SPIEDCOPS: Police Scotland refuse to confirm or deny claims officers investigating Alex Salmond files leak, Operation Branchform & Scottish National Party Finances were profiled by organisations of interest intent on limiting work to expose real extent of political party finance fraud

Branchform SNP Funds probe IN Scotland, whether you are a journalist, a Judge, a Police Officer or someone working on an investigation relevant to branches of Government, Politics, key parts of public life or some realms of business – there is always a person or organisation of interest profiling those who work on such cases, and limiting the flow & access to information relevant to your work.

Therefore in what was seemingly Scotland’s most high profile criminal investigation involving the control, and misuse of funding, money and assets linked to Scotland’s governing party, the Scottish National Party – sources have now claimed those tasked with investigating allegations of fraud linked to the SNP and it’s former Chief Executive Peter Murrell, now convicted and jailed for the theft, embezzlement of over £400,000 of party funds – may well have been profiled by parties with an interest in limiting the scope of the Police investigation and evidence consideration, advice obtained from outside elements contracted into Operation Branchform.

A Freedom of Information request, and subsequent response from Police Scotland – places Scotland’s national Police service in the position of refusing to confirm or deny claims from insiders and legal sources that officers and others linked to the Branchform investigation, were profiled to an extent the information gathered may well have been used by interested parties within the investigation to influence how the consideration of evidence and where it led during the Branchform progressed, or at times slowed, then allegedly in certain instances came to a halt on the orders of prosecutors.

Claims by insiders and whistleblowers tell an interesting alternative to the unbelievable, almost fictional accounts in parts given by the same media-dealing prosecuting authority & Police service which rigged cases against the Rangers Administrators, yet took five years to claim there was not enough evidence to prosecute a collection of financiers, lawyers & individuals linked to the judiciary in the £400 Million Heather Capital Fraud.

An alternative version by insiders reveals instead how parts of evidence and claims were only followed up to a certain degree, how the Crown Office system of ‘independent Crown Counsel’ often known for their ability to rip out swathes of evidence and material often coincidentally protecting high profile figures from charges and trials did their usual and excluded damaging material linking to the highest politicians in Government, and how what was billed as an expected Criminal Trial exposing industrial scale of theft, fraud & dishonesty at the heart of political power in Scotland, ended in a whimper of a guilty plea at the last minute and comments in sentencing which to be honest, read to any experienced [and unafraid for their continued employment] fraud investigator about as straight as a roundabout.

Police Scotland even dragged out exemptions in relation to National Security, and Terrorism laws to refuse to confirm or deny claims made to journalists in relation to the internal workings of Operation Branchform, as noted in the lengthy FOI response from Police Scotland which is republished below, in text format and in original PDF format here: 26-1631 Response

Your recent request for information is replicated below, together with our response.

from July 2021 to the date of this FOI request

I would like to make a Freedom of Information request for information contained in

the numbers of incidents (and details contained in) of any reporting, logging, complaint raise awareness of, or similar from Police Officers and staff employed by or contracted by Police Scotland - that their work emails & communication methods or other were hacked, compromised or accessed by others known or unknown

If any of the above involved investigations with an operational designation - such as "Operation Branchform" and "Operation Newbiggin"

and if any incidents were reported to Police Scotland's anti corruption unit and if so, what action if any was taken

In terms of section 18 of the Act, I am refusing to confirm or deny whether the information sought exists or is held by Police Scotland.

Section 18 applies where the following two conditions are met:

-             It would be contrary to the public interest to reveal whether the information is held. Confirmation or otherwise would prove valuable to those with criminal intent as this information could be used to identify and take advantage of any potential vulnerabilities in the police systems, consequently increasing the risk of cyber-attacks Force wide.

-             If the information was held, it would be exempt from disclosure in terms of one or more of the exemptions set out in sections 28 to 35, 38, 39(1) or 41 of the Act. In this instance, the following exemptions are considered relevant:

• Section 34(1)(b) - Investigations

Information is exempt information if it is held by Police Scotland for the purposes of an investigation which may lead to a decision to report the circumstances to the Crown 

Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to enable a determination on whether criminal proceedings should be instigated.

•            Section 31(1) - National Security and Defence

•            Section 35(1)(a)&(b) - Law Enforcement

•            Section 39(1) - Health & Safety

The security of the United Kingdom is of paramount importance, and we will not disclose information if it would impact on National Security.

Information is exempt information if its disclosure under the Act would substantially prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders by adversely impacting on the operational effectiveness of Police Scotland.

Information is also exempt information if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health or the safety of an individual.

Disclosure of information relating to invasive cyber security incidents (especially the extent to which they were effective) would highlight any perceived vulnerabilities in systems essential for day-to-day operations, enabling criminals to make an accurate assessment of the capacity of the Service to deal with a variety of any such incidents.

The release of such thorough and specific information would undermine the operational integrity and security of integral police systems by giving those with criminal intent (including terrorists) the opportunity to compromise or exploit these systems to their own benefit, resulting in a loss of sensitive police data or denying the Police Service access to critical infrastructure systems.

As such, to release this would present a real and significant risk to policing operations, public safety and the ability of the police service to efficiently prevent and detect crime.

The above are all non-absolute exemptions and require the application of the Public Interest Test.

Whilst I accept that investigations concerning cyber security would be of significant interest to the public, investigative details will only ever be disclosed by Police Scotland where there are overwhelming public interest considerations for doing so.

That said, there can be no public interest in disclosing information which relates to police investigations outwith the associated criminal justice processes, thereby prejudicing those processes (and the Force’s future law enforcement at large).

On balance, it is considered that the public interest lies in maintaining the section 34(1)(b) exemption given the need to protect the integrity of the investigative process and any final determinations made by the COPFS.

Furthermore, while it can also be suggested that there is a public interest in openness and transparency as regards the security arrangements Police Scotland has in place for protecting its fundamental policing processes, this must be balanced against the strong public interest in maintaining the security and effectiveness of the systems used to do so.

I would contend that the need to ensure the effective conduct of the Service in relation to the prevention and detection of crime, and the public safety considerations involved in the delivery of operational policing, clearly favour non-disclosure of the information.

Technological information is of great value, and, in this instance, it can be argued that the disclosure of any such information would provide limited additional public understanding while simultaneously creating a substantial risk to cyber security - it is therefore reasonable to expect Police Scotland ensure all information held is managed effectively, and where necessary, are cautious of the level of detail released to the public.

On balance, the public interest in withholding the information on this occasion outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

This explanation should not be taken as indicative or conclusive evidence that the information you have requested does or does not exist.

and information contained in the processes used by Police Scotland for staff & Police Officers and contractors to log, report, complain or raise awareness of any such incidents of email and communications hacking, or accessed by others known or unknown

Firstly, I can advise that under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018, a personal data breach must promptly be assessed to determine whether it is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals - where this threshold is met, a notification to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) must be made without undue delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours of Police Scotland becoming aware of the breach.

Where the breach is likely to result in a high risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms, a notification to the affected individuals must also be considered.

This reporting timescale requires security incidents to be managed in a timely manner, including early containment, evidence gathering and documented risk assessment.

For this reason, staff are advised that it is essential to promptly detect, contain and assess any data breach for potential risks to both the Police Service of Scotland and individuals’ rights and freedoms. The practices used to ensure this include (but are not limited to) using the designated email address to report phishing, reporting incidents direct to the ISO via the Information Security Reporting Form and referring to the relevant guidance/ Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

In this case, I can refer you to the Information Security Standard Operating Procedure, which outlines how all staff, contractors and partners (i.e. anyone with access to police information or premises) protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of Information Assets and Information Systems.

Moreover, these precautions behaviours are further embedded and strengthen by an annual Data Protection Refresher Course, Cyber Exercises (i.e. simulated cyber-attack exercises to test the organisation’s incident response capabilities, improve readiness, and identify any areas for improvement) and Cyber Awareness Courses.

For awareness, there are currently six courses out in rotation, which includes:

•            Cyber Fundamentals - this course covers what to watch out for at work and how to keep yourself safe against common threats.

•            Phishing Awareness - this course covers what a phishing email is, how to spot them and how to report them.

•            Physical Security - this course covers the measures taken by Police Scotland to protect operations through denying access to buildings, restricting permissions to certain activities and establishing secure work environments.

•            Security Incidents - this course covers cyber security incidents that have already taken place within Police Scotland and highlights what you can do to avoid a repeat scenario.

•            Password Management - this course covers how to create and improve the security of your chosen password. 

•            Device Security - this course covers how to handle and protect sensitive information on your devices.

•            Social Engineering - this course covers some common social engineering techniques, and guidance on how to stay safe.

ENDS

Clearly, Police Scotland feel strongly in the matter and they cannot admit or deny any of these events as referred to in the FOI request occurred.

However when the Freedom of Information disclosure, and denial was put to sources for their own consideration, their responses indicated that not only did it appear officers were indeed profiled by interested parties linked to the Branchform investigation,  it could also not be ruled out informants from within policing passed information to organisations and persons of interest in Operation Branchform which allowed external elements to the investigation to be aware of the pace and direction of evidence gathering, and key events before they even occurred.

Operation Branchform became a matter of interest to journalists in ways perhaps not to the liking of the investigating authorities and those who were being investigated.

For example, on a very similar, almost identical case of systemic and determined acts of fraud, carried out within a governing political party with an almost stasi like grip on controlling a nation’s public authorities, institutions and organisations – a few individuals were tasked with making numerous purchases of just about anything which comes to mind – stationery, confectionery, watches and jewellery, vehicles, property, crypto assets and more – with the sole intent of these purchases and overly unaccountable lifestyles being used as a cover to later be held up for detection, prosecution and finally a day or two in court for headlines as the smokescreen to a much larger multi millions fraud which enabled governing party members to enjoy lifestyles, assets and undetectable offshore finances in a manner which could not be explained by their official salaries and expenses claims.

A journalist colleague who was not connected to the investigation we worked on, but was shown some of our material and files received from case participants said at the time – should be looking for four hundred million, not the twenty or thirty million mentioned in a civil recovery case – which itself collapsed after prosecuting authorities and certain legal figures who wanted the case halted, intervened in the background and saw to it the civil recovery case collapsed.

Another issue raised with us in relation to Operation Branchform revealed sweet deals with media orgs, after a media colleague produced an audio clip revealing their enquiries with Police media assets seeking an agreement to gain access to evidence in relation to the charges against Peter Murrell, post guilty plea and trial – resulted in a demand and agreement for not seeking access to the Nicola Sturgeon interview and materials – which are now being sought for release via Freedom of Information requests to Police Scotland

Police Scotland, and the Crown Office are for now curiously blocking release of the full Police Scotland interview with Nicola Sturgeon after she was arrested on a Sunday after a Police Scotland visit to the house filled with items purchased with ‘stolen’ SNP funds, the address being the same residence she shared with her then husband, Peter Murrell.

TARGET BENEFITS: As Scots politicians raid public cash to prevent unwanted headlines - Law firm clients claim SNP Govt Social Security Scotland Agency are unfairly targeting & delaying PIP payments to disabled, long term sick, abuse victims & Covid victims

Devolved SNP Benefits powers face misuse claims. AMID a series of headlines relating to Social Security Scotland mishandling certain benefits considerations and unexplained lengthy delays in payments of Cold Weather Payments, and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) to the long term sick, disabled, victims of abuse and Covid victims - a law firm has contacted journalists with cases revealing delays, perceived attrition to delay or make difficult applications and appeals, and even cases where disabled claimants feel they are being subtly questioned on their politics.

Journalists have been given access to several clients who told us of sudden, unplanned reviews to their PIP benefits claims including threats to cut off benefits payments to victims of long term disability - and lengthy, confusing telephone consultations in which searching questions were asked of claimants lifestyles and their politics.

In cases now being assisted by legal advice, claimants alleged they were made to fear information on their politics and voting intentions may end up being used as a condition to maintain their current benefits payments.

Material ingathered by claimants - which journalists have now had sight of within their legal representative’s office - does appear to support accusations the new devolved benefits powers - passed to the SNP Government by the Conservative Government at Westminster – are subject to a litany of delays, withholding of, or cancellation of payments and potentially motivated consideration of benefits payments to persons across Scotland in areas where some may consider a ‘target voter pool’ could make a difference in what may become a bitterly contested Scottish General Election in 2026.

Noting the material provided by claimants in just two of Scotland’s local government areas – none of the allegations raised with journalists by solicitors and their clients appear to have been explained by Social Security Scotland in any reasonable way to claimants – who include terminal cancer victims, very seriously disabled persons unable to walk, victims of serious sexual abuse and several long term Covid victims – all of whom claim they are being treated worse than under the DWP system when Personal Independence Payments and related benefits were reserved to Westminster.

And in several cases, journalists have been able to speak with Local Authority staff who backed up issues relating to lengthy delays in payments and unreasonable withholding of benefits.

One Local Authority source said “claimants are being unfairly targeted because of who they are because they are too weak to fight back and we don’t have the staff to help all cases”.

A solicitor representing a PIP claimant said: “People are being seriously let down by Social Security Scotland.”

Information on cases where compensation cash for victims of abuse has been raided by politicians to fund pay rises to stave off strike headlines, and political ventures and other PR related issues which have already been aired in the media.

Several abuse victims who have spoken to journalists now fear their PIP payments may also end up going the same way and “into the hands of desperate politicians trying to cling to power” as one victim told us.

Journalists understand the law firm’s clients are being assisted by an MSP on cases of irregular reviews and unwarranted withdrawal of PIP benefits claims and payments under the SNP Government’s Social Security Scotland.

Solicitors representing the claimants requested journalists not publish material currently in their hands, as they feel clients – particularly those in receipt of Legal Aid - could be maligned in their access to legal advice – until such time more fuller scrutiny and assistance can be provided.

However Justice Diaries has been asked to publish a short list of recommendations to any benefits claimants who feel they may (and should) require to keep careful notes on any interaction or contact whatsoever with Social Security Scotland.

1. Maintain “careful notes” of any contact via phone or personal visits, interviews or consultations regarding your benefits claims.

2. Ask for and note down the names and role of anyone from Social Security Scotland whom you are speaking with and ensure you have an accurate record of what was said.

3. If you are in need of assistance or any form of help for any benefits issues relating to Social Security Scotland – seek out help from your Local Authority benefits team immediately and do not delay.

4. If you feel your benefits claim or PIP payments under the SNP Scottish Government rules are being subject to unwarranted interference or intimidation, you may require to contact a solicitor and seek legal advice without delay.

5. If you are required by Social Security Scotland to attend interviews or consultations, take a witness or someone to assist you.

In the case of “Careful Notes” readers may interpret that recommendation as to how you record information via any means.

It may also be helpful for you to ensure a witness is present to ingather a verbatim, word-for-word account of any telephone interview or consultation you are required to attend.

Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government were not contacted for comment on this report, as Scottish Government agencies now often ignore or issue delays to media enquiries then ultimately refuse to respond.

However, material scrutinised by journalists – does appear to corroborate claimants experiences now being dealt with by legal representatives, Local Authorities and Disability support groups.

