Return to opening page


Accuracy and Suggested revision:


14th November

Dear Martin,
Enjoyed the visit to your site.  However you misrepresent my exchange with Lord Gill.  I had petitioned the Nobile Officium concerning Lord Cullen's unreasoned and contrary refusal to permit right of signature during an extra-statutory hearing to competence.  [He reasoned that no examination of Lord Sutherland's opinion should be permitted on the grounds that 'One can deduce Lord Sutherland's reasons from the conclusion he reached!]. 

Again an extra-statutory challenge to competency was assembled, this time chaired by Lord Gill.  For the 23rd time a member of the Speculative Society was involved in a High Court process which clearly designed to derail a legitimate appeal (Lord Osborne).  Armed with that number of subjective examples of the obvious objective problem, whereby 4 Spec members had been in critical positions at the setting up of the Skye Tolls regime, I finally said that I wished to lodge a counter-challenge on two grounds: firstly what is the statutory authority for any such challenge to a petition to the Nobile Officium which is a right at common law?, and secondly, are we not jeopardising the principle of impartiality when Judges appear on these competency challenges and DO NOT DECLARE their interest by association? 

The first Chairman of the Skye Bridge Company was Sir Iain Noble, one of their financial advisers was Sir Angus Grossart, the senior civil servant in charge of the Development Department was Niall Campbell and the Minister in charge of delivering the PFI friendly subordinate legislation (Toll Orders etc.) was Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

I specifically made no accusation against any individual or the Society in general, simply pointing out the legitimate possibility of conflict of interest in the minds of the reasonable public, a point which must be must now be addressed by law when legitimately raised.

 It is indeed the duty of the Court to clean house in these circumstances (See Remli v. France quoted in the attachment), not a burden of proof to be placed upon the challenger in the style of Lord Gill. 

I identified Lord Osborne as a Spec Member and he was removed for the hearing.  The delivery for that hearing is attached.  In the end Lord Gill claimed I had not proved a case which was not mine to prove.  He chose to ignore a supporting petition of some 1100 signatures reflecting the public of Skye's discomfort and makes no reference to the 20+ examples of Spec-connected obstruction of justice.

Lord Gill's response is thus properly merely an interlocutor in an ongoing criminal appeal and is thus arguably sub judice.  It is certainly not an Opinion proper and had the matter been the sole basis of a petition to the Nobile Officium you can be sure I would have delivered both barrels, not politely pointed out the possibility of a threat to impartiality in a case concerning lack of subscription to a tolling licence.

Interestingly the matter is resumed on Thursday 18 November before Lord Gill when we move to the hearing proper against Lord Cullen.  It will be the first formal challenge against the Lord Justice General alleging a violation of Human Rights on his part. All welcome.
Power to your elbow in the meanwhile.

Best regards,





The Lord Justice Clerk’s Terms of Reference

An assessment of the impact, if any, of membership of a private society on the integrity of the judicial process.  It involves contentious questions of fact, none of which are within judicial knowledge, and the making of a judgement on the significance of such facts as are established.”


Today’s proceedings, while very much welcomed by the people of Skye, might be rendered both farcical and worthless if the petitioner has not the courage to be thorough enough to ensure that he will enjoy his new legal right to a fair hearing from an independent and impartial tribunal.  Accepting the terms of the Court’s interlocutor for the purposes of these proceedings, the civic duty placed on the shoulders of the petitioner is considerable.  There will be no shrinking from that but your Lordships will also understand the judicial duty to equity, traditionally expected of all persons who aspire to being called a good Scottish lawyer.  All parties, and inclusion of public cynics is intended, must see this process to be as flawless as is presently possible.  On this point there is guidance for the Courts in the judgement of the European Court in Remli v. France 1995/510/593 at Paragraph 48:

“Like the Commission, the Court considers that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention imposes an obligation on every national court to check whether, as constituted, it is "an impartial tribunal"  within the meaning of that provision (art. 6-1) where, as in the
instant case, this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit.”

That judgement renders the matter a judicial responsibility in the circumstances, today’s grounds having already been held by the Court not to be manifestly devoid of merit.  For the public record, the petitioner must then ask for a response from each of your Lordships to this question:

“Have you ever taken the oath of Entered Apprentice at 1st Degree for the purpose of entering into Masonic association, or are you obliged by any expectation of loyalty which has the potential to produce an imbalanced judgement in a tribunal such as this?”

Having got the most confrontational question out of the way the rest is downhill.  The petitioner will argue that it is not unreasonable to suggest that membership of a closed order with unknown preferences is a potential threat to the impartiality of a publicly salaried Judge, in particular when Brother Judges and other parties subject to judgement are members of the same sodality. 


There are preliminary matters which the petitioner believes require consideration but, the Court might be relieved to hear, no preliminary pleas to competency.



1.The petitioner maintains and reserves his second challenge from the previous two hearings, namely questioning the statutory authority of any challenge to the competency of the right of a subject of the Kingdom of Scotland to petition the Nobile Officium, in lieu of the Monarch, under the Common Law of the Realm and, as of 2 October 2000, under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, section 7.  The right to petition the Monarch is a fundamental right at Scots Common Law and, lest there is any argument form the Crown that any subsequent Act of the Westminster parliament annuls that right, protection for that principle in entrenched in Articles 19 and 4 of the Scottish Act of Union of 1707.  For those of a Unionist bent, Article 4 guarantees a communication of the rights of the subjects of either kingdom to the other.  The right to petition the Monarch is in England identified at Article 9 of the English Bill of Rights of 1689.  In the face of determined Unionism only, the petitioner would reluctantly invoke that provision.

      This caveat is maintained regardless of the fact that this particular extrapolated hearing arises from a counter-challenge to competency made by the petitioner himself.  All proceedings which threaten the right to a fair hearing of this petition are suffered under duress, namely being declared abandoned through lack of insistence, should the petitioner fail to appear in Edinburgh to defend his petition.  The Treasurer of the Skye legal group who have financed three round trips of 600 miles each has asked me to politely request a refund of expenses should these challenges be recognised as outwith the rule of law.

While prepared to proceed respectful of the terms of the interlocutor despite disagreeing with the Court’s view on the role of the Lord Advocate in the appointment and elevation of judges, the petitioner maintains and reserves his position on that topic, lest any appeal arising from today’s proceedings be thought necessary.

The legitimacy of this Court is therefore accepted at present only for the practical purposes of expediting this hearing and in all other respects remains under challenge by the petitioner, under the terms of Section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998.  Any exploitation of this practical truce will be rejected as unfair in law.

2.As regards the challenge to the presence of Lord Kirkwood on this Bench, the petitioner maintains and reserves his position on that topic also, for the above-stated reasons.  The challenge to Lord Kirkwood was that his Lordship had previously formed a view on the topic of the petition at hand, a petition to revisit the findings of Lord Sutherland in ‘Smith & Others’.  A copy of the Opinion of Lord Kirkwood wherein his Lordship refused to consider the terms of appeals by Stella Anderson and Alexander Coghill on, the basis that the Opinion of Lord Sutherland is binding upon any other Court, was posted to the Lord Justice Clerk for his consideration. 

 The petitioner must now formally lodge a copy of that Opinion with the Court, lest any appeal arising from today’s proceedings be thought necessary.  Given the evidence to the contrary I must respectfully ask Lord Kirkwood if he is prepared to totally reverse his previous position on the topic, given the public suspicion that the object of this Court is to challenge the competency of a petition to identify a miscarriage of justice in the Opinion of Lord Sutherland.  [Petitioner has the right to a fair hearing from an impartial tribunal.]



Bearing in mind the terms of the first caveat, namely that the authority of the Court is wholly accepted only to the extent of resolving the challenge concerning the potential influence of fellow-membership of the private Speculative Society, the petitioner requests that the Court consider the possibility of exercising its reciprocal positive powers.  Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 this Court has the power to “make such order… as it considers just and appropriate” to remedy any circumstances resulting from a violation of section 6 of the same Act, wherein failure by a previous Court to deliver a person’s right to a fair hearing from an impartial tribunal is unlawful and thus an offence.   


            The Court’s Interlocutor states that it is ‘fanciful’ to suggest that Lord Kirkwood could not approach the issue in this petition with an open mind and that Lord Kirkwood’s ‘judicial oath is a conclusive answer to any objection’.

      The Judicial Oath taken by all Judges in Scotland reads:


For a petitioner in search of a fair hearing this oath raises several important constitutional points of contention.


The authority of the College of Justice in Scotland is protected in the entrenched Article 19 of the Act of Union of 1707.  The article of guarantee assures the People of Scotland that the College of Justice remains, as it was constituted by the laws of the kingdom, for all time coming, notwithstanding any Union, and with its original authority.  That authority derives from the sovereign grant by ‘laws and customs’ of the People of Scotland.  That grant is reflective of the sovereign people’s ‘laws and usages’.  The petitioner can find no example of differentiation between the terms ‘customs’ and ‘usages’ and holds them to mean the same.  Therefore the history of right by customs being an integral ingredient of Scottish sovereignty must be taken seriously.

The Kingdom of Scotland was first formally declared and recognised as independent by Richard I, King of England on December 5th, 1189.  Consequently, for the Treaty of Brigham on 12 July 1290, at a national meeting to settle the terms of the marriage between Margaret, Maid of Norway and the Prince of Wales, a broad representation of the people demanded in the first article:

"That the rights, laws, liberties and customs of Scotland should remain for ever entire and inviolable throughout the whole realm and its marches…"

The third article held that the Kingdom of Scotland "should remain separate and divided from England, free in itself, and without subjection, according to its right, boundaries and marches..."

In the Declaration of Dundee on 24th February 1310 an assembly of the estates 'solemnly determined and declared Robert…by the laws and customs of Scotland of former times to have been preferred in the competition for the crown to Baliol - that they, therefore, recognize Robert Bruce now reigning as their just and lawful sovereign…' 

That represents an uncontroversial assertion of Scottish popular sovereignty, particularly in the face of English interference with the Scottish constitution.  In the Scottish Declaration of Independence made at Arbroath on 6th April 1320, a crucial passage reads:

"Yet if he (Bruce) should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule."

In the Treaty of Edinburgh 1327, (Northampton in 1328), Edward III King of England granted:

"That the Kingdom of Scotland…shall remain free and entire for ever…without any subjection, servitude, reclamation or demand whatsoever…".

The problem then reveals itself to be ‘to whom are Judges referring when they swear to serve “OUR” sovereign’?  With whom are they accepting association when they adopt the personal pronoun in the plural tense, despite swearing individually?  It is clear that the personification of the sovereignty is Queen Elizabeth and it is unlikely to be the Bruce’s queen when Robert the Bruce himself could be readily named.  One can only deduce that the reference is to Elizabeth II, Queen of England and Head of the Protestant Church of England.  There is an argument under the dubious English maxim of ‘established practice’ that Elizabeth II is ‘Queen of the United Kingdom’, in the singular tense. It is accepted that Elizabeth II is indeed the queen of a kingdom which has incorporated the ancient Kingdom of Wales, degrading it to a principality in so doing, and thus is queen of the united kingdoms of England and Wales.  However in law there are alien imperialists who would assert that another union has taken place between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England as constituted in 1706.  This however is a legal fiction.

There is no union based on the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 because there is no treaty. 

There is no evidence of the democratic will of the sovereign people expressing any desire to enter into any such arrangement.  Even if the Scottish Act of Union had not been unlawfully commissioned by the Queen of England and had not been secured by overt bribery and corruption there was an abject failure to effect the process of a treaty.  There was no treaty document to which both sovereignties could register accord, nor was there the alternative arrangement namely ratification of a notion proposed conditionally by two sovereign Acts of Parliament.  It was clearly the intention of the Queen of England to adopt the latter route.

The preamble to the Scottish and English Acts of Union, while ensuring the utter entrenchment of Hanoverian Protestantism in any royal succession, states:

“Her Majesty with advice and consent of the Estates of Parliament Resolving to Establish the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government within this Kingdom has past in this Session of Parliament an Act entituled Act for secureing of the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government which by the Tenor thereof is appointed to be insert in any Act ratifying the Treaty and expressly declared to be a fundamentall and essentiall Condition of the said Treaty or Union in all time coming.

Therefore Her Majesty with advice and consent of the Estates of Parliament in fortification of the Approbation of the Articles as above mentioned And for their further and better Establishment of the same upon full and mature deliberation upon the forsaids Articles of Union and Act of Parliament Doth Ratifie Approve and Confirm the same.” 

