North East drug dealers caught with 73,000 ecstasy pills in house – The Northern Scot

/in , /by

A pair of North East men caught with more than 73,000 ecstasy tablets in a house have been jailed.

Connor Holmes (24) and Scott Roddie (29) from Aberdeen distributed class A drugs across the world.

In December 2018, two parcels addressed to Holmes from the Netherlands were intercepted and found to contain 8.2kg of MDMA powder.

The police subsequently raided his home and recovered 73,366 tablets worth at least £733,660 and £8500 in cash.

A day later a further parcel, addressed to Holmes, containing cocaine, heroin, and more MDMA was recovered.

Both Holmes and Roddie pleaded guilty to being involved in the supply and importation of controlled drugs when they appeared at the High Court in Edinburgh in March last year.

At the same court today Holmes was sentenced to two years and three months.

Meanwhile, Roddie was jailed for six years and three months.

Their convictions were welcomed by both police and prosecutors.

Detective Inspector Tom Gillan said: “From the address in Aberdeen, Holmes and Roddie were able to receive and distribute illicit drugs, with a street value of around £1.3million on an international scale.

“The men made use of the dark web and cryptocurrencies to support their criminal market place and used the UK postal system to distribute the drugs.

“This is an example of a targeted investigation which disrupted a developed and sophisticated criminal model, based in the North East of Scotland.”

Meanwhile, Gerry McLean from the National Crime Agency said: “These two men were responsible for the global distribution of class A drugs on an industrial scale.

“It is only right that they spend time behind bars.

“Holmes and Roddie thought that they could evade law enforcement by using the dark web and cryptocurrencies, hiding behind computer screens, and tricking our postal service into facilitating their dirty work.”

While Salmond tanked, pro-unionist tactical voting made its mark in Scotland – The Guardian

/in , , /by

With Friday’s constituency results turning the map canary yellow, it was never in doubt that the SNP had secured a comfortable victory and a historic fourth term at Holyrood. And while it remained on a knife-edge into the late afternoon whether Nicola Sturgeon’s nationalists could reach the 65 seats required for an outright Holyrood majority, senior party figures were eager to manage expectation, concentrating on the party’s sweep of constituencies and increased vote share. It was an extraordinary result by any standards after 14 years in power. Indeed, due to the proportional nature of the Holyrood voting system, a majority has been achieved only once since the Scottish parliament was established, in 2011 by the SNP under the leadership of former first minister Alex Salmond.

Much analysis during the campaign was given over to how pro-independence voters might respond to Salmond’s argument that hundreds of thousands of ballots cast for the SNP’s list candidates in 2016 were “the ultimate wasted vote” as they led to only a handful of MSPs being elected. A vote for Alba, the party he launched only six weeks ago, would help secure a “pro-independence super-majority” at Holyrood, Salmond said, and make it far harder for Boris Johnson to refuse a second referendum.

Last week, SNP candidates reported that, while voters were asking more questions about the two-part voting system this campaign, their growing awareness was not benefiting Alba, but the Scottish Greens instead. But as Salmond’s tactical pro-independence plan tanked, with Alba not expected to return any MSPs, there was significant evidence of pro-union voters acting strategically.

Anti-independence campaigners spent tens of thousands of pounds in the run-up to Thursday’s vote calling for tactical voting to prevent an SNP majority, while the Scottish Conservatives rammed home their core message of stopping a second referendum, especially by voting Conservative on the regional list.

Pro-unionist tactical voting had a significant effect in some key marginal constituencies, with Scottish Labour’s deputy leader Jackie Baillie increasing what had been the smallest majority in Scotland, thanks to Liberal Democrat supporters, but failed to secure significant Tory gains on the list, fuelling some internal criticism that Ross focused on stopping a referendum at the expense of a more positive case for the union emphasising the UK’s pandemic achievements like furlough and vaccine rollout.

Turnout also soared as a consequence, exceeding 70% in some constituencies, well above the national average of 55% in 2016, upturning fears that Covid might keep voters at home. SNP insiders had raised their own concerns that complacency about their party’s success – or conversely a “scunner factor”, as unionist attacks on their 14-year record in government cut through – might discourage their base on the day. However, this appears to have been balanced by the impact of Sturgeon’s increased popularity as a result of her pandemic leadership which boosted SNP support.

Travelling around the country, the esteem and trust “Nicola” is held in has been evident, with many saying they would support the SNP to continue her steady leadership despite ambivalence about another referendum.