If readers have any similar experiences with Social Security Scotland or concerns about how they are being treated and wish to find help, the advice is to contact your Local Authority Benefits Team and any Disability support groups and your area MSP immediately – and if you feel the need – contact a reputable qualified solicitor who may be able to provide legal advice and representation.

Additionally, it’s always good to contact any Scottish newspaper journalists via their respective news desk or contact details with your story as these are national issues affecting all Scots.

And of course keep journalists informed of related issues you experience in matters addressed in this article at Justice Diaries via our email: scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Be informed everyone - and inform others to help others, and get the help you need.

First Minister Alex Salmond admits he's not 'whiter than white' over Westminster expenses scandal as questions arise over £800 food allowance claims

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond blamed expensive food allowance claims on William Wallace events. Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond who is also an MP at Westminster, been sucked into the expenses scandal at the House of Commons in London, with revelations Mr Salmond had claimed £800 for food expenses for two months, while the Parliament was actually in summer recess.

Mr Salmond, speaking on BBC radio last week, did not give specifics to callers on his expenses claims, choosing to blame attending William Wallace commemoration events as one of the reasons for the large food claims. Mr Salmond continued, saying he was "quite happy to go before an independent audit" but admitted no one including himself could claim they were "whiter than white" in the expenses scandal.

First Minister Alex Salmond on £800 food claims admits "I'm not whiter than white" in expenses scandal.

The SNP's Nigel Don embarked on a series of property deals to get Holyrood to pay his mortgage. While the First Minister claimed on BBC Radio that no one within the SNP had been 'house flipping' to claim thousands of pounds from the taxpayer on second homes, recent revelations over Nigel Don's property deals to secure £688 a month from the taxpayer to pay his mortgage, despite receiving a salary of £55,381. It is worth noting that Mr Don is also Parliamentary assistant to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and is also a member of Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, where recently Mr Don’s remarks on an access to justice petition ‘constituted disinformation’ as some pointed out at the time.

I wrote about Mr Don’s mortgage arrangements and work on the Petitions Committee in an earlier article here : Influencing Justice reforms in Scotland worth ‘price of a mortgage allowance’ as MacAskill's ministerial aide gets £688 a month to fund capital flat

Christine Grahame, the SNP’s MSP for South Scotland claimed a staggering £26,465 for ‘stationery’. Another example of huge expenses claims at Holyrood surfaced recently with revelations the SNP’s Christine Grahame claimed a staggering £26,465 for postage and stationery, while other politicians from the Tories and Liberal Democrats representing the same area claimed ‘significantly less’ sums. You can read more about MSPs stationery claims here : Scottish Parliament : Christine Grahame’s £26k stationery expenses claim on 'consultations'

Currently, up to 28 MSPs at the Scottish Parliament, 12 of that number being SNP MSPs and 6 of those being Cabinet Ministers in the Scottish Government, including the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, are claiming mortgage interest payments of up to £1000 a month from the Scottish taxpayer to pay for their second homes in Edinburgh. This state of affairs could hardly be described as being ‘whiter than white’ – Scottish MSPs collectively claiming millions of pounds from the taxpayer in expenses while themselves claiming they are a model for transparency & accountability compared to their colleagues caught up in the Westminster expenses scandal.

You can read more about the Scottish Parliament’s own expenses milking scandal here : An extra £2m for MSPs at Holyrood while Westminster’s reputation withers in expenses scandal

Many MSPs have ensured they have not been outdone by their Westminster counterparts in expenses claims, in examples I have previously covered here : Scottish MSPs get in on the act of expenses milking too

Ex Tory leader & lawyer David McLetchie was brought down over huge taxi expenses claims. The Scottish Conservatives, who have raised the issue of the First Minister’s food expenses, have themselves suffered expenses scandals, which led to the resignation of David McLetchie as the Scottish Conservative Party leader, after revelations he claimed more than £11,500 for taxi journeys ‘into the unknown’, some of the destinations being revealed later as his law office at Tods Murray, and a few trips to Morningside …. You can read more of the McLetchie scandal here : McLetchie taxi details revealed

It is also worth noting that while the Liberal Democrats in England have been told to pay back any Capital Gains Tax on profits made by selling properties funded by taxpayers, the Scottish end of the party, seems to have a different policy for its members, as has been covered in the media here : LibDems leader Tavish Scott refuses to reveal capital gains tax payments on property profits

Lets also not forget that Scottish politicians were also recently caught for even claiming wreaths from the taxpayer, reported last month here : Scottish Parliament MSPs 'as crooked Westminster' claimed expenses for funeral wreaths

What is so disgusting to me, is that while there are people including children literally begging for cancer or other medical treatments to their local NHS Trusts throughout the country, only to be told there is either no money to pay for it, or that they are in the wrong postcode, politicians from all political parties, including the SNP are able to basically claim for what they want. A thoroughly disgusting situation which no honest decent person can defend.

How could a politician, already being paid over £70,000 plus, justify they deserve £800 for food, or £14,000 to clean moss off the front of their house, while, say, a 14 year old child cannot get a life saving course of medication simply because they live in the wrong area or their own health board has run out of money. That HAS to be an affront to humanity, politicians putting money and self gain before the lives of constituents while having such a huge salary for allegedly representing our interests.

Indeed the caller in the radio show who questioned Mr Salmond on his food expenss may well be right when he said “All you politicians are in it to line your own pockets”.That much is true – they certainly do, but it must now stop, and we the electorate must hold all politicians to account for their actions of lining their own pockets, no matter which party they are from.

The Sunday Herald reports :

Fresh challenge to Salmond over London meals claims

By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

ALEX SALMOND is facing fresh accusations over his expenses as an MP, after the Conservatives proved he was out of London for several weeks during the whole period for which he submitted maximum claims for meals from the House of Commons.

The first minister claimed the monthly £400 maximum for both August and September 2005, despite Westminster being in summer recess.

Salmond has repeatedly refused to publish his diaries for the months, dismissing suggestions the claims were unjustified as "laughable".

Last week, he told a BBC Radio Scotland phone-in: "I was in London in recess in 2005. MPs often go to London. They were all legitimate Parliamentary claims."

But the Scottish Tories last night produced a list culled from SNP press releases and newspapers showing Salmond was in Scotland on at least 22 of the 61 days in question. His eight August engagements included Robin Cook's funeral, a cricket match in Edinburgh, a gala in Rhynie, an art exhibition in Banff, and a constituent's 100th birthday in Portsoy.

The following month he was in Scotland for at least a fortnight, campaigning in the Livingston and Cathcart by-elections, and attending the SNP conference in Aviemore.

Salmond's spokesman said the first minister had never stated he was in London all the time, and suggested some of the claims might refer to days when parliament was sitting.

Besides claiming £400 for food in August and September, Salmond also claimed the maximum for six other months in 2005-06, a total of £3200. He also claimed £1751 for food in 2007-08, when he was first minister, despite voting on only six days in the Commons.

Annabel Goldie, the Scots Tory leader, last night wrote to Salmond urging him to publish his diaries. She said: "I am asking him to be open and transparent with the taxpayers about his Westminster expenses. He claimed the maximum food allowance of £800 for August and September 2005, but there are doubts over how much time he actually spent in London during that period that would justify such a large claim.

"I hope for the sake of the Scottish Parliament he takes this opportunity to clear up any lingering doubt."

Salmond has been the MP for Banff and Buchan since 1987 and is also the MSP for Gordon.

The continuing row over his Commons expenses comes as a fresh review of the MSP expenses system begins at Holyrood.

Sir Neil McIntosh is to examine whether "key elements of the scheme could be expected to continue to command public confidence".

