The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

A moment of truth

Posted on January 10, 2021 by

This is a significant development. (Click to enlarge.)

Weirdly, we’re not actually sure how many members are on the Holyrood inquiry committee at the moment. There are normally nine – four SNP and five opposition – but with Andy Wightman having recently resigned from the Greens we don’t know if he’s still on the committee or not, since he was originally there as a Green nominee. If not, we don’t know whether, when or by who he’ll be replaced.

But the other four non-SNP members have tonight issued a formal request that James Hamilton, who’s conducting the other inquiry into Nicola Sturgeon’s actions relating to the Alex Salmond affair, be instructed officially to investigate the matter of whether she lied to Parliament.

This, of course, is a subject Wings has been covering for some time.

Mr Hamilton’s original remit, written by Deputy First Minister John Swinney, instructed him only to determine whether Nicola Sturgeon had attempted to intervene improperly in the investigation.

But this, as we’ve noted previously, is a red herring that nobody actually cares about and which is highly unlikely to be found to be a breach of the Ministerial Code, since it’s actually her duty to ensure the investigation progresses legally – a point which was painstakingly made in Alex Salmond’s statement to Mr Hamilton, which we exclusively published in full on Friday night.

It’s a bit like the police arresting Josef Fritzl and then only investigating whether he had planning permission for his basement alterations.

Subsequently, both the First Minister (in the Holyrood chamber on 29 October last year) and her deputy (on today’s BBC Politics Scotland) have said that in their view the remit DOES already encompass the entire Ministerial Code, including the matter of whether she misled Parliament.

That view was also stated, in rather evasive wording, by the Scottish Government in a Freedom Of Information response to this site last month.

However, the reality appears to be that these statements are meaningless at best, and at worst are deliberately cynical lies. According to tonight’s letter from the committee members, Mr Hamilton will in fact NOT be properly empowered to deliver a view on the alleged misleading of Parliament unless expressly instructed to by Mr Swinney.

(Sources close to the investigation have told Wings the same thing.)

So two things can now happen:

(1) John Swinney can accede to the committee members’ request and explicitly instruct Mr Hamilton to investigate the claims made in Mr Salmond’s submission. After all, he would only be formally clarifying something he and the First Minister both say is already the case, so there would be no possible reason not to.

(2) He can refuse, making it absolutely evident and beyond any dispute that when he and the First Minister said that they considered Mr Hamilton to already have that ability, they were deliberately misleading voters – and in Sturgeon’s case, ironically, misleading Parliament – with statements they knew to be false, and raising the very serious question of why the First Minister and her deputy do not want those claims to be investigated and why they are yet again obstructing the committee in its task despite having promised it total co-operation.

We await Mr Swinney’s response with very great interest.

Print Friendly

    136 to “A moment of truth”

    1. Ian McCubbin says:

      I too await his response given he is my MSP.
      It will be interesting.

    2. TruthForDummies says:

      Swinney is awful a total backstabbing snake. Him smearing Alex today was the final straw. They are an evil, vicious cabal at the heart of the Scottish government led by Nicola is a sociopath with low self esteem.

      It all depends on whether the press runs with this, hopefully the will.

      People might shrug and say oh so what she’s forgetful but if it gets linked to the fit up then Nicola is in big trouble, Alex is still to give his evidence so here’s hoping the link can be made

    3. Kenny says:

      Good. I hope both are beginning to accept that things are finally coming to a head, and of course they are.
      Sturgeon has a real audacity; she knows she’s bang-to-rights yet she persists on drawing things out – ultimately misleading the Scottish people. Do the right thing – for once, Sturgeon.

    4. Derek says:

      f/x sound of plot thickening…

    5. Davie Oga says:

      Did Swinney breach the Ministerial Code by misleading parliament that Hamilton’s remit included investigating The FM’s breach of the Ministerial Code for to lying to parliament?

    6. Desimond says:

      The response shall be “Now is not the time!”

    7. Astonished says:

      I think it just hit the fan.

      There is no escaping this – for Scotland’s sake go now. And at least leave the independence movement a chance to be ready for May.

      P.S. Sack lesley Evans before ye go.

    8. Bob Mack says:

      God Almighty Stu. Did you ever herd sheep in a previous life.

      You certainly know how to drive them into a coral so they cant escape.

      The net tightens.

    9. Heaver says:

      Nicola Sturgeon is, in her own words, a proven liar.

    10. Willie Jay says:

      Once again, way ahead of the pack without fear or favour.
      This is the simple reason why I subscribe to WoS.

    11. Hugh Jarse says:

      Torquil lets slip on the Westminster hr that a bill has been prepared for HR to postpone.
      Is this news?

    12. Bob Mack says:

      So she told Holyrood that the Inquiry can cover all aspects.

      If that is untrue she has again breached the code . Yeh?

    13. Fillofficer says:

      I witnessed ‘honest’ John Swinney on tv today.
      He came over all slimey, the 1st time I’ve ever felt negatively about him.
      Our scotgov is in a pickle & ms Evans is up to her scrawny neck in it.
      This saga will be the end of many wellkent faces by their own sad doings.
      You thought 2020 was bad, fasten yer seatbelts etc

    14. Alistair says:

      Does this mean John Swinney has also breached the ministerial code by lying about the remit of the investigation?

    15. Tony Williams says:

      I’ve just watched John Swinney on Politics Scotland (recorded, obviously) in which he points out that he did this in Holyrood in November. Are you, Rev Stuart, paying careful attention to whom you are in bed with?

    16. Bob Mack says:


      Yes. He gave that answer in Holyrood.

    17. Lennie says:

      Why are so many so vocal in chastising Salmond on social media for submitting evidence to the inquiry? It is any coincidence that many of those are the same people proclaiming Nicola’s innocence before the inquiry has concluded yet are the very same people claiming Salmond was guilty before a jury has reached a verdict?

    18. Hugh Jarse says:

      Kenny will be horrified I’m sure Tony.
      You’re probably beneath the dear leaders mockery.

    19. Bob Mack says:

      Wishart sounds rattled. SNP bad bloggers!!

    20. David Ferguson says:

      Since the most recent Salmond documents were published, the internet has been awash with Sturgeon acolytes (and the Great Womperson herself) trumpeting about how much she is relishing the prospect of “giving her side of the story” and “setting the record straight”.

      As displays of bravado go this is all quite admirable, but I cannot help speculating on the question of “What is she actually going to say?”

      Seriously, what answers is she planning to give to simple and basic questions, to which the only rational answer that bears any scrutiny is “I was lying…”?

      Anybody care to throw out a few guesses?

    21. David Ferguson says:

      Lennie says:
      10 January, 2021 at 11:39 pm

      …yet are the very same people claiming Salmond was guilty before a jury has reached a verdict?

      It would be more accurate to say that they’re claiming Salmond was guilty after the jury has reached its verdict.

    22. Sharny Dubs says:

      It’s going to be dragged kicking and screaming….

      How they wriggle with the weasel words.

      Slippery bunch of evildoers

    23. Saffron Robe says:

      Superb Stuart. I didn’t quite understand it at first but you have trapped them in the double bind of their own doublespeak!

      It is like watching ?ri Ram battle with the daemon Ravana!

    24. Garrion says:

      Cue activation of fawning Sturgeonista facebots.
      They don’t come cheap either.