Sturgeon’s own language around the timing of a second referendum – “when the crisis has passed” – is usefully vague, but her interpretation of what constitutes a mandate for one has always been clear. As it states in the SNP manifesto: “If the SNP is returned to government and there is a simple majority in the Scottish Parliament for [the referendum] bill.” By the latest projections, these conditions have clearly been met with a pro-independence majority of MSPs from the SNP and Scottish Greens. But as this became clear, Scottish Tories immediately set out their counter: that the number of individual votes cast for pro-union parties was greater than those for pro-independence parties.

Boris Johnson’s own formulation on Saturday – “a referendum in the current context is irresponsible and reckless” – likewise allows room for manoeuvre for the man said to be adamant in private that he will not be the prime minister who permits a referendum but is also conscious of not sounding entirely anti-democratic.

With the votes still being counted, Sturgeon herself told Johnson that he would have to go to court to stop her new government introducing legislation for another referendum. Such a fight – with the second-least-popular politician in Scotland – is one she will no doubt relish and use to consolidate support for independence.

Meanwhile, the least popular politician in Scotland, according to recent polling, Alex Salmond, who had styled himself as the man to keep the SNP honest about independence at Holyrood, may have done his former party a favour in drawing away those hardliners who would have agitated for immediate referendum negotiations.

During a fairly intemperate YouTube broadcast on Saturday afternoon, in which he hit out at “weirdos and cranks” in the media and accused Sturgeon of “losing her nerve” over a referendum, Salmond warned that Alba would be “much more vigorous post-election [and] free to criticise the lack of urgency and immediacy on independence”.

How many will be listening is another matter.

What would ‘devolution of VAT’ mean in Scotland? – Scottish Financial News

/in /by

Jim Burberry, RSM’s head of VAT and indirect tax in Scotland, discusses the impact of the devolution of VAT in Scotland.

The SNP’s election manifesto makes a commitment to ‘Strengthening of Scotland’s tax powers with the devolution of VAT’ (page 47).

However, there’s little detail of what is meant by this statement. Does it mean accessing the full amount of VAT collected in Scotland directly, or does it mean full legislative powers to introduce a Scottish VAT Act, set VAT rates, collect taxes and enforce compliance?

Currently, UK VAT legislation is a matter for the UK Government, including the power of setting VAT rates. The UK and Scottish Governments have previously agreed that requiring businesses to report their VAT separately for Scotland would impose an additional administrative burden and extra cost. It was therefore agreed that VAT raised in Scotland will be estimated, and 15% of Scotland’s budget will be based on VAT revenues raised in Scotland. This estimated VAT figure for the financial year 2019-20 was £5.5bn.

If the manifesto pledge is about accessing the true and full value of VAT collected in Scotland rather than relying on an estimate, the burden of establishing this figure is likely to fall on Scottish businesses, creating additional administrative costs when many need to focus on recovering after the Coronavirus pandemic. New government infrastructure would also need to be established to collect the new devolved tax, and to support businesses to pay what might be a very complicated VAT bill.

So, if the ‘devolution of tax’ refers purely to responsibility for collecting Scottish VAT it begs the question; would it bring in more in revenue than the £5.5bn estimate or less? However, if the manifesto pledge is to seek full legislative powers to introduce a Scottish VAT Act, and therefore set Scottish rates for VAT, collection and enforcement – what would that mean for businesses and consumers?

The Scottish Government may be aiming for what a previous UK Chancellor, Anthony Barber, sought to achieve with his introduction of UK VAT on 1 April 1973 – the introduction of a ‘simple tax’, rather than the complex creature it has become. Over the years, many have tried to simplify VAT, but few have succeeded. Is Scotland ready to take the opportunity to adopt best practice from across the globe and bring in a transformative new VAT Act?

Alba MP Neale Hanvey brands former SNP Westminster colleagues ‘toxic, aggressive and hostile’ – The Scotsman

/in , /by

Neale Hanvey has spoken of the “toxic, aggressive and hostile” SNP group at Westminster – and how it damaged his health.

The Kirkcaldy MP, who quit to join Alex Salmond’s Alba Party and stood unsuccessfully on the regional list in last week’s Scottish election, said he was heartbroken to leave the party, but he “detested” what it had become.

Mr Hanvey said: “You are not allowed to have a critical mind. There is no place for debate. It is policy by diktat. It is a really uncomfortable place.”

Mr Hanvey added: “It was frustrating to see how many of the SNP cohort were far too comfy with Westminster life – that really galled me.