It is always hard to prove a negative but easy in this case.  The petitioner invites anyone arrogating any authority on the part of the so-called ‘UK Crown’, and that very much includes the Lord Advocate and the author of the New Roads and Street Works Act in Westminster, to produce proof of ratification of the notional treaty of union.  The need for it is openly admitted in the preamble yet it never happened.  There is no lawful, constitutional union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. The phrase ‘our sovereign’ is thus rendered constitutionally meaningless in Scotland.

This truth places would-be Judges in Scotland in a queer place.  They have sworn an oath only to the queen of England and Wales, but not to serve their own sovereign people of Scotland.  That violates the terms of Article 19 of the Act of Union of 1707, wherein their authority is derived from popular sovereign grant.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that that is the legal equivalent of treason.

That treason, sometimes called being a ‘Campbellite’, was entrenched by Lord Campbell in 'The Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Company v. Wauchope 1852,  (Bell's Appeal Cases 252, p279).  Lord Campbell opined:

"All that a court of justice can look to is the parliamentary roll; they see that an act has passed both Houses of Parliament, and that it has received the royal assent."

Why might they not look to their true master, not the will of Westminster but the will of the sovereign people of Scotland?   Scottish judges are not expected to give preference and privilege to an English Prime Minister, a function for which there is no provision in the union proposals.

The current situation is that the Lord Advocate is a member of the Scottish Cabinet politically loyal to the Unionist Labour Party, an organisation with constitution dependent on a valid union, with its headquarters and leader based in England.  As a Unionist party it is committed to opposing any claim by the people of the Kingdom of Scotland to the right of self-determination.  The Labour Party supports the English doctrine of 'parliamentary sovereignty' and, by arrogating the reservation of naturally Scottish sovereign powers to Westminster, a Labour government asserts Westminster superiority in sovereignty, even in Scotland, over the Scottish traditional doctrine of popular sovereignty.  That Anglo-centric imperialism is protected in even the Scotland Act at section 37, luckily null and void.

Judges in Scotland are thus committing themselves professionally to both political Unionism and sectarian Protestantism but without any legal basis, and in breach of the Scottish Act of Union.  The great seal under which this Court is convened prohibits all abuse, even legal.  It is the personification of sovereignty who states ‘No man abuses me with impunity’.

For the sake of argument only, even if it was proposed to grant any authority in Scotland to the Queen of England by pretending that she was monarch of both kingdoms, the UK Crown’s and any Scottish Judge’s authority is still annulled.  The intended Queen herself takes an Oath, strictly controlled by the Coronation Oath Act of 1688.  Her Majesty is obliged to:

“solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs.”

The Coronation Oath Act 1688, meanwhile, a Statute in Force revised to 1 February 1978 and thus currently valid in England at Part II obliges intended queen to:

“solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same.”

At Part IV however it demands that “the said oath shall be in like manner administered to every King and Queen, who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this Realm… any law, statute, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.”

That Part IV protects the terms of Part II, in particular the conditional life contract explicit between the people as one party, and the monarch entrusted with sovereign powers.  The condition is that the monarch can only give effect to statutes agreed in parliament and by means of only the laws and customs of the parliament.  This system is already the Scottish custom, but, while we are pretending to accept the fiction of union, and lest there be any doubt, there is a complete communication of all rights of the subjects of either kingdom to the other under Article 4 of the 1707 Act.

While no Act of the present Scottish Parliament has, and ironically under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 can, repealed the authority of the College of Justice granted by the people of Scotland the terms of any oath Senators might have taken to an alien queen are of no worth, consequence or obligation.  
For those intrepid Brits who would maintain the lawful propriety of the Queen’s coronation as monarch of all the peoples of these isles I would argue that their position would be stronger if it can be proved that Her Majesty had in fact signed her oath according to the rigid procedure demanded by statute.  The petitioner has reason to believe that on her coronation day there was no ink in the well and she faked the lawful process. 

The Judicial Oath therefore, far from assuring the Scottish public of impartiality convicts the Judge of bias towards both political ‘partyism’ and Christian sectarianism.  By swearing loyalty and service to the Queen of England, who is also the head of the Church of England, a Judge demonstrates favour and affection for Unionism and English Protestantism.

For Unionists who might baulk at the claim that both the political and legal governance of the elder Kingdom of Scotland is rooted and stewed in sectarianism, the petitioner invites them to defend the terms of Article 2 of the Act of Union.  The second paragraph reads:

      “And that all Papists and persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded from and forever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain….

      And by way of emphasis it continues by defining the constitutional status of ‘Papist or persons marrying Papists’ as the legal equivalent of “NATURALLY DEAD”.  Institutionalised attitudes flow from the example set at the top.  This attitude gives authority and even blessing to a Billy Boy shouting at a Tim “By the way, you’re dead.”

Given that degree of both constitutional and institutional compromise there can be no merit in any claim of independence and, again for the sake of this argument, the people of Scotland therefore must place their trust in, and depend utterly on, a Judge’s personal impartiality.  This can be defined as the quality of resisting flow of sympathy to others, especially anyone to whom he might owe favour or affection.



Fortunately the Courts, and the public, are now assisted in understanding exactly what the law means by ‘impartiality’.  Remli v. France again has guidance on the question.  It states at paragraph 46:

The Court refers to the principles laid down in its case-law concerning the independence and impartiality of tribunals, which apply to jurors as they do to professional and lay judges (see the Holm v. Sweden judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-A, p. 14,
para. 30).

        When it is being decided whether in a given case there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality, the standpoint of the accused is important but not decisive.  What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified
(see, among other authorities, the Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B, p. 38, para. 35, and the Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 27).

A first British benchmark indicating the standards to be maintained on the topic of conflict of interest and compromise exits is the ruling by the House of Lords in the case of General Pinochet. 

In 'Regina v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2)' in January of 1999 (1 All ER). 

Lord Hope of Craighead, a former Lord Justice General of Scotland says at p.592:

"One of the cornerstones of our legal system is the impartiality of the tribunals by which justice is administered.  In civil litigation the guiding principle is that no one may be a judge in his own cause; nemo debet esse judex in propria causa.  It is a principle which is applied much more widely than a literal interpretation of the words might suggest."

Lord Hope then cites the opinion of Lord Buckmaster given in Sellar v. Highland Railway Company 1919 SC (HL) 19:

"The importance of preserving the administration of justice from anything which can even by remote imagination infer a bias or interest in the Judge upon whom falls the solemn duty of interpreting the law is so grave that any small inconvenience experienced in its preservation may be cheerfully endured".  Lord Hope then continues:

As my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley said in R v. Gough (1993) 2 All ER 724 at 730, (1993) AC 646 at 641:

"The nature of the interest is such that public confidence in the administration of justice requires that the judge must withdraw from the case or, if he fails to disclose his interest and sits in judgement upon it, the decision cannot stand.  It is no answer for the judge to say that he is in fact impartial and he will abide by his judicial oath.  The purpose of disqualification is to preserve the administration of justice from any suspicion of impartiality."

And at p.594:

"The ground of objection, which has invariably been taken until now in criminal cases, is based on that other principle which has its origins in the requirement of impartiality.  That is that justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.  It covers a wider range of situations than that which is covered by the maxim that no one may be a judge in his own cause.  But it would be surprising if the application of that principle were to result in a test that was less exacting than that resulting from the application of the nemo judex in sua causa principle. 

Public confidence in the integrity of justice is just as important, perhaps even more so, in criminal cases.  Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950;TS 71 (1953); Cmd. 8969) makes no distinction between civil and criminal cases in its expression of the right of everyone to a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".  And at p.595:

"Where a judge is performing a judicial duty, he must not only bring to the discharge of that duty an unbiased and impartial mind.  He must be seen to be impartial".

Finally, an observation by Lord Nolan is most poignant.  At p.592 His Lordship states:

"I would only add that in any case where the impartiality of a judge is in question the appearance of the matter is just as important as the reality."

In my submission these opinions are clear legal guidelines for which we should be grateful and which we deny or ignore at our serious peril.  However they only identify what should be in place.  We must now look at how these values are tested in practice.


The tests that have to be applied in determining independence and impartiality are not in doubt and are most conveniently set out in Findlay v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 221 at paragraph 73.  They are repeated in the most recent relevant decision of the European Court of Human Rights, McGonnell v. United Kingdom (8 February 2000, unreported), at paragraph 48.  The Court states:

"In order to determine whether a tribunal can be considered as 'independent', regard must be had, inter alia, to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence.

As to the question of 'impartiality', there are two aspects to this requirement.  First, the tribunal must be subjectively free of personal prejudice or bias.  Secondly, it must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect."

The foregoing drives it home that the standards of propriety must be of the highest order when it comes to the question of potential conflict of interest.  No degree of compromise can be tolerated.  The metaphorical snow cannot even afford to be driven. 

Lord Cullen, when Lord Justice Clerk, clearly appreciated these principles.  His lordship quotes them with approval in Starrs v. Ruxton 1999 SCCR 1052 at 1068.  His Lordship also quoted with approval (at p.1070) a passage from the judgement of Le Dain J in the Canadian Supreme Court case of Valente v. The Queen (1985) 2  SCR 673 at 685.  Lord Reed also quoted the same passage (at p.1098):

"Although there is obviously a close relationship between independence and impartiality, they are nevertheless separate and distinct values and requirements.  Impartiality refers to a state of mind or attitude of the tribunal in relation to the issues and the parties in a particular case.  The word 'impartial' …connotes absence of bias, actual or perceived.  The word 'independent'…reflects or embodies the traditional constitutional value of judicial independence.  As such it connotes not merely a state of mind or attitude in the actual exercise of judicial functions, but a status or relationship to others, particularly to the executive branch of government, that rests on objective conditions or guarantees."

Lord Reed went on to quote, again presumably with approval, (at p.1099) a passage from the judgement of Vertes J. in another Canadian case [Territorial Court Act (NWT) (1997) 152 DLR (4th) 132 at 141] to the effect that "The good faith and integrity of the participants in the administration of justice, the practice or tradition, are insufficient to support independence on their own.  That is not the test of constitutionality."  Lord Reed went on to say:

"I would only add this.  Conceptions of constitutional principles such as the independence of the judiciary, and of how those principles should be given effect in practice, change over time.  Although the principle of judicial independence has found expression in similar language in Scotland and England since at least the late seventeenth century, conceptions of what it requires in substance--of what is necessary, or desirable, or feasible--have changed greatly since that time. 

What was regarded as acceptable even as recently as 1971 may no longer be regarded as acceptable.  The effect given to the European Convention by the Scotland Act and the Human Rights Act in particular represents, to my mind, a very important shift in thinking about the constitution.  It is fundamental to that shift that human rights are no longer dependent solely on conventions, by which I mean values, customs and practices of the constitution which are not legally enforceable. 

Although the Convention protects rights which reflect democratic values and underpin democratic institutions, the Convention guarantees the protection of those rights through legal processes, rather than political processes.  It is for that reason that Article 6 guarantees access to independent courts.  It would be inconsistent with the whole approach of the convention if the independence of those courts itself rested upon convention rather than law."

One might read from Lord Reed's comments on the history of change that their Lordships have recognised which way the constitutional wind must blow very soon in Scotland.  It would not be unreasonable to surmise that disposing of temporary sheriffs thus appointed was a start, and sufficient to the day.  It is a small step in logic to deduce that a type of conflict of interest has at least been recognised, and properly remedied, and therefore further investigation must take place.  Parallels can be drawn with cancer.  Perhaps we should applaud Their Lordships for their courage in indicating the inevitable.

We must now move to the issue at hand.


In our ancient Caledonian traditions it was recorded that the three proofs of a Judge are:

1.Knowledge of the Law.
2.Knowledge of the Customs which the Law does not supercede.
3.Knowledge of its Times and the Business thereto belonging.

It is further recorded that there are three things which a Judge must always study:

1.Equity, habitually.
2.Mercy, conscientiously.
3.Knowledge, profoundly and accurately.

As a form of judge for the purpose of this presentation the Petitioner intends to address the Court remaining mindful of these pre-Christian maxims.  Their clear emphasis is on knowledge and equity.  It would be hypocritical of the petitioner to assert that Members of the Spec are judging a road- tolling regime without knowledge, whilst attempting to judge nature of the Spec without factual information.  Three months ago there was one entry on the World Wide Web concerning the Speculative Society of Edinburgh, and that related to Sir Walter Scott’s membership.     


