This is quite extraordinary:
Because what it amounts to is “Oh, if I have to tell the truth then I’m not coming”.
As we write this, we still wait for Scotland’s hopelessly compromised Lord Advocate to decide whether he, as John Swinney has already done twice, will refuse to obey the will of the Scottish Parliament by releasing data demanded by the Fabiani inquiry.
We suspect he’ll surprise everyone and the information WILL be released, because according to analysis by Craig Murray it’s actually completely useless, and the Scottish Government has undeniably been red-hot when it comes to deluging the committee with vast screeds of junk documentation it hasn’t asked for and doesn’t want.
By coincidence, that same Craig Murray will go on trial in Edinburgh tomorrow for his liberty, for the crime of allegedly telling readers of his blog the truth about the shameful failed conspiracy to imprison Alex Salmond for crimes he didn’t commit – a conspiracy, remarkably, for which nobody has yet been held to account in any way despite the most obvious of grounds for suspicion of perjury, and which the Scottish Government is still frenziedly trying to conceal.
Speaking of liars, we thought it was probably time to update the list below.
We’re not entirely sure why the SNP’s charade of a “National Assembly” over indyref strategy is still going on today at all, since the party pre-announced the outcome of it on Friday night. But just in case you were wondering:
This morning on the Andrew Marr show, Nicola Sturgeon had accused Boris Johnson of being “frightened of democracy”. We hope the members of her party who spent six quid on a pass to be allowed to attend an online rubber-stamping session they weren’t even allowed to comment on appreciate the irony.
If you were to poll us on which of the two signs below we preferred, we’d definitely vote for the one on the left. It’s a lot more eye-catching, it’s easier to read and the strong use of red makes it much clearer that a prohibition is in place.
But here’s the thing: we wouldn’t go to jail over the choice.
All we can say is that the other nine points better be amazing.
Because this, readers, is ZZZ-grade donkey fodder.
It’s hard to keep up with developments in Scottish politics these days, readers. We told you January 2021 was going to be a pivotal and explosive month but there’s been more going on than even we expected, and that’s despite the fact that Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon’s appearances before the Fabiani committee now both look like being pushed back to February.
So our apologies if we have to give some things rather more cursory coverage than they might ordinarily merit, or cram several stories into one post. For example, we’re just going to link you to solicitor advocate Gordon Dangerfield’s appearance yesterday on the Tommy Sheridan podcast, even though he said this non-trivial thing on it:
The whole interview is pretty unmissable, so if you can find 24 spare minutes in your day try to give it a listen. But there’s more.
Sky News had a breaking report tonight about a person they couldn’t name.
Was it The Woman Whose Name You Can’t Say? We couldn’t tell you even if we knew, readers. And we can’t tell you whether we do or not. Sky carefully avoided even saying what sex the person was, and you’d have to be quite an alert viewer to notice any of the hints they dropped in the piece. We’ve said enough. You’re on your own now.
As ever, please do not commit contempt of court in the comments.
You can say what you want about the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and the civil service [IMPORTANT LAWYER’S NOTE: NO YOU MOST DEFINITELY CAN’T], but there’s certainly no faulting their reaction time.
That was less than eight hours, for example. Great work, team.
There’s a woman in Scotland whose name you’re not allowed to say.
You pay her wages and she theoretically works for you. But you can’t say her name.
This is definitely fine and not at all suspicious.
Geoff Aberdein is the man whose evidence could destroy the First Minister. We know he’s already told the High Court under oath that he had a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon on 29 March 2018 to discuss the Salmond affair.
Sturgeon claims otherwise, saying he just popped in for a friendly hello while seeing someone else, and that the meeting – which the Scottish Government had repeatedly denied ever happened at all, until it suddenly changed its mind and admitted it last August – was so inconsequential that she forgot about it entirely for almost a year, which is why she’d told Parliament in January 2019 that it didn’t exist.
Which of those accounts is correct will determine whether the First Minister was lying to Parliament deliberately and whether she has to resign under the Ministerial Code.
But now, not only will Aberdein – the single most important figure in the entire inquiry – NOT be called as a witness, but the public will not be allowed to see even a redacted version of his written testimony so that they can judge who’s telling the truth.
What conceivable reason could there be for that? How could either “The meeting was arranged in advance and we talked about the allegations” or “I was in visiting someone else and just popped my head round the door briefly to say hi” ever need to be a state secret the Scottish public mustn’t know? And yet it is.
No cover-up here, folks. All open and transparent and above board. There’s definitely nothing going on that the Scottish Government desperately wants to hide from you. It’s all fine. Ssssshhhh, now. Sssshhhh for Nicola like good little boys and girls. Write another of your nice wee blogs about how Boris Johnson will just give in for no reason and independence is inevitable. But no questions. Definitely no questions.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