    25. holymacmoses says:

      Are you sleeping at the moment Wings? I’ve barely read and assimilated and researched and checked one piece from you before there’s another and more interesting one overtaken it.
      That’s my way of thanking you for all your hard work
      (change the weir(d)ly on 2nd line)
      I’m still guessing that Sturgeon will come into contact with Covid along with a few others and the issue will be put to the back burner.
      It’s quite something when there’s a committee going where I think AC-H is doing a fair to middling job and I have become increasingly impressed by Ms Baillie.
      It is a very frustrating task that the members have undertaken and i reserve sympathy for any of the SNP members there who really want to do the right thing.

    26. TJenny says:

      Cough ‘Weirly’ cough.

    27. Kenny J says:

      This wording is the bit that puzzles me.
      “These included claims that she failed to inform the civil service in good time of her meetings with him and that she allowed the Scottish Government to contest a civil court case against him despite having had legal advice that it was likely to collapse”.
      an extract from the Scotsman piece.

      “She allowed the Scottish Government” — she IS the Scottish Government, Swinney, Browne and the rest are mere cyphers. When the Scottish Government were warned by their council, it would have been relayed to the final arbiter, her, for a decision, twist or fold, Ms Sturgeon decided to be bold and take another card.

      Whoever composed this release was being a bit tongue in cheek.

    28. Helen Yates says:

      The walls are crumbling around them.

      Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave/When First We Practice To Deceive.

    29. Kenny J says:

      “Helen Yates says:
      11 January, 2021 at 12:31 am

      The walls are crumbling around them.

      Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave/When First We Practice To Deceive.”

      Damn tootin’

    30. Willie says:

      What this further development shows is that Sturgeon will only be removed from office forceably.

      It is clear to the blindest of blind that Sturgeon is not fit to hold office. John Swinney now comes across as the same. Unfit for office, one now has to ask what it will take to get these thugs out of office.

      And thug is the operative word because political thugs are what they are. Societies become dangerous places with people like these. Abuse of power, the use of police and prosecution as a political weapon, and a disregard for Parliament, where do we go from here. You either have democracy and a rule of law or you don’t. And if don’t, then we need to find a way to restore democracy and a rule of law.

      We shall wait and see if Messrs Hamilton, Michell, Baillie and Fraser are too treated like something you wipe off your shoe.

    31. Breeks says:


      Butterflies danced on invisible strings,
      Showing wings they borrowed from a rainbow.
      And a blackbird on high sang a praise to the sky,
      While a light aeroplane sprayed the fields
      With a silvery rain…

      … Nothing moves now but the swaying ripe corn.
      Not a dawn is greeted with a bird’s song.
      There’s a feather or two from a bird that once flew,
      Before a light aeroplane sprayed the fields
      With a silvery rain


    32. MaggieC says:

      Rev Stuart Campbell , You wrote ,

      “ we’re not actually sure how many members are on the Holyrood inquiry committee at the moment. There are normally nine – four SNP and five opposition – but with Andy Wightman having recently resigned from the Greens we don’t know if he’s still on the committee or not, since he was originally there as a Green nominee. If not, we don’t know whether, when or by who he’ll be replaced. “

      I’ve just checked the Committee page and it’s showing Alison Johnstone again from the Greens , I believe that she had been away from Parliament while she was recovering from an operation so it’s possible that she’ll be back on Tuesday as the meeting is being held virtually so she’ll be able to take part in the meeting from home . Andy Wightman has been removed from the substitute members section .

      Thank you once again for all your hard work .

    33. Willie says:

      That’s a good one Holymacrosis I can just imagine Sturgeon going sick with Covid when she is due to give evidence.

      The woman is scum!

    34. Alf Baird says:

      In a colony, the meritocracy is always mediocre.

    35. Davie Oga says:

      On June 25th 1993, Kim Campbell became the first female prime minister of Canada.
      She was a breath of fresh air. Plain talking, open, honest, down to earth. Her approval ratings were stratospheric. The most popular leader Canada had ever had since the dawn of organised opinion polling.

      Her government however, was stale. Her party had been in power for 9 years under the leadership of Brian Mulrooney, now universally known as “Lyin Bryan”. People loved Kim Campbell though, and she managed to boost the Progressive Conservatives, to the point where they seriously looked like winning another term in office.

      Too much damage done over the previous 9 years, too
      many lies, too many cover ups too much corruption. Politicians are a funny breed in that they don’t seem to think lying has long term consequences. But the lies build up, and the public cottons on.

      On October 25th 1993, the most popular Prime Minister in Canada’s history led her party into election day. She may as well have led them over the top at The Somme. The scale of the defeat was shocking. Their vote share dropped from 43% to 16, and a majority govt with 156 seats was left with 2.

      The main reason for the defeat

      When you lie to people repeatedly, they don’t want to see your face anymore. Too many liars fronting the campaign.

      Now, I don’t imagine that trolling was a word in 1993, but what “Honest” John Swinney did on Marr was trolling the Scottish people. Taking us for fools, when we can see the picture more clearly with each passing day.

      It may not be this May due to the fact that we know the importance of the election, but the day will come when the Deputy FM’s performance on Marr will hurt The SNP, deeply and permanently.

    36. Charles Dixon says:

      There are some nights you read Wings and you end up feeling a bit flat.

      And there are some nights you read Wings and you get that wee surge of Indy Joy pounding in your heart.

      Well tonight is definitely a feeling of the latter.

      It’s like doing a 1000 piece jigsaw and you eventually complete all the sides.

      We are now filling in the middle and the puzzle is all starting to become clear.

      All the big words are disappearing and it is at last becoming idiot proof.

      This is important if you want to take ordinary members of the public with you.

      Top class Rev, excellent piece of investigative journalism.

      We are with you every step of the way.

    37. Breeks says:

      I confess, I’m a bit cynical and a bit of a prude about a celebrity moving into the glitz and showboating of American politics, but Arnie’s speech is much less cheesy than I thought it was going to be, and it’s all the more poignant when you listen to the words and imagine “what if” he’d been talking about Scotland, where it’s not just our democracy being violated, but our whole sovereign Constitution and status as a Nation being trashed both by evil colonial usurpers stealing what is ours, and our own spineless charlatans who let them away with it and refuse to stand up for Scotland’s rights.

      We don’t have hoodlums breaking windows, we have rotten, selfish, ‘do nothing’ politicians and lousy propagandists posing as newsmen who are just as spineless as those Arnie talks about, who go along with things when they really need to dig their heels in, fight back, and defend what is right from what is wrong.

      OK, the bit about Conan’s sword maybe is as cheesy as you’d expect, but hey, it’s America, and they dig that crap, but I think he’d already made his point pretty well by then…

    38. Hatuey says:

      This is the most heartening article I’ve read on here in months. It suggests the inquiry really intends to hold them to account, that it’s authentic, and not just a whitewash. I was worried about that.

      When you think about it, it’s not very likely that Salmond will hold back, show any sympathy, or come to some sort of amicable agreement along the lines of “resign now and we shall say no more about it…” If things had gone differently, Salmond knows he would be in a covid-infested prison right now.

      It feels like we are in those moments before a thunderstorm begins, with tension and electricity in the air. The birds are acting weird like they don’t know if they should take cover or get to fuck.

    39. Charles Dixon says:

      If you listen to Swinney on the Scottish politics show today, he links Alex Salmond and the Scottish Tory Party about 3 times.

      Saying, “Mr Salmond along with the Scottish Tories are going after the First Minister.. “.

      Swinney trying to discredit Mr Salmond at every opportunity.

      Seeing The Mr Nasty side of Swinney.

    40. twathater says:

      AND STILL Alex Salmond is being tried by the words in the press or is it really the words of slimey Swinney , the article reads

      “You’ve got to remember that we faced a difficult situation of having to investigate complaints about inappropriate behaviour, a lot of which have now been conceded by Alex Salmond in court, and that issue had to be addressed.

