Jump to content
The Education Forum

Special Report: Scottish Referendum Rigged - The 'How' and the 'Why'

Steven Gaal

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Scottish Referendum involved:
  1. Ballot papers with no identifying marks on the back (illegal)
  2. Ballot boxes from polling stations delivered to counting centres in private cars by only one person (illegal)
  3. Postal ballot papers apparently being sent to England first.
  4. Pro-union people being allowed to open and inspect postal votes several days before the referendum (illegal)
  5. And there were no exit polls.
Many voters reported seeing nothing on the reverse side of their ballot paper; no unique identification number was included. The Scottish Referendum Act 2013 clearly states that an identifying number must be included on the reverse side of each individual ballot.

The identification number is essential to help reduce fraud.

Officials can check to see how many official ballot papers were issued to voters and how many ballot papers were actually counted.

The fire alarm went off twice during the vote count in Dundee, leading to the evacuation of the vote counters.

According to the article entitled Scottish Referendum Rigged – MI5’s Phony Postal Votes and Ballot Boxes:

"When the ballot boxes arrived at the Renfrewshire counting venue, they were merely counted and then placed in a ‘storage area’, while the volunteers had a break. The boxes were then retrieved from the storage area and the separation into ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ began...

According to enumerator Jim Daly:

"The vote counting was finished at 2.30am...

"Mr. Martin (the Returning Officer David Martin, Chief Executive of Renfrewshire Council) and his assistants in suits seemed to be in a flap...

"There was one lady with a laptop who, it appeared, was responsible for collating all the votes, but something wasn’t going well.

"She was taken away by one of Mr. Martin’s assistants, out of view of the public, only to return and disconnect her laptop and leave the hall with it under her arm...

"There were visible signs that those in charge weren’t happy with something.

According to the article entitled Scottish Referendum Rigged – MI5’s Phony Postal Votes and Ballot Boxes:

Eyewitnesses at counting venues reported individuals arriving, unaccompanied, with boxes of ballot papers in the trunks of their cars.


One of the signatories of the above statement, a polling officer at a polling place, gave more background on what he witnessed:

"Last night we challenged the presiding officer regarding the transportation of ballot boxes in single-manned cars...

"Three personal cars arrived with boxes... These boxes were driven in cars by people on their own.

"These people were those who also had access to spare zip-ties and tags...

"The presiding officer replied: 'It doesn’t matter now anyway. It is too late.'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police probe claims pro-UK campaigners took illegal postal vote ‘tallies’


By Shaun Gibson @ShaunyNews

I called it here with this video http://shaunynews.com/2014/09/23/ruth-davidson-tory-admits-vote-fraud-live-on-tv/

Claims that pro-UK campaigners breached electoral law by counting postal votes ahead of referendum polling day will be formally investigated by police. Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said Better Together agents took “tallies” of postal votes at sample openings held before the count. Election rules state the results of these openings must be kept secret.

The Crown Office has now instructed police to conduct an investigation into the complaints.

The allegations surround comments made to BBC Scotland by Ms Davidson about 45 minutes after polls closed in the independence referendum on 18 September. Ms Davidson told the Scotland Decides programme: “We have had people at every sample opening around the country over the last few weeks… and we have been incredibly encouraged by the results from that. “Going into today, going by the postal votes that were cast, our side would have had a lead and I think that we have a confidence, I hope a quiet confidence, that the quiet majority of Scots have spoken today.”

Secrecy rule

She said postal votes were not counted until after the polls closed, but added: “Different local authorities have had openings around the country. It is illegal to discuss that while any ballot is ongoing, so until 10 o’clock tonight no-one could talk about it. “But there is people in the room that have been sampling those ballot boxes as they have been opened and they have been taking tallies and the reports have been very positive for us.”

