The Government Payroll

The SNP ’ s official 2019 accounts , which were due to be published today ( five weeks late ) , have not appeared on the Electoral Commission website .
We ’ ve rung the EC and we ’ re still waiting for someone to get back to us with a reason and/or a new date .
In the meantime , there ’ s something else of note .
Below is a list of the party ’ s reportable donations ( anything over £500 ) in 2020 .
Out of a total of £964,382 received by the party in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £783,026 ( or 81 % ) came directly from the British state .
£595,665 ( the entries listed as being from the House Of Commons ) came in the form of “ Short money ” , and the rest ( which are listed as from the Electoral Commission ) is something called the Policy Development Grant , which – like Short money – is paid depending on the number of MPs a party has .
Just two donations to the central party from anyone other than the British state were recorded , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and £92,732.47 ) and both of roughly £90,000 .
We ’ ve been unable to find any verifiable details about the donations or the donors , which is slightly surprising given the amounts involved , although we do know that most large donations to the party in recent years have been from wills .
Nevertheless , the extent to which the SNP is now dependent on British state money should provide some interesting context for the accounts if and when they do show up .

The SNP’s official 2019 accounts, which were due to be published today (five weeks late), have not appeared on the Electoral Commission website. We’ve rung the EC and we’re still waiting for someone to get back to us with a reason and/or a new date.
[EDIT 3pm: the EC say they’re “fairly confident” the new date will be 23 September.]
In the meantime, there’s something else of note.
Below is a list of the party’s reportable donations (anything over £500) in 2020.
Out of a total of £964,382 received by the party in the six months from January until June, £783,026 (or 81%) came directly from the British state.
£595,665 (the entries listed as being from the House Of Commons) came in the form of “Short money”, and the rest (which are listed as from the Electoral Commission) is something called the Policy Development Grant, which – like Short money – is paid depending on the number of MPs a party has.
Just two donations to the central party from anyone other than the British state were recorded, both of really weirdly specific sums (£88,622.93 and £92,732.47) and both of roughly £90,000. We’ve been unable to find any verifiable details about the donations or the donors, which is slightly surprising given the amounts involved, although we do know that most large donations to the party in recent years have been from wills.
Nevertheless, the extent to which the SNP is now dependent on British state money should provide some interesting context for the accounts if and when they do show up.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-11--A kind of transparency

A kind of transparency

On 17 January last year , the First Minister told the Scottish Parliament that she , her administration and her @ @ @ @ @ ” with the parliamentary inquiry into the Scottish Government ’ s handling of false allegations @ @ @ @ @ She further assured the Parliament , unambiguously and without any qualification , that the committee @ @ @ @ @ be able to request whatever material they want , and I undertake today that we @ @ @ @ @ request ” .
So we thought we ’ d check in on how that was @ @ @ @ @ certainly appears to be pretty transparent here .
We ’ re not sure it ’ @ @ @ @ @ s supposed to be transparent , though .

On 17 January last year, the First Minister told the Scottish Parliament that she, her administration and her party would “co-operate fully” with the parliamentary inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of false allegations made against Alex Salmond.
She further assured the Parliament, unambiguously and without any qualification, that the committee investigating the matter “will be able to request whatever material they want, and I undertake today that we will provide whatever material they request”.
So just over a month in, we thought we’d check on how that was going so far.
8 JUNE
6 AUGUST
11 AUGUST
17 AUGUST
19 AUGUST
26 AUGUST
28 AUGUST
2 SEPTEMBER
3 SEPTEMBER
6 SEPTEMBER
7 SEPTEMBER
8 SEPTEMBER
10 SEPTEMBER
11 SEPTEMBER
Something certainly appears to be pretty transparent here. We’re not sure it’s the thing that’s supposed to be transparent, though.


Dark waters

`` There 's no limit to what a man can do , or where he can go , if he @ @ @ @ @ gets the credit . ''

Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-13--The road already travelled

The road already travelled

There ’ s a good column by Kevin McKenna in today ’ s Herald On Sunday about Boris Johnson , from which this paragraph in particular jumped out at us .
It did so because of something else we ’ d just read this weekend .
In a week in which the UK government blithely announced that breaking the law was fine as long as you did it in a “ specific and limited way ” , we also discovered that the Scottish Government has quietly changed the meaning of the word “ heterosexual ” as well as the meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of human sexes .
Both the UK and Scottish governments are currently deploying , in different but related ways , what we know from history are the tactics of fascism ( accompanied in one of the two cases by a worryingly familiar willingness to redefine fundamental human biology for entirely political reasons , and “ re-educate ” the public to accept the new version ) .
If only there ’ d been some sort of lesson we could have learned from past events about the importance of fighting those before it @ @ @ @ @ @

There’s a good column by Kevin McKenna in today’s Herald On Sunday about Boris Johnson, from which this paragraph in particular jumped out at us.
It did so because of something else we’d just read this weekend.
In a week in which the UK government blithely announced that breaking the law was fine as long as you did it in a “specific and limited way”, we also discovered that the Scottish Government has quietly changed the meaning of the word “heterosexual” as well as the meaning of the word “woman” and the number of human sexes.
Both the UK and Scottish governments are currently deploying, in different but related ways, what we know from history are the tactics of fascism (accompanied in one of the two cases by a worryingly familiar willingness to redefine fundamental human biology for entirely political reasons, and “re-educate” the public to accept the new version).
If only there’d been some sort of lesson we could have learned from past events about the importance of fighting those before it became too late, eh?


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-14--An Alternative Route To Indyref 2

An Alternative Route To Indyref 2

The purpose of the paper below is to kickstart the process of examining alternative methods of holding a second referendum which can claim constitutional validity and thus satisfy both our voting public and , if necessary the courts , of its legality .
At the stage when the commitment to a referendum in 2020 was dropped , questioning of our leadership on the sole reliance on Section 30 to achieve a referendum and the need to explore alternatives , made it clear that this was not a matter for debate .
Whilst the First Minister has now committed to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further mandate , it would appear that the strategy continues to be a sole reliance on Section 30 and a belief that the UK Government would consider further opposition to a Section 30 unsustainable .
The dangers of both leaving the initiative in the hands of a hostile UK Government , and of depending on a sole method of proceeding , are obvious .
Whilst one can accept that the leadership , faced with the joint demands of Brexit and the COVID pandemic superimposed on the “ day job ” , is unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more innovative possibilities it does not preclude it setting up an internal group to do so using the expertise that lies within the Party .
All the evidence points to the fact that they are not disposed to do so or to look beyond Section 30 because “ that is the law ” .
Furthermore , there appears to be no strategic framework within which activists can build up a momentum for Indyref2 .
It has been said that while there may be a number of options of what to do when Westminster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them is not to sit on your hands .
In the absence of positive action from the centre , nothing prevents members setting up a group to explore and put forward alternative , viable routes .
This paper , produced by a group of members and activists from the wider Yes movement , is the result .
What follows can only be an outline .
Its purpose is to kickstart the process of examining alternative routes to a referendum and we believe it postulates a legal route which takes it beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political narrative likely to resonate with the electorate – and retains control of the processes for a referendum in the hands of the Scottish Government .
It is built upon claims made in the Scottish Government ’ s own case supporting a request for a Section 30 consent , merely accepting the logic that making a claim for nationhood implies certain freedoms .
It can not be other than an outline since whilst we can present a logical argument , if examination shows it to be a potentially viable course to follow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to turn it from a theory for discussion into a practical proposition capable of withstanding formidable opposition .
But we have to start somewhere and we are quite prepared to be told ( with proof !
!
and a positive alternative ) that this will not work – in which case we start looking for another way .
And there are others , though few which exclude the UK Government legally from the process .
The fog which surrounds constitutional issues in the UK leaves little room for dogmatism , so hand-sitting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discussion of any alternative route to independence is not confined to a consideration of legal issues alone .
While a basis of law is essential the political dimension is of equal weight .
Joanna Cherry has said on various occasions that there is no legal bar to our Government calling a referendum .
Whilst a legal opinion from so formidable a source means that is very probably the case , it is perhaps questionable whether , politically , such a simple assertion will attract public confidence , particularly among more recent converts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of UK Government and unionist media propaganda .
It could well be that the UK government would choose to adopt this method of fighting the “ No ” case rather than a legal challenge .
It is in this area that the experience of grassroots activists is of prime importance .
When push comes to shove will it stand up on the doorsteps ?
Contribute to the discussion .
At the beginning of this year the Scottish Government sought the agreement of the United Kingdom under Section 30 of the Scotland Act to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence .
In the supporting argument they made two claims .
First , that Scotland is , remains , a nation : “ Scotland is one of Europe ’ s oldest Nations Following the integration of the Parliament of England and Wales in 1707 Scotland remained a nation within the new Union state.
” Second , that Brexit represents a constitutional change of major importance : “ Leaving the EU represents a fundamental change in the constitutional arrangements of the country ” .
If these two claims are legally sustainable they alter fundamentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may seek a referendum on independence .
If Scotland remains a nation the powers available to it fall into two quite separate categories .
The first is the powers that accrue to a Scottish Government acting in its role as the duly elected government of a nation .
The second is the powers that accrue to it acting in its role as a partner , and a minority partner , in a union governed by its mutually agreed internal laws .
To date all discussions surrounding the sovereign rights or otherwise of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context of the latter following on from the method chosen to call a referendum in 2014 , when the two Governments agreed to proceed in the interests of convenience under internal enabling legislation and implement Section 30 of the Scotland Act .
Alex Salmond has claimed that the form of the Edinburgh Agreement , if not its legal title , was that of an international treaty signed by the heads of the two governments and thus recognised , rather than undermined , the claims of Scottish sovereignty .
That may be so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is surely that the two governments were in agreement and that whether the UK Government would accept that reading was never an issue .
This is no longer the case .
Indeed , the formal refusal of the present request and its endorsement by the leaders of opposition parties is by definition a rejection of such a claim .
Any Scottish Government therefore which chooses to continue to rely on the internal arrangements which govern the United Kingdom will undoubtedly fall foul of the doctrine of supremacy of the Parliament which can legislate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation , or intervening legislation such as that employed over the return of powers from the EU , leaving the implementation of any referendum result to secede open to legal challenge .
And more importantly , perhaps , undermining its legitimacy in the minds of the electorate as they prepare to vote .
However , the powers that accrue to the Scottish Government acting in its role as the democratically elected government of a nation can not be so circumscribed .
While the UK Government may interpret the Act of Union as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partnership operates internally and thus withhold consent to a referendum ; the Treaty of Union signed in 1707 by the incontestably sovereign nation of Scotland and with its status essentially unchanged , gives the people of that nation , through the lens of popular sovereignty expressed in a democratic vote , the legal authority to determine whether they wish the Treaty to be abrogated .
The enabling Act of Union 1707 , should , therefore , be seen as the contemporary interpretation of that Treaty and was voluntarily agreed by the Scottish Parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of action which in itself implies reserved judgement for the future .
Since that time there have been challenges .
In 1713 , for example , there was an attempt in the House of Lords to reverse the 1707 Act .
The Jacobite rebellions of 1715 , 1719 and 1745 all proposed a return to an independent kingdom .
Recently there were the referenda of 1979 and 2014 .
Since 1707 , not unnaturally over a period of around 300 years , the original terms in which the Treaty was expressed and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
These changes include a succession of Acts extending suffrage , the recent Scotland Acts varying how the internal arrangements should be managed , and two major constitutional variations : accession to the EU in the 1970s and currently Brexit .
The response to all these events – the rejection of the challenges and the voluntary agreement to the amendments – was , with one exception , a clear indication from the Scottish nation that it considered the enabling Act , as amended , remained in its interests and acceptable therefore within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altered with the onset of Brexit .
The results of the Scottish vote in the European referendum , the European elections of 2019 and the general election of 2019 – all fought with the ruling Scottish Government party proposing total opposition to Brexit – provide clear evidence that the Scottish people do not consider this latest constitutional amendment to be in the interests of their nation .
Recent polling , whilst never as conclusive as a vote , seems to reinforce this evidence .
In circumstances where the UK Government has refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit to meet its partner ’ s needs , the Scottish Government is entitled , indeed obliged , as the legitimate successor to those who signed the Treaty , to use its powers as the legitimate guardian of the interests of the Scottish people to call a referendum to ascertain whether they consider this amendment to the terms of Union is one change too many and abrogate the Treaty .
Consideration of the viability of this option can not , of course , stop there .
It seems probable that the UK Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
However , notwithstanding ratifying legislation in the Scottish and English Parliaments , the Treaty is an international treaty , not just an enabling Act .
The prevailing view in England is that Parliament can amend , adjust and negate any legislation including the Act of Union and , as has been said this may well be so in terms of internal legislation relative to the internal administration of the partnership .
However , this does not tie the hands of the Scottish Government in seeking to revisit the Treaty .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Scottish Government must first establish its position as the ruling government with a mandate which endorses its authority and the action it proposes to take .
The looming Scottish Parliamentary elections provide this opportunity .
With an eye to a possible eventual challenge in the courts from the UK Government , all the actions which follow – SNP Manifesto , implementation of the Referendum Act , the question posed in the referendum itself – must be explicit that the mandate sought is based on the Scottish Government ’ s powers as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Once in government with its status endorsed its path is clear – not only to call a referendum under the Referendum Act , but to organise the voting process and arrange any international oversight ( it might be politic to request the EU to undertake this ) .
The position of the Electoral Commission on the form of question will be advisory only .
The possibility of a challenge in the Supreme Court raises the question of whether the Scottish Government would consider it an appropriate body to rule on a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treaty .
In which case it might argue for a reference to the International Court of Justice to obtain a ruling on its right to proceed under that Treaty , albeit one some 300 years old .
A ruling in its favour would leave it free to implement the democratic mandate and organise a referendum to decide whether the partnership of the Union should continue .

The purpose of the paper below is to kickstart the process of examining alternative methods of holding a second referendum which can claim constitutional validity and thus satisfy both our voting public and, if necessary the courts, of its legality.
At the stage when the commitment to a referendum in 2020 was dropped, questioning of our leadership on the sole reliance on Section 30 to achieve a referendum and the need to explore alternatives, made it clear that this was not a matter for debate.
Whilst the First Minister has now committed to a referendum should the Holyrood elections provide a further mandate, it would appear that the strategy continues to be a sole reliance on Section 30 and a belief that the UK Government would consider further opposition to a Section 30 unsustainable.
The dangers of both leaving the initiative in the hands of a hostile UK Government, and of depending on a sole method of proceeding, are obvious. Whilst one can accept that the leadership, faced with the joint demands of Brexit and the COVID pandemic superimposed on the “day job”, is unable itself to prioritise the necessary examination of more innovative possibilities it does not preclude it setting up an internal group to do so using the expertise that lies within the Party.
All the evidence points to the fact that they are not disposed to do so or to look beyond Section 30 because “that is the law”. Furthermore, there appears to be no strategic framework within which activists can build up a momentum for Indyref2 .
It has been said that while there may be a number of options of what to do when Westminster says No to another referendum, one of them is not to sit on your hands. In the absence of positive action from the centre, nothing prevents members setting up a group to explore and put forward alternative, viable routes.
This paper, produced by a group of members and activists from the wider Yes movement, is the result. What follows can only be an outline. Its purpose is to kickstart the process of examining alternative routes to a referendum and we believe it postulates a legal route which takes it beyond the views of the UK Government – a political narrative likely to resonate with the electorate – and retains control of the processes for a referendum in the hands of the Scottish Government.
It is built upon claims made in the Scottish Government’s own case supporting a request for a Section 30 consent, merely accepting the logic that making a claim for nationhood implies certain freedoms.
It cannot be other than an outline since whilst we can present a logical argument, if examination shows it to be a potentially viable course to follow, it is for the resources of Government to turn it from a theory for discussion into a practical proposition capable of withstanding formidable opposition.
But we have to start somewhere and we are quite prepared to be told (with proof!! and a positive alternative) that this will not work – in which case we start looking for another way. And there are others, though few which exclude the UK Government legally from the process. The fog which surrounds constitutional issues in the UK leaves little room for dogmatism, so hand-sitting is out.
As we have said, the discussion of any alternative route to independence is not confined to a consideration of legal issues alone. While a basis of law is essential the political dimension is of equal weight. Joanna Cherry has said on various occasions that the balance of legal opinion is that it’s not clear Holyrood doesn’t already have the power under the 1998 Act to hold a referendum on the question of independence.
It is perhaps questionable whether, politically, such a simple assertion will attract public confidence, particularly among more recent converts, in the face of a barrage of UK Government and unionist media propaganda. It could well be that the UK government would choose to adopt this method of fighting the “No” case rather than a legal one.
It is in this area that the experience of grassroots activists is of prime importance. When push comes to shove will it stand up on the doorsteps? Let’s talk about it.
(signed)
IAIN LAWSON
KENNY MACASKILL MP
PROFESSOR ALLAN MACINNES
COUNCILLOR CHRIS MCELENY
DOT JESSIMAN
——————————————————————————————
AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE TO INDYREF2
At the beginning of this year the Scottish Government sought the agreement of the United Kingdom under Section 30 of the Scotland Act to the holding of a referendum on Scottish independence.
In the supporting argument they made two claims. First, that Scotland is, remains, a nation: “Scotland is one of Europe’s oldest Nations Following the integration of the Parliament of England and Wales in 1707 Scotland remained a nation within the new Union state.”
Second, that Brexit represents a constitutional change of major importance: “Leaving the EU represents a fundamental change in the constitutional arrangements of the country”.
If these two claims are legally sustainable they alter fundamentally the basis on which a Scottish Government may seek a referendum on independence. If Scotland remains a nation the powers available to it fall into two quite separate categories.
The first is the powers that accrue to a Scottish Government acting in its role as the duly elected government of a nation. The second is the powers that accrue to it acting in its role as a partner, and a minority partner, in a union governed by its mutually agreed internal laws.
To date all discussions surrounding the sovereign rights or otherwise of the Scottish Government have taken place within the context of the latter following on from the method chosen to call a referendum in 2014, when the two Governments agreed to proceed in the interests of convenience under internal enabling legislation and implement Section 30 of the Scotland Act.
Alex Salmond has claimed that the form of the Edinburgh Agreement, if not its legal title, was that of an international treaty signed by the heads of the two governments and thus recognised, rather than undermined, the claims of Scottish sovereignty. That may be so, but the crucial factor present in 2012 is surely that the two governments were in agreement and that whether the UK Government would accept that reading was never an issue.
This is no longer the case. Indeed, the formal refusal of the present request and its endorsement by opposition leaders is by definition a rejection of such a claim.
Any Scottish Government therefore which chooses to continue to rely on the internal arrangements which govern the United Kingdom will undoubtedly fall foul of the doctrine of supremacy of the Parliament which can legislate to counter any moves made with retrospective legislation, or intervening legislation such as that employed over the return of powers from the EU, leaving the implementation of any referendum result to secede open to legal challenge. And more importantly, perhaps, undermining its legitimacy in the minds of the electorate as they prepare to vote.
However, the powers that accrue to the Scottish Government acting in its role as the democratically elected government of a nation cannot be so circumscribed.
While the UK Government may interpret the Act of Union as an aspect of parliamentary sovereignty under which the partnership operates internally and thus withhold consent to a referendum; the Treaty of Union signed in 1707 by the incontestably sovereign nation of Scotland and with its status essentially unchanged, gives the people of that nation, through the lens of popular sovereignty expressed in a democratic vote, the legal authority to determine whether they wish the Treaty to be abrogated.
The enabling Act of Union 1707, should, therefore, be seen as the contemporary interpretation of that Treaty and was voluntarily agreed by the Scottish Parliament which then adjourned itself – a choice of action which in itself implies reserved judgement for the future.
Since that time there have been challenges. In 1713, for example, there was an attempt in the House of Lords to reverse the 1707 Act. The Jacobite rebellions of 1715, 1719 and 1745 all proposed a return to an independent kingdom. Recently there were the referenda of 1979 and 2014. Since 1707, not unnaturally over a period of around 300 years, the original terms in which the Treaty was expressed and the political background which dictated them have undergone change.
These changes include a succession of Acts extending suffrage, the recent Scotland Acts varying how the internal arrangements should be managed, and two major constitutional variations: accession to the EU in the 1970s and currently Brexit.
The response to all these events – the rejection of the challenges and the voluntary agreement to the amendments – was, with one exception, a clear indication from the Scottish nation that it considered the enabling Act, as amended, remained in its interests and acceptable therefore within the framework of the partnership.
That altered with the onset of Brexit. The results of the Scottish vote in the European referendum, the European elections of 2019 and the general election of 2019 – all fought with the ruling Scottish Government party proposing total opposition to Brexit – provide clear evidence that the Scottish people do not consider this latest constitutional amendment to be in the interests of their nation.
Recent polling, whilst never as conclusive as a vote, seems to reinforce this evidence. In circumstances where the UK Government has refused to negotiate in any degree the terms of Brexit to meet its partner’s needs, the Scottish Government is entitled, indeed obliged, as the legitimate successor to those who signed the Treaty, to use its powers as the legitimate guardian of the interests of the Scottish people to call a referendum to ascertain whether they consider this amendment to the terms of Union is one change too many and abrogate the Treaty.
(An action very similar to that of the United Kingdom in relation to continuance in the European Union.)
Consideration of the viability of this option cannot, of course, stop there. It seems probable that the UK Government will challenge such action in the Supreme Court. However, notwithstanding ratifying legislation in the Scottish and English Parliaments, the Treaty is an international treaty, not just an enabling Act. The prevailing view in England is that Parliament can amend, adjust and negate any legislation including the Act of Union and, as has been said this may well be so in terms of internal legislation relative to the internal administration of the partnership. However, this does not tie the hands of the Scottish Government in seeking to revisit the Treaty.
For action to be taken in this regard the Scottish Government must first establish its position as the ruling government with a mandate which endorses its authority and the action it proposes to take. The looming Scottish Parliamentary elections provide this opportunity.
With an eye to a possible eventual challenge in the courts from the UK Government, all the actions which follow – SNP Manifesto, implementation of the Referendum Act, the question posed in the referendum itself – must be explicit that the mandate sought is based on the Scottish Government’s powers as the successor to the signatories of the Treaty.
Once in government with its status endorsed its path is clear – not only to call a referendum under the Referendum Act, but to organise the voting process and arrange any international oversight (it might be politic to request the EU to undertake this). The position of the Electoral Commission on the form of question will be advisory only.
The possibility of a challenge in the Supreme Court raises the question of whether the Scottish Government would consider it an appropriate body to rule on a matter of its status in respect of a Treaty. In which case it might argue for a reference to the International Court of Justice to obtain a ruling on its right to proceed under that Treaty, albeit one some 300 years old.
A ruling in its favour would leave it free to implement the democratic mandate and organise a referendum to decide whether the partnership of the Union should continue.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-15--The value of nothing

The value of nothing

The most recent insult handed down by the smirking , sneering Permanent Secretary To The Scottish Government to the people of Scotland , who she ostensibly works for and who pay her enormous salary ( she gets more than either Nicola Sturgeon or Boris Johnson , and who knows , possibly even slightly more than Peter Murrell ) , is a crass and dismissive one even by her extraordinary standards .
The Woman Who Remembers Nothing , having asked for some time to think about it , concluded that there was simply no way to estimate the total cost to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlawful fiasco she presided over regarding the investigation of false abuse claims against Alex Salmond , and which had cost taxpayers over half a million pounds in Mr Salmond ’ s legal fees alone .
Her argument was that because government employees are paid fixed salaries and don ’ t record how much of their time they spent on specific tasks , there was no way to estimate how much had been spent on the attempt to fit up the former First Minister .
But that isn ’ t how anything works these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scottish Government , just like everyone else , in fact constantly attaches pretty specific costs to just about everything under the sun , no matter how difficult in reality those costs would seem to be to work out .
We know ( or are told ) that the cost of treating obesity and obesity-related conditions , for example , costs the Scottish health service between £363m and £600m a year , with the total cost to the economy up to eight times higher .
Which is strange , because doctors and nurses get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record how much time they spend treating fat people , or to what degree someone ’ s fatness affects any other health issues they may have .
And we ’ re confidently assured by the Scottish Government that Brexit will cost the Scottish economy the very specific sum of £9bn , even though we still have no idea what Brexit is going to look like and whether there ’ s going to be a deal or not .
We ’ re told that policing football matches in Scotland costs around £2m a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and football matches are a normal part of their duties that they don ’ t get paid separately for .
We somehow know that the value of Gaelic to the Scottish economy is between £82m and £149m a year , although there is in fact no conceivable way of directly attributing almost any economic activity ( other than teaching it ) to the presence of the language .
We “ know ” that mental health problems cost the Scottish economy almost £11bn a year even though , yet again , there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost to such a broad and nebulous concept , or to determine how much of a contributing factor it might be in other illnesses .
And we ’ re informed that “ gender inequality ” costs the Scottish economy a breathtaking £17bn a year , in largely unspecified ways .
And so on and so forth .
We live in a world where anything and everything has a price ticket attached for the sake of punchy headlines , and yet the relatively straightforward matter of estimating how many person-hours were spent on cooking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to frame one man is apparently completely impossible to unpick , even though every civil servant involved – except Leslie Evans , it seems – kept notes and diaries of what they were doing and when , and even though lawyers are the one category of workers who DO bill for specific hours spent on specific tasks .
It ’ s almost as if Ms Evans knows she ’ s bulletproof and can treat the inquiry with total contempt , certain that the First Minister – pretty much the only human in Scotland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the job – won ’ t sack her no matter what .
We can understand why readers might wonder what the reason for that could be .

