Dear All
If you have been watching the Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond scandal, then you will know that it has been setup to fail, setup to protect the SNP Government, setup to protect SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon. The issue at stake now is whether this farce has any value whatsoever in continuing, the SNP Government has apparently on 58 instances attempted to obstruct the inquiry from doing its jobs. And it seems that evidence has been withheld and 'witnesses' for the SNP Government have failed to disclose the truth when asked. 'Witnesses' for the Scottish Government have also refused to answer questions, and a 'witness' has refused to appear until threatened by the use of compulsory laws to make them attend. The Scottish Parliament corporate body is also not publishing testimony, so when you add up all the obstruction, you can't help but thinking of the Oscar Wilde quote:
“To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness”.
To tell one lie may be regarded as a misfortune; to tell two looks like carelessness, except when you factor in that SNP Government witnesses have been "coached", you might struggle to not conclude this lying was deliberate. Already the idea of MSPs resigning from this Committee has been aired in the public domain. So, what should pro UK MSPs and independent Andy Wightman do? Should they sit and allow this cover up to go on and have their stamp on it or should they resign? I think given all the circumstances, all pro UK MSPs should resign. As to Wightman, well if he has any understanding of the Nolan Principles at all, then he should resign as well. To withhold evidence from an inquiry is appalling, to be told the SNP Government will decide what is relevant is corruption. It's abuse of power, abuse of authority and highly unethical. Just as Nicola Sturgeon is under the spotlight, so the light should shine on many others, and that includes John Swinney, the SNP Deputy First Minister, he is an absolute disgrace. He is an enabler of a cover up, if he had any decency, he would resign as an MSP for his part in the Alex Salmond scandal.
So, the Holyrood inquiry is a farce, setup and designed to be a whitewash to protect SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon as the principle, and also to protect everyone who played an active part in the Scottish Government's illegal sham investigation. The purpose of which was to find Alex Salmond guilty, not innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until found guilty by the process. This was all done to stop Alex Salmond being able to return to frontline politics, because we know that the SNP "sat" on allegations ready to deploy in the event Salmond decided to stand for public office. We now know of the existence of a 'Vietnam' Group in the SNP, which some might term, a 'working party' to jail Alex Salmond. These people operated in secret to destroy Alex Salmond, but their existence is known now, if not their identities. There are many questions which people might ask about this a 'Vietnam' Group but for me, one of the important ones would be were any of Alex Salmond's accusers members of the 'Vietnam' group? That question would be an important piece of the puzzle to find out who fits in where in the conspiracy and the cover up.
Scotland's government is corrupt, Scotland's Crown Office is documented as corrupt and the Holyrood corporate body not wishing to publish evidence is a disgrace. It is no surprise that Alex Salmond is threatening to pull out of the Holyrood inquiry into his legal fight with Nicola Sturgeon’s government over censored evidence. Salmond is right to stick to his guns and demand they published a submission in which he accuses Ms Sturgeon of misleading parliament. Alex Salmond is not on trial here, whether Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament is the real issue. Tomorrow's evidence session has now been cancelled due to the impasse. Salmond's lawyer wrote to the cross-party committee saying he was willing to appear up until February 16, Sturgeon is scheduled to testify on the 16th. Will she have been 'coached', if so who would have done so, and for what reason, does a person need coached to tell the truth. The first question to Sturgeon would be have you been 'coached' concerning this inquiry prior to attending here today by any person, persons or organisations or business. The second question would be if the answer was yes, would be by who? Was it by government lawyers, by any employee of the Crown, by any person who works or advises a law firm, either directly or via a third party?
You can understand why Alex Salmond is making his appearance conditional his evidence being published, as without publication, the material could not be included in the inquiry’s final report. One thing that Nicola Sturgeon doesn't want to see in the final report is Alex Salmond's evidence, because it put more pressure on her to resign as First Minister. And if she has to resign as a First Minister, she wants to put ex SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson in place. Sturgeon wants to delay the Salmond inquiry because she probably feels that if she can get to the 'short' campaign then election issues could blot out coverage of the scandal. If in the aftermath, she has to resign due to the other inquiry by Hamilton, she could resign then her proxy, which is seen as Angus Robertson could give her a ministerial brief which would put her back at £100k a year. I assume Robertson is the Plan B, the reason for my belief is how the SNP is marginalising people like Joanna Cherry and Kenny MacAskill.