      I don’t remember Alex CONCEDING the words of INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR , once again let’s interject OUR (swinney , sturgeon ,pishfart ,blackman )incendiary , inflammatory words to convince ordinary people that he is a bbbbaaaadddd person

    41. MaggieC says:

      This is from Mark Hirst on twitter ,

      “ We’ve barely scratched the surface yet. There are far more damning revelations to come. It is out and out corruption. “

    42. Al-Stuart says:

      Pete Wishart, self-styled Tweeter of the year you tweeted…

      “Just watch the #SNPbad bloggers and their followers get behind the unionists on this.….”

      Wishart, you fucking selfish little shit, I am NOT an #SNPbad blogger.

      You wet wimp, change that to…



      Wishart, you boast is a 20 year career in Westminster. A place where you, as a BAD SNP MP attempted to get your foul smelling cosy feet under the Speaker’s chair.

      When the REAL SNP members get their political party back from the Sturgeonite McWokeists and the Fat Banker fae Skye with the Bald Boring Banker fae Blairgowrie, then the levers of power will have a great deal of energy directed towards…

      ( a ). Investigating those who conspired to jail an innocent man using their fake rape claims.

      ( b ). Ensuring the prosecution of bent MSPs, MPs, councillors and corrupt civil servants. Wherever possible seeking custodial sentences.

      ( c ). Passing legislation increasing the sentencing guidelines for politicians who steel money raised for charitable/not-for-profit endeavours. For example those who “weave” money stolen from one set of donors and using it for your own personal political career advancement.

      ( d ). Introducing COSY FEET PETE’S LAW: Limiting ALL SNP MPs to two terms or 8 years at Westminster (whichever is the shorter period). An exception may be required, for example, for honest politicians with a leadership skill set. E.G. Alex Salmond or rarely other politicians of that calibre would be ELIGIBLE to serve at Westminster for additional terms, but ONLY on a majority vote by special resolution of all SNP members.

      Wishart, your days disgracing politics are numbered. You do NOT deserve a pension.

      How dare you libel people on pro-indy blogs such as Wings as advocates of #SNPbad.

      I used to employ you in the Runrig days and you were a thick twat back then. So in terms that your squeaky embarrassment of a voice at Westminster uttering cringe fest pish from that dim 20 watt bulb of a brain in your vacuous cranium, you need to understand…

      We are intent on remedying the likes of…








      Pishfart, your goose is cooked, you’ve been found out. You will soon be out of office.

    43. Frazerio says:

      £10 on the second one please!!!

    44. Charles Dixon says:

      I must admit, Swinney beat me there.

      I didn’t think he had the balls to be this nasty.

      There you go,,, you learn something new every day.

    45. Charles Dixon says:

      Breeks 1.43am

      Are you on the right thread mate???


    46. twathater says:

      1.7 Where he or she deems it appropriate ,the First Minister may refer matters to the independent advisers on the Ministerial Code to provide him or her with advice on which to base his or her judgement about any action required in respect of Ministerial conduct. The findings of the independent advisers will be published.

      Is this also NOT a conflict of interest and an ability if the FM so decides to DIVERT ATTENTION from the real meat needing investigated , which judging by the responses from the SG is what is happening

      WHY are there ONLY 4 signatures on the committees demand for the remit to be expanded when there are approx 9 supposed members , do the SNP members have no interest in seeing justice done , or have they been persuaded that it is NOT in their interest to sign the document , I think it is incumbent on the SNP members of the committee to investigate this properly on behalf of the electorate of Scotland

    47. Saffron Robe says:

      Willie, you are spot on to say they are a bunch of thugs making a mockery of the rule of law. However, at least the original Thuggees believed they were performing a sacred service to appease the Goddess Kali. The only thing Sturgeon and her cabal are appeasing is their paymasters in London by derailing Scottish independence.

    48. Frazerio says:

      Regular readers have known all this for months. Its just been a case of patiently waiting for it to eventually break in the MSM. Would they or could they ignore it forever?
      When listening to a BBC radio news bulletin the other day and I heard ‘Alec Salmond has accused the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon of breaking the ministerial code’!!!, I was for a moment genuinely mentally dislocated. I wasnt expecting to hear the BBC admit that. Crikey, the BBC are finally ‘making public’ what has been public for yonks. Then of course, for balance you understand, they had to report the Sturgeon spokesperson saying ‘Alec Salmond is just trying to deflect from the accusations made against him’. There we go, I thought, thats more like it. This is indeed the BBC I’m listening too. Even though the truth had to come out, they could still shroud it in ludicrous bullcrap and somehow still make Salmond the baddie.
      But, arent things just so much more real now they’re being reported by ‘respectable’ outlets like the BBC, the Sunday Times and The Spectator and not by some swearymongering demagogue who doesnt even live in Scotland.
      Its weird how perceptions change depending on the messenger/s. What Rev Stu & Craig Murray have been clearly and eloquently publicising for months was dismissed as burblings of social outcasts. But when the truth is the truth is the truth, eventually even the most biased of state propagandists have to give in. The truth just has to come out. And reading the letter above, and seeing the signatories at the end, are there any Wings readers out there who could have possibly predicted, that when the whole Sturgeon shebang came crashing down, those leading the integrity charge would be Jackie Fucking Baillie and Murdo Fucking Fraser. Un fucking believable.

      Thank you Stu, thank you Craig and good luck to any Sturgeonista’s who cannot see that when the likes of Baillie & Fraser are so far above you on the moral high ground and all you can do is continue to fling shite at an innoxent man, there really is not much lower you can go.

    49. boris says:

      Does anyone know??

      Ms “a” and Ms “b” complainants of harassment against Alex Salmond were invited by the “investigating Officer” to actively participate in readings of and amendments to the procedures subsequently adopted by the Scottish Government.

      But, was the invitation extended to and accepted by any of the complainants, canvassed for and subsequently “roped in” by the SG and police to level charges of harassment against Alex.

    50. MaggieC says:

      Boris @ 2.57 am

      If I remember correctly complainants A & B did not want to go to the police with their Complaints and it was the Scottish Government who went to the police with the Complaints .

    51. Hatuey says:

      Twathater (quoting Swinney): “You’ve got to remember that we faced a difficult situation of having to investigate complaints about inappropriate behaviour, a lot of which have now been conceded by Alex Salmond in court…”

      Note how the outcome of the trial has been turned completely upside down so that it proved his guilt, not his innocence.

      They’re clearly trying to bait Salmond into talking about the so-called substance of the complaints. He won’t bite though.

      The odd thing is that they seem to be fighting as if this is will be decided in some way by public opinion. A lot of people on here keep referring to public opinion too.

      Public opinion won’t feature in either of the Inquiries. Neither will the “substance of the complaints”.

      These Inquiries are into Sturgeon and the Government’s role in the handling of all this, and the fact that the scope of the inquiries is likely to widen is something they should be deeply concerned about.

      They’re still acting like rank amateurs, even as they walk into the jaws of their worst nightmare.

    52. boris says:

      Boris says
      MaggieC@ 3.08am

      I gathered it was Ms”a” who did not ask to register a formal complaint expressing the wish only to be allowed to voice her concerns to Nicola Sturgeon.

    53. Hatuey says:

      Boris, the police investigation wasn’t in progress at that time. From memory, the events you refer to were in November and/or December 2017. As I recall, the police investigation didn’t start until the summer of 2018.

    54. Hatuey says:

      Al-Stuart, that last comment was brilliant. Love it.

    55. Al-Stuart says:



      You’re on £10



    56. Al-Stuart says:

      Hi Hatuey,

      Thanks, that is very kind of you.

