We’ve just received the most extraordinary Freedom Of Information response from the Scottish Government, readers. Trust us, you want to go and make yourselves a strong cup of tea before you read it. Or get this guy to bring you one.
It doesn’t take a master analyst to see that the Salmond inquiry committee is running out of patience with the Scottish Government’s endless attempts to obstruct its work.
This afternoon it issued a statement, with obvious irritation, making clear that it did not wish to see documents the Scottish Government was trying to submit to it, which the committee had not asked for, and which had previously been struck down as unlawful by Lord Pentland in the initial judicial inquiry.
The Scottish Government’s only purpose in doing so was to try to put the details of the discredited and disproven-in-court allegations into the public domain with the intention of smearing Mr Salmond yet again, and the committee has made its displeasure with the plan clear, telling the Scottish Government to abandon its intended legal action to release the documents and get on with producing the ones the inquiry HAS asked for.
But there’s a little bit more to the story than that.
We’re grumpy this morning, readers, because it’s Sunday and we were planning a long lie and then someone told us about this. It’s the First Minister appearing on the Sophy Ridge show on Sky News at around 8.45am and you need to see it.
In the light of yesterday’s revelations, we’ve sent the following Freedom Of Information request to the Central Enquiry Unit (CEU) of the Scottish Government.
Back in the 1980s there was a hit game for the ZX Spectrum home computer called Worse Things Happen At Sea. In it you play a robot whose job is to get a heavily-laden cargo ship safely to port, except that more and more disasters keep befalling it.
It springs leaks, it veers off course, the engine overheats and the robot’s power runs down, until eventually the catalogue of catastrophes overwhelms the harassed metallic custodian and the boat slides down into the murky depths.
We wonder if that feels familiar to anyone at the moment.
On 23rd March this year, after Alex Salmond was found not guilty of 13 criminal charges in the High Court, I called on the Scottish Government to set up a judge-led inquiry into the allegation that he had been the subject of a conspiracy involving the Scottish Government, which resulted in him being accused of criminal behaviour.
There’s an especially interesting post on the blog of Scottish solicitor-advocate Gordon Dangerfield at the moment, pointing out that there are no legal reasons whatever for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to be withholding documents relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond, and indeed issuing dire threats of prosecution against him or anyone who might put them into the public domain.
(All of the blog’s coverage of the inquiry in general has been expert and revealing, and should be the first stop for readers seeking to understand proceedings.)
The items in question include the infamous WhatsApp messages exchanged by the group of people attempting to have Salmond imprisoned for crimes he didn’t commit, among them SNP chief executive Peter Murrell.
When two of Murrell’s messages were leaked recently it was front-page news in the Scottish press, and generated a huge amount of subsequent coverage. Commentators as diverse as Mandy Rhodes of Holyrood magazine and Alex Massie of the Times and Spectator have noted that while they’d initially disbelieved talk of a conspiracy, the Scottish Government’s actions have given them the opposite impression.
The message log is absolutely central to Salmond’s claim of a conspiracy against him, so the last thing that either COPFS or the leadership of the SNP wants is for it to become public knowledge. Indeed, COPFS has denied that the messages exist at all, which makes it a bit weird that the police are currently conducting a serious criminal investigation into who leaked some apparently entirely imaginary documents.
So it would be quite astonishing if they suddenly disappeared, wouldn’t it?
Readers, we can’t tell you how much we want to get back to just dissecting Scotland’s hopeless Unionist media for a living. It’s a lot more fun than what the current political circumstances are obliging us to do, so you can hardly imagine our excitement when we spotted what looked like an open goal in yesterday’s Mail On Sunday.
Our ears pricked up immediately at the sight of the words “up to”, which is invariably a sign of dodgy doings on the way, and so it proved. The article contained no solid data at all about the size of Scottish Government special advisers’ pay rises, only how many SpAds there were and which general pay bands they were in, each of which spans a wide range of between £14,000 and £23,000.
But while the Mail had spooned the sitter six feet over the crossbar – because the crude spin they’d put on it was total rubbish – there was still a loose ball just waiting to be knocked into the back of the net.
The SNP’s earth-shattering 2011 majority election victory, which paved the way for the 2014 independence referendum, dropped a bomb on Scottish politics.
What few people realised at the time was that it was also going to set up a series of massive paydays for one of Scotland’s wealthiest demographics: lawyers.
SNP Members For Independence? What a ridiculous phrase – surely every member of the SNP is in favour of independence, right?
That’s mostly true of course, but the leadership and many elected representatives of the party appear to be intent on repeating the failed Section 30 route to independence, and also on restricting serious debate about alternative strategies.
