Okay, we’re trolling a bit with the title there. But fair’s fair.
Because some REALLY shonky, and very obviously co-ordinated, shenanigans went on this past weekend, but at least the above is the truth.
It’s our sad duty to report this fact to you, readers: our experience of sending Freedom Of Information requests to the Scottish Government is basically that the more answers you get from them, the less information you end up having.
See below for a case in point.
So it looks like The Spectator spent a lot of money on a lawyer for nothing today.
Because while pretty much every journalist, pundit and legal expert reporting the case agrees that the amendment made to the Section 11 order protecting the anonymity of the complainers in the Alex Salmond case is an important and significant one, it hasn’t impressed the only person whose opinion actually matters: Andy Wightwash.
So this was a bit odd.
Once again we’ve clipped the entire question and “answer” so you can see nothing’s been taken out of context, but the important bit is from 2m 30s to 2m 53s.
Davidson’s question was quite complex but boiled down to why Nicola Sturgeon hadn’t properly recorded details and minutes of meetings on Scottish Government business, in direct breach of the Ministerial Code.
That’s a valid question in itself, to which there was no meaningful response, but it was what Sturgeon said right at the end that raised our eyebrows.
First Minister’s Questions was very interesting today. Ruth Davidson had some tricky ones which Nicola Sturgeon simply didn’t even attempt to look like she was answering, and we might come back to one of them in particular a little later on.
But Jackie Baillie’s were even more pointed, especially this one:
With our trademark scrupulous fairness we’ve included the full question and answer, and they raise a whole series of issues, but if you’re in a hurry the key part we want to talk about right now is between 0.18 and 0.26.
Iain Macwhirter has a good column on the farcical Fabiani inquiry in the Herald today. But one piece of it really jumped out at us.
Wait, what?
Sorry, folks, we had a minor medical emergency today (veteran readers can probably guess in which category) and haven’t been quite as on top of events as we’d like.
We did, however, watch the astonishing fiasco of Peter Murrell’s second “evidence” session before the Fabiani inquiry, at which he basically refused to answer any serious questions from the four Unionist members, convener Linda Fabiani ran interference, the SNP members lobbed him a few timewasting softballs in the inexplicably-rushed one-hour session, and independent member Andy Wightman didn’t say a single word.
So terrible was it that the SNP had a backup plan to distract from it – a nonsense of a press release from SNP chief operating officer Sue Ruddick in which she made an allegation about a supposed “act of physical aggression” by Alex Salmond.
The following statement has been issued in response. It’s an eye-opener.
Committee on the Scottish Govt Handling of Harassment Complaints
Dear Ms Fabiani and Committee Members,
We have now had the opportunity to consult on Friday evening and over the weekend with our client on your clerk’s latest emails of Friday afternoon. Those followed the convener’s letter informing us that you do not intend to publish our client’s submission on the Ministerial Code, a submission which was sent to you on December 31st and which was carefully considered by this firm, and by Counsel, prior to submission.
Your latest communications and the decision not to publish exemplify the confusion and legal difficulties created by the Committee and which now plainly undermine the capacity of the Committee to fulfil the remit set by Parliament.
The Scottish Government seems determined to pile insult upon injury to the Scottish people in relation to the inquiry into its botched stitch-up of Alex Salmond.
A shocking story in today’s Sunday Mail reveals that in addition to wasting in excess of £1 million on the initial unlawful investigation, untold millions on a criminal prosecution and trial, and £55,000 on coaching its inquiry witnesses (so badly that almost all of them were forced to return to the inquiry to subsequently “correct” their evidence), it’s also spent thousands of pounds of your money on lawyers to successfully prevent one of the key witnesses appearing at all.
Possibly because the witness in question doesn’t exist.
It’s safe to say, readers, that our light-hearted new impromptu fundraiser has well and truly unhinged a few members of Scotland’s unhappiest community: the WokeNats.
So when the lovely and super-talented film-maker Phantom Power very kindly tweeted about it this afternoon, asking “where would we be without Wings?” and suggesting people might possibly donate a pound or two, one of them saw no contradiction about making these two replies, less than an hour apart.
We clear on the rules? Death threats bad, putting my head in an incinerator good.
We almost missed something today because it was hidden behind a bad headline.
One way or another, the current hell of Scottish politics will soon be at an end.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
