version)

From this a clear pattern emerges: Where the PB is a relatively small part of the overall total the No vote is contained; indeed in the first and largest group a Yes vote is in the majority, but as the level of the PB rises, so the No vote rises with it and takes a stronger and stronger lead.

This clearly demonstrates that the PB is much more biased towards No than the polling stations vote. That's why an exit poll could not be allowed as it would have shown this in stark contrast. So we can now see that McTernan was right, this was the strategy and it worked fine for these who employed it and who informed McTernan. This was however an aggressive, underhand and criminal attack on our democracy and on our entire community treating Scotland with contempt.

How The Postal Ballot Was Rigged

The only way the above McTernan' plan could have worked is if a UK Government Agency such as MI5 carried it out. You or I, or any political party, could not have done this, but for MI5 it was child's play. Of course, this means accepting that senior politicians in the UK who control MI5 were prepared to treat Scotland's democratic institutions with utter contempt and act behind our backs in this despicable way. Yes we think that is entirely possible where the stakes are high enough.

So how was it done? MI5 have access to Government and Local Government computer files (as well as many others) Therefore when the process began on the 26th to the 28th of August the main' PB papers were sent out. MI5 would have had the computer file records of that.

After a few days each count area would have arranged PB Opening Sessions, not to count the votes, but to check the validity of the papers returned. These would all have been checked and recorded (on computer) So after the first 10 days the local count areas (and MI5) would have a list of those who had voted so far, and therefore those who hadn't.

On the 4th of September a second posting of PB papers were sent out, these were all the late additions and would be highly likely to vote so they would be of less interest to MI5, however following this posting there would be another three days of PB Opening sessions, and again records updated and recorded (on computer).

With still a week to go before polling day, the computers would contain a record of virtually everyone who was going to vote in the PB from the main' list. This would be known by MI5 in London without the help or involvement of one single official in Scotland.

Now the McTernan plan can be implemented. Each count area can be examined to see what the PB registration is and what the calculated turnout is with 90% of it known. If it is the normal high turnout for Argyll (63% last GE) or perhaps slightly higher, MI5 can calculate how many additional PB papers it can produce to put through the system. In Argyll with a high PB registration it might be possible to go over the national target and go for 30% or above of the count to compensate for areas where they can't be so successful because of low registration.

The rest is easy. Again there is no requirement for any assistance from any ballot official in Scotland. MI5 can produce the required number of ballot papers, of the right paper with the right Local Authority stamp, with the correct number, name, address and date of birth. They can even produce the correct signature from the computer image which will pass through the Local Authority checking computer. All they need to do then is to get their own staff to deliver the papers to the correct post boxes in the correct areas of Scotland in a sensitive way and bingo, the job is done.

The Prime Minister can be informed that the objective has been achieved and McTernan can be tipped off in time for him to appear on the BBC, 4 days before the ballot boxes are opened and tell us which way the postal vote is going. Ruth Davidson probably had no idea why the Prime Minister was so confident that the postal vote was strongly No, but she knew that he was. When she could not contain herself and blurted out her confidence in front of the BBC cameras, she had to struggle to explain how she had this information and came up with her ridiculous story which accused her own party supporters of criminal acts.

This is a much more obvious explanation for what happened than any other view, particularly the official one.

Can We Prove This?

Well that depends what we mean by proof. We think we can show that the official version of events is not only unlikely; but is not possible. So we can disprove' the official version. We believe we can answer many questions arising from the ballot, which many people in Scotland still have; questions, which have never properly been addressed by the authorities. We also feel that we can show, beyond reasonable doubt, a good explanation for what happened at the Referendum and help the police with the issues they want to address. It might not be comfortable, it might not even be safe for people like us, but it is entirely possible and demands at least investigation.

Our objective in this report is to demand that these issues around the PB are investigated, or at the very least altered so that the PB can't be abused in this way again. To ignore this is to invite corruption in our democratic institutions.

How to Disprove the Official Report

The official report claims that 5 count areas in Scotland had a PB with a turnout of 96% or over. That is a world record turnout. Strangely however, the EMB has not made these figures widely available and certainly do not want to cerebrate this victory over voter apathy in Scotland.

However, if it can be shown that these figures are not accurate, it is possible to disprove the ballot report. If we find for example that 3.7% of those registered for a PB in Argyll &Bute could not, or did not vote, then it is clear that the official report can only be correct if 0.1% of the ballot papers which went through the security system were fakes.