      May I reciprocate please. I very much liked the picture painted by your elegantly placed words earlier in the thread…

      “It feels like we are in those moments before a thunderstorm begins, with tension and electricity in the air. The birds are acting weird like they don’t know if they should take cover or get to fuck”.

      Quoted from Hatuey ?

    57. MaggieC says:

      Boris @ 3.20 am
      Hatuey @ 3.23 am

      Here’s the official report from 1st December when the following last gave evidence to the Committee ,

      Judith Mackinnon (Scottish Government)
      Nicola Richards (Scottish Government)
      Gillian Russell (Scottish Government)
      John Somers (Scottish Government)

      I’ll leave both of you to read it as I’m too tired now , it’s time for me to try and get some sleep .

    58. Willie says:

      Here Saffron Robe, better not suggest that the Thuggees were on sacred works be-friending travellers and then mugging them.

      Might give Sturgeon and the caste the idea they’re performing divine works rather than the sordid thugs they are.

    59. David F says:

      I’ve just read the published documents for tomorrow’s (Tuesday) committee hearing.

      I can’t wait for Stu’s take on this. Salmond’s evisceration of Evans is, if anything, even more forensic than the treatment he gave Sturgeon. If the committee goes for her on even half of the points he has raised, she is going to be absolutely flayed.

      She appears to believe that the role of the Permanent Secretary is to waste all her time and as much public money as possible on personal vendettas against men she doesn’t like, and then lie her arse off about it. That is one repulsive lying shitsack of a creature masquerading as a human being.

    60. Iain More says:

      Unfortunately I don’t see the Brit Nat Press and Media running with this. Too many MI5 plants would fall out of the trees if they did.

    61. Breeks says:

      Aye, that might do to be going on with… But I’d rather not be trusting Sturgeon to hold the line and actually deliver…

      She doesn’t ‘do’ ultimatums very well, otherwise Scotland might have had a Constitutional Backstop which prevented Brexit.

    62. David F says:

      Inter alia (as we barrack-room lawyers like to say) new documents in Salmond’s possession reveal that the Scottish Government – that’s right, the folk that are such obsessive zealots about the confidentiality of legal advice – were gaily sharing Salmond’s privileged legal advice with everybody up to and down to the cleaning chappie.

      Evans was given a copy of Salmond’s confidential legal advice under privilege as it testified to the unsustainability of the SG case. She promptly shared it with Mackinon ( the “impartial” investigating officer), who promptly shared it, not only with the complainants in the case, but with other witnesses.

      You start to wonder how a bunch of people without a shred of integrity and who don’t appear to have two brain cells to rub together between them ever ascended to these positions of authority.

      #metoo has a lot to answer for.

    63. Hatuey says:

      Not sure why MaggieC is suggesting I read a report, but thanks.

      Do I come across on here as the sort of guy that would benefit from reading reports? That isn’t the look I was aiming for.

      Al-Stuart, yw and ty in return.

    64. Robert Louis says:

      Another terrible start to yet another terrible week, in England’s last colony. Every other country in the world broke free from England’s colonial, thieving jackboot, but seemingly, Scotland just can’t…for ‘reasons’.

      Tired of all the procrastination and dithering. Jeezo, just get the f*** on with it already.

      Independence. Those not actively AND URGENTLY trying to get us independence do not deserve our votes.

    65. iain mhor says:

      @David Ferguson 11:56pm

      Drink every time you read/hear:
      “Acting in good faith”

      The universal plea of the scoundrel.

    66. Contrary says:

      Well, this is interesting, so Nicola Sturgeon also lied about the remit of the James Hamilton Inquiry. I think we can add to the list of lies the oft-repeated ‘open and transparent’ – she and her government are now 100% opaque.

      Why no SNP MSPs on the committee signing the letter though? Are they too scared for their careers? Are their careers at risk at all – is the SNP leadership so vindictive that they are barred from doing their job? Why wouldn’t Linda Fabiani at least sign this? She is retiring anyway, but the rest shouldn’t be looking for reelection when their interpretation of justice is to look after their own skins first – they are enabling corruption by their silence here, and they’ve then made this request political – Ffs, it makes Murdo look like he has a use (which he doesn’t, but he is hanging on other coat tails to make it look that way).

      Things are definitely hotting up politically – there appears to be a lot of panic going on from many quarters, which would seem to be an overreaction to a couple of simple submissions from Alex Salmond, which say what we expected, broadly, them to say – and there will be a full submission to the Harassment Committee later. I’m not sure what our governments expected him to say?

      Douglas Ross was on GMS earlier, I missed a lot of it being half asleep, but he was very panicky sounding, repeating himself about how there shouldn’t be an independence referendum (2014 result blah blah as though we haven’t had elections and changes since) – Laura Maxwell asked pointedly about should the Holyrood GE be delayed – he tried to evade the Q, because it’s a VOTE LOSER to look like you are running scared – and he waffled about vaccine roll-out have to see etc.

      What they didn’t discuss was a plebiscite election in May – no referendum required Douglas – which I can only assume that all the unionists, including all MSM and the BBC, will avoid this subject until some pro-independence parties declare that’s the platform they’ll be standing on.

      Judging by the level of panic, declaring for a plebiscite – if the SNP were to do it anyway (yes, I know they won’t with NS in charge) – would be a prime political manoeuvre. If it was done early enough, either the wider electorate settles in with the idea before May, or the uk government fully panics and promises a referendum.

      The sticking point is, of course, the SNP having an establishment-loving weasel in charge. At least she isn’t stupid enough to go with the vote-losing calls to delay the May election. Small mercies.

    67. Effijy says:

      I still want an easy way out for Nicola in traditional Westminster
      MP caught with immorality and their hand in the till.

      It goes along the lines of “The Stress of dealing with the Covid Virus and
      after 7 years as First Minister I feel I have given all I can to the party and the country.
      It is time now for me to step down and bring in fresh blood to lead Scotland”

      All bull shit of course but used 100 by MP’s.

      This would leave less of a bad taste for potential Yes voters
      and gets her backside out the door.

      I believe even Alex would just like her to go but not with damage done to
      the quest for Independence.

      The Tories got away with giving billions in contracts to Tory supporters with no
      experience in providing PPE Kit.

      Thatcher gave a multi million contract to her son’s company to build a dam
      without any form of tendering.
      She made details of the project top secret to prevent the public from seeing her blatant corruption.

      Do you remember Henry McCleish as First Minister pocketing rent from an office the public purse
      provided? He resigned before a full investigation but as he wasn’t sacked, I understand we give him
      a £1,000 per week pension.

      I’d vote for a party who pledge imprisonment for all corrupt politicians who will be hunted down resignations or not.

    68. Intractable Potsherd says:

      I had Swinney pegged as a slimy, self-serving person when he kept arguing black was white over the Named Person scheme. Even when told he was wrong by the courts (another expensive, unnecessary legal case) he still maintained he was right.

      I have a feeling that, once this is all over, Alex Salmond is going to start some very interesting defamation cases.

    69. Contrary says:

      Actually ,,,, see the above letter to expand the remit – shouldn’t it have been the entire parliament requesting it? The Committee is looking at other aspects of the ministerial code – I can only assume that the FM originally quickly self-referred herself so her breaches of the code were being investigated in an entirely seperate, and more controllable (James Hamilton being entirely too close to the Scottish government, and indeed the drafter of the famous harassment procedure, James Hynd, has been recruited to help out – when Leslie Evans was asked if that was a conflict of interest by Jackie Baillie she answered succinctly ‘no’.), inquiry. So the Harrassment Committee – despite doing their own ministerial code investigations – has no control over what James Hamilton looks at.

