The Borders anti-Semite Tory MP -part two

DOUGLAS SHEPHERD concludes our feature on Captain Archibald Ramsay

The Borders Tory MP who peddled anti-Jewish propaganda before the outbreak of World War Two denied being a fifth columnist or a saboteur even though the British Government saw fit to have him banged up in jail for more than four years.

Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay had been educated at Eton, and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, before serving with the Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916. He was subsequently based at Regimental H.Q., at the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of The Great War.

In 1920 he became a Member of His Majesty's Scottish Bodyguard. And in 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Peebles and Southern Midlothian, defeating the sitting Labour MP Joseph Westwood by 8,250 votes. But Ramsay's margin of victory was cut to just 1,462 in the 1935 election.

The reasons for his incarceration in Brixton Prison were made public in 1952 when Ramsay published his controversial biographical story under the title The Nameless War.

Ramsay was not charged with any crime after being detained on May 23rd 1940 on returning to London from a fortnight's break in Scotland. But a lengthy 'charge sheet' setting out the particulars justifying his detention was handed to him by the authorities.

The schedule read as follows: The said Captain Archibald Maule RAMSAY, M.P. (i) In or about the month of May 1939, formed an Organisation under the name of the "Right Club," which ostensibly directed its activities against Jews, Freemasons and Communists. This Organisation, in reality, was designed secretly to spread subversive and defeatist views among the civil population of Great Britain, to obstruct the war effort of Great Britain, and thus to endanger public safety and the defence of the Realm.

(ii) In furtherance of the real objects of the Organisation, the said RAMSAY allowed the names of the members of the Organisation to be known only to himself, and took great precautions to see that the register of members did not leave his possession or control ; and stated that he had taken steps to mislead the Police and the Intelligence Branch of the War Office as to the real activities of the Organisation. These steps were taken to prevent the real purposes of the Organisation being known.

(iii) Frequently expressed sympathy with the policy and aims of the German Government ; and at times expressed his desire to co-operate with the German Government in the conquest and subsequent government of Great Britain.

(iv) After the formation of the Organisation, made efforts, on behalf of the Organisation, to introduce members of the Organisation into the Foreign Office, the Censorship, the Intelligence Branch of the War Office, and Government departments, in order to further the real objects of the Organisation as set out in (i) hereof.

(v) After the outbreak of war, associated with and made use of persons known to him to be active in opposition to the interests of Great Britain. Among such persons were one, Anna Wolkoff, and one, Tyler Kent, a Coding Officer employed at the Embassy of the United States of America. With knowledge of the activities in which Wolkoff and Kent were engaged, he continued to associate with them and to make use of their activities on behalf of the "Right Club" and of himself. In particular, with knowledge that Kent had abstracted important documents, the property of the Embassy of the United States of America, he visited Kent's flat at 47, Gloucester Place, where many of the said documents were kept, and inspected them for his own purposes. He further deposited with the said Kent the secret register of the members of the "Right Club," of which Organisation Kent had become an important member, in order to try and keep the nature of the Organisation secret.

(vi) Permitted and authorised his wife to act on his behalf in associating with, and making use of, persons known to him to be active in opposing the interests of Great Britain. Among these persons were Anna Wolkoff, Tyler Kent, and Mrs. Christabel Nicholson.

In a statement given to the Commons Speaker and MPs by Ramsay from Brixton Prison he declared: "All the particulars alleged as grounds for my detention are based on charges that my attitude and activities in opposition to Communism, Bolshevism, and the policy of organised Jewry were not genuine, but merely a camouflage for anti-British designs.

"I became finally convinced of the fact that the Russian and Spanish revolutions, and the subversive societies in Britain, were part and parcel of one and the same Plan, secretly operated and controlled by World Jewry.

