Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
On the 31 st July 2023, I did a blog post called ‘political death looms in Rutherglen’, my contention was that the by-election on paper see... -
When former Nicola Sturgeon was cornered like a rat by the Holyrood press pack, you could see in her demeanor that she extremely uncomfortab...
1. I understand that the Police investigation into SNP finances wasn't prompted by members complaints to Police Scotland or anything like that; it was prompted by a Bank complaining to the National Crime Bureau about suspicious activity in the SNP Accounts. I presume the Bank was Scottish and they had to be very sure before reporting this.
ReplyDelete2. Alex Salmond's appearance on QT, alongside Mhairi McAllan of the SNP was interesting. The BBC's viewing figures will have gone-up and so we may see more of Salmond?
3. I agree with your assessment of Scottish Labour. If people think they are getting something different by voting for them, they are not, they are voting for a continuation of the same. One of the guys that write-in here refers to them all the time as Liebour - and he's right.
4. The Press are finally starting to report all of this. Glenn Campbell, Philip Sim and all at STV are still strangely quiet, aren't they.
5. Once you start transgressing criminal law, and it doesn't matter who you are, then you cannot predict who will get involved and what will happen next and when. That is the position the SNP are in at the moment and presumably that is why they are all looking so nervous.
6. If you know all of this and can publish it in a blog, you've got to ask why the Scottish Conservatives aren't doing a lot more than they are. Some, Murdo Frazer for example, are just in it for comfortable life. Graham Simpson and Meghan Gallagher are two who could possibly do something, but two faces out of all at Holyrood is nothing, is it.
7. Finally, how long should a Police investigation into allegations of fraud actually take?
The problem for the SNP re Alex Salmond is the fact that he is seen by many on both sides as the natural leader of the independence movement. I met him several times as a member, when Sturgeon's crew tried to fit him up, I was shocked about this having seen Salmond, their description didn't match mine. I knew about rumours of him and others, but I suspected he was in part lonely. If there is another fight as in #indyref2, I would do it, hopefully post spinal op and recovery. All the talk of elections as de facto referendum is simple nonsense tho.
DeleteWe are at a pivot point all right. Folk have assumed up until now that Sturgeon and Swinney would always be there, or that the SNP would always be there anyway. There was an acceptance almost that managed decline was inevitable. The last couple of months has seen that is no longer the case. I imagine there are a few nervous people around just now that haven't been doing their jobs for years and have just been following the diktat of Sturgeon and Swinney. I very much hope that Labour are not returned as a result of that. Instead, I can see a lot of people remaining at home and refusing to vote. All eyes are on the police at the moment. I very much hope that they are up for this and they become the first public body to turn themselves around post Sturgeon and Swinney and start just doing their jobs.
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish Conservatives need to revamp their operations and wider their scope of what is an acceptable voter to engage in, my view is everyone is up for grabs, you need two things, something to sell policy wise and someone to sell who is willing to follow through on delivery.
DeleteIf there were to be another referendum to tomorrow, it may be Ruth Davidson leading one side, versus Huma Yousaf leading the other side. So, the result wouldn't be in any doubt would it.
ReplyDeleteI had a good time doing the 2014 campaign, the Better Together group in my area had a real team spirit, HQ was always helpful to me. I used to breeze in and get loaded up with material and swan off. One day a woman asked the question, 'who are you', so I was like George Laird, the name must have dropped because she went from should you be in here to can I get you anything else.
DeleteGeorge - I'm expecting a meeting on Friday re the school that's sinking. Let me post up the last remaining Emails on these pages. Those who should receive recognition on Friday are me, you and Protect. Just now, everyone is in something of a panic. Someone must have asked: "How long have you known about this and what have you done?"
ReplyDeleteDear Jackie and Brendan,
ReplyDeleteCan I emphasize that I have asked for this to be resolved to an outcome, for myself, on or before Friday 26th May? This should be done by a lawyer and that has been explained to me already.
The lawyers with knowledge of the case are Harper MacLeod and Beltrami. Beltrami is acceptable to me but he will require to be instructed by the Scottish Government.
Nothing will happen unless one of you organize this. I cannot do it and so can you agree, between yourselves, who is going to do it, please? He will require several days preparation and so an instruction should be issued to him, either today or tomorrow.
For Jackie Baillie's benefit, the difference between the Cameron House fire and Brimmond School is that the Cameron House fire could have been prevented by proper training and procedures and that was explained at the Inquiry. The expected structural deformation at Brimmond School will just happen, suddenly, and that was explained at the weekend by Bond and Harris. So, the two are entirely different.
Other than organizing the meeting, we are now finished and the safety of the school can be left with the others. I presume this should be the last Email that I should be sending to all of you? What a waste of 9-years this has been.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteWhy do I have to repeat everything 20-times?
My dispute is with the Scottish Government. I reported to them, as a whistle-blower, that one of their recently built schools could collapse at any time. They told me that I was wrong and I have now established that they were wrong and I was right. Am I not due some appreciation for that? I think the public expectation would be that I should be treated with the utmost respect just now, don't you?
The Minutes of Meeting undernoted leave the Scottish Government responsible for the position that I have been left in and it leaves them with "design liability" for the school and if someone is injured or killed, no-one will be looking to Ogilvie Construction or to Buro Happold for responsibility, they will be looking instead to individuals within the Scottish Government for responsibility. This is an entirely needless outcome and there was no reason for this to occur.
Everything that I said at that meeting has been proven to be correct and everything that the Scottish Government said at the meeting has been proven to be wrong. Arguably, this is malfeasance/misfeasance, isn't it? Is this really the output of the work of the Scottish Government that you seek to defend against a whistle-blower?
How likely is it that a collapse will occur? If you don't fix the school now, then it is a design inevitability and the opinion of Bond and Harris, as contained in EC7, is construction law as far as I understand it.
If Jonathan Moore had investigated as he promised, then the contractor's insurers would have paid. That much has always been obvious to me and I presume it is obvious to the rest of you too. When the Scottish Government gets it wrong, as they have done here, then they must pay and that would be the public expectation.
Get back to me please with a meeting time. I presume that it will be on Friday?
Professor Rennie's putrid law firm are beginning to stand-out here for all the wrong reasons. That won't come as a surprise to you. The more they struggle though, the more isolated they become and so the worse it gets for them.
ReplyDeleteMy plan was for the Scottish Government to stop paying them and I suggested that a couple of years ago. That's what they would do overseas to any company they thought were delinquent. That never happened. The Scottish Government would rather see kids sit at desks inside a building that could collapse at any time, rather than not pay a law firm.
However, there is a great deal of pressure on them now and I cannot see them being able to resist for much longer. As I say though, 9-years of my life given-up for fuck all. So, if you had an axe to grind with Professor Rennie, so do I.
I can remember the last independence referendum and it was pretty good natured. Tense at times and I can remember Jim Murphy being set-upon, but that's all I can really remember. TV debates came and went and no-one hated one another.
ReplyDeleteThe situation since then though has changed and factions do hate each other now, particularly factions within the Nationalist movement. I'm not for it and I'm almost certain it will never happen. Not just in my lifetime, but never. Having said that, I'm a democrat and if that's what the majority want I will accept it, just like I accepted Brexit.
One thing though, Alex Salmond is always pointing out that the vote for independence stood at 28% when the referendum was first called and it rose to 45% at the referendum. It's still at around 45% or perhaps slightly less, but his implication is that it would rise to 55% or 60% if another referendum were to be called.
I think the opposite could happen and it could plummet back down to 28%. I say that because they have had nearly 10 years, and that's how long it takes, to make the solid case for why independence would work. They need to set-out a whole range of things and they haven't done any of that.
The very young may vote SNP, but I reckon those in middle age onwards will back-off from Nationalism now. It might take a few months or even years as it did with Labour; it's not instant. But, there is just no attraction in separation now. For me, there never was, but for an increasing number of people, they now see the SNP as an empty box who will do nothing for you.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI think that we are all entitled to expect an honest and full response at the stage we are at now? We are in an exceptionally grave situation and so when I ask questions, it is incumbent on you to answer them. If this building is and has been recklessly certified over the years, then that may put some of you within the realms of criminal law and so please remember that.
It looks certain that I have been correct from the beginning. My costs are significant and the costs of fixing the school will be far greater and they all need to be paid. "We are the government are we're not agreeing to anything" - we're not in a nursery school and the laws which I refer to below must to be respected.
Minutes of a Meeting are the accepted record of what was said at the meeting. So, it really doesn't matter what the Scottish Government have decided not to accept today, because the record exists and it was accepted at the time.
My employment status has become entrenched as a result of the wrong decisions which were made at the 17/8/16 meeting referred to below. Hence, it is the Scottish Government's responsibility and that appears obvious to me. The opportunity was there to carry-out a proper investigation and that would have saved my job and, more importantly, it would have ensured the safety of Brimmond School for this and future generations to come. That opportunity was missed and, as a consequence, I elected to carry-out the proper investigation myself, in 2017, with expert members of the ASCE and, if I hadn't done that, the school would inevitably have collapsed and that can, as we all know, result in fatalities.
Now the investigation is over. I am expecting to be paid and returned to work and I am requesting a meeting on Friday to finalize that. I have explained the grounds I have for asking you to organize that for me and I am asking you to explain what grounds you have for refusing to do that. The whole team listed above are aware of the contribution that I have made, and the work that I have put-in, and they ought to be made aware of the Scottish Government's recognition of that contribution and that is what I am asking you to do.
