Graeme from IT

 

[graeme-from-it]

Want more of the same nonsense that I put out on here ... http://qrco.de/graeme

[graeme-from-it]

Good report v Bad report

Remember when the Scottish Government was happy to cite the Centre for Economic Performance when assessing the economic impact of Brexit in 2016?

( https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-warns-112bn-brexit-8692651 )

Apparently the same organisation's assessment of the economic impact of independence in 2021 is less welcome.

( https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/03/independence-could-cost-scotlands-economy-11bn-a-year-forecast-suggests )

Today the Centre for Economic Performance says the impact of independence on Scotland's trade with both the UK and the EU would shrink our economy in the long run by between 6.3% and 8.7%, hitting two to three times as hard as Brexit. If our independence debate was remotely rooted in reality this sort of analysis - and it's not the first - would hole the case for separation below the waterline. But sadly we know from Brexit that people are willing to vote against their own interests for the fiction of freedom. ( originally posted by Duncan Hothersall on Twitter : https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1356871269157904385?s=20 )

[graeme-from-it]

The cost of furloughing Scotland

As one of the few people to have read @AndrewWilson’s Growth Commission report, Sam Taylor thought it might be a good idea to check the figures he mentions in the thread at https://twitter.com/AndrewWilson/status/1273240421527945219 

It’s a (mostly) straightforward matter to reverse engineer how Wilson calculated these numbers.

The government has released a breakdown of “employments furloughed” by nation and region, as of 31st May. (source:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/figures-show-uk-government-supporting-incomes-across-all-nations-during-coronavirus )

The overall total (but not the national/regional breakdown) is updated on a weekly basis, and the latest total (as of 14th June) is shown below. (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmrc-coronavirus-covid-19-statistics )

Wilson has taken 628k employments furloughed in Scotland as of 31st May, and divided by the latest overall total of 9.1m as of 14th June. 0.628/9.1 = 6.9%

When calculating such a ratio, the data in the numerator and denominator must be temporally consistent, so this is Wilson’s first mistake. But it isn’t his most important mistake. The detail of the breakdown by nation/region is shown below.  (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/coronavirus-job-retention-scheme-statistics-june-2020 )

Critically, a significant number of the claims are of unknown region. The only meaningful ratio to calculate here is Scotland’s share of total claims *where the region is known*. That total is 8.7m - 1.1m = 7.6m 0.628 / 7.6 = 8.3%

So, Scotland’s share of furloughed employments (where the region is known) is slightly higher than its 8.2% population share.

With respect to the SEISS scheme, Wilson has made the same temporal inconsistency mistake, and failed to notice that the detail released with the data reveals exactly what proportion of support by value went to Scotland, as of 31st May. (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/self-employment-income-support-scheme-statistics-june-2020 )

Scotland had received 6.1% by value of SEISS support as of 31st May. This is less than Scotland’s population share, but the data also reveals that the take-up rate in Scotland was 70% of those eligible – exactly in line with the UK average.

The average value of each claim in Scotland was also exactly in line with the UK average. Scotland simply has a smaller proportion people in self-employment than the rest of the UK.

So, turning to Wilson’s claim that Scotland might receive £1.5bn - £2.0bn less UK government support than it could have expected on a population share basis. How does that stack up?

In this case Wilson’s numbers are so wrong it is impossible to reverse engineer how he calculated them. The latest OBR estimate puts the lifetime costs of both schemes at £60bn (furlough scheme) and £15bn (SEISS).  (source: https://obr.uk/coronavirus-analysis/ ) Since the furlough scheme dominates, and Scotland actually has greater than its population share of furloughed employments, it is clear that Wilson’s central proposition is false, and his figures are wildly incorrect. Original Twitter thread at https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1273670087485071363  Written by Sam Taylor ( https://twitter.com/staylorish )

[graeme-from-it]

The Covid Crisis in an Independent Scotland

A "Guest" column, by John Ferry (Twitter: @JohnFerry18). It is a long read, but seriously worth the time spent...

:

If Scotland had become fiscally and monetarily independent in March 2016, as would have happened following a ‘Yes’ vote, it would not have been possible for more than 628,000 Scots have been furloughed on the UK government’s job retention scheme, according to figures from the Treasury.