Before the impact of membership on judicial integrity can be fairly assessed it is a pre-requisite to understand the nature, and hopefully the agenda, of the beast impinging. 

The Laws of the Speculative Society of Edinburgh declare that it was instituted in November 1764, for the purpose of “Improvement in literary composition and Public Speaking”, (their emphasis on the latter).  Apologists like the Minister of Justice Jim Wallace have called it an ‘innocent debating club’ but its founding article does not suggest just that.  The Society gathers to improve the composition of their literary essays and to improve the quality of speeches addressing the public.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that these aims are to be occasionally combined.  However ‘literary’ means pertaining to literature or polite learning.  The literary sources are presumably to be respected rather than perverted, therefore it would seem a legitimate conclusion that, after a spell of brushing up one’s essay technique, there is an intention to improve the application of what one has gleaned from literature to the presentation of a public address, but to what purpose? 

For the answer to that question we must obviously return to their chosen name – the Speculative Society.  ‘Speculative’, deriving from ‘specula’ (L) – a watchtower, can fairly be defined as ‘surmising’ or ‘surmising on the chance of profit’.  Beyond scoring marks for essays, improving literary composition skills for the purpose of surmising only could well be counter-productive.  If the public are being addressed it is likely that a series of literary references might confuse even the politely learned, in a jury, a merchants’ guild or in a political meeting.  Improvement in simple surmising is not the intention.

However ‘surmising on the chance of profit’ realises a much richer vein of inquiry.  It makes sound sense to improve presentation, articulation, recitation and even pace, delivery, recovery if necessary and the whole gamut of oratory and persuasive skills if your intention is to gain something.  If one can overcome resistance by persuasion, whether gentle, gentile or otherwise one has a marketable life skill.  If that skill is taken to the Courts of Law it is called advocacy. If it is taken to the barras it is called salesmanship.  If a man takes that skill to parliament he is respected as a ‘parliamentarian’, and all understand that success in such ventures is symbolised by the watchtower, representing elevation.

A desirable advantage is gained if one has acquaintances in other ‘high places’, in Courts, commerce or Parliament.  This advantage is strengthened if one’s acquaintances are in fact long-standing chums from student days, but even more so if all share a private bond.  The most perfect bonding would be an exclusive sodality, ostensibly founded for developing these very powers of persuasion, and which then granted you potential life benefits, an extraordinary privilege indeed, obviously only for the elite and future elite in society.  Such a social device would allow the elite to self-perpetuate at the incidental expense of the non-elite, despite their merits.

During the previous hearing the petitioner advertised two quotes from the Society’s bi-centennial history, printed privately for the Society, as it proclaims in the book itself.  These quotes are salient to anyone attempting to evaluate the society’s agenda.  The petitioner re-submits them for serious consideration.  Both quotes are from the Society’s History, published privately in 1968.

“The Speculative is a brotherhood bound by intangible ties of shared loyalty and common tradition.”

P.104  Sir Derrick Dunlop, formerly the Queen’s Surgeon in Scotland, and at p.96 Sir Derrick had said:

“We all know, of course, that the judicature is icy in its impartiality, which is one of the chief glories of this country, but perhaps this impartiality would be strained to breaking point where the Speculative is concerned and the University are probably aware of this.”

Sir Derrick was referring to the arrangement whereby the Spec occupies premises in the University grounds but is not of it, in fact the University Debating Society had never heard of them, never mind debated with them.  Sir Derrick surmised that the University would give up trying to oust the Spec

“because the University realise that their chances of success in the Courts would be somewhat slim.”

The Spec has not demurred concerning the opinion of this respected gentleman, allowing publication in its History, and almost seems to be boasting about its influence in the College of Justice.  If that is to be how they treat with their immediate neighbours the petitioner is surmising that his chances before a Spec Bench in a contest, against the interests of two other Spec Members, are a minute division of slim.

In boasting of their influence in the Scottish judicial process they have confessed to the offence of partiality, giving preference to their Members’ interests.  Sir Derrick points the finger at the Spec Members on the Benches and states that partiality will be compromised.  The Scottish public cannot tolerate a situation where the interests of Spec members places such pressure to preference on a Spec Judge that he starts by being on the point of imbalance.  Lest that testimony of Sir Derrick be dismissed as the errant fantasies of a braggart who is only fit for cutting open queens, the petitioner has inquired further into the known facts about the Society.


Members of the Spec do not take any opportunity to advertise their Membership on occasions when they admit of membership to other clubs and societies.  There is no admission by any Senator of the College of Justice in Burke’s Peerage, Who’s Who in Scotland or the Official Scottish Courts’ website of his Membership of the Spec.  In these publications all manner of other memberships are recorded, from Rosehall Golf Club to Muirfield, and from the Scottish Arts Club to the exclusive New Club, but never the Spec.  With previous members such as Sir Walter Scott and Robert Louis Stevenson, and Honorary Members such as Sir Alec Douglas Hume and the Duke of Edinburgh is Membership not a creditable citation in Scottish society? 

This club was honoured by a royal visit in the person of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as recently as 1 March 2001.  He was not simply in the neighbourhood, he flew to Edinburgh especially for the Spec dinner yet not one word of his visit appeared in the Press, not even in the Edinburgh Evening News.  Why not?  It is not unreasonable to think that a debating club with nothing to hide about themselves would be thrilled that the Queen’s Consort, one of their Honorary Members and a man who took the city’s very name in his Royal title was visiting the city and only coming to see them.  The Spec does not seem to want such an event known about.

The English Speaking Union Centre for International Debate and Communication Training lists twenty two British Debating Societies, five of which are in Scotland and one of which is even based in Edinburgh University.  Yet there is no hint of the existence of the oldest debating society on the island.

In the 1905 History of the Society there are indications of the debating techniques one can expect when faced with a Spec Member.  At page 52 we are told that members are expected to be familiar with

“exaggerated epithets, unqualified assertion on doubtful points, sophisticated reasoning and foggy declamation”. 

This describes a schooling in deception and sophistry, nowadays called ‘spin’.   Many of the public processed by Scottish Courts have subjective experience of all four techniques.

Exaggerated epithet.  Advocate and Sheriff Donald Booker-Milburn, rejecting a claim that a Statutory Instrument required to be published, i.e. printed and sold according to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 definition of ‘published’,  wrote in his Stated Case “the appellant reminded me of Humpty Dumpty, claiming that ‘words should mean what I say they mean, when I say them’.

Unqualified assertion.  Courts are very fond of the phrase ‘We are in doubt whatsoever that the appellant’s arguments are utterly without merit’.  Alternatively substitute ‘worthless’, ‘groundless’, ‘illogical’, ‘fanciful’, ‘irrelevant’ and more of that ilk. 

‘Sophisticated reasoning’ must also be called cynical arrogance of self-interest, or corruption of decency using false logic. 

‘Foggy declamation’ is simply padding out a dirty deed with general dismissals of dubious relationship to the topic at hand.  All the above are the stock in trade of the Faculty of Advocates, without special polishing in a school of persuasion.  The power of persuasion is, after all, an occult power.  Occult simply means concealed, kept secret, esoteric, mysterious, recondite or outwith the range of ordinary knowledge - arcane for the profane.

Even if the purpose of identifying these techniques was to educate essayists away from them, there was still an education about them.

P.54:  Concerning Private Business:  “Every Member has ample opportunity of learning how to…keep a cash account,…and… how to arrange the agenda for a meeting – all useful adjuncts to the accomplishment of ‘literary composition and public speaking.’”

Incidentally, this History also reveals that Lord Colonsay, on 10th November 1863, introduced Prince Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Prince William of Hesse, ancestral relatives of the present Queen of England, as Honorary Members.  Were they to debate in German or English?  Was ist ‘foggy declamation’ mein Herzog?

Even as a debating society the Spec has other qualities which would seem to strain impartiality in certain cases.  Elitism, sexism, racism and Unionism, with its integral sectarianism, can be confirmed and disposed of quickly.

ELITISM.  The percentage of Dukes, Barons, Lords, Earls, Princes listed in the Membership roll is truly extra-ordinary for a debating club.  Add to that the number of Prime Ministers, Senators of the College of Justice, Field Ranks of all three military services, Intelligence Corps Officers and senior civil servants.  Then add the cream of the mercantile classes such as bankers, stock-brokers, exporters, shipping magnates, distillers, brewers, publishers and the sons of all the above.  There is no question that the elite of society at large is readily permitted membership of the Spec.  When two-thirds of the Membership must support the two sponsors of a candidate before he gets a certificate there is little scope for even the Herald reader, regardless of his skill at crosswords.

SEXISM.  The Society simply bars women from membership.  At page 100 of the 1968 History is written:

“The introduction of women members was seriously proposed, though soundly defeated, in my day…in Edinburgh the walls of Jericho of the Royal Medical Society have recently been breached by the monstrous regiment of women, and this is a society very similar to the Speculative and even more venerable, where feminine intrusion would have seemed unbelievable.”

Although the phrase is first credited to a Christian, namely John Knox, its repetition remains obnoxious.

Records in the National Library reveal that, on 27 October 1971, the Society’s topic of debate was

‘Has female emancipation gone to far?” 

While the working class were unlikely to enjoy respect from the elite, a working class woman now looks at risk of not getting a sympathetic hearing.

RACISM.  In 239 years of existence there seems to be only one Member who is other than white.  However he is an extremely wealthy and successful investment broker.   A degree of sectarianism flows from that without any stated policy to that effect but even within the whites there seems to be few professed Catholics.  However, the Petitioner noted that on the order of business for 2 February 1955 the topic for debate was  “Do the Wogs begin at Carlisle?” 

The prospects for a working class black woman are now looking bleak.

UNIONISM.  Offering Honorary Membership to a United Kingdom Prime Minister in the person of Sir Alec Douglas Hume, and to the Consort of the Queen of England, Prince Philip, a high-ranking English Mason is a clear indication of Unionist sympathies.  An extract from the Report of the Proceedings of 1914, printed privately for the society, stitches Unionism and sectarianism into the quilt:

“Until comparatively recently we had the good fortune to live under a constitution which has been the envy of the whole civilised world; and if that has been our good fortune, and if the Protestant succession has been secured, let us never forget, sir, that that fortunate state of matters is due in no small measure to our standing Army, and likewise to one who was the idol of his men, that great captain of his age – I refer to William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland.”

Prof. H.J. Millar, in proposing the toast to ‘The Imperial Forces’, following on from that to ‘The Queen and Royal Family’ which is described as ‘heartily pledged’. Page 8.

The prospects for a patriotic working class black woman in Scotland getting a fair hearing have all but evaporated.  One has to admire the resilience of the Chokar family and their lawyer.

To sum up thus far the Society in question shows evidence of being secretive, elitist, sexist, racist, sectarian, imperialist, Royalist or ‘Loyalist’ and intent on a Unionist agenda which might keep things that way. We must now consider the most serious suggestion of all, namely that it has connections with Masonry.  It must be emphasised that being ‘connected with masonry’ is not necessarily anything bad per se, but the previous actions of a noticeable number of Masons in Scotland’s public sector in particular has tarnished the name of Masonry in the public perception.  It is accepted that decent Masons have now taken that on board and are working to repair that conception, their willingness even to have Lodge websites is proof of this but it is not unfair to suggest that Masons have some trowelling to do to point the cracks in public confidence in what Masonic attitudes are towards non-Masons in the Scottish community. 

The petitioner admits to describing the perceived secrecy of the Spec to the Press as ‘quasi-Masonic’ and to stating that its very existence was a threat to judicial impartiality, regardless of its activities.  This drew a response from Spec Member Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, published in the Sunday Times, wherein his Lordship stated

“There’s nothing Masonic about it”.   

The petitioner is now prepared to accuse Lord Douglas-Hamilton of gross public deception in this regard and for the plain English movement it can be restated as ‘he lied’.

 The Spec was founded by six men including Edinburgh’s most established publisher of the day, WILLIAM CREECH, acknowledged as the prime instigator, and ALLAN MACONOCHIE, LORD MEADOWBANK. 

In the next three years the following persons had been admitted by majority ballot to the Spec and their names are recorded as Members of the Society in 1814:



The names of the above fifteen persons are recorded in the Roll of Members of Canongate Kilwinning Lodge No.2, a Masonic temple in Edinburgh’s St John Street.  Canongate Kilwinning is arguably the most prestigious Masonic Lodge in Scotland and is still active today, having Knights Templar and Royal Arch Chapters within its walls.


