Former Lord Advocate Andrew Hardie revealed as major obstacle in removing lawyer-advocate monopoly on legal representation

Scotland's former Lord Advocate, Andrew Hardie QC, has been revealed as one of the chief obstacles in opening up the long standing solicitor & advocate monopoly on the public's wider access to legal representation and the courts.

You can download the Scottish Executive's FOI Law Reform Disclosure on their failure to open up the public's access to legal representation HERE (pdf format)

In an amazing hardline veto of reforms which would have opened up choice of legal representation to the public, the Lord Advocate stamped his outright hostility to implementing sections 25-29 of the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990, which have come to light in an email from his Private Secretary reprinted here :

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)(SCOTLAND) ACT 1990: IMPLEMENTATION OF REMAINING PROVISIONS OF PART II

The Lord Advocate has seen your Minute of 13 June, and said that he does not think that work should commence on implicating Sections 25-29 for the following reasons:

( 1) Other reforms have not had time to bed down (para 16).The Lord Advocate understands that the effect of the introduction of Solicitor-Advocates is being evaluated.

(2) There is little interest in Scotland having these provisions available (para 17). The ONLY interest has been from the Institute of Commercial Litigators, which body was rejected by the Lord Chancellors Advisory Committee.

(3) There is no obvious benefit from implementing Sections 25-29 (para 18).

(4) The provisions will involve considerable preparatory work by the Secretary of State and the Lord President - both of whom have more important concerns.

(5) There is no pressure for implementation

The Lord Advocate advises delaying all work and if no relevant interest appears within the next year, consideration should be given to repealing these provisions.

RAHAT NAWAZ Private Secretary CROWN OFFICE 24 June 1997

The Lord Advocate must have really had it in for people who couldn't get access to the courts or even secure the services of a lawyer, because the Executive - and particularly the Lord Advocate's Crown Office knew full well - for years, the problems reported to them by the public, elected politicians and civil servants, not to mention consumer organisations such as the Scottish Consumer Council, that there was a severe problem in the Civil Courts system in Scotland where swathes of people simply couldn't get access to the courts, or even obtain the services of a solicitor to handle necessary and important cases - unsurprisingly, including such cases as ... suing lawyers for negligence and handling other legal issues directly involving or against the legal profession itself....

So, the question is, was Andrew Hardie standing up for his colleagues in the legal profession, ensuring their valuable commercial monopoly over access to the Courts would continue ?

You can make a conclusion for yourselves based on the content of the above email alone .. but I say - Yes, the Lord Advocate, and indeed, the Scottish Executive were standing up for protectionism and commercial monopoly, with probably a helping hand from the legal profession to keep their profits & monopoly over legal representation.

Why do I say that ?

Simple. Andrew Hardie and everyone else, from 1990 onwards when the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990 was introduced - and that includes the former Tory Government & Scottish Office prior to 1997, knew there was a huge public outcry for opening access to the courts because the cosy deal between the legal profession & the then Scottish Office, continued on to the Scottish Executive was effectively restricting the rights of the public to get into court in the first place - even having the effect of restricting the availability of legal representation - because lawyers and advocates could, and still do, select the cases they want to appear in court - and kill off the ones they don't like - or those which would be a major thorn in the side of the legal profession or the law in general.

Actually, as you can see, the Lord Advocate went much further than recommending a delay in the implementation of Sections 25-29 ... he actually sought the repeal of these sections of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act on reasoning and motives mentioned in the email, one could question as perfidious.

Of course, not everyone thought like the Lord Advocate .. and there were actually recommendations from the Justice Division of the Scottish Executive to begin work on implementing Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provision) Act 1990, to allow a wider choice of legal representation ... shown here in report from Mrs Brennan of the Scottish Executive.

However, it wasn't just some officials in the Scottish Executive who agreed there should be a wider public choice of legal representation & access to the courts, as you can see from the following letter from the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading, John Vickers who took the exact opposite view of the then Lord Advocate Andrew Hardie - who would rather have had those parts of law repealed, which would have allowed wider available legal representation to the public.

Director General of the OFT, Mr John Vickers welcomes the implementation of Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990 - bringing a wider choice of access to legal representation and the courts, because as we can see - this is actually the case already in England - so, why keep Scotland in the dark ages again and maintain such monopolistic restrictions on the public's right of access to legal representation when those in England & Wales can secure the services of those other than solicitors & advocates for their legal work ?

Simply for the benefit of the Scottish legal profession's pocket perhaps ? Many feel this to be the case, and all that I have experienced to this date with regard to matters involving the legal profession in Scotland, tells me so. After all - it's all about money, isn't it ? and who gets it and who is allowed access to legal representation and what cases are actually allowed by the legal profession into court.

The remainder of the published disclosure reads as a rather indecisive position from the Scottish Executive, but one could ask - where are all the minutes of correspondence with the Law Society of Scotland and members of the legal profession who had an interest in leaving out implementation of Sections 25-29 ?

There are allegations such meetings did take place .. and such correspondence relating to & involving the views of the legal professions, did exist ... but curiously, none of this material has surfaced in the published disclosure, leading one to believe as many expected, the worst offending information would be withheld from public view.

You may question my comment on that, but inevitably, when the Scottish Executive discuss legal issues or legislation, the opinion of the Law Society of Scotland, or indeed, Law Society officials who work for the Scottish Executive as consultants is usually sought ... and in such a case as reforming access to legal representation and the courts, it is very difficult to believe the Executive, and Scottish Office before it, did not discuss, or meet with representatives of the legal profession to discuss these reforms .. which have of course been held back, many would say, on the orders of the legal profession itself.

Noticeably also in the published disclosure on this matter, is the lack of any documentation pre 1997 .. and I would have to take personal issue with that one myself, as a recent disclosure to me from the Executive included many documents which had accumulated many years before 1997, when the Scottish Office still existed.

Personally I would have to wonder why such documentation which would inevitably identify conservative politicians of the pre 1997 Government, and possibly members of the legal profession themselves, have been withheld, since Labour usually enjoy blaming the former Tory Government for just about everything under the sun .... suspicions abound then but my conclusion is this is not an honest disclosure, and I leave you all to make your own conclusions as to the honesty of what has been published.

Finally, there is an interesting remark contained in one of the documents which should give us all food for thought : "As there is an inherent awkwardness in decisions by government ministers not to commence legislative provisions enacted by parliament" .. a sobering thought for us all to keep in our minds .... with tales of awkward Ministers, and perhaps even awkward Lord Advocates ... is it not time to remedy the sins of the past and give the public a decent, transparent, honest and independently regulated legal profession ?

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland take their quest for corrupt practice to the US

With the forthcoming introduction of independent regulation for Scotland's legal profession, via the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, it may well be a good time to consider taking a look at other self regulatory professions, which have buried the corruption of their members for so long.

One of those self regulating professions, which you know well I have covered (through personal experience) in the past, is Scotland's accountancy profession - ruled by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.

ICAS, and the rest of the accountancy profession, have special deals with Westminster, to regulate their own members, throughout the UK. The issue is therefore not devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and any change to the current corrupt set up of accountant regulates accountant, would have to come from London.

Is this a fair deal for Scotland ? in our time of the Scottish Parliament and supposed right to self-determination ?

Well, I don't think it's fair at all ... having some issues we can amend the law or make laws on, but others we can't. That only confirms we are still run from Westminster, and that Holyrood is simply a fiddle-stamp Parliament for the wishes & controls of whoever is in power south of the border.

How could any Scottish politician honestly argue there are laws & things we can't touch, yet we have our own Parliament, have certainly paid for it (through the teeth), and continue to pay for the extravagances & mortgage fiddles of its many members .... so we should be able to vote on & change the law when its not fair, shouldn't we ?

Well, here is such a law - the right of the accountancy profession to self regulate itself, should be struck down, and its current crooked system, which produces Howitt after Howitt, should be replaced by an independent regulator, with wide ranging powers as envisaged in the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - to give the consumer and even company client, a fairer, more transparent deal, when it comes to accountancy regulation.

It may just cut down on the fiddles & frauds undertaken by plenty accountants too, from issues involving the collapse of the former US company Enron, to simply milking a few pounds out of small business clients, for their own ends & pockets.

Information on how the accountancy profession is regulated, is fairly hard to come by, since there is no set up like the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman for complaints against accountants, and organisations such as the FSA and DTI are reluctant to become embroiled in how the very powerful accountancy profession regulates itself .. so the media basically have to rely on statements & snippets direct from the regulators themselves - which is akin to taking Goebbles word as the truth and printing it.

Tom McMorrow, General Counsel to ICAS (he used to be Legal Services Director), claims there are hardly any complaints against accountants at all .. and that we shouldn't worry our little hearts about the situation, because ICAS are doing an honest job.

