The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Nothing for you to see here

Posted on January 20, 2021 by

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.


PS By a strange coincidence we sent this Freedom Of Information request yesterday:

FROM: Stuart Campbell
DATE: 18 January 2021

I have previously noted my dissatisfaction with your unacceptably evasive responses to my request originally denoted FOI/202000090531.

In your most recent reply dated 15 December 2020, you advised me to “rephrase” my request. I now do so.

On 3 August 2020, the Deputy First Minister issued an inquiry remit to James Hamilton QC in respect of a potential breach or breaches of the Ministerial Code by the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

That remit can be read here and here.

It includes the following passage, noting that a meeting took place between Ms Sturgeon and Mr Geoff Aberdein on Scottish Parliament premises on 29 March 2018:

“It has been alleged that the First Minister breached the Scottish Ministerial Code in that she failed to feed back the basic facts of meetings and discussions held with Alex Salmond to her private office as required by sections 4.22 and 4.23 of the Code. The meetings and discussions in question took place on:

29 March 2018 – Meeting between Ms Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein, former Chief of Staff to Mr Salmond, Scottish Parliament”

The Scottish Government has previously and repeatedly asserted, in responses to my FOI request identified above and others, that it held no record of such a meeting. Yet the Deputy First Minister has stated unequivocally and unambiguously in the document above that the meeting took place.

The document in which he did so was issued publicly on the exact same date – 3 August – as your FOI response to me claiming that the Scottish Government held no record of the meeting described by the Deputy First Minister, as noted here.

I seek the following information:

(1) Where was this information recorded, such that the Deputy First Minister was able to provide it to Mr Hamilton?

(2) When did the Deputy First Minister come into possession of this information, and from whom? Presumably it must have been prior to 3 August 2020, to allow him time to prepare the document for Mr Hamilton and the letter to the Convener of the inquiry, Ms Fabiani, that morning.

(3) Are there any possible circumstances where the Deputy First Minister could hold a record of such a meeting but have withheld that information from the Scottish Government until 3 August 2020?

(4) If not, why was I told on 3 August that the Scottish Government did not hold this information, at a time when it clearly did?

(5) Does the Scottish Government now admit to holding information regarding the meeting between Ms Sturgeon and Mr Aberdein on 29 March? If so, when did it come into possession of that information?

(6) Which information does the Scottish Government hold with regard to the meeting? In particular: how did it come to pass, who was present at it and what did it discuss?

(7) How many times did the First Minister meet with Mr Aberdein on 29 March 2018? Her published diary for that date only lists one meeting with an unnamed person or persons:

“1315 – 1330 Meet and greet [Redacted]”

(8) Given that the Scottish Government now publicly admits a meeting between the First Minister took place and there are no other possible entries in her diary which could account for it, can the Scottish Government confirm that this was in fact the meeting with Mr Aberdein, and that it was the only one between them on that day?

(9) If the meeting identified above was NOT the one with Mr Aberdein, why was that meeting not recorded – even in redacted form – in her diary, given that all meetings on government business are required to be so recorded, and meetings in her Parliamentary office which are NOT on government business are not permitted?

We’ll let you know when we get fobbed off with a farcical non-answer as usual.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

151 to “Nothing for you to see here”

  1. Lorna Campbell says:

    I believe Mr Aberdein.

  2. holymacmoses says:

    Does Alex have a copy of the document? Is the document covered by legal confidentiality? Given that it is a written testimony by Mr Aberdein, I’m not sure how it could come into that category.

  3. Bob Mack says:

    It’s all above board surely?. Why can’t the Committee refer to Geoff Aberdeins court evidence?

    This cover up attempt only raises more suspicions. In fact it confirms many.

  4. Dave Hansell says:

    We seem to be going through a re-enactment, in slow motion real time, of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

  5. James Horace says:

    Is this a stumbling block for Mr Salmond, or a further length of rope to pass onto his political successor?

  6. Captain Yossarian says:

    The present Scottish Government is a house of cards, Stu.

    We need whistleblowers.

    What does James Wolffe do to whistleblowers….kill them with hammers?

  7. Sharny Dubs says:

    What a bunch of weasels.

    If it walks like a duck……

  8. Effijy says:

    I’m ashamed that a government that I helped into parliament
    is behaving in such a disjointed and discourteous manner while
    trying to bury their deceptions from the public eye.

    Transparency, honesty, integrity, justice, truth all seem to be lost in this government.

    Could this by why SNP do not want Scotland’s Sovereignty to be proven?
    The do not want the people to have the power to witness their actions and punish
    those corrupt in their service this nation

  9. Polly says:

    Yes I always suspected Aberdein would have trouble with his testimony but it’s outrageous we don’t get to read any of it even in redacted form, assuming Sky is right in this.

    Your rephrased FOI is good. I was particularly struck by 3, 4, and 9. Though they might not even acknowledge the redacted as being his meeting even if it were. If necessary, rephrase and try again after whatever reply.

  10. Liz says:

    If they won’t allow it, AS won’t be able to refer to it.
    Another shocking indication that the Inquiry is already compromised

  11. Captain Yossarian says:

    Nevertheless it is encouraging to see Sky News are leading this investigation too.

    Once an allegation is made, it has to be investigated. Baillie and Fabiani are scratching around, but it’s good to see the heavy-metal division getting involved. I thought yesterday’s interview with Sturgeon by Sophie Ridge was excellent and hammered another few nails into her coffin lid.

    I am relatively confident we are near to the end now.

    I was taking a look at John Swinney’s Twitter page earlier today and in it he says ‘Thanks be to God’ for the swearing-in of Biden and Harris.

    That simpleton obviously doesn’t know what might lie ahead for him, the Murrells, James Wolffe and the Victoria Quay St. Trinians girls.

  12. Mia says:

    This is what I am saying. This inquiry is just another engineered exercise to whitewash Sturgeon and the civil servants from hell that attempted to keep Mr Salmond out of politics. All while deliberately keeping the public in the dark, because clearly they think we are zipped at the back.

    It is disgusting and profoundly undemocratic. As voters we must have the right to make an informed decision about who we can trust to govern us and who we cannot. This, the same as not knowing if any of these women who lied in a criminal court of law are standing for a seat, is deliberately denying us of that right.

    So now not only Sturgeon’s government and COPFS have become a farce, it seems Scotland’s parliament has also become a farce and its parliamentary inquiry is nothing but another charade. Smoke and mirrors. It feels like the result of the inquiry was already agreed before even the committee was selected.

    Just like her commitment to independence, the whole “democratic” set up in Scotland under Sturgeon has just become a complete farce.

  13. Black Joan says:

    Why are the unionist members of the Committee going along with this outrage against transparency?

  14. Teetering says:

    Don’t be surprised if Salmond has already anticipated this move.

  15. Captain Yossarian says:

    @Black Joan – maybe they’ve got something to hide too, Joan. Maybe they’ve all got the tarnish of negligence showing around their brass necks.

    They’re only jumped-up councilors.

  16. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    ‘Thanks be to God.’ Oh aye, I’m sure that sort of sing-hosannas-ya-bas religious banter echoes round the walls of Holyrood 24/7 365 (or 366 in a leap year). What kind of faux-godbothering yank drivel is that? Trying to curry favour in the most embarrassing pilewashing arselicky way. Biden is hawk scum. His record is easily available alone. America is a rogue psychopathic nation. It never gets any better.

