Payment information – bridge works – On 18 August 2014, Begbies Traynor Group PLC (BTG) asked Transport Scotland for the final account agreed with Bam Nuttall Limited (BNL) for a specific project, with particular reference to the blast cleaning and painting works. Transport Scotland withheld the information on the basis that disclosure would substantially prejudice the commercial interests of BNL and Transport Scotland. The Commissioner accepted this argument from Transport Scotland.

[2015] ScotIC 138 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552546

Inspection of leased property: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 19 March 2015, Mr Harte asked Aberdeen City Council (the Council) for information about inspection of leased property and dealing with landlords. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply with Mr Harte’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 116 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552541

SIC Bail checks – On 9 March 2015, Mr Robb asked the Chief Constable of Police Scotland (Police Scotland) for information about bail checks and time taken for these bail checks.
Police Scotland stated that they were not required to provide the information about bail checks as the cost of doing so would be excessive, and they did not hold the information about the time the checks had taken.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner upheld Police Scotland’s response.

[2015] ScotIC 118 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552540

Fire service promotions: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 18 April 2015, Mr Johnston asked the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (the SFRS) for information about promotions in the fire service. This decision finds that the SFRS failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the SFRS failed to comply with Mr Johnston’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 129 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552547

Use of private contractors in the NHS – On 1 September 2014, Mr Kane asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for correspondence relating to the use of private contractors in Scotland’s NHS, the potential for charging of health and social care services and any concerns that Scotland’s Health Services might be impacted by changes to the NHS in England. The Ministers disclosed some information, but withheld three documents, on the basis that disclosure would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice.
Following a review, Mr Kane remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner ordered the Ministers to disclose some of the information which had been withheld from Mr Kane.

[2015] ScotIC 119 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552542

Effect of sea lice infestations at marine salmon farms on wild salmonids – On 9 April 2014, Animal Concern asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for copies of all communications between Marine Scotland and Scottish Government Ministers regarding sea lice infestations at marine salmon farms and the effect of such infestations on wild salmonids.
The Ministers responded by withholding all of the requested information under the exception contained in regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs.
Following a review, the Ministers disclosed some information but withheld other information under the exceptions contained in regulations 10(4)(e) and 11(2) of the EIRS. Animal Concern remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had wrongly withheld some information under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs. She required the Ministers to provide Animal Concern with this information.

[2015] ScotIC 130 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552545

SIC Attendance at courses – On 11 March 2015, Mr Hamilton asked the University of Edinburgh (the University) for information which would show whether two named individuals had attended certain courses. The University stated that it did not hold any information about one of the individuals. In relation to the other individual, it stated that it required further information from Mr Hamilton to allow it to identify the information, and that the cost of providing information would be excessive.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner did not accept that the University required further information from Mr Hamilton in order to comply with his request. However, she accepted that the University did not hold information about one individual and that, given the broad terms of Mr Hamilton’s request, it would cost more than andpound;600 to provide information about the other individual.

[2015] ScotIC 134 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552549

SIC Actions following a complaint: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 5 February 2015, Ms MacSween asked the Scottish Ambulance Service Board (the Board) for information about actions taken following a complaint she had raised. This decision finds that the Board failed to comply with Ms MacSween’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 125 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552544

SIC Attendance at courses and qualifications obtained – On 11 March 2015, Mr Hamilton asked the Scottish Social Services Council (the SSSC) for information which would show whether two named individuals had attended certain courses and obtained certain qualifications.
The SSSC withheld this information on the basis that it was personal data of the two named individuals and was exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SSSC did not hold some of the information Mr Hamilton had asked for, but that it had failed to notify Mr Hamilton that this was the case. The Commissioner accepted that the information held by the SSSC was exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 135 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552548

Orkney Core Path Plan review – On 23 July 2014, The Kennel Club asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to Orkney’s Core Path Plan.
The Ministers responded to the request. They disclosed some information but withheld some on the basis that it was legal advice so exempt under FOISA. The Kennel Club was dissatisfied so requested a review. The Ministers responded, having considered the request under the EIRs rather than FOISA. They withheld information on the basis that it comprised internal communications.
The Kennel Club remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had responded to the Kennel Club’s request for information properly, in accordance with the EIRs.

