Talk:Patricia Scotland

Comment
NPOV "This treaty was signed in secret, any potential political interference silenced with the catch-all 'terrorism'...'The Natwest Three' case is astonishing in that the offence the three have been charged with are not typically extradition offences."

Not particularly neutral language about the use of the "terrorism" card and the use of "astonishing" implies a value judgement. --Tarpy 02:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the last paragraph in particular should be removed. This seems to be a detailed commentary on the NatWest 3 case which is neither relevant to a biography of Baroness Scotland nor neutrally written. --88.111.184.39 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the NatWest Three mention is very inadequate. Personally I would just scrap it and start again. The important thing to keep in mind is that Baroness Scotland didn't negotiate the Treaty, and nor is she responsible for what the courts decide; she just happens to be responsible for implementing the Treaty now. David | Talk 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the sections concerned and hope now that they display a more neutral point of view. Regarding the natwest 3 commentary I believe it is relevant to a biography, extremely so in fact and highly illustrative of legislation at work and their consequences to ordinary people, David [Dbiv] makes that clear by his use of the word 'responsible'. However, perhaps it could be moved into the new article on the NatWest Three, however I would want to make Scotland's role clear to people in her biography, collective responsibilty only goes so far. TwoBells 14:40 13/07/2006


 * I think the article has been improved in terms of NPOV. I have made some further changes to ensure that the detail is related to Baroness Scotland.  I feel the information, which I have removed, about Visas and the Irish Lobby on Congress would be better placed in the NatWest 3 article or elsewhere.  --Kelso21 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

These are good edits! I've taken down the npov.--Tarpy 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use
Are we reduced by the image police to using oil paintings of prominent British politicians rather than photographs? --JesseBHolmes 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the painting should be removed even if we can't use a real picture. It doesn't look very good to use a painting of a person who is photographed very often.Teemu Romppanen 10:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and imho it is not a particually amazing painting and it doesn't even look like her. I will remove it and replace it with a "we need a picture" picture Gingerblokey 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the oil painting because there is a photograph in the article now and the rather poor painting seems superfluous, and adds nothing. Just my view.

Appointment as High Court Judge
It is stated that : "The Lord Chancellor in the Conservative government had intended to make Scotland a High Court Judge"

Is there a source for this suggestion? While, in time, had she remained at the Bar and not entered politics, it is not impossible that Lady Scotland could have been appointed to the High Court Bench, she would only have been in her early 40s under the last Conservative Lord Chancellor. This would have been considerably younger than age at which people were usually considered (let alone appointed) to the High Court Bench at that time.

Informed Owl 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl

Picture
Could somebody crop the picture? I'm not aware of the Baroness's sexuality, but the fact that she has "Lesbian Gay Bisexual" printed in very large letters right next to her certainly implies something, which we shouldn't be doing if it isn't true. As the original image is quite large anyway, a cropping of the extensive peripheral areas would allow for a larger and clearer picture of the subject anyway.  Mi re ma re  21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC) re the next comment..

Could somebody crop the picture? I'm not aware of the Baroness's sexuality, but the fact that she has "Lesbian Gay Bisexual" printed in very large letters right next to her certainly implies something, which we shouldn't be doing if it isn't true. As the original image is quite large anyway, a cropping of the extensive peripheral areas would allow for a larger and clearer picture of the subject anyway. Miremare 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record she is married and has two sons so the clumsy LGBT inference should probably be removed - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jun/28/labour.uk11

---How does supporting a event against homophobia implies the Baroness's sexuality ??

Who cares?

Who cares? can we have a name change as she is the AG for England and Wales.. Scotland or this femme need a name change ASAP. before the war crim charges sink in? http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=62439#c-118308

I see what Miremare means - though in New Labour circles it is a badge of honour. As for the other portrait, I'm not sure that it isn't libellous - no-one could really look that awful :-) NBeale (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Portrait
Seriously - the portrait adds nothing at all to the article. In addition it is IMHO pretty hideous and I'd want to be very confident that the artist had given his/her permission. NBeale (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity
The article says she is half Antiguan and half Dominican (despite being born in Dominica), it says her mother comes from the Dominican Republic, two completely different places.....is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.231.3 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC) She is said in the article to be "black". This is only partly true.

