The real Glaswegian working class voice in the independence debate read by thousands, the BBC and other related media, secured the first criminal conviction against one of the seven top cybernats outed by the Daily Mail
Friday, February 26, 2021
Watch in full: Alex Salmond gives evidence in Holyrood inquiry, this is a masterclass in laying out a case, the position of SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon is now untenable
I think James Wolffe is under great pressure tonight to come-up with these missing documents. Alex Salmond has offered them to the Inquiry...they only have to request them from his lawyers and they will be delivered. According to Salmond, they are dynamite and so there will be a pressure on James Wolffe to deliver them.
Also, Alex wants an investigation into the Daily Record leak. He knows who it is...so do you and I and most other people, but why have the Police made no real effort to find-out?
The way Sturgeon and Swinney work is to remove your income, your future employment and leave you to wither and die.
You can see it with Salmond. Still a sharpe mind, but physically he is starting to fail.
That is the politics of the SNP. If you don't support them, you are as good as dead.
This has happened at the right time and if events fall into place over the next few weeks, we will have a non-majority SNP government or, even better, no government at-all as Boris closes the joint for a few years.
'If the work of the Inquiry is being frustrated by the redaction of information by the Crown Office, then just request that information from Levy and McRae and it will be delivered to you by Monday morning.' SALMOND
That tells me that the Crown Office threats are viewed by Salmond and Levy and McRae as being meaningless. They can threaten Craig Murray, Mark Hirst etc, but just try threatening Alex Salmond just now. Just see where that gets you.
Mondays hearing with James Wolffe will be fascinating. The last time he attended, he was smiling and laughed once or twice. There will be none of that this time.
Are BBC Scotland, as chief facilitators, content to stand idly by? Is there no mandarin in Pacific Quay, so naïve or complicit, who watched Thursday’s rampage through propriety without thinking, “we are being taken for a total ride by this individual” - BRIAN WILSON
“Alex Salmond claims he has corroboration for his side of the story . . . What we need to hear from Nicola Sturgeon is what backs her up, what corroborates her story.”
This is Murdo Frazer's position. It's not all about Alex Salmond now. Alex Salmond has provided what corroboration he has been allowed to provide by the Crown Office. He has said that there is much more; it was handed to him on a memory stick just before his criminal trial. All the Inquiry need to do is request it, under the terms of the Scotland Act, from Levy and McRae and it will be delivered next day.
It sounded very much to me that this additional information proves information given by Peter Murrell and others under oath, may be false.
Another disconcerting thing about his evidence was the statement that he and Kenny MacAskill were being harassed by Police Scotland under instructions from the Crown Office to divulge who had provided WhatsApp messages. There was no such investigation by the Police/Crown Office into the leak to the Daily Record, the circumstances of which proved to be devastating for everyone.
Headline in this morning's Spectator: 'Sturgeon answers one allegation of establishment stitch-up, with another establishment stitch-up.'
One thing about Salmond...he doesn't need a team of wee hairy-marys, lawyers and civil-servants, coaches and all the rest of it. What you see is what you get; take it or leave it.
Looking at WoS earlier there is undoubtedly a good number of committed nationalists who want him back and you cannot blame them.
They're going nowhere with Sturgeon, Murrell, Wolffe, Yousaf, Evans, Blackford and all the rest of them. With the exception of Cherry and MacAskill I really am struggling to name any MP's or MSP's of any merit.
Having watched all of Alex Salmond’s testimony it is unbelievable that in the 21st century we have high ranking politicians, civil servants etc behaving in such a despicable manner. From the evidence presented by Alex Salmond corroborated by official documents and other testimony so far it is fairly evident that on various different occasions throughout the whole debacle that there are a number of individuals who have been less than honourable and deserve to be charged with criminal offences and afforded their day in court on charges such as, attempting to pervert the course of justice, contempt of court and misconduct in public office. It is also fairly evident that some form of witch hunt has taken place orchestrated between those on high within the SNP and as such I sincerely hope that if nothing else is done, the laws of this land are utilised to hold those responsible to account, regardless of their position in society. What a shambolic situation by so called intellectual people. WOW!!
‘The failures of leadership are many and obvious and yet not a single person has taken responsibility,’ he reminded them. ‘Not a single resignation, not a single sacking, not even an admission.’