  17. Mist001 says:

    Somebody else is obviously pulling the Scottish ‘government’ strings. People have been, and are being, fooled by the use of the words ‘Scottish government’ and ‘Scottish parliament’.

    It’s a load of bullshit, it’s fairly obvious that Scotland has nothing of the kind.

  18. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    Addendum: ‘easily available online.’

  19. Kenny says:

    Scottish Parliament inquiry must then be rigged?
    Nicola Sturgeon must then be rigged?
    The Dep FM, John Swinney, must then be rigged?
    Sturgeon’s husband, the CEO of the SNP, must then be rigged?
    SNP hierarchy and Civil Servants must then be rigged?
    The Lord Advocate, James Wolffe, must then be rigged?
    Linda Fabiani must then be rigged?
    Police Scotland and their ‘Salmond Team’ must then be rigged?
    Is there anything not blatantly rigged, illegal – and so childishly easy to spot and expose – going on out there?

    And all of this – lies piling upon lies – to maintain a completely compromised leader of the SNP – they own her now.

  20. Fishy Wullie says:

    This comes as no surprise

    I noticed Rev in a previous thread you posted quite categorically to someone that Aberdein would not be giving evidence to the inquiry, you put it in a manner that suggested you were in no doubt about that so I assumed you knew something the rest of us didn’t

    To be honest there’s nothing this Sturgeon administration could do to surprise me anymore not because it’s corrupt to the core but because it’s corrupt FROM the core.

    The truth will no doubt come out one day but sadly I’m beginning to fear it will be too late

  21. Mac says:

    So you hold an inquiry and then don’t call a key witness and don’t publish their written testimony.

    Yeah seems legit… FFS.

    What possible justification could there be. Geoff Aberdein isn’t there to discuss state secrets. All this is so blatantly just to cover up their grubby little fingerprints and misdeeds.

    This inquiry a joke. It is actually more of an extension of the cover-up itself than any real attempt to uncover it. The limited scope, the softball questions, all the concessions granted to McKinnon, the hostility to Salmond who is just a witness, this most recent bollocks, it is all painting a pretty clear picture.

    This blog is far more of an inquiry than that pile of shite.

  22. Lothianlad says:

    Words like outrageous dont even come close to describing the utterly corrupt SNP SG. The so called inquiry will find no case to answer for NS. It’s so predictable.

    Fabiani and all the other SNP politicians bar a handful of decent people, knowcalso how corrupt it is.

    I have great admiration for stu and his energy in perusing the truth. Cm MH IL and other who hold these people to account deserve all the support we can give them .

    Please keep going guys. We all need to work to get sturgeon and her woke brigade out.

    Keep exposing them and the sham of the so called public offices.

  23. Kenny says:

    The irritating thing is; if this were any other country in the world – where its leaders, law, prosecutors etc, were so gravely corrupting – there’d be protests in the streets? We have a few bloggers we appear to be happy with doing our digging for us, and making our progress for us. Scots are clearly endlessly patient.

    Someday the artistes of our country will write songs and poems, produce drama art and sculptures, make movies, all depicting a dark time in Scotland’s history – these works will sum up the corrupt reign of liar-supreme Sturgeon. How the hell does that woman look at herself in the mirror each day, especially as she must know her days are numbered?

  24. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    A song for Sturgeon.

    With apologies’ to Mary Webb:

    The testimony of old Aberdein
    Will fucking bury me
    The testimony of old Aberdein
    Are what you long to see
    I’ve been a chancer most of my life
    Any many a sight I’ve seen
    God speed the day, l’ve obstructed everyway
    The testimony of Aberdein

  25. Mia says:

    “Why are the unionist members of the Committee going along with this outrage against transparency?”

    Collusion of interests?

    Because they are all in the same “team”?

    Promises of promotions and other baubles?

    They have all been attempting to stop Mr Salmond returning to politics because they know what that would mean: with polls for yes over 50% and him at the lead, Scotland will be independent.

    Salmond does not strike me as the kind of politician who waits passively for 19 polls to put yes ahead and still cannot find the will to stand upright and do something about it.

    My question is: who has been selected as the chosen scapegoat for Sturgeon’s sins? Swinney? Evans? the Lord Advocate? Murrel? The women?

    Who are they preparing to throw under the bus to take the heat away from Sturgeon?

    Who is the weakest link? My bet is on Swinney.

    But that will probably only happen after Fabiani attempts one more time and fails to turn the omelette over by throwing a tantrum and pinging this on Mr Salmond for not attending to the interview when he was told.

  26. Roddy Macdonald says:

    I’m hard pushed to remember a parliamentary inquiry more determined not to get to the truth.

  27. Lothianlad says:

    The waren commission, the wigery commission and this so called inquiry all have one thing in common.

    It ain’t perusing the truth!

  28. Lothianlad says:


    “They are all in the same team”

    How very true!

  29. Robert G says:

    Would I be correct in saying that as part of Nicola Sturgeon’s protection in the whole affair, she has from early on agreed not to deviate from the Section 30 request route knowing very well that it will never be granted by Westminster?

  30. Cath says:

    Hope Alex refuses to dignify this charade with an attendance. Why bother when it’s so clearly designed to carry on the smears against him rather than allow the truth to come out?

  31. Confused says:

    did Aberdein have a note from his mammy?

    JEFF CANT DO PE TDAY as legalised combobulations, signed MRS ABerdin

    obviously, we need a new enquiry; I propose –

    Lord Dulux of Whitewash
    Lady Teflon of AuchAwayAnDinnaeMind

    (sighs, eyes roll)

  32. Alan Mackintosh says:

    What “legal obligations” are they referring to, that they are using to prevent them publishing his statement?

    Perhaps someone needs to speak to Geoff Aberdein and get a copy so we can see for ourselves…

  33. MaggieC says:

    I’m so bloody angry reading this just now , This is out and out total corruption by our Scottish Government ,

  34. Lothianlad says:

    If the truth were published, it would bring down the whole establishment house of cards!!

    That’s why there is collusion. NS is in it up to her neck and the SNP have been infiltrated , influenced and corrupted. They are owned and will all fall if the truth comes out.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the press are slapped with a ‘D’ notice to ban them publishing the truth and naming several high profile corrupt individuals. They will be only to happy to comply.

    Thus is what happened a few years ago when the westminster and high profile people ring was exposed.

    Watch for this I query details having a 30 year rule banning it from public disclosure.

    Remember folks, this is an SNP first minister and Scottish government that is involved in this!!

  35. Lothianlad says:

    Meant pedo ring in my last post

  36. A Person says:

    Oh where does it end!

    Here’s a thought, folks: for years and years, Trump seemed invincible, and today, he scuttled off out of the White House. Even his own deputy went to see Biden rather than see him off. Now I know that Biden is barely any better, but it does show, that pride comes before a fall.

  37. velofello says:

    I don’t keep notes on all of this Scottish gov’t fandango. I do recall that upon receipt of an invitation to meet the FM in her office at Holyrood Geoff Aberdein chose to consult with two others before attending the meeting, why? Seems to me proof enough that a meeting took place and that the FM failed to record the meeting.

    I don’t regard it in general terms, a terrible lapse of behaviour to overlook, even sneakily to hold a meeting ‘undercover”, on managerial business, but here we have every appearance of a strategy to have Alex Salmond disgraced and jailed, that is not managerial business, that is evil intent.