[2015] ScotIC 120 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552533

SIC Consultancy contract: economic development of Edinburgh’s East End – On 15 January 2015, Mr Tibbitt asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for information about a consultancy contract relating to the economic development of Edinburgh’s East End.
The Council considered the request under the EIRs, and initially responded by providing some information and purporting to withhold the remainder on the basis that it was commercially confidential. Following a review, the Council changed its position and informed Mr Tibbitt that it did not hold the information. Mr Tibbitt remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had partially failed to respond to Mr Tibbitt’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs. While she accepted that the Council did not hold the information requested, on its own interpretation of the request, the Commissioner found that this interpretation was too narrow and required the Council to give a further response to Mr Tibbitt in respect of the remaining information.

[2015] ScotIC 121 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552534

Investigation report – On 16 February 2015, Mr J asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information relating to an investigation carried out by the SPS and New College Lanarkshire (the College). The SPS told Mr J that it did not hold the information requested.
Following an investigation the Commissioner accepted this.

[2015] ScotIC 123 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552537

Meeting minutes and mandates in respect of Taxi Tariff – On 4 August 2014, Mr Nugent asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information about a meeting between the Council and Glasgow Taxis Ltd, and mandates submitted by the union, Unite.
The Council responded by supplying some information and stating that it did not hold other information. It refused to provide information from the mandates on the grounds that it was ‘sensitive personal data’ and exempt from disclosure. Following a review, Mr Nugent remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council did not hold any mandates from the members of Unite, and had failed to give Mr Nugent notice of this. The Council had provided the information which it held, and had correctly given notice that it did not hold other information covered by his request. She did not require the Council to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 122 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552535

SIC Details of hospitality events at Bute House: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 30 March 2015, Mr Hutcheon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for the names of those receiving hospitality at Bute House since Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister, along with dates on which the hospitality was received and also dates of meetings with Rupert Murdoch for the same period. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Hutcheon’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 124 – 2015
Bailii
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552539

SIC Procedures Manual – On 28 February 2015, Mr Codona asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information from its procedures manual or similar documents relating to the Council’s implementation of its obligations under specified parts and sections of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The Council informed Mr Codona that it was not obliged to comply with his request as the cost of doing so would be more than andpound;600.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was not persuaded that the Council’s submissions were sufficiently robust for her to accept that the request could be refused on grounds of excessive cost. She required the Council to give a further, different, response to Mr Codona’s request.

Procedures Manual
[2015] ScotIC 100 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550873

SIC Neighbourhood Dispute: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 23 April 2015, Mr X asked South Lanarkshire Council for information about a neighbour’s dog entering his garden. This decision finds that South Lanarkshire Council responded to Mr X’s requirement for review within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

[2015] ScotIC 111 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550882

SIC Whether Request Vexatious and Business Names – On 8 January 2015, Ms Lynch asked Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) for information relating to the workload and job description of a named member of staff.
SCSWIS responded by providing her with the job description but withholding business names under section 33(1)(b) (commercial interests) of FOISA. It stated that it considered the remainder of her request to be vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA. Following a review, Ms Lynch remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated. She accepted SCSWIS’s reliance on section 33(1)(b) of FOISA in relation to business names but did not accept that the remainder of Ms Lynch’s request was vexatious. She required SCSWIS to provide Ms Lynch with an alternative response to her requirement for review, in respect of those parts of the request it considered vexatious.

[2015] ScotIC 104 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550884

On 12 December 2014, Mr H asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about payments made to prisoners at a named prison. The SPS informed Mr H that some of the information was already accessible to him and that it did not hold other information covered by his request.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPS was correct to inform Mr H that some information was accessible to him, but was wrong to state that it did not hold other information. The SPS made this information available to Mr H during the investigation.

[2015] ScotIC 112 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550875

Remediation Reports for Completed Development: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 6 June 2015, Mr V asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for remediation reports on a completed development. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the requirement for review within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA)/the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).