      The short list of signatures is strange, the whole of parliament should be demanding this.

    70. Contrary says:

      Hmph, last comment in moderation. I should have used more swear words, those comments always get through straight off, fucks sake 😉

    71. Hugh Jarse says:

      Said it above but…

      Massie jr seems to know of a draft bill enabling a delay to the election.

      Am i imagining that this is news?

      Last night, Westminster hr on Aunties Serious channel.

    72. H Scott says:

      This move by opposition MSPs undermines somewhat the idea that they are holding fire on attacking Nicola Sturgeon.

    73. katherine hamilton says:

      Did the committee get Mr Salmond’s submission to the Hamilton inquiry before anyone else? I’m sure Maggiec will know, cause how you stay on top of that maze of info is a wonder.
      I only ask cause the Rev’s nitpicking of the submission on Saturday seems to have unpicked it for the nits on the committee sufficiently for them to understand it enough to write a letter.
      Also I agree with other commenters. Why is it not from the whole committee, including the Chair? Cowardice in the face of the enemy?

    74. Tom says:

      Kenny J at 12.30am

      I agree that there is something odd about the wording of this letter. It reads like a group effort, constantly reworked until all the signatories get what they want, rather than something drafted by experienced civil servants acting on instructions from the Harassment Committee. In particular, the line about Alex Salmond possibly “fabricating his assertions in an effort to damage Ms Sturgeon” reads like a clumsy and possibly late insert.

      Also, the letter heading doesn’t have the usual “Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints” added below the pre-printed Scottish Parliament logo, which seems to indicate it’s not a letter from the whole Harassment Committee, but just from four individual members of the group, in effect acting as individual MSPs, rather than Committee members.

      And the fact that the letter hasn’t been issued and signed by the Committee Convenor or her deputy would seem to bear this up, and also (presumably) indicate there was disagreement within the Committee over whether or not the letter should be sent.

      The letter is still a powerful one, but not as powerful as it would have been if issued on behalf of the whole Committee.

    75. Breeks says:

      Just as a point for discussion, I wonder the Unionists would be so vocal about delaying the May Election if Sturgeon took a leaf out of Alex Salmond’s book of integrity, and taking notice of the quagmire she’s immersed in, take a step back from office to fight the fight and clear his or her name.

      Alex Salmond stood down knowing his ‘quagmire’ was a malicious and contrived conspiracy, but didn’t want his beloved SNP or wider YES movement tarnished by smears or implication, so he resolved to take the matter on his own two shoulders. Within reason, Alex Salmond has been an open book, even where there was an occasional wart or two.

      Contrast that with Nicola Sturgeon, “the best leader we’ve ever had!” (boak!). It seems she and her husband have been active players in that very malicious conspiracy to destroy Alex Salmond, and the very last thing she can afford to do is permit an inquiry to have free and unfettered access to what’s been going on.

      The strengths of Alex Salmond were manifest in the YES Movement he created and led, taking support from Independence from the doldrums in the 20+%, to rattling the very foundations of the United Kingdom, forcing it to cheat and lie for all it was worth, and deploy every cheat the ‘State’ would allow, and he just about did the impossible.

      The strengths of Nicola Sturgeon, ‘the best leader we’ve ever had’, are also manifest in the YES movement she inherited. And what a juggernaut she did inherit… Support surging ahead in the polls, the Better Together lies and despicable “Vow” in free fall, SNP Membership surging to 125k or so, the biggest membership in the entire UK if I recall correctly, the SNP with a majority in Holyrood, and wall to wall SNP representation at Westminster.

      And even allowing for Sturgeon’s mealy mouthed cry of “if there’s a change of circumstances”, what happens? Well, blow me down! What do we have but a MASSIVE change of circumstances! A Brexit Referendum which turned as many Unionist promises on their heads as the aftermath of the Vow, and created a constitutional impasse where one sovereign entity of the United Kingdom voted for Brexit, while the other sovereign entity of the United Kingdom voted to remain. We’re there troops!!! Victory and Independence is within our grasp!

      And did we have the perfect existential Constitutional Crisis which would have rent the Union in two? No. Instead, Nicola Sturgeon, ‘the best leader we’ve ever had’, arbitrarily conceded the constitutional sovereignty of Scotland’s democratic mandate.

      And OK, if breaking the Union directly was too scary for the fearties and pearl clutchers, why didn’t Scotland at least lob a big constitutional spanner in the works, similar to the Irish Backstop, delivering an ultimatum to Downing Street that either Scotland remained in Europe to respect it’s Constitutional Sovereignty, or, if forced to leave the EU, the event would constitute an act of colonial subjugation contrary to International Law, and a direct violation of the 1707 Treaty of Union, rendering that Union finished.

      Aye, we see the ‘strengths’ of Nicola Sturgeon manifest in the same YES Movement she inherited, – bewildered, despairing, directionless, fracturing, suckered into delusional fantasy and blind faith. Dumbstruck by the litany of revelations from the NEC’s total abandonment of Scottish Independence to further the aims of Transactivism extremism, polarise the electorate by redefining scientific biology, and orchestrate a hatchet job on the reputation and legacy of Alex Salmond, perhaps even seeing him jailed as a sex offender.

      And off those open goals that were wide enough to steer our juggernaut right on through? Nothing. Not a word. Scotland subjugated and victim of London’s colonial rule, and ‘the best leader we’ve ever had’ did NOTHING except mumble her polished speech of capitulation.

      The only vestige left of our mighty 2014/15 Juggernaut is the rising support for Independence. Sturgeon has the brass neck to claim that anaemic legacy as hers, but we know differently. The tens of thousands who are not renewing their SNP membership know differently. We know it is the pain and humiliation of Scotland’s degradation and subjugation which fuels Scotland’s appetite to be free of the bleak and joyless Union, and rejoin our friends over in Europe.

      What we need are these SNP failures, under achievers and ineptly corrupt time wasters to get out of the way, and put someone else in the driving seat who at least has a pulse and shows signs of intelligent life.

    76. Achnababan says:

      Things may be hotting up for NS and JS, but this letter does not have much clout IMO as it is not signed by the Chair Fabiani.

      Hamilton can ignore it.

      We must be careful here not to add to the illusion that Hamilton will take a broader view of his remit, while he only reports on the original, very narrow, and totally vacuous remit — this is what NS and JS want as the Rev has laid out on a plate for us mortals.

      Hamilton needs to issue a statement as well that the broader investigation has been agreed.

    77. Rick H Johnston says:

      Shocker from Henry McLeish this morning.
      Calling off the May election would be an outrage IMO.
      This ploy was hatched roond the big table in London, and Henry’s red Tories have joined the anti-democratic rabble who know they can’t reverse the march to Independence any other way.
      Too many gullible people thought McLeish was about to declare for independence.
      He was always a Unionist IMO.
      Expect more of the same in the weeks to come from the usual suspects and supposedly “concerned” citizens.
      Their main hope is dependent on a high incidence of Covid into the spring.
      That’s what we’re dealing with here.

    78. Donald Raymond says:

      What does weirly mean?

    79. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      The first and only time in human history I will agree with the halfwits who signed the letter above. And it clearly hasn’t come from them, they”re not intelligent enough to have come up with it. What a sad, sick, depressing joke.

    80. Breeks says:

      Achnababan says:
      11 January, 2021 at 9:14 am
      Things may be hotting up for NS and JS, but this letter does not have much clout IMO as it is not signed by the Chair Fabiani…

      It also seems grindingly pedestrian too… what really needs to happen is a Judge led inquiry, headed by a judge who has neither the patience or tolerance of this interminable Parliamentary Inquiry, nor the willingness to put up with the sporadic bouts of amnesia amongst called witnesses.