“What motivates me is seeing too many people in poverty – not a fancy flat in London.”

Mr Hanvey was the second SNP MP to defect to Alex Salmond’s new party, in late March, following in the footsteps of Kenny McAskill.

He said the decision to leave was “unfortunately, not that difficult.” and added: “I could not continue in a Westminster parliamentary group that was so aggressive and hostile I did not think it was good for my physical and mental health.

“It was really getting incredibly difficult to even go to work even virtually. You have to watch everything you say. If you are not loyal – and by that, they mean obedient – then you are targeted.”

Mr Hanvey’s trajectory to Westminster was far from smooth.

He was adopted as the candidate for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in 2019, and then dumped just weeks before the December election after it emerged he had used anti-Semitic language on a social media post three years earlier.,

With his name already on the ballot paper, he stood as an independent, and won.

After a period of suspension he was brought back into the SNP fold, and, in February, was made the party’s vaccine spokesman – only to be sacked within days.

By then, he said, the atmosphere was impacting on his health.

“After being sacked, I was being targeted through the media again quite purposely by the SNP – that was their choice,” he said.

“I developed a pain in my head, woke up and lost part of the visual field of my eight eye. I had damaged an optic nerve through stress.”

Mr Hanvey said matters deteriorated after the First Minister was cleared of breaching the ministerial code over her involvement in the Alex Salmond saga.

“The hostility within the group amplified to screech level,” he said.

“That was my first meeting back and I thought I can’t deal with this. It was depressing.”

Mr Hanvey said he would “absolutely not” trigger a by-election after joining Alba.

“People will judge me at the next election, but if they are expecting me to remain in the SNP, they are asking me to stay in a toxic environment that was actively damaging my health”

And Mr Hanvey believes Alba still has a key role to play in Scottish politics.

“We have active members coming across, and the energy and enthusiasm from them has been really inspirational.

“I do not think Nicola Sturgeon will secure an independence referendum, and, if she does, she has not done the groundwork to win.”

The SNP declined to comment when contacted by The Scotsman

Covid in Scotland: Inspectors highly critical of Covid-hit care home – BBC News

/in , /by

Residents in a Scottish care home at the centre of Covid outbreak experienced “unnecessary harm and suffering”, according to inspectors.

They found people who were dying were among those whose “health needs were neglected” at Thornlea nursing home in Loanhead, Midlothian.

Concerns were also raised about the competency of nursing staff and the cleanliness of the home following the inspection in December 2020.

Fifteen residents died with Covid.

Within days of the Care Inspectorate’s visit to the home on 14 December, it had its registration suspended.

Operator Thornlea Nursing Homes Ltd has since gone into liquidation and the care home has been permanently closed.

It is one of at least 474 care homes in Scotland being investigated by a special Crown Office unit set up to probe Covid-linked deaths in care homes.

The report, published on the Care Inspectorate’s website, judged Thornlea Nursing Home “unsatisfactory” following an unannounced inspection.

Inspectors found that some of the 27 people who were using the service at the time were not receiving good care.

“We were very concerned that people who were unwell and nearing the end of their life were not being given appropriate palliative care,” they said.

“The nurses had not ensured that end of life medication to help people stay comfortable was available.

“People were not being checked for signs of changing needs that would then help other professionals such as a GP to be called quickly.”

There was a lack of checks on residents’ temperature, pulse rate and oxygen saturation levels, and their medication was not reviewed regularly.

It meant the need for end-of-life care was not being recognised and “people’s experiences of care at the end of their life may have been compromised as a result”, inspectors added.

Cleanliness was also a concern of inspectors who concluded the home was “not a safe environment to live and work in”.

They had enough PPE but it was not stored properly. In one instance it was found on a trolley next to an open bag of clinical waste – something which risked further spread of infection.

Staff did not clean their hands at every opportunity, following each episode of care or removing PPE.

And clinical waste was not managed properly, with bags left in overfull and unsecured waste bins, and in a bath in a room which was not secure.

Inspectors said enhanced Covid guidance had not been implemented, presenting “a serious risk to people” in the home.

They said there was a lack of management support, with no clear direction being provided.

“This had resulted in people experiencing unnecessary harm and suffering due to their health needs being neglected, including at the end of life,” they said.

The Care Inspectorate made an application to the courts to have Thornlea Nursing Home’s registration suspended following the inspection.

During a hearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 22 December, its registration was suspended from 18 January 2021.

The operator went into liquidation in March.

 

Holyrood power balance may force SNP into answering indyref currency questions – The Scotsman

/in , /by

Parliamentary arithmetic allowed the party to deliver on a series of key pledges in recent years, with its endorsement of the SNP government ensuring extra money for public sector workers and public transport. The numbers game is in play yet again. This time, the rules have changed.

The SNP can expect to come under even greater pressure over its climate targets, oil and gas economics, NATO, and other areas where a centrist orthodoxy prevails. The most intriguing biting point, however, will be the impact the Greens have on the push for independence.

A great deal has been made about the similarities between the party and SNP when it comes to the conditions for seeking a new referendum – after all, together, they form a decisive pro-independence majority.

But they are united only in their opposition to Westminster’s intransigence. Look closer, and familiar differences remain when it comes to the nuts and bolts of Scotland’s constitutional future. If they can resolve them while waging a common fight against Boris Johnson’s administration, the groundwork will be laid for a revitalised Yes campaign. Allow them to fester, however, and the independence movement will be caught in a familiar rut.

Nowhere is this tension more evident than the question of an independent Scotland’s currency, an issue which reared its head during a BBC Scotland leaders’ debate in the run up to the election.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that an independent Scotland would continue to use the pound “for as long as necessary,” with a new currency adopted “when the economic conditions, the fiscal conditions, the issues around trading and stability, were right to do that.” Asked how long that process would take, she stressed it was “not absolutely fixed.”

To put it charitably, this is not an entirely representative summary of her own party’s stance. One of the most significant decisions taken by the SNP since the 2014 referendum was its decision two years ago to endorse a separate Scottish currency.

This was, in part, a recognition that the Yes campaign’s arguments on currency were central to its loss. Having long maintained that a formal currency union with the rest of the UK was viable, it had little room for manoeuvre when the Treasury said otherwise.

But the SNP’s about face was also sparked by grassroots discontent with the sustainable growth commission’s 2018 report, which proposed that Scotland would retain the pound for a lengthy transition period after independence.

The SNP has tried to ride both horses ever since, and while it backs a Scottish currency, the party’s leadership suffered a painful defeat over its tentative approach at its 2019 conference, with delegates backing a fast-track plan to adopt a new currency “as soon as practicable” after independence.

Six stringent fiscal tests set out by the growth commission remain in place, which include establishing the international and market credibility of a new central bank. But these are not conditions which will be met overnight, and the party’s footsoldiers have let Ms Sturgeon know that her patience is not contagious.

The language employed since then is sufficiently ambiguous to muddy the message on when Scotland would transition from the pound. It could best be summarised as ‘Take your time and hurry up’.

Whichever way you cut it, that is damaging, and it throws up some fundamental problems for the Yes camp: how, for example, could an independent Scotland join the EU if it is still in a currency union with the rest of the post-Brexit UK?

If it is irksome for the SNP’s leadership that many on the left of the party regard a lengthy transition period of a decade or more as unconscionable, the fact the Scottish Greens share that view is even more problematic.

It believes the move to a new currency should form part of the transition process immediately after a Yes vote, warning that any lengthy delay would inhibit Scotland’s prospects of joining the EU and hinder plans for a fairer, net zero economy.

The Greens’ position on this was largely similar in the lead up to the 2014 referendum. The key difference now, the SNP is reliant on the Greens’ support in Holyrood. With that comes the need for compromise.

With the pandemic recovery at the forefront of everyone’s minds, the Greens will not push on the currency issue any time soon. Be in no doubt, however, that when the government seeks – and gains – Holyrood’s approval for its referendum bill, tough questions will be asked.

There is an optimistic line of thought that this could work in the SNP’s favour by forcing it to bring some much needed clarity to the currency issue. If, and it is a big if, the Greens can force the SNP to commit to a definitive timeframe for the adoption of a new currency, it would make for a more digestible campaign line.

The reality, though, is that Ms Sturgeon would never make such a concrete commitment in the knowledge that no one can predict the future of the economy. That indefinite wait would be seized upon by the Greens as a barrier to an independent Scotland’s progress.

Both parties know they need to tread carefully around currency. If disagreement hardens into dissent, a new Yes campaign would be hamstrung by one of the central issues in the independence debate from the get go.

Equally, that risk ought to force the SNP’s hand so that it provides some long overdue answers. Some in the party think it is now on firmer footing when it comes to the currency question. Before long, they may find themselves disabused of such notions by critical friends.