William W Scott

Tel/Fax: 01620 892489
e-mail: w.w.scott@amo-probus.demon.co.uk

Mr. Stephen Bruce,
Head of Public Records Policy Branch,
Constitution & Parliamentary Secretariat,
Freedom of Information Unit,

I thank you for your letter of 22nd ult. and hope you had an enjoyable time over the Festive Season.

I enclose a copy of a letter I sent to the Minister for Justice on 30th May 2005 as all correspondence since stems from that letter.

Ms. Byrne, as officials have now been forced to admit, agreed in her letter of 15th June 2005 that the Public Records Act 1958 does not apply legislatively to Scotland but that the terms of the Act are applied to the management of Scotland’s public records on an administrative basis.  Ms. Byrne informed me that this was the policy of the Scottish Executive as a whole, not the Lord Advocate in isolation, so there was no question of him acting outside the terms of his authority.

Stating that it was the policy of the Scottish Executive in no way explained where the authority came from to permit them to adopt such a policy.  The Lord Advocate may be following the policy of the Scottish Executive but it is open to question whether he is indeed acting within the law when there appears to be no legal basis for the action taken.
[Ed ~ The Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament conveniently chose to follow the instructions of the Lord Advocate when confronted with William Burns' petition PE652.]

Ms. Byrne seems to believe since the terms of the 1958 Act have been used in Scotland for some time and brought to Scotland the “good practice” operating throughout the rest of the UK that I should be satisfied with her explanation.  As is clear from further correspondence this is not the case.

On 6th July 2005 Ms. Byrne wrote “the Scottish Executive is not required to enact legislation to adopt administrative practices”.  She again pointed out the benefits of the 1958 Act.  In my reply I suggested that she appeared to be saying that there was no limit to the powers of the Scottish Executive.  I requested an explanation as to why the Westminster Parliament felt it necessary to pass legislation before applying the powers contained in the Public Records Act 1958 and yet in Scotland this was not required.  I was also interested in how far these powers held by the Scottish Executive could be extended.

The next letter I received from Ms. Byrne was dated 7th October 2005.  She suggested I contact the UK Government to enquire why they felt it necessary to legislate in 1958.  I replied on the 14th.  I pointed out, which should have been clear to her, that I had no interest whatsoever in why the UK Government felt it necessary to legislate in 1958.  I wished to know how the Scottish Executive was able to take powers that required an Act of Parliament before these same powers could be applied in England and Wales.  I referred to her letter of 15th June 2005 in which she wrote, “However I should clarify that this is the policy of the Scottish Executive as a whole”, and asked where the authority came from to impose a 100-year closure order on 106 productions to the Cullen Inquiry into the Dunblane Tragedy since the Scottish Executive did not exist at that time.  I closed that letter with, “I am a Scot residing in Scotland so the decisions of the Scottish Executive can have an effect on my life.  I therefore feel that I have every right to know where the authority comes from to allow the Executive to make decisions without reference to any elected body as you state they are entitled to do in your letter of 6th July 2005.”

You, as all officials I have communicated with since November 1999 have done, took up a lot of space in your letter of 4th November 2005 describing administrative processes, but nowhere do you clearly state where the authority came from to allow closure.

You stated that in 1962 the Scottish Office decided to apply the same closure periods as were applied in England.  Where is it written that the Scottish Office had the right to do so?

You claim that records management is essentially a routine administrative matter but where is that written down and what guidelines describe what is a “routine administrative matter”?

You describe the meeting at which the decision was taken to apply a 100-year closure but not where the authority came from to allow closure.  Lord Cullen in a letter to me wrote “those attending that meeting did not have the authority, individually or collectively, to impose closure.  Since the decision to impose closure was taken at that meeting and Lord Cullen has made clear that those attending that meeting had no authority to impose closure where did the authority come from?

In your letter of 22nd ult. you wrote, “it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the authority of those who imposed a 100-year closure on the Dunblane Inquiry papers.”  This after arguing at length that the Lord Advocate, the Scottish Office and the Scottish Executive have every right to administer routine matters as they see fit.

In that case is it true that you do not consider the closure of the Dunblane Inquiry papers to be a “routine administrative matter” and that closure required specific authority?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

William W Scott

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

William W Scott wrote to his MSP, John Home Robertson, on 8 February 2006 with extremely relevant information.  In characteristically political fashion, Mr Robertson merely "noted" the content.  Why are all our political representatives frightened to stand up and be counted on our behalf?  Mr Scott wrote back to Mr Robertson on 20 February 2006.  The information he gave him is summarised below.  He was assured it can be verified.  He also let him know that he thought he would have done more than just note the contents, adding that he trusts he will now give it some serious thought.

On the evening of the day of the [Dunblane] Massacre, Dr Beattie, a consultant paediatrician, informed journalists at a news conference that he did not see Thomas Hamilton’s body.  This he confirmed in his evidence to the Inquiry when he stated that there was one dead body in the gymnasium and it was that of Mrs. Mayor the teacher.

Thomas Hamilton’s body was there later in the day as it was examined by an explosives expert. To try to solve the problem of the "missing body", Mr Scott wrote to Dr Beattie, asking him if he could confirm that the body of Thomas Hamilton was not in the gym.  This confirmation was in accordance with what he appeared to tell newspaper reporters and what he testified at the Inquiry.

Although Mr Scott was not sure where Dr Beattie was working, he wrote to Yorkhill Hospital where he knew he was a one-time member of the staff.  No reply was received so he did not know whether Dr Beattie had moved or the letter had not been delivered.  Mr Scott sent reminders.  When there was still no response he sent an e-mail to Yorkhill containing a request to whoever read it to please inform him if Dr Beattie was on the staff or not.

