Last week Nathan Gill, a former leader of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party in Wales, pled guilty at the Old Bailey to eight counts of bribery. Just to be clear, it wasn’t Gill doing the bribing, that was Oleg Voloshyn. A man described by US intelligence sources as a “pawn of the Russian secret service”. Gill, a former UKIP Member of the European Parliament (MEP), took money from Voloshyn in return for promoting Russian interests at the Parliament, on TV and in newspapers. Gill also defended a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician who was arrested in Ukraine at the start of the war with Russia, then sent to Russia in a prisoner swap. Gill was a bought man.
Nathan Gill will be sentenced in November. His barrister says he can expect to serve time in prison.
Gill was a UKIP MEP for six years and leader of UKIP Wales between 2014 and 2016. He was head of Reform in Wales for three months in 2021.
How much was paid to Gill by Oleg Voloshyn hasn’t been made public. But the undisputed fact is, that Gill took money to promote the interests of a foreign power that had invaded a peaceful nation. Against all the principles of international law, an aggressor state invaded a neighbour that was no military threat to the invader.
Since the invasion, Russia has killed countless thousands of Ukrainian civilians and soldiers, destroyed much of its critical infrastructure, laid waste to its cities and shattered its economy. The UK, along with its allies in Europe, the US and further afield, have pumped billions of pounds, euros and dollars into supporting Ukraine’s efforts to hold off the “Russian Bear”.
Nathan Gill acted not in the interests of the people who had voted for him, or in those of the British and European taxpayers he was paid to represent, but in the interests of Russia.
As guilty as the “Cambridge Five”
Gill betrayed Wales, the UK and the people who voted for him. This puts him in the same category as those British spies who betrayed the UK during the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Their names were Guy Burgess, Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross.
What separates the latter five from Gill, is that they didn’t do their spying primarily for money, but because they believed in international communism. Known as “The Cambridge Five” they were recruited while students at Cambridge University in the 1930s, by the Russian secret service. Intellectually drawn to communism as a route to greater human equality and a bastion against fascism, they led double lives at the heart of the British establishment.
Highly educated, upper middle class and well-connected, their espionage led to the death of many British agents and members of their networks operating in Russia and countries dominated by the Soviet Union. For decades, UK and allied military secrets and information on the deployment and activities of British agents found its way into Russian hands. In the end, the “Cambridge Five” were just like Gill, naive, arrogant, gullible and treacherous.
Grubby greed or ideological compatibility?
We don’t know what Gill’s motivation was to take Russian money. It might have been simply grubby greed. Perhaps he found his MEP’s salary and extremely generous travel and subsistence expenses not enough to satisfy his desires. Perhaps he felt he needed a bigger bank balance to keep up with the millionaires in his party. People like Nigel Farage and Richard Tice. Could it be, that like Farage, Gill admires Vladimir Putin and felt inclined to help the Russian dictator all he could? It’s possible he finds Putin ideologically compatible with his own world view.
We may never know.
Whatever Nathan Gill’s reasoning for his actions, they have been the very opposite of the patriotism that Reform and its leaders so frequently and loudly proclaim. Gill sold his patriotism for cash. His constituents expected him to uphold high standards in public life. They expected him to act in the best interests of the UK. They certainly did not expect him to act against the best interests of the UK or in the interests of the gangster state that is Putin’s Russia.
Gill was charged by his voters to represent, protect and defend the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. After all, the political parties he has been a member of – UKIP, The Brexit Party and Reform – have all put the sovereignty of the UK at the very centre of their political philosophy. All three have been creatures of Nigel Farage and he has positioned himself as the politician who can be trusted to defend national sovereignty. Irony is too weak a word.
Nigel Farage endorsed Gill for years
We are judged in life by the company we keep, the friends we choose, the colleagues we champion and endorse, the clubs, societies and organisations we opt to join or support. Nigel Farage chose to endorse and champion Nathan Gill. They sat together on the benches of the European Parliament. They were photographed together.