People have to work and not many of us can survive for 6-months to a year without income. As you know, I have had to survive for many years and that has not been easy. So, all the months that I have patiently waited on responses from yourself and from the others, some of whom are noted above, now have to be paid for. Is that clear enough for all of you? It always hinged on whether I had been right or not and we now know that I was right all-along and, hence, my costs need to be paid.
So I repeat for the third time, all that I require from you is a time on Friday for the meeting.
That was a polished presentation by the way. When you first started, you used to repeat yourself every now and again and show some frustration. It was nothing serious, but that is all gone now and that was excellent and very measured, uninterrupted and fluent. Better than reading paragraphs of script. I think so anyway.
ReplyDeleteNo training, but I would like to get some money and try and cobble together a small studio setup to be more professional. Trying to juggle too many balls in the air at present, and the health issue really cramps my style.
DeleteYou will remember Wendy Alexander. She preceded Joanne Lamont as FM and she was only there for a matter of months. I though she was OK, in fact, she was slightly better than Humza is now. But, she was tormented and laughed at at every FMQ and the press were pretty unkind to her. She retired early and I understand that, for the few months she was FM, that entitles her to a lifetime of free cash. So, Humza may be thinking to himself: "Why do it - why go-on with this - why don't I just step-down". I don't have a clue what he is going to do but I were him, that's the way I would be thinking just now. I think all of the heart has gone out of the Nationalist movement now. They had a good turn-out in Glasgow at the AUOB rally, but I took a look at Wings over Scotland there. What Campbell turns-out remains excellent, but the standard of responses from his supporters, the letters if you like, has dropped noticeably.
ReplyDeleteDear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteYou are hovering around in circles and deliberately not getting to the point and that is disappointing.
The Deputy First Minister, in her letter of 19/5/23, stated that she had no "locus" in the matter of my employment status and resulting financial losses. The purpose of yesterday's Email was to present the Minutes of Meeting, for the meeting held on 17/8/16. You didn't attend the meeting and so it is not in your gift to decide whether the minutes are accepted or not. They were accepted by those who attended and so that is the end of the matter. Mr Moore and Mr Dodds are employees of the Scottish Government and that is the locus.
I have referred you several times in the past to the Shirley McKie case which took place in the very early days of Holyrood. Mike Russell was Shirley McKie's constituency MSP and he solved the case by interrogating the Scottish Government's opinion, which copied the Police opinion which, you will recall, was found to be bogus by two American experts who examined the case. Are we not in exactly the same position here? I attach again your letter to Jenny Laing dated 2/8/18 and her reply to you dated 25/1/19. Would Mike Russell he have waited for 6-months for a reply? Would he have accepted this reply? I don't think so and that is why Mike Russell solved that case and you haven't solved this one.
Brimmond School is of far more profound public interest than the Shirley McKie case, but that may be just my perception and it would be for the rest of you to make your own minds-up on that.
If your colleagues at Holyrood believe that Jenny Laing and her team at Aberdeen City Council should responsible then that is for them but, whatever they decide to do should be agreed well before Friday so that my meeting goes ahead. At this stage, the only lawyer with sufficient background knowledge is Mr McAteer and he will require to be instructed very, very quickly by your colleagues at the Scottish Government and so respond and confirm to me please that they have done that.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteWe are involved in an iterative process and that's the way engineering works. No-one is authorised to make unilateral decisions on these matters. The Deputy First Minister's letter was written on the premise that there is no "locus" in the matter of my employment status and I have explained the locus to you, on two occasions now.
The Deputy First Minister obviously hasn't seen this information before and I am asking you present that information (the Minutes of Meeting) to her and return to me with her response.
Dear Brendan,
I believe it is crucial that the Deputy First Minister sees and understands this information in context. Aberdeen City Council had a Labour Party administration led by Jenny Laing in 2018, when this investigated took place and, for that reason Jackie Baillie may be reluctant to pursue this line of investigation. But, it needs to be done.
OK Jackie, thanks.
ReplyDeleteI'll do that and I'll contact Brendan later.
In engineering, you cannot personally act as some sort of gatekeeper. Mike Russell didn't do that in the McKie case because he understood that he wasn't a fingerprint expert and he needed to be advised by those that were. He was advised in the end by two Americans.
Mike Russell was SNP and Jack McConnell was Labour and so there was never any suspicion of vested interests and it worked. Both yourself and Jenny Laing are Labour and for whatever reason it has not worked and that has been a real problem for me.
Dear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteYou may have seen the below Emails?
I agree with Jackie Baillie that, for everyone's sake, we would be best changing course. This building has the potential to deteriorate suddenly and "structural deformation" which is the next stage of the deterioration, is something that we should all take very, very seriously. I have explained this over the course of the weekend and there is no need for me to do so again.
As as I understand it, I have been proven correct, against all the odds, and that is a remarkable engineering achievement. As far as the safety of the school is concerned, "the leaders" in other words those in authority, are all listed above. Contractual authority is by Buro Happold, public sector authority is by Scottish Building Standards and expert independent guidance, should you or anyone else require it, is by the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Hence, there is nothing preventing a permanent solution from being found and agreed. Buro Happold may harbour a fear that I am about to criticize them, but I can assure them that I am not. What we are talking about here is a construction mistake, made by the contractor, and that would be a very useful, pragmatic starting point for everyone.
As you will have gathered by now, it is crucial that I leave this investigation now and return to work. Because for the past 9-years I have been portrayed as the whistle-blower that got it wrong, I have been prevented from finding work. That situation has changed and I am now the whistle-blower that got it right. So, you can see, there is a crucial difference.
Aberdeen City Council have the statutory duty for the safety of Brimmond School and the point I made during the course of the weekend was that in monitoring for settlement instead of fixing the cause of that settlement, they are failing in that duty. Is that a breach of criminal law? I believe that it is and the reason for that is because settlement may not happen slowly, it can in fact happen suddenly, although those above will be able to confirm that to you.
I am of the view that Aberdeen City Council, rather than the Scottish Government, have been the problem all along and the more this case vacillates between Aberdeen City Council and Jackie Baillie, the more opaque it becomes and the further away from a solution we all get and you have seen that for yourself over the past few days.
So, very briefly, all that I am looking for is a meeting this Friday with Mr McAteer from Beltrami. The reason for the meeting is that I want to be paid my losses over the past 9-years and be returned to work. Who is responsible for paying these losses? In my view and with my understanding of the case, it would be Aberdeen City Council, but we can leave that to Mr McAteer to review, no doubt in conjunction with the Scottish Government.
Mr McAteer has extensive knowledge of this case already but he will require time to prepare before Friday and so can you ask your colleagues at Holyrood to instruct him tomorrow, please? If you could do that for me, that would be most helpful.
George - Are you beginning to understand why we cannot we cannot build two ferries at Port Glasgow?
ReplyDeleteThe SNP like to claim superior IQ, but another telling point is being unable to see a project through, the daily grind, they can't handle that concept because no one drilled into them the concept of Statehood. Add in the cult factor, you can see why things move slowly, where was a working party to sit in and be hands on, not welding but understanding the wider picture. They treat government as a 9-5, then its parties, receptions and home time.
DeleteGeorge - The reason that I elect to post everything up here is because items like the above tend to be deleted from my 'sent items' within minutes of them being sent. I doesn't always happen, but this Email was deleted. I sent two Emails this morning, one to my wife and the one above to Brendan and Jackie. The Email to my wife was left alone and the Email to Brendan and Jackie was deleted. It's a sure sign that they are all shitting themselves and not before time. If you reconcile the above, with criminal law, then they all have a problem. Everyone who has known about this and has elected to do nothing is in an incredibly weak position just now. Sometimes the defence is: "But I didn't know the law". How many times have I explained it to them? However, I will cut and paste from the above and send it to them again. The opportunity that this website has provided me over the years has been transformational and that is not an exaggeration.
ReplyDeleteDear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteI notice that the below Email has been deleted from my "sent items". This is not the first time this has happened. I sent an Email to my wife this morning and I sent this; the Email to my wife remains in my "sent items" and the trailing Email, to you, has been deleted. So, I have elected to resend it.
It would be prudent if we all agreed to just deal with the two items explained in this Email and that will get us finished in the shortest possible time and if you reconcile these items with the law, then I would imagine that there is a legal imperative for that to be done, pretty much straight away.
My strategy, for what it's worth, would be to blame the Council for everything and let them respond. If my experience is anything to go by, they will be unable to respond and that gives us an outcome, instantly.
The only response that I am expecting now, is an appointment with Mr McAteer.
Dear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteAttached and for your assistance is the key letter, dated 2/8/18, from Jackie Baillie MSP to Jenny Laing of Aberdeen City Council. Once this letter is answered, point for point, by the Council, and distributed to all of the interested parties above, then we have an outcome.
The fact that these points can remain on the record and unanswered for almost 5-years while the Council carry-out some kind of settlement checks on the building is frankly embarrassing, isn't it?
The Scottish Government may wish to demand that it is properly answered, by the Council, now.
The Times is predicting (I assume that's the Evening Times), that 500,000 SNP voters will stay at home at the next GE poll and refuse to vote. That's 30% of their voters and that will result in a 40% drop in their Westminster MP's. As you say, the Labour vote is predicted to remain roughly static, but that's all they need to increase their number of MP's. Salmond said this weeks ago that political support takes decades to build and it can be lost within a few weeks or months and it may never return. That's what Labour have found and it's what the SNP are about to find happens to them.