Again, from the horse’s mouth, we learn at pages 23/24 of the 1968 History of the Speculative Society:

"Such group sociability had hitherto been so rare in Scotland as to be virtually non-existent, except in its seventeenth-century masonic lodges.  But lodges were few in number at that time and were more "operative" than "speculative", being pretty well limited to masons by trade and admitting only a few non-operatives as honorary members.  It was not till the eighteenth century that the Craft admitted and welcomed non-operatives as ordinary members.  Once the process had started, it proceeded apace. 

Many new lodges consisting almost entirely of speculative brethren, sprang up after 1700 all over the country, especially after the foundation of the Grand Lodge of Scotland In 1736.  Free Masonry changed profoundly in consequence, and it both gave to and received from the wider social revolution in the epoch, almost certainly receiving more than it gave.  It began to offer a home from home, so to speak, with much of the character of a club; and all sorts and conditions sought admission, not least the literati and their friends and associates. 

In consequence a good deal of the club spirit in the various organisations of the eighteenth century which were not themselves masonic, especially the primarily social ones, had a masonic flavour.  The nomination for membership and the application and first admission of a postulant were generally managed with a certain amount of ceremony: diplomas worded with some pomp and circumstance were presented to new members and to those advanced to "extraordinary privileges''; and some of the clubs developed a paramasonic ritual for the conduct of the meetings.  In addition, I think one can fairly say that much of the friendliness, kindliness, and helpfulness without rancour or envy, which prevailed so remarkably among the men of the Scottish Enlightenment, owed not a little to their masonic brotherhood." (Pps 23/24.) 

Interestingly, one of the conditions imposed by judges presuming to pre-judge the competency of a Petition to the Nobile Officium, a diet arrogated but unrecognised in law, is that the matter must be a 'sufficiently extraordinary' judicial miscarriage.  Lord Cullen states that the miscarriages of justice identified in the petition which he undertook to examine for competency failed that test.  The question in the public mind in Skye is if the petitioner had been in receipt of extraordinary privileges from the Spec would his miscarriage of justice then also be extraordinary?  That is not an unreasonable question and the fact that grants of privilege made to persons being groomed for a career in law are made in secrecy seriously risks bringing the judiciary into disrepute.  
The petitioner believes that the Court should be aware of circumstantial facts from which deductions can be drawn about the nature of the organisation.  The following information is extracted from the 1905 edition of the History of the Speculative Society:

P. 8:  Reference to Certificates of Membership.  This parallels Masonic practice.

P. 26:  Reference to the 16 candles in the chandelier, one of which is not lit on Tuesdays.  “It is not well that such arcane should be discussed in a work that might be read by the profane.”  ‘Arcana’ is Latin for ‘secret’ and ‘pro- fanum’ means ‘outwith the temple’ in the same occult tongue. 

P. 49:  Re. Membership discipline, one black ball in four will be sufficient to terminate Membership.  How often does this happen in debating societies?  What offence could possibly earn such a severe, symbolic censure and expulsion?  What disciplinary code exists in the Spec equitable with a normal debating society?

In the Report of the Proceedings on the occasion of the 150th session of the Spec in 1914,printed privately, we find the following:

P. 15  “a pious thought to Fundatores Nostri, our early fathers, William Creech and the five other enterprising lads, who…met in solemn conclave…”.  Confirms the Mason Creech as father founder.

P.17  “You, Sir , have already indicated how many activities in life are benefited by the operations of the Speculative Society, and I believe that in no case is the connection closer than that between this Society and the College of Justice.”  Pray, what are the ‘operations’ of a debating society?

P.23  “ long as it keeps up the association it does with the College of Justice, by the present and prospective members of the Bar joining it, it will always be as successful as in the past.”  This suggests a dependent link, but even such a cosy link with a quasi-Masonic sodality appears to compromise the college.

For the last quote, even the Society’s most illustrious Member, Sir Walter Scott who unwittingly spread the Society name on the Internet from the grave, compromises his company with his last words to them in his farewell address – “Valete fratres!”. 

To some extent the Spec damns itself concerning Masonic connections by its very name.  The cult of Masonry was undergoing wholesale changes in the eighteenth century.  The trade cabals of working masons, called ‘Operative’ were indeed thinning out, as described in the previous quotation from the Spec History, and the reformed and expanded lodges of ‘Speculative’ Masons, also described as Accepted or Free gave rise to the inclusion of intellectuals, politicians, advocates, judges, bankers and others of social influence. 

The Spec’s mimicry of the basic Masonic temple for its logo also hints strongly at the Spec founders still sharing sympathies with the noumenal mother lodge in the sky. 

The logo features Minerva, the Greek’s Athena.  Above Athena is her famous owl, as featured on her silver coins of the ancient world which were nick-named ‘owls’.  There is also a symbolised depiction of the two-headed god Janus and the picture is complemented by illustrations of the Sun and perhaps an olive tree, the tree associated with Minerva/Athena.  Prima facie these would seem to be an innocent enough group of classical allusions but Masons like Creech were masters of allegory and symbolism. An initiate into the occult mysteries would read that page quite differently.  The petitioner does not claim the knowledge of an initiate but recognises allegory from 40 years of inquisitive reading.

Minerva is, like Athena, the goddess of war, wisdom and the crafts.  In Latin the word ‘ars’ covered both the manufactured crafts and business.  It was always understood that an assist to success in business was knowledge, nowadays called insider trading.  Minerva’s first and foremost association is, however, with war.  War is ultimate business.  It deals in acquisitions of territory and stock, competition, profit and loss, and even futures.

It is not for nothing that Athena’s owl was cast in coinage, but the owl is also the Owl of Moloch, god of child sacrifice.  In primitive British folk-lore the owl is the symbol of Annis the Blue Hag, drinker of children’s blood.  Both Minerva and Annis are extensions of the Sumerian Goddess of War Innana.  The tree could also be the Huluppu Tree of Innana, the first tree grown in the Sumerian foundation myth.  The Sun is also the occult symbol for the ‘bringer of light’ Lucifer, a pre-Christian deity demonised by Christianity.   The laws of the Spec prohibit debate on Christianity and seem to indicate the same attitude to Christianity as maintained by the higher grades of Masonry, that of enmity.

Lest the Court is thinking that references to Ancient Sumeria are literally too far-fetched the Royal Cross of Lord Indara, also called Dur or Gaur, is the simple red cross worn by his Lordship in the Chair.  The Barata were originally a Sumerian tribe who passed through Phoenicia.  Their word for the cross of Gaur, corrupted in Cappadocian Turkey to ‘George’ is ‘bar’ or sometimes ‘mais’.  The Red Cross, the bar and mace in the Scottish Courts all originate in Sumerian justice.  Even the term ‘summary’, in Latin indicating short and sharp, comes from the Roman God Summanus, a deity inspired by the Sumerian God of nocturnal thunderbolts.  We have not digressed!     
However there is the possibility of a higher agenda which would perfectly fit the character of the grasping William Creech and is of a much more sinister nature.  For those who doubt that William Creech had a reputation for unsufferable avarice, there is testimony in Robert Burn’s poem ‘Willie’s Awa’.

The Spec’s Founder was a very rich and influential Edinburgh business man and associated principally with bankers and Judges.  That pattern is clearly maintained when one reads down the present Spec membership list numbering people like Sir Angus Grossart, financial adviser to the Miller Group, and Sir Iain Noble amidst the Judicial Brethern.  However William Creech founded his society in 1764 and the seventeen sixties and seventies in Europe saw the beginnings of the concept of a ‘new world order’.  

A consideration of the ambitions of the men connectable with Creech may well shed light on the higher and hidden designs of the Spec.  These designs would remain hidden from the majority of Spec Members under the system of Speculative Masonry’s higher initiates.  The man credited with writing the script for a world association of bankers, judges, businessmen and intellectuals was Adam Weishaupt, a young Professor of Law at Ingolstadt University, a Jesuit priest and an initiate of the Jesuit Illuminati.  The Jesuit connection is vital since their oath includes a passage stating:

“From this moment you are free from the so-called oath to country and laws:”

  In 1776 he both founded his own branch of the Illuminati and with help from the House of Rothschild he published a German edition of Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’, the book that lays the ideological foundation for Capitalism and for the Industrial Revolution.  The American Declaration of Independence was made that same year and, as the dollar bill records, the obverse of the Great Seal of the United States portrays the Masonic sympathies of almost all the founding fathers.


Writings on the Illuminati have in turn produced pretend Illuminati who in turn produce more writings on the Illuminati.  The most responsible way to cut through the mushrooms is to go to the source but Weishaupt’s was so extreme in its views on world domination that his Bavarian centre lasted only ten years before splintering and running like mercury under most of the western world’s carpets.  Principally it seemed to bring succour to the comatose or dormant Knights Templars, long associated with Scotland and the Bruce.  Templars particularly recruited from the higher degrees of Masonry made the most receptive crucible for the crucifers.  There would seem to be but one source of credible information on the mentality which was stimulating the Masonic intellectual plutocracy and that is the report of Dr. John Robison, Professor of Natural Philosophy at Edinburgh University and a British Intelligence Officer. 

This report describes the Bavarian Illuminati in details which are chillingly resonant with what we know about the Spec, even from a brief period of investigation. Professor Robison’s report was published in 1798, presumably after the expiry of the twenty year rule, and the following extracts are rehearsed for the purpose of knowledge by comparison.  Incidentally, Weishaupt divided his organisation into three principal classes, and those into degrees which start; Nursery, Preparatory Literary Essay, Novitiate, Minerval, and proceeded to Scots Major Illuminatus.  Why associate with Scotland?
Scots Illuminatus Dirigens  were called upon to testify their belief that the Superiors of Illuminism were also the unknown and lawful Superiors of Freemasonry.  Describing the Illuminati, the publisher writes:

The "intellectual elite" have worked behind the scenes in an occult
  "conspiracy conceived, organized, and activated by professionals and intellectuals, many of them brilliant but cunning and clever, who decided to put their minds in the service of total evil ..." and
A facilitating network was formed:
  "to monopolize the writing, publication, reviewing and distribution of all literature, more effectively to control the minds of the readers."

Foreword, Proofs of a Conspiracy, John Robison, A.M., 1798

The "ultimate secret society" in which "all occult systems could be reduced to a single, powerful organization" would secure it's power base of political influence by operating within other pagan and occult organizations such as Freemasonry which enjoyed a growing influential membership.

The Illuminati would operate:
"by secret associations, which will by degrees, and in silence, possess themselves of the government of the States..." p.106

"The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation.  None is fitter than the three lower degrees of Free Masonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it.  Next to this, the form of a learned or literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Free Masonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a powerful engine in our hands.  By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labours, we may turn the public mind which way we will.

In like manner we must try to obtain an influence in the military academies (this may be of mighty consequence) the printing-houses, booksellers shops, chapters, and in short in all offices which have any effect, either in forming, or in managing, or even in directing the mind of man: painting and engraving are highly worth our care."

"Could our Prefect (observe it is to the Illuminati Regentes he is speaking, whose officers are Prefecti) fill the judicatories of a state with our worthy members, he does all that man can do for the Order.  It is better than to gain the Prince himself.” P.112.

Robison attempts to reveal how after the Bavarian Court of Enquiry exposed and banned the Illuminati Order and its leaders, and how the Order went underground and emerged as a network of Reading Societies throughout Germany. The agenda of this literary network was to monopolize the writing, publication, reviewing and distribution of all literature, more effectively to control the minds of the readers, using the printed word as its ultimate weapon in subverting the minds of the people.
It is important to note the revelation that this was a conspiracy conceived, organized, and activated by professionals and intellectuals, many of them brilliant but cunning and clever, who decided to apply their intelligence to profiting at the expense of society at large; this was a conspiracy conceived not by Masons as Masons, but by usurers and cynical usurpers employing Speculative Freemasonry as a screen and vehicle for their own purposes.

The Illuminist plan was to “dispense with all political supports, and particularly with rulers This can be done in no other way but by secret associations, which will by degrees, and in silence, possess themselves of the government..” P.106 - of the many countries in which they tend to operate!
Weishaupt founded an Order which represented objectives very much already in existence among a number of occult secret societies such as the Rosicrucians, Knights Templar and "speculative" Freemasonry. The fundamental objective of his subversive organizational effort was to achieve world rulership by an "illuminated" occult elite, an occult "intellectual elite."

