Thursday, March 19, 2015

WOLFFE HALL: As Edinburgh City Council demand return of Parliament House land titles, papers reveal Scottish Ministers refused to help recover ‘gift’ of Scotland’s top court buildings to Faculty of Advocates

Court battle looms over Scotland’s top court buildings swiped by legal fraternity AS LAND GRABS go, the Faculty of Advocates ‘assuming title’ to parts of the nation’s top court buildings – Parliament House in Edinburgh - must rank pretty high on the list of Scottish land swindles.

Even more so if you take into account the land grabbers in this case – highly paid advocates clad in Victorian robes – who appoint each other as judges, prosecutors and the like, and debate ordinary folk’s lives, loves & rights as if they did not even exist – have the last say and last word on ‘justice’ and many aspects of politics and public life in what passes for ‘modern day’ Scotland.

The great Parliament Hall land title swindle – revealed by land reform campaigner Andy Wightman - where land titles to the buildings of Scotland’s top courts were ‘gifted’ by Scottish Ministers to the Faculty of Advocates - has now prompted Edinburgh City Council to demand the return of what is, common good property – our top courts – which clearly have significant interest to the nation.

However, Scottish Ministers – including the First Minister, lawyers and other Govt. advisers, appear to feel otherwise.

A trove of eighty eight pages of documents  released to DOI under Freedom of Information legislation reveal the Scottish Government plan to do nothing over their handing over of the Parliament Hall land titles to the Faculty of Advocates.

And, throughout the documents – which contain communications between civil servants, briefings to Ministers, land reports and letters from Edinburgh City Council asking for meetings, it is clear Scottish Ministers favour leaving the titles to the nation’s top courts with the vested interests of the legal profession.

The titles to the Laigh Hall – Parliament House – Queen Street - currently stand in the name of “SIDNEY NEIL BRAILSFORD Queen's Counsel, Treasurer of HONOURABLE THE FACULTY OF ADVOCATES Edinburgh, as Trustee and in Trust for said Faculty”. Sidney Brailsford is none other than High Court Judge Lord Brailsford.

Scottish Government files reveal how court titles were handed over to advocates After a series of briefings with Ministers – involving everyone from the Lord Advocate & Solicitor General to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Minister for Legal Affairs and others, a position was adopted by Scottish Ministers “That we confirm to Council officials that it is the Scottish Government's position that title to Parliament Hall was taken by Scottish Ministers in good faith and with the full knowledge and consent of the Council. The Scottish Court Service and Faculty of Advocates therefore have good title to the property and Ministers propose no further action.”

Lawyers for the Scottish Government also sought to distance themselves from the huge £58 million taxpayer funded spend on the Scottish Court buildings – long after titles were handed over to the advocates.

One lawyer stated in an email: “Was the PH [Parliament Hall] refurb about £60m? It went over in the SCS [Scottish Court Service] budgets I think but from my recollection of briefing on their budget it is not easily identifiable within their budget lines. So SCS [Scottish Court Service] spent the money not SG [Scottish Government]?”

In another memo, it is revealed Edinburgh City Council may be compelled to take legal action to recover the titles and details an example of how Common Good land disputes have affected legislation in the past.

“The City of Edinburgh Council has intimated to the Scottish Government that it considers that it is the rightful heritable proprietor of both Parliament House and the Laigh Hall. It contends that the property was part of the Common Good Fund which is made up of grants of land owned by the Council. Consequently it maintains that Scottish Ministers should never have taken title to it. Representatives of the Council have asked that the position be rectified and the property returned to the Council. Scottish Government officials have met with Council officials and suggested to them that their remedy lies with the Keeper.

The Council may feel compelled to take action because, in their view,the property may have been part of the Common Good. Ministers, will be aware of disputes over Common Good land in the past. For example, when the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 2012, which converts ultra-long leases to ownership, was going through Parliament [redacted] land reform campaigner argued that the Waverley Market in Edinburgh was part of the common good. Edinburgh City Council said it was not part of the common good but still argued that the Waverley Market should not convert to full ownership under the Bill, so that the Council would remain the landlord in the lease over the property. In the end, the Bill was amended so that commercial leases with less than 175 years to run were not covered, which had the effect of excluding the Waverley Market from the Bill.”