    81. Karen says:

      NS is not a very good lawyer, and Swinney sold life insurance. Scotland can do so much better.

    82. twitter,

      `Secretary Pompeo

      US government account
      Treaties, like alliances, can outlast their sell-by-date. Always have to keep evaluating their usefulness.`

    83. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I’ve just read the published documents for tomorrow’s (Tuesday) committee hearing.”

      Yeah, I’ve had those since Friday night and they are indeed explosive, there just hasn’t been time to write about them yet because everything is exploding. We’ll probably do something on Tuesday morning. We have a huge piece on something else (but related) coming up shortly today.

    84. Big Jock says:

      I think NS used to work for Brodies. Probably dealing with traffic fines!

    85. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Things may be hotting up for NS and JS, but this letter does not have much clout IMO as it is not signed by the Chair Fabiani.

      Hamilton can ignore it.”

      Well yes, he can, as it’s not a letter to him. It’s a letter to John Swinney.

    86. Big Jock says:

      …..Another yoon calling for the SE election to be delayed. This time Mr Henry McCleish! Can you feel the fear!

    87. Republicofscotland says:

      If Swinney were to answer the request, I wonder what kind of time frame has to do so, as Sturgeon and her clique seem to be dragging every last detail out until the very last moment.

    88. James Horace says:

      I think Swinney will ignore it. He will realise how important it is to the political future of Sturgeon, and will just ignore.

      He doesn’t mind about his own credibility anymore, and will also rely on her massive popularity to help this fade away in the coming weeks.

    89. Helen Yates says:

      Just a thought, Angela Constantine has been made drugs minister which I heard means she will no longer sit on the enquiry, if so who replaces her? or have I heard wrong?

    90. Helen Yates says:

      Could we be seeing one or two resignations coming this week or is that just wishful thinking?

    91. The more I read and learn and realise about Sturgeon and her SNP the more disgusted I get and the more let down and conned I feel.

      I also think of a once commentator on this site, Mr Robert Peffers, whom I learned a lot from and admired greatly (I hope he is still safe and well BTW). I wonder how he will be feeling reading and learning about this.

      I detest Sturgeon and her cabal with with a passion.

    92. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Angela Constantine has been made drugs minister which I heard means she will no longer sit on the enquiry, if so who replaces her?”

      Stuart McMillan.

    93. Astonished says:

      “H Scott says:
      11 January, 2021 at 8:44 am
      This move by opposition MSPs undermines somewhat the idea that they are holding fire on attacking Nicola Sturgeon. ”

      I think it does – the question is why ?

      As I and others noted before they weren’t saying much when the story broke. Let’s turn to the ever-reliable (for yoons) BBCollaborators. The BBCollaborators are saying nothing on their website ; nothing.

      The yoons do not want rid of the FM as she has no plans for independence (Begging liar johnston isn’t a plan – it’s capitulation).

      I think the committee yoons just didn’t get the memo.

      P.S. I hate having to acknowledge that the SNP members of the committee are too feart to seek the truth.

    94. holymacmoses says:

      Helen Yates says:
      11 January, 2021 at 10:04 am
      Could we be seeing one or two resignations coming this week or is that just wishful thinking?

      I’d love to think you were right Helen but I suspect that they’ll cling on a while yet. I haven’t yet read the committee papers for tomorrow though and that may make a difference

    95. Desimond says:

      Given John Swinneys reluctance at seeing the Scottish Govt assist this Inquiry, does anyone really think he will allow a wider net to be cast with is backing given he and his close colleagues may well be the prize catches on offer?

      I dont even expect this letter will get a quick acknowledgement let alone a rapid response.

      Meanwhile, The talk for last few weeks is current lockdown is just a pre-cursor for a 3 month long lockdown.

      So that would cover February, March and April.

      Would they really run an election in May under those circumstances?

      Regardless of no certainty the numbers would be way down and public fear lessened, If it benefits moving or least pausing that dark cloud currently hanging over Holyrood then I’m sure all options are being considered by SNP HQ.

      This is all regardless of folk like Jackson Carlaw crawing on Twitter about having the Scots Govt on the run and looking forward to an election.

    96. Big Jock says:

      I think Sturgeon will resign before there is any vote in the SP about confidence in her. That’s if the SP actually grow a pair and put the heat on her.

      Watch this space.

    97. Desimond says:


      “I think the committee yoons just didn’t get the memo.”

      Or they are playing the classic “Hey, look we tried” card when Swinney says “Not now Cato!” and everyone in Holyrood shrugs and shuffles back to comfy seats and lifestyles.

      The question about what about others in SNP taking a stand is a good one. May just be a numbers game at present with many citing Nicolas popularity with the public as some some of golden Get Out of Jail Free card.

      We all know just how quickly public opinion can swing, only takes one whistle-blower, one leaked memo or one former mentor announcing a key piece of evidence, say a recorded conversation, so they best be careful they don’t find themselves down wind should the storm blow!

    98. Muscleguy says:

      @David Ferguson

      The mnisterial code does not give a defence. If you have broken the code and the sanction says resign you must resign. The only question is ‘did you break the code?’ No mitigating factors enter the frame. And apology does not suffice.

      Sturgeon knows this but is trying to brazen it out. If she isn’t careful the parliamentary majority will pass a motion of no confidence in her. That is open to them.

    99. Mc Duff says:

      Charles D
      That was my first thought that Swinney`s pathetic attempt to link Salmond and the conservatives suggesting he was somehow plotting with them against Sturgeon.
      Its a level of this man`s intelligence that he thinks the public are so thick they won`t` see through it.
      A loathsome individual.

    100. Mia says:

      There is an article in the National today with the title

      “Tories demand Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff be sacked over Salmond case claims”

      It reads:

      “THE Tories have called for the First Minister’s chief of staff to be sacked over claims she revealed the name of one of the women who alleged she’d been harassed by Alex Salmond.

      In a submission to the investigation over whether not Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code, the former First Minister claims Liz Lloyd shared the complainers name with his former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein”

      If I understood correctly, the tories want Ms Sturgeon’s chief of staff sacked for breaching confidentiality by unnecessarily revealing the name of one of the complainers to Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff and that is fair enough.

      Excuse my ignorance if the answers to the following questions are obvious to everybody else and I just cannot see it. I am beginning to get totally bamboozled by the excitement of the information that is becoming available, but also with the sheer quantity, explosive nature and complexity of it.

      My questions are as follows:

      What was the real involvement of Ms Lloyd in the complaints procedure?
      Has that been made clear from the whole information submitted to the inquiry? Because I do not see how this could have been ascertained from the incredibly vague written submission she sent instead of appearing in person.

      The reason why I ask is I was under the (maybe wrong) impression that her involvement in the procedure was claimed to be none or next to none, and that was one of the reasons why Sweeney did not think appropriate for her to be interviewed face to face by the harassment committee. Am I correct on this?

      If I did not misunderstood this and it was claimed she had no significant involvement in the process, why should the First Minister’s chief of staff know the identity of ANY of the complainers at all in the first place?

      There are only 3 instances I can think of where she could be aware of that identity:

      1. if Ms Lloyd was directly involved in at least some aspects of the process
      2.if the complainer contacted her directly and revealed the reason
      3. If somebody unnecessarily revealed to her the identity of the complainer/s

      So which one is it?

      Where am I going with this?

      1.If the committee was led to believe Ms Lloyd was not involved in the procedure (I may be completely wrong on this as I am writing from memory) and turns out that she was, then does that not amount to misleading and she should be called back?