Confirmation of complaint of you breaching the Ministerial Code
I did not reply immediately to your letter to me, as I thought careful consideration should be given to what you had to say in insisting that you did not breach the Code. I think it would have been wiser for you to take more time to consider the substance of my letter.
Of course I was aware that the Permanent Secretary, under normal circumstances, cannot refer the First Minister to an investigation, due to the anomaly in the Code that complaints about the First Minister can only be dealt with by the First Minister. I am also aware that both you and your predecessor overcame this problem by a referral to an independent authority. The matters Mr. Hamilton is looking into at present, is the latest example of that practice.
My reason for addressing my letter to the Permanent Secretary was that I assumed she would be able to give you advice, acting on the highest standards of the civil service, on whether or not you should again refer your conduct to Mr. Hamilton, or other independent person.
As you can see from the heading of this letter, I am informing you that I wish my complaint to be considered, and as you disagree with me on that, may I request that you transfer the question of whether or not you breached the Ministerial Code to Mr. Hamilton or some other suitable independent person. I think, given the gravity of the breaches I have detailed, it would not be construed as proper for you to be judge and jury.
I now come to the reasons why I wish to confirm my complaint:
I concur with your view of the Covid briefings as of great advantage to the public. You have been scrupulous in keeping them to that agenda, which is your Government’s agenda. When you chose to depart from that practice and respond to a non-Covid related question from James Matthew, to launch a political attack on Alex Salmond, you breached the Code as I set out in my original letter.
Of course, I accept, as you say, that you did not know that Mr. Matthew would ask you a non-Covid related question; but you had the choice to inform him that it was not an appropriate one in the context of a public health briefing, or to take the bait. The choice you made was yours, and yours alone.
You are an experienced Minister, with many years of dealing with questions from journalists. You and others in your position never know what they might ask, just as you do not know the supplementary questions that will come from MSPs at FMQs. Ministers have a variety of ways that enable them to avoid answering questions that are inappropriate, or asked in a context not germane to the agenda for which the meeting was called. It is not a criticism to say that you employ that approach each week at FMQs, and could have done so in reply to the first non-Covid related question from the SKY journalist. Again, I make the point that you chose not to do so.
Your excuse, that if you ‘had refused to answer these questions I would have been criticised for avoiding scrutiny,’ is unconvincing. Who would have criticised you? Not the public looking in on the briefing, for whom public health information is their only reason for watching. I venture to suggest that a sharp reminder to Mr. Matthew of the purpose of the briefing would not have been criticised by the public, but approved. It is true that journalists may have criticised you, but that goes with job and should not be something of such importance to you, that you chose to breach the Code in order to avoid their anticipated critical views. Your reply gives me no reason to withdraw that part of my complaint.
I now turn to your statement that ‘It is also entirely wrong of you to suggest that I was casting doubt on the outcome of the criminal trial.’ Actually, what your chosen words at the zbriefing were directed to was the “outcome,” which has, and has continued to have, a different meaning, since the trial, than the “verdict.” The word “outcome” as well as encompassing the decision of the trial also encompasses comment upon it post-trial, allowing people to constantly invoke the fact that the complainers were women and claim, therefore, ipso facto, if they say something happened then it happened. That was the meaning you gave to the words you chose to use at the briefing.
I am not alone in believing that your words draw the inference that the jury got it wrong. Several people were in touch with me. One comment is typical, from a woman, referring to your words: “she” meaning you, “is saying he is guilty, it’s just the jury got it wrong.”
In a rather more nuanced way, as one would expect, the statement issued by the Faculty of Advocates, expressing their concern about the reputation of the Scottish legal system, included ‘and perhaps most importantly, the vital place of the verdict of impartial juries in criminal proceedings.’ That they should feel it necessary to issue that statement on the day following your departure from the purpose of the public health briefing, speaks volumes. I see no reason to withdraw my complaint that in choosing to speak as you did in relation to the criminal trial, you breached the Code.
I now refer to the final paragraph of your letter where it says: ‘Of course the most appropriate place for me to be questioned about these matters is in front of the Parliamentary Committee.’ I agree. But in choosing first to use the forum of a briefing on Covid public health matters, you breached the Code.
I shall be grateful to have your assurance that you will refer my complaint to either Mr. Hamilton or some other person with the authority to investigate it.