ReplyDeleteScottish Labour have done nothing to build their vote or change, their plan was let the SNP fail, voters desert or stay at home and they sweep in on the back of apathy, except they would call it revival.
DeleteDear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteMr McAteer didn't call me yesterday but my meeting with him tomorrow should go ahead. The right people are now properly engaged and it can be handed over to them.
Can you make sure that Mr McAteer calls me today, please?
Dear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteAgain, the trailing Email was deleted from my "sent items" half an hour ago. I received your automated message confirming that you received it at 7.09am, it's still there, but the message itself has been deleted. This is becoming really concerning.
If you require assistance from Jackie Baillie in setting-up the required meeting then ask her, or ask me to ask her, please. She can recuse herself now, for the reasons given, and I have accepted that, but she is responsible for the 2/8/18 letter (attached) and so recusing herself now doesn't erase any of the history of this case.
I have still not heard from Mr McAteer and that is all that I am interested in. Can you concentrate on that only and leave this mess for all those listed above to sort-out in which ever way they elect to do so.
Re the NHS: Professor Robert Winston's wife died recently. Not the fault of the NHS, but Robert Winston saw how the NHS operated during that period and he was interviewed on Channel 4 about it. What he reckoned was that the NHS has a certain amount of money and that's it. It cannot get any more money and that amount of money is not enough to do all that we expect from the NHS. He can explain things in their simplest terms and that was his explanation. So, what do we do about that? I reckon that the NHS is there principally as a safety net so that everyone gets decent and quick health care. So, my solution would be to do what they do overseas and that would be for employers to pay to insure each employee privately. They would be treated at NHS facilities, but the cash would go to the NHS and not to the private sector. I knew a guy that had two heart bypass operations paid for that way and on each occasion they were done very fast - within less than a week of the first diagnosis. I don't know what the situation is with your back. I remember you had an appointment, then it was cancelled and no future appointment date was given. That is crap, isn't it? So, something ought to be done to change that. I'm just saying that that would never happen overseas. And, by the way, some of these countries are wealthier than the UK, but some aren't and they still manage. I can remember the rough figure employers used to pay and it was about £1,000 - £1500 a year, more if you were over 50, more again if you were over 60. For that, you carried a plastic card around. My card was issued by Allianz Healthcare, but there were numerous others. You just used the card at the dentist or doctor or hospital and it was never declined. That's one possible solution.
ReplyDeleteDear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteSince this case began in September 2014, I haven't mentioned politics once. This should have been a straightforward whistle-blowing case; get it investigated, vindicate the whistle-blower and get the school fixed before a collapse occurs.
As I understand it, the position is that I have been found to be correct, but I am still waiting to be vindicated and the school still hasn't been fixed.
Jackie Baillie's letter has been reviewed, by expert engineers, and the question has been asked: "Why did no-one do anything about that at the time?" My question is: Why is no-one doing anything about it now?
The McKie case, which I have explained many times, involved the SNP investigating the Labour Party and that worked and it resulted in an outcome. This investigation involves the Labour Party (Jackie Baillie) investigating the Labour Party (Jenny Laing) and it hasn't worked and I am asking you to do something about that.
According to the Education Scotland Act, the Deputy First Minister, instead of writing to me, should have written instead to Aberdeen City Council and that would analogous to the McKie case. If she so wishes, she can send Jackie Baillie's letter of 2/8/18 and when that letter is answered in full, by the Council, it will bring this matter to a close for everyone. I expect we can all agree upon that?
I say that because, as it stands, the letter she has written to me puts her needlessly in the firing line should an accident occur.
Dear Jackie,
I asked Brendan to seek your assistance this morning to get my meeting set-up with Mr McAteer and nothing appears to have been done; no-one has contacted me today and so can you provide that assistance, if he requires it. This is the last thing that I will ask you to do and so please do it.
The SNP are run by the LGBT's and the blood and soil Nationalists have moved over to Alba. That appears to be what has happened. If so, then it's only a matter of time before that party becomes aggressive. I don't think they are just now, but I expect it to happen. Also, we all look upon Salmond with some respect because we can remember what he achieved, but his approval ratings are very, very low. Just about the lowest in UK politics. So, I see Nationalism in general sinking to near the bottom of the swamp. Labour of course are at the bottom of the swamp already. Like you, I reckon a dose of the Tories would be good for Scotland. They're organized and they can work credibly with others. That's something that Holyrood's been lacking. I reckon though that they are comfortable where they are though, well below the parapet.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I suspect you had this worked-out ages ago? I have a good engineering head and I'm not worried about that, but I don't think in terms of politics and you obviously do.
ReplyDeleteSo, what Mike Russell was able to do, Jackie Baillie has been unable to do and that's the Labour Party for you. Alastair Campbell's: "It's all been a misunderstanding" isn't likely to wash now, is it.
The general rule of do nothing or very little applies, the fraud case is the shining star in the heavens for Scottish Labour, they think this is the road that leads to Rome or in their case, seats and ultimately power.
DeleteGeorge - You may be wanting to know what the two letters say and why they are so important now. I think it is pretty much verboten for me to repeat them word for word because both are signed, but I can give you a summary of what they say and there is no problem with that:
ReplyDeleteLetter 1, Jackie Baillie to Jenny Laing, 2/8/18:
"I am aware that my constituent keeps complaining to you that the land surrounding Brimmond School is sinking and that it is a matter of time before the building itself starts to sink. He has complained to the Scottish Government too, but you both keep responding by saying that you have had the school building visually checked by a structural engineer. So, let me try again:
1. The last school to collapse was Oxgangs School in Edinburgh and that had been visually checked by structural engineers. Professor Cole looked at that example during the Cole Inquiry and recommended that all Councils should cease using them immediately and so why are you still relying upon them?
2. The engineer who carried-out the visual inspection report is not qualified to do so. So, why have you asked him to do it?
3. My constituent has gauged the opinions of 40No worldwide experts who are all qualified and they all agree with him. "Get this school checked by a qualified professional immediately". Why have you not done that? The opinions they offered are attached. What are the opinions of your experts?
4. Scottish Building Standard rules (the SER Certification Scheme) state that when a design is changed, as it was here, the design change should be reviewed by an independent team of engineers. Why hasn't that been done?
5. EC7 states that when the land starts to flood and to sink as it is doing here, it must be checked by an independent expert immediately? Why hasn't that been done. According to EC7, an actual limit state failure has occurred already. Are you aware of that?
6. Many of the worldwide experts expressed a real concern over the future longevity of this building. What do you say about that?
7. Would a visual inspection report by a structural engineer protect the Council from claims of negligence should an accident occur due to faults identified by my constituent and ignored by the Council?
I am sure that for the future safety of this and following generations of teachers and children you will wish to respond fully and answer these points".
Letter 2, Jenny Laing to Jackie Baillie, 25/1/19:
ReplyDelete"1. My officers have looked into this and you have provided no new information.
2. We agree with the Scottish Government opinion expressed by their Jonathan Moore, which is that Buro Happold are a firm of great renown and if they say that the school is fine, then it is fine".
Jackie went on to say that Aberdeen City Council would not be responding to any more of my letters.
Bob from Protect (you may remember him) said to Jackie: "We've waiting for almost 6-months on this...this is not the way whistle-blowing works...she hasn't answered a single question, has she?" Jackie was adamant...there would be no more responses from the Council.
Jackie Baillie recused herself a week or so ago and so that leaves Brendan O'Hara. The decision for him just now is whether he blames all of this on the Labour Party at Holyrood and the Council, or whether he accepts that the Scottish Government had some role in this too. Who knows what he will determine, but that is now for him.
As I have been explaining for the past week, reckless certification of the safety of a public building is within the realms of criminal law and always has been and so it is an important decision, whichever way it goes.
All the information I have posted up here over the years is genuine. It was accepted at the time and in the case of the above two letters, they were signed at the time by Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing and so they cannot "un-accept" them now, as Jackie has been trying to do.
So, you see, if Jackie's letter is correct, and it seems to be pretty much bang on the money, then there exists a systemic problem at Holyrood. Whether Brendan O'Hara deems it to be a Labour Party problem, confined only to them, or whether it is a Holyrood-wide systemic problem is for him to decide, with his colleagues.
Something for you to think about, isn't it?
George - I think we just need to wait now. Do nothing and wait.
ReplyDeleteIt has always been a waiting game, this case is seen as a lever, a lever to pry power away from the SNP, it is one of many levers pushed and pulled at various times to weaken the Nats.
DeleteI missed three items from Jackie's letter:
ReplyDelete8. Your visual inspection report doesn't mention sinking of the land and flooding of the land. All of the experts witnessed this. Are you certain that your visual inspection report is dependable?
9. Under Building Standard rules, when a design is changed, as the Brimmond design has been changed, the design change must be checked by an independent design team, that can be from Buro Happold of from some other engineering firm. My constituent complains that was never done. Why is that? Surely it should be done now?
10. When the land becomes flooded, the strength of the soil halves making it no longer strong enough to support the weight of the building. What do you propose to do about that?
That's it. It's been in the Press twice and they've still managed to cover it up for years. What can you say? The design check has been done now of course and that's the problem.