      2. If she was contacted directly by the complainant, does that not mean that even if unwillingly, she was involved in the process, even if only laterally? If this is the case, shouldn’t she have been subjected to a face to face interview rather than just being let get away with a vague and uninformative written submission as it was the case?

      3. If she was involved directly or indirectly in the process and was not contacted by the complainer/s, then I cannot think on any reason why she should know the identity of the complainer/s unless somebody breached confidentiality and unnecessarily revealed it to her. If this was the case, shouldn’t it be a case of demanding the sacking of Lloyd for revealing this name to Aberdein, but ALSO sacking whoever revealed that name to Lloyd?

      Her submission to the inquiry reads:

      ” I am aware that the committee has asked Mr Hynd, Ms Richards and the Permanent
      Secretary whether they had knowledge at this point of the complaints that came to be
      investigated under the procedure. I can confirm that I had no knowledge at this point
      of the incidents that were investigated under the procedure, and was not informed that
      two such individuals had raised concerns or made complaints”

      Okay, so from her words, she did not have knowledge of he incidents “at this point”, but she may have acquired knowledge about this at a later point.

      The problem with this submission is that is incredibly vague and deliberately uninformative. This submission does not tell us when she knew about the incidents/identities of complainers and in what circumstances. This submission does not tell us anything about her involvement in the process from the end of 2017 until the point Mr Salmond was informed of the existence of the complaints and that information is important.

      This woman should have been called back by the committee and fried with questions to ascertain her real involvement in the process, when she learnt the identity of the complainers and from whom/what. From her vague and uninformative written submission, unless you have a crystal ball and special powers to read her mind, you cannot extract that information. But that is just my personal opinion, of course.

    101. Mia says:

      Sorry, I meant to say:

      3. If she was NOT involved directly or indirectly in the process and was not contacted by the complainer/s, then I cannot think on any reason…

    102. Bob Mack says:

      How can Swinney refuse ? Optics are important. You already have blatant attempts to block the Committee by refusing legal advice and memory loss from so many “top” members of staff about where they were or if they knew anything.

      This thing already stinks without further additional manure piled on top .

      What’s really interesting though kn other sites is the growing acknowledgement that there may be a new leader, though Nicola is still the best. Telling it’s even being discussed.

    103. Kenny says:

      Well, Scotland’s experiment in having the world’s first ever officially woke, trans-ist, feminist, [any meaningless and non-enlightened term]-ist government went well, didn’t it?

      Having a “professional feminist” at the head of the Scottish civil service was a resounding success (especially for women)… no?

    104. Livionian says:

      You don’t exactly need to be Columbo to investigate that. Did Nicola Sturgeon lie to parliament? Aye, of course she fucking did

    105. Charles Dixon says:

      Will Swinney take the bullet for his boss Sturgeon, the way Brian took for Stewie in Family Guy?

      (For Family Guy enthusiasts only).

    106. Livionian says:

      And of course Murrell did with his ‘whatsapp is not the platform that I use’ but I’m pretty sure we don’t have a theoretical contempt of house law that Westminster has. Shame, because he should really be made to answer for lying to parliament as well but as a private citizen there isn’t much room for that up here.

    107. ScottieDog says:

      Making a mockery parliament by ignoring ministerial code gives London a great excuse to clip its wings.

    108. James Horace says:

      I expect Sturgeon to pass one million blinks during the Q&A on her live daily lunchtime show today.

      Will any journalists be brave enough to touch upon the “stress she is under” or “a busy start to 2021?” I wonder!

    109. Mia says:

      “professional feminist”

      You cannot be a “trans-ist” and “feminist” at the same time. Your are one thing or the other.

      And individual that undermines or supports the undermining of female’s rights and pursues the dilution of the meaning of the word “woman” so males can claim it too for themselves is no feminist. Unscrupulous and untrustworthy opportunist is far more accurate.

    110. alan_b says:

      Gordon Dangerfield has a new article up. Go and read it.

    111. Charles Dixon says:


      That prick Starmer making a speech on telly,,,werz that remote???

    112. Astonished says:

      Mia @10.54 am – That is my understanding – as the lawyers would say.

      More and more it is pointing to a stitch-up of the man the yoons fear most.

      Hell mend every SNP member who aided this disaster .

    113. mr laing b. french says:

      Mmmmmmm? The plot doth thicken! I hope they do not consider this a benefit for the greater good. This investigation was the last thing scotland needed to seek independence. Instead like the Labour Party we are drowning in infighting. Pity we couldn’t pause their salaries till the mess was cleared up one way or the other. Efficiency would reign supreme then, wouldn’t it?

    114. David Ferguson says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      11 January, 2021 at 9:40 am

      We have a huge piece on something else (but related) coming up shortly today…

      Well if it’s bigger than the Evans stuff it’s going to be well worth waiting for…

    115. Black Joan says:

      Alex Salmond’s Written Submission to tomorrow’s Harassment Inquiry meeting has been significantly redacted, contrary to his wishes.

      The unredacted bits are quite explosive enough, so goodness knows what truly bombshell stuff has been kept hidden.

      e.g, we are allowed to read this:

      ‘These documents show the extent of the prepared briefing by the Investigating Officer in advance of a meeting with the two complainants and the Permanent Secretary in the week beginning 5th March 2018. They reveal that the Investigating Officer, whose role under the procedure is meant to be an impartial collector of facts and preparer of reports, met herself with the Permanent Secretary, was in frequent communication with the complainants and witnesses and was also recommending wide ranging organisational responses. DocumentINV 270 shows the preparation notes for the meeting with the Permanent Secretary and the complainers.Given that the first information of any procedure or complaints under it was intimated to me on 8th March2018, this suggests that the decision maker, the Permanent Secretary, met the complainers before I was even informed of the existence of any complaints.In her evidence before the Committee, the Permanent Secretary suggested that it would have been“inappropriate” for her to know the identities of complainers before the complaints procedure was approved. It is a much graver matter for the decision maker to be meeting complainers in mid-process.’
      . . .

      ‘As Lord Pentland indicated to the court at a procedural hearing of the Judicial Review on 6th November 2018 a public authority has a general duty of disclosure of relevant information and it would be unusual to require a court order to fulfil that duty. The Scottish Government indicated that they would take a responsible approach. The Permanent Secretary knew of this meeting (and the associated notes) and chose not to disclose it, until now, which I find staggering.If this material had been disclosed, then the apparent bias of the Permanent Secretary as decision maker would have been introduced in our pleadings at the Judicial Review as an additional ground of review. Given the decision of Lord Pentland on apparent bias, it seems highly likely the Judicial Review would have succeeded on that ground also.’

      For a long time now many have expressed astonishment that Leslie Evans has not lost her job, has indeed had her contract renewed. That astonishment redoubles now.

      The session starts (remotely) at 11 am tomorrow.

      Mr Salmond’s submission starts around page 9, here:

    116. Dan says:

      Link to Gordon Dangerfield’s blog alan_b mentions.

    117. Flower of Scotland says:

      @ James Caithness 10.15

      I too am feeling hurt and let down by this SNP hierarchy! We worked very hard for them and I feel your pain. I’ve been feeling this for over a year now since I first heard about this and other nonsense. Took me a while to really believe it but after research, I’m appalled.

      I’ve been wondering lately too about Robert Peffers! He’s been missing for a while and is needed on this site. I too learned so much Scottish history from him. If you see this Robert, we hope your well and thank you!

      Thanks to the Rev for his hard work. We need to know the good and bad going on in the Scottish Parliament! And the SNP. Thank you!