Kieran Andrews is a young guy who has taken-over as the Scottish Political Editor of The Times. He has been at The Times for about 3-years. Prior to that he was with the Dunday Post and before that with the Courier. He's an old-school investigative journalist.
He seems to have a copy of Geoff Aberdein's statement, which puts Nicola Sturgeon's breach of the Ministerial Code beyond doubt.
Nothing has been published yet.
It seems to me that we are waiting to hear from James Wolffe tomorrow. The Crown Office are under great pressure to relent and to allow public disclosure of all documentation which does not name the alphabet women or give rise to the possibility of jigsaw identification. Seems fair-enough, doesn't it.
So far, though, they haven't agreed to anything and so it all depends upon what happens this week.
We are led to believe though that disclosure of Aberdein's statement will mean that Sturgeon has to resign.
'There is one feature however, that stunned the Scottish public, ie. the government decided who to prosecute, and stopped the provision of vital evidence to prove innocence.'
I just heard that the Holyrood Tories are propsing a VoNC in Swinney should he refuse to hand-over the missing Salmond documents tomorrow. About fuckin time. I will die with a contented heart when that black dog is removed from Scottish public life.
Her meeting with Geoff Aberdein on March 29 2018 was fixed earlier that month by her chief of staff to review the complaints and fix a follow on meeting with Salmond (April 2). So inconceivable she didn’t know in March. If not before. ANDREW NEIL
"To us lawyers, of course, the most absurd aspect has been the claim from Ms Sturgeon and her deputy John Swinney that it is impossible for them to afford the Committee sight of the legal advice given to the Scottish government in respect of the Salmond matters. It is confidential and so can't be divulged, they protest.
What utter nonsense.
They, the Scottish government, are the client and can waive the privilege attached to the legal advice whenever they chose. In advancing such an absurd explanation for secrecy they must take the view that the Scottish public are exceptionally dense". Professor Alistair Bonnington, Scottish Legal News
I do hope you're keeping up with this; I've just heard that the Scottish Government has agreed that they will hand-over the unredacted documents from Levy and McRae as long as the Scottish Government are allowed to re-apply the redactions first.
Humiliatingly fabulous, isn't it.
I think by the end of this week we will be rid of some of this skanky crew. I'm having my Covid jab tomorrow (Oxford - Astra Zeneca, I believe) and so the week gets off to a good start already.
My wife and I had our first dose of the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine half an hour ago. No problem. Next dose in 3 months. Done at the local health centre by a couple of nurses, so not the Army this time. It took about 15 seconds. I'll bet the Army would have done it even quicker. No feeling of 'a slight scratch' - nothing at all.
Scotland is now a failed state, and Holyrood’s inquiry shows the First Minister is the cause - Brian Monteith, The Scotsman
'There is a time in politics when a public mood begins to develop that is unstoppable and ushers in change that a little while ago seemed impossible. A sense a government has been in power for too long takes hold and has a momentum of its own.'
Old Alex is back at Holyrood either today or tomorrow to give evidence in private to the James Hamilton Inquiry.
He will be discussing the Geoff Aberdein statement which has already been issued to James Hamilton and which proves that the Ministerial Code has been broken.
When private discussions take place, away from TV cameras and Swinney and his lawyers, then Alex Salmond may be a lot more forthcoming.
Anyway, it does look to me that James Hamilton can only find that the Ministerial Code has been broken. However can he not do that?
When the public are awakened to this, that they have criminality working secretly at the heart of government and the legal profession, they will want to hear more and the press will invetigate more. That, I think, is the point we are at now.
Fortunately for them, Salmond has done all the investigating for them. He has done much of it and he has paid privately for the rest to be done by others. In the meantime, the Scottish legal profession have gathered forces on the wrong side of the arguement.
This looks unstoppable to me. At the end of this, there should be a few lawyers in jail too.
ANDREW NEIL: 'Censorship, bullying, threats of jail... how Nicola Sturgeon's storm troops turned Scotland into a banana republic without the bananas.' THE DAILY MAIL - Is this the headline of the year already? I think it might be.
1 March, 2021 at 4:50 pm https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/subsidence-new-aps12m-school-sparks-investigation-1472499
@TNS2019 – I beat you to it Sir.