I see some are seeing posts like this and deploying the straw man "too wee, too poor" argument & saying Scotland would just be borrowing and furloughing workers like any other country right now if we had gone indy. Let me explain why that doesn't stand to reason.

First, no one is saying a country of 5 million people with an advanced economy can't issue debt, have a central bank controlling its money supply etc. The argument is one of transition - going from being an integrated part of a single monetary & fiscal entity, the UK, and then unilaterally removing your economy from those functions & trying to transition to operating on a stand-alone basis with a new currency regime & credible fiscal systems in place. Let's be clear how momentous & challenging that would be.

It's never been attempted in the modern era & in the context of open, free market economies, with all the interconnectedness & complexity that entails - from mass consumer debt markets, to insurance & pensions markets, to state-established welfare etc. The closest examples we have are the break up of communist states with underdeveloped economies & practically no private sector, or colonies becoming independent in the post-War years, prior to modern financial complexity & where the economies were already mostly segregated anyway from the colonial  power. So Scotland removing itself from the UK, which would entail full monetary & fiscal autonomy kicking in overnight upon secession/independence day, would be an exceptional economic experiment. What would the likely result of that experiment have been?

We have a good idea of what would have happened after March 2016's indy day. We know for a fact that the new state would have started with a budget deficit of at least £13.3  billion, or 8.3% of GDP for 2016/17, as per government figures. We also know that a monetary regime called 'sterlingisation' - unofficially using the pound with the Bank of England no longer controlling the money supply or ensuring liquidity within the Scottish economy - would have kicked in upon secession day. Take this one aspect alone. One of Scotland's eading macroeonomists, Prof McDonald at Glasgow Uni, looked at this after it became official SNP policy & concluded that, given Scotland's balance of payments deficit (different to the budget deficit & to do with net cross border transactions), an indy Scotland would quickly be subject to a "classic currency crisis" with cash in the economy drying up, & the new state most likely being forced to launch a new currency under emergency conditions. A crisis like this would be unprecedented in a modern economy.

It's the sort of crisis we might have seen in South American or Asian emerging markets in the past but not in an advanced economy, and its implications for wealth in the country, for people's savings and livelihoods, would have been immense. On the build up to the crisis well off people & businesses would have acted rationally to protect their interests by moving capital, companies, & perhaps themselves & their families, outside the country (further eroding the tax base). The combination of the cash crisis & large budget deficit position means it would almost certainly not have been possible for the new Scottish government to issue sovereign debt at an affordable price. March 24, 2016 fiscal & monetary autonomy therefore would have led to both an emerging market-style currency crisis and a public sector payments crisis as the new state would have found it impossible, at this critical stage, to meet its liabilities either through taxation or borrowing (on the ground that could have meant public sector workers not getting paid for some period, bills delivered to the NHS & other public sector bodies going unpaid, resulting in services being withdrawn etc). Now, imagine a country having to go through an exceptional crisis like that in 2016/17 & then being hit by coronavirus in 2020.

It doesn't bare thinking about. And that's why an indy Scotland would not have been in a position to bail out its economy in the way the UK has this year. We'd still be reeling from the 2016/17 self-inflicted economic crisis brought on by indy.

Stable states with established government debt markets can pay for things like a furlough scheme, but the evidence is compelling that Scotland would still have been some years away from completing its transition to becoming a stable stand-alone state.

Postscript: please stop voting for nationalists who almost ruined our country once & are pushing to do so again. The loss of your livelihood & security will be taken as an acceptable price for achieving their outdated dream of purified sovereignty around a single nation.

( originally posted at https://twitter.com/JohnFerry18/status/1271379724632236032?s=20 ) 

[graeme-from-it]

Right Of Reply:

So... I got a reply regarding my earlier blog on the “Thank You Nicola” kids video, at https://graeme-from-it.tumblr.com/post/619083680925794304/infiltr8 

This is who she is, according to her bio:

I’m sure Kirsty was referring to this section, on a former colleague of hers ,  Steve Ladurantaye, who is now Head of STV News

So, I sent her this

That first link goes to here: https://www.canadalandshow.com/?s=CBC+executive+demoted

Whilst that second link goes to here: https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/news-story/7320977-steve-ladurantaye-editor-of-cbc-s-the-national-reassigned-after-cultural-appropriation-controversy/

As you can see, I offered a right-to-reply, to put her point across - so, as promised, here it is...