Weishaupt drew upon existing secret society operations and methods and targeted not only the Roman Catholic Church but all of Christianity

"There must not a single purpose ever come in sight that is unambiguous, and that may betray our aims against religion and the state.  One must speak sometimes one way and sometimes another, but so as never to contradict ourselves, and so that, with respect to our true way of thinking, we may be impenetrable.  When our strongest things chance to give offence, they must be explained as attempts to draw answers which discover to us the sentiments of the persons we converse with." P.85

Foggy declamation?

"If in order to destroy all Christianity, all religion, we have pretended to have the sole true religion, remember that the end justifies the means, and that the wise ought to take all the means to do good which the wicked take to do evil.  Those which we have taken to deliver you, those which we have taken to deliver one day the human race from all religion, are nothing else than a pious fraud which we reserve to unveil one day in the grade of Magus or Philosopher Illuminated” P.13.

"By this plan we shall direct all mankind. In this manner, and by the simplest means, we shall set all in motion and in flames. The occupations must be so allotted and contrived, that we may, in secret, influence all political transactions." P.84

Nesta H. Webster in her ‘Secret Societies and Subversive Movements’ (1924) also reproduces large tranches of Professor Robison’s report and comments on the Illuminati’s above-mentioned plan thus:

It is for this reason that I have quoted at length the writings of the Illuminati--all the ruses, all the hypocrisy, all the subtle methods of camouflage which characterized the Order will be found again in the insidious propaganda both of the modern secret societies and the open revolutionary organizations whose object is to subvert all order, all morality, and all religion.”

 Incidentally, ‘Annuit coeptis, novus ordo seclorum, e pluribus unum’ on the dollar bill means:

‘It smiles upon your work, a new order of the ages, from the many, one.’

SPECULATIVE SOCIETY MEMBERS IN ACTION – By their deeds shall ye know them.

Lord Balfour.   Lord Balfour may not have been the author himself, but was prepared to identify with the infamous ‘Balfour Declaration’.  This communication, essentially to the wealthy and influential Jews of the American East Coast establishment, was a tacit suggestion that if America entered the First World War to bail out the Brits, a grant of land in Palestine could be organised for the purpose of establishing a Zionist pied-a-terre, something Jews world-wide could relate to as a homeland. It reads:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities or the rights and political status of Jews in any other country.”

This was a gross betrayal of both Lawrence of Arabia and his loyal Arab tribesmen.  Lawrence had promised the independent security of their Arab homelands if they drove the Ottoman Turks out of the region.  However Britain had other secret agreements with the Ottoman Empire and the French over Palestinian lands.  The Palestinian were thus asked to pay, with their freedom and their country, political debts incurred by European and American politicians, which had nothing whatsoever to do with Palestine or the Middle East.

There is therefore now an argument that Spec Member Lord Balfour is significantly responsible for the thousands of lives lost and the continuing climate of terror and injustice in Palestine.  These lands were never other than Arab and were unjustly and unlawfully seized.  

Sir Alec Douglas-Home.  Early Chairman of the Bildergerg Group, a global elite of bankers, publishers, financiers, businessmen etc who fit Weishaupt’s criteria perfectly.   .

Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.  Member of the Bilderberg Group.  Senior Mason.  Blood relative of Prince Bernhard of Holland, Founder of the Bilderberg Group and former Nazi.  Senior figure in World Wildlife Fund which appears to act as a cover for guerrilla activity grabbing African territories for the purpose of mineral exploitation. 

Sir Angus Grossart.  Recently described as Scotland’s third most powerful man, behind Brown and McConnell who could be gone in a change of political wind.  Described in Bloomberg’s international financial trade journal as “Scotland’s Fixer – If you want to do a deal there Sir Angus Grossart is the man to know.”  Partner in Noble Grossart, one of the advisers to the Scottish Office Roads Department concerning the best value for the public in the Skye crossing PFI.  The tax-payers’ interests were the responsibility of fellow Spec Member Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

At the previous hearing it was claimed by the Crown that it was insufficient to point out an objectively observed conflict of interest.  The Crown claimed that one had to actually suffer the effects of a jeopardous association and be able to prove it. 

The petitioner utterly rejects that standard as being the one set by the European Judiciary on conflict of interest and cites the example set in the case of Pinochet as the proper British measure. 

One can only deduce that the Crown’s authority for lowering that standard is a perverse interpretation of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which asserts that, while you have the right to remedy in the event of breach, you only have that right if you are a victim. 

The petitioner believes that to mean that you are entitled to remedy if you yourself are the individual who might suffer negative bias, not who has already suffered demonstrable ill-favour. 

Nonetheless, the Crown made the demand and the Court did not rule it unnecessary, so the petitioner is obliged to catalogue the examples of negative judicial experience when a Spec Member was involved.  




1.  Anderson v. Hingston, 1996 SCCR 921

Lord Justice Clerk Lord Ross (SPEC), with Lord Morison (SPEC) and Lord Weir (SPEC)
Crown - Reed QC (Now Lord Reed)

Challenge to the propriety of subordinate legislation, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC).  Refused in terms of Latin maxim:
'Omnia rite et solemniter acta praesumuntur' – ‘The Court is working on the presumption that all Crown documents are in proper and lawful order’.  Given that the public’s last resort when all democratic means of expression had been denied to them was to place their heads in a criminal noose to give themselves a platform for expression, albeit from the hangman’s platform, this policy of total free passage for Crown documentary evidence to establish the regime is highly questionable.  The public defence is essentially that there is no crime if one has a reasonable excuse.  The public’s reasonable excuse is that there is no lawful regime and therefore no crime known to the laws of Scotland and therefore no case to answer.  To give the Crown evidence a grant of total untouchable authority demonstrates clear and undeniable bias.  The burden of proof is transferred to the accused, the Crown are sidelined and the accused is pitted instead against the Court itself and the standard of proof is raised to absolute and unquestionable.  Even when that standard is reached it can be, and has been, rejected as ‘unstatable’ or by some other euphemism to disguise corporate Court ego, a higher, hidden agenda or some other abuse of the Court’s power.

2.  Anderson v. Hingston (No.2), 12 February 1997

Lord McCluskey, with Lord MacFadyen and Lord Cowie (SPEC).

Challenge on the grounds that the tolls were actually a means of servicing a civil debt of an unknown amount, unlawfully contracted for, on behalf of the people by the Secretary of State.  As such they were essentially a civil matter and not subject to criminal enforcement.  The Minister of Transport Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC) had thus unlawfully rendered the debtors toll-bound by Order.  This challenge was also taken to clarify that the public were being properly prosecuted in criminal law, not civil, and thus could expect the proper protection of criminal standards of proof.  This was kindly confirmed by Lord McCluskey.

3. Matthew Clarke QC (SPEC, now Lord Clarke) denies any flaws in Crown paperwork. 

The Skat Legal Group had by this time identified more than a dozen serious flaws in the paperwork required in order to establish a lawful toll regime in Scotland.  Skye Councillors and Skat members negotiated an agreement that a legal Opinion should be jointly commissioned with the Highland Council.  Mungo Bovey QC, then Advocate, offered his services pro bono but this was rejected on the advice of the head of legal services, a Mr McRae, that Mr Bovey was too ‘nationalist’. 

He was keen instead on Mr Matthew Clarke QC who was ‘greatly respected’.  On that condition the fee was to be paid by the Highland Council.  In the event Mr Clarke declared in his Opinion that he could see no arguments of merit, except that if the tolling operation had indeed been located on Hamilton Park Trust land, designated by lien and burden for all time as a recreation area, without the lawful consent of the people of Kyle of Lochalsh then that would be an area of difficulty.  

The Skat Legal solicitor in Edinburgh, now retired, came to learn that Mr McRae telephoned Mr Clarke at home seeking knowledge of the contents of the Opinion.  Subsequently an invoice for some £2,300 arrived which Mr McRae refused to pay, leaving the public of Skye to raise by collection.  Public suspicion was that criminal avenues were being discouraged and expensive civil avenues offered as a diversion.

4.  MacQueen v. Hingston, 1997 SCCR 561

Lord Justice General Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (the originating prosecutor as Tory Lord Advocate), with Lord Sutherland (WIO-suspected Mason) and Lord Cowie (SPEC). 

Second challenge to the propriety of subordinate legislation, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC).  Lord Rodger, unlawfully acting as a Judge in his own case, ‘judex in sua causa’, denies the substance of the appeal any hearing at all, on the basis of procedural correctness.  He rules that the matter should have been raised as a preliminary challenge to competency.  So is McQueen therefore guilty?

5.  Hingston v. McGugan, 1997 SCCR 625

Lord Justice General Lord Rodger, with Lord Sutherland and Lord Dawson. 

Lord Rodger, again unlawfully acting as ‘Judex in sua causa’, reversed the finding of the Sheriff at Dingwall that the Toll Order was not in proper form and there was no case to answer.  The reasonable doubt cast up by a Sheriff, in his accepting that the preliminary challenge to competency had merit, fails to be recognised as demonstrating that McGugan was not guilty of failing to pay the toll without a reasonable excuse beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Lord Rodger rules this Sheriff to be incapable of making that assessment properly in law, thus calling his professional judgement into serious question.  However one point that Lord Rodger makes correctly and in accordance with statute is that only the Secretary of State or the Concessionaire, entitled by statutory assignation, can lawfully charge and collect tolls. (Pages 6/7 of his Opinion.  See Lord Sutherland in ‘Smith & Others’ where this is flatly contradicted, despite Lord Sutherland sitting on this Bench!)

6. Robbie the Pict v. Hingston.  Appeal against Conviction 2787/97. 

Appellant had not been served any citation, had been wrongfully arrested, was wrongfully placed under bail conditions, had not had his case recalled having lodged pleas to competency, was wrongfully arrested again, lodged the refused but far-reaching terms of a ‘no case to answer’ motion, covering lack of alternative route, impropriety of all subordinate legislation, failure to place same before Parliament when it contained regulations and orders and more.  Leave to appeal refused 12 December 1997 by Lord Coulsfield (SPEC). 

Lord Coulsfield stated that “all the matters …have already been determined by the Court, or are without substance.  There is no arguable ground of appeal.”  Like the word ‘statable’ the word ‘arguable’ seems to have no statutory definition or even conventional definition in law.  In a note to Section 107 in CPSA 1995 Lord McLuskey offers “clarity, brevity, accuracy, comprehensiveness and which invites a conclusion that there has been in law a miscarriage of justice.”  In Skye toll cases the qualities ‘brevity’ and ‘comprehensiveness’ are however mutually exclusive.

7.  Robbie the Pict v. Hingston.  Appeal against Refusal of Leave to Appeal 2787/97. 

Appellant pointed out that none of the grounds of appeal had been previously considered by any Court, particularly and obviously the personal abuse of the appellant concerning wrongful arrests and the failure to recall his case after the preliminary pleas to competency had been argued the week prior.  Lord Roger of Earlsferry, the originating Lord Advocate, again unlawfully acts as Judge in his own case, ‘Judex in sua causa’, and states “We agree with Lord Coulsfield – for the reasons he gives, none of the grounds of appeal is arguable.” 

So there is no reasonable doubt about you having a reasonable excuse even when the Court does not answer challenges?!  Incidentally the Court records have now been falsified to read that the appellant, then the accused, simply pled not guilty, despite 198 Press and public witnesses to the contrary.  Lord Rodger sat with Lord Caplan and Lord Philip.

8.  Robbie the Pict v. Hingston (No.1), 1998 SLT 1196.

Lord Sutherland, with Lord Caplan and Lord Wylie.  Crown – Robert Reed QC

Challenge to Secretary of State’s failure 1) to commence Toll Period in accordance with statutory requirements and, 2) to ‘specify maximum’ tolls (seemingly a definite figure) as required by statute. 
Third challenge to the failure to comply with statutory requirements, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC).

Lord Sutherland held that road was open by virtue of the preserved powers of the old notice employed and therefore it was open for all purposes. He held that therefore tolls had lawfully begun, regardless of the requirements of new statute concerning toll period commencement.  (If a restaurant is publicly opened, has it automatically got a licence to sell alcohol?) 