It may be worth repeating Alastair Campbell's "4-stages to dealing with a whistle-blower". So far, Jackie Baillie has followed it to the letter and so it is presumably UK-wide Labour Party policy nowadays:
ReplyDelete1. Deny it.
2. Deny it again.
3. Blacken the reputation of the whistle-blower.
4. Agree with the whistle-blower and say it was a misunderstanding.
We're following this to the letter, so far. We're at 4 and I'm just waiting to hear how they have somehow managed to misunderstand 1200No Emails.
Engineer Hugh has been called upon for his expert guidance. He is a short-tempered chap and he wouldn't have tolerated anything like the sort of shite I have tolerated over the years. Anyway, we should all have confidence because he knows what he is doing.
It is with the wee-wumins' club at Holyrood and the wee wumins' club at Professor Rennie's old law-firm. Plus, civil servant H, remember her? That's why we cannot build schools any more and why we cannot build ferries. All decisions need to be run past five vapid wee wumin. They takes them years to do anything because they don't know what they are doing. In the meantime all those that do know what they are doing, have to wait.
I watched Chris Packham the naturalist on TV last night (from Springwatch/Autumnwatch and all the rest of it) speaking outside the High Court where he had won a case against several bodies connected to field-sports who had been defaming and threatening him. It had gone-on for 2 or 3 years and he said that it was financially draining and physically exhausting. His point was, politics and the law should be well enough aligned so that the penalties for such behaviour mean that society effectively self-regulates and individuals don't have to put themselves through these sort of ordeals to obtain justice. It's a fair point, isn't it. A few days have passed since the verdict was handed-down and their is a lot of admiration around just now for Packham and what did.
ReplyDeleteIf you compare that to what we have in Scotland just now where members of the public are fighting directly with politicians, and Jackie Baillie is the current example, and lawyers. I am not fighting with the Contractor here, who only made a mistake, I am fighting with those who have covered the mistake up and that is the lawyers and politicians. That's an entirely different ball-game isn't it and it puts this case not within the realms of civil action, as it was in Packham's case, but in the realms of criminal action. An accident has to occur first of course, but is that unlikely? An engineer may say that it is likely and I'm feel certain that Engineer Hugh has already said that to them. Perhaps they should all just slow down for a minute, stop bull-shitting and ask themselves......"what am I getting paid for.....what is my job here......what would the public expect me to do".
Packam's point was that we shouldn't let gangs of people set-upon someone with legal impunity (Alastair Campbells point 3 above). In Scotland though, is it not the lawyers and the parliamentarians that are the problem? The Contractor isn't the problem as he just made a mistake. If it's reported and nothing is done.....for 9-years.....that is the problem here, isn't it.
You had experience of Professor Rennie, as did I and he was the bent lawyers' bent lawyer. But, are his doppelgangers really any different? This case would suggest that they are no different and that is a real problem for all of us just now. So, my advice to Jackie Baillie would be to just do your job and you do that by making sure that the letter which you wrote is ade.
equately answered. That is the letter from 2/8/18 (summarised above). You wrote the letter almost 5-years ago now, you signed it at the bottom, the letter exists and is of crucial importance just now. Once that letter is answered, we are all finished and a just solution is served and that suits my interests, and I am your constituent, and it serves the public interest.
ReplyDeleteAs you will no doubt have gathered, I am just waiting for something to happen. The information they have from me is straight down the middle, ditto from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Everything depends upon Buro Happold now. I still have licence to post up on this website because, as a whistle-blower, I am in charge of closing the net on these dishonest and unaccountable folks. So, will the Labour Party be blamed for this, or will it be Labour/SNP, or will it be the lawyers (Professor Rennie's team)? If they went for the latter, then I would understand that.
ReplyDeleteOne thing about Buro Happold - up until now, everyone at Holyrood and Aberdeen City Council have been able to depend upon a small cadre of engineering consultants who will do as they are asked and provide visual inspection reports on demand. Buro Happold are not like that and they work to the correct international standards. Hence, everyone might be in for a surprise. (I think we all know that, don't we)
Dear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteI have an example of the difficulties faced by whistle-blowers which I will send to you later today and copy to Sybille at Protect. It is confidential and so I will not copy to anyone else. Last week I was on the verge of being offered a very good job and I had a meeting lined-up with the design team. It is for what will be an important project in your constituency and you will no-doubt recognize it when you see it.
When the client heard about this case, all interest ceased and that happens all the time. I have made this point before to Jackie Baillie before as you can imagine, but she never shows sufficient self-motivation to do anything about it. All that I can say is that, in this case, constant unemployment is both needless and debilitating in every sense of the word, as all of you can understand.
I presume that Buro Happold have agreed with myself and with the others? If so, then I can be released and I want that to be done legally and with an acceptable financial settlement and and job provided. I asked for that to be done on Friday 26th May and no-one responded and so can you respond and tell me when this is going to happen, please?
As I see it, accountability for this lies with named individuals at Aberdeen City Council and/or named individuals at Harper MacLeod.
George - I have just forwarded the Email to Brendan and Sybille. Like everything else I have sent over the years, it is entirely genuine and is from someone who probably outranks all of them.
ReplyDeleteDear Sybille and Brendan,
ReplyDeleteIf you read through the undernoted, it explains what I was talking about earlier. D----- L----- is ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have managed several ---------------- projects like it in the past and he was content with that. In a later Email, I explained that I was still involved in a whistle-blowing dispute at Brimmond but that I was expecting to released on Friday, 26th which, of course never happened.
Hence, the prospect of the job went no further.
George - The above explains why all of these Emails were written last week. This had to be finished yesterday and I should be released with a full vindication. Brendan O'Hara has only been dealing with this for a week or so and so no-one can blame him. Jackie Baillie though just recused herself: "This has nothing to do with me any more" and that makes me really angry.
ReplyDeleteDear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteSybille's on holiday for the next 2-weeks.
I expect to be able to leave this investigation within the next few days.
The Directors at Harper MacLeod have been working on it since November last year and so it is now time to tell them: "Time is up - give us your solution".
Can you do that on Monday, please?
George - we should at this point take a look at the two letters summarized above: Jackie Baillie to Jenny Laing and Jenny Laing to Jackie Baillie, both have been stalwarts of the Labour Party in Scotland for decades now.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter how long a case goes-on for, there will come a time when the door closes and that is where I think we are at now.
You will remember Gerald Ratner: "Why do people pay all this money for total crap?" I presume that's the question that is being asked just now. That's a very good question and I hope it gets answered this time.
George - Consider there are two parties involved; an investigating authority and Jackie Baillie. Jackie Baillie says:
ReplyDelete1. "I wrote a letter to Aberdeen City Council on behalf of my constituent and Jenny Laing, the Council Leader, answered the letter approximately 5-months later."
2. "Was the letter accepted by your constituent?"
3. "No, it wasn't."
4. "Why was that?"
5. "Because it didn't answer any of the questions that he had asked."
6. "Did you send another letter to the Council Leader? or, what did you do?"
7. "No, I did nothing."
8. "Why was that.....why did you do nothing?"
9. "Because the Council Leader told me that she was not prepared to answer any more questions on this subject."
The position just now is that I have been proven correct and that means that someone has misled the public for the past 7-years.
There is a cost involved in that of course but, more importantly, public safety was put at risk for, on the face of it, party-political reasons.
The lesson of the Hyatt Regency collapse was that who ever it was that misled the public into believing that the building was checked and that it was safe, was blamed.
That's the way it has worked for the past forty years and I cannot see it changing now. So, that's something for them both to think about.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI have been liaising with my constituency MSP Jackie Baillie for in excess of 7-years regarding the safety of Brimmond School in Aberdeen. Many expert engineers have already stated that the land surrounding the school is sinking and it is a matter of time before the school itself starts to sink. I understand that position has been agreed, since 2018, by Scottish engineers too, but nothing has been done to correct the school and it is still in daily use.
I suspect that situation arises because of Labour Party politics. Hence, I am addressing this Email to you and I am asking you to resolve it, please.
The Scottish Institution of Civil Engineers are aware of this case and I copy them in to this Email so that if I am found to be exaggerating the problem, they will alert you of that.
I have been explained to Jackie Baillie is that those that will be held responsible in the event of a collapse will be those that indicated that the school had been checked and was safe. Those people will be Jackie Baillie MSP, Jenny Laing of Aberdeen City Council and Jonathan Moore from the Scottish Government and the letters from each attached below explain why I am saying this to you.
Ostensibly, Jenny Laing and Jonathan Moore will be held responsible in the event of a collapse. Jackie Baillie will be held responsible because she accepted a letter from Jenny Laing which was clearly unsatisfactory, she was told that by "Protect", the whistle-blowing experts, but she accepted it anyway.
I say all of this based upon engineering precedent law cases which the ICE will be aware of and, again, if I am incorrect or exaggerating, they will no doubt correct me.
What should have been solved in 1-8 weeks has gone on, in total, for 9-years; Jackie Baillie has been at the forefront of it for 7 of those years. She recently asked to recuse herself from any further involvement and so I sought-out help from my constituency MP, Brendan O'Hara and that is why he is copied-in, rather than Jackie Baillie.
Fixing the school, if it can be fixed, is for the Scottish Government to solve and I presume that they will be looking to Aberdeen City Council to manage and pay for that. That, at the present moment, is not my concern.