This of course holds for each of the count areas, all need to be valid or the ballot result is invalid. It's a simple as that. If the official report is factual this is not a problem, as Burns says "the facts' will hold their ground against any examination"; but if it is not factual then the validity of the official account will collapse.

Argyll & Bute Postal Ballot Register

So we decided to examine the Argyll & Bute figures and started with the actual number on the PB register which we understand was 14,409. If therefore we can show that 527 voters from that register could not, or did not use his/her vote, then the official record must be wrong.

Now we know that the main' block of the PB register was a year older than the register used at the polling station, because the overall register was renewed on the 1st of September and the main' PB papers were posted out before that, on the 26th to the 28th of August. So they came from the old register.

Every register of course is out of date' on the day it is published because life goes on, people die, move house etcetera; however the older the register, the more out of date it becomes.

Reasons for Non-Voting - Death

For a register which is a year old, this means that those who have died and have not been yet removed from the register will appear as non-voters against a 100% turnout, therefore they will constitute part of our 3.7%. So how many was that in Argyll? We have asked the EMB this question but this has been ignored, so let us do our own sums from public records.

We know from public records that in 2012 there were 1,093 deaths registered in Argyll & Bute, and 1,001, in 2013 so it would be reasonable to assess that the yearly figure for 2014 would be around 1,000. The question is how many of these were on the PB register when they died.

We know that over 20% of the electorate were on the PB register in A&B so that would give us 200. We also know that a greater proportion of the deaths would be among the elderly and immobile. This means that it is very likely that the number of those who died, that were on the PB register, would be above average, so let us settle for a conservative figure of 250.

We are aware that in developing the rolling register', concept steps are being made to change the registration process so that it responds quicker to changes such as death rates and that progress has been made in that regard recently. Such changes are never 100% effective even when complete, at least at the beginning, but let us assume that the changes made already have improved the registrations system by 50% and take this into account.

That would mean that 125 deaths would still be on the register at the time of the ballot. That means 125 people on the register who could not vote.

Moving Away

Another area of interest is of course the number of people who are registered to vote but leave the area before the election comes round. In Argyll & Bute the average movement of population, coming and going over recent years has been nearly the same, with 3,817 per year leaving while 3,830 came in. So that over time, this population movement, has made little difference.

However in the short term, particularly in the year before an election it can make a significant difference, because it is not the people who leave who notify the authority that the register has to be adjusted, it is the people who arrive. Therefore outwith the yearly up-date of the register the changes to the rolling' register will be additions rather than subtractions.

Therefore, if some 3,817 left Argyll & Bute in the year between the register up-date and the election, the question we need to ask is how many of these would have been on the PB register? We could take the percentage of the electorate who are registered for a PB, but that would not be accurate since it would include children and other not voters and also because it would tend to be younger voters who are less likely to be on the PB register. If we reduce this annual figure to 2,500 and assume that only 10% of them were on the PB register that gives us another 250 people who could not vote.

In Prison

Another reason why people may not be able to vote is if they are in prison at the time of the ballot. So anyone who was registered for a PB in Argyll & Bute, but was in prison during late August to late September, would not have been able to vote. So how many could that involve?

According to Howard league Scotland there were 92 persons from A&B in prison in May 2014 so again the PB % of that would be around 18 if we assume that a much smaller proportion of these people would be registered for a PB we can reduce this to around 6

Dementia

This is the most significant factor which would have affected people's ability to vote, and again it would have been reflected above average on the people registered for the PB.

In 2014 1,893 people in Argyll & Bute were registered as having dementia, this figure would have been added to in 2014 (full figures not available yet but are increasing slightly year on year), so if we take this figure we will again be taking a conservative figure.
Now some of this figure we will have counted amongst the deaths we have registered so in order to ensure we do not do that, let's reduce the total by 125 and look at a figure of 1,768.

Again there would be more than average of the electorate in this category who are on the PB register let's say 25%. This gives us a figure of 402, now this figure does not include new additions in 2014, so it represents all people established with dementia for over a year and we have deducted those who died, so some 80% of these people are not able to vote i.e. 362.

That means we have a grand total of 743 people on the PB register who could not vote.