[2015] ScotIC 113 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550880

Seal Killing Return Forms From Salmon Farms for 2013 and 2014 – On 12 January 2015, Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture (GAAIA) asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for the seal killing return forms from salmon farms for the years 2013 and 2014.
The Ministers withheld the information, claiming that disclosure would cause substantial prejudice to public safety.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the seal killing return forms from salmon farms for the years 2013 and 2014 should be disclosed.

[2015] ScotIC 103 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550872

SIC Advertisement Drums – On 11 March 2015, Mr Y asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for the number of ‘advertising drums’ currently in operation on Council-owned land, with a list of locations. The Council provided some information to Mr Y. During the investigation, the Council notified the Commissioner that it held additional information and that this had now been provided to Mr Y.
While the Council failed to comply with the EIRs in not providing this information earlier, the Commissioner was satisfied by the end of the investigation that all relevant information had been provided to Mr Y.

[2015] ScotIC 106 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550883

SIC ICR Report and Related Information – On 18 August 2015, Mr Howarth asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for the Initial Case Review (ICR) report concerning Daniel Welsh, with the reasons why this was not taken to a Significant Case Review (SCR).
Police Scotland responded by stating that the report was exempt from disclosure, on the basis it was personal information and related to a criminal investigation. Following a review, Mr Howarth remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland partially failed to respond to Mr Howarth’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. In particular, Police Scotland failed to identify all of the relevant information it held. The Commissioner accepted that all of the information was correctly withheld, however, on the basis that it was personal data and its disclosure would breach the first data protection principle.

[2015] ScotIC 105 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550878

Artists’ Fees for The Festive Lights Switch-On In Perth – On 10 November 2014, Mr Howie asked Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) about the cost of the festive lights switch-on in Perth, including the fee paid to each performing artist. The Council provided some information, but withheld individual fees. Following a review, Mr Howie remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had wrongly withheld the information covered by Mr Howie’s request. She required the Council to disclose the information to Mr Howie.

[2015] ScotIC 107 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550877

Road and Pavement Repairs – On 17 October 2014, Mr Tobermann asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for a list of defects relating to recent road and pavement works on a section of Leith Walk, Edinburgh.
The Council considered the request under the EIRs and refused to provide the information, for reasons including commercial confidentiality. Following a review, Mr Tobermann remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had correctly withheld the information under regulation 10(5)(e) of the EIRs, on the basis of commercial confidentiality.

[2015] ScotIC 108 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550876

SIC Statistics for Covert Surveillance – On 15 April 2014, Mr Hutcheon asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for statistical information on interception warrants and authorisations and notices for communications.
Police Scotland withheld some information, explaining that RIPA legislation prevented its disclosure. For the remaining requests, they submitted that the cost of compliance would exceed the andpound;600 cost limit (so they were not required to respond). Mr Hutcheon remained dissatisfied with the outcome and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland were entitled to withhold the information about interception warrants under section 26(a) of FOISA.
However, she was not satisfied that the Police were entitled to refuse to comply with the requests about authorisations and notices on the basis of excessive cost. She also identified a failure in the time taken by Police Scotland to issue the review outcome

[2015] ScotIC 109 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550879

SIC Breakdown of Estimated Cost for Forth Replacement Crossing – On 23 September 2014, National Alliance Against Tolls (NAAT) asked Transport Scotland for a breakdown of the latest estimated cost of the Forth Replacement Crossing.
Transport Scotland considered NAAT’s request under the EIRs, applying regulation 6(1)(b) to some of the information on the basis that it was available on Transport Scotland’s website. It also withheld information it did not consider to be finalised, under regulation 10(4)(d) of the EIRs.
Following a review, Transport Scotland provided a breakdown of the estimated cost.
NAAT was not satisfied with the breakdown provided and the Commissioner investigated. She found that Transport Scotland failed to respond to the request in full and therefore failed to comply with regulation 5(1) of the EIRs. This failure was addressed during the investigation, so she did not require Transport Scotland to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 101 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550885

