The Robertson Trust
The Robertson Trust claims on its website that it is the largest grant-making trust in Scotland, “whose vision is for a fair and compassionate Scotland where everyone is valued and able to flourish”. This view of itself has been dented somewhat by a recent employment tribunal decision concerning the unfair dismissal of former chief executive officer, Kenneth Ferguson.
The tribunal was told that the Trust’s Chairwoman, Shonaig Macpherson, was “incandescent with anger” when she heard that one of its properties had been rented out to Stirling Free Church. Her objection was to the Church’s opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Mr Ferguson is a member in the Free Church and contended that his association with the Church and its beliefs had led to his dismissal.
Ms Macpherson had said to the other trustees, “Some of you may be familiar with the views of the Free Church in relation to homosexuality and gay marriage. The arrangement with the Church does not fit with the Robertson Trust’s values and will offend staff, grant holders and stakeholders generally as well as harming our reputation.” Her argument that the Trust guarded its neutrality by not renting its premises to organisations that promoted religious or political views was undermined by the fact that it had given access to its premises to Stonewall and other pro-same-sex marriage groups.
Mr Ferguson’s case was supported by the Christian Institute, which said, “The Trust’s dismissal letter cited vague ‘performance issues’ even though Kenneth saw a doubling of the Trust’s giving and an increase in staffing from 7 to 43 during his tenure. He also received 8 out of 10 from Macpherson herself in his 2019 appraisal.”
The tribunal found in favour of Mr Ferguson and concluded, “The impression was of [Ms Macpherson] seeking to find reasons to justify dismissal; that that decision, in her mind, had been taken well before March 16, 2020, and explains why she did not take the trouble to read the disciplinary procedure she had sent to the claimant in November 2019, to have a formal investigation, or to attach any supporting material to the letter of March 12, 2020. The inference that the majority draws is that the issue of [Kenneth Ferguson’s] beliefs remained . . . one of the reasons for that decision to dismiss.”
Once again, we see Christian beliefs and the biblical principle that marriage is between a man and a woman being attacked in the workplace. Thankfully, this principle is still protected by equality law and the tribunal’s just decision has upheld that.
“Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed” (1 Sam 2:30). FRD
Independence of the Crown Office in Scotland
The Crown Office in Scotland is responsible for prosecutions and is headed by the Lord Advocate, with the Solicitor General as deputy. Recent and ongoing cases have raised concerns about the independence of the Crown Office. In one extended case, the former First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond was accused of various immoralities by nine women. Some of the accusations were so frivolous that it was surprising that they should come to court. The most serious was that of attempted rape but Mr Salmond established conclusively that the accusation was false. However, no charge of perjury was brought against the woman making the allegation. The women were granted anonymity but were known to be closely connected with the Scottish Government. A predominantly female jury refused to convict Mr Salmond of any of the charges. Mr Salmond alleged that there had been a measure of “conspiracy” against him.
Meanwhile Mr Salmond was granted a Judicial Review into the Scottish Government’s handling of the accusations, and the review was so dissatisfied with the Government’s conduct that it awarded Mr Salmond damages of £500 000. A parliamentary committee was then appointed, chaired by Ms Fabiani, to investigate what had happened, but this was hampered, according to its own complaints, by the lack of co-operation from the Scottish Government and the Government’s reluctance to release relevant e-mails. There was also an appearance that the Crown Office was using the right of anonymity granted to the women as a shield to protect the Government. This was denied, but the Fabiani report in March was rapidly followed by the Scottish parliamentary election, after which the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General resigned.
In a second case, the Crown Office admitted the “malicious prosecution” of two men who had been appointed administrators when the Rangers Football Club went bankrupt in 2012. It had been thought that the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate were immune from being sued for malicious prosecution, but in 2019 the Court of Session decided that this was not the case. At the beginning of 2021, the two men received damages of £21 million from the Crown Office and are now suing the Lord Advocate and the Chief Constable for a further £9 million for “wrongful arrest”. The Lord Advocate who recently resigned was not Lord Advocate at the time of the arrest but had been personally involved in the prosecution.
A third case is the police investigation of the £660 000 which is “missing” from the SNP accounts. The money has been raised since 2017 to fund a campaign for a second independence referendum, but in its most recent accounts at the end of 2019, the SNP had only £97 000 in the bank. The chief executive of the SNP, Peter Murrell, who is the husband of Nicola Sturgeon, has been under pressure since 2019 to say what had happened to the money, but has kept silence. The SNP Treasurer resigned, along with several members of the Finance Committee, because of the withholding of information. A police investigation was started in March 2021, and escalated to a criminal investigation in July, but nothing further has emerged. One national newspaper reported that the Crown Office had been resisting the desires of the police to start a criminal investigation. In 2019 the Chief Constable stated that “the Chief Constable in Scotland has no say in prosecution. The Lord Advocate can direct the police to investigate. The police would not arrest a high profile individual without consultation with the prosecution.”
The common factor in these three cases is the appearance that the treatment of prominent figures by the Crown Office is not entirely independent of political considerations. How people stand with regard to the Scottish Government may, it seems, affect the decisions whether to investigate and to prosecute. The press take surprisingly little interest in these important cases. It is a concern that there should even be an appearance of partiality in the Crown Office, and if the reality is there, the Christian Church will soon start to feel it.
DWBS