    The Lins Fabiani led committee needs to take a step back and reflect upon the seriousness of the task before them. The issue will not be resolved if the committee complacently whitewashes the enquiry due to government pressure manipulation, and the committee individually will be tarnished. The background manipulators? Who?

    Linda Fabiani’s letter proposal to Alex Salmond offering a 2nd Feb. meeting ignored his lawyers’ concerns over “truth protection” and did read as lacking empathy towards a man who is enduring a nightmare.I had believed better of her.

  38. Kate says:

    And someone posted once that there are still GOOD PEOPLE in the SNP, if that is true then The time is now for them to stand up & make sure their voices are heard. Or every single one of them is a corrupt as the Leadership & the cabal she surrounded herself with.. This is just another attempt at blackening Alex Salmonds character. While the liar that is sturgeon is going to walk away from this her dirty lies hidden & Kept quiet by the GOOD PEOPLE in the SNP..

  39. Betsy says:

    Black Joan says:
    20 January, 2021 at 5:23 pm
    Why are the unionist members of the Committee going along with this outrage against transparency?

    From their point of view it might well be better to have a tarnished but not fully disgraced Sturgeon limping on for the next few years, asking ever so humbly for a Section 30, being refused and doing nothing.

  40. Kate says:

    @Black Joan

    Because they know she is NO threat to their “Precious Union” whereas Alex is..

  41. Lothianlad says:

    It used to be that the SNP had a moral compass. That any corrupt behaviour from unionists were heavily criticised by the SNP.

    Now though the SNP is acting in just such a manner. I’ve often wondered why the SNP changed so much. Was it power?

    Probably, but it’s also because sturgeon is in charge!

  42. TruthForDummies says:

    Aren’t Court transcript is public domain can’t someone just release a transcript of the court evidence ?

    But, the committee have seen this evidence, the fact they aren’t calling Aberdein presumably means they believe him. They are not releasing the evidence but it still can appear in their report. And they can use the evidence when questioning Nicola ie tell us about the meeting, who arranged it …. and invite her to lie or admit a lie

  43. Mia says:

    “What “legal obligations” are they referring to”

    the very same they have been extensively using as a shield and as an excuse to not release evidence to the public or the inquiry: jigsaw identification of the alphabet women.

    I have been wondering for quite some time now if perhaps the reason to launch the criminal court case against Mr Salmond would not have been so much for imprisoning him as a way to remove him from politics as it was a plot to achieve anonymity for key individuals whose names might have appeared in certain key documents that represented damning evidence of the conspiracy plot so those documents could never be released to the public unless extensive redacted and rendered unreadable. Surely I cannot be the only one who has noticed that so far, the main obstacle, if not the only real one that has been impairing this investigation from day one is the need for anonymity of those women. How convenient.

  44. Graeme Hampton says:

    It would be a really interesting to see what happened if Mr Aberdeins evidence was leaked

  45. Bob Mack says:

    I like watching magicians make things disappear. I know its there because I am a rational being, and no amount of persuasion is going to tell me its not there somewhere,hidden out of sight.

    This Inquiry makes me feel exactly like that.

  46. Sharny Dubs says:

    When you’ve been rumbled and your ass is grass it’s only a matter of who you have to pay off and what they want in exchange. That is “if” you can find someone with enough clout to get you out the sh1t.

    Has to be someone big like say the WM tufty club.

    Then there is the question of price. She’ll be dancing to their tune for the rest of her natural.

    Damaged goods, time she went.

  47. SilverDarling says:

    It references the elephant in the room.

  48. boris says:

    A closer look at the Sky report. Have I got it wrong. A play on words?

    It emerged during Mr Salmond’s recent criminal trial – at which he was acquitted of 13 charges of sexual assault – that a meeting took place on 29 March 2018 in the First Minister’s Holyrood office and was attended by Ms Sturgeon, a government official and, Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein.

    No evidence was heard at the trial about the content of the 29 March meeting, but Sky News has seen an account that indicates the complaints against Mr Salmond were discussed, contradicting what Ms Sturgeon told the Scottish Parliament. The account that we have seen states:

    Note. Not true. Complaints against Alex Salmond were not discussed.

    “The conversation was around the fact of the complaints, without discussing the specifics of them. There was discussion about the investigation, the process of it, the fact it was a civil service investigation being conducted by civil servants.”

    Afternote: It appears that Ms Sturgeon told the truth. There was a meeting and in the course of it there was a passing reference to a civil service inquiry which had not yet formally reported its findings.

    Details of the meeting were recorded during precognition interviews prior to the criminal trial and Mr Aberdein revealed his involvement while giving evidence as a defence witness.

    He told the court he had been contacted by an aide to Ms Sturgeon in the spring of 2018 and it triggered a series of subsequent meetings.

    06 March 2018 – Geoff Aberdein met Nicola Sturgeon’s aide for “a catch up”.
    09 March 2018 – During this meeting, Nicola Sturgeon’s aide told Geoff Aberdein of two complaints of alleged misconduct against Alex Salmond.
    29 March 2018 – Geoff Aberdein met Nicola Sturgeon in her Holyrood office. A senior Scottish government official was also present. See above,
    02 April 2018 – Nicola Sturgeon met Alex Salmond at her house in Glasgow. She told the Scottish Parliament that this was when he first informed her of the complaints against him. Geoff Aberdein was among others present in the house at the time, including a senior Scottish government official.

  49. Captain Yossarian says:

    Two things:

    1. All at Holyrood get along fine. In many ways, it’s the best job in the world. Sure, they argue from time to time, but it’s not serious. No-one resigns or is sacked. Everyone, the SPADS, the MSP staffers and the MSP’s themselves get along just fine. Hence a Holyrood Inquiry is a nursery school inquiry really; nothing embarrassing will happen.

    2. It’s possible that one or two members of the inquiry have been got-at by the Holyrood glitterati. Involvement in previous cover-ups, for example.

  50. Al says:

    I think a key question is whether the committee themselves are seeing the response?

    Or is being withheld from them as well.

    Given the reporting by the media in the trial it would be almost certain that his response will enable jigsaw identification if he sets out who was at the meeting would it not?

  51. Margaret Lindsay says:

    Corrupt bastards. I am rather fucking cross.

  52. twathater says:

    As someone up thread posted if Aberdeins witness statement is made public by the MSM what would the inquiry be forced to do about it , surely Baillie , Turdo , Whiteford , or ANY of the other non SNP members MUST INSIST that Aberdein is called as his court given evidence is CRUCIAL to the inquiry , to do otherwise is being COMPLICIT in hampering the committees remit

  53. Astonished says:

    Honesty ? Transparency? Fairness ?

    If Linda Fabiani allows this. History will remember her as the Scots/Italian who encouraged liars to lie to the people of Scotland.

    We deserve so much better.
    I doubt this will alter the final outcome for the murrells et al. However it may delay their removal long enough to ensure the SNP lose the May election.

  54. robertknight says:

    I smell sh*te!

  55. Captain Yossarian says:

    I notice Alex has gone to the press a few hours ago to complain that the withholding of evidence at the Criminal Trial was a Contempt of Court.

    Pictured in the article are James Wolffe and grotesque St Trinians girl Leslie Evans.

    One whistleblower may be all he needs and in most countries which are not semi-authoritarian as Scotland has become, that would just get done.

    It just shows what a reign of terror the Murrells have brought to Holyrood.

  56. robertknight says:

    One can only hope that the other (non-Sturgeon loyalist) committee members produce a minority report.