Well, here is a good example of how ICAS and particularly, Tom McMorrow, do their honest job :

A picture is worth a thousand words - Images of fraud reveal corruption & deceit by lawyers & accountants in the Scottish Borders

Not very honest then, Mr McMorrow, are you ... and ICAS ... well, after reading through the Howitt case, and a slew of complaints which have never been answered by his firm, or ICAS ... oh and not to mention complaints to ICAS where apparently members fiddled cheques through banks of dead clients .... I'd say the Russian Mafia is more trustworthy than ICAS.

All those links to the Privy Council too, just to ensure the power to self regulate your own colleagues is retained ... and getting members of the Privy Council to interfere directly in complaints against accountants, to get them off the hook from further scrutiny .. well, I'd say that proves corruption on quite a scale, which we don't need in Scotland, thanks.

Another interesting point about the accountancy profession, is how it ensures it's members by way of Professional Indemnity Insurance.

Yes, you guessed it - almost duplicate insurance arrangements to which lawyers enjoy - a policy similar to the "Master Insurance Policy" where all members pay a subscription, which also seems to involve the infamously crooked Marsh Inc insurance & brokerage firm, but which has amazingly escaped the attention of the OFT, unlike of course, the insurance deals which the legal profession have with Marsh - which did merit an investigation.

Scotland has some 16,000 accountants, versus just under 10,000 lawyers.

There are 4000-5000 complaints against lawyers in Scotland each year (although the unofficial figures are much higher)

ICAS claims there are about 60 complaints against their accountants each year ... which statistically is a nonsense .. .and certainly from reading a few of your emails, where ICAS won't even acknowledge letters of complaint, and individual accountancy firms will harass a client who tries to make a complaint ...the evidence is that the true figure of complaints & dissatisfaction with accountants in Scotland is much higher than the figures made available from the regulators themselves ...

God only knows why the media is so willing to believe the likes of these statistics, when just about every other statistic in the UK is questioned to the hilt .. for instance, ... heard the one about the unemployment figures ?

Anyway, here is a story from the Herald newspaper, reporting on ICAS taking their "quest for principled practice" to New York.

Perhaps that means ICAS are trying to get the american accountants to steal pensioners bank books & pension books too ...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/law/display.var.1315637.0.0.php

Quest for principled practice

Quest for principled practice
IAN FRASER April 09 2007

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland last week took the fight over the future of global accountancy standards to the belly of the beast.

New York will be the battleground in the struggle between the principles-based accounting standards favoured in the UK and the rules-based system favoured in the US.

And it was to New York that Sir David Tweedie, chair of the International Accounting Standards Board, took the message of "convergence".

Tweedie, a keynote speaker at the half-day conference in New York, entitled Principles into Practice, believes that as accounting standards converge, it would be preferable for the global profession to gravitate towards a principles-based approach.

He is a staunch advocate of accountants using judgment and professionalism rather than mere "box-ticking".

He and his fellow advocates of principles-based standards say their approach is less likely to lead to fraud and financial engineering than would a complex system of rules. Also, says Tweedie, a principles-based system is more likely to promote stable capital markets.

They also argue that convergence cannot be achieved if it is to be based on a detailed rules-based approach, which they say would prove to be very difficult to roll out across different jurisdictions and cultures around the world.

In a kneejerk response to the massive frauds at Worldcom and Enron, the US government tightened its rules-based approach through the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. With it came onerous reporting requirements for US-listed companies, which many claim has sapped the health of US capitalism and encouraged growing numbers of firms to list their shares on international stock exchanges rather than on the NYSE and Nasdaq.

Speaking at the conference, held with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Tweedie said: "If people keep coming to me for clarification on the principles-based standards that are issued, then the game is up. Principles will then become rules. This is one of the last chances we've got to get this right. If the US fails to accept principles-based standards, then the IASB may have to consider a Plan B' on convergence."

David Wood, executive director of technical policy at ICAS, said: "We have reached a critical point, and there had been a risk that IFRS (international financial reporting standards) could start moving towards the US's rules-based system. That's why we decided to take the debate to the place that really matters. This is where the battle is going to be won or lost."

Icas believes that principles-based accounting provides a comprehensive basis for the preparation of financial statements in that it is the definition of flexible, and leaves auditors less scope to convince themselves that an inappropriate interpretation may be acceptable.