This of course means that even if every single person on the PB register, who could vote, did so; then we still have more ballot papers accepted than is possible. We know of course that the assumption that everyone who could have voted did, is entirely unrealistic and this is demonstrated in our next section where we found in a small sample 20% PB non voters recorded on the marked register. So in Argyll & Bute we can say without contradiction that the official recording of the PB must mean that many of the ballot papers counted could not have been genuine ballot papers but were fakes. How many of these there were, and who put them there we do not know, but John McTernan helps us to see how it could have been done.

An Examination of Argyll & Bute Marked Registers

In addition to the above, we got involved in an examination of the marked registers in Argyll & Bute so we will give you a full report on this.
Mr Alistair MacKinnon, was an independent observer, in the Referendum count at Argyll & Bute and unbeknown to us he sought, and eventually got, permission to inspect the Marked Registers at Argyll & Bute under supervision.

Alistair heard that we were very interested in the ballot, particularly the PB, so he offered to work with us in examining the marked registers. We therefore took advantage of this opportunity and with Alistair's assistance we undertook a small study.

The study was as follows: We knew that the suggestion that everyone who was registered to vote had done so was unlikely. So having access to the real data we were determined to do a sample test. We wanted to find out what percentage of non-voters there had actually been from both the polling station vote and from the postal vote. We also wanted to compare these two.

We then asked local people to identify for us people they knew whom they felt were unlikely to have voted at the Referendum for whatever reason. We got quite a few names and addresses of local people given to us on that basis. What we then did was to select 20 of these from the main polling station register and 20 from the PB register.

We had been invited to Argyll & Bute Council HQ on Thursday 12th Feb and went down to do this. We were informed that we could check the main register but the PB register was not available for us to check. They said they did not know that we wanted to check the PB register and they did not have that available. After discussion it was agreed that if we came the following week this register could also be made available for us. So we rearranged our visit.

On Friday the 20th of February we visited Argyll & Bute HQ again and got access, under supervision, to both registers, which enabled us to complete our work. Our findings again illustrated, that of our 20 polling station voters where we expected a low turnout, 6 voted and 14 did not vote, i.e. 30% voted 70% did not vote. With those on the PB register, the situation was dramatically different. 4 were registered as having not voted while 16 were recorded as having voted i.e. 80% voted and only 20% not voted. Is that not strange and interesting?

Does this have Scotland Wide Implications?

Well of course it does. Argyll & Bute was not alone in having this huge PB turnout. There are 4 other areas with a turnout of 96% or above. If any of these areas have fake ballot papers in their count like A&B, as seems highly likely, then the abuse of the PB system was widespread in Scotland.

What is also obvious is that this abuse was not done on a piecemeal basis by armatures it was done in order to a plan, such as the McTernan' plan, by people who had access to Local Authority secret computer files and who worked professionally and secretly.

What Is To Be Done?

We believe that the present arrangements for postal balloting in Scotland are unreliable and this has to be addressed now, before the system is used again.

We maintain that there must be an investigation into our claim of ballot rigging, because if we are right it undermines our democratic institutions, and if we are wrong and this can be demonstrated clearly, then it strengthens them. So the outcome of such an investigation is beneficial whatever the findings are.

We also believe that the politicians who claimed to have knowledge of the PB before it was opened, can't just be ignored. This issue must be addressed. These are people with some standing in UK politics and they were making extraordinary claims.

It may be that we are so used to politicians making extraordinary claims' or bare faced lying, that we have come to accept this as normal'; but this surely is beyond the normal.

McTernan publicly explained what could become a whole plan for ballot rigging and the figurers seem to suggest that such a plan was implemented. Ruth Davidson, who was equally confident, but perhaps less informed, accused her own party supporters of being involved in criminal acts. The fact that her story is not credible, does not address the question of where her confidence, that the postal vote was strongly supportive of the No camp, came from?

Ms Davidson must tell us the truth. She is a member of the Scottish Parliament. She must tell that Parliament what she knows about that issue and everything that she knows about that issue, if not, she is holding the Parliament and the Scottish people in contempt.

Ms Davidson made a public statement on the BBC on the 18th of September in which she claimed to have knowledge of the contents of unopened ballot boxes. This is an important issue which has already involved the Scottish Police in work and expenditure. Has she just been wasting police time? She must be made to come clean.