  57. Republicofscotland says:

    Its all a charade, Sturgeon was never going to be brought down, and independence is never going to be gained anytime soon, the games rigged, the decks stacked and we’ll always be on the losing side because the SNP hierarchy don’t want independence, but they give the impression they do for us mugs to vote them into office.

    If anything gets in their way they just use the law (as in this case and others) to shut folk up by applying trumped up charges, and redacting anything that might show what these lying b*stards are actually up to.

    Short of them actually holding their hands up and admitting their heinous crimes, we’re completely f*cked and they know it.

  58. Neil in Glasgow says:

    Does anyone else think James Matthews is now really going for it as the man who exposes the SG watergate moment? Two days in a row now he’s had bits out (I didn’t think much of his written bit yest but his piece to camera made more sense) without pretty much as a by your leave for months about the whole episode otherwise

  59. James Carroll says:

    Has anyone else noticed the gynocentrism that emanates from the Sturgeon premiership? It’s all linked in with the Salmond case as well.

  60. holymacmoses says:

    Well Nicola certainly intends to be around for the next 5 years
    Scottish Government
    We believe that tackling drug deaths must be a national mission.

    We’re giving an extra £50 million every year for the next 5 years to improve and increase services for people affected by drug addiction.

  61. Robert Hughes says:

    The Truth ? They hole Truth . Nothing like the Truth .

    What an unmitigated betrayal of everything we thought a native Scottish Government could be .

    I’ve thought on occasion maybe because it is a native Government we expect too much , judge them too severely : but , no , the ethical malaise is too endemic , too extreme , beyond recuperation .

    The only way is down

  62. Davie Oga says:

    Neil in Glasgow says:
    20 January, 2021 at 6:40 pm
    Does anyone else think James Matthews is now really going for it as the man who exposes the SG watergate moment?

    Journalists all over the world would love to break a story like that. Its the reason people become journalists.

    But not in Scotland. Scotland based journalists are uniquely unable to be journalists. Not being a journalist is prerequisite for any journalism job in Scotland.

  63. Ian McLean says:

    At the time of the meeting, did Mr Aberdein have a Scottish Parliament building pass? If not, who signed him in?

  64. Davy Smith says:

    We need an Edward Snowden of our own

  65. Romric says:

    As a avid reader of your blog I find it astonishing that despite all the information you have dug up on this unbelievable Sturgeon saga it seems to come to no good.

    Many contributors accuse Sturgeon supporters of being like sheep but perhaps they are also like sheep too. They puff and pant and come up with woolly ideas about the way forward without coming up with a consensus of what should be the way forward.

    Perhaps also like sheep they need a leader to inspire and lead them to the promised land.

    Who will take the lead with some positive action and organise a Protest March (Covid allowing) or a concerted email campaign to all SNP MSPs or some other such measure.

    This would soon attract the National Media and could lead to the change at the top of the SNP and to the Independence most people on this blog seem to want.

  66. Jack says:

    It’s always the cover up which gets them in the end. Tick tock.

  67. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Ian Maclean, very good point, perhaps that another FOI for Stu…? There must be records of who is coming and going.

    Your mention of it reminds me that sometime Alec entered the parliament and needed to be signed in, as he didnt have a pass. They called the FM office for a “sign in” and they blanked him. It might have been on here or on Craigs blog, but I’m 100% sure this was the case. Perhaps Stu or Craig can confirm.

  68. John Digsby says:

    These articles are infuriating – not because they are bad (and thanks to Stu for putting so much work in) but because it’s becoming obvious that the truth is never going to be allowed to come out. The inquiry is never going to be given all the information needed to make a determination, and so will find no wrongdoing.

    Barring a whistle-blower (and it’s too much risk for anyone in the know to put the information in the public domain, I appreciate) there’s only one way I sadly see this going.


  69. Kenny says:

    Alan Mackintosh;
    Was that Salmond incident (refused a pass to FM’s office) not related by Robin McAlpine?

  70. M says:


    Statement from Commonweal board on their website today. (see news submenu)

    Fall out from Robin’s recent piece on NS and integrity in public life has disturbed CW’s mission. Robin has offered to step down as Director to take up another role.

    Make what you will of the statement, but it raises the question of what platforms exist to ask the awkward questions on and it feels very like another has just been gagged.

  71. Kenny says:

    John Digsby;
    Don’t be so neg, friend, this mess is so vast, so far-reaching, so damning, that she simply cannot walk from it. Apart from anything else, the people of Scotland won’t permit any cover-up let alone one of this awful magnitude.
    Sturgeon’s finished, either tomorrow, next week or before May – she’s done.

  72. robertknight says:

    @Captain Yossarian

    “grotesque St Trinians girl Leslie Evans.”

    Would that be…

    St Trinian’s School for Spooks
    12 Millbank
    SW1P 4QE

    …by any chance?

  73. Black Joan says:

    Alan Mackintosh @ 7.05pm

    I think it was Bute House where a security guard who knew AS very well apologised for having to get consent for AS to be admitted and NS said no, not welcome?

  74. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    “And in advance of the inauguration later on I’m sure we all want to send our congratulations to soon-to-be president Biden and soon to be vice-president Kamala Harris.

    “Kamala Harris in particular today doesn’t just become the vice president, she makes history in a number of different ways and she has my warm congratulations on that.” – Nicola Sturgeon, today.

    She says more aboot the female VP than the male president! Hilarious! She’s so jealous (we all know how ambitious she is, and how she loves the hawk lunatic Clinton), I’m surprised she hasn’t put on blackface and taken a permanent holiday in American politics. “I’d fly six thousand miles, for a taste of your piles, my Kameeee!” Laughing here, and not entirely serious. No Vice Presidents or First Ministers or minstrels (or First Minstrels!) were harmed during the making of this production. 🙂

  75. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Kenny, yes now that you mention it, it might well have been Robin MacAlpine. Dont think it was Bute house, pretty sure it was the parliament.

  76. James says:

    Why isn’t this front page headline news?
    Why isn’t Unionist media hanging Sturgeon and Murrell out to dry?

  77. Craig Murray says:

    It was the parliament. Alex was attending for a charity event he had organised while First Minister, and Nicola’s office refused to sign him in. It was me recounting the story as Robin McAlpine told me (he had witnessed). I later confirmed it is true with Alex direct. Right back in 2015 if memory serves.

  78. David Lyon says:

    She gave them £3 million to shut up.

  79. Jim Tadgercock says:

    There is only so blatant corruption I can take,So I have just joined the ISP.All last week I was sending links to my SNP supporting friends about what is going on and can report most are still in denial.

  80. Davie Oga says:

    WhoRattledYourCage says:
    20 January, 2021 at 7:17 pm
    “And in advance of the inauguration later on I’m sure we all want to send our congratulations to soon-to-be president Biden and soon to be vice-president Kamala Harris”

    She made a mistake with that tweet, she meant to say “… congragulations to our soon to be president Biden and our soon to be vice president Kamala…”

  81. Jim Tadgercock says:

    So much sorry typo

  82. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Craig, thankyou, I thought it was on your blog I had seen it. So even back in 2015, trouble was brewing. This p(l)ot has been simmering for a long time…

    I wonder if there is any reason why Aberdeins submission could not be shown elsewhere, in the interests of public scrutiny. Obviously removing any clues of the alphabet women. It is his after all, I wouldnt think ownership of the document passes to the committee, following submission.

