Pariahs in the Palace; inglorious SNP MP Pete Wishart plumbs the depths of the sewer by asking Cressida Dick, Met Police Commissioner to launch formal criminal probe into Boris Johnson and his predecessors, the SNP used the same smear campaign called 'cash for honours' nearly 14 years ago, smears, allegations and suspicion show the utter lack of class of the SNP, they are small people, and always will be

Dear All 

Few MPs from Scotland have been more embarrassing that SNP MP Pete Wishart, a stupid and crass little in every sense of the word, in terms not just of content but also of volume. Prior to Ian Blackford being appointed as the leading embarrassment for the SNP in Westminster, no one could argue that Wishart crave a name for himself as a fool. One thing, I have learned about politics is that the person isn't always picked as a candidate and the best candidate doesn't always win elections. The SNP at on a mission at Westminster to discredit at every opportunity and by any means the UK Government. They have of course relished this task of disruption whether it be clapping after speeches by their own, (no one else claps them), or meaningless walk outs, causing trouble in Commons bars, or just saying abusive things then being held to account by the speaker. As they are constantly ignored and seen as irrelevant, the UK Government has effectively shut them out as a sounding board for ideas and there is no goodwill that exists between the SNP MPs and the bulk of members of the House. 

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has no official role at Cop26, she isn't invited to the official talks with world leaders, and rightly so. Nicola Sturgeon is no world leader in much the same way as her stooge, Cllr Susan Aitken is no council leader. In fact, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson is on record as saying that he didn't want Nicola Sturgeon to be anywhere near Cop26. Having been embarrassed, Nicola Sturgeon decided to turn up as much as humanly possible and be a 'selfie queen', and it seems getting no job offers. Having 'not being invited to the ball', the sycophants in the SNP were outraged for their dear leader, and as if by magic, Pete Wishart has stepped forward to do some shit stirring. You might ask why not that incredible buffoon Ian Blackford, this type of activity would be right up his alley. I would say that using 'the minion' to blaze the trail, allows the press to do a series of follow ups with him as he attempts to try and position himself as having gravitas. The smearing over 'cash for honours' isn't new, it has been used before by the SNP, notably SNP MP Angus MacNeil, whose fame is centred on stories, 'three in a bed' (cheating on his then wife) and chasing after some bird who was hanging around Stewart Hosie. MacNeil lost out to Hosie, who was also cheating on his then wife, SNP MSP Shona Robison. 

As Angus MacNeil is seen as a Salmond ally by some, it seems that 'Pension' Pete or 'cosy slippers' Wishart is the man for the job. Wishart is the chair of the Scottish Select Committee, which he does with the same gravitas a chimp at a chimp's tea party. You could sum up his performances as chair of the Committee as 'oh, ffs'. Tedious, torturous, boring, dry, you would have more excitement ask people about how the fold and put away their laundry. Having been selected to shit stir, Pete Wishart has lodged a formal complaint about Boris Johnson and Conservative party officials over alleged corruption. At this point, you could ask, does Pete Wishart have any evidence, eye witness accounts, smoking gun documents, or information passed to him? No, he is going on a fishing expedition and wants to use Cressida Dick, Met Police Commissioner to get the Met Police to become politicised, something which the SNP have already attempted before in the case of Marion Millar. The idea isn't to get a conviction because that is a bridge too far, the idea is to put someone through a process in order to cause alarm and stress. So, what will Pete Wishart's letter to Cressida Dick, Met Police Commissioner asking her to investigate the Prime Minister and his predecessors over so-called cash for honours claims achieve? Well, absolutely nothing, if Wishart had a case, the buffoon, Ian Blackford would be front and centre of this nonsense. This is a sheer waste of time, money and resources, something which the SNP have no problem using up, especially when the money is from the UK taxpayer. 

In his letter, Pete Wishart says that he was said he was concerned about “criminal misconduct” by Boris Johnson, and previous Conservative Prime Ministers, and other senior Conservatives. 

He wrote: 

“I write to inform you of potential criminal misconduct regarding the procurement of honours and membership of the House of Lords. The emerging allegations, which have been widely referred to as the 'cash for honours scandal, are deeply undermining public trust and confidence. These widespread allegations and suspicion of criminal activity need to be urgently addressed. I, therefore, believe it is now essential that a formal criminal investigation is now initiated by the Metropolitan Police.” 