I have been unemployed for the best part of 9-years due to this case and I consider that some appreciation of that is well overdue from the Labour Party, whether that be the Labour Party at Aberdeen City Council or the Labour Party at Holyrood. I am therefore asking you to do that and to do something about it.
I have explained to Brendan O'Hara that I find it impossible to return to any kind of employment with this case still unresolved. I am satisfied that Jackie Baillie will not assist for the reasons that I have explained and so can you please assist Brendan O'Hara to get this resolved to an outcome as quickly as possible.
I would add that I have no political preferences at Holyrood whatsoever and I have gone to Mr O'Hara simply because there is no-one else to turn to.
I would appreciate a response from you on this as the subject we are dealing with is "reckless certification" which, if it is results in a collapse, whether that results in injuries and deaths or not, is a breach of criminal law and that has always been the case.
Dear Anas and Brendan,
ReplyDeleteThe trailing Email from late November last year explains the situation.
Advice on whether or not there is a prima facie case of significant risk to the public is an opinion that would be best provided by the Institution of Civil Engineers just now, rather than Protect, and so I copy this Email to them.
The key to unlocking this case is in the highlighted paragraphs. The only evidence presented so far by the client team of Hub and Aberdeen City Council are "visual inspection reports". The Institution of Civil Engineers can advise you both on that.
"The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a prima facie case of significant risk to the public, and those in charge appear to be relying only on visual reports as a rebuttal - however visual reports have been previously established as inappropriate and inadequate in these circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThe key is getting someone with responsibility to answer to this point; all the better if they are qualified to give their professional view on the safety (or lack thereof) of the building as well."
Dear ICE,
ReplyDeleteCan you provide the requisite guidance on the safety of the design change to the earthworks carried-out to Brimmond School by the Contractor to Mr Sarwar and Mr O'Hara, please.
The engineering case was reviewed by a number of your experts over a 4-month period starting on or around 12th June 2021 and so the ICE has the answers that everyone is looking for just now.
It is crucial that the professional body that has investigated this case assists properly in bringing it to a conclusion. Hence, please respond if asked to do so by these gentlemen.
George - I'll give Anas Sarwar and Brendan O'Hara some time. The Institution of Civil Engineers are copied-in too.
ReplyDeleteI look upon the two years 2014-2016 as the Jenny Laing years. Two years of my life wasted due to a bent wee councillor.
2016-2023 have been the
Jackie Baillie years and so we'll see how they turn-out in the end. So far, they have been worse than the Jenny Laing years.
ReplyDeleteI've spent several years in KSA and if this had happened there, both would be arrested in the middle of the night and carted-off to Malaz, which is the local jail. They get a 6-year stretch for stuff like this. They shave off their hair and give them a prayer mat and that would be their only possession until 2029.
I'll tell you how this works, George. It explains why it has taken this long. It has not been my fault, it has been Jackie Baillie's fault. Right at the start, Protect told me that you need Jackie Baillie on your side. If she is on your side, this will be over in a fortnight because your evidence is so good; if she is not on you side, it will take years and it has taken 7-years. That, believe it or not, is due to her covering-up for the Labour Council, specifically Jenny Laing.
ReplyDeleteSo, how much time do you think I have had to spend on this case, lawyers fees, researching, gathering expert opinions, sending them to Jackie Baillie. What I am saying is that if she had wanted to solve this case, she could have done it right away. She didn't want to solve it, she wanted to keep in in the Holyrood long grass for as long as possible and she achieved that.
So, I will be expecting an apology from Jackie Baillie and it will not only be me that is expecting an apology. I am not a Nationalist, as you know, but my solution would be for Brendan O'Hara to leave this entire fuck-up with the Labour Party at Holyrood and Aberdeen City Council. For everyone else to walk away from it and leave it with them. A £30-40million cover-up and they managed all of that while they were in opposition.
Dear Anas,
ReplyDeleteThe undernoted, from Protect's Bob Matheson, is where this process first started to derail. I don't know what you think of Bob's suggestions; they all seemed like good suggestions to me and Bob has the advantage of many years of experience in this field, but none of them were taken-up by Jackie Baillie and that has left me with a great deal of extra work to do over the years.
"Protect" are called that because they protect the public interest and that is your job too, of course. Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing have been asked to do that and you can read their responses for yourself. I have asked you to comment and explain whether you find these responses acceptable. I don't find them acceptable and Bob obviously didn't either but the question is: do you find them acceptable and could they possibly have done more? Could they have done what Bob suggested, for example?
As I have explained, I want to end my involvement in this case by the end of this week. Jackie Baillie has recused herself from any further involvement and so I am asking you to provide whatever assistance you can, with the urgency that you feel is appropriate, to my constituency MP Brendan O'Hara to get this satisfactorily concluded and I will leave that with you.
I am have been left very disappointed in your Party's approach so far and I have no doubt that would be reflected by a generally negative public reaction and I do not think there is any doubt about that.
Dear ICE,
ReplyDeleteYou may wish to offer your expert guidance at this point regarding visual inspection reports and other technical matters? Presumably, you support Bob and myself and if you don't, then I would ask that you let both Brendan and Anas know that today, please.
As you are aware, I want to have this matter concluded by the end of this week.
Dear ICE,
ReplyDeleteI have endured many years of partial engagement from Aberdeen City Council and Jackie Baillie and I do not want the same to happen with the ICE.
Bob refers to the ASCE below but we should really all be referring to the ICE at this point, shouldn't we? Why are we still all depending upon the ASCE?
Therefore, I attach another copy of Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion (14) by expert members of the ASCE with this Email. You have seen this many times before of course and it has always seemed to me that we are all fortunate to have this guidance to hand. Can you imagine where we would all be without it?
I note that a few members of the ASCE are also members of the ICE. Dr Stephen Thomas for example is a Fellow of the ICE and he is one of the most respected groundwater engineers in the world. It is therefore unlikely that he, and all of the others, have somehow got this wrong.
The visual inspection report that Bob refers to in his Email to Jackie Baillie is by Peter Fraser of Ramsay and Chalmers and it is attached below. You have seen this before, too. It is remarkably poor and is the worst that I have ever encountered.
So, the question for the ICE is simple - should the parliamentarians accept the opinion of Stephen Thomas and 40No other experts from the ASCE, or should they accept the opinion of Peter Fraser? I have already intimated to Mr O'Hara that the ICE will inevitably follow the ASCE, but can you confirm that to both Mr O'Hara and to Mr Sarwar today, please?
Once that is done, the ICE involvement in this case would appear to be over; certainly as far as I am concerned.
Dear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteCan you turn you attention to my financial settlement, job and complete removal from this investigation, please?
I understand that this has to be done by a lawyer and the lawyer in question should be instructed to act on my behalf by the Scottish Government. I have asked Jackie Baillie to do this countless times and so can you request it is done?
The lawyer who understands this case is Gary McAteer from Beltrami and that would be an acceptable choice as far as I am concerned. I have asked that payment is also made to two parties that have assisted the investigation and he knows that.
If I meet Mr McAteer on Friday then he will need to be instructed tomorrow at the latest, but preferably today and the instruction would be to work on my behalf to achieve a satisfactory settlement. Mr McAteer may know himself what is required and if he requires clarification on anything then he can call me.
I copy-in Anas Sarwar as he wish to assist with this, but that decision is for him.
Those that will (probably) be held responsible, in the end, are those who have misled the public and Bob's Email below explains who they are; it gives you a pretty good indication anyway!
George -
ReplyDeleteI try not to copy-up anything written by third parties, but this Email, by Bob, is referred to several times above. We are close to the end now and so I am just posting it up. This is a senior guy, at the time the UK's top whistle-blowing lawyer. It is a great example of item 3 in Alastair Campbell's 4-stages of dealing with a whistle-blower (blacken the reputation of the whistle-blower). By the way, Jackie didn't answer and so there was no meeting with Jenny Laing. It makes you wonder what was more important than this at the time. But, when you continually do that, a week turns into a month and a month turns into a year:
ReplyDeleteHi Jackie,
Thanks again for your help on this.
I have to say, I find their response incredibly disappointing.
Centrally, they have not engaged at all with the point put forward in your letter about visual inspections being completely inadequate in this situation. This is not just the view of Stephen, this is (or should be) the view of all those working for the Scottish Government (through the Cole report, which they commissioned). Even non-Engineers can grasp this point, and so the complete absence of a response to it can only mean an intent to ignore the problem in my opinion. If this is the case then that is pretty shameful.
There is much else to bemoan about the letter too (6 month[!] delay; no answers to the questions put forward in pts.2-4; no acknowledgement of the ASCE comments; and a completely inappropriate tone taken to whistleblowing, through the troublemaking allusions made about Stephen). I know that Stephen will also have many more technical objections.
I wonder, though, whether the visual inspection point is the clearest line of interrogation for the meantime?
What do you think the best way to proceed with this is? A question in Parliament? A meeting with yourself, the council, and Stephen?
George - There was no question raised in Parliament was there?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, w are close to the end now and the way this is resolved is when Engineer Hugh from Buro Happold presents his opinion. I have more than 40 opinions from engineers as senior as he is but, contractually, that's the way it works. The opinion has to come from Hugh. Personally speaking, I don't expect his to be different from any of the others in fact I expect it to be slightly more tough. Also, the fact that it hasn't been released yet gives me a fear that he is recommending which is very, very expensive. To the extent that it may be cheaper building again from new. Anyway, if everyone listens to Hugh's advice, you won't go far wrong. Just ask for it and demand to see it. Aberdeen City Council must show it to you. As I say, everyone is in for a fright. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am and nor do any of the others.