  83. Iain More says:

    Davie Oga says:
    20 January, 2021 at 6:57 pm

    Neil in Glasgow says:
    20 January, 2021 at 6:40 pm
    “Does anyone else think James Matthews is now really going for it as the man who exposes the SG watergate moment?

    Journalists all over the world would love to break a story like that. Its the reason people become journalists.

    But not in Scotland. Scotland based journalists are uniquely unable to be journalists. Not being a journalist is prerequisite for any journalism job in Scotland.”

    I think he is just another Quisling Yoon. He wouldn’t be working for Sky if he wasn’t. Slap yourself with a deid fish.

  84. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    Davie Oga, I cùt-and-pasted that direct from The National.

  85. Stuart MacKay says:


    Corruption and botched coverups are more like toxic waste rather than explosives. Everyone it touches gets contaminated. Even though you can’t see it, the damage is done and the longer this goes on then more damage occurs.

    Even if Sturgeon and the upper echelons survive this, the damage is not repairable. Trust, as Robin McAlpine put it, is not coming back. It might not be this that sinks her but the next or the next.

    In some respects the damage to the SNP is even greater. Even if only one or two individuals were involved the party as whole is tainted. That it held high standards with regard to openness and transparency before just makes the damage all the more severe.

  86. Kenny says:

    Craig Murray; yes, I recall now. Thanks.
    That incident I remember as it was my personal, first, draw-drop moment of what has become the cumulative, resounding crunch of a disbelieving nation’s toes being broken by jaws landing on them.

    And thank you, too, Mr Murray for your outstanding contribution to the eventual toppling of our beloved – but horribly corrupt – First Minister.
    I enjoy being on the side of right.

  87. carjamtic says:

    The stench of the dead albatross got stronger day by day and when it got too nauseous, the members of the dimly lit,elite country club had to open up the windows to allow in some air,some light.

    Let them eat ‘Ost Och Sill’ they declared, they will surely swallow that and beggars can’t be choosers after all (echoing the thoughts of their southern masters, with no sign of any remorse or sorrow).

    The impecunious/abandoned women, first smelled it, then looked through curtains and saw it and were truly sickened.

    The members realised their mistake and tried to quickly,close the windows, but it was too late, their grotesque’s weighed them heavy….the stench went everywhere.

    Some good old boys, were hoisted out of their sand pits (after suffering coronary occlusions) while well respected and well remembered suffragettes spun in their graves.

    Move along now folks,there is nothing to see or hear (bar the distant, cackled laughter of some miscalibrated individuals) from a labyrinth not too, far far away, as they continue with their never ending box ticking exercises.

    Anyway just ignore all that and Welcome to our book club, hook yer jaiket over the back of that chair and check out our favourite book of the year……The Auld Fisherman and Farmers Dream Book and Fortune Teller…..canny say too much in case we give the plot away but it’ an absolute shocker (nae).

  88. AYRSHIRE ROB says:


    Fuck off ya bigot racist twat.
    What’s all this ‘hawk’s shite. Is that an inference to Irish. I say fuck off again ya twat. Indy movement doesn’t need bigot yoon feckers like you.

  89. Sweep says:

    I hope the recently mooted ‘foreign correspondent’ will soon deliver the goods on all the rejected, refused and redacted material. There should be enough for a keen offshore resident to fill several volumes now.

    On the levels of corruption and what can be done, I decided to adopt a more direct approach on social media. I’ve yet to receive a response:

    (Incidentally, by way of reassurance, the word is also used as a comparator to taking a direct route).

    Finally, anyone attempting to prevent Mr Salmond from returning to politics should have been aware of the futility of the exercise – only certain people have the power to do that. They’re called Members Of The Public.

  90. Dan says:

    Ken when the Scottish Government Administration said they’d be open and transparent with the Inquiry… You have to give them credit for their honesty, it’s jist that maist folks probably didnae think it meant it’d be transparently obvious as to how openly corrupt they’d be… 🙁

  91. Black Joan says:

    Oh, sorry, so not Bute House. But as long ago as 2015, and an event AS had organised at the Parliament. Shocking and evidence indeed of poisonous antipathy long before AS lost his WM seat and appeared on RT.

  92. Mia says:

    When was it decided that the inquiry will not be publishing Mr Aberdein’s submission to the inquiry?

    Was it before or after the results of the last poll were known?

    What are the odds that this decision by the committee (or whoever handles the committee) has been in part determined by the results thrown by that poll showing that over 50% of the electorate in Scotland may be just quite happy for Sturgeon to resign if it is proven that she broke the ministerial code?

  93. L says:

    So will Sturgeon now just get away with it?

  94. Beaker says:

    @James says:
    20 January, 2021 at 7:26 pm
    “Why isn’t this front page headline news?”

    Media probably trying to keep up. Something new almost every day. Either that or they are saving it all up for one mighty (not so) exclusive.

  95. Dan says:

    Alan Bissett, astute as ever on the big picture…

    Meanwhile… Scotland’s elected “brightest and best” are too busy trying to win the Champions League Slippiest Eel Competition, rather than getting with the fuckin programme and saving Scotland from the detriments to our society that are about to meted out to us…

  96. Captain Yossarian says:

    Let me know Rev if you have a contact Email address and I will send you a small amount of stuff which is apposite to the malfeasance going-on at Holyrood.

  97. Effijy says:

    Many indigenous peoples who have been suppressed
    and abused by a conquering nation have turned to drink
    and drugs.

    North American Indians, Maoris in New Zealand, Aborigines in Australia, etc.

    If Scotland were independent we would have more confidence and self belief
    and generate more jobs, etc

    Independence would deliver a lower incidence of drug abuse!

    PS Tuned into Channel 4 News to hear excuses about the record breaking
    U.K. Covid deaths stats over the last 24 hours.
    30 minutes in and they were still keeping everything Trump related?

    What kind of figures would make death a lead story over the Tango man goes to Florida?

  98. Dan says:

    @ Captain Yossarian

    You can contact Stu through this link, which is also located at top of page header.

  99. John Park says:

    Perhaps others should submit foi request in the same vien. Up the ante

  100. 100%Yes says:

    If this is what we can expect from the SNP when Independent god help us all.

  101. Captain Yossarian says:

    @Dan – thanks for that.

  102. PeterV says:

    O/T and for the record:-


    Sorry folks, but our “National” News bulletins are wall to wall American shit and I just had to tell the world how I feel about that fucked up country.

    My ONLY aim in life is to see Scotland become an independent nation.

    Any news other than that is a distraction.

    And a message to the “Bitch of Bute House” ,,, please just go,,, now!!!

  103. Col says:

    @100% yes, agree but at least there will be others we can vote for. As things are we don’t even have a say.

  104. katherine hamilton says:

    Was Mr. Aberdein’s written evidence solicited by the committee and if so is it “their” property? I only ask, as surely Mr. Aberdein’s information, knowledge, behaviour, acquaintances, contacts, meetings held and with whom and so on is surely his own business. The stuff of his life.
    If that is the case surely, like all of us, he is at liberty to do what he pleases with his stuff in putting into the public domain if he so chooses. It’s up to other folk to read it if they want. I believe on the internet it’s called a blog.
    There must be some blog somewhere that would give him an opportunity to tell the world this aspect of his undoubted interesting life. Save him having to start one of his own.

    Bit like a memoir, really. Just a primer for the whole tome to be produced some time in the future. (Or not). Their power over the people of Scotland doesn’t stretch as far as shutting people up completely, does it?