The statutory demand to identify the specific maximum toll for each class of vehicle was met by consulting a table of base tolls from which the specific figure could be calculated.  The public had a statutory six weeks to object to this specific figure starting on 1 November 1991.  (Unfortunately the formula required knowledge of the RPI for October 1995!)

Lord Sutherland asserted that the figure could be determined by projecting a, presumably constant, rate of inflation 4 years forward but nobody in Dingwall Sheriff Court or the High Court could identify any figure.  The Department of Statistics at Edinburgh University refused to attempt a calculation stating that the premise was ‘absurd in its concept’.  A member of staff said “‘Specific’ and ‘maximum’ are two finite disciplines which cannot be established by any formulation of variables, especially unknowns from the future.”

9.  Robbie the Pict v. Hingston (No.2), 1998 SLT 1201.

Lord Justice Clerk Lord Cullen (SPEC), Lord Coulsfield (SPEC) and Lord Morison (SPEC).  Crown - Moynihan QC.

Challenge that a Toll was a road excise or a service charge.  As an excise it would violate Article 18 of the Act of Union, an excise being applied in circumstances not applicable in England (sole access to an inshore island); as a service charge it is VATable and while the collecting company are both dormant and not registered for VAT, or even with the Inland Revenue as trading, the operation is therefore unlawful.

Fourth challenge to the failure to comply with statutory and EU requirements, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC).
Lord Coulsfield wrote the Opinion declaring that the charge was not any form of ‘excise’, simply a charge for use of the road.  He also maintained that nor was it a ‘service charge’ for the use of the road, which would be liable to VAT, but simply a charge.  His Lordship offered no definition of what type of charge it was that was not covered by normal Road Tax. 

This decision was subsequently reversed by European Court in April 2001 but absolutely no reparation has been made.  Lord Coulsfied was broached on the topic as a challenge to his competency to hear a further Skye tolls matter and replied “If I made a mistake, I made a mistake”.  That mistake continues to cost the A87 road users millions of pounds per annum in criminal extortion.

10.  Alexander Smith and Others v. Hingston.  Unreported.  16 December 1999.

Lord Sutherland, Lord Marnoch (SPEC) and Lord Cowie (SPEC).

Challenges to propriety of 3 items of subordinate legislation, legality of criminal prosecution on the basis of unpublished law, unlawful agency of statutory powers without entitlement, failure of Secretary of State to assign rights to the Concessionaire and failure of the Secretary of State to make an official statement identifying the concessionaire and his shareholders, as required by statute (no date, no name, no signature and not true).  Discrepancy of some eighty million pounds (£80m) in ‘official’ paperwork challenged.  £20 million simply missing.

Fifth challenge to the failure to comply with statutory requirements, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC).

Lord Sutherland held that subordinate instruments were properly classified as 'local', despite relating to a national trunk road, being the responsibility of the Secretary of State and not issued by the local roads authority; that legislation contained no regulation of any kind of the road, and therefore did not need Parliamentary scrutiny; only the right to collect had been transferred and that the right to charge tolls had remained with the Concessionaire, so the collecting company did not need public paperwork for a private arrangement. 

That perfectly defines the crime complained of by the appellants.  It is an offence to attempt to collect without being in lawful authority of the assigned right to charge.  Lord Sutherland admits of the crime but denies it simultaneously.  His Lordship also admits that there is a statutory defence available to those objecting to being prosecuted on the basis of unpublished law, but does not grant it. Lack of date, name, subscription or veracity of the Assignation Statement is left unanswered.   

All Crown documentary evidence declared flawless on basis of 'Omnia rite et solemniter acta praesumuntur', as SPEC member Lord Ross has said.  Lord Marnoch (SPEC) writes an individual Opinion mocking the public’s attempts to ascertain legality and stating that ‘the importance of the maxim ‘omnia rite et solemniter acta praesumuntur’ cannot be underestimated’!

The strategy of defending oneself by arguing ‘no case to answer’, in that one has a reasonable excuse for not complying when it can be demonstrated that there is no lawful toll regime in place, takes a serious dunt when the Court pre-decides that the Crown’s evidence of competent legislation being in place is beyond challenge.  The Crown can go home with their job done for them.

11.  Robbie the Pict v. Hingston, 8 June 2001.  Unreported.

Lord Coulsfield (SPEC), with Lord Kingarth (suspected Lewis) and Lord Philip.

a)  Appeal arising from a preliminary plea to competency concerning a challenge to the use of the 'Omnia rite' brocard, it being an unjust prejudice on the part of the Court.  This deliberate bias denies the Human Right to a fair hearing in a criminal prosecution, especially where defence is one of ‘no case to answer’ based on fundamentally flawed Crown documentation.  Such a denial is an offence under Section 6 of the new Act.

Challenge to the Court operating this maxim in Latin (nowadays occult ancient Italian) without any explanation to the public or the accused and thus a challenge to the findings of SPEC members Lord Ross, Lord Marnoch and Lord Cowie.

b) Challenge to Lord Rodger chairing Appeal Court to deny appeals against his own prosecutions.  Requesting sight of his letter of instruction to PF at Dingwall, written during his tenure of office as Lord Advocate.  Lord Coulsfield (SPEC) denies the petition and ignores completely a comprehensive argument concerning the Human Right to inspect evidence FOR the accused.  Lord Coulsfied states: ‘Human Rights are all very well but we have procedures.  You can petition the Court for 'Specification of Documents'.

A 75 Closure Order on the letter declared by Lord Advocate immediately after this refusal.  We can find no statutory basis for this concealment of evidence for the accused.

12.  Pict, McQueen and McGugan MSP v. HM Advocate.  Petition for Specification of Documents.

Lord Wheatley.  Crown Advocate-Depute Duncan Menzies QC (SPEC now Lord Menzies).

Public interest petition seek disclosure of letter of instruction from Crown Office to Procurator Fiscal at Dingwall, dated 6 November 1995, during Lord Rodger’s tenure of office.  Petitioner entered preliminary plea to competency of the Judge presiding as a ‘Devolution Issue’, Lord Wheatley having been appointed by the Lord Advocate since July 1999 when the Executive was obliged by the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 to be European Convention compliant. 
It was argued that the appointment of Judges by the public prosecutor denied the public the right to a fair hearing from an independent tribunal.  Adjourned. 

13.  Robbie the Pict v. PF Dingwall.  Appeal against Conviction on multiple grounds.

Refused any hearing at all by Lord Nimmo-Smith (SPEC) as “not statable”, meaning?

14.  Robbie the Pict v. Lord Sutherland - Petition to the Nobile Officium

Petition intercepted by extra-statutory challenge to competency (Droit d'Aristo?).  Petitioner invited to appear before the Lord Justice General in Edinburgh under pain of desertion through 'lack of insistence'!

Lord Justice General Lord Cullen (SPEC), with Lord MacFadyen and Lady Cosgrove.

Challenge to failure of Lord Sutherland, Lord Marnoch (SPEC) and Lord Cowie (SPEC) to address points of appeal made by the Pict in 'Smith and Others'.  Particularly lack of subscription to statutory assignation statement.
Sixth challenge to the failure to comply with statutory requirements, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC).

Petition denied 'right of signature' as being insufficiently 'extraordinary'.  (Where is the ‘sufficiently extraordinary’ line for miscarriages of justice?)  Hearing thus obstructed and denied. {This hearing is subject of Item 18]

15.  McQueen (Robbie the Pict) v. Lord McEwan.  Unreported Appeal.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom (SPEC and former Tory Lord Advocate), with Lord Carloway and Lady Cosgrove.

Challenge to Lord McEwan's refusal to allow McQueen to be represented by Robbie the Pict to whom McQueen had made a grant of specific Power of Attorney.  Refused on basis of RtP not having right of audience. 

Argument concerning Human Right of McQueen to have representation of his own choice ignored completely and thus McQueen's rights denied.

16.  McQueen (Robbie the Pict) v. Lord Cameron (SPEC).  Petition to the Nobile Officium.
Petition intercepted by extra-statutory challenge to competency.  Petitioner invited to appear before Lord Coulsfield in Edinburgh, again under pain of desertion through 'lack of insistence'.

Lord Coulsfield (SPEC), with Lord Sutherland and Lord MacLean (SPEC)

Challenge on behalf of McQueen concerning denial by Lord Cameron of Lochbroom (SPEC) of Human Right to legal representation of his choice. Petition declared incompetent on the basis that Section 124 of Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 did not permit an appeal of any kind from the High Court.  Petitioner kept his counsel on this aspect and insisted on the Human Right.  Refused right of signature. (See No.18 below)

17.  Stella Roseanne Anderson + Alexander James Coghill v. PF Dingwall  (Unreported)

Lord Kirkwood, with Lord Penrose and Lord Osborne (SPEC).  Counsel for Anderson was Advocate Michael Upton (SPEC).  Upton’s SPEC Membership was unknown to Anderson at this time.

Lord Kirkwood ruled that Anderson would be denied any remittal back to Dingwall concerning defence argument not exhausted.  As regards both Anderson and Coghill, Lord Kirkwood stated that the Court was bound by the Opinion of Lord Sutherland and refused to hear the terms of the appeal on their own merits, even although it had not addressed the grounds of appeal concerning the Assignation Statement. 

18.  Robbie the Pict v. Lord Justice General Lord Cullen (SPEC) - Petition to the Nobile Officium on Human Right to a Fair Hearing.

Petition again intercepted by extra-statutory challenge to competency.  Petitioner invited to appear before the Lord Kirkwood in Edinburgh under pain of 'lack of insistence'.

Lord Kirkwood, with Lord MacLean (SPEC) and Lord Caplan (See No.5 above)
Petitioner made preliminary challenges to a) constitution of Bench, and b) extra-statutory nature of diet.  Court cited section 124 of Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 (as per No.16 above).  Petitioner replied that Section 124 applied to Solemn Procedure, wherein there was the additional security of a jury: no such provision could be found in the Part of the Act concerning Summary Procedure, from which this current matter arose. 

Both points noted, but continuance of proceedings insisted on by Bench regardless.  After three further hours of debate the Bench retired and on return Lord Maclean (SPEC) announced that he had decided to decline jurisdiction on the basis that he had recently been on a Bench which had ruled unsoundly against the Petitioner. (See No. 16 above).  Lord Kirkwood advised that Court will adjourn to an unspecified date (October 22, 2002) due to the implications of Lord McLean’s declinature.

19.  Robbie the Pict v. Miller Civil Engineering, (+Skye Bridge Co. and the Secretary of State).  Reclaiming Motion (Appeal) P111/01.  8 August 2001.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom (SPEC), Lord Johnston (SPEC) and Lord Nimmo Smith (SPEC), (See No.13 above) who declined in favour of Lord Dawson (See No.5 above).

Action to review the earlier refusal of Lord Eassie to grant Interdict against Miller for the unlawful demanding of tolls which they were not authorised to charge, a criminal offence.
Seventh challenge to the failure of the Scottish Office to comply with statutory requirements, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC).  The Chairman of the 'Skye Bridge Company' when tolling commenced was Sir Iain Noble (SPEC), and the project was the responsibility of the Scottish Office Development Department, a senior figure in which was Niall Campbell (SPEC).  Appearing for the Scottish ministers was Duncan Menzies QC, now Lord Menzies (SPEC).

20.  Robbie the Pict v. Lord Johnston (SPEC).  Petition to the Nobile Officium.
Failure to exhaust references of reclaiming motion.  (Did not address points of appeal).

Petition again intercepted by extra-statutory challenge to competency.  This time simply ruled incompetent by Lord Hardie, former Lord Advocate at time of both Eassie and Sutherland, who denies ‘right of signature’ despite the Petition being signed, paid for and warranted.  This hearing is both private and in secret.  Petitioner establishes that he has not been legally declared ‘vexatious’ in absentia and then successfully persuades Lord Hardie to decline any jurisdiction on basis of his conflict of interest.

21.  Lord Drummond Young (SPEC), in another private and secret hearing, also obstructs progress of the signed and warranted Petition by denying ‘right of signature’ to the Petitioner.

Petitioner successfully persuades Lord Drummond Young (SPEC) that he is not 'European Convention compliant', having been effectively appointed by the Lord Advocate who sits in the Scottish Cabinet.  Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 the Scottish Parliament must comply with Human Rights requirements and His Lordship was appointed post July 1999.

Instead of allowing progress of petition, its competency is again denied, this time by Lord Philip (See No.11 above) but again in a private and secret hearing. 