I’m assuming she’s trying to protect/defend him, similar to when she posted this in 2017, just after he was “reassigned” due to being in involved in a controversial debate over cultural appropriation.

UPDATE: 3.19am - 02/06/20

Received this from her

[graeme-from-it]

Nicola has done brilliantly...

...or maybe not.

Failing to hire one single person for the Track+Trace group

Multiple cover-ups and lies over the Nike conference outbreak

The Care Home sector being turned into three Charnel House sector, with (now) over 60% of deaths in Scotland occurring on those premises 

The staff were expected to basically work, unprotected, with little or no PPE

When we did source PPE, from China, it was essentially, unusable upon arrival 

[graeme-from-it]

Infiltr8

You my have seen a video that was posted by @stv-news​ on Twitter recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_khVBmJH2w

Well, you could have seen it, until it was pulled by their (then?) Head of News - Steven Ladurantaye (more on him later), who offered the following explanation for why it was deleted.

Now it seems to have been an unsolicited video that was sent to STV by a group of women*, who also originally posted it on Facebook.

*DISCLAIMER - All of the following information was, at the time of it’s posting, publicly available on Facebook, accessible to anyone

So, lets have a look at some of those involved, shall we...

Pretty obvious which way Morven swings, politics wise.

Then there is Leeon - We can guess who she supports, and seems to pretty handy with a video camera...

and, finally - out of the ones who state a relationship with the independence movement, we have Barbaranne :

Who works for...

*DISCLAIMER - All of the above information was, at the time of it’s posting, publicly available on Facebook, accessible to anyone

Now, back to  Steven Ladurantaye.

It seems that this may not have been his first involvement with Scottish constitutional affairs - a deeper relationship that any impartial journalist should really have.

If only Steve Ladurantaye Head of @STVNews followed his own rules

You would have thought he, or one of his colleagues, would have checked the video that was posted - or at least who sent it in, as STV news had also earlier had published a video of one of the children in the “Thank You” video, singing a song “to Nicola”

[graeme-from-it]

No sense of Humour...

In an, now deleted, article in the Scottish Sun, Scottish Heath Secretary - in these times of a global pandemic - took time to help out a fellow Nationalist.

SHOP DROP 

Jeane Freeman mocked for offering pro-independence journalist Angela Haggerty help with shop amid Scots care home crisis

Catriona Graffius

13 May 2020, 15:27

Updated: 13 May 2020, 15:30

THE Scottish Health Secretary Jeane Freeman has been mocked for offering to help pro-indy hack Angela Haggerty with her Asda delivery as Scottish care home deaths sweep the country. 

Scots erupted on Twitter last night as the SNP Health Secretary offered to “speak to Asda” on behalf of Ms Haggerty, who had complained about missing items in her supermarket delivery. 

The gaffe is the latest in a line of missteps by the Scottish Health Secretary who came under fire this week over the government’s lack of care home guidance. 

Yesterday, Ms Freeman replied to The Observer journalist Angela Haggerty on Twitter after she vented her fury at Asda for not delivering her full shopping order. 

Ms Haggerty, who tagged the Health Secretary in her tweet, said she was unable to visit the shops for the other items as she was shielding an elderly relative. 

MSP Jeane Freeman replied to Ms Haggerty’s tweet, saying: “Angela please DM me the details and we will speak to Asda to try to make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else. 

“All of this is hard enough for everyone so let’s try to not make it any harder.” 

But members of the public mocked the Health Secretary for spending time replying to the journalist’s Asda gripe while key government guidance on coronavirus in care homes is still missing. 

One replied: “You no got more important things to do? Care homes?”

Another fumed: “Shouldn't you be writing guidance for care homes? How about letting people know where the mobile testing centres are? Not worrying about some individuals shopping.”

And Ms Haggerty also replied, saying: “Thanks. I was just more upset than anything else. 

“Not sure what I expected Jeane to do about it and Asda aren't even monitoring their social media feeds.”