Although praised as more transparent than Westminster, the Holyrood scheme still allows MSPs to keep all profit from the sale of second homes funded by the taxpayer.

Last month, the Sunday Herald revealed 28 MSPs currently claiming mortgage interest would make around £2 million profit if they sold up.

A Holyrood source said the McIntosh review, which will report by December, was aimed squarely at closing the second homes loophole. Tavish Scott, the Scottish LibDems leader, who would make a £120,000 profit on his second home, is under fresh attack over "despicable" expense claims by his MSPs.

Peter Nield, a LibDem councillor in Angus, resigned from the party in disgust at Scott's failure to discipline four LibDems who claimed for Remembrance Day poppy wreaths.

Although all agreed to repay the money after the claims were publicised, Nield said that was "irrelevant".

Now sitting as an independent, he said of Scott: "When a party leader is so out of touch with society he does nothing to reprimand those responsible, it is a step too far for me. It is despicable MSPs on good salaries and generous expenses claim back Remembrance Day poppies as expenses."

A LibDem spokesman described Nield's decision as "disappointing".

In a statement, Salmond said he was "entirely confident" about his expenses. "I was in London in both August and September, securing an unfurnished rented flat and other engagements, and during that period also paid bills from the Commons refreshment department incurred during the parliamentary session."

***

Council expenses cost taxpayer £3m Argyll and Bute Scotland's most expensive authority By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

SCOTLAND'S councillors claimed more than £3 million in expenses last year on top of £22.4m in salaries, according to new official figures. In recent days, all 32 local authorities were forced by law to publish councillors' salaries and expenses for 2008-09, showing spending on travel, accommodation, meals, phones and IT.

Analysis by the Sunday Herald shows that the average expenses claimed per councillor ranged from £325 in the country's smallest authority, Clackmannanshire, to £6004 per head in the largest, Argyll and Bute. The Scottish average was £2486.

Under a complicated remuneration formula, all 1222 councillors earned a basic salary of at least £15,000, with more for those in bigger councils and those with special responsibilities, such as committee chairs, and provosts.

The most expensive council in terms of salaries was the City of Edinburgh, with its 58 members taking home an average £21,079 in pay.

The least expensive was Moray, with its 26 members earning an average salary of £17,314. The average across the country was £18,351.

Overall, the most expensive council, including salaries and expenses, was Argyll and Bute, run by a coalition of Independents and the SNP. Its 36 councillors cost an average of £24,088. With 25 inhabited islands covering the largest geographical area of any council, their expense claims included £152,974 on mileage and £10,703 on ferry fares.

The least expensive was Labour-run Inverclyde, whose 20 members each cost £18,128 overall. Across Scotland, the average councillor cost £20,837.

Despite outnumbering them 10 to one, the councillors expense claims came to less than a third of those made by MSPs.

The highest expenses claim was made by the SNP's Donald Manford, chairman of the transportation committee in the Western Isles, whose £20,081 claim was larger than his £17,819 salary - it included £11,740 in travel and £5300 in subsistence claims.

In contrast, several dozen councillors around the country claimed no expenses at all.

Argyll and Bute said its unique geography contributed to high costs. A spokeswoman said: "We have very strict controls on what can be claimed as expenses, and in what circumstances claims can be authorised.

"Receipts are required not only for subsistence or accommodation claims, but also for fuel ...

"Councillor remuneration is fixed by the government by statutory order, not by councils themselves. Mileage rate is also fixed by government."

Robert McGill, the deputy leader of Labour-run Clackmannanshire council, said: "We are looking to offer value for money to our constituents. It's important that local people trust their council and the expenses are all itemised and accounted for."

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the umbrella body which represents all of the country's 32 councils, said: "Scotland's democratically elected councillors offer extremely good value for money.

"Councils put a real value on the public pound and therefore operate extremely well controlled systems around expenses for councillors.

"All expenditure rightly needs to be proven and would include things like the cost of mobile phone calls, IT and the sort of other businesslike necessities being a democratically elected member committed to representing communities entails."

Justice Secretary accused of attempt to undermine Lord Gill civil justice review as Government backed survey targets only 35 court users

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's woefully limited survey may undermine civil justice reform proposals. SCOTLAND'S Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is today facing allegations of covering up litigation difficulties & failures in the Civil Courts as a taxpayer funded survey carried out by Ipsos-MORI on behalf of Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board is today revealed to have targeted only THIRTY FIVE PEOPLE from the thousands of litigants who each year use the Scottish Courts system for civil litigation.

Scottish Legal Aid Board & Consumer Focus sponsored the ‘limited’ research. The survey, titled "Consumer views and experiences of using the civil courts in Scotland" was to be intended to support the forthcoming release of the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill's review of Scotland's Civil Justice system, including his recommendations for reforms, which are rumoured to be ‘groundbreaking’ and will also include recommendations to allow Scots to use the facility of McKenzie Friends (used successfully in England & Wales for 39 years) to assist civil litigation cases where legal representation cannot be secured for a number of reasons.

A spokesman for the Scottish Legal Aid Board gave some background to the survey : "There is very little information currently available in relation to the actual experiences of litigants as they move through the court processes. The press release which accompanied the consultation paper to the Civil Court Review picked up this point :

‘We are especially interested in hearing from members of the public about their experiences of the civil court system. In this way we can ensure that their voice is heard and that their interests are central to any recommendations for reform that we make’.

In response to the weak evidence base and this statement, the Scottish Legal Aid Board (the Board) and Consumer Focus Scotland agreed to jointly commission research that would help us better understand the nature and drivers of civil litigants’ views and experiences of Sheriff Courts. The research describes the experiences and views of people coming before Sheriff Courts in Scotland for civil matters. It identifies and explores the factors associated with these experiences and levels of satisfaction.

A Research Advisory Group was established to help steer this work and to ensure the methods and approach were appropriate. The Board, Consumer Focus Scotland, Scottish Government, the Scottish Court Service and members of the Civil Courts Review Policy Group were members of the advisory group.

At the initials stages of the research we had hoped to deliver a relatively large scale quantitative survey of court users. However we were unable to access the court records that would be needed to deliver such a representative survey.

A second option was therefore subsequently developed. This involved contacting and securing the support of In Court Advice services to gain access to their service users. In addition to in court advice clients, we also contacted people who received legal aid for their sheriff court case. This allowed us to gather views from people who had representation for their case.

The research is qualitative in nature, an appropriate way of exploring views and experiences. Thirty five interviews were conducted with a range of civil litigants. Litigants had been involved in a variety of case types, including small claims actions, debt, housing/eviction actions and mortgage repossession proceedings.

The sample did not include other court users such as witnesses or jurors in civil cases. The sample included both defenders and pursuers. It included not only those whose case was actually heard in court, but those who were involved in civil legal proceedings at other stages. The interviews covered a range of issues, from access to legal advice and representation through to expectations and experience of going to court e.g. specific concerns; how people felt about the experience and the communication they had with the court.

The scope of this research must be stressed. The research is qualitative in nature therefore it does not measure the incidence of or how representative views and opinions are. It does however provide valuable provide insight into views and experiences, which we hope will be built upon in the future as evidence in this area grows.

We were unable to talk with people who were unrepresented and did not use an In Court Advice service. We are aware that this group may be even more likely to report some of the problems highlighted in the research and or may possibly report different experiences and views of the court process.”

Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill looks set to give some harsh criticisms of Scotland’s Civil justice system. On hearing of the difficulties with the Scottish Government inspired survey, sources from both the legal profession and public campaign groups claimed the survey of Civil Courts users was not advertised enough throughout the Courts system for members of the public to participate, and may have had an unfair restricted remit due to the fact the Scottish Government fear extensive negative views from the general public on their inability to use the civil justice system or even secure the necessary legal representation to access the courts – the latter being a topic of constant debate for many years in Scotland, amid many proposals by the Scottish Law Commission and surveys the former Scottish Consumer Council requesting civil law reform.

I have written about Lord Gill’s criticisms of Scotland’s Civil justice system in an earlier report here : Lord Gill : 'Victorian' justice system fails public as soaring injustice & poor legal services undermine credibility of Scots law.

You can read more about Lord Gill’s Civil Justice review here : Lord Gill's Civil Courts Review

A legal source this morning said "For a survey which is supposed to back up Lord Gill's review of the civil justice system, it looks more like the Government has attempted to railroad the Lord Justice Clerk's findings before they are published, giving themselves reasons not to undertake the necessary reforms to be recommended, which we know ourselves as solicitors, must be implemented if the issues of lack of public access to justice are to be tackled properly."

A source from a consumer group called the survey “A political stunt which will hopefully backfire on the Justice Secretary due to the limited numbers of individuals approached for evidence on such an important issue.”

A client with an ongoing civil case who has experienced "incredible difficulty over a number of years with his litigation due to the dismal state of the civil justice system said : "I have some questions for the Research Advisory Group. Why did they not publicize this much more widely if they were concerned to obtain litigants views, particularly careless of them when they claim there is an already existing 'weak evidence base'. Thirty five interviews is a damning indictment when complaints about the legal profession run into the thousands annually.”

Further questions were raised over the incredibly limited remit of the survey and apparent unwillingness of even the Scottish Court Service to divulge court records : "Who refused them access to Court Records and why? - past published case law is readily available on the internet. What is the point of research which does 'not measure the incidence of or how representative views and opinions are' ? Why were they 'unable' to talk to people who were unrepresented ? “

An official from IPSOS MORI speaking in response to inquiries made on the little known research said : "The scope of the research was fairly limited, and this is acknowledged in our report. We spoke to a very small sample of litigants who had contacted an in-court advice service and a sample of litigants identified through Scottish Legal Aid Board applications data was also provided to us."

The Justice Secretary could not be contacted today for comment on the revelations.

So. Can a survey of 35 people from the thousands of Scots who have to use the Courts system for litigation, defence of their legal affairs & interests, and pursuit of justice, be a fair indication of the problems which many individuals encounter when they try to take a case to court, especially if the issues involve going up against notoriously corrupt professions or cases where access to justice is routinely denied ?

I think not, and I do hope Lord Gill is taking note of these goings-on, and makes appropriate comment when the time comes ….

Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity

Jane Irvine, SLCC Chair supports Law Society's compliance with FOI. In a startling rebuke to the Law Society of Scotland's campaign to remain a super secret unaccountable regulator of Scottish solicitors, Jane Irvine, the Chairman of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has sided with law reformers and Freedom of Information campaigners who are seeking to bring the Law Society of Scotland under the scope of Freedom of Information legislation.

Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC said: “If the Law Society of Scotland were ever to become FOI compliant, there could be considerable advantages to consumers and practitioners.".

Jane Irvine, formerly Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, following on from Linda Costelloe Baker, and is now Chair of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is the first high profile personality in the Scottish legal world to support the notion that the Law Society's secrecy status, which has caused much injustice to clients of 'crooked lawyers' over the years, is a thing of the past.

Ms Irvine believes, like many outside the secret society style bubble of the legal establishment, that now in the new era of the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and greater demands for scrutiny, particularly in the wake of global banking failures, that consumers, and even the legal profession itself could benefit from the transparency, accountability & openness which compliance with Freedom of Information legislation brings to public bodies, services and industry.

Jane Irvine cautioned however, that some parts of the Law Society's work may yet be required to keep secret from the public : "However, under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 there would inevitably be significant areas of information that would need to remain confidential in order to comply with the legislation. It therefore it would be important for expectations to be managed.”

Law Society of Scotland proved many times it cannot be trusted as a secret regulator. As a law reform campaigner myself, I would have to slightly disagree with the SLCC Chair on some points, as evidence has shown from previous investigations carried out by the Law Society into crooked lawyers that it simply cannot be trusted as a secret self regulatory body, which has for the main, stood by many solicitors who ended up ruining their clients, and now it appears, has also allowed solicitors with criminal records to carry on practicing, with their clients totally unaware their legal representative is more of a criminal than some who arrive in their office requiring their services in court !

I would also point to some secrecy problems with the SLCC itself, where censorship of FOI requests has led to suspicion the Law Society, even after being forced to comply with freedom of information laws, would also use the black ink to hide behind confidentiality in order to continue protecting crooked lawyers …

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s intentions to keep Law Society secret outflanked by reformers. Jane Irvine's stance on consumers gaining increased protection from crooked lawyers by removing the Law Society’s exemption from information laws, contrasts radically with the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s intentions, which were revealed last week after he issued a terse statement backing continued secrecy for the solicitors governing body.

Diary of Injustice exposed MacAskill's gaffe on Law Society FOI secrecy. Last Monday I reported in an article the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill made a staggering policy U-turn in the space of a few hours, after initially letting slip he "had no intention of including the Law Society in any FOI review". However later in the day, as Government officials became aware of others giving more positive quotes to the story, a spokesman for the Justice Secretary reversed his initial statement seeking to maintain the Law Society's much coveted exemption from Freedom of Information laws, saying the matter was still open for discussion and organisations could still be suggested for inclusion in the 'open ended' review.

Diary of Injustice starts campaign to remove FOI exemption from Law Society of Scotland. Late last week, I began an open campaign which anyone can join to bring the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates into line with other parts of Scotland’s legal system, making them compliant with Freedom of Information legislation. You can join in the campaign to bring the legal profession into the scope of the anti secrecy FOI legislation too by emailing the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill here scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or write to him at : Kenny MacAskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice,The Scottish Government,St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG.

There is no place in our society, currently being battered by banking failures produced by the same soft touch, closed ranks regulation which the Law Society has been forcing on clients of the legal profession for decades.

There can be no argument for maintaining any level of secrecy for the Law Society of Scotland. The Law Society is an organisation which has proved time and again it has no respect for the rights of clients of solicitors, and has no intention of compensating vast numbers of clients who have lost millions of pounds to the actions of ‘crooked lawyers’.

The Law Society must be stripped of its immunity from Freedom of Information laws, and its remaining powers of investigating complaints against its own members and discipline powers transferred to an entirely independent body not mired in the overriding policies of self protectionism and anti client prejudice.

MacAskill’s ‘no intention to include Law Society in FOI review’ allows lawyers to keep scandals & criminal records hidden from public scrutiny

Law Society of Scotland - How many criminals among their ranks ? Would you allow a rapist, a drunk driver, a serial fraudster or even a paedophile to attend to your legal affairs ? The answer to that question is most probably a resounding "No". However if left up to the SNP's Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, there may be no prospect you would ever get to find out one shred of detail including the criminal records of the solicitor trusted with your most intimate legal affairs, as the Minister revealed today, the Law Society of Scotland will retain for now, their exemption from Freedom of Information laws.

Kenny MacAskill today suggests continued secrecy on lawyers. Scots Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, apparently angered by continued inquiries on the Law Society's FOI exemption status, today issued a terse statement ending any public hope of openness reforms for the Scots legal profession’s regulator. His spokesman said : "The Law Society are a professional organisation and are not covered in the Freedom of Information Act. There is no intention to include them in the review."

