First Minister Nicola Sturgeon1 s personal security has been beefed up in the wake of a torrent of online threats hurled at the country s political leaders. It is understood a police2 officer is now responsible for driving the SNP3 leader to events in an unmarked police car . Until now, the First Minister’s security has been minimal and she has been driven around by government civilian drivers.
The hate speech, based on hundreds of tweets, included threats of violence and sexualised insults.
One troll wrote: A f**king hate Nicola Sturgeon, wish someone would shoot the daft jock b*****d .
Another Twitter user wrote: Nicola Sturgeon needs a kick up the c**t .
Sturgeon and her Ministers have until now been ferried about by pool drivers in the Government7 Car Service, but this newspaper has learned that security around the First Minister has been stepped up.
A police officer now takes the lead on driving duties and a second officer sometimes accompanies her on visits.
Stuart Crawford, a former military officer who is a security and defence consultant, said: Every public figure, whether political or not, is at risk to a certain extent . It is a case of trying to make an informed judgement of how great that risk is.
I have met Nicola on the train from Edinburgh8 to Glasgow9 and chatted to her, and that is one of the great things about the politics of the Scottish Parliament10 . You can walk down the Royal Mile and meet MSPs and Ministers, and engage with them.
But you have always got the nutter scenario – the John Lennon scenario .
So it seems to be sensible for her to have that police driver and escort, so long as it doesn t divorce her from the public.”
He added: People who might be on the receiving end of some sort of physical threat have just got to be wise to it.
His government driver doubled up as a body guard and a police officer was later drafted in to act as a personal security adviser.
John Buchan was based in the former First Minister’s private office as a “security liaison officer and was tasked with scoping out potential threats.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: We do not comment on the First Minister s security arrangements.
- ^ Nicola Sturgeon (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ police (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ SNP (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ Sturgeon (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ Labour (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ Ruth Davidson (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ Government (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ Edinburgh (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ Glasgow (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ Parliament (www.heraldscotland.com)
- ^ Alex Salmond (www.heraldscotland.com)
In the hours after last week s terrorist attack in Westminster that claimed the lives of four people, the message from the Government was one of defiance. Our way of life will not change, they said . It will be business as usual .
The British values of freedom and democracy will prevail. If there is going to be a debate on messaging and security it should at least be an informed one
Yet only four days after Khalid Masood s rampage, the Home Secretary took to the airwaves to demand that messaging services such as WhatsApp tear up their security features1, allowing police to intercept communications as part of criminal investigations. It appears that the debate about how to balance civil liberties against the Government s responsibility to keep the British public safe is about to start up all over again only four months after the so-called Snooper s Charter became law.
The Investigatory Powers Act, you may recall, requires web and phone companies to store the web and browsing histories of all users for a year. It also gives the police and security agencies powers to hack into computers and phones and to harvest vast amounts of data although the European Court of Justice s ruling in December has tempered this somewhat. Despite this major change, Amber Rudd is now targeting message services such as WhatsApp, claiming they provide a safe haven for terrorists by making it impossible for communications to be decoded, thanks to end-to-end encryption.
Giving police access in certain serious cases might sound reasonable, but unfortunately it is not that simple. Tech companies say that building a back door or security flaw into encrypted messaging systems naturally make them less secure for everyone. Ms Rudd also sounded less than clued-up when she talked about the technology she is trying to reform.
On extremist material, she asserted that the Government would speak to experts who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff ever being put up . As anyone who has ever used Twitter knows, this is utter nonsense. If there is going to be a debate on messaging and security, as the Government clearly wishes, it should at least be an informed one.
THE former Metropolitan Police Commissioner claims the “soft” outer ring of security at the Palace of Westminster must be enhanced after a video showed the complex’s gates were left open and apparently unmanned after Wednesday’s terror attack. The footage shows the aftermath of the assault on New Palace Yard which left PC Keith Palmer mortally wounded. As armed officers swarm the cobbled forecourt, having shot dead terrorist Khalid Masood, the imposing iron gate which allows vehicles to enter can be seen wide open.
Pedestrians are shown walking past and at one stage a courier on a moped appears to enter unchallenged.
Blair told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I am absolutely certain that there will be a review now of the outer soft ring that those of us who work at the Palace of Westminster are very used to.
“Always behind it is the inner core of armed officers, but PC Keith Palmer has paid with his life for that soft outer rim and I think that his family at least, and everybody else, needs the reassurance that will be reviewed.”
Blair refused to criticise the officers who apparently left the gate unguarded, describing them as “human beings” who will have been “gripped completely” by the attack while knowing the “cavalry” of armed officers was on its way.
But he added: “I’m absolutely certain that there will have to be changes.
“People are used to the fact that if they go into Downing Street4 they are confronted by basically closed gates and armed officers and I’m afraid that’s what will have to happen, but we’ll leave it to the reviews to see what it is.
“But I don’t think there should be shock horror about the fact the gates were open for a moment after that kind of attack.”
Evans described the outrage as “one of those things that by experience you learn” from.
He revealed that “lots” of MPs locked in the Commons chamber during and after the attack were discussing how to boost security in certain areas, but said far more checks are carried out at Carriage Gates than we he was elected in 1992 and a “bobby” would just “wave you through”.
The Tory MP said: “I’ve got no doubts whatsoever that there will be enhanced features of security, it’s happening on a regular basis, but following this tragedy security has got to be upped at the same time as still having a welcoming hand to members of the public to come and see how democracy works.”
Parliamentary authorities and the police are carrying out a review of security in the wake of the atrocity.
The complex’s main entrance has two sets of large metal gates allowing vehicles to go in and out of the estate and they have traditionally been left open during the day.
A pair of smaller, makeshift gates was introduced more recently with two police officers at each to check passes and allow cyclists, cars and delivery drivers to come and go.
Just inside the entrance gate, armed police are usually present and an unarmed officer sits in a booth by the exit.
Electronic ramps are depressed and barriers lifted further into the courtyard after passes are checked using handheld machines which flash up with a picture of the pass holder .
MPs’ vehicles are also checked for bombs before they can access the underground car park where the Tory MP Airey Neave was blown up in 1979.