Labour MP calls for Baroness Scotland to be sacked
--Mais oui! (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Former whip Graham Stringer said that if Lady Scotland did not make a “principled resignation” she should be fired

Fine for hiring an illegal immigrant
There is something very confusing in this case that needs explaining please. Was she fined for actually employing an illegal immigrant or not? If she was then why is she and the BBC saying it was on the technicality of not copying the documents? Now I know the BBC are not always great but they would be performing a disgusting bit of journalism. BBC: "Should someone lose their job, they ask, just because they forgot to photocopy something?" and "Lady Scotland's error - and breach of the law - was not to make any copies." Someone please clarify what's going on. The legislation mentions keeping copies. Is the BBC just biased beyond belief? Surely the law isn't you have to keep copies of all documents of all non-EU nationals or you get fined? And surely the law can't be you can only be fined if they turn out to be illegal? --Chrisjwowen (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the law does require that employers must keep copies of documents proving the right to work in the UK and in this instance the employer failed to meet this requirement. Gwynevans (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Knowingly employing an illegal is a criminal offence. You can be fined up to £10,000 for unknowingly employing an illegal unless you checked their documents, they appeared to be in order and you kept copies. This was in the law that Scotland herself piloted through parliament.NBeale (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only are employers fined, but their names are added to a register that can be viewed on the UK government's website. This being the Government's name and shame policy. I am sure we are going to see her name on the register. 86.136.60.217 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

3
Chinese, African and European ancestors seem to be involved. She is also known as Patricia Mawhinney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.253.233 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC) She is also known as Patricia Janet Mawhinney.

Housekeeper refutes version of events
BBC news 24 is reporting that the housekeeper has denied that she was ever asked to present her passport in an interview with the mail on Sunday, I cant find sources verifying this however, anyone? Superpie (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Found the MOS article but now dont have time to write it up, leave it here for anyone interested http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1216372/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Baroness-Scotland-demeaned-rule-law.html Superpie (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Baroness — how?
How, or for what reason did she become a baroness? Is that kind of information publicly known? 138.162.128.52 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any information about how or when she became a Baroness. Am I missing something? Egmetcalfe (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. From the article—
 * Baroness Scotland made history in 1991 by becoming the first black woman to be appointed a Queen's Counsel. She later founded 1 Grey's Inn Square barristers chambers. Early in 1997 she was elected as a Bencher of the Middle Temple. Scotland was named as a Millennium Commissioner on 17 February 1994, and was a member of the Commission for Racial Equality. She received a life peerage on a Labour Party list of working peers in 1997.
 * Working peers are appointed on the basis of a combination of merit and relationship with the party. -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations but as someone not from the UK I'm still confused. Is one supposed to infer that the title was granted because she was elected to the Queen's council? Is there some connection between being a barrister and being a Baron/Baroness that I'm missing (None of the articles mentioned in that excerpt mention Barons/Baronesses. Egmetcalfe (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with being a QC; the key phrase is "She received a life peerage on a Labour Party list of working peers in 1997". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Allright, but she is mentioned as "Baroness Scotland" 33 times in the article. 1) Per above, she wasn't baroness from birth, and 2) aren't we referencing people by lastname in articles here? Ther should be some cleaning up in that respect, shouldn't there? HandsomeFella (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Style
I'm quite sure baronesses are always called Baroness XYZ, and never Lady XYZ like Baroness Scotland is in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.242.216 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be, guides on form of address, including those from the MOJ and House of Lords say either is acceptable. In fact, Lady X is more common, but Wikipedia tends to use "Baroness" for peeresses in their own right and "Lady" for wives of barons. -Rrius (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitewash
This article is turning into a whitewash. At one point, Patricia implied that there were two passports involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.124.250 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Patricia Scotland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090308021021/http://www.justice.gov.uk:80/news/announcement171008a.htm to http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement171008a.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101204211753/http://www.ag.gov.au:80/www/ministers/mcclelland.nsf/Page/MediaReleases_2009_FourthQuarter_9November2009-Communique-QuintetofAttorneysGeneral to http://www.ag.gov.au/www/ministers/mcclelland.nsf/Page/MediaReleases_2009_FourthQuarter_9November2009-Communique-QuintetofAttorneysGeneral
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090924164506/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/earth/greenpolitics/immigration/6211368/Baroness-Scotland-faces-new-inquiry-call-over-170000-London-allowance.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/immigration/6211368/Baroness-Scotland-faces-new-inquiry-call-over-170000-London-allowance.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Still a whitewash
I see that someone noted this nearly 2 years ago, but concerns still stand especially as this increasingly threatens to turn into a proper news story.