SLCC is FOI compliant, Law Society is not. Mr MacAskill's statement appears to end any hope of real transparency being brought to regulation of the legal profession in Scotland. This leaves Scots consumers of legal services with a nightmare scenario of Government backed secrecy for crooked lawyers in that while the 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is subject to Freedom of Information legislation, the Law Society of Scotland - who will actually carry out any disciplinary actions or prosecutions ordered after SLCC complaints investigations, remains FOI exempt, rendering most information available on rogue lawyers secret to public inquiries & external scrutiny.

You can read an earlier article I wrote about the Law Society ‘s FOI exemption status here : Consumer protection weakened by lawyers FOI exemption while new Legal Complaints Commission must comply to information laws

The Minister’s stance of earlier today however, contrasts starkly with previous indications from not only Mr MacAskill himself, but also the previous Scottish Executive that the Law Society's exemption status may well be ended.

Current Justice Secretry MacAskill shared former Minister Cathy Jamieson’s policy on Law Society FOI exemption until today :

When asked why there had been an apparent U-turn by the Justice Secretary on the Law Society’s exemption status, a spokesman indicated contrary to earlier statements on the Minister’s behalf, there had in fact been no change in Government policy on the issue of the Law Society’s FOI exemption status, and that it was still open for action to bring the Law Society within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation.

A Scottish Government spokesman said this afternoon : “There is no change in their line on the Law Society or any other organisation – no decisions have been made in respect of extending coverage of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. The Law Society are not currently covered by the Act However, the current discussion around extending coverage should not be seen as a one off. The operation of the Act – particularly in terms of the bodies, is kept under review and contributions/arguments putting forward organisations for consideration are always welcome.”

A legal insider this afternoon questioned the Justice Secretary’s continued exclusion of the Law Society from Freedom of Information laws.

She said : “It is a ridiculous situation for regulation of solicitors and consumer protection that on one hand. we have the Law Society of Scotland FOI exempt, and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission FOI compliant.”

“I am amazed the Justice Secretary cant seem to get to grips with any issue involving the Law Society and from what I read of previous policy indications, I don’t believe this 'eternal review’ situation of FOI compliance & exemption will ever see the Law Society subject to FOI requirements in the future because the Law Society does not want to be FOI compliant.”

Police Officers are subject to FOI, so why not lawyers, judges and the courts ? Any blind guarantees of FOI secrecy for lawyers is highly questionable, given the fact that most other parts of the legal system are indeed subject to Freedom of Information laws. Recently for instance, revelations saw statistics released on the numbers of Police Officers in Scotland who have criminal records . Strangely, while some feel that bashing the Police on FOI matters is ok, the public's right to find out if their lawyer is a convicted criminal doesn't seem to merit the same consideration in their eyes, however, it certainly does.

A solicitor who has represented members of the legal profession who have been charged with criminal offences (and in cases, found guilty)was asked for his opinion today on how many members of the Scottish legal profession have criminal records.

He said : “Out of about ten thousand practicing solicitors, you are probably looking at a hundred or more who have been convicted of criminal offences, but if you add paralegals and office staff to the equation the number will jump significantly”.

“Your readers will know very well that when it comes to a solicitor being convicted of a criminal offence, we are not talking about trivial matters, we are talking about serious criminal offences. Perhaps clients do have the right to know this information before making their judgement on allowing a solicitor or indeed any other legal services professional to represent their legal interests.”

Surprisingly honest words from a solicitor on how many of his colleagues may have criminal records. I for one would wish to know who exactly it is I am dealing with who will handle my legal business, and many other clients I have spoken to over the years would of course, like to know the full history of their legal agents, which if some had known about earlier, may have saved them some costly decisions to allow what turned out to be a ‘crooked lawyer’ to mishandle their legal affairs to the point of financial ruin.

Surely therefore it must be said : Mr MacAskill, do the right thing. Give the public the right to know all there is to know about their legal representatives – bring the Law Society of Scotland within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation.

RBS collapse: Regulation of lawyers model cannot be used as example for safeguarding public against rule bending bankers who broke our banks

RBS – greatest UK corporate loss to-date. While our great banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds, and the rest announce huge losses and effectively collapse around our ears on a global scale, the cries grow ever louder from the public and politicians alike, not only in the UK, but all over the world, for stronger, more effective regulation to prevent such disasters happening in the future.

Royal Bank of Scotland announces biggest loss ever :

While the hundreds of billions of pounds of public money flows into these institutions to prop them up, perhaps the public should be asking, will such regulation to prevent such a mess happening to our banks ever come to fruition ?

The short answer to that is "No", simply because what we have always seen is that when stronger regulation of a profession or industry is proposed, what sets out as a genuine attempt to introduce stronger measures to protect consumers, is stopped dead by many of those same politicians who are now bleating like sheep and blaming everyone other than themselves for the failures of our financial institutions.

Why do those attempts at introducing stronger, more independent regulation, fail at Parliamentary stage ?

Well they fail because the professions who are going to be affected by such regulation, co-opt the parliamentary process and ensure any parts of that planned regulation is either watered down to be so ineffective, or simply removed all together.

There is a prime example of this for everyone to take note of in these dire days of banking collapses - that being the introduction of increased regulation for the Scottish legal profession, during 2006, culminating in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007

Despite the work of many campaigners & groups, and consumer bodies, the Law Society of Scotland co-opted the Parliamentary process at the Scottish Parliament, and watered down many parts of the LPLA (Scotland) Act which would have protected consumers of legal services in Scotland much more than what the act currently does.

You can read an earlier report on how the LPLA BIll passed Holyrood with amendments here : Legal Profession & Legal Aid Bill finally passed by Scottish Parliament, with amendments.

You can read more about the bitter battles to push through the LPLA Bill into law here : Scotland's LPLA Act - not doing well in regulating legal services

As a result of the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007, we now have the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which originally under the previous Scottish Executive, was intended to effectively regulate the legal profession, with also consideration given to historical issues of complaints which had led to the creation of the legislation which created the commission in the first place.

However, with the intervention of the May 2007 election in Scotland, the SNP controlled Scottish Government, more precisely, the administrations of it's Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has allowed the legal profession itself to effectively castrate the regulator powers of rigid consumer protection, which were originally intended to put an end to all the 'crooked lawyer' problems of the past.

SLCC – as much use as no use at all to consumers. In actual fact, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has become such a besieged quango, bereft of public trust & confidence, it has become too afraid to publish pictures of its own members, for fear many consumers will realise that the Commission appointees, made by Kenny MacAskill personally, has become just another lawyers rubber stamp club for corruption and poor service in the legal profession which the Law Society of Scotland has managed to do so well for years.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – Would you trust them with complaints against lawyers ?

SLCC prefers secrecy to transparency as FOIs reveal. It turns out the SLCC are just too busy keeping themselves so secret,it looks like they have forgot they are supposed to be there to investigate complaints against crooked lawyers, but with most of the staff coming from the Law Society of Scotland, which created the problem in the first place, where crooked lawyers were being let off the hook in thousands of whitewash investigations, there seems little hope for the SLCC to do any different .. and as things stand it seems we are in for more of the same – a definite example to keep away from in improving regulation of financial services after the banking collapse.

Kenny MacAskill gave £2million ‘gift’ to lawyers quango. Strangely enough, the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has lavished millions of pounds of public money on his shiny new regulator while the quango was actually receiving millions of pounds from the legal profession itself. The SLCC, rather than get down to work as the campaigners including Cabinet Secretary John Swinney had originally hoped, then promptly spent it all on personal pension benefits, salaries, perks, medical benefits and just about anything other than actually helping consumers with complaints against legal services.