An internal Scottish Government briefing of the meeting which took place between Edinburgh City Council and the Scottish Government makes for grim reading at the Council after Scottish Government civil servants stated the Council’s claim for a return of the titles may rest on moral rather than any legal right:

“Parliament House - Meeting With City of Edinburgh Council - 3 Dec. 2014 - - Main Points

SG - this was a courtesy meeting to hear what the concerns of CEC were as they had had difficulty finding somebody in central government to engage with.

CEC - an elected member had triggered an examination of the Parliament House non domino title and CEC officials concluded that the title trail was mistaken and CEC had an interest still. They had examined titles from the 1550s, 19th century, 1905 Common good records, 1925 entry in registers etc.

They were unhappy with the Scottish Ministers title and the subsequent transfer to the advocates and the SCS. It seemed that their case rested on a perceived moral right, rather than any legal titular right.

SG emphasised that it had no locus because:
• Questions about land registered titles are for the Keeper and the Keeper's indemnity;
• The Scottish Government had transferred the property to the Advocates (Laigh Hall), and the Scottish Courts Service** a judicial led body at arms-length from the SG and so we could not discuss what we did not own.”

A detailed briefing prepared by a civil servant sets out what happened and how the Faculty of Advocates ‘secured’ ownership to parts of the sprawling, highly prized real estate which is Scotland’s top court and symbol of judicial & legal power:

“The position as regards title to the entire property is unclear, however, it would appear that Scottish Ministers (formerly the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) did own part of it and so steps were taken to register a title in order to remove any uncertainty. Consequently, a voluntary registration was granted in favour of Scottish Ministers on 23/11/2005 with a date of entry of 10/11/2005.

As part of the process of registration the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland received a letter from the City of Edinburgh Council confirming that the Council had no right, title or interest in the property. On that understanding, the Keeper issued Ministers with a Land Certificate without exclusion of indemnity which has the effect of the Keeper having to indemnify a proprietor who suffers a loss as a result of the title being successfully challenged.

Scottish Ministers subsequently made an onward transfer in January 2006 of part of the property, namely Laigh Hall which sits underneath Parliament Hall, to the Faculty of Advocates who now hold a registered title.

When the Scottish Court Service became an independent body corporate on 1 April 2010 title to Parliament House was transferred to it under the Property Transfer Order made under powers in the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. Scottish Ministers therefore no longer hold a title to either Parliament House or the Laigh Hall.”

At this time Edinburgh City Council is thought to be considering its next move.

If legal action is to take place, the Council will ultimately be represented by top advocates who as members of the Faculty of Advocates will have an interest in ownership in Parliament House. The case will be defended by the Faculty of Advocates and will be heard in a court within Parliament House – partly owned by the Faculty of Advocates and the ‘arms length’ institution of the Scottish Court Service – so ‘arms length’ it squanders £60 million of taxpayers money on buildings not even owned by taxpayers.

As previously reported, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has already given her blessing to the multi million pound title handover freebie to the Faculty of Advocates. The First Minister claimed there was “no easy solution to the issue of restoring title to the City of Edinburgh Council”. The First Minister’s response to a question from Green Party MSP Alison Johnstone during First Minister’s Questions, follows:

Parliament House handed over to Faculty of Advocates FMQ's Nicola Sturgeon 19 February 2015

Official Report of debate: Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green): It transpired this week that the 17th century old Parliament hall in Edinburgh was transferred from the collective ownership of my constituents to Scottish ministers without knowledge or recompense to the common good fund.

The City of Edinburgh Council failed in its role as steward of the fund, but is now seeking to resolve the situation. Can the First Minister assure my constituents that any requests from the council to restore ownership of that common good asset to the council will be considered seriously and favourably?

The First Minister - Nicola Sturgeon: I will briefly state the background to this issue, of which I am sure that Alison Johnstone is aware.

The Scottish Government’s position is that title to Parliament hall was taken by Scottish ministers in good faith, and that that was done with the full knowledge and consent of the council. The Scottish Courts Service and the Faculty of Advocates, therefore, have now got good title to that property.

Of course, I am more than happy to ask the relevant minister, Marco Biagi, to; meet and discuss the matter with the City of Edinburgh Council, but as far as I can see there is no fault here on the part of the Scottish Government.

Further, of course, title has since been passed on, so it may very well be that there is no easy solution to the issue of restoring title to the City of Edinburgh Council. I think that any questions on how the situation has arisen probably have to be directed to the council.