This produced a most aggressive response from Dr Beattie.  He threatened William W Scott with harassment charges if he or any of his "group" made any attempt to correspond with him again.  A threat of "harassment"?   Mr Scott sent him but one letter.  There would have been no reminders if Dr Beattie had shown a little common courtesy and answered it.  And how did he come up with the comment of Mr Scott's "group"?  His letter gave no indication that others were involved.  He disclosed that he did in fact send copies of correspondence to a number of people, who will also receive a copy of his latest letter, but in no way can they be described as a group working together.  [Ed. ~ Whether these characters like it or not, the common good is more important than personal idiosyncrysies.  In any event, what judge could now support idle threats from people trying to suppress the truth in the light of the monumentally larger concern that is the Cullen Inquiry whitewash?]

Dr Beattie also said that his reason for not replying was because he did not want to fuel conspiracy theories.  Mr Scott never mentioned any suspicions.  He just requested an answer to a simple question.  If the body was there in the gym at 10.15am many, but not all, of the theories surrounding Hamilton’s death could not be sustained.  However, since Dr Beattie stated the body wasn’t there then it must be asked why was it moved.

Since Dr Beattie was no help, William W Scott wrote to Mr. Haire, a member of the first ambulance crew to arrive at the school.  He phoned Mr Scott and had a long friendly conversation.  Right at the start he told Mr Scott that his superior at Callandar had told him he could give him no information due to the terms of the Data Protection Act.  Mr. Haire gave the impression that he would like to help and before ringing off gave Mr. Scott the name and address of one of his senior officers in Stirling who he thought might be able to assist him.

Before Mr. Scott could write to Mr. Wemyss in Stirling, a letter arrived from Mr. Gordon, the General Manager of the Scottish Ambulance Service in East Central Scotland, informing Mr. Scott that he must make no further attempt to speak to Mr. Haire.  Why was Mr Scott's letter sent from Callandar to the top of the tree in Dundee, bypassing Mr. Wemyss?  After all, Mr. Haire recommended that Mr Scott should contact Mr Wemyss.  Mr Scott told Mr Gordon that he employed Mr Haire but did not own him.  He agreed, but Mr Scott still did not get an answer to his question.

In this letter to his MSP, John Home Robertson, Mr Scott posed the question: "Why are they all being so secretive about the whereabouts of Hamilton’s body?"

The statement written by the off-duty police officer who was first on the scene, other than school staff, was not put before the Inquiry, nor was he called to appear in person.  The statement is not among the papers lodged with the National Archives of Scotland and it was probably intended that it be kept hidden for a further 90 years; but for whatever reason it was released by Central Scotland Police.

It is not surprising that it was not produced as evidence as it states there were two pistols [Ed. ~ The officer said in his statement to Central Scotland Police that the guns he saw were not revolvers.] beside Hamilton’s body, that he was wearing one holster and that he was dressed in a dark boiler suit.  The evidence presented to the Inquiry stated there were two pistols and two revolvers, one of which Hamilton used to shoot himself, four holsters were strapped on and he was wearing dark corduroy trousers.  It would appear that Hamilton shot himself with a gun that was not in the gym at the time of his death.   Do you not agree that is a rather difficult thing to do!

The decision to impose a 100-year closure order was taken at a meeting on 13th January 1997.  At that meeting were the Clerk to the Inquiry and representatives of the Scottish Records Office, the Police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.  None of those present or those they were representing had the authority, individually or collectively, to impose a closure order[Ed. ~ According to Hansard, Lord Cullen concluded on 12 May 1998 that a 100-year closure order would be put on the files.  So did this meeting on 13 January 1997 actually take place or was it an invention to allow Cullen to distance himself from the nonstatutory order?]  The Advocate General for Scotland has stated categorically that “under Scots law there is no legislation which provides for a hundred year closure.”  Baroness Clark of Calton, Q.C. goes on to explain that understanding of the way in which closure of public records is operated is not the same as legislation.  If this is the case, and one would think that the Advocate General would be fully aware of Scots law, why was a 100-year closure imposed and why are some papers still to be hidden for a further 90 years?

[Ed. ~ To read exchanges between the Lord Advocate and John Home Roberston MSP and William W Scott and John Home Robertson MSP, click here.
To read the letter from the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee Mohammad Sarwar MP and William W Scott, click here.]

William W Scott,
23 St. Baldred’s Road,
North Berwick,
East Lothian,
EH39 4PY

03/01/06

 

Copyright © 2016 Billy Burns. All rights reserved.

Scottish Executive

Dunblane Massacre
Click here to view the full list in the Dunblane Whitewash catalogue
Google chrome is the adopted web browser for this site
The stained glass window in St Blane's Church, Dunblane, which commemorates the victims of the 1996 Massacre
We know that the above victims were killed by Thomas Hamilton, but, although we may not care, we do not know for sure who killed Thomas Hamilton, and why that person was carrying a revolver at the time!
Emma Crozier
Kevin Hassell
Victoria Clydesdale
Ross Irvine
David Kerr
John Petrie
Hanna Scott
Joanna Ross
Sophie North
Emily Morton
Maegan Turner
Brett McKinnon
Abigail McLennan
Charlotte Dunn
Mhairi MacBeath
Melissa Currie
Gwen Hodson/Mayor - schoolteacher
List of the victims of the Dunblane Massacre
Dunblane Cover-up