David McKie or Levy & McRae said:
“It must be clear to you that our client cannot accept a position where his evidence submitted in good faith to your committee (and in greater part still publicly available) is not to be published and there form part of the evidence leading to conclusions in your report.”
Another sticking point which I agree with Salmond which he considers "particularly offensive" that he was being asked to give evidence only on matter chosen by the inquiry on secret criteria. I thought, and I would assume that the rest of Scotland's people would think that the sole criteria of the inquiry is to establish "the truth". Is that what inquiries are supposed to do establish "the truth", right a wrong and ensure such behaviour whether deliberate or accidental is never repeated? Is it just me sitting here wondering is the whole farce of the Salmond inquiry in anyway compatible with the Nolan Principles? To refresh your memory, here are standards expected in public life by politicians:
The Nolan Principles
Selflessness.
Integrity.
Objectivity.
Accountability.
Openness.
Honesty.
Leadership.
For years, I have said that Holyrood is a second rate parliament stuffed with third rate politicians. Does the obstruction in the Salmond inquiry not graphically prove my point? Do you think that Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney and SNP Convener Linda Fabiani have upheld those principles? I am asking a serious question here, how could Swinney look anyone in the eye after all the obstructions by the SNP Government of the inquiry which is said now to be at least 58 occasions and say he has acted with integrity and upheld any of the Nolan Principles? One mistake, it happens, two mistakes, a fuck up, 58 obstructions is bullshit. Its contempt for the Parliament, contempt for the inquiry, and contempt for the people of Scotland. The SNP by it actions is saying every single person who believes in rule of law, decency, integrity and due process is a just daftie! The SNP believe you are so stupid, small minded and diseased that a few carrots tossed your way as election bribes is all you are worth. There saying you are so low caste that the scraps of the scarps from their table is all they need to pay you off. The Salmond scandal is about Salmond but the wider point, the big picture is that the Scottish Government is corrupt, the Crown Office is corrupt and therefore no one in society is safe? No one is safe from being fitted up and being a victim of political persecution. Political persecution which can be turned in malicious prosecution by the Crown Office.
Salmond's lawyer has also accused the inquiry of putting Alex Salmond "in legal jeopardy" by asking him to give evidence. If Salmond tells the truth without immunity, he can be threatened by the Crown Office, and just like Craig Murray dragged into Court to be silenced. Craig Murray posted a tweet as I was writing this post which I would like to share with you:
"As somebody who used to like and respect her, I am sorry to say that Linda Fabiani was an utter disgrace in her use of the committee chair to obstruct members and protect Murrell today. The SNP MSPs with their patball pre-scripted questions also. A total farce."
Salmond has been threatened by the Crown Office with prosecution if he shares material obtained for his trial defence. Why does the Crown Office think it is appropriate to threaten a witness at a Holyrood inquiry?
Salmond's lawyer told convener Linda Fabiani:
"Allowing our client to proceed without clear direction from you as convener is to place him in legal jeoopardy. We cannot responsibly do that. Our client remains willing to give evidence to the committee at any point up to the final date for evidence (currently fixed for 16th February).However, he cannot take his oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth unless and until you properly address in writing the legitimate concerns set out in this and numerous previous letters."
Will
Linda Fabiani do this, I doubt it, she is running down the clock till she
retires, and you can make your own mind up as to what you think of her. Why is
the inquiry refusing to publish a 21-page submission from Alex Salmond in which
he says his successor broke the Scottish Ministerial Code? This would be a resignation
offence if it could be proven which she denies. The Scottish Government is
corrupt, the Crown Office is corrupt and it seems that the Parliamentary body
is allegedly corrupt. Parliamentary lawyers and officials blocked the release
of evidence by the inquiry in case it breached court orders, data or
privacy rules. This is nonsense, Salmond is right when he says the
“extraordinary” and “farcical” decision made a “mockery” of Holyrood’s
commitment to openness. So, what does Salmond do now, well it seems that he is expected
to call a press conference to air his complaints. This address to the nation
will no doubt be well covered and the fact the parliament has acted this way is
a disgrace. I don't think much of Holyrood, this affair just adds more volume
to my opinion for reasons why it needs investigated, and there is a case for
shutting it down.
Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser tweeted this after Nicola Sturgeon's husband Peter Murrell reluctantly turned up at the Holyrood inquiry, this tweet is extraordinary:
"Giving a false statement under oath is a criminal offence under s.44(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland)Act 1995. It is clear from his evidence today that Peter Murrell is guilty of this offence."
In an additional tweet, he wrote:
"A complaint has already been made to the Crown Office by @jackiebmsp and the evidence today can only strengthen the case for a prosecution."
Have you ever in the lifetime of Holyrood ever heard someone like Murdo Fraser ever say that the partner of First Minister who gave evidence at an inquiry is a liar? And that this alleged lying is also criminal offence? Will SNP Convener Linda Fabiani do anything about this? Will any of the SNP MSPs who sit on the Salmond inquiry do anything about this? Will they join the calls for a Crown Office investigation into Peter Murrell's evidence? I suppose a question will the Crown Office act could be answered at this point in time by the simple use of the word, No! Murdo Fraser isn't someone known for making wild accusations, and he must have thought carefully before making a public declaration that Nicola Sturgeon's husband is a liar, and that the alleged lying is a criminal offence. Either Murdo Fraser is telling the truth or he is making a false statement. If he was making a false statement, he leaves himself open to a rather costly defamation action. One thing reading his tweet is that he is adamant, there is no secondary meaning, it is a statement that Murrell has allegedly broken the law.
Finally, click on the video and watch the sky news report, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon's problems are growing. Allegations that Sturgeon's Government misled the Court of Session about when she knew about the Salmond affair. No matter where Nicola Sturgeon goes, what she does, what evidence is suppressed, this matter isn't going away. Just as the rules were drawn up to stitch up Alex Salmond post FM, the same rules can used against Sturgeon and everyone of her 'pals' in the Scottish Government. When a pro Salmond leader takes over the SNP, I would expect a lot of people to be sacked, in fact I would think they are already looking for other jobs. Would you hang about if you were part of the 'Vietnam' group? I suppose if I was them, I wouldn't try to work for any Scottish Government department, agency or NGO because I think they will find a pro Salmond leader would burn that to the ground to destroy their employment, assuming of course, their employer puts them to the sword first, for the good of the many. I assume some vacancies will still be available, prison service, not staff tho, prisoners!
Yours sincerely
George Laird The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Linda Fabiani has the mental dexterity of a school dinner-lady and this case is too complex for her. She cannot get to the point at-all and that, as much as anything, has blighted this from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteJackie Baillie tries but she is sitting alongside a committee of dummies.
Also, what type of inquiry sits for an hour each week? That's it; no more allowed. Alex Salmond's lawyers send letters to the Inquiry requesting infoemation and clarifications. That's normal, isn't it? None of these letters are replied to and that is not acceptable anywhere in the world.
James Matthews questioned Nicola Sturgeon at her daily Coronavirus briefing this morning. She is used to dealing with timid questions from a fawning media. She's not getting that with Sky News.
I don't have much time for Alex Salmond, but he will come-out fighting because his life is at stake. More and more people are realizing that now, that the malfeasace that goes-on and is instigated by Sturgeon and Swinney has real consequences for people. They get some satidfaction out of wrecking lives and that is something we have never seen in Scotland when under Westminster government.
We're all tired of this shit about alphabet woman H. Everyone knows who she is. She's a liar and a perjurer who tried to put an ex First Minister behind bars for the rest of his life. I believe she can be named if it comes from an overseas source and that must seem tempting to WoS, for example, who have sources all over the place.
Have a read of Gordon Dangerfield's latest opinion. He thinks what we have at Holyrood is more akin to a Junta than it is to a government and who could argue with that.
Is it not time that Alister Jack got his arse off his chair and did something about this? Close Holyrood for example and put the Scottish legal profession under Special Measures?
Who are thes Holyrood lawyers who issue inderdicts ten-a-penny? Why can they not be named?
That was quite unnecessary to assume that a school dinner lady operates at a lower cognitive pace than a high profile politician.
DeleteOften, support staff like dinner ladies will have their finger on the pulse of student life in the school in a way that most teachers don’t. Sometimes this can be because they are a parent of a child in the school, sometimes it’s because of the conversations they hear over lunch – either way, they are a great source of information around safeguarding and school life and I’d happily swap any career politician for any one of them.