"I now took the decision to proceed at once with the formation of a group similar in character to the group of representatives of Christian and patriotic societies, which I had worked with up to the emergence of the Jewish problem ; but this time a group which would place opposition to that menace in the forefront of its activities. The group was finally inaugurated in May 1939, and was the Right Club. The first object of the Right Club was to enlighten the Tory Party and clear it from any Jewish control.

"Together with many members of both Houses of Parliament, I was fully aware that among the agencies here and abroad, which had been actively engaged in promoting bad feeling between Great Britain and Germany, Organized Jewry, for obvious reasons, had played a leading part."

Despite the catalogue of 'particulars' laid against him Ramsay was able to draw his £600 a year MP's salary throughout his lengthy stay in prison.

He did not seek re-election at the 1945 General Election. Labour captured the Peebles and Southern Midlothian seat from the Unionists when David Pryde - defeated by Ramsay in 1936 - achieved victory by 6,496 votes.

Archibald Ramsay died in 1955. 

Anti-Semitism of a jailed Borders Tory MP

SPECIAL 

FEATURE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The continuing furore over anti-Semitism which has dominated coverage of the 2019 General Election campaign might be regarded as relatively insignificant compared to the hateful propaganda against Jews being circulated exactly 80 years ago by an extreme right wing Scottish Borders Tory MP.

Captain Archibald Ramsay, who sat in the House of Commons for the Peebles and Southern Midlothian constituency from 1931 to 1945 was considered to be a threat to British security, and was detained without charge in Brixton Prison for more than four years during World War Two.

In 1939 he formed an organisation called The Right Club whose aim was "to co-ordinate the activities of all the patriotic bodies which are striving to free this country from the Jewish domination in the financial, political, philosophical and cultural sphere."

The list of members of The Right Club was kept a closely guarded secret in a large red book although the organisation was soon infiltrated by the nation's secret service. Ramsay and others who ran the club had close links with Oswald Mosley, the notorious leader of the Black Shirts while most of those involved were sympathetic to Adolf Hitler's cause.

It was suggested at the time that Ramsay had been selected to be Hitler's Gauleiter [governor] of Scotland following an invasion although the MP strongly denied the allegation and threatened to sue.

Another leading member of The Right Club was Anna Wolkoff, whose father had been aide to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. During the 1930s she visited Germany several times where she held meetings with Rudolf Hess before returning to her home in London. Wolkoff was eventually jailed for ten years for passing secrets to the Germans.

The Thirties was also a time when Viscount Rothermere and his newspaper The Daily Mail were not unsympathetic towards Hitler, and Rothermere met The Feuhrer on several occasions.

The activities of Ramsay's Right Club have been written about in considerable detail by Tim Tate, the highly respected journalist and author in his book Hitler's British Traitors The Secret History of Spies Saboteurs and Fifth Columnists.

Mr Tate revealed how MI5 formally asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to charge Ramsay and his wife Hon. Ismay Lucretia.

"The request was not granted: instead, Ramsay was interned in Brixton Prison under Defence Regulation 18b. Here, like his fellow fascist detainees, he was allowed regular visits from friends and his wife  without explanation, entirely free – who were allowed to bring their loved ones additional supplies of food and even wine.

"Ramsay was also permitted to retain his seat in the House of Commons, his annual MP’s salary of £600, and to lodge Parliamentary Questions from his prison cell throughout his internment. When he was finally released, in September 1944, he returned to the House as if nothing untoward had happened."

And according to the book: "Suitable candidates [of The Right Club] were invited to send applications to Ramsay, care of his office in the House of Commons. He then assigned the new members, according to his perception of their descending levels of social status or ability, into a series of ‘classes’: Wardens, Stewards, Yeomen, Keepers and Freemen.

"Membership costs ran from a £25 joining fee, with a further £10, 10 shillings annual subscription, for the most senior class (Wardens), to 2 shillings and sixpence or the lowest (Freemen). Once accepted, each member was sworn to secrecy and issued with a specially manufactured badge: an eagle killing a snake and bearing the initials “P.J.” – universal British fascist shorthand for “Perish Judah”.