This was in The Scotsman in 2016. Since then, John Swinney has been saying: ‘There’s nothing wrong with this school.’ In 2017, 40No expert engineers from all over the world said: ‘There is something wrong with this school and you had better fix it fast.’
John Swinney still says: ‘There’s nothing wrong with this school.’
Scottish Building Standards appear to have been turned into some type of quango, where they don’t have to get involved in anything ‘political’ and they think somehow that this political.
Ditto the EIS.
No-one answers anything and we have a communications embargo.
Does this all sound familiar to you? I’ll bet you it does.
As Alex Salmond was saying on Friday, many of those responsible for this foul-up have been promoted and have had their contracts extended.
The extent of recent legal involvement was a long explanation on ‘how it works in Scotland.’
The latest suggestion, (made on Saturday morning) is that this is checked-out by the Health and Safety Executive, who will do it properly and they will not listen to John Swinney’s wants. As you can imagine, that is vexing a few of them just now.
'Sturgeon's government not fit to lead Scotland to independence, suggests Salmond.' - from The Daily Telegraph.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I think they all have to go now including Sturgeon. I noticed though that Alex really in't criticize her as much as I would have liked.
The Sunday papers will be interesting this week.
Do James Wolffe and Nicola Sturgeon have the necesary bottle for this....we'll see.
'We need a government which is able to protect its citizens from arbitrary authority.'
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a citizen who has had no protection from this delinquent government, I can empathize with Alex.
I think James Wolffe is under great pressure tonight to come-up with these missing documents. Alex Salmond has offered them to the Inquiry...they only have to request them from his lawyers and they will be delivered. According to Salmond, they are dynamite and so there will be a pressure on James Wolffe to deliver them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Alex wants an investigation into the Daily Record leak. He knows who it is...so do you and I and most other people, but why have the Police made no real effort to find-out?
It really stinks, doesn't it.
Is this the end for them Georgieboy
ReplyDeleteCrookie
The way Sturgeon and Swinney work is to remove your income, your future employment and leave you to wither and die.
ReplyDeleteYou can see it with Salmond. Still a sharpe mind, but physically he is starting to fail.
That is the politics of the SNP. If you don't support them, you are as good as dead.
This has happened at the right time and if events fall into place over the next few weeks, we will have a non-majority SNP government or, even better, no government at-all as Boris closes the joint for a few years.
'Nicola Sturgeon could be gone in weeks over the Alex Salmond affair, says Scottish Tory leader.'
ReplyDeleteFabulous news - I'm going to my bed now with a glass of whisky.
Say what you like about Salmond - and I certainly do - but he has mountains more integrity than Sturgeon and her equally disgusting subordinates.
ReplyDelete'If the work of the Inquiry is being frustrated by the redaction of information by the Crown Office, then just request that information from Levy and McRae and it will be delivered to you by Monday morning.' SALMOND
ReplyDeleteThat tells me that the Crown Office threats are viewed by Salmond and Levy and McRae as being meaningless. They can threaten Craig Murray, Mark Hirst etc, but just try threatening Alex Salmond just now. Just see where that gets you.
Mondays hearing with James Wolffe will be fascinating. The last time he attended, he was smiling and laughed once or twice. There will be none of that this time.
Are BBC Scotland, as chief facilitators, content to stand idly by? Is there no mandarin in Pacific Quay, so naïve or complicit, who watched Thursday’s rampage through propriety without thinking, “we are being taken for a total ride by this individual” - BRIAN WILSON
ReplyDelete“Alex Salmond claims he has corroboration for his side of the story . . . What we need to hear from Nicola Sturgeon is what backs her up, what corroborates her story.”
ReplyDeleteThis is Murdo Frazer's position. It's not all about Alex Salmond now. Alex Salmond has provided what corroboration he has been allowed to provide by the Crown Office. He has said that there is much more; it was handed to him on a memory stick just before his criminal trial. All the Inquiry need to do is request it, under the terms of the Scotland Act, from Levy and McRae and it will be delivered next day.
It sounded very much to me that this additional information proves information given by Peter Murrell and others under oath, may be false.
Another disconcerting thing about his evidence was the statement that he and Kenny MacAskill were being harassed by Police Scotland under instructions from the Crown Office to divulge who had provided WhatsApp messages. There was no such investigation by the Police/Crown Office into the leak to the Daily Record, the circumstances of which proved to be devastating for everyone.