  105. ScottieDog says:

    “ Kenny, yes now that you mention it, it might well have been Robin MacAlpine. Dont think it was Bute house, pretty sure it was the parliament.”

    My guess is they want to wait till much closer to the election
    They much prefer NS to continue, seeing her as much less of a threat to the union than a would-be successor.

  106. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @katherine hamilton (8.32) –

    If ‘intellectual property’ means anything it’s the right to your own memories.

    I’d like to see Aberdein tell Rev the story as he remembers it, interview-style right here, or else get indylive to do it, cover all the costs and pay people for their expertise, properly – just ask for a crowdfund and you’ll get, ooooooft, say, £25,000 in a few hours?

  107. laukat says:

    I’m not surprised to see Geoff Aberdein has not been called before the committee. I would have thought the more pressing matter will be if James Hamilton interviews him and what he does with taht evidence.

    The way the parliamentary committee and James Hamilton’s scope have been formed is no accident nor is the timeline for the enquiry to complete.

    As the comittee is to “review actions in relationship to the ministerial code” and James Hamilton is to report on if the minesterial code was breached then the committee can’t really interview witnesses that are only material to James Hamilton scope. If Hamilton decides no breach then the committee can’t really go any further.

    The manufactured timeline of trying to wrap up the committee report by end of February means that if Hamilton’s report comes in and says ‘no breach on orginal terms but there may be other stuff. Would you like me to look at it?’ then there will be no time for the committee to do anything with it as parliament will be closing down in time for the May elections.

    Also Sturgeon is now down to appear in front of the committee in late February. If Hamilton’s report is not there ahead of that what exactly can the committee question her on? They can have a go at her for letting Leslie Evans have a free hand but they have no evidence they can refer to that says she broke the minesterial code.

    In my opinion the truth and Salmond’s hopes of redemption rely on Hamilton providing a report that declare a clear breach. Sturgeon has covered all other angles. She will come out of this without much damage particularly and almost all will be forgotten if she wins a majority in May.

    I think Salmond should start the new party promptly. It would make it clear to Sturgeon that he isn’t going away and he could cripple her politically by stealing some of her MSP’s and MP’s.

    Beyond that the only way forward is for a 3rd party to make all the court papers publically available in a similar way that Julian Assange used to do. What could go wrong with that?

  108. Derek Black says:

    What possible legal obstacle could be preventing it being heard?

    Is his evidence subject to a criminal case?
    Is it subject to an ongoing gagging order in connection with alphabet women?

    It seems unfathomable how something can be deemed legally unusable without an explanation.

  109. Mist001 says:

    In a post by ‘Boris’ above, he lists a timetable of events. The final one is:

    ’02 April 2018 – Nicola Sturgeon met Alex Salmond at her house in Glasgow. She told the Scottish Parliament that this was when he first informed her of the complaints against him. Geoff Aberdein was among others present in the house at the time, including a senior Scottish government official.’

    So maybe she IS telling the truth, 2nd April 2018 was the first time that Alex Salmond told her personally, by himself, of the complaints against him. She may have known about them beforehand but this was the first time it came directly from the horses mouth, so to speak.

    The key words are ‘He first informed her’.

  110. Saffron Robe says:

    Straw people with rubber ears and brass necks, selling their country for a sinecure.

    Utterly despisable the lot of them. Not just a disgrace to our country, but a disgrace to our species.

    I do, however, have the sneaky feeling that they are all involved in a game of KerPlunk. It just takes one good person to pull out the right straw and they will all come tumbling down.

  111. Davy Smith says:


    Nail square on the heid there.
    That destruction of culture and loss of identity is exactly what causes the addiction problem.

    It is a disease of colonial capitalism. It wouldn’t exist but for that toxic ideology.
    If you haven’t already done so, I can recommend Darren McGarvey’s Poverty Safari which also looks into the problem among alienated working class communities.

  112. Black Joan says:

    We’ve already seen various people appear before the Committee, take a solemn oath and then later issue a written correction when the “inadvertent” inaccuracy of what they have stated under oath is revealed, as a result of new information being “discovered”.

    Some, like Evans and Murrell are required to come back and solemnly promise again to tell the whole (perhaps different) truth.

    There appear to be no consequences for serving up wrong information after taking a solemn oath.

    So what is the point of all this swearing? And will secret, written evidence, such as that of Mr Aberdein, carry less weight when the author of it is barred from, or not required to, swear an oath in person in front of the Committee? Does his enforced non-appearance somehow devalue what he has to say?

    And if written evidence is supplied by witnesses as a necessary correction, but not in the form of an affidavit and not followed up by another in-person appearance under oath, why, technically, should that subsequent correction be treated as more truthful than the original sworn evidence which has been revealed as (inadvertent) perjury?

    Swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should be serious stuff. The oath is the same as required of witnesses in Court. This Committee procedure appears to regard it as a bit of a formality, and deviation as not too much of a problem because it’s only human to be revealed as a bit inadvertent when something contradictory or embarrassing later comes to light.

  113. ‘AYRSHIRE ROB says:

    ‘Fuck off ya bigot racist twat.
    What’s all this ‘hawk’s shite. Is that an inference to Irish. I say fuck off again ya twat. Indy movement doesn’t need bigot yoon feckers like you.’

    Clearly vicious satire is lost on you, but thanks so much for your kind words. You are clearly not very intelligent. Are you fucking pished? Being a ‘hawk’ makes one a warmonger, which is a default mode the USA excels at:

    Here’s a Biden primer for you in that arena:

    Just because you do zero research into the been-around-forever ‘new’ half-senile wankydoodledandy messiah, and go randomly off on people because you don’t understand what they say, please don’t tar somebody else with your own ignorance. I am a quarter Irish myself, and have zero beef with the Irish; never have had, never will have. As for yer yoon insult, well, suck my disdain. You’re not even worth a better insult. And Biden is NOT ‘Irish.’ He’s AMERICAN. There is a HUGE difference, trust me. Over a decade of living in an Irish-roots city, Chicago, taught me that. S’like this, m’man:

  114. Achnababan says:

    The Committee was a white wash from the beginning.

    Who ever heard of an investigation into Government wrong doing being Chaired by an MSP from the same party – and one that hates Salmond to boot?

  115. Mac says:

    This has been referred to throughout as a ‘Quasi-Judicial Inquiry’.

    So looking up ‘quasi’ here, Google suggests…

    “apparently but not really; seemingly”

    I laughed because it really did sum it up.

    More accurately what it is, is a ‘Pseudo-Judicial Inquiry’

    Or in other words, a sham.

  116. Captain Yossarian says:

    ‘MSP’s consider move to force release of explosive Salmond documents’ – from tonight’s Daily Telegraph.

    They can try and force their release, but that can still be blocked by the Lord Advocate.

  117. Ian Brotherhood says:

    This whole story is such a great chance for so many journalists to get that Woodward/Bernstein buzz, perhaps for the only time in their careers, and go for it. I’m sure Rev wouldn’t mind them using all the donkey-work he’s already done research-wise (and Craig Murray, Mark Hirst, Gordon Dangerfield and abody else, they know who they are.)

    Perhaps they’re all it furiously behind the scenes and are preparing major weekend spreads? All in cars speeding to Aberdein’s address?

    Aye, mibbe…

  118. Contrary says:

    How irritating.

    There is also another possibility – I started to get suspicious on the previous article thread – what everyone was saying about FMQs being mindnumbingly tedious, and I assume didn’t even mention once about the Scottish government not handing over evidence? Very strange – there are quite a few stock questions the opposition leaders like to throw NS’s way, and there have been a few revelations this past week.