However, the true purpose of Ramsay's secret organisation was to promote a fascist revolution in Britain via a military takeover of the country. He is said to have told the club's inner circle: "Personally, I should welcome a civil war with shots fired in the streets.” 

The Right Club membership register had been seized by Special Branch officers and retained its status as a classified document for more than half a century despite requests by politicians to have its contents published from the 1940s onwards.

But in 1952 Ramsay published his own version of events in a book he called The Nameless War. It included numerous ant-Jewish passages and praised Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Reviews of The Nameless War included he following contributions: "There is no limit to the depths of human depravity. Captain Ramsay ... seems to have made a very determined attempt to plumb those depths." - The Jewish Chronicle. And "The publication of such a book, at this time, underlines the urgent need for the law to be reformed so as to make it a crime to preach racial hatred or publish libels on groups in the community." -The Daily Worker.

Ramsay tells readers of his book: "Ever since the fall of Mr. Chamberlain's Government, the interests of the Jewish Empire have been advanced as prodigiously as those of Britain and her Empire have been eclipsed.

"Stranger than all this — should any dare to state the truth in plain terms — the only response is an accusation of anti-Semitism. The phrase "anti-Semite" is merely a propaganda word used to stampede the unthinking public into dismissing the whole subject from their minds without examination : so long as that is tolerated these evils will not only continue, but grow worse."

TO BE CONTINUED

Jedburgh listed building to be pulled down

by DOUG COLLIE

The iconic baronial property which has often featured in Visit Scotland brochures to promote the delights of Jedburgh is set to disappear after planning officers reluctantly sanctioned demolition of the listed structure, now neglected and abandoned by its group of absentee owners.

There have been a small number of representations from conservationists urging the retention of the 1866 tenement overlooking Market Place on the corner of High Street and Exchange Street. But the shops and residences which have been shrouded in scaffolding for several years are too far gone to be salvaged, according to experts.

A report published by Scottish Borders Council (SBC) confirms the local authority's planners, using delegated powers, have approved the so-called Listed Building Consent application from their colleagues in the council's architects' department.

But it is also revealed that because SBC will almost certainly have to promote a compulsory purchase order (CPO)  to acquire the worthless building the council will probably have to write off expenditure of some £400,000 which has been spent to safeguard the public and shore up the crumbling edifice.

Objectors maintain the proposal to demolish the building appears to be directly at odds with the aims of the Conservation Area. Its loss would be an irresponsible course of action. its protection would be of great value to the town, and it should be restored to a high standard and marketed in a way that presents the history and character as a premium asset, economically.

Save Britain's Heritage object to the total loss and high level of adverse harm caused to the Jedburgh Conservation Area. They claim the building is important owing to the age, materiality and physical character, and historical value which combine to achieve significant group value.

But the council report, in a section headed Marketing, declares: "Given the current NIL value of the building and the ongoing costs being incurred by the council marketing the building is simply not a realistic proposition.  The Council is currently negotiating with the owners or will use CPO to acquire the whole building, which would also require writing off the costs incurred."

And the report adds: "There is a convincing, yet regrettable, case for demolishing this listed building. These proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance. There is a considerable financial deficit illustrated for its repair and re-use; we must conclude this is unlikely to happen and its retention is likely untenable".

Euan Calvert, assistant planning officer at SBC writes: I witnessed the buttress scaffolding, dry rot infestation, failed gutters, water ingress and failed roof joists.  Over and above these issues I also observed the significantly poor condition of stonework on the principal elevation. 

All properties are now uninhabitable and the building has been demonstrated to be structurally unsound. It remains in control of five different interests by 15 different persons. Given the length of vacancy and the time taken to arrive at this application is quite clear that there is little will to reconcile these building problems collectively.  It is therefore impossible for the Council to present firm evidence of the building being formally marketed. 