Wood says he detects some chinks in the armour of the Americans. Some prominent figures are beginning to question whether their overly rules-based approach may explain the exodus of stock market listings to London and other international markets. In March, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson argued in favour of lighter-touch regulation, indicating that a principles-based system might be preferable for the US markets.

Paulson said: "We should also consider whether it would be practically possible and beneficial to move toward a more principles-based regulatory system, as we see working in other parts of the world."

At the ICAS event, Bob Herz, chairman of the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), stressed that principles-based accounting standards would best serve users of accounts and the public interest.

Wood added: "We have heard widespread support from US and UK speakers for principles-based standards. Now the challenge is to put this into practice. To do that, the global profession must promote judgment through the training of accountants; reject a slide into the safety-net of rules and work with regulators to ensure that they accept properly documented decisions that have been arrived at using judgment, instead of blindly following the rule book."

At the ICAS event, principles-based standards also received support from US litigation lawyer Michael Young. An expert on financial reporting and financial fraud at the New York firm Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher, Young said that principles-based standards could survive in the US, despite perceptions that it is a highly-litigious corporate culture.

He said: "Principles-based standards, according to conventional wisdom, would increase liability for preparers and auditors. Rules would seem to offer more certainty. My experience suggests the opposite: if something fishy is going on, rules can't get you off the hook. Rules send corporate culture in the wrong direction - they say we don't trust you'. Finally, rules spawn more rules - not something anyone wants to see."

Michael McKersie, manager of investment affairs at the Association of British Insurers last year, says the idea of a global monopoly of financial reporting is not necessarily a good thing.

"We need to ask the question whether some degree of competition is necessary to achieve objectivity or better standards."

Speaking at an earlier Principles into Practice event, he said that Tweedie's IASB needs to stand up for non- US views around the world, adding that principles are absolutely right but there are "enormous grey areas" which may sometimes need rules.

ICAS intends to hold similar Principles into Practice events in Luxembourg in May and Brussels in September.

Scandals keep coming as election news steals the limelight

A quick update on some items I covered previously.

It seems there is a witch hunt in the Roxburghshire Bar Association (which I should more properly call the Faculty of Solicitors in Roxburghshire) for the Solicitor who passed me a batch of client files on the continuing fiddling of Norman Howitt, Chartered Accountant, Welchs & Co , which I covered here :

A picture is worth a thousand words - Images of fraud reveal corruption & deceit by lawyers & accountants in the Scottish Borders

Despite a few threats & enquiries in my own direction for the identity of this individual, I always protect my sources, as you well know - so no name will be given out from here for you to have your 'wicker man' day in the Borders (you can save that straw statue for me, lads).

I must say though, reading through those files, it seems Welch & Co as a company are just as crooked as Norman Howitt - and to be well avoided by clients who want honest accounts, unless of course, the methodology is to fiddle HM Inland Revenue ...which I hear, is illegal ...

Of course, stealing people's bank books & pension books for oneself is also illegal .. but Norman Howitt certainly got off with that one, at least for the time being. Now that some others are paying more attention to the evidence I posted, and after further contacts on the matter ...there might just be a wee turn of justice here, now that people in the right places are wondering about Mr Howitt ...

On the battle with the Scottish Executive over the Bill Alexander FOI, yes, we are al still waiting to see what's in the carefully sanitised documents which will eventually wing their way to the public domain.

I covered this one here : Scottish Executive drops FOI disclosure battle over restrictive access to Courts while thousands go without representation

I'm sure the Executive and the Law Society of Scotland have now had ample time to fiddle the documents, minutes of meetings & the rest which form the response to Mr Bill Alexander's FOI request ... although of course we do have an upcoming election in May, which may give yet another excuse for the Executive to withhold information on yet more scandal, in fear of losing a few more electoral points to the SNP.

A reminder to you all ... If you have experienced poor treatment from the Law Society of Scotland in a complaint or lost money to a crooked lawyer and nothing was done about it, Please sign Petition PE1033 and begin the campaign for redress and resolution to the way clients have been discriminated against by crooked lawyers & the Law Society of Scotland under their decades old prejudiced self regulatory complaints system.

In the Sunday Herald this weekend, the prospect of Wendy Alexander leading the Labour Party in Scotland makes the headlines .. and what a frightener that one would be ... with the prospect of the long arm of her brother, Douglas Alexander, taking out the LPLA Bill and any reforms against the legal profession ... something well within his means I would think, and well within the policies of his old firm, Messrs Digby Brown, who certainly like to restrict legislation, reforms, justice, and public access to the courts.

