Wings Over Scotland

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.

Read the rest of this entry →

The Spectator’s application to the High Court for a variation of the anonymity order in HM Advocate vs Alexander Salmond has just finished. It seems to have been agreed by all parties that Lady Dorrian will now amend her order to read thus:

“An order at common law and in terms of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, preventing publication of the names and identity and any information likely to disclose the identity of the complainers in the case of HMA v Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond, as such complainers in those proceedings.”

The newly-added words are highlighted in bold.

Read the rest of this entry →

After all the dramatic revelations at FMQs yesterday, something else really quite weird happened after everyone had stopped watching.

Once more, we’re in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Jackie Baillie.

Read the rest of this entry →

We suppose this is a sort of compliment, in at least two senses.

The second of them, of course, being the sheer surprise of some people at discovering that not everyone is as cynical and devious as they evidently are themselves.

Read the rest of this entry →

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.

Read the rest of this entry →

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.

Read the rest of this entry →

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?

Read the rest of this entry →

Do ye, aye?

Well, yer ontae plums, son.

Read the rest of this entry →

Posted without comment.

4 FEBRUARY 2021

4 FEBRUARY 2021

9 FEBRUARY 2021

Read the rest of this entry →

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.

Read the rest of this entry →

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.

Read the rest of this entry →