    Now this? What is so much more revealing in Aberdein’s statement that wasn’t in Alex Salmond’s – he detailed the meetings and named witnesses. At least we know now that Aberdein HAS submitted written evidence.

    What I’m suspicious of, given Alex Salmond’s unredacted submission Stuart helpfully provided, is that perhaps there has already been action taken to form a judge led inquiry, or something more. IF legal action had started, or was about to start, that would definitely make parliamentarians back off.

    Is that too much to hope for? If we have to wait until the stupid parliamentary inquiries to finish before hearing about it, meanwhile not getting half the evidence published, I’ll be furious. Not as furious as finding out it has all been a whitewash mind you.

  119. kapelmeister says:

    Achnababan @9:20

    Yes, as you say, the inquiry convener should not have been from the same party as the SG. That’s basic. As for the particular choice of Linda Fabiani, she was stood down by Salmond in a ministerial reshuffle in 2009. So that fact should have precluded her from being considered.

  120. Helen Yates says:

    This is much dirtier than any of realised it seems, I don’t see Sturgeon going anywhere and I truly hope Alex Salmond refuses to attend the enquiry, he should state publicly he won’t attend an enquiry that is nothing more than a sham.

    It beggars belief that this is happening and yet there is no outcry at the ridiculousness of the whole proceedings. our govt is corrupt as is our police force and our justice system is becoming a laughing stock.
    As for independence I think we can kiss goodbye to that.

  121. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Good to see you posting and hope you find yourself in a better place than you were the other day @Iain More says at 7:45 pm.

  122. Meg says:

    They are going to get away with this aren’t they

  123. robertknight says:


    You can fool some of the people some of the time – but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

  124. Alf Baird says:

    Effijy and DavySmith

    Former Chief Medical Officer Sir Harry Burns likewise referred to Scotland’s drug and alcohol difficulties as being similar to those of oppressed aborigine communities elsewhere who had suffered from the ‘dislocation of their culture’.

    This reflects the indigenous culture and language being diminished and destroyed through the imposition of what is deemed to be a ‘superior’ culture/language, which is effectively cultural imperialism and colonialism.

    In my own research I found that this also leads to ‘internalised racism’ or what is known as ‘Appropriated Racial Oppression’. This is the scientific term for what we know as the ‘Scottish Cultural Cringe’. The negative effects of this are wide ranging and include severe psychological and health impacts.

    As you may be aware, these and various other impacts resulting from Scotland’s ongoing colonial rule including cultural and linguistic oppression are covered in my book ‘Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence’ (i.e. oppressed).

  125. X_Sticks says:

    Belfast Telegraph January 20 2021

    “Salmond: I was disadvantaged in court by ‘reprehensible’ withholding of evidence”

  126. Shug says:

    It is only a question of time till somone leaks the papers and WhatsApp messages

    Somone wont get what they want and they will take a stropp and the leak begins.

    In any case I am sure the Record has the and Ruth will have been given them

    What we are watching is enough rope being released to get it round it round her neck a few times before the election

  127. PacMan says:

    I have posted on here many a time advocating the need for a second independence party to keep the SNP straight and to their vow.

    Maybe there is a simpler solution. The word chutzpah has been bandied about a lot on this forum and others. Maybe this idea of chutzpah needs to be put into practice and opportunities to break the deadlock are created?

    Instead of an Indy party just sitting in regional seats, maybe there should be a broad coalition of Indy parties standing in constituency seats, challenging the SNP, campaigning on one issue. Obviously depending on tactical voting and local campaigning on the ground in individual constituency seats, these parties get elected.

    That issue is to hold a referendum to ask the Scottish people if they should negotiate with Westminster to withdraw from the United Kingdom and associated treaties/laws.

    If there is a majority who agrees with this referendum, the Scottish Parliament then negotiates with Westminster for a withdrawal settlement. Upon the completion of this a further referendum is held which the Scottish people votes on a number of options based on the outcome of this referendum.

    Surely this is better than the neverendum which is occurring with the successive elections of the SNP where on one side, there is a constant bleating of holding a referendum and on the other where a referendum is never held?

  128. Suzanne K says:

    So Aberdein won’t attend ‘for legal reasons’ and that’s all a-okay. But Salmond is vilified by elected SNP and members for agreeing to appear at a later date?

  129. Muscleguy says:

    Sturgeon has to be toast and know it. Hanging on for grim death. Why? What for? obviously to keep hubby in his job for as long as possible. What is a failed administrator like him going to do when he is off?

    She must know when she goes he must go as well. Probably so will Swinney as deputy so who will take the reins while a new FM and Deputy are sworn in.

    Then there’s the Permanent Secretary who can never take a resonsiblity for any decisions. The head of People too most likely.

    What an unholy mess. It all needs lancing and soon.

  130. Alf Baird says:

    Mac @ 9:21

    “This has been referred to throughout as a ‘Quasi-Judicial Inquiry’”

    That fits Holyrood which is non-sovereign and therefore a ‘quasi’ parliament, same with the ‘quasi’ Scottish Government which is really just a spending department of the UK Government.

    ‘Devolution’ has merely turned out to be a second tier of colonial oppression.

  131. Craig Murray says:


    You misunderstand. Geoff Aberdein was very willing to give evidence. It is the committee who refuse to hear it “for legal reasons”.

  132. willie says:

    Interesting comments one and all but in this fight where the establishment, the SNP and the deep state are at war with the independence movement, this coalition of the establishment will not last.

    The independence movement is realigning. The SNP is realigning. The hand of the corrupt SNP leadership is being excised. Those who took control have in truth no control. It is the members, the activists, who have control.

    The allied forces are closing in on the bunker. The days of Sturgeon and the coterie of control are coming to an end.

    Lets just keep on pushing, things will change, we will prevail.

  133. Alf Baird says:

    Captain Yossarian @ 9:25

    “but that can still be blocked by the Lord Advocate.”

    And we now know that: “The former first minister also revealed his legal team will ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government was in contempt of court over the “withholding of relevant evidence”.”

    This appears to highlight a possible conflict of interest for the Lord Advocate who is a member of the cabinet of the Scottish Government as well as head of prosecution of crime.

  134. John Digsby says:


    I can try to remain optimistic, but I don’t think this is landing in the public consciousness. I remain pessimistic, but if I’m proven wrong I’ll be glad.

  135. willie says:

    Craig Murray@10.43pm.

    Denying Geoff Aberdein the opportunity to give evidence, likethe refusal to release papers, is just further evidence of the utter corruption that sits at the heart of our little statelet.

    But they cannot hold back the tide of truth.

    The truth will come out. Too many people know the truth.

  136. Davie Oga says:

    In Ireland, Tánaiste and former/future Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar is under pressure because he leaked a GP contract.

    Bet he’s wishing his dad emigrated to Scotland. He could have had civil servants
    vanish the document and An Garda lock up any journalists who kept asking questions.