Gill is no longer a member of the Reform Party. It has distanced itself from the now disgraced former Welsh chief. But the fact is, he was for years Farage’s man. What does that say about Farage’s ability to judge of the character of the people around him?
Surely, Nigel Farage cares deeply that the people put forward for public office by the party he leads are fit and proper persons, that their character and behaviour stand up to public scrutiny? Farage has made much of Reform investing serious time and money in candidate vetting. But hold hard there. Writing in Bylines Times on 7 July, Josiah Mortimer wrote:
“Prospective Reform UK candidates in one of the party’s new electoral strongholds, who were previously blocked by the party’s internal vetting processes, have been told to re-apply under what are described as a new set of ‘common sense’ standards.
“A post on July 4 by Reform UK’s official East Thanet Facebook page stated the party has adopted a new set of vetting standards as of July 7, which are ‘more proportionate than before’. They claim to give more weight to ‘individual freedom of expression’ – despite following a slew of scandals involving Reform candidates posting racist content online.
“In a call for candidates following the apparent overhaul of their vetting standards, the East Thanet Reform post states: ‘We’re treating this as a blank slate. If you have previously failed vetting, you are strongly encouraged to reapply under the new standards…Priority will be given to re-vetting’ – i.e. giving people previously rejected as unfit for office a second bite of the cherry.
“The post adds: ‘An election can be called with little notice. By-elections are frequent events as councillors retire or stand down. It is important that all branches have prospective candidates lined up ready to go. With plans to contest every seat at every level we need credible candidates to step forward. If you feel you have the necessary skills, now is the time to apply.’”
Farage’s haughty air of aloofness
When asked about transgressions by elected Reform politicians or candidates, Farage adopts of an air of aloofness, as if such bureaucratic detail is far below his elevated status. His demeanour challenges his questioners with a haughty, ‘Why are you bothering me with such stuff?’ attitude.
Nigel Farage has Russian form. Not only does he admire Putin, but he also anchored a TV show in the UK on a channel that was declared a Putin propaganda station by UK authorities. He has close associates who were investors in Russia and good friends with the Russian Ambassador to the UK.
Farage also displays adoration for Donald Trump. The question must be, is British sovereignty safe with Nigel Farage?
Might a Farage government be all too close to Trump and Putin?
Are British sovereign interests – our very democracy, our defence and armed forces, intelligence services, vital infrastructure, the integrity of our banking and public finance systems, our way of life – safe with Nigel Farage?
If Trump or Putin say jump, will Farage ask how high?
A Farage-led government at Westminster would be no friend of Scottish independence. Would he call on his friends Vladimir and Donald to frustrate the will of Scottish voters? Are there Putin and Trump agents and spies among us now?
How deeply has Russia penetrated Scottish and UK life? Are there other Nathan Gill’s taking the Kremlin’s bribes? We’d surely be naïve to think he was the only person in UK public life to pocket a wad of dosh from Vlad the war criminal.
Nathan Gill may be a lone operator or a rogue acting on his own in his own selfish interests. But there are enough connections between Reform and Russia and enough concern about Russia’s clandestine activities in the UK to warrant a full scale, judge-led, investigation into the extent to which Russia has infiltrated our public life.
There are four years until the next UK general election. If a judge-led inquiry starts now and is given six months to report it should be ready just before the 2029 general election. There’s no time to waste. Russia may even now be eating away at our freedoms, our institutions, media, economy and defences. Come on Sir Keir. Your first duty is the defence of the realm.
There was a “Russia Report” commissioned in by the UK parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee and partly published in 2020. It found substantial evidence of Russian interference in UK politics, including interference with the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. It also said the UK government (in Conservative hands from 2015 to 2024) “had failed to investigate evidence of successful interference in the democratic process.”
There is a Scottish general election in 2026. Can we be sure Russia is not already stealthily at work trying to corrupt the result? The announcement of an inquiry might just stay Russia’s hand. Let’s get to it.
More on news:
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
