The Long Walk To Freedom
On 5 April 2021, I sent a short and simple Freedom Of Information (FOI) request to the Scottish Government asking for:
“All written evidence to James Hamilton’s QC investigation into the FM under the ministerial code. This includes evidence from the FM, her chief of staff Liz Lloyd and any other individuals within the Scottish Government who have submitted evidence.”
Over four and a half years later, because of the government’s pathological aversion to transparency and accountability, we’re still not there.
But we’re inching closer.
Background
Evidence was submitted to Mr Hamilton (the then Independent Advisor on the ministerial code) into his investigation into whether the then FM Nicola Sturgeon had broken the ministerial code, by the following people:
(The then) First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon; the former First Minister, Alex Salmond; (the then) Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, Leslie Evans; Liz Lloyd, (the then) chief of staff to the First Minister; Geoff Aberdein, (formerly chief of staff to the former First Minister); Duncan Hamilton (a King’s Counsel and former SNP MSP), Kevin Pringle (ex-strategic communications director of the SNP), David Clegg (the then) editor of the Daily Record, Stuart Nicolson (the then) head of communications for Nicola Sturgeon, Lorraine Kay (a civil servant in the office of the former First Minister) and Peter Murrell (the then) CEO of the SNP.
The report was published in March 2021, and to quickly recap, Mr Hamilton’s opinion was that Nicola Sturgeon did not break the code, but that it was for MSPs to decide whether they were misled or not. The harassment committee investigating the botched and illegal investigation into Mr Salmond by the Scottish Government found that they were, whereas the Parliament as a whole (ie including all SNP MSPs) voted otherwise.
Mr Hamilton’s report, in certain passages (mainly in relation to when Nicola Sturgeon first knew about the complaints against Mr Salmond) is not coherently readable due to the scale of redaction to the report, which was done under the auspices of the then Deputy First Minister and the current First Minister, John Swinney.
This resulting inability to understand key parts of the report was widely criticised at the time. The Scottish Government’s position was and remains that the redactions were necessary to protect the identity of the complainants against Mr Salmond.
James Hamilton (in a note attached to the report) described the difficulties that the court orders caused:
“A redacted report that effectively erases the role of any such individual in the matters investigated in the report cannot be properly understood by those reading it, and presents an incomplete and even at times misleading version of what happened.”
[…]
“I am deeply frustrated that applicable court orders will have the effect of preventing the full publication of a report which fulfils my remit and which I believe it would be in the public interest to publish.”
The evidence (oral and non-oral) which was submitted to his investigation was never published in full by the Scottish Government. (Only within Mr Hamilton’s report, and that of the harassment committee, can some small parts of it be found.)
I’ve created the timeline below to help in understanding what has happened, when it happened and how long I’ve had to wait for this case to resolve.
(There are other branches of inquiry that I’ve pursued coming off this FOI request which are extremely interesting, but I can’t cover them all in this article alone, which is already forbiddingly lengthy.)
My request was submitted in April 2021, and the Scottish Government refused to release the evidence. I then appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC), an independent public body responsible for enforcing lawful compliance with FOI requests by public authorities.
In January 2023, the SIC ruled (in a decision logged as 004/2023) that the Scottish Government did hold the evidence I had asked for and ordered them to provide me with a revised response. The Scottish Government insisted that since James Hamilton was an independent advisor, he was not subject to FOISA and therefore the evidence he had gathered was not “held” by it. They instead appealed this decision to the Court Of Session (case XA10/23), which ruled in December 2023 that the SIC was correct in its decision.
(If the SIC had ruled against me back in January 2023 the case would have stopped there, as unlike the Scottish Government I don’t have access to unlimited public funds to spend on court appeals.)
In its revised response in February 2024, the Scottish Government disclosed none of the evidence to me (other than that already available elsewhere), citing numerous exemptions. (Public authorities can refuse to disclose information if there is an exemption which they believe applies to it.) I again appealed this to the SIC, and since February of 2024 have been waiting for their decision, which is what we got this week.
To try to help with clarity, I’ll break it down into sections.
The Scottish Government’s handling of this case
In relation to both this decision notice just published and the one in 2023 (004/2023), both times have seen critical failures by the Scottish Government during investigations by the SIC
In the first investigation, the Scottish Government misled the SIC as to where evidence related to the Hamilton Inquiry had been stored within Government. One of the Scottish Government’s key arguments to stress the “independence” of the investigation was that the evidence had been stored such that it was “accessible only to the Secretariat”.
(The “Secretariat” is James Hamilton’s team aiding him with the report.)
However, in reality, some of it had been stored on a personal drive, which 10 other civil servants had access to from the onset of the investigation. (See the extract below from the Scottish Government’s legal advice which was released as a result of an FOI request by myself and the SIC decision notice 193/2024.)
Their own Senior Counsel James Mure KC summed this up (page 72, para 14) during preparations for the court appeal (XA10-23) in his legal opinion.
I asked the Scottish Government in an FOI request whether it had carried out any form of internal review into this failing, as well as if anyone had been dismissed or disciplined. To my naïve astonishment, no review had been undertaken simply because it argued that the submissions:
“were provided in good faith and reflected the Scottish Government’s understanding at that time”
In relation to the new decision notice, it gets even worse. The Scottish Government did not comply with an “information notice” (a request for the information) by the SIC, in relation to some of the evidence (called Document 38 in the decision). Not complying with an information notice is against the law, and the SIC could have referred the matter for contempt of court.
If, as the Commissioner has rightly pointed out, his staff had not been so diligent, this information would have been left out entirely. Now we do not know what is within Document 38, and will not know until disclosure takes place (if it does at all), so it’ll be extremely interesting to see what the Scottish Government left out when it wrongly submitted all of the evidence to the SIC.