Speaking on the BBC’s results coverage, Humza Yousaf, the Scottish minister for external affairs, also made reference to indications from “postal ballot sampling”. He told the BBC’s Huw Edwards: “The intelligence we’re getting is that in those die-hard, traditional Labour areas actually the Yes campaign is starting to break through quite strongly. “That’s initial postal ballot sampling, all the caveats thrown in, etc., etc..” The SNP said Mr Yousaf was referring to sampling of postal votes after the ballot had closed.

Earlier sample postal vote openings, which were attended by agents from both campaigns ahead of polling day, were held to confirm that personal identifiers – the date of birth and signature – on the postal ballots matched those held on official records. The ballot papers were supposed to be kept face down when postal voting packs were opened so postal ballot agents and observers were unable to see how people had voted.

A Crown Office spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Crown counsel has instructed Police Scotland to commence an investigation into alleged breaches of Schedule 7, Paragraph 7, of the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.”

The act states it is an offence to “attempt to ascertain at the proceedings in connection with the receipt of the ballot papers the outcome for which any vote is given in any particular ballot paper or communicate any information with respect thereto obtained at those proceedings”. Anyone breaching the law could face up to 12 months in prison or a fine of up to £5,000. The Scottish Conservatives said they were unable to comment but the BBC understands there was a telephone conversation between Ms Davidson and the police on Friday.

Party sources said there was “no suggestion she was accused of doing anything wrong”. Complaints were initially made to the Electoral Commission, which said it had brought them to the attention of police. A spokesman for Police Scotland said: “We can confirm that we have been instructed to commence an investigation into alleged breaches of Schedule 7, Paragraph 7, of the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013. “Police Scotland will not comment on anyone who may or may not have been spoken to or interviewed as part of any ongoing investigation.”

Please Follow AceNews Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/groups/acenewsservices/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Integrity of Referendum Vote Must Be Transparent

Tuesday, 07 October 2014 23:25
906eb1f668dd4b5e870d919548247804af496082 By Mark McNaught

I’m not one that easily gives in to conspiracy theories, but there are too many questions regarding the validity of the ‘no’ vote for it to be accepted at face value.

While this article goes into the allegations with more forensic accuracy than I will, the integrity of the vote and the process is paramount to Scots accepting their status within the UK, especially in light of the implosion of the promises made before the vote, going back to war in Iraq, and announcing fracking in Scotland’s central belt immediately after the vote.

There have been the YouTube videos which have been making the rounds, which may or may not show some form of vote tampering. There is also the issue of the thousands of ballots which did not have bar codes on the back as they were required to, therefore may have been automatically rejected, plastic bags found with ‘yes’ votes in them, and testimony of suspicious activity by volunteers.

While these allegations are disturbing in themselves, what could not be seen leaves plenty of scope for electoral tampering.

I was a monitor at the Glasgow count at the Emirates Arena, and can only speak for what I observed. The area over which the counting tables were spread was needlessly large. The same operation could have been conducted in 1/3 of the space and it would have been easier to see what was happening.

I walked around looking over the shoulders of those marking the counting, and saw a clear majority for ‘yes’, at least 60-40 in favour. I spoke to someone who was tabulating the results with a laptop, and his results were similar. The ‘official’ results had ‘yes’ winning Glasgow by 53.5-46.5.

We were allowed to observe the counting of the ballots, but we had no idea what happened before or after the counting, as it was off limits to observers. Volunteers were allowed to count, and observers could monitor them, but the rest of the process was completely opaque.

Therefore, what happened to the ballot boxes after they left the voting stations and were taken to the counting centres was unobservable. Also, how they arranged the ballots once they were counted and bundled was off limits to observers as well.

There is also the issue of the postal votes, which according to a 2008 report from the Council of Europe is ‘childishly simple’ to manipulate.

While it is possible that the entire process was above board and legitimate, Scots need to be assured of its legitimacy if they are accept the result as their collective will. While Elections Scotland can credibly maintain that the counting process was monitored and above board, everything depends on what they were actually counting. Were all ballots without a barcode automatically rejected? Were boxes tampered with beforehand? Were no votes simply fabricated? What safeguards were in place before the count to assure the integrity of the vote, and were they rigidly enforced?