The officer's report says: "Sadly I agree wholeheartedly with Save Britain's Heritage that it is impossible to reconcile this proposed demolition with the principles of conservation and the aims and objectives of heritage management. This building is in the heart of Jedburgh and a further "gap site" will blight the town and the Conservation Area.

"A mass of financial information has been presented which is compelling and indicates that the building could be repaired, but the costs and hence the viability of such an approach are prohibitive. The Council has amassed a massive bill for scaffolding on this site to protect public safety."

There is also a stark warning that the building in question could be posing a danger to and inflicting damage on neighbouring notable listed properties.

According to the report: " Historic Environment Scotland warn at this point that this demolition will have implications for the immediately adjacent buildings. Both are listed; 4-6 High Street at Category C and 3-5 Exchange Street at Category A.  

"I will apply conditions to ensure details are provided of the treatment of the party walls and details of raking shores to mutual gables. Anecdotally, I am aware that the internal of the A listed building is affected by the dry rot outbreak.  There is a real risk that the Council becomes involved in a wider issue beyond this red line boundary which will necessitate further Listed Building Consents."

The report concludes: "The building has been vacant and neglected for some time and it is not the first time the Council has intervened in its maintenance. There has been no inclination from the private owners to repair and renovate the building or market the site for redevelopment.

"Reports submitted with this application have indicated that the building is capable of repair and renovation but with significant conservation deficit.  The market value of the property is now effectively NIL and there is no means of closing this funding gap.

"This is the start of a proposed compulsory purchase process to acquire and demolish the entire building, clear the site and make good the properties on either side.  Successful compulsory purchase of the site by the Council will allow it to dictate redevelopment and ensure any proposal is in keeping with the overall character and appearance of the Conservation Area."  

SB Cares makes it three business failures in a row

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

A report lodged at Companies House by Scottish Borders Council admits its soon to be dissolved arms length company SB Cares "has struggled to realise the full potential of the model originally envisaged".

Councillors paid consultants Care & Health Solutions £160,000 for that model in a venture which has ended with the local authority having to take the adult social care services delivered by SB Cares and its 850 staff back under council control. The switch is scheduled for December 1st, a mere four and a half years after the company started trading.

The business racked up liabilities of over £7 million in four years, prompting external auditors KPMG to warn in their 2018/19 audit: "We draw attention to the profit and loss account of the financial statements which indicates that the LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) incurred a net loss of £2,851,000 for the year (2018: net loss of £735,000) and had net current liabilities of £7,556,000 (2018 net current liabilities of £4,705,000), and the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon continued funding from Scottish Borders Council and Borders’ Integration Joint Board, which is in turn dependent upon the outcome of a strategic review being undertaken within Scottish Borders Council.

"These events and conditions, along with the other matters explained in the accounting policies, constitute a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

It is worth noting that two other semi-private businesses set up by English local authorities on the advice of Care & Health Solutions have suffered similar fates to that of SB Cares.

As Not Just Sheep & Rugby reported several weeks ago, Buckinghamshire Care Ltd, sanctioned by Bucks County Council in 2013 had to be rescued at the end of 2016 following the emergence of financial problems and concerns over the level of care being delivered.

Then there is the case of Olympus Care Services, a business with 775 staff and an annual budget of £32 million which took over the running of social care services for Northamptonshire County Council in 2013. But after suffering a £3.8 million loss in 2017 Olympus also had to be taken back in-house. Auditors again sounded dire warnings about its financial stability.

At the same time government inspectors were sent in to Tory-run Northants council because of its chronic money problems which had brought the local authority to the brink of insolvency.

The failure and demise of SB Cares means three of the seven arms length businesses structured by Care & Health Solutions have ultimately collapsed.

In the SB Cares annual report available on the Companies House website the 2018/19 comprehensive loss is given as £2.593 million, less than the figure of £2.851 million quoted in the original unaudited version of the company's accounts. The net liabilities are stated as £7.298 million as opposed to the £7.556 million included in the unaudited accounts.