If Labour want to lose the election, then certainly flagging Wendy Alexander as a possible leader after the exit of McConnell, will do it I hope .. so lets hunt around for as much scandal as possible now on Digby Brown et all to open peoples eyes to some good old fashioned political corruption ...

The Sunday Herald also covers a story where, unsurprisingly, a convicted stalker has been given £30,000 to hire an advocate to defend against a Police bid to gain a 10-year Sexual Offenders Protection Order (Sopo) against him.

These lawyers, and indeed, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, certainly know who to give the legal aid to ... but just say for instance, a person comes along trying to sue a hospital for a negligent death or even protect themselves from a gang of crooked lawyers out to steal their property ...there's no chance of legal aid, because it just doesn't fit in with the deals between SLAB and the legal profession.

Here are the articles from the Sunday Herald, with links to follow.

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1315265.0.convicted_stalker_given_30_000_to_hire_top_advocate.php

Convicted stalker given £30,000 to hire top advocate
By John Bynorth
Police face huge costs fighting action

A CONVICTED stalker who battled a legal bid to ban him from approaching lone women received £30,000 from the public purse to hire a leading advocate to represent him in court.

The Sunday Herald has learned that "highly dangerous" Robert Basterfield, 35, was awarded legal aid to hire advocate James MacDonald to defend him against Tayside Police chief constable John Vine's bid for a 10-year Sexual Offenders Protection Order (Sopo) against him.

The force - which claims the Australian-born former taxi driver is a danger to women after he was convicted twice of stalking offences - immediately hired their own advocate, Barry Smith, rather than a cheaper solicitor, ramping up their legal bill by tens of thousands of pounds. The case finished last week at Perth Sheriff Court.

The revelations come as a Sunday Herald investigation has found more than 70 Sopos have been put in place across Scotland since new laws were introduced in 2005. They were brought in following the murder of Livingston schoolboy Rory Blackhall by Simon Blackhall, who was on bail for sex offences. However, only one Risk of Sexual Harm Order (RHSO) - given to "suspected" predators - has been granted.

Vine said it was "extraordinary" that Basterfield was able to hire an advocate for thousands of pounds a day to conduct his case. The chief constable told the Sunday Herald: "We've had to go along with that expense in order to fight the case.

"The final bill will be between £10,000 and £30,000, perhaps more. Unfortunately, we are not getting legal aid and this money is coming out of the force budget - money we could normally spend on putting officers on the beat.

"I thought it was extraordinary that he got legal aid for an advocate, but if we have to spend money on a top advocate to stop this man then that's what we have to do. We would probably have to spend far more than this if we had to investigate an offence this man committed in the future."

Vine took action to bar Basterfield from talking to or contacting lone females following his convictions.

Basterfield, from Perth, is currently under an interim order, banning him from taking part in any "recreational activity" such as visiting the cinema or a bar without his probation officer's permission.

The police originally wanted the Sopo applied for 30 years, but later reduced it to 10 years.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Herald has obtained evidence under freedom of information legislation from seven of Scotland's eight forces that the orders are now being applied more widely than ever. Northern Constabulary has taken out 22 Sopos - the most of any force. However, their only application for an RHSO was denied.

Lothian and Borders has been granted 19 Sopos, and with no RHSO applications. Strathclyde has obtained five Sopos - and five interim orders identical to that in place against Basterfield - but hasn't sought any RHSOs.

Dumfries and Galloway, has been awarded four Sopos but hasn't applied for any RHSOs. Central Scotland has obtained six Sopos but not applied for RHSOs.

Fife have been granted eight Sopos, and sought two RHSO orders - one of which was declined. And Tayside has been given four Sopos and no RHSOs.

Grampian Police was the first force in the country to seek RHSOs for four suspected predators after the law was introduced but no figures were available at the time of going to press regarding the number of orders it has been awarded.

Vine added that he will consider an appeal if the judge in the Basterfield case, Lindsay Foulis, rules against the force in his written judgment due later this week.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board confirmed Basterfield would have been allowed an advocate after pre-trial discussions. A spokesman said: "If it is fairly serious, then normally an advocate would take it and it certainly sounds likely in this case. However, it's too early for us to say how much the case would have cost."

and the article on Wendy Alexander's possible bid for the Labour leadership in Scotland (let's jump over the side now folks if it happens !)