The SNP members of the committee were simply reading-out pre-prepared questions which had been put together presumably by Sturgeon and her team.
ReplyDeleteSalmond answered all of them instantly.
Once he answered their questions, that was it. They couldn't think on their feet and put a quick follow-up question to Salmond.
If that's the best the SNP can do, and it presumably is the best they can do, then it doesn't look good at-all for Sturgeon, does it?
This could be the end, you know. There is too much haunting her at the moment.
Headline in this morning's Spectator: 'Sturgeon answers one allegation of establishment stitch-up, with another establishment stitch-up.'
ReplyDeleteOne thing about Salmond...he doesn't need a team of wee hairy-marys, lawyers and civil-servants, coaches and all the rest of it. What you see is what you get; take it or leave it.
Looking at WoS earlier there is undoubtedly a good number of committed nationalists who want him back and you cannot blame them.
They're going nowhere with Sturgeon, Murrell, Wolffe, Yousaf, Evans, Blackford and all the rest of them. With the exception of Cherry and MacAskill I really am struggling to name any MP's or MSP's of any merit.
Having watched all of Alex Salmond’s testimony it is unbelievable that in the 21st century we have high ranking politicians, civil servants etc behaving in such a despicable manner. From the evidence presented by Alex Salmond corroborated by official documents and other testimony so far it is fairly evident that on various different occasions throughout the whole debacle that there are a number of individuals who have been less than honourable and deserve to be charged with criminal offences and afforded their day in court on charges such as, attempting to pervert the course of justice, contempt of court and misconduct in public office. It is also fairly evident that some form of witch hunt has taken place orchestrated between those on high within the SNP and as such I sincerely hope that if nothing else is done, the laws of this land are utilised to hold those responsible to account, regardless of their position in society. What a shambolic situation by so called intellectual people. WOW!!
ReplyDelete‘The failures of leadership are many and obvious and yet not a single person has taken responsibility,’ he reminded them. ‘Not a single resignation, not a single sacking, not even an admission.’
ReplyDelete.....Give it another fortnight, Alex.
I believe that Levy and McRae have been asked to provide all of their previously redacted and withdrawn evidence to the Inquiry on Monday morning.
ReplyDeleteSalmond told them that to do that was perfectly legal.
Hence, James Wolffe has been cut-off at the knees by the sound of it.
28th. February
ReplyDeleteRt.Hon. Nicola Sturgeon, MSP
First Minister
Scottish Government
St. Andrew’s House
Edinburgh EH1 3DG
Dear Nicola,
Confirmation of complaint of you breaching the Ministerial Code
I did not reply immediately to your letter to me, as I thought careful consideration should be given to what you had to say in insisting that you did not breach the Code. I think it would have been wiser for you to take more time to consider the substance of my letter.
Of course I was aware that the Permanent Secretary, under normal circumstances, cannot refer the First Minister to an investigation, due to the anomaly in the Code that complaints about the First Minister can only be dealt with by the First Minister. I am also aware that both you and your predecessor overcame this problem by a referral to an independent authority. The matters Mr. Hamilton is looking into at present, is the latest example of that practice.
My reason for addressing my letter to the Permanent Secretary was that I assumed she would be able to give you advice, acting on the highest standards of the civil service, on whether or not you should again refer your conduct to Mr. Hamilton, or other independent person.
As you can see from the heading of this letter, I am informing you that I wish my complaint to be considered, and as you disagree with me on that, may I request that you transfer the question of whether or not you breached the Ministerial Code to Mr. Hamilton or some other suitable independent person. I think, given the gravity of the breaches I have detailed, it would not be construed as proper for you to be judge and jury.
I now come to the reasons why I wish to confirm my complaint:
I concur with your view of the Covid briefings as of great advantage to the public. You have been scrupulous in keeping them to that agenda, which is your Government’s agenda. When you chose to depart from that practice and respond to a non-Covid related question from James Matthew, to launch a political attack on Alex Salmond, you breached the Code as I set out in my original letter.
Of course, I accept, as you say, that you did not know that Mr. Matthew would ask you a non-Covid related question; but you had the choice to inform him that it was not an appropriate one in the context of a public health briefing, or to take the bait. The choice you made was yours, and yours alone.