Earlier this week, the SNP Health Secretary was blasted for “confusion and incompetence” after incorrect guidance for care homes was mistakenly published on the Scottish Government’s website.

In a BBC interview, Ms Freeman said the document detailing hospital admissions was a draft and should not have been published. 

But the Health Secretary was forced to admit she hadn’t read the document after a journalist quizzed her on its contents. 

Ms Freeman said she had “not seen absolutely yet” the document. 

The “draft” document has now been taken down from the government’s website and has not been updated with new guidance. 

Without the document, it remains unclear whether hospital patients undergoing non-covid treatment will still be allowed to return to care homes before their coronavirus test results come back as negative. 

Earlier in the pandemic, the Scottish Health Secretary was mocked for wrongly stating in a radio interview that over 400 care residents had died of the virus - when at that stage, the number referred to the total cases in care homes. 

Screenshot of the, now deleted, article

[graeme-from-it]

Conspiracy Theories - Don't you love'em?

Nope - I hate them; I DETEST them! I loathe the people who create them and spread them; I worry about the people who believe them; I fear what effects they can have in the world outside that of the cranks imaginations.

Example 1: You may have seen this one, which seems to be doing the rounds recently

And it's followed by this line, trying to give the whole thing a level of authenticity and respectability.

Except - NONE of those earlier statements are in that book - I know, because I managed to find a copy. For instance, the ONLY mentions of Viruses are about the COMPUTER, and NOT the biological type.

Then there is THIS guy, who has a video on YouTube, which has been spread around various conspiracy accounts, facebook pages and blogs, saying that there is something "not quite right" about the current situation...

You can tell, despite his respectable appearance, he's "one of them", when - near the end of the clip - he accuses CNN of cutting of a speech by Trump about the pandemic, as deliberately targeting him, to get money from him!

He's basically saying the same as the earlier meme - how it's all China's fault.

What he doesn't say, but is very clear on his twitter account, is that he is VERY Pro-America, Pro-Trump, Pro-MAGA, anti-China, anti-"Liberal", Pro-Big Business

So, basically folks...

PLEASE, don't believe everything you read or take it at face value

If it sounds too good to be true, or fits YOUR facts - then it probably IS too good to be true.

Go look at the various fact checking sites -mentioned below the image- THEN decide!

Full Fact https://twitter.com/FullFact?s=09

IFCN https://twitter.com/factchecknet?s=09

C4 News FactCheck

https://twitter.com/FactCheck?s=09

AFPFactCheck

https://twitter.com/AFPFactCheck?s=09

snopes.com

https://twitter.com/snopes?s=09

[graeme-from-it]

Within a short space of time, many governmental resources have been made available to small businesses to help them through these times. Here’s an essential list to make sure you can access the help you need. 

Major support from the government:

1. The Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme

This emergency finance organised by 40 lenders through the British Business Bank is expected to go live 23 March. Loans of up to £5 million will be made available to provide cash flow to small to medium-sized businesses. The loans will be 80% guaranteed and interest-free for the first 12 months. Check out the link above for the latest information about how to access these funds.

2. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Available to all businesses and provides 80% of wages for any workers whom you temporarily suspend instead of laying them off. This is capped at £2,500 per employee, per month. The HMRC is setting up an online portal where you will be able to submit information about relevant employees.

3. Reclaim Statutory Sick Pay (SSP)

In response to Covid-19, the government allows employees to access SSP from day one of their absence. As the employer, you are able to receive a rebate of up to 2 weeks SSP (just under £200) per eligible employee for businesses with less than 250 employees.

4. Business Rate Relief and Cash Grants for Retail, Hospitality, and Leisure Businesses

Businesses in retail, hospitality and leisure in England will enjoy a business rate holiday for 2020-2021 with no limit as to the rateable value. Businesses in these sectors across the UK are also eligible for a cash grant of up to £25,000 per property (grant size depends on the rateable value of the business). Your local authority will write to you if you are eligible for this grant. 

5. VAT Deferral 

Businesses big and small will have VAT payments deferred for 3 months from March 20 2020 to June 30 2020, at the earliest. This is an automatic offer with no applications required.

6. Time to Pay Tax Service

HMRC recognises that businesses may be struggling to pay their tax obligations right now. They have setup a helpline to discuss support that a business might be eligible to receive, on a case-by-case basis. The helpline number is 0800 0159 559.