You would think that Wishart would have included evidence, but all he has to work with is allegations and suspicion which come from other opposition parties, their members, supporters and allies. To jazz up his cimplaint, Wishart cited that there could be breaches of the law under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. The SNP have played this game before when Tony Blair was questioned by the police in 2006 and 2007, following a police complaint by Angus MacNeil MP. 14 years later, we have Pete Wishart playing the same tune, so why is he working his fiddle so hard? If you follow politics, the answer could be that yet again, the SNP need to deflect attention away from themselves. There is still issues which need address and questions answered. 

1/ Where is the £600k of 'ring fenced' indyref2 money?

2/ Who authorised £30k of public money for Angus Robertson's book launch?

3/ What is the connection between Nicola Sturgeon and Sandstone Publishing? 

Now, these are questions! 

To pad out his letter, Wishart cited a joint investigation by OpenDemocracy and the Sunday Times. 

He added: 

"Since the Conservative party returned to power in 2010, successive Prime Ministers have elevated nine of the party's former treasurers to the House of Lords. Each of those appointed since 2014 has donated at least £3 million. Any investigation must uncover any process or link between these donations and the subsequent appointment of these individuals to the House of Lords. In total, twenty two of the Conservative party's biggest financial contributors have been made members of the House of Lords in the past eleven years. Together they have donated some £54m to the Tories. I believe that it is only right to investigate whether these donations were, in fact, rewarded with honours." 

Where this falls down is that other people have been given peerages by the Conservatives, in many different parts of society. So, the obvious question is where is the evidence of wrongdoing? You argue that the honour system is outdated, you could argue that it needs reform, but these issues don't pass the mark to imply criminality? 

A UK Government spokeswoman said: 

“Peerages reflect long-standing contributions to civic life and also a willingness to further contribute to public life as a legislator in the Second Chamber. It is wrong to criticise individuals being honoured just because they have also chosen to support or donate to a political party. Donations should be transparent, but that is not an excuse to knock people for broader philanthropy, enterprise and public service. Volunteering and supporting a political party is part of our civic democracy. In the UK, taxpayers do not have to bankroll political parties’ campaigning. Political parties have to raise money themselves, and follow transparency and compliance rules laid out in law.” 

Wishart's letter will be looked at carefully for evidence, but allegations and suspicion don't trigger a police investigation anymore than saying someone 'looks guilty' does. The SNP don't put forward names for the House of Lords, I suspect this is down to the SNP being a republican party, you may remember in the four groups that make up the modern SNP, I highlighted the 'Sein Fein lite' group. Although the SNP have historically always been opposed to the House of Lords, and refused to take any seats in the second chamber, the timing of their latest rant seems curious. Wishart also lashed out at Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives for appointing anyone to the House of Lords, what he calls "that corrupt circus". The second chamber is needed because it is an effective break on the government, of course, the break can be removed by government, but generally, this type of heavy handed approach isn't taken in favour of amendments. I would say that although some people shouldn't be in the House of Lords, their checks and balances on government is needed.   

Wishart told MPs; 

"I have now asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate the activities of the Conservative Party and the awarding of places in the House of Lords. I'll say ever so gently to my friends in the Labour Party, stop putting people in that place. Stop giving it legitimacy and credibility. We don't need the Gordon Brown Commission. We just need you guys as the opposition party to say you will abolish it. It is a circus, it is a corrupt circus and it is the high point of deference in the class system. To think that the Labour Party would defend that place and put people in it is beyond ridiculous. Grow up. Get a sense of this, help up get rid of that appalling circus down the corridor." 

Finally, the SNP have a long history of trying to destroy British democracy, so nothing new here from Wishart. Will Cressida Dick, Met Police Commissioner act? I see her punting this letter down the chain to someone at Inspector level who will make some noises, shuffle some paper, and declare that they couldn't find Pete Wishart's needle in a haystack. Everyone knows that the SNP are playing politics, everyone knows they are a nasty little bunch, and everyone knows their modus operandi is rolling grievance. Sometime ago, Pete Wishart put himself forward as a possible speaker of the House of Commons, he was never a serious contender for the post, and no one in their right mind would have voted for him outside the nationalist ranks. Could you imagine him sitting in the Speaker causing chaos and giving the SNP preferential treatment? When I hear he floated the idea as him as speaker, my first thought was immediately no, and secondly, why would he think MPs would vote for him when he and his party continually try to trash parliament? Did he simply come to the position that his past deeds somehow would be wiped clean? Please enjoy the video of Kay Burley questioning Pete Wishart, notice him squealing when asked about indyref 2 money.  

Yours sincerely 

George Laird                                                                                                                                The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University