The BBC's Brian Taylor retired a few months ago. Remember him: high blood pressure, half his brain missing and tiny wee hands? He was a tame SNP lap-dog and was always one of Nicola Sturgeon's favorites. He appears to have been replaced in the hierarchy of Scottish TV press by James Matthews of Sky News and it is about time we had a decent investigative journalist to hold all at Holyrood to account.
ReplyDeleteWatergate wasn't a great crime, it was espionage and a slush fund operated at high levels within government. It was the subsequent cover-up which did the damage.
What has happened to Salmond is a great crime and all implicated in the cover-up should be looking at jail time. Does that include James Wolffe? I would say, most certainly, it does.
Whay happened today with Murrell will have been watched by now by all at Westminster; by Jacob Rees Mogg and all the rest of them. No-one kids them-on. They're not retired school dinner-ladies and so we can expect tough times ahead for all at Holyrood.
Scotland. The best wee country in the world? or a wee country which has been tainted by apparent bias by a crooked FM and her coven of witches over the past 6-years?
ReplyDeleteNot so tempting now, is it.
An example of the corruption which now surrounds all Scots: A special needs school in Perthshire with a fabulous reputation and a long history of good inspection reports by the Care Commission. John Swinney decided that he wanted to close it. A fortnight later the Care Commission issued a report saying the school had major problems and it was compulsarily closed a short time later.
ReplyDeleteParents, pupils and teachers all in a state of shock. Some teachers may never work again.
It's time to confront Swinney, Sturgeon and the rewt of the SNP and make them accountable for this. This, in any country in the world, is corruption.
From The Scotsman 5 minutes ago:
ReplyDeleteAlex Salmond inquiry: Peter Murrell's evidence session 'tantamount to attempting to mislead the people of Scotland'
Demands for Peter Murrell to face an investigation by the Crown Office into potential perjury have intensified following his second appearance in front of the harassment complaints committee.
'What I said before may have been speculation on my part' - Peter Murrell 8/2/2021
ReplyDeleteFrom now-on Scottish Lawyers have to call this: 'The Murrell Defence'. Make sure you all note that down.
It will be taught at Glasgow University Law School as from tomorrow.
Latest from the Holyrood Junta. Handwritten in felt-pen by the wee hairy fae Dreghorn and read-out by a flunky SPAD: From the STV report An SNP spokesman said: “Peter agreed – for a second time despite some committee members having prejudged his evidence already – to appear at committee and he answered questions honestly while maintaining anonymity of the women. “It is nothing short of disgraceful that some members of the committee are so willing to sideline the experiences of the women to try and score pathetic political points. “Murdo Fraser’s trolling tweets which mock the women’s efforts to support one another are a disgrace. He should apologise and delete them.” The 'experience' of woman H doesn't exist. She's a liar and found to be so by a Jury. She was making it up. She may well have committed Perjury. (redacted sentence) Woman H wasn't there. She wasn't in the room or even in the building. How many times do we all have to repeat this? She's a fraud. A spoof. I don't know what Murdo Fraser has called her, but that's what we call her in my house.
ReplyDeleteWhatever your view on the constitutional question, were Scotland to become an independent country we should all want it to be a gold-standard nation for process, accountability and the rule of law. We should not slide in between Saudi Arabia and Senegal at the UN General Assembly under a cloud of uncertainty about what kind of country we are.
ReplyDeleteThis is why supporters of independence should resist the urge to suppress their misgivings. A government that can behave like this within the constraints of the United Kingdom will not volunteer to improve its conduct after those constraints are removed. If you allow people who consider themselves above the law to set up a new state, don’t expect that state to put much stock in the rule of law.
These days, I am less worried about Scotland becoming a separate state than I am about it becoming a failed state. A country in which the government can investigate itself, in which the Crown Office refuses to hand over documents to Holyrood until forced to, and in which parliament cannot keep the executive in check is a country with deeper problems than vaccine distribution. It is a country that is democratically dysfunctional.
Written by the excellent Stephen Daisley. Another Scottish journalist who has had his future blighted because his views don't mirror those of Swinney and Sturgeon.