As the report goes on to record: "On 26th September 2019 members took the decision to reintegrate SB Cares LLP and SB Supports LLP back into SBC on December 1st 2019. Members have agreed to voluntarily terminate the LLPs on December 1 and begin the process of reintegrating the services delivered, as well as the assets and liabilities held by the LLPs into the council from that date. Accordingly the members have not prepared the financial statements on a going concern basis".

The report concludes that while SB Cares has delivered financial and service benefits since inception, "it has struggled to realise the full potential of the model originally envisaged.

"After careful consideration, it is the view of the council management team that the benefits of the ALEO (arms length) structure for SB Cares no longer outweigh the challenges and risks now facing the business. The risks, which are likely to increase in future, make it appropriate for the council to now reintegrate SB Cares and SB Supports into the council".

The move marks a complete volte face for the management team and the elected members of SBC. They were told and agreed in 2014/15 that to continue delivering adult social care in-house was 'not an option' and would lead to increased financial issues and a reduction in service standards.

Borders Council 'money spinner' lost millions

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

The arms length company set up by Scottish Borders Council to take over adult social care services, and which was supposed to make profits totalling £2.2 million in its first five years ended up losing more than £7.5 million before the decision was taken in September to kill it off.

An investigation which has compared figures in the SB Cares confidential Business Plan of 2014 with the company's actual financial performance appears to show the forecasts which convinced councillors to sanction the venture were divorced from reality.

The 75-page plan, now released by SBC following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, was drawn up by Care & Health Solutions, a firm of consultants who received more than £160,000 in fees for their trouble.

According to the Business Plan: "The Profit and Loss Account provides details as to how profitable the LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) is and how it is reducing the price charged to SBC over the 5 year period by increasing its own income streams: overall the model makes a gross contribution of £5.156 million after direct costs and provides a retained surplus of £2.257 million available to the Council for investment in other services or to contribute the savings."

SB Cares, said the consultants, was set to record annual surpluses as follows: Year one (2015/16) £265,515; year two £463,874; year three £466,906; year four £454,425; year five (2019/20) £606,243. Grand total £2,256,962.

However, the financial fortunes of the soon to be dissolved operation turned out very differently from those upbeat forecasts. 

In 2015/16 there was a comprehensive (net) loss of £1.294 million. That was followed by losses of £2.676 million, £735,000 and £2.851 million in the ensuing three financial years. The combined deficits add up to £7.556 million.

SB Cares annual accounts for 2018/19 include the following observation by external auditors KPMG:

“We draw attention to the profit and loss account of the financial statements which indicates that the LLP incurred a net loss of £2,851,000 for the year (2018: net loss of £735,000) and had net current liabilities of £7,556,000 (2018 net current liabilities of £4,705,000), and the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon continued funding from Scottish Borders Council and Borders’ Integration Joint Board, which is in turn dependent upon the outcome of a strategic review being undertaken within Scottish Borders Council.

"These events and conditions, along with the other matters explained in the accounting policies, constitute a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

Councillors have not called for an investigation into this worrying set of statistics, deciding instead to quietly wind up and dissolve SB Cares together with its sister company SB Supports and return the vital services to full council control.

In recommending the radical switch to a form of privatisation, the authors of the Business Case told SBC in 2014: "This is an important shift in how SBC provides social care services and as with any Business Case the high level significant risks are identified and what mitigations are required to minimise them.

"Not only are significant risks identified but what would happen if the business was to fail or if the Council wanted to exit from the arrangement. The fact that this is a Council owned company mitigates risks as the services could be brought back into Council if required in future.

"It is our view that the level of scrutiny of the performance of a Council owned independent organisation is much greater than that of any other independent provider and as partner the Council would have plenty of warning if the LLP was not achieving its planned performance or is likely to become unviable.