I e-mailed the OSCE to ask if there was any way that they could evaluate the procedure, but they can only monitor referendums and elections upon the invitation of the member state, ie the UK. It is not within their institutional scope to evaluate the procedure after the fact. I e-mailed the Venice Commission at the Council of Europe, and they issued a similar answer.

So what institution can Scots count on to assure that there was not industrial-scale fraud, and that the vote was not rigged? Reading the Electoral Commission and Elections Scotland websites, it is not clear who would have the authority to overturn the results and order a revote if fraud was proven to have occurred.

That leaves you, the Scottish public, to demand of your MPs and MSPs that there be a thorough independent investigation into exactly how the entire process of the referendum vote was conducted, preferably by impartial foreign observers. Even though a recount is illegal (still can’t wrap my head around that), it would be useless if the integrity of all the ballots is tainted.

If large-scale electoral fraud is shown, there should be a re-vote, organised and supervised by the OSCE and other impartial institutions. UK institutions could no longer be trusted.

I really hope my suspicions are ill-founded, and that the collective will of the Scottish people was truly to stay within the UK. However, if the vote was rigged, it would constitute an injustice of epic proportions, and show that the UK is not a democratic country.

It would correspond to what I thought throughout this campaign. Of course Scots would vote to become independent, who wouldn’t? However, Westminster will do whatever it takes to keep the cash cow from bolting the barn. There was never an ‘official’ poll which showed the ‘yes’ vote winning, despite the results of canvassers who showed a very strong ‘yes’ lead. The BBC and the mainstream media never countenanced a ‘yes’ vote, feeding the narrative that Scots would never vote for independence. The results of the referendum would have to be engineered to stay close to the polling, lest the credibility of the entire PR/polling industry and mainstream media be obliterated.

The British state could not have had the largest empire the world has ever seen without employing monumental lies and mass manipulation. I wouldn’t put anything past Westminster to hold on to its final crown jewel. Everything must be done to assure Scots that is truly their collective will to remain within it.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dailymail. (called KOOK )
Editorial stance

In the late 1960s, the paper went through a phase of being liberal on social issues like corporal punishment,[citation needed] but soon returned to a conservative line. The Mail has traditionally been a supporter of the Conservatives and has endorsed this party in all recent general elections.

The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it says is biased to the left.[52] The Mail has also opposed the growing of genetically modified crops in the United Kingdom.[53]

On international affairs, the Mail broke with the establishment media consensus over the 2008 South Ossetia war between Russia and Georgia. The Mail accused the British government of dragging Britain into an unnecessary confrontation with Russia and of hypocrisy regarding its protests over Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia's independence, citing the British government's own recognition of Kosovo's independence from Russia's ally Serbia.[54]

Melanie Phillips, once known for her journalism at The Guardian, moved to the right in the 1990s and wrote for the Daily Mail, covering political and social issues from a conservative perspective. She has defined herself as a liberal who has "been mugged by reality".[55] Phillips' Monday column in the Mail ended in September 2013.[56]

Awards Received

The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2012 by the British Press Awards[57]

Daily Mail journalists have won a range of British Press Awards, including:

  • "Campaign of the Year" (Murder of Stephen Lawrence, 2012)
  • "Website of the Year" (Mail Online, 2012)
  • "News Team of the Year" (Daily Mail, 2012)
  • "Critic of the Year" (Quentin Letts, 2010)[58]
  • "Political Journalist of the Year" (Quentin Letts, 2009)
  • "Specialist Journalist of the Year" (Stephen Wright, 2009)[59]
  • "Showbiz Reporter of the Year" (Benn Todd, 2012)
  • "Feature Writer of the Year - Popular" (David Jones, 2012)
  • "Columnist of the Year - Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012)
  • "Best of Humour" - (Craig Brown, 2012)
  • "Columnist - Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012)
  • "Sports Reporter of the Year" (Jeff Powell, 2005)
  • "Sports Photographer of the Year" (Mike Egerton, 2012; Andy Hooper, 2010, 2008)

Other awards include:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naomi Wolf

Also making an appearance was Naomi Wolf, the American feminist writer and activist. Wolf’s public Facebook page is a curious place, an unrestrained stream of consciousness in which she offers up her unconventional take on current events. In recent weeks, Wolf has been publicising allegations of irregularities in the referendum, becoming a conduit for those who think they had their vote stolen from them by the long arms of the British state, which in some way fixed the electoral process.