The most recent insult handed down by the smirking, sneering Permanent Secretary To The Scottish Government to the people of Scotland, who she ostensibly works for and who pay her enormous salary (she gets more than either Nicola Sturgeon or Boris Johnson, and who knows, possibly even slightly more than Peter Murrell), is a crass and dismissive one even by her extraordinary standards.
The Woman Who Remembers Nothing, having asked for some time to think about it, concluded that there was simply no way to estimate the total cost to the public purse of the biased and unlawful fiasco she presided over regarding the investigation of false abuse claims against Alex Salmond, and which had cost taxpayers over half a million pounds in Mr Salmond’s legal fees alone.
Her argument was that because government employees are paid fixed salaries and don’t record how much of their time they spent on specific tasks, there was no way to estimate how much had been spent on the attempt to fit up the former First Minister.
But that isn’t how anything works these days, is it?
Because the Scottish Government, just like everyone else, in fact constantly attaches pretty specific costs to just about everything under the sun, no matter how difficult in reality those costs would seem to be to work out.
We know (or are told) that the cost of treating obesity and obesity-related conditions, for example, costs the Scottish health service between £363m and £600m a year, with the total cost to the economy up to eight times higher.
Which is strange, because doctors and nurses get paid fixed salaries and don’t record how much time they spend treating fat people, or to what degree someone’s fatness affects any other health issues they may have.
And we’re confidently assured by the Scottish Government that Brexit will cost the Scottish economy the very specific sum of £9bn, even though we still have no idea what Brexit is going to look like and whether there’s going to be a deal or not.
We’re told that policing football matches in Scotland costs around £2m a year, even though police get fixed salaries and football matches are a normal part of their duties that they don’t get paid separately for.
We somehow know that the value of Gaelic to the Scottish economy is between £82m and £149m a year, although there is in fact no conceivable way of directly attributing almost any economic activity (other than teaching it) to the presence of the language.
We “know” that mental health problems cost the Scottish economy almost £11bn a year even though, yet again, there is no meaningful way to accurately attribute a financial cost to such a broad and nebulous concept, or to determine how much of a contributing factor it might be in other illnesses.
And we’re informed that “gender inequality” costs the Scottish economy a breathtaking £17bn a year, in largely unspecified ways.
And so on and so forth. We live in a world where anything and everything has a price ticket attached for the sake of punchy headlines, and yet the relatively straightforward matter of estimating how many person-hours were spent on cooking up and enacting a legislative process designed to frame one man is apparently completely impossible to unpick, even though every civil servant involved – except Leslie Evans, it seems – kept notes and diaries of what they were doing and when, and even though lawyers are the one category of workers who DO bill for specific hours spent on specific tasks.
It’s almost as if Ms Evans knows she’s bulletproof and can treat the inquiry with total contempt, certain that the First Minister – pretty much the only human in Scotland who thinks Evans is still up to the job – won’t sack her no matter what.
We can understand why readers might wonder what the reason for that could be.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-17--Cracks in the fog

Cracks in the fog

Over the last year or so , this site ’ s commentary on matters surrounding the attempted imprisonment of Alex Salmond over false allegations of sexual abuse has attracted a considerable amount of ire from a section of the readership , demanding “ proof ” of the involvement of the current First Minister .
Such proof has been impossible to provide for legal reasons .
But it ’ s always been the case that the truth could only be suppressed for so long , and events in recent days have brought the first chinks of light through the wall of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been attempting to surround the matter with .
So in our very lightest and softest shoes , let ’ s tiptoe through what is both a labyrinth and a minefield and see if we can make some of it a little easier to understand .
The Daily Record ’ s front page today brings into the public eye , via an anonymous leak to Kenny MacAskill , material we ’ ve been aware of for some time , in which the SNP ’ s chief executive Peter Murrell and its chief operating officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WhatsApp group shared with several of Salmond ’ s accusers – how they can put pressure on Police Scotland to prosecute Mr Salmond and how they want him to be attacked on as many fronts as possible .
It ought to go without saying how massively improper it would be for a high-ranking official in the party of government to ever be attempting to influence a serious police investigation in such a manner .
It would also be , let ’ s say , remarkable if they were to do so without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially if that also happened to be their wife .
Mr Murrell recently told the Parliamentary inquiry that when Nicola Sturgeon met with a senior adviser and Alex Salmond to discuss the affair at Sturgeon and Murrell ’ s home in Glasgow in April 2018 , Murrell was not present and had no idea what the discussion was about , because it was a government matter not a party one , and therefore none of his business .
Yet last year Sturgeon had insisted that the meeting was NOT government business but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if true would make it quite incredible for the party ’ s chief executive to be excluded and then not informed for several months .
So unless there ’ s some sort of cataclysmic private war going on between Murrell and Sturgeon , well , readers can draw their own conclusions .
Interestingly , Craig Murray recently asked the Crown Office for copies of the messages between Murrell and Ruddick as part of his defence in his impending trial for contempt of court .
We know this because he published the full exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was one of the items requested : And this was the blanket refusal he received : But the Crown Office went further .
In July , Kenny MacAskill had asked it if it had any evidence or knowledge of any attempt by Peter Murrell to influence Police Scotland either directly or indirectly with regard to the investigation .
To which the Crown Office replied that it did not .
This seems , on the face of it , to be a direct and unequivocal lie .
If the story in today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s say that we must assume their lawyers are satisfied with it to have made it the front page lead – then the Crown Office definitely DID know about the Murrell/Ruddick messages , and had them in its possession at all times , and yet has seemingly told a Member Of Parliament that the messages did not exist .
Readers can only speculate about why the Crown Office , which is a department of and at least theoretically answerable to the Scottish Government , might lie to a Scottish MP about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service they were doing so .
Also in the last few days , a seemingly very confusing story has appeared regarding the release of documents to the inquiry .
On Saturday the Daily Record ran a surprising piece saying that Alex Salmond had blocked certain documents that the Scottish Government had wanted to give the inquiry , suggesting that this was hypocritical on Salmond ’ s part given his previous calls for transparency .
On Tuesday the Herald ran a much longer story on Salmond ’ s response .
Stripped of long screeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events revealed : 1 .
The Scottish Government undertook an unlawful and biased inquiry into the allegations against Mr Salmond , producing a report .
It admitted this when he took them to court over it , and the Scottish Government conceded the case before any information about the report and how it was produced became public , paying over £500,000 towards his legal bills .
2 .
The court “ reduced ” the report in question , a legal term meaning that it was to effectively be stricken from the record and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to anyone because it was not trustworthy .
3 .
Last month the Scottish Government attempted to give the biased and unlawful report to the Parliamentary inquiry anyway , from which its contents might become public , despite having promised the court it would not do so .
4 .
As the Scottish Government would have known for certain would then happen , Salmond ’ s lawyers properly reminded them of their obligations , in a letter marked “ PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL ” , noting that the release of the report would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial inquiry and committing contempt of court .
5 .
Someone in the Scottish Government – the only lawful recipients of the letter – then selectively and illegally leaked that private and confidential letter to the Daily Record for the purposes of smearing Salmond as a hypocrite .
We ’ re sure that for the diehard loyalist supporters of the current SNP leadership , all of these facts will be brushed away as hearsay and tittle-tattle and the work of Unionist MI5 plants in the Yes movement and whatever .
It is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sustain with every day that passes .
The Scottish Government has done everything possible to hide this entire affair behind a veil of silence .
But silence , readers , is a fragile thing .
One loud noise and it ’ s gone .

Over the last year or so, this site’s commentary on matters surrounding the attempted imprisonment of Alex Salmond over false allegations of sexual abuse has attracted a considerable amount of ire from a section of the readership, demanding “proof” of the involvement of the current First Minister.
Such proof has been impossible to provide for legal reasons. But it’s always been the case that the truth could only be suppressed for so long, and events in recent days have brought the first chinks of light through the wall of smoke and mirrors the Scottish Government has been attempting to surround the matter with.
So in our very lightest and softest shoes, let’s tiptoe through what is both a labyrinth and a minefield and see if we can make some of it a little easier to understand.
The Daily Record’s front page today brings into the public eye, via an anonymous leak to Kenny MacAskill, material we’ve been aware of for some time, in which the SNP’s chief executive Peter Murrell and its chief operating officer Sue Ruddick discuss – in the private WhatsApp group shared with several of Salmond’s accusers – how they can put pressure on Police Scotland to prosecute Mr Salmond and how they want him to be attacked on as many fronts as possible.
It ought to go without saying how massively improper it would be for a high-ranking official in the party of government to ever be attempting to influence a serious police investigation in such a manner.
It would also be, let’s say, remarkable if they were to do so without the knowledge and approval of the party leader, especially if that also happened to be their wife.
Mr Murrell recently told the Parliamentary inquiry that when Nicola Sturgeon met with a senior adviser and Alex Salmond to discuss the affair at Sturgeon and Murrell’s home in Glasgow in April 2018, Murrell was not present and had no idea what the discussion was about, because it was a government matter not a party one, and therefore none of his business.
Yet last year Sturgeon had insisted that the meeting was NOT government business but “a party matter”, which if true would make it quite incredible for the party’s chief executive to be excluded and then not informed for several months.
(We know the meeting wasn’t treated as a government meeting, because even though Sturgeon’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd – a government employee rather than an SNP one – was present, no minutes were taken, which she would have been required to do if the meeting was government business.)
So unless there’s some sort of cataclysmic private war going on between Murrell and Sturgeon, well, readers can draw their own conclusions.
Interestingly, Craig Murray recently asked the Crown Office for copies of the messages between Murrell and Ruddick as part of his defence in his impending trial for contempt of court. We know this because he published the full exchange on his blog last month. This was one of the items requested:
And this was the blanket refusal he received:
But the Crown Office went further. In July, Kenny MacAskill had asked it if it had any evidence or knowledge of any attempt by Peter Murrell to influence Police Scotland either directly or indirectly with regard to the investigation.
To which the Crown Office replied that it did not.
This seems, on the face of it, to be a direct and unequivocal lie. If the story in today’s Daily Record is true – and let’s say that we must assume their lawyers are satisfied with it to have made it the front page lead – then the Crown Office definitely DID know about the Murrell/Ruddick messages, and had them in its possession at all times, and yet has seemingly told a Member Of Parliament that the messages did not exist.
(The best defence we can put forward for Lindsey Miller there is that she may be trying to use weasel words to say that Murrell ATTEMPTED to influence Police Scotland but did not SUCCEED in doing so, which would both be a highly questionable proposition in itself given subsequent events, and also clearly not an answer in either the letter or the spirit of the question.)
Readers can only speculate about why the Crown Office, which is a department of and at least theoretically answerable to the Scottish Government, might lie to a Scottish MP about a serious criminal matter, and in whose service they were doing so.
Also in the last few days, a seemingly very confusing story has appeared regarding the release of documents to the inquiry. On Saturday the Daily Record ran a surprising piece saying that Alex Salmond had blocked certain documents that the Scottish Government had wanted to give the inquiry, suggesting that this was hypocritical on Salmond’s part given his previous calls for transparency.
On Tuesday the Herald ran a much longer story on Salmond’s response.
Stripped of long screeds of impenetrable legalese, these are the events revealed:
1. The Scottish Government undertook an unlawful and biased inquiry into the allegations against Mr Salmond, producing a report. It admitted this when he took them to court over it, and the Scottish Government conceded the case before any information about the report and how it was produced became public, paying over £500,000 towards his legal bills.
2. The court “reduced” the report in question, a legal term meaning that it was to effectively be stricken from the record and ruling that it must not be published to anyone because it was not trustworthy.
3. Last month the Scottish Government attempted to give the biased and unlawful report to the Parliamentary inquiry anyway, from which its contents might become public, despite having promised the court it would not do so. (The inquiry committee had NOT requested the report.)
4. The Scottish Government formally notified Alex Salmond of this move, in the certain knowledge that Salmond’s lawyers would properly remind them of their obligations not to release it, which they duly did in a letter marked “PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL”, noting that the release of the report would be in breach of the outcome of the judicial inquiry and be committing contempt of court.
5. Someone in the Scottish Government – the only lawful recipients of the letter – then selectively and illegally leaked that private and confidential letter to the Daily Record for the purposes of smearing Salmond as a hypocrite.
We’re sure that for the diehard loyalist supporters of the current SNP leadership, all of these facts will be brushed away as hearsay and tittle-tattle and the work of Unionist MI5 plants in the Yes movement and whatever. It is a position that is getting harder and harder to sustain with every day that passes.
The Scottish Government has done everything possible to hide this entire affair behind a veil of silence. But silence, readers, is a fragile thing. One loud noise and it’s gone.