ReplyDeleteYou are an experienced Minister, with many years of dealing with questions from journalists. You and others in your position never know what they might ask, just as you do not know the supplementary questions that will come from MSPs at FMQs. Ministers have a variety of ways that enable them to avoid answering questions that are inappropriate, or asked in a context not germane to the agenda for which the meeting was called. It is not a criticism to say that you employ that approach each week at FMQs, and could have done so in reply to the first non-Covid related question from the SKY journalist. Again, I make the point that you chose not to do so.
Your excuse, that if you ‘had refused to answer these questions I would have been criticised for avoiding scrutiny,’ is unconvincing. Who would have criticised you? Not the public looking in on the briefing, for whom public health information is their only reason for watching. I venture to suggest that a sharp reminder to Mr. Matthew of the purpose of the briefing would not have been criticised by the public, but approved. It is true that journalists may have criticised you, but that goes with job and should not be something of such importance to you, that you chose to breach the Code in order to avoid their anticipated critical views. Your reply gives me no reason to withdraw that part of my complaint.
I now turn to your statement that ‘It is also entirely wrong of you to suggest that I was casting doubt on the outcome of the criminal trial.’ Actually, what your chosen words at the zbriefing were directed to was the “outcome,” which has, and has continued to have, a different meaning, since the trial, than the “verdict.” The word “outcome” as well as encompassing the decision of the trial also encompasses comment upon it post-trial, allowing people to constantly invoke the fact that the complainers were women and claim, therefore, ipso facto, if they say something happened then it happened. That was the meaning you gave to the words you chose to use at the briefing.
I am not alone in believing that your words draw the inference that the jury got it wrong. Several people were in touch with me. One comment is typical, from a woman, referring to your words: “she” meaning you, “is saying he is guilty, it’s just the jury got it wrong.”
In a rather more nuanced way, as one would expect, the statement issued by the Faculty of Advocates, expressing their concern about the reputation of the Scottish legal system, included ‘and perhaps most importantly, the vital place of the verdict of impartial juries in criminal proceedings.’ That they should feel it necessary to issue that statement on the day following your departure from the purpose of the public health briefing, speaks volumes. I see no reason to withdraw my complaint that in choosing to speak as you did in relation to the criminal trial, you breached the Code.
I now refer to the final paragraph of your letter where it says: ‘Of course the most appropriate place for me to be questioned about these matters is in front of the Parliamentary Committee.’ I agree. But in choosing first to use the forum of a briefing on Covid public health matters, you breached the Code.
I shall be grateful to have your assurance that you will refer my complaint to either Mr. Hamilton or some other person with the authority to investigate it.
Yours sincerely
Jim Sillars
Independence support is now 43% according to 'Survation.' Fabulous.
ReplyDeleteKieran Andrews is a young guy who has taken-over as the Scottish Political Editor of The Times. He has been at The Times for about 3-years. Prior to that he was with the Dunday Post and before that with the Courier. He's an old-school investigative journalist.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to have a copy of Geoff Aberdein's statement, which puts Nicola Sturgeon's breach of the Ministerial Code beyond doubt.
Nothing has been published yet.
It seems to me that we are waiting to hear from James Wolffe tomorrow. The Crown Office are under great pressure to relent and to allow public disclosure of all documentation which does not name the alphabet women or give rise to the possibility of jigsaw identification. Seems fair-enough, doesn't it.
So far, though, they haven't agreed to anything and so it all depends upon what happens this week.
We are led to believe though that disclosure of Aberdein's statement will mean that Sturgeon has to resign.
'There is one feature however, that stunned the Scottish public, ie. the government decided who to prosecute, and stopped the provision of vital evidence to prove innocence.'
ReplyDeleteI just heard that the Holyrood Tories are propsing a VoNC in Swinney should he refuse to hand-over the missing Salmond documents tomorrow. About fuckin time. I will die with a contented heart when that black dog is removed from Scottish public life.
ReplyDeleteHer meeting with Geoff Aberdein on March 29 2018 was fixed earlier that month by her chief of staff to review the complaints and fix a follow on meeting with Salmond (April 2). So inconceivable she didn’t know in March. If not before. ANDREW NEIL
ReplyDelete"To us lawyers, of course, the most absurd aspect has been the claim from Ms Sturgeon and her deputy John Swinney that it is impossible for them to afford the Committee sight of the legal advice given to the Scottish government in respect of the Salmond matters. It is confidential and so can't be divulged, they protest.