Dear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteCan you let me know about the closing meeting today, please?
I have suffered from many years of needless unemployment due to this case and so, for me, it must now be drawn to a close.
The issue of the safety of the school can be addressed from here by Buro Happold. If they are permitted to speak freely at a meeting for example, that will give everyone a proper understanding of the problem and, once that has been done, it allows a solution to be found.
I think that we just wait now, George. The encouraging news is that Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing have been replaced by Brendan O'Hara. So, Labour/Labour has been replaced by SNP. I'm keeping Anas Sarwar informed and he can make his own decision whether to help or not. So far, and from what little I know, there has been a vast improvement in urgency already.
ReplyDeleteCllr Jenny Laing
ReplyDeleteCo-Leader
Aberdeen City Council
Town House
Broad Street
Aberdeeen
AB10 1FY
Our Ref: JB15209
02 August 2018
Dear Jenny,
Brimmond School
I write in response to your letter of 19th July 2018 regarding the safety of Brimmond School in Aberdeen.
As you know, the construction of Brimmond School has been questioned by one of my constituents who claims that the design was changed to incorporate a deep contamination excavation which ran the full width of the site from north to south. The effect of this was to re-set the pattern of ground-water flowing through the site and he claims that this will cause ‘soil collapse’ and ‘subsidence’ to occur. These effects can happen slowly, or very quickly and so, if my constituent is correct, it follows that a risk of partial collapse may have been inadvertently built-in to this building and it should be investigated and remedied quickly.
During the course of the past 2-years I am aware that my constituent has presented a range of evidence in support of his concerns, but on each occasion he has been told: ‘We’ve had the school checked by a qualified engineer there is no subsidence’. My constituent has nevertheless continued with his investigations and in September 2017 he consulted expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the clear majority of whom agreed with my constituent’s hypothesis. Still nothing has changed and, by virtue of your letter, my constituent has been told again ‘We’ve had the school checked by a qualified engineer there is no subsidence’.
It does seem that no matter how strong his evidence may be, he will always receive the same reply, whether from the local authority or indeed the Scottish Government. It would therefore seem sensible at this point to take a step back and investigate the strength of the survey, which is a visual survey, by Peter Fraser of Ramsay and Chalmers Consulting Structural Engineers to establish if it would provide robust evidence to protect the owner of the building against claims of negligence, should an accident occur at the school due to defects identified by my constituent, and not acted upon by Aberdeen City Council:
1. The Cole Enquiry 2017
The last failure of a school building took place in 2016 at Oxgangs Primary School in Edinburgh. That led to an investigation into the safety of all recently built schools in that city. 17 of these schools were forced to close until repairs were carried-out as they were considered to be ‘unsafe’. It was found that, upon initial completion and hand-over to Edinburgh City Council, all of these schools were given similar visual surveys by structural engineers saying that the buildings appeared to be correct and that there was nothing of any concern. Professor Cole’s response to that was to recommend that owners should discontinue using these visual surveys. So, since the Cole Enquiry of February 2017, all building owners, and especially school building owners, should no longer be relying upon visual surveys of the type issued by Ramsay and Chalmers to prove the adequacy of design and construction.
2. The SER Certification Scheme
This is the building control design review system, managed by the Institution of Structural Engineers, which now operates in Scotland. A 2-storey school building on a brownfield site would require to be design checked by an independent engineering team. Any amendment to that design would require another design check by an independent engineering team. Has this been done?
SER do not recognize visual surveys, even for the simplest private buildings. Why, therefore, is this survey being presented as proof of the adequacy of the design and construction on a large public building?
3. Eurocode 7
ReplyDeleteThe ‘ultimate limit state’ ‘GEO’, which is ‘excessive deformation of the ground’ was reached soon after the building was opened. This requires an immediate investigation by a geotechnical specialist in order to determine the cause of the failure and to determine what measures have to be put in place to prevent further deterioration. Has this been done?
A Principal ‘P’ requirement of Eurocode 7 is that no standing groundwater is visible around the apron of a building as it can lead to a rapid degradation of the building’s foundations. Standing groundwater is visible around the apron of this building during each winter and the building will not stand up to this indefinitely. What is the Council’s response to this?
4. Fairhurst’s Soil Investigation Report 83263
This states in the Executive Summary that: ‘The presence of shallow and potentially upwelling groundwater on the site reduces the allowable bearing capacity to <75kN/m-2 and, with this present, they will not be appropriate as a founding strata’. Photographs of the site in winter show that we do have shallow and upwelling water present. Thus, the actual available strength of the soil is less than 50% of that required to safely support the weight of the building. What do the Council propose to do to remedy this?
5. Ramsay and Chalmers Visual Report/Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments (14)
We can compare the Ramsay and Chalmers visual report issued in September 2016, with Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments (14) issued in October 2017. I note that Peter Fraser is not a geotechnical specialist, the 37 members of the ASCE are geotechnical specialists; Peter Fraser cannot see any subsidence, the members of the ASCE can see subsidence and many of them are not optimistic about the future prospects for this building. Is there not a very clear conflict of opinion here which should be investigated by the Council?
In conclusion, I would suggest to you that the Ramsay and Chalmers visual report is at odds with the views expressed by many others who are specialists in the field; it fails to comply with the requirements of the SER Certification Scheme and the Council’s reliance on such a report fails to acknowledge the recommendations of the Cole Enquiry Report. Further, the failure to comply with the design recommendations provided in Fairhurst’s Soil Investigation Report and to investigate an apparent ultimate limit state failure as described in Eurocode 7 raise concerns about the future safety of the building.
For peace of mind and for the safety of this and future generations of school children, I would be grateful if you would consider initiating an independent investigation of the site.
Yours sincerely,
Jackie Baillie MSP
Dumbarton Constituency
When a letter like this is written, it is addressed to the Leader of the Council, because it is an important letter that should be taken seriously and answered personally by her. Jenny Laing, because she is not an engineer, cannot compile the response herself and so she would be expected to ask the Head of Building Standards at the Council to do that.
ReplyDeleteI have written and answered letters like this before and they are written, point for point, and they are expected to be answered point for point. So, a full answer is required (and expected) and nothing short of that will do. We didn't get anything like a full answer here though, did we. Hence, I suspect it was written by Jenny Laing herself.
Her response is a PDF and so I cannot post it up here but, as Bob said, it didn't answer any of the main points raised. ASCE opinions - ignored. Visual inspection reports - ignored. Soil Investigation Report - ignored, and so on.
So, it's hard to escape the conclusion that this has been a political cover-up by the Labour Party. Bob is an experienced guy who represents the public interest better than any of them do. He tried to warn Jackie, but she wouldn't listen.
What that has meant for me is that I have had to repeat all of the above, on repeat cycle, whilst being unemployed, for the past 5-years. Who do you think I am currently blaming for that?
You have to wonder at Jackie Baillie. I remember saying some time ago that she was in tears after the Cameron House fire which killed two and she was demanding to know who would be held accountable for it. The Cameron House fire was the result of a mistake and people have been criticized for their role in the mistake, but that's all you can do.
Brimmond School is different though. It appears to me to be the result of a Labour Party cover-up. So, individual people will be named and could be prosecuted. That's a very big difference and people are beginning to understand that now.
Jackie Baillie MSP
ReplyDeleteConstituency Office
6 Church Street
Dumbarton
G82 1QL
Dear Jackie,
I thank you for your recent contact. As you allude to in your letter there is a wide range of correspondence with Aberdeen City Council in response to this issue. These have previously been presented to the Council and the Scottish Government and a range of inspections and queries have been made of our contracting partner Hub North Scotland, the building contractor (who I understand your constituent is in dispute with) and the design team for the building.
You will be aware that formal comment and inspections have been addressed and commented on by Aberdeen City Council, Hub North Scotland, the contractor and the civil and structural engineer for the project. Further inspections have also been undertaken by Ramsay and Chalmers and Cundall Johnson which confirm that there is no evidence of structural movement, settlement or subsidence with the building. I can confirm that Aberdeen City Council will continue to monitor the building.
On this basis, Aberdeen City Council share the view of the Scottish Government that: "Therefore, on the basis of the information we have received, we have come to the view that the design by Buro Happold (a firm of the highest reputation and standing) is adequate, has been developed with a full understanding and regard for the ground conditions and is in accordance with relevant British Standards and Scottish Building Standards. Moreover the report (visual inspection report) by Ramsay and Chalmers confirms there is no evidence of structural movement or subsidence.
I apologize for the delay in responding to you due to my officers again considering the issues raised and the additional risks there may be. They consider that little new information has been provided and as such we do not intend to undertake any further independent investigations at this time. I have instructed my Officers to monitor the site carefully, including an enhanced inspection regime, involving our own structural engineers and we will take action should any change occur.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Jenny Laing
Co-Leader
Aberdeen City Council
Two things about this letter:
ReplyDelete1. You take action when the land starts to sink, not when the building starts to sink. This is explained in EC7 and it is against criminal law to do as she is doing here. She doesn't mention her lawyer in this letter, but surely they know this? This is what is called "reckless certification".