7. Three month mortgage holiday

The Chancellor has also announced that mortgage lenders are also offering a three-month payment holiday and urges individuals who are concerned about their ability to make payments to contact their lenders.

Of course, in these circumstances information and advice can change rapidly. So for detailed information on the above government schemes, please visit this page.

[graeme-from-it]

Friends, Scots, Countrymen - lend me your votes...

So, that's it - game over - Tory’s won, Labour lost, SNP got a historic landslide result - we must now all fight for Scottish Independence 

At least, that's what Nicola Sturgeon wants you to think

With 47 (+1)  seats, and 45% of the vote, she says that Scotland should now have the choice of whether to be independent or not - but lets look a little bit closer at those figures.

But that's just the “raw” figures, which the Nationalists don’t like to spread - Yes, they got 45% of the vote - but over 53% of the vote was for Party’s that were against independence.

And that's not the only thing that they’re not mentioning.

So, not only are they at the same position, percentage wise, as they were five years ago, they’ve got even fewer people actually supporting an independence party.

( Now, some may say, that is because 16-17 year olds weren’t allowed to vote in the General Election - but it’s more likely that those kids that did vote in 2014, have grown up - and wised up as well … ) 

Now, back to the headline of this article. The SNP are saying that the 45% they got is a clear indication of the support for independence - but that's not the only reason that they asked people to vote for them (”to come together” as Nicola said in an open letter - link at the bottom of this article) in the General Election.

Here is the “Simple Crofter” / “Bullying Blustering” Blackford asking for a loan

And here is another candidate asking for a loan of your vote:

But, it’s really just the same old story - “A vote for the SNP is not a vote for Independence” - said again, and again, and again...

Indeed, on their “Battle Bus” - Independence wasn’t mentioned at all 

And in research done after the election, it also became apparent that, again that Independence wasn’t the sole reason for people voting for the SNP - this time 

25% of their support came from anti-Tory, and not pro-Indy, supporters

with 10% of their support being against Brexit...

Original Copy of Open Letter here: https://www.snp.org/nicola-sturgeons-open-letter-to-remain-voters-back-the-snp-to-escape-brexit/

Archived Copy here: http://web.archive.org/web/20191106170922/https://www.snp.org/nicola-sturgeons-open-letter-to-remain-voters-back-the-snp-to-escape-brexit/ 

[graeme-from-it]

True Scots

[all-these-memes-belong-to-me]

Any Answers..

from the SNP on these, important, questions?

[all-these-memes-belong-to-me]

Ask The Candidates...

If you get an SNP candidate for the next General Election coming to your door, why don’t you print out and keep this handy question card; Their reply may help you decide which way to vote…

[graeme-from-it]

Sturgeon faces quiz over party email use in past four years

An adviser to Ms Sturgeon told civil servants that Ms Sturgeon would “no longer be personally monitoring her MSP account”

Nicola Sturgeon has been using her SNP email account to conduct state business for years despite strict rules separating government and party.

Civil servants must ensure that all government business is conducted through formal channels, but in 2015 a SNP adviser told officials that the only email used by the first minister would be her party address.

They were instructed to direct routine correspondence to her private secretary and direct urgent matters to her SNP account.

The revelation has intensified suspicions that Ms Sturgeon is seeking to avoid scrutiny by using email accounts that may not always to be subject to freedom of information (FoI) requests.

Ms Sturgeon revealed last month that she rarely uses email and “conducts most government business on paper”.

Civil servants work for the state and must not get involved in party politics. Ministers appoint partisan political operatives known as special advisers to act as a bridge between government and party. On November 25, 2015, a special adviser sent an email to 25 civil servants stating: “As of immediate effect, FM will no longer be personally monitoring her MSP account. Instead, she will be using a different account for work. However, this is for urgent business only.”

Civil service guidance on use of private email states “substantive discussions or decisions generated in the course of conducting government business” should be “accessible (eg by copying it to a government email address)”.

Last month, the Scottish government issued a response to a freedom of information request that stated: “Given the separation between government and party, Scottish government officials would not normally be expected to send information about government business to (or receive such information from) an email account ending with @snp.org.”

Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s first information commissioner, told a Holyrood committee this month that private emails used for government business must be handed over if requested under freedom of information legislation.

Donald Cameron, the Conservative MSP, said that he would write to Ms Sturgeon asking that she explain her actions. “This raises all sorts of very serious questions,” he said.

The Times revealed last month that Ms Sturgeon failed to send a single email to official ministerial accounts during June and emailed special advisers twice, on both occasions from her SNP address. The Scottish government said that the emails were not sensitive or linked to government information.

Last night a spokesman for the first minister said: “This simply reinforces what we have said previously about the FM’s personal email only being used to flag urgent, out of hours issues.”

The spokesman added: “Unlike the UK government, who have repeatedly refused to provide the emails and messages relating to the unlawful prorogation of parliament, the Scottish government has been utterly transparent by releasing emails from personal accounts in response to FoI requests.”

[graeme-from-it]

The Curious Case...

You may have seen some postings on social media, about Scottish Labour setting up two limited companies in Scotland - "for some reason", being banded about by the usual cyberNats and the National "newspaper" .

Now, it did seem a little "unusual" for the Labour party two set up two separate companies in Scotland, so I did a little digging...

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND IS AVAILABLE ON OPEN SOCIAL MEDIA OR GOVERNMENT WEBSITES

The companies in question are:

SCOTS LABOUR PARTY LTD Company number SC636620 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC636620

LABOUR PARTY SCOTLAND LTD Company number SC638367 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC638367

Now lets look at their directors

They both originally had Colleen Leonard as the sole Director, but she resigned later, and was replaced by George Martin.

Multiple Nationalists speculated that Colleen Leonard was related to the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard - basically because of her surname.

Lets deal with George Martin first, shall we?

As well as being a Director of both of these “Labour Party” companies, he is also a director of Stirlingshire Caravans...

... which helped us find out some more information about him - this time, on Facebook:

As you can see, he is quite a supporter of the Independence movement (no, NOT the Labour Party!), with various postings and “likings” of, amongst other things, the SNP and the National newspaper.

Now, lets go back to Colleen Leonard - the first Director of both companies. On Facebook, she is friends with Eric Martin, a relation of their current Director, George Martin - both of whom work at Stirlingshire Caravans - and surprise, surprise, Eric is also an ardent Nationalist...

NOW, you would think that all of this shenanigans can’t be right - and you would be correct, as it would seem to break company law; so I sent an email to Companies House:

to which, I got this , semi-satisfactory, reply:

So, for now, we’ll just have to keep an eye on these people and their companies

_____

This article was originally posted, on Twitter, at

https://twitter.com/graeme_from_IT/status/1162373812094164992?s=20

https://twitter.com/graeme_from_IT/status/1164555987220664320?s=20

and

https://twitter.com/graeme_from_IT/status/1164566746768056320?s=20

[graeme-from-it]

Getting rid of the evidence.

Getting rid of the evidence.

If it's located on a Hard Drive - either local computer or server based - the best method is to overwrite the entire disk with random patterns of data, either once or multiple times.

You may have to do the same with any back-up media, either Magnetic Tapes or Hard Drives.

SSDs (Solid State Drives) , will more likely than not - have to be physically destroyed - similar methods would have to be employed for any information stored on WORM (Write Once-Read Many) Optical Media; Physical destruction could also be employed on Hard Drives as a final means of complete data erasure.

NOW about THAT court case

If any emails have been deleted, they will have had to be erased from :

🔘 Local cached copy on the computer 🔘 Network optimisation systems such as Steelhead 🔘 Backup files on the email server 🔘 Office 365,off premises, copies on the Microsoft Azure platform that the Scottish Government uses. 🔘 Any anti-spam / email scanning systems such as Mimecast

For copies to have been deleted off of every one of these devices would leave an audit trail - unless that has also been suspended - and would need the involvement of more than one person.

Despite the permanent secretaries testimony to a Holyrood Select Committee , Scottish Government emails are NOT routinely deleted after 14 months - they are on the systems for a full 36 months - see link below and attached screenshots https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2017/11/scottish-government-records-management-plan/documents/00528240-pdf/00528240-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00528240.pdf