TOP JUDGE SILENT OVER PARLIAMENT TITLE SWAP

In the summer of 2013,  Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill – head of the Scottish Court Service Board, and the Scottish Court Service Chief Executive Eric McQueen appeared before MSPs at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to give evidence on court closures and the millions spent on Parliament House – yet neither the judge nor the Courts chief mentioned their astonishing secret to the MSPs present – that the title to Scotland’s highest court buildings had been swiped by the Faculty of Advocates in a deal on the sly with Scottish Ministers.

During questions from Justice Committee MSPs, SCS Chief Executive Eric McQueen gave evidence on the massive £60 million taxpayer funded spend on Parliament House.

The Court Service Chief told MSPs: “We are just coming to the end of the Parliament house contract; in total, the budget for it was £65 million and I think that we expect the final spend to be in the low £60 millions. The project has been delivered on budget, on time and on quality. How it has been delivered is a tribute to the Scottish Court Service.

McQueen continued: “I will give a potted history of the Parliament house situation. About 10 years ago, a scheme was in place that was going to run to way over £120 million. That was brought to a stop to allow us to reassess things and to consider the best strategy. At the same time, we looked at a business case for moving away from Parliament house altogether and having a development on a greenfield or brownfield site on the outskirts of Edinburgh. The major problem with Parliament house is that it is a grade A listed building and is a site of special historical interest. It should be a landmark building for the whole of Scotland.”

In an intervention, the Convener of the Justice Committee – Christine Grahame MSP said: “I am glad that you did not move to a greenfield site. It would have been a bit like going to B&Q. I do not mean to malign B&Q, but I like the old Parliament house building.”

Eric McQueen replied : “Had the decision been taken to move out of Parliament house, that asset would have been left with the Scottish Government. The infrastructure and the services were shot, and there was no fire certificate in place for the building. It would have cost as much to move out as to redevelop the building. From the point of view of the benefit to the nation and to the Scottish Government's purse, the investment of the £65 million in Parliament house over that five or six year period was quite a sensible business case decision.”

Sitting beside Eric McQueen was Lord President Brian Gill, who did not at any stage of the meeting volunteer information to the Justice Committee in relation to the titles arrangements of Parliament House, despite the multi million pound taxpayer funded refurbishment.

Pressed for a statement on why Lord Gill or Eric McQueen did not inform the Justice Committee of the fact tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer money had been spent on a building partly owned by the Faculty of Advocates – the Judicial Office refused to give any comment.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

When considering serious acts of fraud and corruption, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck.

Anonymous said...

Or in other words - this is how safe your house is when some lawyer comes along and demands Registers of Scotland hand over your titles.

This should be taken as a warning against complacency on security of land ownership in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

HAHA!
Sturgeon bleat away about everything is okay we just hand over the courts to the legal profession and cant be arsed to do anything about it!!

Looks like they are doing a lot of nothing about it in all these documents!!

Good work Peter as usual!!

Anonymous said...

Don't worry Peter - We get it about Gill keeping quiet on the title thing!

You should also be looking into the Justice Committee to see how many msps knew about it and did not bother to ask for fear of upsetting the judge!

Anonymous said...

What did they do with the £58million?
Anyone who has ever actually been to the Court of Session says it looks like a tip!

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute.

Why is Nat Sturgeon covering up something which happened under Jack McConnell's Labour/LibDem Scottish Executive?

Answer = Because she is a lawyer and it is just fine by her to give public buildings to lawyers along with a big suitcase filled of cash.

Just imagine the nationalist outcry if former Scottish Exec handed over the rights to a hospital and ₤58m quid to a union.

The SNP would be hounding for an investigation and we would never hear the end of it so why now the big cover up just to protect the faculty of advocates and where are the outraged msps while Sturgeon waffles on nothing can be done about it?

Anonymous said...

The £6o million pound refurbishment was paid for by Taxpayers money, not by the faculty of advocates, and so clearly it is public property (i.e. held for the common good by Edinburgh City Council).

No surprise to see certain msps, more than one lawyer among them I am sure, have sided with their cronies in the legal profession.

Utterly disgraceful and reveals just how far the legal profession are being allowed to go in trampling over the rights of others.

Anonymous said...