2. She, and the Scottish Government both say that Buro Happolds original design is correct and I would agree with that. It is the amended design that I have been complaining about for the past 9-years! Has anyone asked Buro Happold directly....is this changed design safe? Has anyone done that? It's a serious question....surely after all of this time, someone has asked? Has Jackie Baillie asked? Has Jenny Laing asked? Has the Scottish Government asked? Why not.
An interesting side issue for you here: Jenny Laing and I both went to the same University, Aberdeen University, and I would guess that it was around the same time. I studied engineering and she studied history. That explains a few things doesn't it.
I just sent an Email to Brendan O'Hara. The solution that I suggested was for Shona Robison to sent Jackie Baillie's letter to Aberdeen City Council and demand a full point for point engineering response. That should conclude the matter, once and for all. I've suggested he gets Shona Robison to sent the letter exactly as it is above. Don't change a thing. That allows Shona Robison to blame the Labour Party for everything.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - The law is not very clear but there are precedent cases and when a building collapses it tends to be those that have allowed the impression to be given that the building has been checked and is safe that are blamed. That would be Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I asked Brendan O'Hara to do was to remove me from this case today. This is too much for any member of the public to do on their own for this prolonged period of time.
The co-leaders of Aberdeen City Council are now Christian Allard of the SNP and Ian Yuille of the Lib Dems. So, the letter will now be sent by the SNP, to SNP and Lib Dem Council Leaders. No-one from the Labour Party has anything to do with this now. They cannot stop the letter being sent and they cannot prevent it being answered. It is all in the control of Shona Robison. Do you think we will get a result now?.... I think we will.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Allard,
ReplyDeleteYou may already be aware of the long-running case of the safety of the design of Brimmond School. It has been disputed since before construction of the school had even begun. Basically many engineers say that it isn't safe and so it is time that we all presented our evidence. Those that say it isn't safe can present their evidence and those that say it is safe can present their evidence. Usually, in situations like this, the evidence is weighed by an independent expert and an adjudication is made: who is right and who is wrong?
The evidence that the building is unsafe was produced and was presented to Councillor Jenny Laing of Aberdeen City Council by my MSP Jackie Baillie on 2nd August 2019. Councillor Laing's reply, received 6-months later, was "incredibly disappointing" according to the Head of Advocacy at Protect and so an initiative than began with great optimism and could have worked given the requisite amount of honesty and accountability, was missed.
I understand that Shona Robison is dealing with this case now. My suggestion is that you, as current co-leader of Aberdeen City Council, now take Jackie Baillie's letter seriously and answer it fully. Jackie Baillie recently recused herself from any further involvement in this case and so I copy-in Anas Sarwar as I want to keep the Labour Party copied-in to everything that I do just now. Essentially, compliance with the Education Scotland Act is something for all of you to agree between yourselves. I have pointed-out a problem to you all, I think that it is an incredibly serious problem, but it is for all of you to communicate between yourselves and to agree a resolution. I am a whistle-blower and I have requested that my input is formally ended and I have asked for that to be done today.
You will clearly not be able to answer the letter personally and it will require the assistance from your Building Standards Department. But, the response should be a professional point for point response with references to the Soil Investigation Report and Design Standard EC7; I would expect it to extend to many pages. Fortunately, your Building Standards Department has seen all of this information before and they only require to be instructed to answer it. Answering it will be difficult, I know that, but public safety is very much in the balance and the Council has statutory duties in this respect and so it must be done.
If it turns-out that my opinions and those of the ASCE experts are correct, then the school building is non-compliant and that makes it unsafe. However, there is not much that you, personally, can do about that because you have only just been given access to Jackie Baillie's letter and so you can only start answering it now. That said, the first question that will be asked of you if part of the school collapses is: "When were you aware of this and what did you do to investigate?" and if you cast your mind back to the Cole Inquiry, Edinburgh City Council dealt with it very, very quickly and 17No schools were re-certified within 6-days. So, you may want to put a fairly short timeline on this?
I have corresponded with your Building Standards team a number of times in the past. All that I would say to them, and I would ask you to pass this on to them, is that certifying a building as "safe" when it is "not safe" is potentially a criminal offence and disregarding Design Standard EC7 is another potentially criminal offence.
Neither Jackie Baillie nor Jenny Laing have done not nearly enough to progress what was always a very simple public safety investigation to a conclusion. So, can you and your team at the Council do that for them, please? I think this matter badly needs to be cleared-up once and for all.
"So, you may want to put a fairly short timeline on this?" I just wrote the letter myself George. The Holyrood timescale is something like 8-10 weeks and so their letter won't be getting sent-out any time before mid-August and that is useless.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the Labour Part sister-act has cost me 5-years and a hell of a lot of needless work. How do you think I feel about that?
George - I didn't get an answer today but I got a phone call and so the trailing letter, or something like it, will be going to Aberdeen City Council on Monday. Brendan O'Hara is doing a pretty good job so far. So, it's SNP on SNP, whereas before it was Labour on Labour. Will it be an improvement? I expect it will be.
ReplyDeleteI am writing on behalf of my constituent Mr Stephen Dick who has been engaged in a dispute with Aberdeen City Council about the safety of a design change that was carried-out during the construction of Brimmond School in Aberdeen, in 2014. He was convinced that the design change would not work and he protested about it at the time, that cost him his job and he has scarcely worked since and so he approached me recently to seek assistance.
I understand that Aberdeen City Council are the Employer under the Health and Safety at Work Act and they are principal duty-holders responsible for teacher and pupil safety. Additionally, they have the Statutory Duty to provide a safe and compliant public realm for parents. It therefore follows that any report of a latent defect that may give rise to a collapse, which is made by a professional engineer such as my constituent, should be taken very seriously and investigated properly, by experts.
My constituent ascertains that the land surrounding the school has been sinking and flooding in winter time and that is the precursor for structural deformation, or collapse, and many other expert engineers agree with him. The strategy the Council has adopted since the problem was first brought to their attention has been to do two things and my constituent states that neither of them are acceptable under law:
1. Monitor the building for settlement.
2. Rely upon visual inspection reports by structural engineers.
In other words, the Council are waiting for the building to show signs of structural failure and you don't need to be an engineer to appreciate that this is not the correct way to guard against future subsidence, which can occur suddenly.
I am furthermore aware that Bob Matheson who is Head of Advocacy at "Protect" stated, on 30th November 2022, in an Email to Jackie Baillie MSP:
"The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a prima facie case of significant risk to the public, and those in charge appear to be relying only on visual reports as a rebuttal - however visual reports have been previously established as inappropriate and inadequate in these circumstances.
The key is getting someone with responsibility to answer to this point; all the better if they are qualified to give their professional view on the safety (or lack thereof) of the building as well."
ReplyDeleteThis is not an opinion that any of us should take lightly and so can I suggest that we stop and take another look at this? My constituent has dedicated much of the past 9-years to bringing this to our attention, many expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) are in full agreement with him and so is it possible that they are all correct and that Aberdeen City Council's leadership of 2018 were wrong at the time?
My constituent has made it clear that he holds no ill-feeling towards the present leadership at Aberdeen City Council and the problem appears to have originated with the former co-leader Jenny Laing and, if that is indeed the case, should this not be re-investigated now, by the present leadership, before it is too late?
We discussed the quickest and simplest way of re-investigating this case so that his concerns, Bob Matheson's concerns and the ASCE members concerns could be answered in one all-encompassing response and it was suggested that the attached letter from Jackie Baillie MSP to Jenny Laing of 2nd August 2018 should be re-submitted, unchanged, to the present Council leadership for a proper response. Jenny Laing responded to the letter 6-months after it was sent to her with an unsatisfactory response (attached), but my constituent has asked that a point for point engineering response be issued this time and that will bring this matter finally to a close.
If we refer back to the Cole Inquiry Recommendations for guidance, they recommended that independent engineering experts be consulted to adjudicate on matters such as these and so that would be, in this case, an expert geotechnical engineer. My constituent appears relaxed that any design review into the as-built design by a geotechnical expert will inevitably conclude in the same way he and the others have and, if that were to be the case, that would be a worrying outcome for all of us. But, it is better to know now, than to be somehow kept in the dark because no-one is communicating.
I am anxious to conclude this matter on my constituent's behalf as I know that he has waited patiently for an extraordinary length of time and, if he has been correct, then I'm sure you will agree he is entitled to expect recognition and to be allowed to get on with the rest of his life as I do not expect many of us would do what he has done.
Can we conclude then by agreeing that Aberdeen City Council should provide a full response, by a geotechnical expert, to Jackie Baillie's letter of 2nd August 2018? The timescale for returning a reply would of course be for Aberdeen City Council, but this matter would presumably be treated as "top-urgent" by the Council.
Dear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteAs you are no doubt aware, the safety of Brimmond School has been examined in the Press on two occasions now and I am the whistle-blower that alerted those in authority that the school contains what is called a "latent defect", that is a defect which is built-in during construction and which may not be visible, but which can cause sudden failure to occur, months or years later. In this situation the failure would be a structural failure, or collapse. A geotechnical failure, which is the precursor to a structural failure, has already occurred and is referred to in the attachments.
As the trailing Emails show, I reported this to your predecessor Mark McDonald in 2018 and my strategy was that Mr McDonald and my MSP, Jackie Baillie, would take this forward jointly at Holyrood to argue that the matter should be investigated by independent engineering experts. Shortly after the publication of the Cole Inquiry into the safety of Scotland's schools, which made exactly that recommendation, this type of joint approach could have been very effective and Mr McDonald did appear willing but, as you can see, the initiative was not reciprocated by Ms Baillie and so nothing was ever done.