By the way, I've spent several happy years in Saudi Arabia and, in terms of honesty and accountability of government, it is far in advance of Scotland. Murrell, Swinney, Sturgeon and James Wolffe would be spending their twilight years in Malaz Jail if we were in Saudi Arabia just now.
A car park attendant then....is that acceptable?
ReplyDeleteIf the SNP had just contented themselves with providing good government, free from needless rancor and bitterness, over the past 12-14 years then we would be on the threshold of independence now. Everyone would want more of the SNP.
ReplyDeleteThey've done the opposite and I can see a real possibility that Holyrood will close and never re-open. Government in Scotland, whether it be from Holyrood or Westminster, is in a desperate state.
Close Holyrood and run Scotland from that new HMGov joint close by Holyrood. Give that 10 years and it's crap (and it might be), then just close it too. We cannot do government. We can do almost everything else, but not government.
I don't like Salmond one little bit, but I am through-and-through disgusted at what the SNP tried to do to him. I may not be a separatist but he has my full support in searching for justice from this pathetic old excuse for a woman.
ReplyDelete“It is incredibly disappointing that complainers’ personal experiences of Mr Salmond are being ignored, and that this committee has allowed itself to be led by selective quoting, leaks and false allegations, all made in an attempt by Mr Salmond and those around him to bolster his reputation.”
ReplyDeleteSue Ruddick
Correct me if I am wrong, but the High Court Jury elected to ignore the complainers experiences of Mr Salmond because they were proven to be fabricated. Pretty good reason to ignore them if you ask me.
They'll tell you: 'It should be all about the victims' and Rape Crisis Scotland will repeat that.
ReplyDeleteThe victims had their day in Court and continue to have their identity protected by law. The Court didn't believe them and that's the end of the story I'm afraid.
It's all about Alex Salmond now. Has he been treated fairly and why has his life been ruined by what appears to me to be possibly criminal conspiracy by a team of SNP women.
https://scotlandspeaks.com/grotesque-unbelievable-bizarre-and-unprecedented
ReplyDeleteSusan Ruddick gets paid more than £100k per year. Is telling lies and framing people part of her job remit?
In most countries in the world, there would be serious police and legal reprecussions for this. That doesn't happen in Scotland does it. Here, Rape Crisis Scotland speaks on behalf of all of our law enforcement agencies and they are told what to say be Nicola Sturgeon.
By the way, I understand that Rape Crisis Scotland costs us a lot more than £100k per year.
So too does our Police and legal profession of course but they have both been enfeebled and humiliated by Sturgeon and the other SNP witches.
Dear Liz,
ReplyDeleteI sent this to Ross half an hour ago,
This information is now available to all who have an interest in the safety of this school. I have put a lot of time into this over the years and George Laird has also put a lot of time into it recently.
Like the Alex Salmond case, it appears to me that the Holyrood government is at fault here and that they have instructed lawyers and civil servants what they want to happen and not to happen. If Alex Salmond cannot fight back against this, then people like me have no chance, have we.
I am compiling legal advice which I have received from the American Society of Civil Engineers just now and so there is some substance behind my belief that Holyrood is accountable for this.
Our Justice Minister on Twatter yesterday saying: 'what's all the fuss about Sturgeon and Murrell....there's nothing to see here'. That's what happens when you promote mediocre people to positions of responsibility. No need for an inquiry; Humza's made his mind-up already. No-one gives two-hoots what James Wolffe thinks.
ReplyDeleteBy Jim Sillars:
ReplyDelete'Of course it isn’t Stalin in Bute House, and her chief of staff isn’t Beira, nor are all those SPADS and compliant civil servants officers in the KGB. But they are capable of using the system to send a man to ruin and the jail, whom they believed was in their way. And the system they have created can put Mark Hirst through an eight month wringer, and put Craig Murray on criminal charges that somehow are not pursued against other journalists much more culpable, but who happen to take the side of the government’s complainers against Alex Salmond'.
Who is Scotland has been got-at by Sturgeon and Swinney? So far, Andy Wightman has the casting vote on the Fabiani Committee. He didn't say a word at yesterday's hour long meeting. He cast his vote alongside the SNP in favour of Murrell.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC led with some story about Covid house-parties last night on Reporting Scotland. Nothing about Murrell there either.