The Hardest Walk

“ Settling up , not settling down ” was the rhetoric , as Westminster reconvened and the new SNP group headed south .
Fine words and said no doubt sincerely .
But it ’ s been said by every SNP generation that ’ s gone there , though none possessed the authority or faced the threats to Scottish democracy as now .
But what has happened since ?
As ever fine speeches given and incisive questioning of Ministers made , but to what effect ?
The first major debate was the Fisheries Bill .
A sore point in Scotland where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry and entire communities along with it decades ago , when negotiating EEC entry terms .
Now , two generations on , as another Tory administration seeks to implement Brexit , that industry and those communities face betrayal yet again .
An SNP amendment to delay consideration pending clarification on the outcome of the discussions was tabled .
Perfectly reasonable you might think in these tumultuous discussions between the UK and EU where no one , least of all the Prime Minister , know what might happen .
Instead that futile attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 326 votes to just 49 .
The onslaught on Scottish interests had only just begun , though .
It was followed almost immediately by the Internal Market Bill rolling back , not just undermining , the devolution settlement .
Showing scant respect to Scotland , even breaching binding international agreements signed by the UK and extolled by Boris Johnson .
Despite it being contrary to international law and condemned by every living former UK Premier , it was backed by a majority of 77 .
Confirmation , if that was ever required , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over by an oligarchy intent on delivering their agenda for a Singapore on Thames , irrespective of the consequences .
An SNP amendment was defeated as overwhelmingly as on fishing .
Confirmation that we ’ re not amongst friends and have few allies .
Moreover , ominously that there ’ s a majority in Westminster to deliver the Bill , undermining the Scottish Parliament that SNP Members are pledged to protect .
Will Westminster change ?
Of course , it won ’ t , it never has , and it never will .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliament and the SNP can ’ t even form the principal opposition given its lack of numbers .
Suggestion of being the “ real opposition ” was always naïve .
Even before December 2019 the situation had changed with English Votes for English Laws .
SNP members are destined to be in permanent opposition but equally relegated to second-class status .
Following that election where the Tories were victorious south of the Border but comprehensively defeated in Scotland , there was neither magnanimity given , nor respect shown .
The Scottish Affairs Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituencies .
Work done and recommendations made by that same committee , which would save lives lost to the drug addiction that blights our land , were contemptuously cast aside by the Tory government .
Whilst the barracking of the SNP leader has been toned down , the disrespect is as clear as ever .
And so , it will continue .
But the stakes have been raised and Scottish democracy ’ s now at risk .
How has the SNP responded ?
Well correctly by stating that it ’ s outrageous , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjective that there is .
But that understandable anger has been ignored , just as the outcome of the election was under a year ago .
The Scottish people won ’ t stand for it , it ’ s also stated .
But of course , they ’ ll have to endure it , because their elected representatives accept it , albeit begrudgingly .
For sure opinion polls both for the party and independence have never been more favourable .
But that has made no difference to Tory attitudes and the attacks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relentlessly .
The pain felt and dangers faced are only increasing .
So , when the Tories fail to respect Scottish rights and interests , why dutifully accept a responsibility to an institution that ’ s not only delivering that harm but undermining the ability to deliver our goal of independence .
Why defend devolution where you will always lose ?
Instead campaign for independence , where we can and must win .
What ’ s the point of sitting on committees discussing legislation you can not even vote upon ?
Or doping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected ?
And how many of those fine speeches or incisive questions are even seen ?
Fears of alienating the Speaker are fatuous – the contempt from that institution for us and its intentions for our country are clear .
For sure there ’ s times to attend , contributions to be made and votes to be cast .
But there ’ s also a stand to be made .
SNP MPs and their staff are a resource that should be focussed in Scotland , especially as the most critical election in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time has come to turn the rhetoric into reality and prepare to settle up , not settle down ?
Otherwise the danger is you ’ re legitimising not only your own demise , but that of our country .

“Settling up, not settling down” was the rhetoric, as Westminster reconvened and the new SNP group headed south. Fine words and said no doubt sincerely. But it’s been said by every SNP generation that’s gone there, though none possessed the authority or faced the threats to Scottish democracy as now.
But what has happened since? As ever fine speeches given and incisive questioning of Ministers made, but to what effect?
The first major debate was the Fisheries Bill. A sore point in Scotland where a Tory government sold out our fishing industry and entire communities along with it decades ago, when negotiating EEC entry terms. Now, two generations on, as another Tory administration seeks to implement Brexit, that industry and those communities face betrayal yet again.
An SNP amendment to delay consideration pending clarification on the outcome of the discussions was tabled. Perfectly reasonable you might think in these tumultuous discussions between the UK and EU where no one, least of all the Prime Minister, know what might happen. Instead that futile attempt to protect Scottish interests was comprehensively defeated by 326 votes to just 49.
The onslaught on Scottish interests had only just begun, though. It was followed almost immediately by the Internal Market Bill rolling back, not just undermining, the devolution settlement. Showing scant respect to Scotland, even breaching binding international agreements signed by the UK and extolled by Boris Johnson.
Despite it being contrary to international law and condemned by every living former UK Premier, it was backed by a majority of 77. Confirmation, if that was ever required, that this Tory government has been taken over by an oligarchy intent on delivering their agenda for a Singapore on Thames, irrespective of the consequences.
An SNP amendment was defeated as overwhelmingly as on fishing. Confirmation that we’re not amongst friends and have few allies. Moreover, ominously that there’s a majority in Westminster to deliver the Bill, undermining the Scottish Parliament that SNP Members are pledged to protect.
Will Westminster change? Of course, it won’t, it never has, and it never will. It’s not Scotland’s Parliament and the SNP can’t even form the principal opposition given its lack of numbers. Suggestion of being the “real opposition” was always naïve. Even before December 2019 the situation had changed with English Votes for English Laws. SNP members are destined to be in permanent opposition but equally relegated to second-class status.
Following that election where the Tories were victorious south of the Border but comprehensively defeated in Scotland, there was neither magnanimity given, nor respect shown. The Scottish Affairs Committee instead crammed with Tory placemen from English constituencies. Work done and recommendations made by that same committee, which would save lives lost to the drug addiction that blights our land, were contemptuously cast aside by the Tory government. Whilst the barracking of the SNP leader has been toned down, the disrespect is as clear as ever. And so, it will continue.
But the stakes have been raised and Scottish democracy’s now at risk. How has the SNP responded? Well correctly by stating that it’s outrageous, deplorable, despicable and almost every similar adjective that there is. But that understandable anger has been ignored, just as the outcome of the election was under a year ago.
The Scottish people won’t stand for it, it’s also stated. But of course, they’ll have to endure it, because their elected representatives accept it, albeit begrudgingly. For sure opinion polls both for the party and independence have never been more favourable. But that has made no difference to Tory attitudes and the attacks on Scottish democracy and Scottish interests have continued relentlessly. The pain felt and dangers faced are only increasing.
So, when the Tories fail to respect Scottish rights and interests, why dutifully accept a responsibility to an institution that’s not only delivering that harm but undermining the ability to deliver our goal of independence. Why defend devolution where you will always lose? Instead campaign for independence, where we can and must win.
What’s the point of sitting on committees discussing legislation you cannot even vote upon? Or doping excellent work when it’s routinely rejected? And how many of those fine speeches or incisive questions are even seen? Fears of alienating the Speaker are fatuous – the contempt from that institution for us and its intentions for our country are clear. For sure there’s times to attend, contributions to be made and votes to be cast. But there’s also a stand to be made.
SNP MPs and their staff are a resource that should be focussed in Scotland, especially as the most critical election in our nation’s history nears. Surely the time has come to turn the rhetoric into reality and prepare to settle up, not settle down? Otherwise the danger is you’re legitimising not only your own demise, but that of our country.


Six wasted years

Forgive us for not joining in the pointless and unusually muted hoopla about the latest indyref anniversary ( which for the first time we can recall , nobody has bothered to mark by commissioning an opinion poll ) .
We ’ re still thinking about the SNP ’ s treatment of the man who was chiefly responsible for securing the only independence referendum Scotland has ever had .
And of its utter abysmal failure for more than half a decade to come up with anything even remotely approaching a credible plan to get a second one .
Our previous offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any bet of any size from anyone against the proposition “ Boris Johnson will never grant Nicola Sturgeon a Section 30 order in the absence of some sort of court judgement legally compelling him to ” .
We ’ ve had no takers yet from the Sturgeon faithful .
We don ’ t expect any .
Every day that passes from now until the current SNP leadership is removed is another one wasted to add to the 2,191 that have been wasted from 19 September 2014 until today , achieving nothing .
Until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrate .

Forgive us for not joining in the pointless and unusually muted hoopla about the latest indyref anniversary (which for the first time we can recall, nobody has bothered to mark by commissioning an opinion poll).
We’re still thinking about the SNP’s treatment of the man who was chiefly responsible for securing the only independence referendum Scotland has ever had.
And of its utter abysmal failure for more than half a decade to come up with anything even remotely approaching a credible plan to get a second one.
Our previous offer remains open: we’ll take any bet of any size from anyone against the proposition “Boris Johnson will never grant Nicola Sturgeon a Section 30 order in the absence of some sort of court judgement legally compelling him to”.
We’ve had no takers yet from the Sturgeon faithful. We don’t expect any.
Every day that passes from now until the current SNP leadership is removed is another one wasted to add to the 2,191 that have been wasted from 19 September 2014 until today, achieving nothing. Until that tally ends we have nothing to celebrate.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-18--The Land Where Nobody Knows

The Land Where Nobody Knows

Readers may recall that this site is engaged in an ongoing attempt to clarify why the Scottish justice system is choosing to selectively only pursue those supportive of Alex Salmond for contempt of court with regard to his trial , while conspicuously turning a blind eye to those in the media who have committed exactly the same crime but are hostile to Mr Salmond and therefore apparently immune from prosecution .
During that investigation we received a reply from Police Scotland last month stating that contempt of court is in fact not a criminal offence in Scots law ( although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ) , and so is nothing to do with them , and that they only act in relation to contempt when instructed by the courts or the Crown Office .
So naturally we asked them if they had been so instructed .
Thank you for your response of 3 August 2020 .
Some issues arise from it which I hope you will be able to clarify .
“ Contempt of court is not a criminal offence known to the law of Scotland .
However , it is an offence and , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the court itself to punish it under its powers to take effective action to vindicate its authority and preserve the due and impartial administration of justice .
Legally , a complaint of contempt is brought by the courts ( a Judge , Defence or the Crown ) .
Where the Crown considers that a person or media organisation has acted in contempt of court they may , by petitioning the court , refer the matter to the court for the court to deal with .
Therefore , section 17 of the above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not held.
” However , I also note that in a reply to Kenny MacAskill MP on 29 May 2020 , the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS ) said the following : “ COPFS does not keep specific records in this regard but I can confirm that to date nine people have been spoken to by the Police in relation to publications during and after the case against Mr Salmond .
Not all of these persons were warned by Police Scotland but they were advised why they were being spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warning .
COPFS instructed Police Scotland in all of these investigations.
” This appears to directly contradict your suggestion that Police Scotland does not involve itself in matters of contempt of court , and indicates that Police Scotland does in fact do so where instructed by COPFS .
Please therefore answer the following question : Did COPFS instruct Police Scotland to conduct any investigation into , or communicate in any way with , any of the people identified in my original FOI request – namely Kieran Andrews , Steve Bird , Severin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dani Garavelli , Paul Hutcheon , Magnus Linklater , Izzy Lyons and Dave Mackay ?
And if so , how many/which of them were among the nine people referenced by COPFS in their response to Mr MacAskill ?
We ’ ve just had the reply , and it ’ s quite grumpy .
The line about not naming the people concerned in the response is weird – none of them are protected by any sort of anonymity order , and they ’ re all journalists whose names are prominently displayed on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are and what they wrote .
There is no issue of “ privacy ” or “ personal data ” here .
Indeed , we already know from the Crown Office that it did not communicate directly with any of the Garavelli Ten to discuss whether their articles committed contempt .
But now Police Scotland is flatly and for no discernible good reason refusing to tell us whether it did so on the Crown Office ’ s behalf or instruction – which is more than a little suspicious , given that we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to/warned nine supporters of Alex Salmond .
The supposed privacy objections are obviously particularly spurious considering that the Crown Office had no problems answering the exact same question .
So if you ’ re having some trouble keeping up with this tangled tale : we still don ’ t know whether the forces of Scottish law and order bothered with even the most cursory of investigations into blatant contempt of court being committed by half of Scotland ’ s newspapers , with combined readerships in the hundreds of thousands , but we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit a number of Salmond-supporting Twitter users with followers in the dozens , and a blogger who ’ s being dragged to court and threatened with two years in prison for allegedly doing the same thing .
And for some reason Police Scotland is happy to confirm that it did the latter , but bluntly refuses to tell the public whether it did the former .
We ’ ll keep fighting , readers , to find out why law in Scotland seemingly only applies to certain people , dependent on their political affiliations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take a fair while yet to get to the bottom of it .

Readers may recall that this site is engaged in an ongoing attempt to clarify why the Scottish justice system is choosing to selectively only pursue those supportive of Alex Salmond for contempt of court with regard to his trial, while conspicuously turning a blind eye to those in the media who have committed exactly the same crime but are hostile to Mr Salmond and therefore apparently immune from prosecution.
During that investigation we received a reply from Police Scotland last month stating that contempt of court is in fact not a criminal offence in Scots law (although you can be tried and imprisoned for it), and so is nothing to do with them, and that they only act in relation to contempt when instructed by the courts or the Crown Office.
So naturally we asked them if they had been so instructed.
TO: POLICE SCOTLAND Thank you for your response of 3 August 2020. Some issues arise from it which I hope you will be able to clarify. (1) You stated: “Contempt of court is not a criminal offence known to the law of Scotland. However, it is an offence and, where it occurs, it is the responsibility of the court itself to punish it under its powers to take effective action to vindicate its authority and preserve the due and impartial administration of justice. Legally, a complaint of contempt is brought by the courts (a Judge, Defence or the Crown). Where the Crown considers that a person or media organisation has acted in contempt of court they may, by petitioning the court, refer the matter to the court for the court to deal with. Therefore, section 17 of the above act applies, notice that information is not held.” However, I also note that in a reply to Kenny MacAskill MP on 29 May 2020, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said the following: “COPFS does not keep specific records in this regard but I can confirm that to date nine people have been spoken to by the Police in relation to publications during and after the case against Mr Salmond. Not all of these persons were warned by Police Scotland but they were advised why they were being spoken to and may have perceived this as a warning. COPFS instructed Police Scotland in all of these investigations.” This appears to directly contradict your suggestion that Police Scotland does not involve itself in matters of contempt of court, and indicates that Police Scotland does in fact do so where instructed by COPFS. Please therefore answer the following question: Did COPFS instruct Police Scotland to conduct any investigation into, or communicate in any way with, any of the people identified in my original FOI request – namely Kieran Andrews, Steve Bird, Severin Carrell, Mure Dickie, Kenny Farquharson, Dani Garavelli, Paul Hutcheon, Magnus Linklater, Izzy Lyons and Dave Mackay? And if so, how many/which of them were among the nine people referenced by COPFS in their response to Mr MacAskill?
We’ve just had the reply, and it’s quite grumpy.
The line about not naming the people concerned in the response is weird – none of them are protected by any sort of anonymity order, and they’re all journalists whose names are prominently displayed on the articles in question. Everyone knows who they are and what they wrote. There is no issue of “privacy” or “personal data” here.
Indeed, we already know from the Crown Office that it did not communicate directly with any of the Garavelli Ten to discuss whether their articles committed contempt. But now Police Scotland is flatly and for no discernible good reason refusing to tell us whether it did so on the Crown Office’s behalf or instruction – which is more than a little suspicious, given that we know it DID disclose that it had spoken to/warned nine supporters of Alex Salmond.
The supposed privacy objections are obviously particularly spurious considering that the Crown Office had no problems answering the exact same question.
(The COPFS response also happily answered on behalf of a third party, which is another of Police Scotland’s supposed objections in this reply.)
So if you’re having some trouble keeping up with this tangled tale: we still aren’t allowed to know whether the forces of Scottish law and order bothered with even the most cursory of investigations into blatant contempt of court being committed by half of Scotland’s newspapers, with combined readerships in the hundreds of thousands, but we know they DID take the trouble to personally visit a number of Salmond-supporting Twitter users with followers in the dozens, and a blogger who’s being dragged to court and threatened with two years in prison for allegedly doing the same thing.
And for some reason Police Scotland is happy to confirm that it did the latter, but bluntly refuses to tell the public whether it did the former.
We’ll keep fighting, readers, to find out why law in Scotland seemingly only applies to certain people, dependent on their political affiliations. We suspect it’s going to take a fair while yet to get to the bottom of it.


wingsoverscotland--2020-09-19--The people in the room

The people in the room

Whichever side you ’ re on , it ’ s simply observably true that the Scottish Government is doing everything in its power to obstruct , delay and derail the Parliamentary inquiry into its botched investigation of false allegations against Alex Salmond .
Any investigative journalist attempting to get to the bottom of the subject and find out what really happened is met with a wall of secrecy and misinformation while trying to navigate their way through the publicly-available information , and just to give you some idea of what it ’ s like , we ’ d like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s an undisputed matter of agreed fact that a meeting took place on 2 April 2018 at the private home of Nicola Sturgeon in order to discuss the allegations about Mr Salmond .
Unfortunately , that ’ s where the undisputed facts run out .
Because we don ’ t even know who was in the room at that meeting , far less any details of what was said .
From various public accounts we ’ re told completely contradictory things that can not be reconciled with each other .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
According to Alex Salmond ’ s friend and former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein , the only people in the room were Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond .
He told us this very explicitly and unmistakably in a statement he issued on 15 January 2019 : That ’ s a pretty unambiguous statement .
However , it ’ s contradicted by a report in the Telegraph from the same day , which claims that Nicola Sturgeon ’ s chief of staff Liz Lloyd was also in the room along with Salmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so must be regarded with some suspicion .
And the First Minister herself had given Parliament yet another different account of the inhabitants of the room five days earlier : This representative could have been either Mr Aberdein or Mr Hamilton , who is a lawyer .
It could also be the case that it was both of them , since neither a singular nor a plural is used to describe whoever was doing the representing .
But Mr Aberdein was very clear that neither of them were , creating the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a representative of Mr Salmond while Mr Aberdein and Mr Hamilton waited in another room , either with or without Liz Lloyd .
So remarkably , we have SEVEN different possibilities for who was present at the meeting , none of which can be definitely ruled out : But any one of the seven does inescapably mean that either Nicola Sturgeon or Geoff Aberdein isn ’ t telling the truth .
Their accounts can not both be true .
Liz Lloyd was either in the room ( Sturgeon ) or she wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she isn ’ t Schrödinger ’ s Chief Of Staff , she can ’ t have been both there and not there at the same time .
Frankly , we know who we believe .
But the killer fact is that who exactly was at this meeting other than Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond is a completely trivial detail .
It really doesn ’ t make any difference to anything whether Aberdein , Hamilton or Lloyd were in the room or not , or whether it was a government meeting or a party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually FOURTEEN different accounts of it , not seven ) .
The only significance of the 2 April meeting is whether Sturgeon lied to Parliament about it being the first time she ’ d heard of the allegations ( because we know she had a meeting with Aberdein and one of the accusers four days earlier , and we must presume it wasn ’ t to chat about the weather or the state of the Hibs midfield ) .
But in respect of her lying to Parliament ( which is far beyond any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds whether Aberdein , Hamilton or Lloyd were present on 2 April or not , or indeed whether it was a government meeting or a party one .
The only relevant aspect is that Salmond was there and that he told Sturgeon about the allegations ( whether she already knew about them or not ) , and nobody disputes either of those things .
So what we have is a situation where even a fact that ’ s of no material importance whatsoever to anything is completely mired in a web of mystery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very best of luck in finding out about the stuff that actually matters .

Whichever side you’re on, it’s simply observably true that the Scottish Government is doing everything in its power to obstruct, delay and derail the Parliamentary inquiry into its ruinously botched investigation of false allegations against Alex Salmond.
Any investigative journalist attempting to get to the bottom of the subject and find out what really happened is met with a wall of secrecy and misinformation while trying to navigate their way through the publicly-available information, and just to give you some idea of what it’s like, we’d like to offer you one tiny but typical example.
It’s an undisputed matter of agreed fact that a meeting took place on 2 April 2018 at the private home of Nicola Sturgeon in order to discuss the allegations about Mr Salmond. Unfortunately, that’s where the undisputed facts run out.
Because we don’t even know who was in the room at that meeting, far less any details of what was said. From various public accounts we’re told completely contradictory things that cannot be reconciled with each other. Let’s go through some of them.
According to Alex Salmond’s friend and former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein, the only people in the room were Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond. He told us this very explicitly and unmistakably in a statement he issued on 15 January 2019:
That’s a pretty unambiguous statement. However, it’s contradicted by a report in the Telegraph from the same day, which claims that Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd was also in the room along with Salmond and Sturgeon:
This account is unattributed, so must be regarded with some suspicion. And the First Minister herself had given Parliament yet another different account of the inhabitants of the room five days earlier:
This representative could have been either Mr Aberdein or Mr Hamilton, who is a lawyer. It could also be the case that it was both of them, since neither a singular nor a plural is used to describe whoever was doing the representing.
But Mr Aberdein was very clear that neither of them were, creating the possibility of another unknown person who was acting as a representative of Mr Salmond while Mr Aberdein and Mr Hamilton waited in another room, either with or without Liz Lloyd.
(The Scottish Government has already refused two separate Freedom Of Information requests for Lloyd’s business diary details on 2 April 2018. All we’ve been allowed to know for sure about her day is that she spent £9.30 on newspapers at Tesco.)
So remarkably, we have SEVEN different possibilities for who was present at the meeting, none of which can be definitely ruled out:
(1) Only Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond.
(According to Geoff Aberdein.)
(2) Sturgeon, Salmond and Liz Lloyd.
(According to the Telegraph, contradicting Geoff Aberdein’s statement.)
(3) Sturgeon, Salmond, Lloyd and Geoff Aberdein.
(According to one interpretation of Nicola Sturgeon’s statement to Parliament, but contradicting Geoff Aberdein’s statement.)
(4) Sturgeon, Salmond, Lloyd and Duncan Hamilton.
(According to another interpretation of Nicola Sturgeon’s statement, but again contradicting Geoff Aberdein’s statement.)
(5) Sturgeon, Salmond, Lloyd, Aberdein and Hamilton.
(According to yet another interpretation of Nicola Sturgeon’s statement, but still contradicting Geoff Aberdein’s statement.)
(6) Sturgeon, Salmond, Lloyd and an unnamed person representing Salmond who was neither Aberdein nor Hamilton.
(According to still another interpretation of Nicola Sturgeon’s statement, but again contradicting Geoff Aberdein’s statement.)
(7) Sturgeon, Salmond and the unnamed person representing Salmond.
(This would partly conflict with Nicola Sturgeon’s statement – by excluding Liz Lloyd – but not with Geoff Aberdein’s, although it’s an explanation nobody has actually put forward until we did it just now.)
But any one of the seven does inescapably mean that either Nicola Sturgeon or Geoff Aberdein isn’t telling the truth. Their accounts cannot both be true. Liz Lloyd was either in the room when Sturgeon was told about the allegations (Sturgeon) or she wasn’t (Aberdein). Since she isn’t Schrödinger’s Chief Of Staff, she can’t have been both there and not there at the same time.
(Although it would admittedly be quite appropriate if she was, because this was already Schrödinger’s Meeting – it was both a government one and a party one, depending on whether you ask Nicola Sturgeon or her husband.)
Frankly, we know who we believe. But the killer fact is that who exactly was at this meeting other than Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond is a completely trivial detail. It really doesn’t make any difference to anything whether Aberdein, Hamilton or Lloyd were in the room or not, or whether it was a government meeting or a party one (which technically means there are actually FOURTEEN different accounts of it, not seven).
The only significance of the 2 April meeting is whether Sturgeon lied to Parliament about it being the first time she’d heard of the allegations, because we know she had a meeting with Aberdein and one of the accusers four days earlier, and we must presume it wasn’t to chat about the weather or the state of the Hibs midfield.
(Several FOI responses have made absolutely clear that Sturgeon claims not to have known about the allegations before 2 April, and the Scottish Government claimed as recently as last month to have no official record of her meeting Geoff Aberdein on 29 March, but has subsequently admitted that she did, while, er, somewhat implausibly denying that the Salmond affair was discussed. Even though the meeting took place in her Holyrood office, it does not appear in her official diary, which all meetings on Scottish Government premises are supposed to.)
But in respect of her lying to Parliament (which is far beyond any credible doubt), it makes no odds whether Aberdein, Hamilton or Lloyd were present on 2 April or not, or indeed whether it was a government meeting or a party one. The only relevant aspect is that Salmond was there and that he told Sturgeon about the allegations (whether she already knew about them or not), and nobody disputes either of those things.
So what we have is a situation where even a fact that’s of no material importance whatsoever to anything is completely mired in a web of mystery and deceit. We wish the committee the very best of luck in finding out about the stuff that actually matters.


Testing times


Liars gonna lie

Last night on social media a few people raised a semi-interested eyebrow at Scotland On Sunday ’ s front-page , and wondered if the suspiciously unattributed lead story might be something balanced and worthwhile , or if it ’ d be by Dani Garavelli again .
We have sad news to relate .
It is , of course , Garavelli again , and it has all the painstaking commitment to fairness and accuracy that we ’ ve come to expect of her .
It only takes five paragraphs to come up with the first outright lie : Alex Salmond hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SINGLE document that the committee has asked for .
His sole intervention was to remind the Scottish Government not to commit contempt of court by submitting a document that the inquiry had NOT asked for and which had been expressly banned by Lord Pentland from being made public after the judicial inquiry into the Scottish Government ’ s botched investigation .
Nor has Salmond “ allegedly ” “ leaked ” anything to the press .
This too is a simple lie .
The only leak that ’ s come from anyone but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages from SNP chief executive Peter Murrell , which were given to SNP MP Kenny MacAskill and who promptly , publicly and quite properly passed them to the appropriate authorities for investigation .
Garavelli continues to lie about the banned documents : The sole document in question – the biased and unlawful report into the allegations – does not involve “ data protection issues ” .
The issue with it is that a court has ordered it must not be published because it ’ s biased and unlawful .
All Salmond did was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obey the order , upon which it immediately leaked his letter to the press as an attempted attack .
There has certainly been a long catalogue of obstructions and evasions placed in the inquiry ’ s path , and Garavelli grudgingly reports some of them later in the piece .
But the plainly evident truth is that ALL of them have been placed by the Scottish Government .
Alex Salmond , quite understandably , wants everything about the shambolic , malicious , incompetent and disgraceful conspiracy against him revealed after being put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruin despite winning the initial judicial inquiry and then being cleared of any wrongdoing by a judge and jury , and yet still being subject to endless smears and innuendo by a press desperate to portray him as a guilty man who got away with it .
Garavelli ’ s evident hatred of the former First Minister leaves her pathologically unable to confront that reality , and instead present a bogus “ both sides at fault ” narrative that will be painfully familiar to observers of Scottish politics since 2011 .
We only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would surprise us .

Last night on social media a few people raised a semi-interested eyebrow at Scotland On Sunday’s front page, and wondered if the suspiciously unattributed lead story might be something balanced and worthwhile, or if it’d be by Dani Garavelli again.
We have sad news to relate.
It is, of course, Garavelli again, and it has all the painstaking commitment to fairness and accuracy that we’ve come to expect of her.
It only takes five paragraphs to come up with the first outright lie:
Alex Salmond hasn’t refused to hand over a SINGLE document that the committee has asked for. His sole intervention was to remind the Scottish Government not to commit contempt of court by submitting a document that the inquiry had NOT asked for and which had been expressly banned by Lord Pentland from being made public after the judicial inquiry into the Scottish Government’s botched investigation.
Nor has Salmond “allegedly” “leaked” anything to the press. This too is a simple lie. The only leak that’s come from anyone but the Scottish Government was that of some text messages from SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, which were given to SNP MP Kenny MacAskill and who promptly, publicly and quite properly passed them to the appropriate authorities for investigation.
Garavelli continues to lie about the banned documents:
The sole document in question – the biased and unlawful report into the allegations – does not involve “data protection issues”. The issue with it is that a court has ordered it must not be published because it’s biased and unlawful. All Salmond did was remind the Scottish Government of its obligation to obey the order, upon which it immediately leaked his letter to the press as an attempted attack.
(Garavelli oddly appears to believe that Salmond himself, who’s already hundreds of thousands of pounds out of pocket for defending his innocence, ought to foot the bill for forcing the Scottish Government to provide the documents the inquiry DOES want. Readers may recall that she also regarded his partial crowdfunding of his defence in the judicial inquiry as an act of intimidation.)
There has certainly been a long catalogue of obstructions and evasions placed in the inquiry’s path, and Garavelli grudgingly reports some of them later in the piece. But the plainly evident truth is that ALL of them have been placed by the Scottish Government.
Alex Salmond, quite understandably, wants everything about the shambolic, malicious, incompetent and disgraceful conspiracy against him revealed after being put through two years of torment and financial ruin despite winning the initial judicial inquiry and then being cleared of any wrongdoing by a judge and jury, and yet still being subject to endless smears and innuendo by a press desperate to portray him as a guilty man who got away with it.
(Probably because they’re all too aware that he can no longer afford to embark on a long string of expensive defamation cases.)
Garavelli’s evident hatred of the former First Minister leaves her pathologically unable to confront that reality, and instead present a bogus “both sides at fault” narrative that will be painfully familiar to observers of Scottish politics since 2011. We only wish that just once the Scottish media would surprise us.


The dodgy dozen

Following up this morning ’ s article , we ’ ve been trawling through the Publications/FOI section of the Scottish Government website to see which other articles might be being hidden from its search function .
We found quite a few , and you ’ re never going to guess what the common factor in all of them is .
We ’ ve given you a wee clue with that picture , though .
We ’ ve located 12 FOI responses so far on the site that are mysteriously completely invisible to the search function if you search for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number which are related to the Salmond inquiry is… 12 .
In each case we tracked down a response ( by a variety of methods ) , and then went back and searched for what we thought would be a relatively distinctive piece of text from its first couple of paragraphs .
In every case there were either no results returned at all , or the page we ’ d just read was not one of the results we were given .
In addition to the two examples in the earlier piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve found these 10 so far .
In each case click on the first image for the response and the second image for the search result .
It ’ s not about the search syntax , because we searched single words and phrases , with and without quotemarks , with and without specifying FOI releases , case-sensitive and non-sensitive .
It made no difference .
And it ’ s an issue that ONLY seems to affect documents related to the Salmond inquiry .
We tested a bunch of others at random @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word or phrase we searched for immediately and quite properly brought up the document we ’ d taken it from , as in the example below .
These results – a 100 % search failure rate for Salmond-related documents and a 0 % rate for any other kind – are light-years past any coincidence .
They clearly represent a deliberate attempt to bury documents relating to the Salmond inquiry amongst five and a half thousand FOI responses and almost 17,000 documents in total , in order to as far as possible prevent people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fulfilled the legal obligation to publish them .
We ’ ve sent in another FOI request asking for an explanation .
We do hope that when it ’ s answered we ’ ll be able to find it .

Following up this morning’s article, we’ve been trawling through the Publications/FOI section of the Scottish Government website to see which other articles might be being hidden from its search function. We found quite a few, and you’re never going to guess what the common factor in all of them is.
We’ve given you a wee clue with that picture, though.
We’ve located 14 FOI responses so far on the site that are mysteriously completely invisible to the search function if you search for their text. Out of that 14, the number which are related to the Salmond inquiry is… 14.
In each case we tracked down a response (by a variety of methods), and then went back and searched for what we thought would be a relatively distinctive piece of text from its first couple of paragraphs. In every case there were either no results returned at all, or the page we’d just read was not one of the results we were given.
In addition to the two examples in the earlier piece (both involving Geoff Aberdein), we’ve found these 12 new ones. In each case click on the first image for the response and the second image for the search result.
It’s not about the search syntax, because we searched both single words and phrases, with and without quotemarks, with and without specifying FOI releases, case-sensitive and non-sensitive. It made no difference.
And it’s an issue that ONLY seems to affect documents related to the Salmond inquiry. We tested a bunch of others at random, and in every case the distinctive word or phrase we searched for immediately and quite properly brought up the document we’d taken it from, as in the examples below.
These results – a 100% search failure rate for Salmond-related documents and a 0% rate for any other kind – are light-years past any coincidence. They clearly represent a deliberate attempt to bury documents relating to the Salmond inquiry amongst five and a half thousand FOI responses and almost 17,000 documents in total, in order to as far as possible prevent people from reading them while still having technically fulfilled the legal obligation to publish them.
(Though we’re not entirely sure why they’d go to so much trouble, as nearly all of the responses refuse to actually answer any of the questions anyway.)
We’ve sent in another FOI request asking for an explanation. We do hope that when it’s answered we’ll be able to find it.