Raw Data From The Police Firearms Survey – On 5 February 2015, Mr Brooks asked the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) for the full, raw data results that were used to compile the Police Firearms Survey carried out by the research group TNS. The SPA replied that it did not hold the information. Following a review, Mr Brooks remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPA does not hold the raw data. She is satisfied that the SPA responded to Mr Brooks’ request in accordance with FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 110 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550874

Housing Allocations Policy: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescale – On 20 January 2015, Ms W asked West Lothian Council (the Council) for information about the Council’s current/future housing allocations policy. This decision finds that the Council failed to comply with Ms W’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

[2015] ScotIC 074 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550870

Crime and Incident Audits: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales

[2015] ScotIC 076 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550853

SIC Local Government Elections – On 19 September 2014, Mr May asked Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for information relating to the costs and provision of services for local government elections in 2012/13.
The Council responded, advising Mr May that it could only respond to one element of his request as it considered the remainder to be information held by the Returning Officer, not subject to the terms of FOISA. Following a review, Mr May remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had failed to respond to Mr May’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. This was because the information requested was held by the Council in its own right. The Council also failed to respond to Mr May’s requirement for review within the statutory timeframe.
As all of the information identified as falling within the scope of this request was supplied to Mr May during her investigation, the Commissioner did not require the Council to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 078 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550867

Scottish North Sea Tax Revenue Projections: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 26 February 2015, Mr Paterson asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to illustrative projections for Scottish North Sea tax revenue. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the applicant’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

[2015] ScotIC 081 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550860

SIC Numbers of Seals Shot and Related Correspondence – On 24 July 2014, Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture (GAAIA) asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information about seal killings at salmon farms during 2014 and for correspondence on the provision of seal killing statistics.
The Ministers withheld the number of seals shot at each farm and stated that they did not hold any relevant correspondence.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the Ministers did not hold the correspondence GAAIA had asked for, but found that the information about the number of seals shot at each farm should be disclosed.

[2015] ScotIC 102 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550871

Crime and Incident Audits: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 19 January 2015, Mr Picken asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information about crime and incident audits involving crimes subsequently marked ‘no crime’. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Picken’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).
The Commissioner has ordered Police Scotland to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 077 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550854

SIC Correspondence Regarding A Complaint – On 10 December 2014, Mr Mackenzie asked the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (the SPSO) for correspondence sent to and received by the SPSO during its investigation of a complaint.
The SPSO withheld the information under section 26(a) of FOISA, on the basis that its disclosure was prohibited by other legislation. The SPSO also notified Mr Mackenzie that much of the information he requested contained his own personal data and, while this was exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(a) of FOISA, he could obtain it by requesting it under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA).
Following a review, Mr Mackenzie remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPSO was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 26(a) of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 080 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550868

SIC Police Scotland submission to IOCCO Inquiry: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 5 February 2015, Mr Andrew Picken asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for a copy of Police Scotland’s response to the IOCCO inquiry into the use of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to identify journalistic sources. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Picken’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 071 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550851

Number of Cases Investigated By A Named Officer – On 10 March 2015, Mrs Gordon asked the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) for the number of cases a named person was involved in whilst working for the SCCRC. The SCCRC withheld this information on the basis that it was personal data, exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SCCRC was entitled to withhold the information under this exemption, but that its responses were not fully compliant with FOISA. The Commissioner did not require the SCCRC to take any action in respect of these failures.

[2015] ScotIC 083 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550869

SIC The Investigation Into Willie Macrae’s Death – On 14 July 2014, Mr Paul Delamore asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information regarding the investigation into Willie Macrae’s death.
Police Scotland withheld the information, claiming that disclosure would prejudice their ability to prevent and detect crime, apprehend or prosecute offenders. Following a review, Mr Delamore remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland had failed to respond to Mr Delamore’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. This was because Police Scotland had wrongly withheld information requested by Mr Delamore, and they had also failed to notify Mr Delamore that some of the information he requested was not held. She required Police Scotland to provide Mr Delamore with the information he had requested and which they held.

[2015] ScotIC 084 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550864