POLICE have refused to say whether they have used spy powers against Scottish politicians, amid accusations spooks had infiltrated the SNP and the Government at the highest levels.
Police Scotland said the force would not discuss its use of the Investigatory Powers Act, which regulates spying on MPs and MSPs, after a former SNP MSP made serious accusations the British state was spying on nationalists.
It comes as former MSP Campbell Martin, who made waves earlier this week with his accusations MI5 agents had infiltrated and were controlling the SNP, made fresh claims in an interview with this paper that spying activity exploded with the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
In 1999, the SNP became the second-largest party in Scotland, the closest they had come to power in their existence.
Martin, who was an SNP MSP between 2003 and 2007 but was a Holyrood staffer from day one of the parliament, said the party began to attract increased surveillance from the security services from 1999 onwards.
Martin refused to identify those he believed to be spies, citing concerns for his safety, though claimed they worked as politicians, civil servants and within SNP HQ.
Speaking to The National, he said the belief the SNP had been spied on from the mid-20th-century onwards was common within the party, adding: “But when it started to build and began to become a threat to the British state, then they really infiltrated the party, they put people in.
“There is a difference between agents and assets and back then, in a sense, these people who listened at branch meetings and passed information back to the British state, the agents were people who were placed into the SNP to a specific task and the task was to undermine the cause of independence.
"That began to happen in ’99.”
READ MORE: British agents have infiltrated SNP government and 'influence' policy, ex-MSP claims
He added: “Some of the people in 1999 were relatively lowly, they were maybe staffers at headquarters, but they became, they moved into the higher echelons of the party in the intervening years.
“And that’s when they were able to influence party policy and direction and I would argue that’s one of the reasons why you have the party pursuing policies that are very unpopular instead of concentrating on independence.”
He went on: “After the 99 election, because the SNP was the official opposition […] we were allocated the whole second floor of the offices, the temporary offices at the top of the Royal Mile before they built the new Scottish Parliament.
“That’s when me and three or four other SNP MSPs we actually looked at some of the people on the same floor and thought, ‘these people aren’t nationalists, there’s something going on here.’
“And there were people from headquarters as well, who were appearing at the Parliament, that nobody had ever heard of.”
Martin’s claims are extraordinary, but they are partially backed by former health secretary Alex Neil who said he also believed the SNP had been infiltrated – but that spies had not influenced party policy.
Martin, who is no longer a member of any party, added: “I kind of laugh when I see the argument put forward by SNP loyalists, because what they’re saying then is, ‘we’ve not been infiltrated – we’re just crap.’”
'There are people in the SNP with friends in high places'
Neil, who served at the top levels of the Scottish Government between 2012 and 2016, said: “It’s not a secret that the intelligence services were looking at the SNP in the early 40s when the party membership was measured in hundreds rather than thousands.
“Probably, they’ve had some kind of monitoring facility since then. I think probably Campbell’s right. Clearly when we had 35 seats in 1999, that’s probably when they thought the threat was more serious.
“But I think the real threat would be when we gained an overall majority in 2011, where they would have really started to get worried and I think they’d have been very worried when it looked as if we might win the referendum.”
Neil, still a member of the SNP though notably critical of its current leadership, added: “I’m absolutely sure they’re still monitoring it [the SNP] and there will be people in the party and maybe even in the Government, either civil servants or politicians, who have friends in high places.”
But he rejected Martin’s claims the party’s position on issues such as trans rights and the doomed deposit return scheme, of which both men are critics, had been pushed by spooks.
“I think MI5’s much more subtle than that,” he added.
A spokesperson for Police Scotland said: “A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “We do not discuss our operational use of the Investigatory Powers Act.
“This area of policing is strictly controlled by legislation and national guidelines, where high thresholds of necessity and proportionality must be reached prior to any such activity.
“The public should be reassured by the significant safeguards which are in place and Police Scotland are regularly subject to scrutiny and independent inspection by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office.”
The Scottish Government declined to comment.
The SNP did not respond to a request for comment.
The Home Office, to which the Security Service reports, has a policy of not commenting on operational matters.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel