None so blind

A column on a Sturgeon-loyalist indy website that we read yesterday has been mildly annoying us ever since , and in the interests of open debate ( but mainly because it ’ s cold and grey and rainy outside and we can ’ t go out and feed the swans ) we thought it was worth taking half an hour to walk through it a little and explain just why it ’ s such a dangerous piece of fantasy nonsense .
But first here ’ s one of said swans .
She ’ s about five months old and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through .
Isn ’ t she lovely ?
In case things get a bit rough later we ’ ve got some squirrels and a really fat dachshund as emergency backup , so buckle in .
The column is plainly a response to an article we published on Monday , and it ran into an immediate problem in that the arguments actually made in our article are much too hard to dispute , so it had to construct a complete straw man to fight with instead .
This is of course complete tosh .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen with any sanity or audience – has advocated any such thing .
What we actually said on Monday was literally the exact opposite : The proposition being made by this site and many others is NOT “ we must overthrow the SNP and create a whole new party to replace them ” , but “ the SNP is broken at the top and must be fixed before next May ” .
So the entire premise of the column is complete bunk from the start , but we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of furiously battling that straw man , it audaciously accuses others of doing the same thing , and begins to lay out its own strategy .
This is a really weird stance , because even readers who are only dimly alert will be aware that the Scottish Government already HAS asked for a Section 30 , twice , and been flatly refused .
Ah , but apparently that doesn ’ t count : That sentence is key to the entire column , and it ’ s hard to overstate what complete and utter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Firstly , manifestos don ’ t actually count for anything .
They have no legal property or weight whatsoever , which is the reason every political party on Earth has a lengthy track record of failing to deliver its manifesto promises and of passing laws that were never in any manifesto .
They ’ re just advertising blurb for elections , and we learned more than eight years ago that politicians are literally exempt from advertising laws .
Using manifestos as a justification for prevarication and procrastination is , as Johann Lamont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distracting squirrel .
Secondly , a conditional mandate is in any case entirely valid if the conditions in it are met , which the ones in the SNP ’ s 2016 manifesto unequivocally were .
You also can not – staggeringly obviously – somehow negate a Scottish Parliament mandate with the result of a UK Parliament election ( especially when despite losses you actually still won that election handsomely in Scotland , securing 60 % of MPs ) .
The 2016 Scottish Parliament was completely unaffected by the result of the 2017 UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , plainly , therefore also unaffected .
But thirdly , and the most importantly , the thing that DOES count in any parliamentary democracy – the ONLY thing , regardless of what any manifesto or mandate might say – is votes of the parliament in question .
The Scottish Parliament is the properly ( and proportionately ) elected representative body of the people of Scotland , and that parliament has already voted twice for a second referendum , and been refused .
There would exist no material , practical or meaningful difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Scottish Parliament has already passed in favour of a second indyref and a notional third such vote based on an unconditional manifesto or manifestos .
In a parliamentary democracy , a vote is a vote .
There are no votes with special gold stars attached that make them worth more .
You either win the vote or you don ’ t .
It ’ s plain and simple arithmetic .
The third vote would have no more legal force than the first two did ( which is to say , none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questionable proposal that it would have any more moral force , it ’ s a very stupid person indeed who still believes that Boris Johnson ’ s actions are in any way , or have ever been , governed by morality .
But what if they were ?
The paragraph above is yet more complete drivel .
As we ’ ve explored in some detail previously , Johnson absolutely DOES have both the moral and political right to refuse .
He has the political right because Westminster – as Nicola Sturgeon never tires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ illegal ” vote – is sovereign over Holyrood , and he controls Westminster .
And he has the moral right because he stood for election just nine months ago on an unambiguous manifesto pledge of refusal , and he won a clear majority in the UK parliament on that manifesto .
We can not lay claim to morality on the basis of exceptionalism .
Johnson has a moral and political right to refuse , just as Scotland has a moral and political right to demand , and both sides ’ rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can not say “ our manifestos and mandates count but theirs don ’ t ” and expect anyone , let alone the international community , to take you seriously .
Those competing rights represent an irresistible force and an immovable object , and you don ’ t shift an immovable object by sulking and stamping your feet and shouting at it that it has no right to be immovable .
You have to act .
And what definitely won ’ t work is putting your cart in front of your horse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a painfully naive , stupid and simply empirically wrong argument .
The legitimacy and value of a mandate is completely unaffected by your odds of winning a vote based on it .
The mandate stands or falls on its own merit .
The mandate and the vote are entirely separate things .
You can ’ t win a referendum you never hold , so the point of the exercise is to get to hold it .
Winning it is what campaigns are for .
The reason we haven ’ t had a referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to hold it , it ’ s because we were UNABLE to .
The only focus of the Yes movement right now must be to secure the right to vote in the first place .
Winning it comes after .
The rest of the column just repeats the same nonsense over and over , presumably in the hope of bludgeoning the reader into submission with repetition .
We HAVE asked .
We asked formally , politely , with the official backing of Parliament , twice .
The answer was no .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in international diplomacy .
The UK government has already made its position absolutely crystal clear and simply repeating the question won ’ t score us any extra points .
As the famous saying goes : the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results .
Of course , there ’ s always straight-up denial : A few outlier pieces from bored pundits with column inches to fill does not equate to government policy planning .
We ’ d respect the column ’ s assertion a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author had outlined a single meaningful consequence to the UK government of continuing to refuse .
But he hasn ’ t , and he won ’ t , because there are none .
Boris Johnson – and anyone who might succeed him were he to somehow be deposed before the next UK election is due in 2024 – has a comfortable majority , and in any event has the full backing of the UK opposition parties on this matter .
All the SNP have to threaten him with is more sulking and shouting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades of practice at putting up with that .
The only time it has ever conceded anything in the face of it was in 2011 , because David Cameron was absolutely certain he would win a referendum ( and as it turned out he was right , though not nearly as comfortably as he hoped ) , so he could afford to look magnanimous and democratic .
Boris Johnson , on the other hand , knows that he would almost certainly be defeated this time , and so has no possible motivation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scotland to lose , other than an irrelevant handful of MPs who make no practical difference to his majority .
His poll ratings north of the border could scarcely be any more catastrophic than they are .
And if – as some especially delusional Yes supporters claim – he secretly WANTS to lose Scotland , and if Tory voters wouldn ’ t mind if he did ( for which there ’ s a bit of evidence , although it ’ d still make a huge dent in his domestic vote ) , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so by now and spare himself listening to any more Ian Blackford speeches .
But he hasn ’ t , so we must assume he doesn ’ t .
It ’ s profoundly depressing that a large section of the Yes movement still chooses to delude themselves with such a manifestly false prospectus .
There is no point at all in waiting for a third refusal .
Anything the 2021 election could possibly achieve in political terms is already the case now .
We already have a double mandate from the Scottish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempted fruitlessly for several years to obtain a Section 30 nicely .
We are already entitled to conduct the 2021 election as a plebiscitary one ( because any party can conduct an election on whatever premise it likes ) , and we ’ re already consistently ahead in the polls so we could reasonably expect to be successful if we did .
The argument for Plan A is deader than Monty Python ’ s infamous parrot , and anyone making it should have their motives seriously questioned , especially if they have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so .
But since we promised you a fat dachsund at the start , we ’ d like to end on a slightly more upbeat note by introducing Crumpet , who we met by the canal yesterday : She ’ s an absolute sweetheart , but she loves her biscuits and there is NO gap between her little furry tummy and the ground .
She ’ s not a fast mover , bless her .
Frankly , though , she ’ d probably still find us a way to independence sooner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can think of right now .

A column on a Sturgeon-loyalist indy website that we read yesterday has been mildly annoying us ever since, and in the interests of open debate (but mainly because it’s cold and grey and rainy outside and we can’t go out and feed the swans) we thought it was worth taking half an hour to walk through it a little and explain just why it’s such a dangerous piece of fantasy nonsense.
But first here’s one of said swans. She’s about five months old and her adult feathers are just starting to come through. Isn’t she lovely?
In case things get a bit rough later we’ve got some squirrels and a really fat dachshund as emergency backup, so buckle in.
The column is plainly a response to an article we published on Monday, and it ran into an immediate problem in that the arguments actually made in our article are much too hard to dispute, so it had to construct a complete straw man to fight with instead.
This is of course complete tosh. Absolutely nobody – or at least nobody we’ve seen with any sanity or audience – has advocated any such thing. What we actually said on Monday was literally the exact opposite:
The proposition being made by this site and many others is NOT “we must overthrow the SNP and create a whole new party to replace them”, but “the SNP is broken at the top and must be fixed before next May”.
So the entire premise of the column is complete bunk from the start, but we’ll let that slide. After several paragraphs of furiously battling that straw man, it audaciously accuses others of doing the same thing, and begins to lay out its own strategy.
This is a really weird stance, because even readers who are only dimly alert will be aware that the Scottish Government already HAS asked for a Section 30, twice, and been flatly refused. Ah, but apparently that doesn’t count:
That sentence is key to the entire column, and it’s hard to overstate what complete and utter tommyrot it is on every possible level.
Firstly, manifestos don’t actually count for anything. They have no legal property or weight whatsoever, which is the reason every political party on Earth has a lengthy track record of failing to deliver its manifesto promises and of passing laws that were never in any manifesto. They’re just advertising blurb for elections, and we learned more than eight years ago that politicians are literally exempt from advertising laws.
Using manifestos as a justification for prevarication and procrastination is, as Johann Lamont might have put it, just a distracting squirrel.
Secondly, a conditional mandate is in any case entirely valid if the conditions in it are met, which the ones in the SNP’s 2016 manifesto unequivocally were.
You also cannot – staggeringly obviously – somehow negate a Scottish Parliament mandate with the result of a UK Parliament election (especially when despite losses you actually still won that election handsomely in Scotland, securing 60% of MPs).
The 2016 Scottish Parliament was completely unaffected by the result of the 2017 UK election. Any mandate that it held was, plainly, therefore also unaffected.
But thirdly, and the most importantly, the thing that DOES count in any parliamentary democracy – the ONLY thing, regardless of what any manifesto or mandate might say – is votes of the parliament in question. The Scottish Parliament is the properly (and proportionately) elected representative body of the people of Scotland, and that parliament has already voted twice for a second referendum, and been refused.
There would exist no material, practical or meaningful difference of any sort between the two votes that the Scottish Parliament has already passed in favour of a second indyref and a notional third such vote based on an unconditional manifesto or manifestos. In a parliamentary democracy, a vote is a vote. There are no votes with special gold stars attached that make them worth more. You either win the vote or you don’t. It’s plain and simple arithmetic.
The third vote would have no more legal force than the first two did (which is to say, none), and even on the very questionable proposal that it would have any more moral force, it’s a very stupid person indeed who still believes that Boris Johnson’s actions are in any way, or have ever been, governed by morality.
But what if they were?
The paragraph above is yet more complete drivel. As we’ve explored in some detail previously, Johnson absolutely DOES have both the moral and political right to refuse.
He has the political right because Westminster – as Nicola Sturgeon never tires of reminding us by refusing to countenance an “illegal” vote – is sovereign over Holyrood, and he controls Westminster. And he has the moral right because he stood for election just nine months ago on an unambiguous manifesto pledge of refusal, and he won a clear majority in the UK parliament on that manifesto.
We cannot lay claim to morality on the basis of exceptionalism. Johnson has a moral and political right to refuse, just as Scotland has a moral and political right to demand, and both sides’ rights have a clear, legitimate democratic basis. You cannot say “our manifestos and mandates count but theirs don’t” and expect anyone, let alone the international community, to take you seriously.
(The SNP got 45% of Scottish votes in 2019, while the Tories got 44% of UK votes. It is farcically, embarrassingly absurd to try to claim that one of those figures constitutes an unimpeachable mandate but the other is worthless and invalid.)
Those competing rights represent an irresistible force and an immovable object, and you don’t shift an immovable object by sulking and stamping your feet and shouting at it that it has no right to be immovable. You have to act.
And what definitely won’t work is putting your cart in front of your horse.
This, once again, is a painfully naive, stupid and simply empirically wrong argument. The legitimacy and value of a mandate is completely unaffected by your odds of winning a vote based on it. The mandate stands or falls on its own merit. The mandate and the vote are entirely separate things.
You can’t win a referendum you never hold, so the point of the exercise is to get to hold it. Winning it is what campaigns are for. The reason we haven’t had a referendum yet isn’t because we CHOSE not to hold it, it’s because we were UNABLE to. The only focus of the Yes movement right now must be to secure the right to vote in the first place. Winning it comes after.
The rest of the column just repeats the same nonsense over and over, presumably in the hope of bludgeoning the reader into submission with repetition.
We HAVE asked. We asked formally, politely, with the official backing of Parliament, twice. The answer was no. There is no “three strikes” rule in international diplomacy. The UK government has already made its position absolutely crystal clear and simply repeating the question won’t score us any extra points.
As the famous saying goes: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Of course, there’s always straight-up denial:
A few outlier pieces from bored pundits with column inches to fill does not equate to government policy planning. We’d respect the column’s assertion a lot more if at ANY point its author had outlined a single meaningful consequence to the UK government of continuing to refuse. But he hasn’t, and he won’t, because there are none.
Boris Johnson – and anyone who might succeed him were he to somehow be deposed before the next UK election is due in 2024 – has a comfortable majority, and in any event has the full backing of the UK opposition parties on this matter. All the SNP have to threaten him with is more sulking and shouting, and the UK government has had decades of practice at putting up with that.
The only time it has ever conceded anything in the face of it was in 2011, because David Cameron was absolutely certain he would win a referendum (and as it turned out he was right, though not nearly as comfortably as he hoped), so he could afford to look magnanimous and democratic.
Boris Johnson, on the other hand, knows that he would almost certainly be defeated this time, and so has no possible motivation to give in. He has nothing in Scotland to lose, other than an irrelevant handful of MPs who make no practical difference to his majority. His poll ratings north of the border could scarcely be any more catastrophic than they are.
And if – as some especially delusional Yes supporters claim – he secretly WANTS to lose Scotland, and if Tory voters wouldn’t mind if he did (for which there’s a bit of evidence, although it’d still make a huge dent in his domestic vote), he could easily have found a way to do so by now and spare himself listening to any more Ian Blackford speeches. But he hasn’t, so we must assume he doesn’t.
It’s profoundly depressing that a large section of the Yes movement still chooses to delude themselves with such a manifestly false prospectus. There is no point at all in waiting for a third refusal. Anything the 2021 election could possibly achieve in political terms is already the case now.
We already have a double mandate from the Scottish Parliament, and we’ve already attempted fruitlessly for several years to obtain a Section 30 nicely. We are already entitled to conduct the 2021 election as a plebiscitary one (because any party can conduct an election on whatever premise it likes), and we’re already consistently ahead in the polls so we could reasonably expect to be successful if we did.
The argument for Plan A is deader than Monty Python’s infamous parrot, and anyone making it should have their motives seriously questioned, especially if they have to construct a whole farmful of straw men to do so.
But since we promised you a fat dachsund at the start, we’d like to end on a slightly more upbeat note by introducing Crumpet, who we met by the canal yesterday:
She’s an absolute sweetheart, but she loves her biscuits and there is NO gap between her little furry tummy and the ground. She’s not a fast mover, bless her.
Frankly, though, she’d probably still find us a way to independence sooner than any other small ginger dugs we can think of right now.


On no accounts

Having been privileged to serve as SNP National Treasurer , I ’ m aware of the duties that go with the post .
Of course , it ’ s changed in some ways since then due to the scale of the party , the resources available and even technology .
The days are long gone when Joan Knott , who has sadly since passed away , required to take a taxi down to my legal office to have cheques signed between court or clients .
But some things still remain fundamental , and in particular providing annual accounts for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , in the administrative sense , but what ’ s missing is their publication and provision either to the NEC or the party more widely .
For sure there ’ s been no conference but there are other bodies and other ways of making them available to party members .
At NEC , conference and indeed anywhere else , members were entitled to see them and question me .
It was their right to see them , and it remains so now .
So why haven ’ t they seen them ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial year has just concluded , for the party accounts are set on the calendar year .
As in my day the accountants need to prepare them and then discuss them with the National Treasurer .
Moreover , lockdown and coronavirus may have moderately impeded matters , but most will be dealt with by an electric exchange of information and meetings can be virtual .
So with the financial year having ended on 31 December 2019 , and as we ’ re now in October 2020 , it ’ s maybe about time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m led to believe that the National Treasurer has had them audited and concluded , even if there are aspects such as certain salaries that it appears he isn ’ t privy to .
Now , the party may be of a far larger scale than in my day , but there is something strange when the person in such a critical post is denied such relevant information .
But that ’ s a separate issue .
The accounts haven ’ t been shown to – let alone approved by – the NEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submitted to the Electoral Commission , as rules required them into that body by early July .
So , if they can have been lodged with a British state agency for months , why can ’ t members of the SNP have sight of them ?
I ’ ve asked the Business Convener for a copy and that they be provided to the Westminster MP group .
As appears to now be standard practice , I haven ’ t even had the courtesy of a reply .
Members pay their dues , elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t we see what ’ s done with our money ?
For many , though , the major interest will be funds that were contributed for the specific purpose of a referendum .
Assurances were given that those funds would be ring-fenced .
That may well be so , but it should still be confirmed and shown in the published accounts .
Trust requires it , and as the political temperature heats up , party funds will be critical .
An indication that the party has been fundraising , even during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight both an election and a referendum are available , is essential .
If they aren ’ t then questions need asked about just what has been going on in HQ .
The indications coming from declarations made to the Electoral Commission are far from heartening .
When support for the party and the cause of independence has never been greater , questions have to be asked about that .
But to do so the information in the accounts is required .
There are , though , already causes for concern that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where checking on the current situation will be imperative .
Indeed , questioning of the accounts will be essential .
Its estimated that the HQ wage bill will be around £1 million , understandable with a staff of just over 20 .
But if a fifth to a quarter of that is going on the salaries of just two individuals that is less so .
Clarification of salary brackets and the numbers of people in them must be provided , along with pension contributions .
The powers we face are well resourced and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cherish every penny and maximize its use .
Such questions go beyond the party , though , as the resources afforded by Westminster are huge .
It ’ s reckoned that between SNP MPs ’ contribution from their salaries ( around £11,000 per head ) and Short money paid by the UK government , the group ’ s budget this year will be north of £1.5 million .
It ’ s been slightly lower in some past years , given the loss of members in 2017 .
But a back of an envelope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upwards of £7 million since 2015 for the Westminster group alone .
Back then , members were told it would be a huge resource for the independence cause .
Has it been ?
I ’ m not criticizing staff but am questioning whether our cause is getting best use of what is after all its resource , both at HQ and in Westminster .
Legitimate , normal and reasonable questions need to be answered , not blanked .

Having been privileged to serve as SNP National Treasurer, I’m aware of the duties that go with the post. Of course, it’s changed in some ways since then due to the scale of the party, the resources available and even technology. The days are long gone when Joan Knott, who has sadly since passed away, required to take a taxi down to my legal office to have cheques signed between court or clients.
But some things still remain fundamental, and in particular providing annual accounts for the party. That has been done for 2019, in the administrative sense, but what’s missing is their publication and provision either to the NEC or the party more widely.
For sure there’s been no conference but there are other bodies and other ways of making them available to party members. At NEC, conference and indeed anywhere else, members were entitled to see them and question me. It was their right to see them, and it remains so now. So why haven’t they seen them?
It’s not as if the financial year has just concluded, for the party accounts are set on the calendar year. As in my day the accountants need to prepare them and then discuss them with the National Treasurer. Moreover, lockdown and coronavirus may have moderately impeded matters, but most will be dealt with by an electric exchange of information and meetings can be virtual.
So with the financial year having ended on 31 December 2019, and as we’re now in October 2020, it’s maybe about time that they were available.
I’m led to believe that the National Treasurer has had them audited and concluded, even if there are aspects such as certain salaries that it appears he isn’t privy to. Now, the party may be of a far larger scale than in my day, but there is something strange when the person in such a critical post is denied such relevant information. But that’s a separate issue.
The accounts haven’t been shown to – let alone approved by – the NEC. They have, though, been submitted to the Electoral Commission, as rules required them into that body by early July. So, if they can have been lodged with a British state agency for months, why can’t members of the SNP have sight of them?
I’ve asked the Business Convener for a copy and that they be provided to the Westminster MP group. As appears to now be standard practice, I haven’t even had the courtesy of a reply. Members pay their dues, elected members contribute a levy, so why can’t we see what’s done with our money?
For many, though, the major interest will be funds that were contributed for the specific purpose of a referendum. Assurances were given that those funds would be ring-fenced. That may well be so, but it should still be confirmed and shown in the published accounts. Trust requires it, and as the political temperature heats up, party funds will be critical.
An indication that the party has been fundraising, even during these difficult times, and that resources to fight both an election and a referendum are available, is essential. If they aren’t then questions need asked about just what has been going on in HQ.
The indications coming from declarations made to the Electoral Commission are far from heartening. When support for the party and the cause of independence has never been greater, questions have to be asked about that. But to do so the information in the accounts is required.
There are, though, already causes for concern that can be gleaned from past accounts and where checking on the current situation will be imperative. Indeed, questioning of the accounts will be essential. Its estimated that the HQ wage bill will be around £1 million, understandable with a staff of just over 20.
But if a fifth to a quarter of that is going on the salaries of just two individuals that is less so. Clarification of salary brackets and the numbers of people in them must be provided, along with pension contributions.
The powers we face are well resourced and it’s why our cause must cherish every penny and maximize its use. Such questions go beyond the party, though, as the resources afforded by Westminster are huge. It’s reckoned that between SNP MPs’ contribution from their salaries (around £11,000 per head) and Short money paid by the UK government, the group’s budget this year will be north of £1.5 million.
It’s been slightly lower in some past years, given the loss of members in 2017. But a back of an envelope calculation leaves you with a figure of upwards of £7 million since 2015 for the Westminster group alone. Back then, members were told it would be a huge resource for the independence cause. Has it been?
I’m not criticizing staff but am questioning whether our cause is getting best use of what is after all its resource, both at HQ and in Westminster. Legitimate, normal and reasonable questions need to be answered, not blanked.


Parking the buses

We ’ re very busy today writing more FOI requests and the like , so we ’ ll just take @ @ @ @ @ note that hiring super-expensive lawyers to object to the questions you ’ re being asked @ @ @ @ @ of people who are keen to co-operate fully and in the most transparent way possible @ @ @ @ @ you later , gang .

We’re very busy today writing more FOI requests and the like, so we’ll just take a brief moment here to note that hiring super-expensive lawyers to object to the questions you’re being asked DEFINITELY sounds like the behaviour of people who are keen to co-operate fully and in the most transparent way possible with an inquiry:
See you later, gang.


Little Green Rooster

`` 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--2020-10-04--SNP Members For Independence

SNP Members For Independence

SNP Members For Independence ?
What a ridiculous phrase – surely every member of the SNP is in favour of independence , right ?
That ’ s mostly true of course , but the leadership and many elected representatives of the party appear to be intent on repeating the failed Section 30 route to independence , and also on restricting serious debate about alternative strategies .
It seems that a revised “ Plan B ” may be discussed at the party conference , still almost two months away , and for all Plan B ’ s merits it is seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of alternative and better plans at conference would merely pay lip service to the term “ serious debate ” Something clearly needed to be done , which is why SNP Members For Indy has been set up .
So what ’ s it for and what is it trying to do ?
Our key aim is to change SNP policy on the best way to achieve independence .
We recognise that independence can only be achieved in the next year or two by changing this crucial policy from within the party .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieved in any reasonable timescale by joining other pro-independence parties .
Many of our group members have stated that they were on the point of leaving the SNP in utter frustration before hearing of our group .
The group makes it easy to communicate ideas and support horizontally amongst the membership across Scotland .
It helps us all understand that although may feel we are lone voices in our own branch we are actually part of a large choir across the country .
While a lone voice can easily be ignored , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The group aims to generate policy alternatives to Section 30 and Plan B in a collaborative fashion among the members of the group , and to endeavour to ensure that these alternatives are openly discussed at every branch and at conference and that a more powerful , logical , legitimate in the true sense , and therefore potentially successful route to independence is adopted as SNP policy .
Where have we got to so far ?
Numbers : The group now has well over 300 SNP members into its 2nd week from launch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least 1,000 members in the next few weeks .
Critical mass is necessary , as is a wide spread of membership across the country – it would be great to have at least a few group members in every SNP branch .
There ’ s a link to the membership page at the end of this post .
Please join us if you believe , as we do , that the current ( in ) actions by the SNP leadership are jeopardising Scotland ’ s return to independence .
Policy development : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion on policy and other topical matters over the last week , and we have just started the work of collaborative policy development , it is too early to say yet how that is progressing .
So we have not yet produced any resolutions for conference but we realise that this is an urgent task .
What is the main obstacle we need to overcome ?
It ’ s clear – getting one or more resolutions heard at conference .
The SNP ’ s policy-making process lacks proper democracy and favours the status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in conference ” , but the party ’ s internal controls severely restrict genuine policy debate .
Because it seems likely that Plan B will be accepted as a resolution and debated , then the “ normal ” conference procedure would be that any alternative plans be discussed only in the form of amendments to the resolution concerning Plan B.
That ’ s clearly an unsatisfactory process as PlanB ( among other things ) expresses a preference for the Section30 route , although I suspect the authors of PlanB would prefer that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be changed in order to permit serious and urgent debate of a number of alternative plans for independence .
My own preference would be to spend at least a day debating and possibly amending a maximum of say four alternative routes , and then having a vote to establish the chosen policy .
Party democracy in action , no less – and I am sure that everyone would agree that the best route to independence is the most important topic for an SNP conference to consider and debate .
Discussion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgent issue can not be constrained by unsuitable and constraining conference procedures .
If necessary the whole conference – the last one before next year ’ s crucial election – should be devoted to this single issue .
If you are an SNP member and interested in joining SNP Members For Independence , then here ’ s a link to the group ’ s Facebook membership page .

Geoff Bush is an SNP member.
SNP Members For Independence? What a ridiculous phrase – surely every member of the SNP is in favour of independence, right?
That’s mostly true of course, but the leadership and many elected representatives of the party appear to be intent on repeating the failed Section 30 route to independence, and also on restricting serious debate about alternative strategies.
It seems that a revised “Plan B” may be discussed at the party conference, still almost two months away, and for all Plan B’s merits it is seriously flawed and its inclusion at the expense of alternative and better plans at conference would merely pay lip service to the term “serious debate”
Something clearly needed to be done, which is why SNP Members For Indy has been set up. So what’s it for and what is it trying to do?
Our key aim is to change SNP policy on the best way to achieve independence. We recognise that independence can only be achieved in the next year or two by changing this crucial policy from within the party.
We do not think that independence can be achieved in any reasonable timescale by joining other pro-independence parties. Many of our group members have stated that they were on the point of leaving the SNP in utter frustration before hearing of our group. The group makes it easy to communicate ideas and support horizontally amongst the membership across Scotland.
It helps us all understand that although may feel we are lone voices in our own branch we are actually part of a large choir across the country. While a lone voice can easily be ignored, a large choir is harder to silence.
The group aims to generate policy alternatives to Section 30 and Plan B in a collaborative fashion among the members of the group, and to endeavour to ensure that these alternatives are openly discussed at every branch and at conference and that a more powerful, logical, legitimate in the true sense, and therefore potentially successful route to independence is adopted as SNP policy.
Where have we got to so far?
Numbers: The group now has well over 300 SNP members into its 2nd week from launch, and the aim is to reach at least 1,000 members in the next few weeks. Critical mass is necessary, as is a wide spread of membership across the country – it would be great to have at least a few group members in every SNP branch. There’s a link to the membership page at the end of this post. Please join us if you believe, as we do, that the current (in)actions by the SNP leadership are jeopardising Scotland’s return to independence.
Policy development: There’s been a lot of discussion on policy and other topical matters over the last week, and we have just started the work of collaborative policy development, it is too early to say yet how that is progressing. So we have not yet produced any resolutions for conference but we realise that this is an urgent task.
What is the main obstacle we need to overcome ? It’s clear – getting one or more resolutions heard at conference. The SNP’s policy-making process lacks proper democracy and favours the status quo. SNP policy is “made in conference”, but the party’s internal controls severely restrict genuine policy debate.
Because it seems likely that Plan B will be accepted as a resolution and debated, then the “normal” conference procedure would be that any alternative plans be discussed only in the form of amendments to the resolution concerning Plan B. That’s clearly an unsatisfactory process as PlanB (among other things) expresses a preference for the Section30 route, although I suspect the authors of PlanB would prefer that it didn’t.
Conference procedure needs to be changed in order to permit serious and urgent debate of a number of alternative plans for independence. My own preference would be to spend at least a day debating and possibly amending a maximum of say four alternative routes, and then having a vote to establish the chosen policy. Party democracy in action, no less – and I am sure that everyone would agree that the best route to independence is the most important topic for an SNP conference to consider and debate.
Discussion of the party’s single most important and urgent issue cannot be constrained by unsuitable and constraining conference procedures. If necessary the whole conference – the last one before next year’s crucial election – should be devoted to this single issue.
If you are an SNP member and interested in joining SNP Members For Independence, then here’s a link to the group’s Facebook membership page.
.
(Please don’t attempt to join if you’re not a current SNP member – you’ll be asked for some membership details before joining the group. If you’re not an SNP member and want to suggest policy alternatives then please email us to share your views.)


The resource drain

The SNP ’ s earth-shattering 2011 majority election victory , which paved the way for the 2014 independence referendum , dropped a bomb on Scottish politics .
What few people realised at the time was that it was also going to set up a series of massive paydays for one of Scotland ’ s wealthiest demographics : lawyers .
Since the beginning of the indyref campaign there ’ s been a string of high-profile court cases which have all funnelled mindbogglingly colossal sums into the pockets of Scotland ’ s legal elite – the Alistair Carmichael affair , our own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry and trial of Alex Salmond , and currently the Section 30 dispute being brought by Martin Keatings .
The SNP , too , is doing its fair share to enrich our learned friends .
Or even rather more than .
Because as far as we can establish , the party is currently employing the services of no fewer than THREE of Scotland ’ s top law firms all at once .
The party ’ s normal firm has for many years been Kennedys , to whom any members wishing to make complaints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and whose claims will either be swiftly dealt with or vanish into the eternal ether depending on whether the alleged victims are people from the factions favoured by the party ) .
It ’ s also known that the SNP recently hired commercial law specialists Shepherd and Wedderburn – the largest law firm headquartered in Scotland , according to the Herald – to try to obstruct the committee inquiring into the Scottish Government ’ s handling of the Salmond affair and in particular shield Peter Murrell from some increasingly uncomfortable scrutiny over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also recently been informed by some very reliable sources in the Scottish media ( if that ’ s not a contradiction in terms ) that the party has employed Glasgow-based Livingstone Brown to lean on several newspapers , including the Daily Record and the Times , in an ( unsuccessful ) attempt to suppress the story of Peter Murrell ’ s leaked and potentially explosive WhatsApp messages , seemingly at the behest of the SNP ’ s chief operating officer Sue Ruddick .
Since these companies are working for the SNP rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no way of knowing how much they ’ re costing , but it ’ ll be a lot .
And unlike the Carmichael and Dugdale and Keatings cases , SNP members were never asked if they wanted their money used for those purposes .
There is already considerable speculation as to the state of the party ’ s finances , and in particular the “ ring-fenced ” money for fighting a future referendum campaign , which won ’ t be resolved until the party ’ s much-delayed 2019 accounts are published by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual members are currently being subjected to near-daily pleas from head office to cough up more cash .
So we can ’ t imagine the news that the SNP is currently employing half of Scotland ’ s lawyers to try to hide even more of its business away in the shadows will come as a source of joy either to those members , or supporters of independence in general who might like to believe , against all the evidence , that the party has a plan to fight another referendum campaign any time @ @ @ @ @

The SNP’s earth-shattering 2011 majority election victory, which paved the way for the 2014 independence referendum, dropped a bomb on Scottish politics.
What few people realised at the time was that it was also going to set up a series of massive paydays for one of Scotland’s wealthiest demographics: lawyers.
Since the beginning of the indyref campaign there’s been a string of high-profile court cases which have all funnelled mindbogglingly colossal sums into the pockets of Scotland’s legal elite – the Alistair Carmichael affair, our own defamation by Kezia Dugdale, the judicial inquiry and trial of Alex Salmond, and currently the Section 30 dispute being brought by Martin Keatings.
The SNP, too, is doing its fair share to enrich our learned friends. Or even rather more than. Because as far as we can establish, the party is currently employing the services of no fewer than THREE of Scotland’s top law firms all at once.
The party’s normal firm has for many years been Kennedys, to whom any members wishing to make complaints about matters like sexual harassment are directed (and whose claims will either be swiftly dealt with or vanish into the eternal ether depending on whether the alleged victims are people from the factions favoured by the party).
It’s also known that the SNP recently hired commercial law specialists Shepherd and Wedderburn – the largest law firm headquartered in Scotland, according to the Herald – to try to obstruct the committee inquiring into the Scottish Government’s handling of the Salmond affair and in particular shield Peter Murrell from some increasingly uncomfortable scrutiny over his involvement.
But we’ve also recently been informed by some very reliable sources in the Scottish media (if that’s not a contradiction in terms) that the party has employed Glasgow-based Livingstone Brown to lean on several newspapers, including the Daily Record and the Times, in an (unsuccessful) attempt to suppress the story of Peter Murrell’s leaked and potentially explosive WhatsApp messages, seemingly at the behest of the SNP’s chief operating officer Sue Ruddick.
(Ruddick, like Murrell, is someone who enjoys a position of great power in the party and a handsome but unspecified salary, yet has almost zero public profile. She joined the party as a humble research assistant in 2004 and became its Westminster chief of staff barely a year later. You’ll have a hard time even tracking down a picture of her – the one below is from three and a half years ago.)
Since these companies are working for the SNP rather than the Scottish Government, there’s no way of knowing how much they’re costing, but it’ll be a lot. And unlike the Carmichael and Dugdale and Keatings cases, SNP members were never asked if they wanted their money used for those purposes.
(Just as they weren’t asked if they wanted to pay for “counselling” for Derek Mackay, who continues to sit as an MSP and draw a salary and expenses despite not having shown up at Holyrood since February, even as the leadership publicly calls for the resignation of his ill colleague Margaret Ferrier for breaching coronavirus legislation.)
There is already considerable speculation as to the state of the party’s finances, and in particular the “ring-fenced” money for fighting a future referendum campaign, which won’t be resolved until the party’s much-delayed 2019 accounts are published by the Electoral Commission, and local branches and individual members are currently being subjected to near-daily pleas from head office to cough up more cash.
So we can’t imagine the news that the SNP is currently employing half of Scotland’s lawyers to try to hide even more of its business away in the shadows will come as a source of joy either to those members, or supporters of independence in general who might like to believe, against all the evidence, that the party has a plan to fight another referendum campaign any time in the forseeable future.


Services rendered

Readers , we can ’ t tell you how much we want to get back to just dissecting Scotland ’ s hopeless Unionist media for a living .
It ’ s a lot more fun than what the current political circumstances are obliging us to do , so you can hardly imagine our excitement when we spotted what looked like an open goal in yesterday ’ s Mail On Sunday .
Our ears pricked up immediately at the sight of the words “ up to ” , which is invariably a sign of dodgy doings on the way , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no solid data at all about the size of Scottish Government special advisers ’ pay rises , only how many SpAds there were and which general pay bands they were in , each of which spans a wide range of between £14,000 and £23,000 .
But while the Mail had spooned the sitter six feet over the crossbar – because the crude spin they ’ d put on it was total rubbish – there was still a loose ball just waiting to be knocked into the back of the net .
Because what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BAND for the top level of special adviser – a category inhabited only by the First Minister ’ s chief of staff Liz Lloyd – had seen its maximum rocket in a single year from £83,000 to £104,000 – a staggering 25 % leap , coming at a time when most public sector employees are doing very well to get a tenth as much .
What , we wondered , might Liz Lloyd have done in 2018 that required her maximum salary to be increased by a breathtaking £21,000 in appreciation ?
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only person in that bracket , and if you ’ re not going to pay someone £104K then why do you need to make it possible for them to get £104K ? )
The previous upper limit of the top band was already a handsome wage – more than either Holyrood or Westminster MPs get – so it ’ s difficult to argue that she wasn ’ t already being adequately remunerated for whatever it was she ’ d been up to .
And we can ’ t answer the question , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speculate for themselves as to why the First Minister appears to be almost as grateful to Liz Lloyd as she is to Leslie Evans .
We can see that our lawyers are already racing towards us with panicked expressions and a cricket bat , so we ’ ll have to leave it there and run .
[ EDIT 6 OCTOBER : We did some digging on this , and the Mail has actually reported the story wrongly .
The pay bands for SpAds don ’ t actually appear to have changed for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Lloyd , and Lloyd alone , appears to have been promoted from Band 3 – with a maximum salary of £84,000 – up two levels to Band 4 , with a range of £87,000 to £104,000 .
The question of why still applies . ]

Readers, we can’t tell you how much we want to get back to just dissecting Scotland’s hopeless Unionist media for a living. It’s a lot more fun than what the current political circumstances are obliging us to do, so you can hardly imagine our excitement when we spotted what looked like an open goal in yesterday’s Mail On Sunday.
Our ears pricked up immediately at the sight of the words “up to”, which is invariably a sign of dodgy doings on the way, and so it proved. The article contained no solid data at all about the size of Scottish Government special advisers’ pay rises, only how many SpAds there were and which general pay bands they were in, each of which spans a wide range of between £14,000 and £23,000.
But while the Mail had spooned the sitter six feet over the crossbar – because the crude spin they’d put on it was total rubbish – there was still a loose ball just waiting to be knocked into the back of the net.
Because what the article revealed was that the pay BAND for the top level of special adviser – a category inhabited only by the First Minister’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd – had seen its maximum rocket in a single year from £83,000 to £104,000 – a staggering 25% leap, coming at a time when most public sector employees are doing very well to get a tenth as much.
What, we wondered, might Liz Lloyd have done in 2018 that required her maximum salary to be increased by a breathtaking £21,000 in appreciation? (After all, she’s the only person in that bracket, and if you’re not going to pay someone £104K then why do you need to make it possible for them to get £104K?)
The previous upper limit of the top band was already a handsome wage – more than either Holyrood or Westminster MPs get – so it’s difficult to argue that she wasn’t already being adequately remunerated for whatever it was she’d been up to.
And we can’t answer the question, of course. Readers will simply have to speculate for themselves as to why the First Minister appears to be almost as grateful to Liz Lloyd as she is to Leslie Evans. We can see that our lawyers are already racing towards us with panicked expressions and a cricket bat, so we’ll have to leave it there and run.
.
[EDIT 6 OCTOBER: We did some digging on this, and the Mail has reported the story incorrectly. The pay bands for SpAds don’t actually appear to have changed for many years. What’s happened is that Lloyd, and Lloyd alone, appears to have been promoted from Band 3 – with a maximum salary of £84,000 – up two levels to Band 4, with a range of £87,000 to £104,000. The question of why still applies.]
2017:
2019:


Burn Before Reading

There ’ s an especially interesting post on the blog of Scottish solicitor-advocate Gordon Dangerfield at the moment , pointing out that there are no legal reasons whatever for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS ) to be withholding documents relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond , and indeed issuing dire threats of prosecution against him or anyone who might put them into the public domain .
The items in question include the infamous WhatsApp messages exchanged by the group of people attempting to have Salmond imprisoned for crimes he didn ’ t commit , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When two of Murrell ’ s messages were leaked recently it was front-page news in the Scottish press , and generated a huge amount of subsequent coverage .
Commentators as diverse as Mandy Rhodes of Holyrood magazine and Alex Massie of the Times and Spectator have noted that while they ’ d initially disbelieved talk of a conspiracy , the Scottish Government ’ s actions have given them the opposite impression .
The message log is absolutely central to Salmond ’ s claim of a conspiracy against him , so the last thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SNP wants is for it to become public knowledge .
Indeed , COPFS has denied that the messages exist at all , which makes it a bit weird that the police are currently conducting a serious criminal investigation into who leaked some apparently entirely imaginary documents .
So it would be quite astonishing if they suddenly disappeared , wouldn ’ t it ?
Yet it was that very prospect that Labour MSP Jackie Baillie raised ( via a rather dodgy internet connection ) in a little-reported exchange which happened at the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FMQs .
And she had good reason to .
The key question in Baillie ’ s intervention was this : As you can see from the video , Nicola Sturgeon conspicuously and rather irritably failed to give any sort of answer to that part of Baillie ’ s request , let alone an assurance .
And there are particular reasons why that ’ s alarming .
Scottish law requires that in any trial involving crimes of a sexual nature , no evidence can be destroyed for a minimum of 10 years .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this but have confirmed it with two very senior legal sources . )
Alex Salmond wanted to use the messages as part of his defence , but the trial judge ruled them inadmissible and they were not entered into court .
This means they ’ re NOT protected by the 10-year rule , and COPFS can destroy them at any time it wishes – however blatantly crooked that would look – and can also order Mr Salmond ’ s lawyers to destroy their copies ( which we must presume also don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly threatened him with prosecution if he discloses them ) .
The only thing preventing them from doing so at the moment is that they ’ ve also been requested by Craig Murray for the defence in his trial for contempt of court , and no documents which are currently the subject of a live case can be destroyed .
If that permission were to be again refused ( the prosecution is currently objecting to their inclusion , as indeed it is to ALL of Murray ’ s defence evidence and witnesses ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or if the charges against him should unexpectedly be dropped for any reason – then COPFS will be free to bung the whole lot on the fire .
And if our own dealings with them over the last few months are any sort of a guide , it ’ s something they won ’ t hesitate to do given half a chance .
If the inquiry committee are going to use the law to force Mr Murrell to hand the messages over , as they ’ ve apparently been advised they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so very quickly .

There’s an especially interesting post on the blog of Scottish solicitor-advocate Gordon Dangerfield at the moment, pointing out that there are no legal reasons whatever for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to be withholding documents relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond, and indeed issuing dire threats of prosecution against him or anyone who might put them into the public domain.
(All of the blog’s coverage of the inquiry in general has been expert and revealing, and should be the first stop for readers seeking to understand proceedings.)
The items in question include the infamous WhatsApp messages exchanged by the group of people attempting to have Salmond imprisoned for crimes he didn’t commit, among them SNP chief executive Peter Murrell.
When two of Murrell’s messages were leaked recently it was front-page news in the Scottish press, and generated a huge amount of subsequent coverage. Commentators as diverse as Mandy Rhodes of Holyrood magazine and Alex Massie of the Times and Spectator have noted that while they’d initially disbelieved talk of a conspiracy, the Scottish Government’s actions have given them the opposite impression.
The message log is absolutely central to Salmond’s claim of a conspiracy against him, so the last thing that either COPFS or the leadership of the SNP wants is for it to become public knowledge. Indeed, COPFS has denied that the messages exist at all, which makes it a bit weird that the police are currently conducting a serious criminal investigation into who leaked some apparently entirely imaginary documents.
So it would be quite astonishing if they suddenly disappeared, wouldn’t it?
Yet it was that very prospect that Labour MSP Jackie Baillie raised (via a rather dodgy internet connection) in a little-reported exchange which happened at the very end of last week’s turbulent FMQs. And she had good reason to.
The key question in Baillie’s intervention was this:
As you can see from the video, Nicola Sturgeon conspicuously and rather irritably failed to give any sort of answer to that part of Baillie’s request, let alone an assurance. And there are particular reasons why that’s alarming.
Scottish law requires that in any trial involving crimes of a sexual nature, no evidence can be destroyed for a minimum of 10 years. (We can’t find a link for this but have confirmed it with two very senior legal sources.)
Alex Salmond wanted to use the messages as part of his defence, but the trial judge ruled them inadmissible and they were not entered into court. This means they’re NOT protected by the 10-year rule, and COPFS can destroy them at any time it wishes – however blatantly crooked that would look – and can also order Mr Salmond’s lawyers to destroy their copies (which we must presume also don’t exist, even though COPFS has publicly threatened him with prosecution if he discloses them).
The only thing preventing them from doing so at the moment is that they’ve also been requested by Craig Murray for the defence in his trial for contempt of court, and no documents which are currently the subject of a live case can be destroyed.
If that permission were to be again refused (the prosecution is currently objecting to their inclusion, as indeed it is to ALL of Murray’s defence evidence and witnesses) – or after the trial is over, or if the charges against him should unexpectedly be dropped for any reason – then COPFS will be free to bung the whole lot on the fire.
And if our own dealings with them over the last few months are any sort of a guide, it’s something they won’t hesitate to do given half a chance. If the inquiry committee are going to use the law to force Mr Murrell to hand the messages over, as they’ve apparently been advised they can, we’d suggest they do so very quickly.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-07--Here comes the flood

Here comes the flood

Back in the 1980s there was a hit game for the ZX Spectrum home computer called Worse Things Happen At Sea .
In it you play a robot whose job is to get a heavily-laden cargo ship safely to port , except that more and more disasters keep befalling it .
It springs leaks , it veers off course , the engine overheats and the robot ’ s power runs down , until eventually the catalogue of catastrophes overwhelms the harassed metallic custodian and the boat slips away into the murky depths .
We wonder if that feels familiar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been desperately suppressed for so long , the trickle of information concerning the badly-botched stitch-up of Alex Salmond by the SNP and the Scottish establishment is turning into a torrent that even an army of robots couldn ’ t hold back .
The least dramatic of today ’ s developments is the release of a deeply embarrassing statement from party CEO Peter Murrell , in which he admits to being the author of the leaked texts urging people to “ pressurise ” the police to go after his former boss .
Murrell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any rational reader could only conclude that he thinks his audience is , to put it gently , educationally subnormal .
Let ’ s just remind ourselves of those texts : We ’ re not going to compound the gross insult to the intelligence of Wings readers by discussing that any further .
Anyone who thinks that those texts match up to Murrell ’ s description of them is probably reading the wrong website .
More interesting is another blog post from solicitor advocate Gordon Dangerfield today , which looks at documents just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond about the initial investigation .
Dangerfield methodically wades through the Scottish Government ’ s explanation and observes that , quite remarkably , at no point does it admit that anyone did anything wrong .
At every step it claims that every individual involved acted with the utmost propriety and professionalism , at the end of which somehow the Scottish Government nevertheless had to completely abandon its case as being biased and unlawful without it ever going before a judge , at a cost to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But still there ’ s more .
Yesterday we received a response to a Freedom Of Information request about the ongoing separate inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon ’ s comments to Parliament on the subject broke the Ministerial Code .
The First Minister had referred herself back in January 2019 , after opposition leaders suggested she ’ d misled the chamber about when she knew of the allegations against Mr Salmond .
But the independent panel has still produced no report , and we ’ d asked what was taking so long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The reply , as we ’ ve come to expect from the Scottish Government ’ s FOI team , offered no actual useful information .
Instead it directed us to two other documents , one of them a Parliamentary answer from 31 January 2019 , just two weeks after the referral : Fair enough .
But Alex Salmond was acquitted in late March , which is now more than six months ago .
What could possibly still be taking so long ?
In the Guardian story linked above , the following sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it , is quite strange .
The Scottish Government must have known perfectly well that the inquiry would be likely to compromise the trial , and therefore would have to be put on hold until after the latter was completed .
So it ’ s very odd to give the panel a remit focused on avoiding such a risk , knowing the panel wasn ’ t going to convene until the trial was already over .
The second document the response directed us to was the actual remit subsequently given to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Deputy First Minister , John Swinney , and what it leaves out is more interesting than what it includes .
The ONLY thing the panel was told to establish was whether Nicola Sturgeon tried to influence Leslie Evans ’ original investigation into the allegations against Salmond .
It has strikingly NOT been asked to establish whether she lied to the Parliament , which was the concern actually expressed by the leaders of the opposition parties .
Sturgeon has repeatedly insisted , very explicitly and unambiguously , in Parliament and to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the first she knew of the allegations was in a meeting at her Glasgow home on April 2 : But we now know this to be a categorical lie , because the remit that today ’ s FOI response directs us to openly and officially admits that she met with Geoff Aberdein – Salmond ’ s former chief of staff and the man who by this point had been acting as his go-between in matters relating to the allegations for some weeks – at her Holyrood office on 29 March .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially destroys the Scottish Government ’ s farcical previous insistence that it was about some other subject .
Ridiculously , the First Minister ’ s written evidence to the commission , submitted five weeks ago but only revealed today , pretends that she forgot about the March 29 meeting until being reminded of it in January or February this year .
But the official FOI denial of the meeting above was published on 31 July 2020 , so she must have also “ forgotten ” to tell anyone else about it after that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still telling people no such meeting had taken place almost 18 months after she supposedly remembered that it had .
So we know that ’ s another lie .
And the First Minister ’ s written submission also admits that the 29 March meeting WAS in fact in relation to the allegations – not just a friendly casual catch-up in passing – in flat contradiction of the denial issued by an official Scottish Government spokesman to Sky News just two months ago : Incidentally , one of the things that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lie is “ Why bother to deny a 29 March meeting when you ’ re going to admit to one on 2 April ?
What ’ s so important about those four days ?
” And the answer to that is that it ’ s not the date that ’ s important but the location .
The meeting on 29 March took place in the First Minister ’ s office at Holyrood .
That fact alone intrinsically makes it government business , not party business , which must be officially recorded ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
That ’ s why the meeting was denied for so long – because the failure to record it is itself a serious breach of the Ministerial Code .
And the Ministerial Code takes an extremely clear position on the subject of knowingly misleading the Parliament : Which is , cynical readers might perhaps feel , precisely the reason why the panel has so conspicuously NOT been asked to rule on whether the First Minister did so or not .
But we suspect that the opposition parties , and perhaps even some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let the matter drop .
Even in the grim bin fire of democratic accountability that is 2020 , it is not tenable under any circumstances for any Parliament to be led by someone officially shown to have lied to it .
No matter what else arises from the five-alarm fiasco around the Salmond affair , it is now beyond the tiniest shadow of credible doubt that the First Minister stood up and knowingly lied to the Holyrood chamber , and continued to propagate that lie for the best part of two years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ document quietly released last month .
With goodness only knows what explosive revelations still to come when all the main players – Sturgeon , Murrell , Liz Lloyd , Geoff Aberdein and Alex Salmond himself – go before the committee , if she has any conscience at all she ’ ll resign now before any more damage is done to the integrity of her office .

Back in the 1980s there was a hit game for the ZX Spectrum home computer called Worse Things Happen At Sea. In it you play a robot whose job is to get a heavily-laden cargo ship safely to port, except that more and more disasters keep befalling it.
It springs leaks, it veers off course, the engine overheats and the robot’s power runs down, until eventually the catalogue of catastrophes overwhelms the harassed metallic custodian and the boat slides down into the murky depths.
We wonder if that feels familiar to anyone at the moment.
Because having been desperately suppressed for so long, the trickle of information concerning the badly-botched stitch-up of Alex Salmond by the SNP and the Scottish establishment is turning into a torrent that even an army of robots couldn’t hold back.
The least dramatic of today’s developments is the release of a deeply embarrassing statement from party CEO Peter Murrell, in which he admits to being the author of the leaked texts urging people to “pressurise” the police to go after his former boss.
Murrell’s excuse is so feebly pathetic that any rational reader could only conclude that he thinks his audience is, to put it gently, educationally subnormal.
Let’s just remind ourselves of those texts:
We’re not going to compound the gross insult to the intelligence of Wings readers by discussing that any further. Anyone who thinks that those texts match up to Murrell’s description of them is probably reading the wrong website.
More interesting is another blog post from solicitor advocate Gordon Dangerfield today, which looks at documents just released regarding why the Scottish Government caved on the judicial inquiry brought by Alex Salmond about the initial investigation.
Dangerfield methodically wades through the Scottish Government’s explanation and observes that, quite remarkably, at no point does it admit that anyone did anything wrong. At every step it claims that every individual involved acted with the utmost propriety and professionalism, at the end of which somehow the Scottish Government nevertheless had to completely abandon its case as being biased and unlawful without it ever going before a judge, at a cost to the taxpayer of a million pounds or more.
(The Scottish Government refuses to admit how much it actually spent on it, but as we know Mr Salmond’s costs were well over half a million it seems wholly reasonable to assume that the Scottish Government’s were of a similar order, including the £118,000 it does admit to spending on external legal advice.)
But still there’s more. Yesterday we received a response to a Freedom Of Information request about the ongoing separate inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon’s comments to Parliament on the subject broke the Ministerial Code.
The First Minister had referred herself back in January 2019, after opposition leaders suggested she’d misled the chamber about when she knew of the allegations against Mr Salmond. But the independent panel has still produced no report, and we’d asked what was taking so long and when we might expect its findings.
“I wish to know the resolution of the investigation referenced below, instigated by the First Minister in January 2019. If no resolution has yet been reached, I wish to know (a) why, given that 20 months have passed, and (b) when a resolution should be expected.“
The reply, as we’ve come to expect from the Scottish Government’s FOI team, offered no actual useful information. Instead it directed us to two other documents, one of them a Parliamentary answer from 31 January 2019, just two weeks after the referral:
“The First Minister’s self-referral under the Ministerial Code has been discussed with James Hamilton, the Independent Adviser on the Code. Mr Hamilton has concluded that there is a potential risk of prejudice if the First Minister’s self-referral under the Ministerial Code were to proceed at the present time. It has therefore been agreed that the inquiry under the Ministerial Code should also be deferred while criminal investigations are active. Both the Scottish Government review and consideration under the Ministerial Code will recommence once criminal proceedings are no longer active and the risk of prejudice has been removed.”
Fair enough. But Alex Salmond was acquitted in late March, which is now more than six months ago. What could possibly still be taking so long?
In the Guardian story linked above, the following sentence appears:
This, if you think about it, is quite strange.
The Scottish Government must have known perfectly well that the inquiry would be likely to compromise the trial, and therefore would have to be put on hold until after the latter was completed. So it’s very odd to give the panel a remit focused on avoiding such a risk, knowing the panel wasn’t going to convene until the trial was already over.
The second document the response directed us to was the actual remit subsequently given to the investigating panel. It was drawn up by the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, and what it leaves out is more interesting than what it includes.
The ONLY thing the panel was told to establish was whether Nicola Sturgeon tried to influence Leslie Evans’ original investigation into the allegations against Salmond. It has strikingly NOT been asked to establish whether she lied to the Parliament, which was the concern actually expressed by the leaders of the opposition parties.
Sturgeon has repeatedly insisted, very explicitly and unambiguously, in Parliament and to the media and in several FOI responses, that the first she knew of the allegations was in a meeting at her Glasgow home on April 2:
But we now know this to be a categorical lie, because the remit that today’s FOI response directs us to openly and officially admits that she met with Geoff Aberdein – Salmond’s former chief of staff and the man who by this point had been acting as his go-between in matters relating to the allegations for some weeks – at her Holyrood office on 29 March.
A meeting the Scottish Government had previously expressly denied:
The inclusion of the meeting in the list officially destroys the Scottish Government’s farcical previous insistence that it was about some other subject.
(And in any event Aberdein told the High Court on oath during his evidence in the trial that it was about the allegations.)
Ridiculously, the First Minister’s written evidence to the commission, submitted five weeks ago but only revealed today, pretends that she forgot about the March 29 meeting until being reminded of it in January or February of last year.
But the official FOI denial of the meeting above was published on 31 July 2020, so she must have also “forgotten” to tell anyone else about it after that reminder, because the Scottish Government was still telling people no such meeting had taken place almost 18 months after she supposedly remembered that it had. So we know that’s a lie too.
And the First Minister’s written submission also admits that the 29 March meeting WAS in fact in relation to the allegations – not just a friendly casual catch-up in passing – in flat contradiction of the denial issued by an official Scottish Government spokesman to Sky News just two months ago:
Incidentally, one of the things that doesn’t initially seem to make any sense about the lie is “Why bother to deny a 29 March meeting when you’re going to admit to one on 2 April? What’s so important about those four days?” And the answer to that is that it’s not the date that’s important but the location.
The meeting on 29 March took place in the First Minister’s office at Holyrood. That fact alone necessarily legally makes it government business, not party business, which must be officially recorded (which we know it wasn’t).
(You’re simply not allowed to use the First Minister’s office for party matters.)
That’s why the meeting was denied for so long – because the failure to record it is itself a serious breach of the Ministerial Code. And the Ministerial Code takes an extremely clear position on the subject of knowingly misleading the Parliament:
Which is, cynical readers might perhaps feel, precisely the reason why the panel has so conspicuously NOT been asked to rule on whether the First Minister did so or not.
But we suspect that the opposition parties, and perhaps even some SNP MSPs, will be unwilling to let the matter drop. Even in the grim bin fire of democratic accountability that is 2020, it is not tenable under any circumstances for any Parliament to be led by someone officially shown to have lied to it.
No matter what else arises from the five-alarm fiasco around the Salmond affair, it is now beyond the tiniest shadow of credible doubt that the First Minister stood up and knowingly lied to the Holyrood chamber, and continued to propagate that lie for the best part of two years, before finally admitting it in an obscure document quietly released last month.
(She appears, ironically, in today’s Times abasing herself with gushing praise for the Scottish mainstream media, presumably hoping against hope that it will protect her, and hilariously pledging to answer questions honestly and fairly, just like she promised to give the inquiry committee anything it asked for.)
With goodness only knows what explosive revelations still to come when all the main players – Sturgeon, Murrell, Liz Lloyd, Geoff Aberdein and Alex Salmond himself – go before the committee, if she has any conscience at all she’ll resign now before any more damage is done to the integrity of her office.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-07--A matter above party

A matter above party

On 23rd March this year , after Alex Salmond was found not guilty of 13 criminal charges in the High Court , I called on the Scottish Government to set up a judge-led inquiry into the allegation that he had been the subject of a conspiracy involving the Scottish Government , which resulted in him being accused of criminal behaviour .
Today I am repeating my call for such an inquiry .
To be credible such an inquiry would need to be independent of politics and politicians .
It should be presided over by a judge whose remit would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there had been a conspiracy , if so who were the participants and did they break the law .
The judge should have the resources and powers needed , with full access to all relevant documentation including papers protected by the court .
The inquiry should also have the legal powers to call whichever witnesses it chooses .
The need for such an inquiry is becoming clearer every week , given that the present parliamentary inquiry is subject to two negative outcomes – failure to get the information it needs , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which are having a corrosive effect on public opinion and party morale .
This is a matter that rises above party .
It is about conduct in the public sphere , and whether there has been an abuse of power .
I hope my fellow MSPs right across the party spectrum will join with me in this call .
It is in the people ’ s interest to have this issue dealt with fairly and swiftly , in the hands of an experienced and impartial judge .
Only an independent inquiry can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNP MSP for Airdrie & Shotts .

On 23rd March this year, after Alex Salmond was found not guilty of 13 criminal charges in the High Court, I called on the Scottish Government to set up a judge-led inquiry into the allegation that he had been the subject of a conspiracy involving the Scottish Government, which resulted in him being accused of criminal behaviour.
Today I am repeating my call for such an inquiry.
To be credible such an inquiry would need to be independent of politics and politicians. It should be presided over by a judge whose remit would be to establish the facts and decide if there had been a conspiracy, if so who were the participants and did they break the law.
The judge should have the resources and powers needed, with full access to all relevant documentation including papers protected by the court. The inquiry should also have the legal powers to call whichever witnesses it chooses.
The need for such an inquiry is becoming clearer every week, given that the present parliamentary inquiry is subject to two negative outcomes – failure to get the information it needs, and a damaging daily drip-feed of allegations, both of which are having a corrosive effect on public opinion and party morale.
This is a matter that rises above party. It is about conduct in the public sphere, and whether there has been an abuse of power. I hope my fellow MSPs right across the party spectrum will join with me in this call.
It is in the people’s interest to have this issue dealt with fairly and swiftly, in the hands of an experienced and impartial judge. Only an independent inquiry can do that.
.
Alex Neil is the SNP MSP for Airdrie & Shotts.


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-08--Forgetting to remember to forget

Forgetting to remember to forget

In the light of yesterday ’ s revelations , we ’ ve sent the following Freedom Of Information request to the Central Enquiry Unit ( CEU ) of the Scottish Government .
Yesterday ( 8 October 2020 ) the committee investigating matters relating to allegations against Alex Salmond published written evidence from the First Minister , submitted to it on 4 August 2020 .
In it the First Minister made reference to a meeting she held with Mr Geoff Aberdein at her office in the Scottish Parliament on 29 March 2018 , saying : “ As has been reported already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 – I had spoken with Geoff Aberdein ( former Chief of Staff to Alex Salmond ) in my office at the Scottish Parliament .
Mr Aberdein was in Parliament to see a former colleague and while there came to see me .
I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in , I think , late January/early February 2019.
” Yet as recently as 31 July 2020 , the Scottish Government was still insisting that no such meeting took place .
In a Freedom Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , it said “ we hold no recorded information about any contact between Mr Geoff Aberdein and the current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on or around 29th March 2018 , or about contact between Mr Geoff Aberdein and Scottish Government Ministers or staff concerning inappropriate behaviour by Alex Salmond towards Scottish Government staff or any other women.
” The information I seek is as follows : ( 1 ) Given that the First Minister had remembered this previously-forgotten meeting approximately 18 months earlier ( “ late January/early February 2019 ” ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representing the Scottish Government , was a year and a half later still officially denying that it ever happened ?
Was the CEU covering up for the First Minister ?
Or did the First Minister fail to inform the CEU of the meeting after she ’ d remembered it , having for some reason failed to properly record it at the time it happened ?
I can think of no other possible explanation than those , because if the meeting had concerned party business rather than government business ( and therefore not been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course have been in contravention of the Ministerial Code to hold it in the First Minister ’ s office .
( 2 ) Were any other Scottish Government staff , who also had a duty to record the meeting , present during it ?
If so , who were they and why did they not do so ?

In the light of yesterday’s revelations, we’ve sent the following Freedom Of Information request to the Central Enquiry Unit (CEU) of the Scottish Government.
Yesterday (8 October 2020) the committee investigating matters relating to allegations against Alex Salmond published written evidence from the First Minister, submitted to it on 4 August 2020.
In it the First Minister made reference to a meeting she held with Mr Geoff Aberdein at her office in the Scottish Parliament on 29 March 2018, saying:
“As has been reported already, four days earlier – 29 March 2018 – I had spoken with Geoff Aberdein (former Chief of Staff to Alex Salmond) in my office at the Scottish Parliament. Mr Aberdein was in Parliament to see a former colleague and while there came to see me. I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.”
Yet as recently as 31 July 2020, the Scottish Government was still insisting that no such meeting took place. In a Freedom Of Information response on that date, located here, it said
“we hold no recorded information about any contact between Mr Geoff Aberdein and the current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on or around 29th March 2018, or about contact between Mr Geoff Aberdein and Scottish Government Ministers or staff concerning inappropriate behaviour by Alex Salmond towards Scottish Government staff or any other women.”
The information I seek is as follows:
(1) Given that the First Minister had remembered this previously-forgotten meeting approximately 18 months earlier (“late January/early February 2019”), can you explain why the CEU, representing the Scottish Government, was a year and a half later still officially denying that it ever happened?
Was the CEU covering up for the First Minister? Or did the First Minister fail to inform the CEU of the meeting after she’d remembered it, having for some reason failed to properly record it at the time it happened? I can think of no other possible explanation than those, because if the meeting had concerned party business rather than government business (and therefore not been required to be recorded) it would of course have been in contravention of the Ministerial Code to hold it in the First Minister’s office.
(2) Were any other Scottish Government staff, who also had a duty to record the meeting, present during it? If so, who were they and why did they not do so?


Open to interpretation


wingsoverscotland--2020-10-11--This is what a liar looks like

This is what a liar looks like

We ’ re grumpy this morning , readers , because it ’ s Sunday and we were planning a long lie and then someone told us about this .
It ’ s the First Minister appearing on the Sophy Ridge show on Sky News at around 8.45am and you need to see it .
It was quite the performance .
Nothing we could say to you will be more revealing than just watching the entire clip for yourself .
It ’ s such a piece of nervy , jittery evasion and deflection that sometimes it ’ s hard not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person who alerted us couldn ’ t make it to the end .
So we ’ ll restrict ourselves to noting a couple of key points , because otherwise almost every sentence of it could be dissected and we ’ d be here all day .
Sturgeon starts off by completely swerving Ridge ’ s question about when she knew of the investigation about Salmond , which we suspect is because she wants to avoid the embarrassment of having to repeat her pathetic excuse about having “ forgotten ” about her meeting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She repeatedly – even when Ridge mentions Aberdein specifically – pretends to misunderstand that Ridge is talking about a separate matter in 2017 , in which Aberdein had no involvement , when an allegation was made about events at Edinburgh Airport .
Quite interestingly , in an interview with Andrew Marr in October 2018 , Sturgeon had categorically denied having ever heard ANYTHING about ANY allegations of a sexual nature against Salmond until the ones she heard about in “ April ” 2018 .
Yet in her written evidence to the committee she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this [ November 2017 ] allegation at the time ” , which inescapably means that she was definitely lying to Marr when she denied any knowledge of it 11 months later .
Throughout the whole 10-minute section Sturgeon never does answer Ridge ’ s opening question , continually ducking it with the 2017 misdirection .
Ridge is persistent but not quite on top of her brief , so she lets Sturgeon off the hook a couple of times , such as when Sturgeon remarkably denies ever having said she “ forgot ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though she says so in her own written evidence to the committee .
Sturgeon also trots out her trusty squirrel of claiming that people are accusing her of both conspiring against and colluding with Salmond , although we can ’ t remember the last time anyone actually accused her of the latter .
( The nervous giggle as she says it is almost as telling as the number of times she blinks throughout the interview . )
She repeatedly basically says Salmond ’ s guilty anyway , insisting that the whole thing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he did wasn ’ t technically criminal , and refers to the single such incident that Salmond admitted – an occasion when two mildly tipsy and fully clothed consenting adults slightly crossed a professional boundary , the more senior one apologised for allowing it to happen , the apology was accepted and they continued to work together .
Outrageously , she then attempts to claim that Salmond ’ s evident anger at Sturgeon ISN ’ T because she conspired to try to have him imprisoned for the rest of his life for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but because she refused to “ collude ” with him to stop any investigation ever happening – something that , once again , HER OWN submission to the committee shows as a plain and simple lie .
What Salmond actually did was attempt to solve the matter through arbitration and warn the Scottish Government that its inquiry was flawed , biased and illegal and would be expensively defeated in court – something which proved to be precisely the case when the Scottish Government backed down in a panic at the last moment rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed in the courtroom .
Had Sturgeon listened then , she wouldn ’ t be digging herself into a bigger and bigger hole now .
We watched Casino on telly a couple of nights ago and Joe Pesci ’ s grisly death scene was barely any grimmer than Sturgeon ’ s performance this morning .
It was the interview equivalent of being clubbed to a bloody mess with steel baseball bats and thrown bleeding but still alive into a shallow ditch .
We fear Nicola Sturgeon ’ s eventual political end will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit from the cameras turning away at the final moment to spare us the horror .

We’re grumpy this morning, readers, because it’s Sunday and we were planning a long lie and then someone told us about this. It’s the First Minister appearing on the Sophy Ridge show on Sky News at around 8.45am and you need to see it.
It was quite the performance.
Nothing we could say to you will be more revealing than just watching the entire clip for yourself. It’s such a piece of nervy, jittery evasion and deflection that sometimes it’s hard not to switch it off – indeed, the person who alerted us couldn’t make it to the end.
So we’ll restrict ourselves to noting a couple of key points, because otherwise almost every sentence of it could be dissected and we’d be here all day.
Sturgeon starts off by completely swerving Ridge’s question about when she knew of the investigation about Salmond, which we suspect is because she wants to avoid the embarrassment of having to repeat her pathetic excuse about having “forgotten” about her meeting with Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018.
She repeatedly – even when Ridge mentions Aberdein specifically – pretends to misunderstand that Ridge is talking about a separate matter in 2017, in which Aberdein had no involvement, when an allegation was made about events at Edinburgh Airport.
(Nothing ever came of that allegation, because it was so ludicrous and feeble that it didn’t even manage to get onto a charge sheet where Salmond was accused of crimes as heinous as “pinging” someone’s hair in a lift. It was also completely false.)
Quite interestingly, in an interview with Andrew Marr in October 2018, Sturgeon had categorically denied having ever heard ANYTHING about ANY allegations of a sexual nature against Salmond until the ones she heard about in “April” 2018.
Yet in her written evidence to the committee she says “I spoke to Mr Salmond about this [November 2017] allegation at the time”, which inescapably means that she was definitely lying to Marr when she denied any knowledge of it 11 months later.
Throughout the whole 10-minute section Sturgeon never does answer Ridge’s opening question, continually ducking it with the 2017 misdirection. Ridge is persistent but not quite on top of her brief, so she lets Sturgeon off the hook a couple of times, such as when Sturgeon remarkably denies ever having said she “forgot” about the meeting with Aberdein, even though she says so in her own written evidence to the committee.
RIDGE: You said that you forgot that you first found out from his chief-of-staff. STURGEON: No, I didn’t say that.
Sturgeon also trots out her trusty squirrel of claiming that people are accusing her of both conspiring against and colluding with Salmond, although we can’t remember the last time anyone actually accused her of the latter. (The nervous giggle as she says it is almost as telling as the number of times she blinks throughout the interview.)
She repeatedly basically says Salmond’s guilty anyway, insisting that the whole thing is his fault for behaving badly even if what he did wasn’t technically criminal, and refers to the single such incident that Salmond admitted – an occasion when two mildly tipsy and fully clothed consenting adults slightly crossed a professional boundary, the more senior one apologised for allowing it to happen, the apology was accepted and they continued to work together.
Outrageously, she then attempts to claim that Salmond’s evident anger at Sturgeon ISN’T because she conspired to try to have him imprisoned for the rest of his life for crimes he didn’t commit, but because she refused to “collude” with him to stop any investigation ever happening – something that, once again, HER OWN submission to the committee shows as a plain and simple lie.
What Salmond actually did was attempt to solve the matter through arbitration and warn the Scottish Government that its inquiry was flawed, biased and illegal and would be expensively defeated in court – something which proved to be precisely the case when the Scottish Government backed down in a panic at the last moment rather than let its crooked machinations be publicly exposed in the courtroom.
(Indeed, on 8 January 2019 Sturgeon had told Parliament very firmly that after her meetings with Salmond on the subject she did not intervene, and did not feel under any pressure to do so, ie from him.)
Had Sturgeon listened then, she wouldn’t be digging herself into a bigger and bigger hole now. We watched Casino on telly a couple of nights ago and Joe Pesci’s grisly death scene was barely any grimmer than Sturgeon’s performance this morning.
It was the interview equivalent of being clubbed to a bloody mess with steel baseball bats and thrown bleeding but still alive into a shallow ditch. We fear Nicola Sturgeon’s eventual political end will not, unlike Nicky Santoro’s, benefit from the cameras turning away at the final moment to spare us the horror.


Crumbling walls

It doesn ’ t take a master analyst to see that the Salmond inquiry committee is running out of patience with the Scottish Government ’ s endless attempts to obstruct its work .
This afternoon it issued a statement , with obvious irritation , making clear that it did not wish to see documents the Scottish Government was trying to submit to it , which the committee had not asked for , and which had previously been struck down as unlawful by Lord Pentland in the initial judicial inquiry .
The Scottish Government ’ s only purpose in doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the discredited and disproven-in-court allegations into the public domain with the intention of smearing Mr Salmond yet again , and the committee has made its displeasure with the plan clear , telling the Scottish Government to abandon its intended legal action to release the documents and get on with producing the ones the inquiry HAS asked for .
But there ’ s a little bit more to the story than that .
The real meat is found in a paragraph at the very end of the Herald ’ s piece .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers – which Wings understands will be delivered promptly – include the original petition for the judicial inquiry , but also the transcript from a meeting of something called a Commission On Diligence .
The Commission was ordered by Lord Pentland in December 2018 because he believed that the Scottish Government was lying when it said it had produced all the relevant documents for the judicial review .
And sure enough , a veritable avalanche of other material suddenly arose as a result of the Commission ’ s deliberations .
We urge readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the subject , which goes into a lot of detail and saves us repeating it here .
But the explosive nature of the documents was the reason the Scottish Government completely caved in and conceded defeat in the judicial inquiry a matter of days later , because only by doing so could it prevent those documents becoming public knowledge .
But the current committee has now requested , and should receive , these documents , although we ’ re told the Scottish Government is still frantically trying to resist providing them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , because it ’ s in the possession of Alex Salmond ’ s lawyers , is the under-oath transcript of the Commission On Diligence which reveals what was in them .
When it does , the embarrassment of being told to shut up about the crooked struck-out report will , this site suspects , rapidly begin to look like the happiest day of the Scottish Government ’ s life by comparison .

It doesn’t take a master analyst to see that the Salmond inquiry committee is running out of patience with the Scottish Government’s endless attempts to obstruct its work.
This afternoon it issued a statement, with obvious irritation, making clear that it did not wish to see documents the Scottish Government was trying to submit to it, which the committee had not asked for, and which had previously been struck down as unlawful by Lord Pentland in the initial judicial inquiry.
The Scottish Government’s only purpose in doing so was to try to put the details of the discredited and disproven-in-court allegations into the public domain with the intention of smearing Mr Salmond yet again, and the committee has made its displeasure with the plan clear, telling the Scottish Government to abandon its intended legal action to release the documents and get on with producing the ones the inquiry HAS asked for.
But there’s a little bit more to the story than that.
The real meat is found in a paragraph at the very end of the Herald’s piece.
The documents being requested from Salmond’s lawyers – which Wings understands will be delivered promptly – include the original petition for the judicial inquiry, but also the transcript of something called a Commission And Diligence hearing.
The hearing was ordered by Lord Pentland in December 2018 because he believed that the Scottish Government was lying when it said it had produced all the relevant documents for the judicial review. And sure enough, a veritable avalanche of other material suddenly arose as a result of the Commission’s deliberations.
We urge readers to hasten to this Craig Murray blog on the subject, which goes into a lot of detail and saves us repeating it here. But the explosive nature of the documents was the reason the Scottish Government completely caved in and conceded defeat in the judicial inquiry a matter of days later, because only by doing so could it prevent those documents becoming public knowledge.
But the current committee has now requested, and should receive, these documents, although we’re told the Scottish Government is still frantically trying to resist providing them. What the committee will definitely get, however, because it’s in the possession of Alex Salmond’s lawyers, is the under-oath transcript of the Commission And Diligence report revealing what was in them.
When it does, the embarrassment of being told to shut up about the crooked struck-out report will, this site suspects, rapidly begin to look like the happiest day of the Scottish Government’s life by comparison.