We also believe that Mr John McTernan and Susan Dalgety have some explaining to do to the Scottish Parliament. Jim Murphy, the new Leader of Scottish Labour appointed these people to his team, so he must consider them significant and credible operators. Perhaps we can ask them to explain to the Scottish public how you can give details about the contents of ballot boxes which have not yet been opened.

This is a valuable skill indeed, in Gaelic it is called dà-shealladh' or second-sight' in Scots, but it is somewhat old hat and unscientific these days. We tend to take the view that if someone knows what the contents of a secret ballot box is before it is opened, then he/she has been involved in, or with, criminal conduct, and we demand an explanation from such people.

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should investigate the extraordinary claim that knowledge of the PB was known by members of the UK establishment before these boxes were opened. This may be a criminal matter subject to police investigation, but more important than that, it is a political matter which deals with the very essence of our political system.

We think that the issues we address in this report show that the PB at the Referendum can't be accepted as valid and therefore that the Referendum result, is not valid or acceptable to any reasonable person. However, even if you do not agree with us on that, you must surely agree that this report raises issues which need examining in greater detail at Scottish level.

If we can convince people that these issues need to be properly examined, and that the Scottish Parliament should organise such an examination, we will be satisfied because Burns was right, "the facts will not surrender" and they will stand in evidence against those who were involved in criminal actions against Scottish democracy.

Andy Anderson
DSF Education Officer

More:

SCOTTISH REFERENDUM RIGGED MI5'S PHONY POSTAL VOTES AND BALLOT BOXES

http://joequinn.net/2014/09/28/scottish-...lot-boxes/

[Paul Rigby]

A Very British Coup

By Adam Ramsay

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-very-brit...more-69302

Anyone reading the weekend's newspapers could have been forgiven for thinking that Westminster had been replaced with a bouncy castle, and our political class with hysterical children. As the long-anticipated rise of the SNP looms closer into sight, the Conservative press seems to have wet itself in fear.

The Daily Mail front page on Saturday shrieked that Nicola Sturgeon is "The most dangerous woman in Britain". The Times' front page story declared that Labour is panicking and likely to run to the left after Sturgeon's debate victory. The Telegraph gave up on any remaining pretence of journalistic standards and ran a story about a conversation between Nicola Sturgeon and the French Ambassador without asking either of them for a quote on it (both deny it).

It's worth considering for a moment why this is. Conventional wisdom in the Labour Party, after all, is that a strong SNP is good for the Tories. Why, then, would the Tory press be so quick to attack them? Particularly in a way, as with the Telegraph, which might actually have damaged them, had the punch landed?

The answer is that Britain's papers are in the process of re-writing our constitution to keep Labour out and Jim Murphy is helping them.

The papers aren't just preparing for the 7th of May, but also for the following week. Most polls recently have, when filtered through Britain's absurd election system, shown roughly the same result: the Tories will have slightly more seats than Labour, but Labour plus the SNP will have more than the Tories plus the Lib Dems.

If this is the result, then what will happen next? Without a written constitution, there's a surprising extent to which that's up for grabs. In a move slammed (in an email to OpenDemocracy from Graham Allen, chair of the Constitutional Reform Select Committee) as "an affront to the electors", David Cameron has postponed the return of Parliament until the 27th of May.

Without a proper constitution, and without Westminster meeting for three weeks, it's not just the parliamentary arithmetic that matters (though it does). There will also be, in the immediate hours after the election, an important question around what will be called the "mood of the nation". And that will be defined, at least to some extent, by the front pages of the newspapers.

It seems the press, which is hugely dominated in the UK by the right wing, intends to do this in two ways. The first is by setting the goalposts in terms of defining what it means to "win". The second is what's on display at the moment an attempt to delegitimise any partnership between Labour and the SNP.

When the former debate comes up, it's interesting to pose a question: who won the 1951 general election in the UK? According to the history books the answer is obvious: the Tories, led by Winston Churchill. But it's not quite as simple as that, as noted on this interesting recent blog post.

The MPs who elected Churchill for a second spell as Prime Minister in fact ran with a number of different names on their ballot papers and technically came from a number of different parties. These included the Ulster Unionists in Northern Ireland, the Unionist Party in Scotland, and groupings called the National Liberals and Liberal Nationals who were a split from the Liberal Party who had a pact with the Tories.