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1315306.0.wendy_alexander_ready_to_fight_for_labour_leadership.php

Wendy Alexander ready to fight for Labour leadership
By Paul Hutcheon

Dewar's favourite to battle with health minister if McConnell ousted

WENDY ALEXANDER is poised to seek the leadership of the Scottish Labour Party should a disastrous result at the coming election force Jack McConnell out.

The Sunday Herald understands that jockeying has already begun in the party's senior ranks, with Alexander ready to stand should the top position become vacant.

Several Labour insiders admitted Alexander, the former enterprise minister, and health minister Andy Kerr were the likely candidates to go head-to-head if McConnell relinquishes his post after next month's election. It has been suggested Kerr could run on a "joint ticket" with parliament minister Margaret Curran.

This early planning follows Labour's inability to eat into the SNP's lead in the opinion polls. A new survey, carried out for Scottish Opinion, put the Nationalists on 40% of the constituency vote, ahead of Labour's 28%. It also gave the SNP an 11% lead on the regional list vote, with Alex Salmond's party on 39% and Labour on 28%.

A seat projection carried out for the Mail on Sunday put the SNP on 56 seats, with Labour behind on 40.

The results come on top of Labour's internal polls, which are finding the party at least five points behind the SNP.

Labour pollster Philip Gould admitted the deficit at a briefing last week, at which McConnell said: "We're behind. Our private polls show us behind."

The prospect of losing to the SNP has prompted senior Labour figures to think about who will the lead them in a post-McConnell era. The Motherwell and Wishaw MSP is expected to stand down if Labour lose out to the SNP on seats.

The most likely scenario, according to Labour insiders, is for a contest between Alexander and Kerr.

Alexander would probably have the backing of chancellor Gordon Brown and his supporters in Scotland, despite the fact she angered him in 2001 by not challenging McConnell for the top job.

Kerr, a McConnell ally, could expect support from his Lanarkshire base and activists in the west of Scotland, and may run with Curran as his deputy.

One source said: "It will be between Andy and Wendy if Jack stands down. The options are limited but very clear."

Another MSP tipped as leadership material, finance minister Tom McCabe, is understood not to want the top job.

Revelations of discussions about McConnell's successor are unlikely to help a Labour campaign that has so far failed the party in the opinion polls.

McConnell will this week attempt to seize the initiative by launching Labour's manifesto, a 100-page document that runs to 28,000 words.

One announcement will be a 25% cut in pensioners' water and sewerage charges, as a first step to abolition. More than 600,000 households would see a discount worth around £180 a year for those living in a band D property.

McConnell said of the new policy: "A quarter of the costs pensioners pay in their council tax bills is for water and sewerage. Labour will cut them in half and eventually remove them completely. This will make a massive difference to the household bills our pensioners pay."

Kerr said of the leadership speculation: "We are all trying to win the Scottish election. Whoever is saying this is undermining Labour's campaign. It is not true and it makes me angry."

Asked if he would stand for the leadership if there were a vacancy, he said: "Jack McConnell will be first minister, therefore there will be no vacancy."

Alexander could not be contacted.

Oh .. I'm sometimes accused of not reporting on the good events in Scotland... well, for a change, here's something good - an article on the "Glasgow Girls" frmo the Herald newspaper, showing how some young people from Glasgow are campaigning on immigration issues, and standing up for what they believe in .. we need a lot more of that in Scotland - so congratulations to the Glasgow Girls !

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1314707.0.0.php

Glasgow Girls in ‘Declaration of Scotstoun’
ALISON CHIESA April 06 2007

The Glasgow Girls campaign group yesterday launched the Declaration of Scotstoun as they outlined their plans for the future and hopes for the Scottish election.

The teenagers, who lobby on asylum issues, unveiled their vision on the 687th anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath.

The seven-strong group were among 100 signatories, including author AL Kennedy and Bill Speirs, former general secretary of the STUC, declaring support for 10 "democratic reforms".

The reform call included a referendum on independence, a reduction in the number of politicians, and a lowering of the voting age to 16.

The declaration - which also pleaded for an immediate amnesty on "legacy" case asylum seekers - was launched by the group on behalf of YouScotland.com.

The interactive website was set up in February with the aim of ensuring the views of "ordinary" voters are uppermost in the current election campaign.

As the teenagers launched the declaration in Scotstoun, they wore the national Italian tartan, in honour of Scotland's "oldest and most successful ethnic minority".