You can read more about Mr MacAskill's multi million pound gifts to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : MacAskill silent on taxpayers £2million 'write off' to lawyers quango as Complaints boss reveals Law Society defaulted on levies

The legal profession in effect, re-wrote the rules of regulation and powers that the new legislation of the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007, was supposed to give the 'independent' Scottish Legal Commission to help the public, and the SNP simply sat back and watched, even actually joined in the orgy of fiddling, and made sure it placed those who the legal profession wanted to be on the SLCC, at its helm.

As Mr MacAskill has always said - he will protect the legal profession at all costs. I wonder if John Swinney would be so bold to make such a sweeping statement for bankers and financial services ?

Kenny MacAskill - Claimed in Parliament he would protect lawyers against consumers, out of a great debt owed by the SNP Govt to the legal profession ...

So if you are looking for a new model of regulation for the banking sector, to prevent trillions of pounds of public money going on failed banks, while their ex Chief Executives walk away with 690,000 pension perks, then don't look to Kenny MacAskill or the SNP's ideas of regulating lawyers, because they simply don't work .. and don't look to leaders of the legal profession for much help, because as you can see, those same leading lights of Scotland's legal elite, couldn't wait to support the likes of Sir Fred Goodwin, and blame the Government for the failures, rather than the bankers themselves.

Ex Law Society Chief Douglas Mill speaks out in support of Sir Fred Goodwin and blames Govt for RBS failure.

You can read more about Douglas Mill’s support of Sir Fred Goodwin, and rush to blame everyone else for the RBS’s failure here : Royal Bank failure blamed on lack of regulation by ex Law Society Boss who campaigned against stronger regulation of solicitors

And finally ... we also learned yesterday that the possible legal case which may have caused the RBS a bit of pain financially, failed at a Sheriff Court in Oban yesterday, when Sheriff Pender ruled on Ian Hamilton QC’s small claims action against the RBS that the complexity of the case meant it could not be heard as a "small claims" action, which would have limited expenses to around £150.

Ian Hamilton QC's action against RBS is abandoned

Scottish Government's £10m in-house lawyers make their mark against legal reforms & public access to justice

Scottish Government – more lawyers than ever. While many in Scotland face access to justice restrictions or problems in obtaining legal aid, the SNP controlled Scottish Government has no such problems with the legal profession, as figures reveal the SNP administration has recruited a hugely expensive and all time high army of in-house lawyers & legal firms to work for the Government.

The Government Legal Service for Scotland, otherwise known as GLSS, boasts nearly two hundred in-house lawyers working across the full range of Government Departments and allegedly 'independent' institutions such as the Scottish Law Commission, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, even the Scottish Parliament, and many others.

According to salary scales & statistics from 2007, the costs and numbers of lawyers involved in GLSS operations has risen sharply since the Scottish National Party took office, showing a rise from 114 posts to at least 175, and an almost doubling in cost to the Scottish taxpayer from £5 million to around £10 million pounds today. However, as if nearly two hundred strong army of lawyers weren't enough to defend the Scottish Government from all & sundry, it is also the case that additional legal teams & private legal firms are contracted in on almost "blank cheque" operations, as one Justice Department insider put it today.

From the GLSS own promotion, the current levels of salaries and posts for 2009 are as follows :

The GLSS offers excellent working conditions and career prospects, supported by a commitment to training and development. Salaries are in the range of £27,153 to £32,583 for Legal Officers and £36,203 to £46,700 for Principal Legal Officers, the main recruitment grades. Appointments are permanent and pensionable. There are part-time and job-share opportunities as well as other flexible working arrangements. The current salary for trainees is £17,000 in the first year, rising to £18,955 in the second year.

However, a full range of unmentioned perks for these in-house lawyers exist, where for instance, each solicitor's professional indemnity insurance subscription (required by the Law Society for a valid practising certificate), which can vary up to several thousand pounds each, levied as a result on claims against 'crooked lawyers' to the Master Insurance Policy, is also paid out of public funds as an 'expense'.

A Scottish Government spokesman refused to comment on why the current administration felt it needed to waste many more millions of pounds of taxpayers money on yet more lawyers & legal affairs, however an insider to the Justice Department condemned the GLSS as an unaccountable costly branch of Government which has deliberately put the boot into many legal reforms over the years, and more so since the last election.

"There is little that can be done by Ministers, the Government, Parliament, you name it, if solicitors working at the GLSS issue advice opposing assisting an individual on something like seeking an inquiry into a sudden death, or a medical scandal, or even such things as reform of the legal profession or legal services."

"Everyone knows that much of the advice "not to act" on occasions where the public have asked for help to their MSP, comes solely as a result of professional bias against the issue being discussed".

The source went on to claim that many of the private legal firms brought in under contract by the Scottish Government operated without much worry over financial accountability :”When law firms are brought in to do contract work the costs of what they are doing go through the roof !”.

In professional circles, it is widely known the GLSS have been involved in many inquiries & scandals which have taken years to resolve in Scotland, ranging from the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal, where advice from the GLSS prolonged the then Scottish Executive's cover up of why fingerprints were misidentified by the then Scottish Criminal Records Office, and onto other serious issues such as the contaminated blood products scandal, where to this day, the Government's in house legal teams are seemingly attempting to wait out the issue so those victims who were caught up in the affair die off.

Notably for the issues which I campaign on, it seems the GLSS have been 'very active' in opposing parliamentary and government assistance to those who fell victim to the Scots legal profession, and recent information shown to me by one MSP, which came from the GLSS and was marked "not for disclosure to the constituent" urged the politician "to find a way out of involvement in the constituent's case", which strangely enough, related to the Law Society of Scotland and several crooked lawyers.

Advice to MSPs : ditch your constituents. An example of advice offered to one SNP politician who was told by a Government lawyer to ditch their constituent simply because the issue related to dealings with crooked lawyers and the Law Society of Scotland. To MSP : “I suggest you find a way out of any further involvement in your constituent’s case and do not reply to any further letters from him on this or any other matter.”. The lawyer in question, had not only ruined the constituent’s finances, he had conducted a long campaign of harassment allegedly even using contacts in the Police to hound his former client’s family out of their home.

The following is a description from the Scottish Government's website on the current state of the Government Legal Service for Scotland. No mention however of the role it plays in stymieing the public's access to justice, on everything from medical scandals, child abuse cases, construction & planning application scandals, scandals involving the legal profession, and even the revelations of material under Freedom of Information requests ....

Which part of helping Scots to gain access to justice and human rights does this lot play ? they seem little more than guardians for the professions, adept at preventing ordinary people getting help with problems involving vested interests rather than helping us all along ….

Government Legal Service for Scotland (Lawyers in Government)

The Government Legal Service for Scotland ( GLSS) is a professional community of lawyers in government in Scotland.

It exists in order to -

* raise awareness of the roles of public service lawyers and of the GLSS member offices
* promote contacts, share information and develop skills and knowledge among staff in its member offices
* provide shared services to member offices and their staff.

who we are

The member GLSS offices are -

* Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive
* Legal Secretariat to the Lord Advocate
* Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate General
* Legal Secretariat to the Advocate General
* Scottish Parliament's Directorate of Legal Services
* Scottish Law Commission

The GLSS also provides legal staff to (for example) the Crofters' Commission, the Lord President's private office and the Scottish Land Court. It works closely with others, in particular with the Office of the Scottish Parliamentary Counsel ( OSPC), responsible for drafting most Scottish legislation.

uniqueness of GLSS work

Lawyers working with the GLSS and its related offices are engaged on a wide variety of interesting and intellectually challenging work, much of it unique to government. A central theme is the development and implementation of new law. Preparation of legislation for both the Scottish Parliament and Westminster forms a large part of the workload. It also includes handling high profile, sensitive litigation and dealing with novel devolution or other constitutional problems. The work of the GLSS is often newsworthy, and it is always necessary to consider political consequences and potential sensitivities or wider implications. Given the nature of the work, the GLSS lawyer has a very influential role and a real opportunity to make a difference.