  137. cyril mitchell says:

    OT but you are not on Twitter any more

    Well well well old British gunboat diplomacy raises its head again. WM seems to be issuing what looks a veiled threat by proxy thru ex Chancellor George Osborne of army being sent in if Scotland has another(successful) independence ref. Went down well in NI didn’t it

  138. cyril mitchell says:

    OT but you are not on Twitter any more

    Well well well old British gunboat diplomacy raises its head again. WM seems to be issuing what looks a veiled threat by proxy thru ex Chancellor George Osborne of army being sent in if Scotland has another(successful) independence ref. Went down well in NI didn’t it

  139. cyril mitchell says:

    Biden’s European Secutity Advisor ,Amanda Sloat , honorary degree Edinburgh Uni ,lived in Scotland and author of ,”Scotland in Europe”

  140. Famous15 says:

    The destruction of culture and loss of identity only mildly highlighted in Trainspotting” “Being Scottish is shite,we can’t even be colonised…the’re just wankers” etc is more important than realised.

    From native Americans,Australian aborigines to Bushmen of the Kalahari we see it. It is so sad to see Bushmen lying drunk in the gutters of Cape Town knowing their way of life was destroyed by the discovery of diamonds in their home territory. We only had oil discovered in our home territory eh?

    It would be cheaper for Nicola Sturgeon to gain independence rather than spending millions trying to rehab the alienated Scots.

  141. Papko says:

    As the sovereign will of the Scottish people moves ineluctably toward independence, the British state has never looked so weak fragile.

    All that’s standing in the way of an Independent Scotland is the few hundred MPs, MSPS and there associated SPADS.
    The SNP’s High command.
    Only they can declare the May elections plebiscitary, only they can hold the Union together

  142. Davie Oga says:

    Sturgeon treats the independence movement the way a fucked up junkie girl treats a mark for her next score. She chaps on your door for the first time in a couple of years. You let her in against your better judgement, but she’s all cleaned up and making all the right noises. “it’s going to be different this time.” When she leaves, promising to drop by again, you feel good about life, good about her, and optimistic for the future.

    An hour later, you realize she has lifted your wallet and a precious family heirloom. You are too embarrassed to tell anyone what happened until a week later, when there’s a commotion at your neighbours house. A couple of squad cars and lots of locals gathered round. You head over to see what’s happening and you realize that she’s robbed all your other neighbours as well. The police are only there because someone caught her in the act and she is claiming her victim tried to sexually assault her.

  143. Annie 621 says:

    Meg says, they are going to get away with this, aren’t they?
    I think they are, because they can.
    They’re ruling the roost.
    It’s so fkn disturbing.

  144. Papko says:

    Davie Oga
    Never realized we lived in the same street.

  145. boris says:

    It is entirely feasible that the Inquiry will decide that NS did not act inappropriately. The play on words being, 29 Mar: “The conversation was around the fact of the complaints, without discussing the specifics of them.” and 02 Apr: “NS met AS at her house in Glasgow. She told the Scottish Parliament that this was when he first informed her of the complaints against him.”

    There was discussion about the investigation, the process of it, the fact it was a civil service investigation being conducted by civil servants” directs the the reader to the view that NS told the truth. Specific allegations of misconduct pertaining to AS were not the subject of any conversation since the civil service led investigations had not yet been completed. And the first formal mention of the allegations from AS to NS was on 02 Apr.

  146. David F says:

    Contrary says:
    20 January, 2021 at 9:32 pm

    …perhaps there has already been action taken to form a judge led inquiry, or something more. IF legal action had started, or was about to start, that would definitely make parliamentarians back off.

    There is a perfectly obvious reason why Geoff Aberdein’s evidence is going to be withheld from the public, and I’m sorry to say that it has nothing to do with “judge-led inquiries” or any other form of “legal action”.

  147. Graham King says:

    Who would have thought that such a convoluted plot could thicken further?

    Out of curiosity arising as to whether (just for example) the Lord Advocate himself can be arrested, and what would happen to matters currently before him if so (i.e. has he a deputy who would immediately take over?), I Googled ‘Lord Advocate arrested’ and found the following interesting rabbit-hole:

    (I was at first unsure whether it formed part of recent proceedings, but no: it was in 1823 that ‘conduct of the Lord Advocate’ was being considered. Yet in the first section I read these (seemingly-familiar) passages:

    ‘It was not attributable to any reluctance on his part that the motion [..] had not been made [..] much earlier [..]; but he had been compelled to delay it, in consequence of the tardy production of papers which had been ordered to be laid before the House, and which were necessary to the right understanding of the case..’

    ‘He begged the House would bear in mind, that in Scotland there were no grand juries. The lord advocate, in virtue of his office, might bring whom he pleased to trial, upon his own authority and responsibility. It was true, there was another course open, by which a private individual might prosecute by getting a “concourse” from the lord advocate; but this was attended with so much expense, delay, and uncertainty, that it was very rarely resorted to.
    It would not be denied to be most important, that the person possessing such great powers as the lord advocate, should uniformly exercise them without any personal bias, or feelings of political consideration.
    That personal bias had had no influence upon the learned lord in these transactions, he was quite willing to admit; but, looking at the whole of the case, its origin and progress, and the learned lord’s knowledge of both,
    he could not bring himself to the same conclusion with respect to the influence of political considerations. At the date of these transactions, political party feeling ran very high in Scotland. In his opinion, they had been extended, and very improperly so, to the case out of which the present matter rose.’

    {There’s nothing new under the sun, as the saying goes..)

    I then searched more specifically for ‘can the Lord Advocate of Scotland be arrested?’ The first search result returned was from the year 2000:

    I still don’t know the answer; but I found it interesting that this highlighted the dilemma or paradox still evidently inherent in his role.

  148. blunt gaper says:

    Never has a politician been heading for a fall like Sturgeon.
    Revelation piled upon revelation.Riveting stuff from the Rev.
    Sturgeon soon to be interviewed by Fintan O,Toole for the Irish times.He must ask about this Quagmire.
    Alex Salmond show on in 20 mins

  149. holymacmoses says:

    It’s strange that concerns Mr Aberdein’s testimony concerns legal constraints of SPBC:

    The website reads: “The Parliament can only publish submissions where publication is compliant with the legal obligations on the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, which may be different than legal obligations on individual submitters.

    “As a result of this process, the Parliament has decided that a number of these submissions should not be published, including the submission from Geoff Aberdein. A number of other submissions have been redacted.” (Scotsman)

    Because it’s difficult to know WHEN the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body met to discuss this because (yet again) there seems to be no record of a relevant meeting.

    ‘Members case management’ looks a bit odd and is hidden citing FOI exemption

    There have been no meetings this year.

    However this body does have a lot to do with the finances of the Scottish Government and its workers and given that Ms Sturgeon pays her 14 Special Advisers over £1,000,000

    I also found a few interesting insights into Sturgeon in The Times
    in 2017
    In Ms Sturgeon’s team of special advisers, two have privileged access. Liz Lloyd, a Geordie, is the first minister’s chief of staff, and Stuart Nicolson, a former Scottish Daily Mail political editor, is head of communications.
    Ms Lloyd, who caught the SNP bug while studying at Edinburgh University, is a combination of gatekeeper, enforcer, sounding board and bag carrier. Yet she is not regarded as being as close to Ms Sturgeon as Mr Dolan. Nevertheless Ms Lloyd is a doughty fighter for the first minister’s interests. “Liz had to fight for her place, but she got it,” said one insider.
    Two other special advisers have influential roles. Colin McAllister, formerly an aide to Mike Russell when he was education secretary, is the first minister’s head of policy and a key figure in her education crusade. With a sharp mind and an even temper he is a trusted man in a crisis.
    The whole article is here:

  150. Jacqueline McMillan says:

    Too many people know the truth??

    Since when does that matter??!!

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