The group came to prominence two years ago when they launched a campaign to save a classmate at Drumchapel High School in Glasgow from deportation.

Somalian-born Amal Azzudin, 17, who attended the launch yesterday with group members, Emma Clifford and Roza Salih, explained why they had signed up for the declaration.

"We think young people should have a say in what happens in their own country," she said. "Among other issues included in the declaration are those of asylum. We hope that everyone takes the opportunity to sign it and, in so doing, changes things in Scotland."

Ms Azzudin, who has ambitions to become a politician, was awarded refugee status in 2004. She added: "While my future's secure, I cannot sit back and do nothing. I still think Scotland is a just country, but the way asylum seeker children are being treated, especially, is unbelievable. Being locked up in detention centres is something they will never forget."

Like others in the group, she gets "frustrated" at the apparently slow political progress over asylum issues. "I know political change takes time," she said. "But we really feel there is just talk of promises from politicians, with nothing being done. While we wait, we watch our community suffer, and it isn't just asylum seekers - it is the teachers, the neighbours, the friends."

Ms Salih, 17, originally from Iraq, remains at risk of being removed from the country she has made her home for six years. Still at school, she has aspirations to become a human rights lawyer. "I feel we have no hope," she said. "Asylum seekers can't concentrate on their studies because they fear being sent back any moment."

She added that she felt her culture was "both Iraqi and Scots". "I was born in Iraq, but I also consider myself Scottish. I grew up here, I understood life here, my heart opened here. Here is my country now and this is where I want to study and make a life," she said.

Alan Smart, spokesman for YouScotland.com, explained the symbolism behind the teenagers' decision to wear the Italian tartan.

He said: "The girls wore the tartan of Scotland's oldest and most successful ethnic minority. This was a community itself initially stigmatised and spurned by the authorities of their day - until it became obvious that they were enriching the communities they lived in, rather than taking from them."

He added: "The Glasgow Girls have shown how, in another way, asylum seekers and people from other cultures can enrich Scotland by backing democratic reforms which will empower the people of Scotland and, in so doing, challenge the stale, closed and largely self-serving culture of our political elites."

As with its original, the new declaration on the website is seeking an international audience, Mr Smart said. "The website aims to give a modern-day meaning to the ideals of the original declaration's signatories, and to those of the founding fathers of the USA, themselves in part inspired by events in Arbroath," he added.

Scottish Executive budget on lawyers salaries revealed at over £5 million pounds while public face restrictions on legal representation

While the ranks of Scotland's 'Family Lawyers' happily use strike action & case boycotts to get their way with the legal aid budget - and the Law Society of Scotland makes sure that anyone trying to use a lawyer to sue a lawyer can't get into court, the Scottish Executive has no such apparent problems in securing legal representation, as a Freedom of Information disclosure to Mr Duncan Shields reveals.

The response from the Scottish Executive, reveals that 114 lawyers work for the Scottish Executive at a cost of £5,262,347 per annum - showing that while the taxpayer finds it hard to get a lawyer to do anything competently - and those who can't afford a lawyer can't even get one to work on legal aid - the Executive certainly has quite a little army of lawyers ready to do their bidding.

So, if you want a lawyer - why bother going to the Law Society of Scotland or consulting the Yellow Pages, when you would be as well to phone up the Scottish Executive and ask for one of theirs !

Just who these lawyers are, remains to be seen, as the Scottish Executive has not revealed any identities within the FOI disclosure, although questions are now surfacing as to the regulatory records of those lawyers recruited by the Scottish Executive, with suspicions that some business contracted out, has seemingly went to legal firms embroiled in bitter negligence cases with clients, which have also been raised with the Scottish Executive by constituents & their elected representatives.

These revelations make for interesting reading, given the Executive have held off from implementing sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 - which would have allowed the public a wider choice in legal representation than the currently required choice - that of either a lawyer or an advocate, or typically both, at great expense, and severe restriction.

The Salary Table released from the Scottish Executive on lawyers salaries :

I would point out that the Executive have only released a general note on salaries in this case - and it may well be that when other benefits & perks are included, the final salary bill will certainly be over £6 million pounds. Further extravagance at the taxpayers expense perhaps ? .. so we certainly need to know the rest if we are all paying for it !

The following is the Scottish Executive's covering letter to Mr Duncan Shields who made the FOI inquiry, which proves for interesting reading, and will no doubt, give all of you some constructive ideas.