The way it stands at the moment is that Ms Baillie has recused herself from any further participation in the investigation; I have accepted that and that means that we can all look at it again from a clear perspective. I have recently contacted my MP Brendan O'Hara, the leader of the Labour Party at Holyrood Anas Sarwar and the co-leader of Aberdeen City Council Christian Allard. So, all of these individuals are new to the investigation and are all looking at the same information, for the first time.
I spoke to a member of Brendan O'Hara's team on Friday by telephone and she had already developed a very clear understanding of this case and that was encouraging.
Aberdeen City Councils strategy has been to carry-out visual inspection reports and settlement monitoring to prove that the school remains safe to use. Without going into too much detail, both of these strategies are, frankly, unlawful. Nothing short of a full design review by a geotechnical expert is required by the Design Standards which govern design and construction all over Europe and, because Aberdeen City Council were refusing to do that, I did it for them in late 2017 and the results, Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions (14), are attached.
If Aberdeen City Council have not already carried-out the works required to stabilize this building, and I do not believe they have, then these engineer's opinions will make alarming reading for you. Most said that the school could be fixed, but they didn't all say that, and if the Council have done nothing to effectively fix the problem since 2017, then the majority of experts may now advise that it is too late? That is certainly possible and if that were to be the case, then it would be a shameful situation, quite honestly.
ReplyDeleteMy view has always been that when Jackie Baillie wrote the attached letter to Jenny Laing in 2/8/18, which included these expert opinions, the issue should have been properly investigated and if that had been done, the problem would have been identified and a solution would have been found. All Jenny Laing had to do was ensure this information was passed-on to the Council's insurers but, again, that was never done and another opportunity was missed.
I have suffered from nearly 9-years of constant attrition to my, and my family's living standards due to this case but it was always described to me as a case that I had to win, otherwise I was finished. My great frustration is that if Jackie Baillie had done her job, then I would have won many years ago and, instead of that, I have had to engage in a great deal of needless and constantly repetitive work. I feel as though I have had to state and re-state the obvious, time and time and time again and that is not acceptable, is it? Who is protecting the public interest here and, in saying that, I mean the interests of those who use and depend upon this school every day?
My interests are now being pursued by Mr O'Hara and I am content with that. That leaves the interests of the parents, pupils and teachers who you represent and who rely upon the safety of this building every day. Can I leave that with yourself and Mr Allard? I have made it clear to Mr O'Hara that I have no ill-feeling towards any of the current leadership and Aberdeen City Council but I do think that we all ought to re-visit this investigation again as there is very obviously something which is not right and if I am correct, then it could easily result in a collapse. In fact, according to Design Standard EC7, that should be the expected outcome and it could easily have happened by now.
George - what was explained to me on Friday, and it is true, is that all the people in authority have to all do their jobs, or else it doesn't work. That's been the chronic problem these past years and many find what has happened here to be unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteI remember telling you the story of the farm labourer who walked into a Police Station in KSA and told them that a telecoms mast was ready to collapse.
That single Police officer reported it to another more senior officer, he reported it to the central Police Office in Riyadh, they reported it to the Telecoms company, they reported it to the Saudi Government and it was handled personally by His Excellency the Director for Public Safety. That was it getting done properly and if anyone failed, they risked being carted-off to Mallaz for 6-years.
In Scotland, it gets reported to Jackie Baillie and she reports it to Jenny Laing. They both decide that it would embarrass the Labour Party if it were to be properly investigated and so they decide to cover it up. Month after month and year after year of: "I'm too busy"..."No-one else agrees with you"..."I'm on holiday just now"..."I'm not an engineer and so I don't understand any of this" - that's how you cover it up without it appearing obvious that you are covering it up.
The other way of looking at this, is that it is malfeasance/misfeasance. Certainly, what I sent to Jackie Dunbar earlier, in the attachments, could suggest that.
I have copied the above letter to Anas Sarwar and so this is his opportunity to prove that he is an honest and accountable leader.
I know Anas, he likes to protray himself as all knowing and all wise, he isn't either. Here is something which I doubt will surprise you on how Scottish Labour works. This is a mirror image of how it works in the SNP.
Deletehttps://news.knowledia.com/GB/en/articles/anas-sarwar-in-council-favouritism-row-over-aide-s-wife-3f5b58cbcf54805ba52195e404dfb9511f2847f1
If the school collapses, poor George Spence will be the number-one patsy. He could get jail time for this quite easily. What I expect to happen is that George will change his mind now that the SNP are in charge. He's an idiot if he doesn't do that. I'm not a Nationalist as you know, but Brendan O'Hara's office is organized; they treat you respectfully and they know what they are doing. So, no complaints.
DeleteDear Ms Dunbar and Mr Allard,
ReplyDeleteThe undernoted Email was received on 15/12/21 and it explains the latest situation with respect to Aberdeen City Council. Mr Spence copied this to Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing who are no longer involved in the investigation.
Previously, I had been making two points to Mr Spence:
1. Many engineers, worldwide, had identified that hydraulic failures had occurred.
2. The law requires a geotechnical investigation of the site to be carried-out upon the first sign of a hydraulic failure.
It is for yourselves to decide how you wish to proceed from here, but I suspect that Mr Spence is not an expert geotechnical engineer? He doesn't have any evidence to counter the opinions of the ASCE expert members?
Subsequent to Mr Spence's Email, we received Bob Matheson's opinion, on 30th November 2022, which stated that there was a prima-facie case of significant risk to the public and so he didn't agree with Mr Spence either.
My advice to you both is to ask Mr Spence to answer points 1 and 2 and, if he is unwilling to do that, then Section 29 of the Building (Scot) Act 2003, referred to below, was designed to address that scenario.
George - If you recall Alastair Campbell's "4-stages of dealing with a whistle-blower". We're at stage 4 now, which is the when the Government says: "It's all been a misunderstanding".
ReplyDeleteFor that to work, Mr Spence ought to have an epiphany moment and say: "I get it now; they are all right about this and we'll need to fix this school".
Now that Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing have been moved-out of the decision making process, that seems like a more and more likely outcome to me.
Mr Spence can blame me if he wants. He can say that I didn't explain it properly, or something like that. I wouldn't object to that.
You gotta keep chipping away, let time and pressure do the work.
DeleteThat's almost 9-years now George and so that is enough time. I have investigated it for them, suggested a solution, told them who the "Jack Gillum" character is and so that's it over now.
DeleteI've asked Brendan O'Hara to organize a closing meeting for me this Friday. I had been asking Jackie Baillie to do that for almost a year but I would have been as well asking a door or a lamppost for all the response I got.
We've all got to earn a living and this is now over for me.
Dear Mr Dick,
ReplyDeleteThere is insufficient evidence that the building is unsafe requiring statutory action under Section 29 of the Building (Scot) Act 2003. I understand you may disagree with this opinion, but the decision sits with the Building Standards service.
I stand by my comments and explanation of the statutory process below and can confirm I have requested further information from the building owner. This will be reviewed in due course.
Regards,
Gordon
Gordon Spence MRICS | Building Standards Manager
Aberdeen City Council | Building Standards | Strategic Place Planning| Place
Marischal College | Business Hub 4 | Broad St| Aberdeen | AB10 1AB
"It's not only me that disagrees with you, Gordon. The entirety of world engineering disagrees with you".
George - I have mentioned the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse many times now. That collapse was blamed on the Engineer of Record, Jack Gillum.
ReplyDeleteHe was asked to check a design change which there was unease about. He didn't really check it but he said that he had checked it and that it was fine.
Three years later, the design change failed, suddenly, and over a hundred people were killed.
If and when Brimmond collapses, the investigation will be exactly the same and the investigators will want to know who was responsible for checking, who was asked to check and what did they find.
The answer in the case of Brimmond is George Spence and the results of his design analysis are set-out above. George and I have never met but I wish him the best of luck.
I take a look at Wings over Scotland every now and again. There's a chap who writes in occasionally and he's a true Nationalist. He was a great help to me a few years ago and so I respect this guy even although I don't agree with his politics. My view of Nationalism is that it could be a success, but a lot of work needs to be done by the Nationalist parties in order to make it attractive to the electorate and I do not see that happening. He is pretty downbeat about it at the moment. He's joined Alba but he can see problems there. He's not even sure if Alba will put-up a candidate for the Rutherglen by-election and, if that happens, it means that it will be a long time before they mature into a serious political party, winning seats from the others. My experience of Labour is that they are putrid from top to bottom and so the political landscape is opening up for a Conservative Party revival. Will there be one though? Like the SNP, it means they have work to do and I really doubt whether they have the stomach for it. They have the best MSP's by a mile, but do they have the energy and the ambition? Or, are they just comfortable, like Murdo Fraser, to hide below the parapet all the time.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, all nuclear weapons to be removed from Scotland and Scotland to become a Republic on day-one of independence. That, just about makes, them unelectable for the majority of Scots.
DeleteThis will end for me when I have a closing meeting with a Government appointed lawyer. I have been asking asking Jackie Baillie to organize that and I have now asked Brendan O'Hara to organize it. I asked for the meeting this coming Friday, 9th June. I'll let you know how I get-on with that.
ReplyDelete