It seems that a revised “Plan B” may be discussed at the party conference, still almost two months away, and for all Plan B’s merits it is seriously flawed and its inclusion at the expense of alternative and better plans at conference would merely pay lip service to the term “serious debate”
Something clearly needed to be done, which is why SNP Members For Indy has been set up. So what’s it for and what is it trying to do?
Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “H McH: it was noted post WW II that few people in any of the affected countries expressed pre war…” Oct 22, 18:47
agentx on Faces In Sand: “• Ultimate Competence: Under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), the UNGA established the specific criteria for what constitutes a…” Oct 22, 18:10
Aidan on Faces In Sand: ““You could be on 100K a year for some place with a nice wine cellar” – I am thanks (more),…” Oct 22, 17:34
Dan on Faces In Sand: “AIDan says: “Modern cars are more complex and aren’t always designed well, and come with the risk of very difficult…” Oct 22, 17:29
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “Yeah great analogy, Confused. Not. Stay in lane with James, there’s a good lad. This is grown up talk.” Oct 22, 17:28
Confused on Faces In Sand: “Northcode would tell us a turd is not a turd because he found a peanut in it.” Oct 22, 17:16
factchecker on Faces In Sand: “Interesting, Confused. You say ” if an equal partner in a union we can just tear the fucking thing up”.…” Oct 22, 17:08
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “Aidan — yes, exactly. That’s the core point I’ve been trying to make. Whatever people believe about historical treaties or…” Oct 22, 16:51
Confused on Faces In Sand: “it has been explained many times the nature and necessity of a multi-layered strategy for independence and the importance of…” Oct 22, 16:44
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “”… and would appear to be linked more to the obsessions and eccentricities of the proponents” Not to mention self-delusion…” Oct 22, 16:42
Alf Baird on Faces In Sand: ““The SNP of 2026 has two faces” Correct Rev, one face shows the saltire, on occasion, while the other face…” Oct 22, 16:37
Aidan on Faces In Sand: “Why is it @Alf – that you comment almost entirely in riddles and abstraction?” Oct 22, 16:13
Aidan on Faces In Sand: “I would also add that the circumstances around the formation of a treaty 300 years ago is an issue that…” Oct 22, 16:10
Alf Baird on Faces In Sand: ““Scotland currently has full civil rights” A colonized people are a subordinated people subject to cultural erasure and economic extraction,…” Oct 22, 16:05
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “James — whatever people believe about 1606, 1707, treaties, petitions, parliaments, monarchs, or historical grievances, none of that changes how…” Oct 22, 16:04
factchecker on Faces In Sand: “Thanks for all the rational analysis, NC. Democratic legitimacy is indeed the key. Apart from anything else, the Claim of…” Oct 22, 15:43
James Che on Faces In Sand: “North code. If the Scots are not a Colonised people, and the monarch of England withdrew the parliament of Scotland…” Oct 22, 15:38
sam on Faces In Sand: “It is true that legally Scotland will not be recognised as a colony. It is also true that it was…” Oct 22, 15:25
James Che on Faces In Sand: “North code, I like the phrasing you used, So what would or could Westminster actually do or achieve if it…” Oct 22, 15:21
sarah on Faces In Sand: “Rev, will the gathering that you attended in London last night that included Maya Forstater and other like-minded people, be…” Oct 22, 14:24
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “The point you’re making would apply in situations where a people are actually colonised. But Scotland isn’t a colony, and…” Oct 22, 14:22
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “The borders between England, Scotland, and Wales mark historic countries within a single sovereign state. England, Scotland, and Wales are…” Oct 22, 14:13
Aidan on Faces In Sand: “If you’re upset with the company Geri – you could always post the same stuff under your own name on…” Oct 22, 13:55
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “Alf – I wrote that Scotland currently has full civil rights. I didn’t mention human rights at all. You shifted…” Oct 22, 13:53
James on Faces In Sand: “Here we go again. *sigh* Today’s crossword clue A country which has no control over its own borders, resources, broadcast…” Oct 22, 13:48
James on Faces In Sand: ““…I haven’t used AI in any of what I wrote above…” LOLZ.” Oct 22, 13:45
James on Faces In Sand: “3 in a row. Bingo!” Oct 22, 13:37
Geri on Faces In Sand: “Aye Dan.. You’ve just reminded me why I gave up on here. It’s a mystery why so many fucking fuds…” Oct 22, 13:04
Alf Baird on Faces In Sand: “Democracy can only exist once a colonized people are outside the firm grip of the oppressor and his colonial administrators…” Oct 22, 13:04
Aidan on Faces In Sand: ““Liberation Scotland has been visiting the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to present violations to our human rights,…” Oct 22, 12:14