"SG - this was a courtesy meeting to hear what the concerns of CEC were as they had had difficulty finding somebody in central government to engage with."

Says it all really.

SG (Scottish Government) held the meeting in bad faith from the start.They never intended to change their position and as you say Scottish Ministers appear to be supporting the Faculty of Advocate's title to Laigh Hall.

Anonymous said...

Your intro is on the money! and

"Even more so if you take into account the land grabbers in this case – highly paid advocates clad in Victorian robes – who appoint each other as judges, prosecutors and the like, and debate ordinary folk’s lives, loves & rights as if they did not even exist – have the last say and last word on ‘justice’ and many aspects of politics and public life in what passes for ‘modern day’ Scotland."

NEVER A TRUER WORD WAS SPOKEN!

Anonymous said...

How did they manage to keep this a secret since 2006 even with all those involved in this mess?

And more to the point why did Edinburgh City Council not speak out about this publicly until nine years later?

Many questions here must be answered properly in a public forum..

Anonymous said...

Scottish Ministers - on the side of big business and lawyers

Anonymous said...

Just noticed this from the docs and your quote reference

"CEC - an elected member had triggered an examination of the Parliament House non domino title and CEC officials concluded that the title trail was mistaken and CEC had an interest still. They had examined titles from the 1550s, 19th century, 1905 Common good records, 1925 entry in registers etc."

CEC being Edinburgh City Council I presume.

From the quote I deduce the situation re title transfer of Laigh Hall was kept from the council's elected councillors until this was raised by Andy Wightman during his investigations.

There is an important point to be made here - the councillor who held portfolio over buildings at the time must have been aware of the title transfer to ministers in 2005 and possibly signed off on dealings with the Scottish Executive.

Why was this not discussed in public at the time?

As an Edinburgh resident I recall not one mention in the press or by the council of this affair until now.

I also find it staggering no one has bothered to question exactly what £60 million pounds has bought for the Scottish Court Service.

Someone earlier described the buildings as "a tip".I agree!

I have visited the court buildings many times to watch trials and hearings and believe me aside from papering over the cracks and door entry systems it has not changed all that much in the past twenty years.Certainly no changes looking like £60 million worth.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 19 March 2015 at 18:56

On page 75 of the released documents there is a letter dated 10 May 2006 from Edinburgh City Council signed off by a Kathleen M Gibb "for Council Solicitor" stating Edinburgh City Council has no right, title or interest to any of the land Scottish Ministers were seeking to register and consents to the registration of Scottish Ministers title to Parliament House.

@ 19 March 2015 at 17:25

Yes, bad faith from the start.Clearly it was on the mind of Scottish Ministers to hand over titles to the legal profession when they undertook the exercise to register the titles in 2005/06.

It may not come as much of a surprise if it emerges elements of the legal profession suggested the move on the titles in the first place to gain the titles for their own interests as we now see did in fact occur, along with benefits from a multi million pound taxpayer funded refurbishment of Parliament House.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Don't worry Peter - We get it about Gill keeping quiet on the title thing!

You should also be looking into the Justice Committee to see how many msps knew about it and did not bother to ask for fear of upsetting the judge!

19 March 2015 at 16:20
------------------------------------

Given that this Scandal has leaked out, should it now be incumbent on the Justice Committee to require Lord Gill to return to their committee to ask him when did he know about this double-dealing and why did he stay silent when he surely knew what had transpired was almost certainly fraudulent?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The £6o million pound refurbishment was paid for by Taxpayers money, not by the faculty of advocates, and so clearly it is public property (i.e. held for the common good by Edinburgh City Council).

No surprise to see certain msps, more than one lawyer among them I am sure, have sided with their cronies in the legal profession.

Utterly disgraceful and reveals just how far the legal profession are being allowed to go in trampling over the rights of others.

19 March 2015 at 17:16
££££££££££££££££££££

With this shocking scandal we could reasonably ask the question are Scotland's MSP's actually in control at all or is Scotland being run by the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, where they are not subject to the laws of the land?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Your intro is on the money! and

"Even more so if you take into account the land grabbers in this case – highly paid advocates clad in Victorian robes – who appoint each other as judges, prosecutors and the like, and debate ordinary folk’s lives, loves & rights as if they did not even exist – have the last say and last word on ‘justice’ and many aspects of politics and public life in what passes for ‘modern day’ Scotland."