GLSS lawyers are involved in almost all aspects of government - whether it be resolving legal problems in policy development, operational delivery of services to the public or the smooth running of corporate services. European Union, human rights and devolution law and practice form a constant background to government legal work.

GLSS lawyers may also be seconded to work in policy posts, particularly in areas which relate to legal policy such as the Scottish Executive's Justice Department or Constitutional Policy Unit. GLSS lawyers also provide support for public inquiries. Lawyers working at the Scottish Law Commission contribute directly to the Commission's aims of improving, simplifying and updating the law of Scotland and lawyers at the Scottish Parliament are central to the Parliament's work as a legislature.

Opportunities also exist for secondment to one of the EU institutions or a placement with an external organisation, whether in the public or private sector. This has, on occasions, involved temporary postings to places as far afield as Indonesia.

One aspect of working practice which differs markedly from many private sector firms is that lawyers in the GLSS tend to move between different areas of work over the course of their careers. They are viewed as specialist government lawyers, rather than specialising in a particular subject area for lengthy periods of time. This approach means that lawyers develop transferable skills and are able to deal with novel subjects which frequently arise.

Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive

OSSE is the largest office in the GLSS, providing legal services to the Scottish Executive and its agencies. This covers a very wide spectrum including litigation and tribunal work, property and commercial law and procurement advice, instructing Bills and drafting subordinate legislation, including implementation of EC Directives. These responsibilities include the provision of legal advice to the Scottish Ministers. A major focus of OSSE's advisory and legislation work is in ensuring that Ministers act always within the powers conferred on them by the devolution settlement and that Executive Bills presented to the Scottish Parliament are within the legislative competence of the Parliament. This aspect of the office's work invariably involves consideration of human rights issues.

OSSE reports to the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland who are the principal ministerial advisers to the Scottish Executive on legal matters. It currently has 109 lawyers, plus a range of support staff.

For more information see http://www.scotland.gov.uk

Legal secretariat to the lord advocate

The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland (formally known as the Scottish Law Officers) are the principal legal advisers to the Scottish Executive. One of their roles is to provide legal opinions to Scottish Ministers in cases where advice at the highest level is required. Both are members of the Executive and the Lord Advocate attends Cabinet.

The function of the Legal Secretariat is to support the Scottish Law Officers in this role, for instance by researching and helping to draft opinions and by providing advice on other matters referred to the Law Officers. The work very often involves complex issues of human rights and constitutional law. The Legal Secretariat also has an important role in maintaining close liaison with OSSE which provides most of the legal advice required by the Executive and with their UK counterparts.

The Legal Secretariat currently comprises three lawyers, plus support staff.

Office of the solicitor to the Advocate General

The Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate General for Scotland ( OSAG) is part of the Department of Constitutional Affairs, which is a Department of the UK Government. The Advocate General is the Law Officer responsible for advising UK Ministers on Scots law. OSAG is responsible for advising UK Government Departments operating in Scotland on all matters relating to Scots law. It instructs UK legislation applying in Scotland and represents its client Departments in litigation before the Scottish courts. It has special expertise in administrative law and in the division of legal powers between the devolved Scottish institutions and their UK counterparts.

The Office also provides support for the Advocate General in carrying out his statutory functions under the devolution settlement. Devolution issues arising in the Scottish courts are intimated to the Advocate General and OSAG staff co-ordinate their consideration in Whitehall and arrange for any intervention which the Advocate General considers appropriate. Legal staff also consider legislation which comes before the Scottish Parliament so as to identify any issues about competence which may arise. These issues are then considered in co-operation with Cabinet Office and other Whitehall legal advisers.

The Office comprises 18 lawyers, plus support staff.

legal secretariat to the advocate general

The Advocate General is one of the three UK Law Officers, along with the Attorney General and Solicitor General, and is the principal legal adviser to the UK Government on Scots law. The Legal Secretariat is a small team of three lawyers based in London. They assist the Advocate General in preparation of Law Officers' opinions (many of which are prepared jointly with the Law Officers for England and Wales), and support him in relation to Parliamentary business, Cabinet committee meetings, correspondence, speeches and other general business. The legal staff take part in Cabinet Office committees of officials and other Whitehall co-ordinating meetings on European law, human rights and devolution.

For more about OSAG and the Legal Secretariat see http://www.oag.gov.uk.

Scottish Parliament's directorate of legal services

GLSS staff in the Directorate gain experience as parliamentary lawyers. The work is diverse. Much of it is legislative - helping produce non-Executive Bills, advising the Presiding Office on legislative competence, scrutinising Minister-made subordinate legislation. There is also work on procedures and governance such as advising the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body which is responsible for providing the Parliament's property, staff and services. Most of the lawyers work not only with colleagues in the Parliament staff group but also with Members across the parliamentary political spectrum, in committees and other forums.

The Directorate has 13 lawyers, and four support staff.

For more information see

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/organisation/directorates/ls.htm.

Scottish Law Commission

The Scottish Law Commission is an independent statutory body which recommends reforms to improve, simplify and update the law. Its recommendations, if accepted, are generally implemented through legislation in the Scottish or Westminster Parliaments. Lawyers seconded from the GLSS play an important role in managing and contributing to the development of legal policy on all of its reform projects.

There are currently five senior GLSS lawyers working at the Commission. The Commission also recruits legal assistants for assignment to particular projects. For more information about the Commission and its work see http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk.

careers

opportunities for lawyers in the GLSS

Throughout some 175 legal posts in the various offices staffed by GLSS lawyers, the GLSS provides excellent opportunities for a varied and stimulating career.

GLSS lawyers are all civil servants and recruitment is by way of open competition. Vacancies are advertised on the Scottish Executive website as well as in the national press ( www.scotland.gov.uk) Assignment to a particular post takes place after recruitment and is determined by the business needs of the different offices, taking into account, so far as practicable, the experience and preferences of successful candidates.

trainee solicitors

The GLSS offers a varied legal trainee programme which is advertised on the Executive's website and in the national press, as well as through its participation in annual law fairs run by the main Scottish Law Schools. The training covers a wide range of government legal work, from core professional areas - such as contract, litigation and commercial law - to specialist advisory work for departments and associated agencies. Trainees have four six-month placements during their traineeship. There may therefore be opportunities to work with the Legal Secretariat to the Lord Advocate, the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate General, the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Law Commission as well as a short placement in the Legal Secretariat to the Advocate General in London. There is also an exchange scheme under which some trainees may spend six months with a private sector firm.

pay and conditions

The GLSS offers excellent working conditions and career prospects, supported by a commitment to training and development. Salaries are in the range of £27,153 to £32,583 for Legal Officers and £36,203 to £46,700 for Principal Legal Officers, the main recruitment grades. Appointments are permanent and pensionable. There are part-time and job-share opportunities as well as other flexible working arrangements. The current salary for trainees is £17,000 in the first year, rising to £18,955 in the second year.

summer placement scheme

The GLSS operates a summer placement scheme offering law students one month's paid work experience, normally between June and September. The scheme is open to students in the fourth year of their degree or currently completing their diploma and is advertised each year through the university Law Schools and Faculties.

for further information contact: Ann McKenzie, GLSS Secretariat, G B(N), Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ Tel no. 0131 244 0815 or email ann.mckenzie@scotland.gsi.gov.uk