In fact, in 1951 the party with the most seats 295 to the Conservatives' 267 was Labour. But contrary to what the party insists now, that didn't give them any right to govern. Most MPs were elected while being clear that they'd vote for Churchill as Prime Minister. That's what they did.

Although the SNP clearly aren't to Labour as the Scottish Unionists were to the Conservatives (a closer analogy would be Labour and the Co-operative Party), the fact is important because it reveals the democratic mechanism in play. If someone votes for an SNP MP in this election, or a Green MP, or a Plaid Cymru MP, then they can reasonably expect that that MP is going to vote to sack David Cameron and replace him with Ed Miliband because that's what they've said they're likely to do.

If that's true for the majority of MPs, then the democratic outcome is for Ed Miliband to be Prime Minister, even if Labour on its own has a smaller parliamentary group than the Tories. Who gets to govern if Parliament is hung, as outlined here, ultimately boils down to who can pass budgets and win votes of confidence, which has nothing intrinsically to do with being the biggest single party.

However, this is not how the Tory press will interpret the election. If they can possibly get away with it, they'll find any way they can to declare Cameron the winner, even if it's going to be almost impossible for him to command a parliamentary majority. In doing so, they'll seek to make it impossible for Miliband to govern.

This circumstance would in effect be a coup by newspaper proprietors against the people of the country. Because our constitution is written not in statute but in headlines, this is perfectly possible.

It's important to read this story in the Daily Mail today in that context. By saying that the SNP have vowed to "prop up Ed Miliband in Downing Street even if he loses the election", it redefines what it is to "win" an election in the UK's parliamentary system changing the goalposts from a funcitoning majority to biggest single party.

In reality, if Labour and the parties to their left have a parliamentary majority, then no Tory government can survive long. But it doesn't need to. If Cameron can stay even briefly as PM, then he can call a second election and use his party's superior wealth to secure a better position against a Labour party that's already financially crippled.

In this context, Labour should be doing everything they can to ensure the goalposts stay where they are who can command a parliamentary majority and are not shifted to which party is the biggest. Unfortunately for Ed Miliband, Jim Murphy and other Scottish Labour MPs are selfish enough to be more concerned about saving their own seats than they are about getting Cameron out of Downing Street.

As a result, Scottish Labour's main strategy has been to endlessly insist that the biggest party gets to be the government. If we do end up with the circumstance outlined above as seems reasonably likely we can assume that these comments will be pulled from the shelf and played back at Labour on a loop.

To put it bluntly, Murphy is making a Conservative government more likely, even if there's a majority of MPs against one. This has been pointed out to him by allies and opponents alike. He seems not to care.

The second attempt to keep Miliband out on the 8th of May has been more explicit. Attacks on the SNP from both the Tories themselves and their allied press are about winning votes from Labour on the election day "you can't vote for them, because the SNP will be calling the shots".

But they're also designed to make the Labour bigwigs fear the long-term implications of relying on the SNP, and to encourage them to put pressure on Miliband not to form a government, just as they pulled the plug on Brown's attempted negotiations in 2010.

In this context, the debates were telling. For anyone who believes the Telegraph's unchecked smear that Sturgeon wants a Conservative government, it's worth thinking about a simple question: why did she spend most of the time in the debate reaching out to voters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

This does almost nothing to boost the vote for her party. In fact, the attacks on the SNP only push Scotland further from Westminster and make a future Yes vote more likely. The obvious explanation is that she was softening the ground for a post-election loose pact between Labour and the SNP (and possibly also the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP).

To have any chance of forming the government, Labour needs to learn from this, and quickly. While in Scotland it's only reasonable that they fight hard for every vote, Miliband needs to start softening the English up to his most likely route to Downing Street an arrangement with Sturgeon. To an extent, he did this in the debate saving his attacks for the Tories rather than turning on the SNP.

But with Scottish Labour screaming at him through the Times front page, begging him to kick Sturgeon harder in the challengers' debate, it's vital to his own future that he ignores those threats, and allows the First Minister to do his work for him by reminding English voters not to believe the hysterical screams from the Tory press.

It's likely that this election is as much about the 8th of May as the 7th. The press are lining up to push Cameron into Downing Street even if most of the UK has just voted to sack him, and Labour need to fight back. Unfortunately, they seem too distracted by the ground in front of them to look up.

To understand the role of Murphy is anything but difficult - he serves the American deep state