"There would therefore be an early opportunity to implement an improvement plan to bring the performance back in to line or if it is felt that this is unlikely, to look at the other alternatives discussed within the exit plan. These could involve bringing the services back into the Council, or a controlled transfer to the private market."

This high risk venture may end up costing taxpayers many millions of pounds with no benefit for adult social care's 12,000 clients. And what was the cost of staff time required to implement the flawed Business Case?

Care & Health Solutions wrote at the time: "Implementation involves a complex programme of work that would set-up and create the new business, undertake the necessary work to separate out and transfer a number of services, functions and ultimately staff to the new organisation which would engage a significant number of other Council departments in achieving it. In our experience this process takes between seven to nine months."

Designers of failed council firm were paid £160,000

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

The 'specialist' firm of consultants brought in by Scottish Borders Council to set up the ill-fated arms length company SB Cares received more than £160,000 of taxpayers' cash for their work after warning the local authority adult social care services could not remain in-house.

Twelve separate payments were made by SBC to Wolverhampton-based Care & Health Solutions in 2014 and 2015, according to figures released via Freedom of Information [FOI].

The lucrative fees included four invoices for a business case totalling £58,400, a sum of £20,000 for the original options appraisal and seven different sums for 'implementation work'. The total consultancy bill came to £160,854.

The switch of the care services from SBC to SB Cares in 2015 included the transfer of a thousand front line staff and involved significant expenditure on set-up costs and branding.

But after SB Cares, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), failed to meet financial targets and could not maintain adequate standards of care councillors decided in September this year to dissolve the semi-privatised organisation and return the adult care service to full local authority control.

According to a council insider the venture had been a 'shambolic failure'. Now SB Cares and its sister company SB Supports are set to be wound up and dissolved by the end of 2019. The hundreds of clients who receive the service have received assurances from the council that nothing will change under the 'new' arrangements.

The FOI request also shows that none of the 34 elected members voted against the establishment of SB Cares when the previous SBC administration sanctioned the move in 2015.

According to SBC: "There was unanimous agreement for the decision from those present at the meeting at the time. Six Councillors had given apologies; one Councillor left the meeting prior to the decision being taken; three Councillors declared an interest and left the Chamber, taking no part in the decision."

In a report to the full council in September it was stated: "The delivery of savings has been variable over the first four years of operation and it is doubtful whether there is capacity within the business to generate further significant financial benefits under the current operating model.

"It seems reasonable to conclude, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the majority of benefits have not been delivered solely due to the nature of the LLP and several could have been delivered by the council adopting similar approaches.

"Recently concerns have emerged with regards to the safety of some individual services, and the challenge of meeting the requirements of the Care Inspectorate.Given the limited capacity issues which exists within the stand alone business it is not considered likely, however, that the arms-length model will be able to drive forward significant further improvements in quality scores."

The damning document showed SB Cares had come up £822,000 short in predicted efficiencies for its first four years.

Savings of £3.65 million were achieved, which included £600,000 from a change in accounting policy, £220,000 by closing its Bordercare alarm centre in Galashiels, the closure of catering kitchens, a review of management structures and staff rotas, and tighter absence management.

But the savings came at a cost to Scottish Borders Council with the local authority's Human Resources, payroll and IT staff providing dedicated support and services. And the report showed it cost an additional £360,000 to run SB Cares every year as an arms-length company.

The council has released a number of confidential papers linked to the formation of SB Cares, including the final Business Case, a 75-page report from Care & Health Solutions. There is no indication in any of the documents as to which member of staff or elected councillor came up with the idea for the arms length company. And no-one has "claimed" responsibility for the ALEO's palpable failure.

As we have reported previously, Care & Health Solutions used the example of SB Cares on their website to promote their work until after SBC axed their flawed ALEO. The consultants were also involved in the creation of Buckinghamshire Care, another arms length council care company which failed. In that case the county council had to take the services back in-house.

The contents of the seemingly flawed Business Case for SB Cares will be discussed in a future article.