There’s a woman in Scotland whose name you’re not allowed to say.
You pay her wages and she theoretically works for you. But you can’t say her name.
This is definitely fine and not at all suspicious.
Geoff Aberdein is the man whose evidence could destroy the First Minister. We know he’s already told the High Court under oath that he had a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon on 29 March 2018 to discuss the Salmond affair.
Sturgeon claims otherwise, saying he just popped in for a friendly hello while seeing someone else, and that the meeting – which the Scottish Government had repeatedly denied ever happened at all, until it suddenly changed its mind and admitted it last August – was so inconsequential that she forgot about it entirely for almost a year, which is why she’d told Parliament in January 2019 that it didn’t exist.
Which of those accounts is correct will determine whether the First Minister was lying to Parliament deliberately and whether she has to resign under the Ministerial Code.
But now, not only will Aberdein – the single most important figure in the entire inquiry – NOT be called as a witness, but the public will not be allowed to see even a redacted version of his written testimony so that they can judge who’s telling the truth.
What conceivable reason could there be for that? How could either “The meeting was arranged in advance and we talked about the allegations” or “I was in visiting someone else and just popped my head round the door briefly to say hi” ever need to be a state secret the Scottish public mustn’t know? And yet it is.
No cover-up here, folks. All open and transparent and above board. There’s definitely nothing going on that the Scottish Government desperately wants to hide from you. It’s all fine. Ssssshhhh, now. Sssshhhh for Nicola like good little boys and girls. Write another of your nice wee blogs about how Boris Johnson will just give in for no reason and independence is inevitable. But no questions. Definitely no questions.
In addition to the Survation poll that was in the field last week and which we’ve been reporting on, there was also a Panelbase one going round at the same time.
(It’s as yet unpublished, and having been sent a few of the… interesting questions in it by some people who took the poll we’re very excited to find out who commissioned it. Our money is on either George Galloway’s furious new list party – which incidentally just had its registration refused again by the Electoral Commission – or the collection of anonymous hyper-Unionist nutters ironically calling themselves “The Majority”.)
But as the opportunity was there we slipped a couple of questions of our own in too, and the findings from one of them were pretty dramatic.
Tonight’s poll data from Survation is really quite remarkable.
We can’t wait to hear what “Pension Pete” Wishart makes of it.
There’s a most revealing article by George Osborne in today’s Evening Standard. It’s well worth a read in full – it’s not very long – but this is the key passage:
The deathless defenders of Plan A will of course continue to shriek that “he’s a Tory so he must be lying”. And if any of them can ever actually manage to tell us what Scottish voters can possibly DO to Boris Johnson if he keeps refusing, we’ll be all ears.
But since they never seem to be able to do that, we’re going to thank Mr Osborne for that unusual outbreak of honesty, and for admitting that a simple point-blank refusal of democracy is the Tories’ best and only strategy to keep Scotland in the UK. Because for as long as the SNP don’t have a Plan B, it’s the only one they actually need.
In 2014, it was women who stopped Scotland becoming independent.
But it was still a man’s fault, of course. Those of us who were around at the time, while many of the SNP’s earnest young activists of today were still squeezing their spots, will recall a multitude of media articles on how it was apparently the fairer sex’s personal antipathy to Alex Salmond that was responsible for the No camp’s victory.
And who knows, maybe that was true and maybe it wasn’t. We have no idea. But what we do know is that you can’t have it both ways.
After something of a quiet spell (we gather for personal reasons), we’re delighted to note that the excellent Gordon Dangerfield – a highly experienced Scottish solicitor advocate – is back blogging, in particular with regard to the Fabiani inquiry.
His piece today, of which the above is but a tiny snippet, is a must-read.
There’s literally nothing about this that isn’t toe-curlingly embarrassing:
The only challenge is knowing where to start.
Extraordinary events are now unfolding on a daily basis (or even more frequently than that) in the vexed matter of the two ongoing inquiries into serious misconduct by the Scottish Government regarding false allegations made against Alex Salmond.
Mr Salmond, who was found innocent of any wrongdoing, has been endeavouring – at a significant personal cost in both time and money – to assist both inquiries with their investigations, and has received remarkably little in the way of gratitude for his efforts. Indeed, he has instead been both publicly attacked and repeatedly threatened with prosecution for attempting to tell the truth.
This evening his lawyers sent the letter below to the Convener of the Holyrood inquiry. It’s a powerful microcosm of events to date, and we think you should see all of it.
This time almost exactly two years ago I sat in a cafe close to Holyrood in a state of what I can only call shock. The enormity of what I’d just heard was sinking in; over the preceding nearly three hours I’d been introduced to all the gory detail of the plot against Alex Salmond. The last two years has at times been surreal for me as a result.
To explain what I am going to write next I need to tell you something about my fundamental beliefs. I have worked close to the power of government my whole life. I have studied and read widely on power. I am also a strong believer in social change.
Everything I have seen has driven me to the same conclusion: that nothing is more important than integrity in public life. That may seem anachronistic to some (given modern political culture) and not particularly left-wing. But the positive change I want cannot be built on anything but the firmest of foundations; when corruption or misuse of power creeps into those foundations, nothing good can be built on them.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