There are numerous omissions that most likely stem from the subject or her staff interfering with the editing process. For example, the section on her time as AG lists in detail her (inconsequential) achievements but does not mention the fact that she was forced to resign in disgrace after being caught employing an illegal immigrant for less than the minimum wage.

Similarly the section on the current controversies gives undue weight to her incredible denials, which are easily disproved by documents in the public domain. The Guido blog is far from the only outlet covering this and the article ought not imply that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/baroness-scotland-shifts-blame-over-expensive-renovations-to-her/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3907280/Is-Baroness-Scotland-shameless-Chandeliers-cronies-33-000-paint-whistleblower-hounded-exposing-naked-greed.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3907198/Brazen-Baroness-Scotland-denies-misusing-public-money-Labour-peer-insists-mansion-s-taxpayer-funded-makeover-wasn-t-extravagant-despite-having-no-idea-cost.html http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstory-Dominica-baroness-a-regional-embarrassment,-says-Antigua-PM-32416.html https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2097078/india-is-threatening-to-withdraw-commonwealth-funding-over-baroness-scotlands-spending/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2104424/spendaholic-baroness-scotlands-commonwealth-hq-had-to-bailed-out-by-taxpayers/ http://thewire.in/75686/amid-wave-controversies-around-commonwealth-chief-india-mulls-association-grouping/

Considering how crucial Wikipedia has (sadly) become to journalists and the number of political figures who have been caught editing their own entries I think it is worth being extra-cautious here. Thanks. 81.151.66.18 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Patricia Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809174053/http://www2.labour.org.uk/labours-new-front-bench-team to http://www2.labour.org.uk/labours-new-front-bench-team
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/jun/28/labour.uk11
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4425550.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218234730/http://www.uel.ac.uk/alumni/newsletter/december2005.htm to http://www.uel.ac.uk/alumni/newsletter/december2005.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

NatWest Three
Reading this article, I just don't understand what the purpose of the NatWest Three section is supposed to be. One red flag is that the only sources for this section are Hansard: a primary source, suggesting that the whole section is Original Research. There must have been lots of cases in the news while Scotland was in the Home Office, and the argument needs to be made as to why this particular case deserves mention in the article. My main complaint, though, is that I don't understand what the present text is trying to tell us about Baroness Scotland. "Scotland's view in 2005 [...] was contrasted by Clegg to comments which the Prime Minister had made in July 2006..." So a person expressed the view that a view expressed by Scotland was different from a view expressed at a different time by a different office of state? I don't know how this relates to the outcome of the case and why it is something important to know about the subject of this biography.

Earlier on this Talk page, from 2006, is an attempt at justifying inclusion of the case: "I believe it is relevant to a biography, extremely so in fact and highly illustrative of legislation at work and their consequences to ordinary people" but this leaves me (and anyone else new to this topic) none the wiser. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm taking the bold step of moving the dubious section out of the article. Anyone who insists this episode needs to be discussed in the article is welcome to improve it with relevant secondary citations and explanatory text. A new extradition treaty with the United States had been signed on 31 March 2003. Scotland had the responsibility for promoting the necessary legislation in the House of Lords. The "NatWest Three" extradition case made use of this treaty. The three men were British citizens, living in the UK and working for a British bank. On 12 July 2006, in a highly unusual move, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, allowed an emergency debate on both the treaty and the NatWest Three after a request by Liberal Democrat frontbencher Nick Clegg.
 * NatWest Three

During the debate, Scotland's view in 2005 that a higher threshold to establish probable cause was required by the UK to extradite from the US than vice versa was contrasted by Clegg to comments which the Prime Minister had made in July 2006, in which he stated that the evidential burdens on the two countries were the same. The NatWest Three were subsequently extradited, and accepted a plea-bargain under which they pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud in the United States and were sentenced to 37 months' imprisonment.

MartinPoulter (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)