NEVER A TRUER WORD WAS SPOKEN!

19 March 2015 at 17:55
------------------------------------

Has it not struck anyone else that this is just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle whereby the Scottish Government are selling Scotland's People down the river along with its democracy?

This is but another element of what is becoming the steady creep towards a Private Judicial System, whereby democracy has no place and that a verdict is obtained by he who pays the most cash?

After all we already have a Private Police Force in Scotland who are totally unaccountable to Parliament?

Anonymous said...

I have visited the court buildings many times to watch trials and hearings and believe me aside from papering over the cracks and door entry systems it has not changed all that much in the past twenty years.Certainly no changes looking like £60 million worth.

19 March 2015 at 18:56

Have to agree with you there is no sign to me £60 million improvements on a very out of date and out of purpose building.

Perhaps the faculty of advocates are planning to evict the judges to a B&Q and run their own business from Parliament House?

Anonymous said...

keeping secrets for NINE YEARS stinks to high heaven of corruption

someone ended up with fat pockets from that 60 million slush fund

Anna said...

Another refugee here from the Court of Session (a divorce, took three long years to conclude due to hubby's solicitors and my own playing us both for fees)

I did not realise judges owned the courts as well as sitting in judgement.Surely this is a horrendous conflict of interest.Courts must be owned by the state and judges must be impartial but how can they be impartial when they own the court itself and benefit from cases going on forever.

Wish I found your blog earlier.Thanks for all you do whoever you are.xx

Anonymous said...

You are quite correct on this one Peter - Lord Gill has some explaining to do on why he and his sidekick McQueen did not volunteer the information on the title switch to the Justice Committee.

For msps to sit there taking evidence from Gill and McQueen on court closures and this enormous refit spend and not hear from either regarding the status of the court buildings is a matter which must be debated and Gill hauled back before the Justice Committee.

Little wonder the Judicial Office refuse to issue any statement on the silence of their boss!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for replying.

I found the document you mentioned signed by the solicitor.I intend to take this up with my local councillor and will let you know what transpires.

For the record a big thank you for posting all this material.Your blog is an incredibly valuable resource.

I have often heard your name mentioned in the court of session leading me to search for this blog some years ago.I became a regular reader.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

"SG - this was a courtesy meeting to hear what the concerns of CEC were as they had had difficulty finding somebody in central government to engage with."

So basically the council were asking for help and no one in the Scottish Executive wanted to play ball.Warning sign something was going on probably along the lines of what you said intentions were from the start as in hand over the entire courts to the Faculty/Law Society for where one is the other is not far away.

Anonymous said...

Land registration in Scotland is as corrupt as they come.Everyone knows it yet no one wants to address the problem - probably due to the piles of money and misplaced public assets such as your courts flowing into legal coffers.

You might want to check and see how many other court buildings have fallen to the same giveaway clauses.

Anonymous said...

A ₤60 Million HEIST!

Anonymous said...

The backhanders on this must have been as bad as the Edinburgh trams fiddle

Anonymous said...

All those prisoner vans in and out of the courts must have transported away the £60million!

Anonymous said...

I am surprised so much was released to you via foi.

Either someone at SG likes you (I doubt!) or a message is being sent to those involved in this story.

Solicitors for CEC will be looking at this material as evidence should legal action commence.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else spot the Millar Bryce report on Page 23?

dated 1999 a summary of 89 deeds relating to Parliament House going back to 1825 - well worth a read

Anonymous said...

“Was the PH [Parliament Hall] refurb about £60m? It went over in the SCS [Scottish Court Service] budgets I think but from my recollection of briefing on their budget it is not easily identifiable within their budget lines. So SCS [Scottish Court Service] spent the money not SG [Scottish Government]?”

Is this what all these Scottish Government lawyers do all day?

Try to bury bad news and millions thrown at lawyers while the rest of us make do with mortgages and food banks?

I thought the SNP said they were different from Westminster .. NOT!

Anonymous said...

I too am beginning to think this information was withheld from elected members of the council until recently.

There should be a full investigation into what happened and who is to blame for the loss of Parliament House to Scottish ministers and the advocates who must now return the titles regardless of Ms Sturgeon's attempt to brush off the matter.

Anonymous said...