Interestingly, Lord Philip, sitting with Lord Caplan and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, the originating prosecutor, had also denied the Pict an appeal hearing on his first conviction (see No.7 above).  This is presently the subject of examination by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission who have failed to produce a competent response in 42 months. 

Lord Philip ruled that the proper avenue of redress was the House of Lords and seeking to review a miscarriage of justice in Scotland by means of an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court in Scotland was incompetent.  Before that possibility is tackled, shameful as it is, Lord Philip's contribution has been questioned and at time of writing we await a reply (10 months).

22.  Robbie the Pict v. Lord Justice General Lord Cullen.   Petition to the Nobile Officium  (Item 18 continued.)

Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Osborne (SPEC).

Preliminary challenges to institutional compromise whereby Lord Advocate participates in appointment and elevation of Judges, to Lord Kirkwood having previously formed a view as to the topic of the original Petition before Lord Cullen (review of Lord Sutherland’s Opinion in Smith & Others) and to Lord Osborne’s presence on the Bench as a SPEC Member replacing previous SPEC Member Lord McLean.  A further challenge had been advertised to the Court, namely that the hearing itself was devoid of any statutory authority and was a second violation of the right to a fair hearing for the Petition at issue, but matters were adjourned prior to any argument being presented on that issue.

[The Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill repelled the first two challenges but determined that the question of there being a secret society of which a number of the Judiciary are Members was a matter deserving of fuller examination, given the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998.  To this end such a hearing would take place at a date to be set (now 18 February 2003) and since Lord Osborne was indeed a Member of the society in question his Lordship would exercise declinature. ]

It should be noted to their credit that SPEC member Lord Prosser has formerly declined jurisdiction without public explanation, but it is a matter of public knowledge that his son teaches on Skye, Lord Reed declined to hear the Petition to Interdict the toll collectors on the basis that he had previously acted as Advocate-Depute and Lord Kingarth declined to consider 'right of signature' to a Petition, despite being duty Judge, on the basis that he had previously considered Skye toll matters while sitting on Lord Coulsfield's Bench (See No.11 above). 

This begs the question in the public mind ‘Why can these three Judges recognise the Human Right to a fair hearing yet the others do not?’

Concerning the above 21 instances of judicial influence it is important to stress that no conspiracy is suggested by the Petitioner.  However the well, or even not-so-well, ‘informed observer', were he to be appraised of the above, could reasonably perceive the possibility.



The petitioner has examined this matter in some detail over recent months.  Given that the test of impartiality is justice being seen to be done and there being no reasonable suspicion of partiality possible in the mind of the informed observer, it is the considered opinion of the petitioner that he must offer no submissions to this inquiry on this topic which are able to be described as evidence accepted or rejected by this Court.  What has been discovered is prima facie evidence of wholesale corruption of the Scottish judicial process to an extent that is out of control.  The well informed amateur of justice is appalled to contemplate the possibility of corruption arising from the following Spec presences.  Only a well-funded independent public inquiry with full sovereign authority and a team of untouchables could do justice to the restoration of the public peace of mind in the following examples:

1.The Nimmo Smith-Friel Report 1993. 

The report on an inquiry into an allegation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in Scotland.   Allegations of perversions were made against various persons in the Scottish Judiciary and in the report in particular makes refers to the conduct of Lord Dervaird, Lord Clyde, Lord Milligan, Lord Johnston and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, innocent or otherwise.  These persons are all Members of the Spec.  The person commissioned to lead the inquiry was William Nimmo Smith QC, now Lord Nimmo Smith. 

Lord Nimmo Smith’s membership of the Spec causes public discomfort about the impartiality of the report.  This was exacerbated when a request was made in the House of Commons by Tam Dalyell MP for the disclosure of suppressed tapes and documents, concerning the Sun newspaper and a lawyer, to which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for the government replied with a flat “No.”  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is a Member of the Spec.

At Paragraph 4.3 of the Report Lord Hope, Lord President of the Court of session and Lord Justice General gives very helpful guidance to this Court today.  On the question of Homosexuality and the holding of Judicial Office he states:

“In summary, behaviour which is carried on in secret, recklessly or promiscuously may be regarded as giving rise to risks.  These risks are in particular the risk of blackmail, the risk of a lack of objectivity in the performance of judicial functions and the risk of bringing the judiciary into disrepute.”

2.The Dunblane Inquiry 1996

The inquiry was chaired by Lord Cullen, a Spec Member.  The remit was to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the murder of 16 school-children and a teacher by Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane Primary School.  Hamilton had also been reported to the police by a member of staff as tampering with children at Queen Victoria School shooting club in Dunblane.  Ex officio appointments to the QVS include both the Secretary of State and the Lord Justice Clerk as both HM Commissioners (the Secretary of state being President), and Members of the Management Board, the Secretary of State again being President. 

Lord Cullen accepted a commission to inquire into circumstances which included in fact included links to another school in Dunblane, with which both the Secretary of State commissioning him and his immediate superior, the Lord Justice Clerk, held significant and senior appointments.  The Lord Justice Clerk Lord Ross had Spec Membership.  A David MacLehose was also serving both as a Commissioner and on the Management Board.  Mr MacLehose is a Spec Member.  The very Patron of the school, HM the Duke of Edinburgh, is a Spec Member.  The local Sheriff at Stirling was Sheriff Robert Younger, a Spec Member.  For whatever reason he omits this period of service from his entry in Who’s Who. 

Further assertions are made concerning Spec Members but cannot, at present at least, be responsibly presented to this Court as facts.  Absolutely no suggestion of impropriety is inferred by the petitioner in reciting these bare facts above, and no conclusion is drawn.  However, considered in combination, it is fair to report that these facts give rise to concern in the public mind, especially when a 100 year closure order was placed on certain papers.

3.The Lockerbie Trial and Appeal. 

The Lockerbie Trial Bench was composed of Lord Sutherland in the Chair, with Lords Mclean and Coulsfield.  The Judge acting as stand-by, monitoring proceedings all the while and available as a replacement Judge lest any Judge fell ill, was Lord Abernethy.  Lord McLean and Lord Coulsfield are Members of the Spec.  The Bench thus supported a majority of Spec Members, and even if any Judge had to be replaced there would still be a majority of Spec Members. 

The person who is credited with conceiving a solution to Libya’s intransigence concerning its citizens getting a fair hearing in Scotland or America, by the device of a jury-free trial on Dutch soil under Scots Law, is Spec Member Professor Robert Black QC, for whom incidentally the petitioner has the highest regard.

Mysteriously to the informed observer, the grounds of appeal were not the absence of good evidence but the conduct of the trial Judges in instructing themselves.  Thus the theme of the appeal was an examination of the professional conduct of the Bench.  For the purposes of examining the conduct of these three Judges the Lord Justice General, Lord Cullen, a Spec Member sat with Lords Coulsfield (Spec), Nimmo Smith (Spec), Kirkwood and MacFadyen.  Again there is a majority of Spec Members on a Bench whose remit is to examine the conduct of a trial Bench constituted with a majority of Spec Members.  Megrahi’s defence lawyer David Burns QC is also a member of the Spec.

This arrangement has been publicly commented upon with disapproval by one of the United Nations approved monitors Professor Hans Koechler of the International Progress Organisation.

During the petitioner’s period of research a motor dealer in Perthshire and another in Forfar complained bitterly of their treatment at the hands of Spec Members.  The risk of there being others who have suffered unjust treatment must be considered. 

The petitioner seriously suspects that when the personnel who are members of this sodality are made known to the public there may have to be a very thorough public cleansing indeed of the judicial process and personnel in Scotland.  In saying that, it must be emphasised that all corruption is not creditable to the Spec nor are all Members of the Spec corrupt, probably far from it. 

However the percentage of Members who are taking advantage of both power and fraternal loyalty to profit unfairly by abuse of the judicial process must be quickly rooted out.  The otherwise good reputation of the Speculative Society, the Scottish Judiciary and even of Scotland depends on that purging and I would hope that decent Spec Members would be the first to assist in this process.


In the seriously and thoroughly considered opinion of the petitioner, who prays recognition as an informed observer in the terms of the Convention, it is not unreasonable or fanciful or psychologically imbalanced to suspect that the mere presence of such a secretive society numbering amongst its exclusive membership so many Judges, does in deed constitute a potential threat to the impartiality of the Scottish Judiciary. 

It is accepted that any person has the Human Right to privately associate as they will.  However when that person secretively joins a sodality which expects, by stated or unstated ritual or process, any degree of expectation or obligation, preferment of his chosen fraternity, that person excludes himself from lawfully being in receipt of a public salary to be part of any tribunal process, whether administrative, prosecutorial or judicial, by law. 

He or she commits an offence under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, under section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, he or she invalidates the entire proceedings and authority of the tribunal. 

There is thus at present an unhealthy threat to the impartiality of the judicial process, even boasted of by this Society in its publication.  Under the prevailing constitutional and institutional arrangements judicial independence is a concept at best with no statutory guarantees.  Until reparation is made the impartiality of the judiciary must be as close to absolute as is humanly possible.  Some might wish to speed the day when the Judicial Appointments board (JAB) comes into force, but this petitioner must convey a warning to the concerned public.  The person commissioned to design the JAB was Lord Ross, a Spec Member. The present Board is comprised of a Judge, Lord MacLean, who is a Spec Member, and a Sheriff Principal, Bruce Kerr, who is a Spec Member.  If there is any sinister dimension to Spec presence then they are already a step ahead of reformers.  Let us not be naïve at our gross expense.


With comprehensive respect to the Crown’s possible responses it is obliged to seek a result from this Court which gives Judicial blessing to the presence of Spec membership by Judges and parties in denial of any potential for a flow of empathy between members.  It seeks a finding that there can be no public perception of any possibility of favour or affection between members of a secretive or private society.  In particular it seeks a finding from this Court that the catalogue of negative experience, both unreasonable and unfair, which has been suffered by the public of Skye and Scotland is of no consequence or significance in law. 

The Crown must seek a finding that in all cases the pattern of denial of any flaw in Crown documentary evidence, a wholly Spec maxim, does not thwart the proper examination of reasonable excuse based on the defence of ‘no case to answer’.  The Crown in so doing would be offering the PFI Cult a free pass to criminal profit.  Mindful of the Advocate Depute’s other professional duty - his duty to equity, and of his appointment in the name of the people of Scotland, the petitioner invites the learned gentleman to rise above his master’s voice and take a personal stand against personal and financial abuse, and an extremely gross miscarriage of justice.

A problem also arises regarding just how the petitioners might negotiate decision by this court to give its blessing to all decisions made by Courts containing Spec Members when the exercise in immediate prospect is to proceed to a consideration of the legitimacy of firstly, this phenomena of extra-statutory challenges to competency of the petition at issue but secondly, or eventually, a consideration of the refusal of a Spec Member to allow a re-examination of an Opinion delivered by a Bench containing a majority of Spec Members which in turn is based on the Opinion of the former Lord Justice Clerk Lord Ross, with Lords Morison and Weir, all three with a Spec Membership record.


Aware of negative potential of this Bench regarding fate of this petition, but what of the positive potential?  Can this Court exercise powers for the public good?  The Skye people have suffered this oppression without resorting to any form of public disorder, not even a single arrest for breach.  This model civic behaviour must be rewarded by acknowledging the doubt cast on the legitimacy of the monopoly tolling regime and, since attempting to collect tolls without the lawful authority to charge the tolls, the petitioner is now formally asking this Court to recognise that the ‘just and appropriate’ remedy is to order the suspension of tolling on the A87, until such time as a full and independent public or judicial inquiry examines whether this regime is wholly and perfectly lawful.  It must be sufficiently flawless to deny any claim in a criminal defence that it is otherwise and thus offers a reasonable excuse to a person accused of non-compliance.  The present regime does not meet that standard and must be terminated.

Given the imminence of the new tourist season, and with tourism having declined year on year since 1996, we ask that the Court makes that decision urgently and delivers any reasons at its leisure. 
The members of the Skye legal group in question have asked me to record their gratitude for a second fair hearing.  Lest your Lordships wish to act swiftly in reparation the relevant extract from Lord Sutherland’s Opinion is appended along with a scan of the seven pages of anonymous type purporting to be the flawless Ministerial statement required by statute to validate any tolling regime. 

The measure of Scottish Justice will be the measures against Scottish injustice. 

The petitioner is obliged.