ReplyDeleteWhat utter nonsense.
They, the Scottish government, are the client and can waive the privilege attached to the legal advice whenever they chose. In advancing such an absurd explanation for secrecy they must take the view that the Scottish public are exceptionally dense".
Professor Alistair Bonnington, Scottish Legal News
I do hope you're keeping up with this; I've just heard that the Scottish Government has agreed that they will hand-over the unredacted documents from Levy and McRae as long as the Scottish Government are allowed to re-apply the redactions first.
ReplyDeleteHumiliatingly fabulous, isn't it.
I think by the end of this week we will be rid of some of this skanky crew. I'm having my Covid jab tomorrow (Oxford - Astra Zeneca, I believe) and so the week gets off to a good start already.
Thank fuck we're in the UK.
Survation Poll: “Nicola Sturgeon should resign as First Minister if she is found to have broken the ministerial code”(excluding Don’t Knows)
ReplyDeleteYes: 50% (60%)
No: 33% (40%)
My wife and I had our first dose of the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine half an hour ago. No problem. Next dose in 3 months. Done at the local health centre by a couple of nurses, so not the Army this time. It took about 15 seconds. I'll bet the Army would have done it even quicker. No feeling of 'a slight scratch' - nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteWolffe appears now on Tuesday, not Monday.
ReplyDeleteScotland is now a failed state, and Holyrood’s inquiry shows the First Minister is the cause - Brian Monteith, The Scotsman
ReplyDelete'There is a time in politics when a public mood begins to develop that is unstoppable and ushers in change that a little while ago seemed impossible. A sense a government has been in power for too long takes hold and has a momentum of its own.'
Old Alex is back at Holyrood either today or tomorrow to give evidence in private to the James Hamilton Inquiry.
ReplyDeleteHe will be discussing the Geoff Aberdein statement which has already been issued to James Hamilton and which proves that the Ministerial Code has been broken.
When private discussions take place, away from TV cameras and Swinney and his lawyers, then Alex Salmond may be a lot more forthcoming.
Anyway, it does look to me that James Hamilton can only find that the Ministerial Code has been broken. However can he not do that?
When the public are awakened to this, that they have criminality working secretly at the heart of government and the legal profession, they will want to hear more and the press will invetigate more. That, I think, is the point we are at now.
Fortunately for them, Salmond has done all the investigating for them. He has done much of it and he has paid privately for the rest to be done by others. In the meantime, the Scottish legal profession have gathered forces on the wrong side of the arguement.
This looks unstoppable to me. At the end of this, there should be a few lawyers in jail too.
Breaking news for the Scottish Government: Sarkozy has just been jailed for three years for corruption.
ReplyDeleteANDREW NEIL: 'Censorship, bullying, threats of jail... how Nicola Sturgeon's storm troops turned Scotland into a banana republic without the bananas.' THE DAILY MAIL - Is this the headline of the year already? I think it might be.
ReplyDelete1 March, 2021 at 4:50 pm
ReplyDeletehttps://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/subsidence-new-aps12m-school-sparks-investigation-1472499
@TNS2019 – I beat you to it Sir.
This was in The Scotsman in 2016. Since then, John Swinney has been saying: ‘There’s nothing wrong with this school.’ In 2017, 40No expert engineers from all over the world said: ‘There is something wrong with this school and you had better fix it fast.’
John Swinney still says: ‘There’s nothing wrong with this school.’
Scottish Building Standards appear to have been turned into some type of quango, where they don’t have to get involved in anything ‘political’ and they think somehow that this political.
Ditto the EIS.
No-one answers anything and we have a communications embargo.
Does this all sound familiar to you? I’ll bet you it does.
As Alex Salmond was saying on Friday, many of those responsible for this foul-up have been promoted and have had their contracts extended.
The extent of recent legal involvement was a long explanation on ‘how it works in Scotland.’
The latest suggestion, (made on Saturday morning) is that this is checked-out by the Health and Safety Executive, who will do it properly and they will not listen to John Swinney’s wants. As you can imagine, that is vexing a few of them just now.
Posted-up half an hour ago on WoS