    118. Strathy says:

      Well spotted by MaggieC at 1:56am.

      This is from Mark Hirst on twitter,

      “We’ve barely scratched the surface yet. There are far more damning revelations to come. It is out and out corruption.“

    119. Dan says:

      Kenny says: at 11:07 am

      Well, Scotland’s experiment in having the world’s first ever officially woke, trans-ist, feminist, [any meaningless and non-enlightened term]-ist government went well, didn’t it?

      Well in amongst all the serious shit that’s going down at the moment…
      Looking on the positive side for Scottish farmers taking a hit from leaving the EU single market… At least breeders of dairy cattle in modern day Scotland won’t need to discard and export young male calves anymore. Simply ID them as female and get them hooked up to those milking machines.

      #TransCowsAreCows #Bollocks #Bullocks #GenderBullshit

    120. G H Graham says:

      Expect some bench shuffling this coming week by the SNP as an attempt to delay this inquiry into the Scottish Government’s complaints procedure.

      It’s a tactic to prevent a quorum, thus inhibiting the progress of the inquiry.

      It’s what I would do if my back was against the ropes.

    121. Liz says:

      Mark Hirst saying, they have only scratched the surface.
      I know Stu and Craig Murray have said similar.

      FFS how bad can it get?
      The current SNP hierarchy appear worse than the original parcel of rogue (tractors).
      How has it come to this?

    122. Liz says:

      Just read Roger Dangerfield.
      I had no idea that it was 2 of the vindictive lying alphabet sisters that reported Mark H to the police.

      These people need outed and charged.
      Who the hell do they think they are, using the Police as their own private service.

    123. Saffron Robe says:

      Willie says:

      “Might give Sturgeon and the caste the idea they’re performing divine works rather than the sordid thugs they are.”

      Willie, you’re not so far from the truth. They’re performing the ‘divine’ works of the Alphabet People whilst carrying out the Devil’s work for the rest of us! Which also partly explains how their cult works.

    124. Republicofscotland says:

      New documentary on the “Death” of Willie McRae calls for a full inquiry.

      Unsurprisingly the COPFS says NO!

    125. Joan Edington says:

      Much as I suspect you are right about the shenanigans against Alex Salmond, I can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being put on a single lie to parliament by Nicola Sturgeon. Lying has now become the norm for politicians and, if the same critique was used in Westminster, there would be no Tory Cabinet and very little so-called opposition left on the benches. I know 2 blacks don’t make a white, as my Mum used to say, but just saying.

    126. Bob Mack says:

      @Joan Edington,

      I think the uproar is that she created a policy to deliberately try to ensnare Alex Salmond and put him in jail is relevant.

      Whether or not this was all done without her knowledge is a key issue, and not just for politics, but for justice and the law, which are supposed to underpin any decent society.

      If the FM is lying to prevent the exposure of corruption in her government ,that is serious stuff.

    127. stonefree says:

      @Big Jock at 9:43 am
      “I think NS used to work for Brodies. Probably dealing with traffic fines!”
      Joanna Cherry worked for Brodies,
      Sturgeon couldn’t get a job in Irvine, so I was told

    128. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Much as I suspect you are right about the shenanigans against Alex Salmond, I can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being put on a single lie to parliament by Nicola Sturgeon.”

      It’s not even NEARLY a “single” lie. It’s a whole series of lies, and they matter because they’re being used to hide a criminal conspiracy. Pay more attention.

    129. Soda says:

      Stu, is it at all possible that Sturgeon and the Scottish Gov have been entirely set up by the Scottish Civil Service in this whole affair and that they very stupidly didnt see it coming until they were neck deep in the shit?
      Or do you believe that the were complicit from the start and are therefore total morons who somehow believed they were teflon coated titanium untouchables in that even if there dastardly scheme failed, they come just brush it off and waltz on as if nothing happen… “After all, we have the backing of the British Secret Service behind us and if you cant trust them who can you trust?”

    130. Cod says:

      but wonder why so much emphasis is being put on a single lie to parliament by Nicola Sturgeon.

      Sorry, what?

      Even a single lie to Parliament by the First Minister (whoever they happened to be and whatever party they happened to come from) should be considered an extremely serious matter. Lying to Parliament as a Minister is an offence for which the outcome is, by the rules of the Parliament, a resignation.

      Apart from which, hello, lying to Parliament. Do you want politicians in place who think lying to Parliament is acceptable? I sure as hell don’t.

      If she can be shown to have lied to Parliament, to the satisfaction of Parliament, then her options are resign, or…resign.

      I saw Swinney making his comments on the TV and it amazed me that he wasn’t challenged that neither he nor Nicola Sturgeon had officially amended the remit of Hamilton, despite saying that Hamilton was not constrained by them. Weasel worded nonsense – he is perfectly aware that Hamilton has to stick to the remit he has in writing and if that is not amended then he is powerless to step outside of it.

    131. holymacmoses says:

      This paragraph from Mr Salmond’s papers are extremely interesting
      2nd Page of Mr Salmond’s submission just above a large redaction

      If this material had been disclosed, then the apparent bias of the Permanent Secretary as decision maker
      would have been introduced in our pleadings at the Judicial Review as an additional ground of review. Given
      the decision of Lord Pentland on apparent bias, it seems highly likely the Judicial Review would have
      succeeded on that ground also.

      Whereas the losing side have always maintained that the ONLY reason they lost the case was the ‘appearance of bias’ of Judith McKinnon.

      So Nicola Sturgeon and Leslie Evans are lying when they say that they lost the case because of a technicality. The judicial inquiry was lost because the whole shenanigans was exactly that –
      dishonest disgraceful and above all ILLEGAL shenanigans.

    132. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      There’s a new game on WOS. It’s called “Spot The Ronald Fraser”.

      As soon as you spot a comment that has all the qualities of a Ronald Fraser/Clyde/Charles Dixon comment, you fire off an email to Rev Stu and claim your bag of sugar-coated kudos.

      I’ve just received one… They’re TASTY!

    133. StuartM says:

      For all the conspiracy theorists who keep insisting that the persecution of Alex Salmond is the work of MI5, English civil servants, Westminster, the Orange Order and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, I have this to say – Keep It Simple, Stupid. The Occam’s Razor principle is that when faced with two alternative explanations you should go for the one requiring the least assumptions. Put another way, who had the most to gain by destroying Alex’s reputation and maybe even jailing him? Clearly it is Nicola Sturgeon, who rightly sees Alex as the most dangerous rival for her position as First Minister. We have it from Craig Murray who attended the courtroom that all of the Alphabet Women are members of NS’s inner circle.

      Evans and Mackinon are mediocraties who should never have been appointed to their current positions given their failures at their previous posts. They know it and also know they only hold on to their highly-paid jobs by Nicola’s favour. If she falls, they fall shortly afterwards. Evans is Sturgeon’s creature, particularly after NS renewed her contract instead of sacking her after the Pd500,000 judicial review fiasco.

    134. Soda says:

      @Brian Doonthetoon,

      I hope you’re not referring to me…?

    135. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Not as far as I’m aware…

    136. TruthForDummies says:

      How did the false allegation by Ms H make it to Lesley Evans if Nicola wasn’t complicit from the start.

      The Party had that allegation and when they decided to deploy it.
      Nicola user metoo as an excuse to introduce the retrospective process – it was Nicola who wanted a process and Nicola that wanted it to be retrospective against the advice of WM

      There was a civil service incident that would be on record that Evans could use but it was a bit light. Nicola would know of Ms H allegation so she told Lesley Evans

      It could only be Nicola civil servants act on instruction.

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top