Dear Mr Shields

Thank you for your request dated 9 February 2007 for information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act.

You ask whether Mr Paul Cackette is a member of the Law Society of Scotland. Under section 25 of the Act, we are not required to provide information in response to a request if it is already reasonably accessible to you. The information you requested is available from the Law Society of Scotland's website at http://www.lawscot.org.uk

You request the names of all members of the Law Society of Scotland working for the Executive who have access to your correspondence, and also the names of all members of the Society acting for the Executive in connection with the implementation of sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

We do endeavour to provide information whenever possible. However, in this instance we consider that exemption under sections 30(c) , 38(1)(b) and 39(1) of the Freedom ofInformation (Scotland) Act applies.

These exemptions cover information the disclosure of which would be liable to prejudice substantially the conduct of public affairs; information which constitutes personal data the disclosure of which would contravene the data protection principles contained in the Data Protection Act 1998 and information the release of which would be liable to endanger the health and safety of an individual.

You request the names of all members of the Law Society of Scotland acting for the Scottish Executive in house, together with details of the salaries and benefits paid to each member.

The names of all members of the Society working for the Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive are available from the Society's website at the address supplied above, as are members working for the Legal Secretariat to the Lord Advocate and Office of the Scottish Parliamentary Counsel. A number of members of the Society work in policy posts for the Scottish Executive Justice Department, and their names are also available from this website.. We therefore consider that we do notrequire to provide this information.

We consider that information relating to individuals' salary and benefit details is exempt under sections 30(c) , 38(1)(b) and 39(1). However, I attach a list which contains details of the pay bands within which Scottish Executive lawyers are employed, the salariesapplicable to those bands and the staff numbers within each band.

You also request minutes and memorandums of meetings where discussion has taken place as regards implementing sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. We have now completed our search for the information yourequire, and copies of the following documents are enclosed:-

1. Note of meeting between the Executive and the Department for Constitutional Affairs on 22 February 2006;
2. Note of meeting between the Executive and the Law Society of Scotland on 13 March 2006;
3. Note of meeting between the Executive, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys on 23 May 2006;
4. Note of telephone conference between the Executive and the Office of Fair Trading on 27 July 2006;
5. Note of meeting between the Executive and the Scottish Consumer Council on 2 August 2006.

We consider that exemption under section 29(1)(a) and 30(b) applies to the notes of two meetings between the Executive and the Lord President's office in February and August 2006. These exemptions cover information relating to the formulation or development of Scottish Administration policy and information the release of which would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice to Ministers or the free and frank exchange ofviews for the purposes of deliberation. We believe that these exemptions apply on the basis that these notes constitute the preparation of advice to Ministers.

We also consider that exemption under sections 29(1)(a), 30(b) and (c) and 38(1)(b) applies to the minute of a meeting with a member of the public in 2001. This meeting involved discussion of the personal views of an individual relevant to the formulation ofgovernment policy. We consider that there is a need to protect the free and frank exchange of such views, and not to release information relating to them withoutthe consent of the individual concerned.

We believe that exemption under sections 30(b) and 38(1)(b) applies to the note of a meeting with representatives of a stakeholder organisation in 1997. This is because the note records the personal views and intentions of individuals, and we consider thatdisclosure of these would be liable to prejudice the free and frank exchange of views.

In reaching our decision about the release of information under sections 29(1)(a), 30(b) and (c) and 39(1) (exemptions which are not absolute) we have applied the "public interest" test, where we carefully weigh up the balance between whether it would be inthe public's best interest to either release or withhold the information. We believe that it would not be in the public interest to release the information because this would discourage the development of policy and the preparation of advice to Ministers in afree and frank way.

In the case of the material relating to individual civil servants which we consider to be exempt under sections 30(c) and 39(1), disclosure could lead to the harassment or intimidation of individual employees with detrimental consequences for the effective conduct of public affairs.

If you believe that our decision not to release all the information we consider to be exempt is wrong, you do have the right to request us to review it. Your request should be made within 40 working days of the date of this letter, and we will reply within 20working days of receipt. If our decision is unchanged following a review and you remain unsatisfied with this, you then have the right to make a formal complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

If you require a review of our decision to be carried out, please write to Robert Gordon, Head of the Scottish Executive Justice Department, St Andrew's House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG, explaining why you wish a review to be carried out.

Access to Justice Division
Scottish Executive Justice Department