Eric McQueen replied : “Had the decision been taken to move out of Parliament house, that asset would have been left with the Scottish Government. The infrastructure and the services were shot, and there was no fire certificate in place for the building. It would have cost as much to move out as to redevelop the building. From the point of view of the benefit to the nation and to the Scottish Government's purse, the investment of the £65 million in Parliament house over that five or six year period was quite a sensible business case decision.”

A sensible business case decision to invest £65 million in buildings owned by the faculty of a*sewipes and an arms length organisation bent on handing over the rest to said faculty.

I do not think so Mr McQueen and neither do you or Lord Gill otherwise you would have told the Justice Committee the entire story.

I wonder what questions Chic Brodie would have asked if he were told during the hearing of the Parliament House land titles swindle.

This has been kept from the public and must be investigated also support the return of the entire Parliament House titles to Edinburgh Council.

I hope Andy Wightman puts in a public petition at the Scottish Parliament calling for a full investigation.

Anonymous said...

Looks like a brewing scandal hope the newspapers give it more coverage than present.

Anonymous said...

Just another good warning to outside investors do not bother buying property in Scotland or using Scots financial services.All are corrupt from legal banking land titles accounting and do not bother to deny because one look across the internet tells the truth about what goes on north of the border.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Land registration in Scotland is as corrupt as they come.Everyone knows it yet no one wants to address the problem - probably due to the piles of money and misplaced public assets such as your courts flowing into legal coffers.

You might want to check and see how many other court buildings have fallen to the same giveaway clauses.

19 March 2015 at 23:32
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So, could all of the closures of courts all over Scotland be another attempt to sell off land titles and buildings to convert it into cash to be fed upon by the Scottish lawyer cash sharks?

Anonymous said...

All I can say is I am glad I do not own any property in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Headlines in yesterday's Sunday Herald re Edinburgh Council may give you some clues as to why the Parliament Hall giveaway was never openly discussed..

Anonymous said...

Where would we be without Public Service journalists at the Diary of Injustice?

Anonymous said...

amazing Sturgeon just stands there and gives a recital from the legal profession - and nothing can be done about it according to her.If the council are taking legal action I hope they call Sturgeon as a witness.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 20 March 2015 at 23:23

Google "Heather Capital" and the £400m hedge fund collapse for a view on Scottish financial services ...

Note all those involved, a collection of lawyers, accountants etc ...

Anonymous said...

A Policeman I started chatting to at the High Court told me the real criminals work inside the courts and he said he reads your blog!How do you feel about that?

Anonymous said...

Checking out Heather Capital sir and found this
http://www.wsj.com/articles/heather-capital-how-a-600-million-hedge-fund-disappeared-1418360402

Why was it allowed to go on for as long do you know?
Anyone with sense will read it and steer very clear of Scottish financial and legal business.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 24 March 2015 at 01:05

Take a look at the connections and circles of those involved ... not rocket science to figure out why and how the scheme managed to continue to the figures it reached prior to collapse ...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Eric McQueen replied : “Had the decision been taken to move out of Parliament house, that asset would have been left with the Scottish Government. The infrastructure and the services were shot, and there was no fire certificate in place for the building. It would have cost as much to move out as to redevelop the building. From the point of view of the benefit to the nation and to the Scottish Government's purse, the investment of the £65 million in Parliament house over that five or six year period was quite a sensible business case decision.”

A sensible business case decision to invest £65 million in buildings owned by the faculty of a*sewipes and an arms length organisation bent on handing over the rest to said faculty.

I do not think so Mr McQueen and neither do you or Lord Gill otherwise you would have told the Justice Committee the entire story.

I wonder what questions Chic Brodie would have asked if he were told during the hearing of the Parliament House land titles swindle.

This has been kept from the public and must be investigated also support the return of the entire Parliament House titles to Edinburgh Council.

I hope Andy Wightman puts in a public petition at the Scottish Parliament calling for a full investigation.

20 March 2015 at 12:02
------------------------------------------

C'mon the Police, where are you?

Anonymous said...

Good FOI and Sturgeon is hilarious in that clip!

No No No we cant recover it from the Faculty of Advocates impossible no chance!

Why is it always No when it comes to lawyers and the legal profession??

Beginning to get a bit stale every time some lawyer scoops up assets for himself the answer is always No No No from Sturgeon and the Law Society!

Anonymous said...

Doubtless you will now be aware the profession's fanboys were brought out to bury your latest on Wolffe