Appendix 1

EXTRACT from SMITH & Others, 16 December 1999, Lord Sutherland, with Lords Cowie and Marnoch.

Lord Sutherland’s reasoned judgement on the four appeal points raised concerning the Assignation Statement; that it was not signed, dated , published or true. 

“Robbie the Pict, who appeared on his own behalf, adopted the arguments submitted on behalf of the other appellants and had an additional argument relating to the assignation statement.

His argument, as I understand it, related to the date of publication of the assignation statement and the contents thereof. He submitted that under paragraph 14A(3) of Schedule 1 of the 1984 Act, where it is intended that the proposed Toll Order shall authorise assignation of the right to charge and collect tolls the Secretary of State shall make a statement containing such information as may be prescribed and that statement shall be made available for inspection with the copy of the order to which the notice under subparagraph (1) relates. The notice to which subparagraph (1) relates is a notice stating the general effect of the proposed Toll Order and naming a place where a copy of the draft order may be inspected. Where reference is made in paragraph 14A(3)(a) to "the copy of the order to which the notice under subparagraph (1) relates", this should be regarded as a reference to a copy of the order as finally made and not to a draft of the order which is referred to in subparagraph (1). Accordingly, the assignation statement should have been issued along with the final Toll Order which was in fact made on 23 June 1992, and both the assignation statement and a copy of the Toll Order should then have been made available for inspection.

In fact the assignation statement was made available for inspection along with a draft of the Toll Order, but that was the wrong date because the draft of the Toll Order is not the same thing as the order which is referred to in paragraph 14A(3)(a). Accordingly, no proper assignation statement has been published at the proper time. Furthermore the assignation statement which was produced identified those persons holding more than 10% of the issued share capital of Skye Bridge Tolls as being Miller Construction Limited, Dyckerhoff and Widmann AG and Bank America International Finance Corporation. If the assignation statement had been issued at the time it should have been, namely in June 1992, it would have shown that the only person then registered as owning more than 10% of the share capital was Bank America International. Furthermore, although the assignation statement was made available at the same time as the draft Toll Order it is in fact undated and unsigned, in addition to being untrue in the respects mentioned above. In these circumstances there has been a failure properly to comply with paragraph 14A of Schedule 1 to the 1984 Act and the Assignation Statement (Prescribed Information) Regulations. These failures are fatal to all that has followed thereon and accordingly the prosecution proceeds on a fundamental nullity.
In my opinion an examination of paragraph 14A shows that this argument cannot prevail. Subparagraph (1) shows plainly that the Secretary of State's duty under that subparagraph relates to a period before any orders of any kind are made. If he has in mind a proposal to make a Toll Order he has to prepare a draft of that order and then publish a notice stating the effect of the proposed order and a place where "a copy of the draft order" may be inspected. Subparagraph (3) is still referring to the Secretary of State's intention and states that where it is intended that the proposed Toll Order shall authorise assignation of the right to charge and collect tolls he has to make a statement containing the information prescribed in the regulations, and that statement shall be made available for inspection with the copy of the order to which the notice under subparagraph (1) relates. The notice under subparagraph (1) relates to "a copy of the draft order" and in my view it is that copy of the order which is referred to in subparagraph (3)(a).

That being so it follows that the assignation statement requires to be made available for inspection at the same time as the draft Toll Order referred to in subparagraph (1). This view is confirmed by reference to the Assignation Statement (Prescribed Information) Regulations which were approved by Parliament. The definition of "concessionaire" in regulation 2 is that it means "the person to whom the rights to charge and to collect tolls under a Toll Order are intended to be assigned". The information required to be contained in the assignation statement is set out in regulation 3 and provides inter alia that what has to be contained is the identity of the concessionaire, the proposed length of the concession period and a summary of any obligations to be undertaken by the concessionaire.

There is an element of futurity in all of these matters and this, in my view, is a clear indication that the intention of the regulations was that the assignation statement should precede any concluded contract with the concessionaire. As no Toll Order would be likely to be made until the contractual arrangements with the concessionaire were completed, it follows that the assignation statement must precede the making of the Toll Order.

This confirms the view that the assignation statement should be made public along with the draft of the proposed Toll Order. There is no statutory provision for any production of an update of the assignation statement in the event of there being a change of circumstance between the issuing of that statement and the ultimate making of the Toll Order. Accordingly, the fact that there may be variations in the position as between the date of the assignation statement and the date of the making of the Toll Order is not something which requires publication and, in any event, cannot affect the validity of the assignation statement as at the time when it was made. For these reasons I am satisfied that this argument cannot prevail.”



The Secretary of State, in accordance with paragraph 14A(3) of Part IIA of Schedule 1 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Assignation Statement (Prescribed Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, hereby makes the following statement with respect to the intended Assignation by the Secretary of State of his rights to charge and to collect tolls under the proposed Invergarry-Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Toll Order ("the Toll Order"):-

1.   Interpretation
(a) In this statement:

"the Bridge" means the single span bridge together with associated structure forming part of the Special Road;
"Concession Agreement" means the Agreement which the Secretary of State and the Concessionaire intend to enter into which provides, among other things, for the assignation by the Secretary of State of his rights to charge and to collect tolls under the Toll Order;
"Concessionaire" means the party to whom the Secretary of State intends to assign his rights under the Toll Order to charge and to collect tolls;
"Concession Period" means the period during which the Concesionaire (sic) will have the rights to charge and to collect tolls;
"the  Regulations" means the  Assignation  Statement   (Prescribed Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1991;
"Special Road" means the special road to be provided in terms of the Invergarry-Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Special Road Scheme;
"the Toll Plaza" means the toll collection plaza and toll collection facilities thereon forming part of the Special Road.
(b)  a  reference  to  a  numbered  regulation  is  a  reference  to  the corresponding regulation in the Regulations.

2.   Identity of the Concessionaire (Regulation 3(a))

It is proposed that the Concessionaire will be Skye Bridge Tolls Limited, incorporated under the Companies Acts and having their registered office at Miller House, 18 South  Groathill  Avenue,  Edinburgh,  and  their  permitted successors and assignees in accordance with the Concession Agreement.

3.   Shareholders each holding more than 10% of the issued share capital in the Concessionaire (Regulation 3(b))

As at the date hereof the following bodies each hold issued share capital of at least 10? in the Concessionaire:-

(i)     Miller Construction Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act and having their registered office at Miller House,  18 South Groathill Avenue, Edinburgh

(ii)   Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG, Erdinger Landstrasse 1, 8000 Munchen 81, Germany

(iii)    Bank  America  International  Finance  Corporation,  having  their registered office at  555 California Street, San Fransisco, California 94104, USA.

4.   Proposed length of the Concession Period (Regulation 3(c))

The Concession Agreement will contain a formula whereby the length of the Concession Period will in effect be determined by traffic flow.  The objective of the formula is to achieve termination of the Concession Period when the Concessionaire has recovered through the collection of tolls the agreed costs (including funding costs) of designing and constructing the Bridge and Toll Plaza, and thereafter of maintaining and operating the Bridge and Toll Plaza during the Concession Period.  The current agreed costs are £23.64m as at July 1990 price levels.  The anticipated Concession Period based on the Secretary of State's and the Concessionaire's varying assessments of projected traffic flow and on current costs are illustrated in the graph annexed to this statement.  On the basis of the Secretary of State's criteria for estimating traffic flow, and on current costs, the projected Concession Period is 14 to 18 years.   The Concession Agreement will also provide for early termination in the event of failure by the Concessionaire to comply with- his obligations under the Concession Agreement, subject to the Concessionaire's funders being given the opportunity to find a substitute concessionaire acceptable to the Secretary of State.   It will also provide for early termination in the event of certain circumstances arising which render impractical or impossible the continued collection of tolls (such as destruction of the Bridge by an uninsurable risk) or continued implementation by the Concessionaire of their obligations under the Concession Agreement.

5.   Summary of obligations to be undertaken by the Concessionaire during the Concession Period in relation to the maintenance, operation or improvement of the Bridge and Toll Plaza (Regulation 3(d))

The Concessionaire will be solely responsible for maintenance of the Bridge and Toll Plaza during the Concession Period.  The Concessionaire will be responsible for the operation of the Bridge and Toll Plaza during the Concession Period in consultation, where appropriate, with the Secretary of State, the local roads authority and the police.  The Concessionaire will be responsible for carrying out any improvements to the Bridge and Toll Plaza required by the Secretary of State.  Depending on the circumstances, the cost of such improvements may be met by increasing the period during which tolls will be payable, subject to the overall maximum of 27 years.


6.   Summary of obligations to be undertaken by the Concessionaire in regard to minimising any adverse environmental effects, and the provision of service stations etc (Regulation 3(e))

(a)  The Concessionaire will undertake the following steps to minimise the risk of adverse environmental effects arising out of the construction of the Bridge and Toll Plaza:
i)   Construction Operations
Construction operations will be generally limited to five full working days (7.00 am to 7.00 pm) with limited Saturday working (8.00 am to 4.00 pm), although there will be some unavoidable operations which may require to be carried out outwith these hours (eg completion of major concrete pours).  No construction operations will be carried out on Sundays.  Construction plant will be suitably silenced as the need arises and although the resultant noise from the use of explosive charges should be insignificant, adequate warning will be given before the use of explosives.

ii)  Vibration
All possible steps will be taken to minimise the risk of damage to properties due to blasting.  Any properties considered at risk will be surveyed before explosives are employed.

iii) Air-borne Pollution
Good Industry practice shall be adopted to restrict the spread of dust from the construction works, whether from plant, blasting or earthmoving operations.

iv)  Pollution of Watercourses and the Marine Environment
The methods of working, storage and use of materials and of plant shall  be strictly controlled by the Concessionaries'(sic) Quality Assurance operations to ensure that good industry practice is followed  and  that  all  statutory  obligations  in relation  to control of pollution are observed.   In particular run-off from the works and storage areas shall be monitored.  Bunds at fuel storage areas shall be used and the use of setting tanks for silt extraction shall be adopted where necessary.  The efficiency of pollution control measures shall be independently monitored.

v)   Protection of Flora and Fauna
Procedures for the retention and re-use of indigenous flora have been identified and will be adopted during construction to ensure after-landscaping is in keeping with the area.  The construction corridor  shall  be  restricted  to  a  defined  limit  and where necessary  shall  be  fenced.    Areas  of  significant  interest adjacent to the corridor shall be marked or fenced.  Construction operatives  shall  be  fully  briefed  to  avoid  inadvertant (sic) and unnecessary harm or disturbance to flora and fauna.  Where the disruption of a fauna habitat is unavoidable, steps will be taken to provide a similar habitat, adjacent to the works, with the provision of a safe access where necessary.  Surplus materials will not be deposited outside the construction boundary without the necessary permission.

vi)  Traffic management and site accommodation
The main site offices will be located to minimise disturbance. Most construction will take place remote from existing routes thereby limiting disruption.  Transport of bulk materials will be by sea wherever possible to minimise heavy vehicle movements on public roads.

vii) Liaison
Full liaison will be instituted with the local communities and appropriate authorities to limit adverse effects and to ensure the adoption of acceptable measures.

b)   The Concessionaire will undertake the following steps to minimise the risk of adverse environmental effects during the operation of the Bridge and Toll Plaza.

i)   Quality Assurance system
Operate  a  Quality  Assurance  system  to  monitor and  regulate maintenance and operation functions in order that any adverse environmental effects are minimised.

ii)  Storage of materials etc
Store or locate materials, equipment and plant in such a manner that the risk of  pollution  and  visual  intrusion  are  fully addressed.

iii)  Effects on flora and fauna
Use materials of a nature whose effect on flora and fauna are known to be          

iv)Toll facilities
Adopt toll facilities and operational methods which restrict the possibility of delay to users and thereby traffic congestion and noise to acceptable limits.

Maintain close liaison with the local communities and appropriate authorities to examine any operational problems, connected with the environment, as they arise and develop solutions.

c)The Concessionaire will provide toll collection facilities and a maintenance building.

7.Summary of Undertakings to be given with regard to stopping up, diversion, improvement or alteration of any road and construction of any new road (Regulation 3(f))

The Concessionaire will not be required to give any undertaking with regard to the stopping-up, diversion, improvement or any other alteration of any road which will cross or enter the route of the special Road or will be otherwise affected by the construction or improvement of the Special Road, or with regard to the construction of any new road for purposes connected with any such alterations, as aforesaid, as no such undertakings will be necessary in the circumstances.