This primarily involves the notion that thousands of ballot papers didn’t contain a Unique Identifying Number (UIN) on their reverse. This is a barcode on each ballot that links back to individual voters on the electoral roll, as a method of preventing fraud. However, hundreds of people are now claiming that their ballots were “blank” and missing a UIN. Weirdly no one seems to have realised until after the referendum results came out, and no ballots were rejected at the counts for this reason.

Wolf arrived in Scotland to hand over a dossier of nearly 500 names she’s collected of people who are resolute that they cast a vote without a UIN. As it happens, I know my ballot paper did have a barcode, but I can’t remember many other details about voting, like what colour the wallpaper was or the kind of pen I used. People generally go to the polling station to vote rather than play tedious memory games, so it seems astonishing that lots of voters have suddenly remembered a fairly minor detail about what the reverse of their ballot looked like.

I spoke with Wolf just after she had made her intervention at the rally, and she was adamant that this remains a live issue, despite her claims being written off by the Lawyers for Yes group as, “an impressive collection of misunderstandings, conspiracy theories, and legal howlers”.

“I’ve got some pretty incredible people self-identifying as having these ballots. People are reporting that police officers are saying their ballot was blank. Multiple members of the same family got blank ballots, and couples where one got a blank ballot and the other not,” she told me. “What’s odd to me is that everyone who is supposed to be looking into it just isn’t willing to. What’s the big deal? Open them up, then we’ll know quickly.”


Wolf was also keen to stress that she’s not prejudiced towards a particular outcome in the referendum, and is acting out of concern for the democratic process, and for those who feel they’ve been disenfranchised. “I’m not a Yes supporter. I’m not a Scottish voter… I love Scotland but this is not about Scotland. I would be as upset if it was any other country or any other issue.”

She was also willing to brush off criticisms that have been made of her uninhibited investigative style in recent months. “If there’s evidence it doesn’t matter what people say about me personally. If there are stories that need to be investigated based on the evidence, that’s my decision.” When it comes to the blank ballots, however, few are interested beyond the fringes of the Yes movement – Wolf said that she’s had little success getting either the Electoral Commission or police to pursue the claims.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weirdly no one seems to have realised until after the referendum results came out, and no ballots were rejected at the counts for this reason. Wolf arrived in Scotland to hand over a dossier of nearly 500 names she’s collected of people who are resolute that they cast a vote without a UIN. As it happens, I know my ballot paper did have a barcode, but I can’t remember many other details about voting, like what colour the wallpaper was or the kind of pen I used. People generally go to the polling station to vote rather than play tedious memory games, so it seems astonishing that lots of voters have suddenly remembered a fairly minor detail about what the reverse of their ballot looked like

Witnesses and their memories are notoriously inacurate, the most likely explaination is they simply were mistaken. The CT doesn't even make sense. If they were to stuff ballot boxes why use inproper ones for real voters. since the lack of such #s was not used to reject ballots it would not have served to cut the "yes" vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real conspiracy is not recognised because people get their worldview from the media. The media controlled the outcome aided by a flawed position taken by the labour party. It's in the interests of working people to excert control over the community they live in. Divorcing themselves from such a cog in the empire frees them to create an alternate future where the unity labour sought can exist across national boundaries. Labor should have supported independence because it would have ultimately led to a stronger labour internationally.

more on the medias role by george monbiot.

Remote Control

How the media shafted the people of Scotland. Read more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...