(I have submitted a new FOI request to see these exchanges between the SG and SIC.)
The SIC also found that the Scottish Government in some cases failed to make a legitimate case as to why some exemptions had been utilised, and why in some cases no exemptions had been applied at all.
(This is made even more confusing when considering that the SIC gave the Scottish Government additional time beyond that which it was entitled to, so as to ensure its positions on the exemptions were clear.)
Despite this extended period, the Scottish Government’s handling of the case was criticised by the SIC even further.
For example, it was only during the investigation that the Scottish Government decided to add further exemptions to the evidence (after their revised response to me).
This raises serious questions not only for the Scottish Government in its revised response to me back in January of 2024, as to why these exemptions were not in place originally, but in terms of fairness to applicants who challenge the original exemptions in our submissions to the SIC, only for the goalposts to change mid-match.
The Scottish Government, therefore, relied on four exemptions to prevent the disclosure of the evidence: 26(c) (Contempt of court), 30(c) (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 36(1) (Legal advice) and 38(1)(b) (Personal information).
I should also make clear, the use of the word “some” in this article is of necessity extremely vague. As the documents have not been disclosed, I have no idea how much information was correctly exempted and how much was not.
Out of scope
There was also some information which the Scottish Government claimed was out of scope to my request, meaning it was within the documents sent to the SIC but it was not relevant to my request. The Scottish Government attempted to argue that my request for “written evidence” did not cover written transcripts of interviews conducted by Mr Hamilton, and therefore they did not need to consider exemptions for this information (and it would not therefore be released).
Indeed, within the legal advice prepared by James Mure KC for XA10-23, on page 6 he makes clear that it is his opinion that such transcripts would not be within the scope of my request.
The SIC disagreed with the Scottish Government and found that my request did cover such transcripts.
In relation to other aspects, it found that the Scottish Government was right to exempt some information which was not evidence to the Hamilton inquiry, however, in relation to some information, it was not correct to describe it as out of scope. Given that the Scottish Government did not specify what exemptions applied to this information, the SIC has ordered them to provide me with a fresh response, which could also have exemptions applied (meaning the case could, in theory, be appealed to the SIC for a third time if I am dissatisfied with the revised response).
Section 26 (c) (Contempt Of Court)
This is an exemption to make sure that no information which could identify the complainers against Mr Salmond was published. In my arguments to the SIC, I made clear that if such information did it should be exempted, but crucially, if the information did not lead to identification, then it should be disclosed.
Unlike the Hamilton report, where the Scottish Government’s lawyers were the only redactors (as Hamilton made clear in his attached note), the SIC was able to examine the evidence in full, unredacted, to make its own judgement.
The SIC, in its decision, found that the Scottish Government did use the exemption excessively. Meaning that while there was some information that would legitimately identify the complainers if published, it had attempted to redact other information which was not in fact contempt of court.
Indeed, part of the issues related to the Hamilton inquiry is not direct contempt of court, i.e. naming a complainer, but of jigsaw identification. The jigsaw refers to publishing some information (a jigsaw piece) in relation to the complainer which itself does not identify a complainer, but when put together with other information in the public domain (the other jigsaw pieces) will enable identification to occur.
Mr Salmond and the Spectator challenged and changed (by Lady Dorrian the same judge in Mr Salmond’s criminal case) the original criminal order (made in 2020) in 2021 (highlighted in bold) to make clear that being a complainer in the Salmond trial did not prevent information distinct from their being a witness in the trial from being published:
“preventing the 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.”
Once information is redacted and released under this exemption, in all likelihood, it can never be unredacted (unless the court order is lifted) as you then bring attention to what you were originally redacting under this exemption, which is de facto contempt of court. This is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why the SIC refused when it was asked to unredact parts of the Hamilton report.
Though we cannot know for certain, nor will we ever know for certain (as discussing why something may or may not be contempt is also contempt) how much the SIC determined was wrongly exempted by the Scottish Government, what we can say is this:
The SIC’s decision has confirmed accusations that redaction in the name of contempt of court related to the Hamilton Inquiry was in at least some cases unjustified, thereby frustrating the right of the public to access information which was central to understanding the findings of the investigation.
Section 36 (1) – Legal Advice and Section 38(1)(b) (Personal Information)
The Scottish Government also utilised the mentioned exemptions above. In short, the SIC found that while the application of these two exemptions was appropriate in some of the information, in others it was not (and in one case the public interest argument was met for disclosure).
In terms of section 36 (1), the Scottish Government can prevent disclosure of its legal advice if it is considered privileged and has not been previously published. However, if there is sufficient public interest in the legal advice, such as when the Scottish Government appealed 004/2023 to the Court of Session, then disclosure can occur (though this is rare).
The SIC found that some information in one document had been incorrectly exempted by the Scottish Government, and in reference to information in another document, though correctly exempted, reached the public interest threshold for release. This information was legal advice which Mr Salmond had received and submitted to Mr Hamilton in his evidence (and is not currently in the public domain).
In regards to section 38(1)(b), this prevents the release of information that relates to a living person, and is their own personal data. So for example, their phone number, address, occupation and even their names.
The current approach by the Scottish Government is that if one of its employees is of a senior level (the Permanent Secretary, for example), then their name can be disclosed in FOI requests; if the employee is of a junior level (for example, a private secretary) then their name will be redacted in any correspondence involving them.
It gets a bit complicated in the decision notice (beyond my understanding at times, as it involves FOISA and the Data Protection Act 2018), but it essentially boils to this: in regards to some of the information, the Scottish Government correctly applied this exemption; in other cases it did not.
Which is a useful reminder to anyone considering submitting an FOI that if a public authority has claimed that information is personal data, it’s always worth asking the SIC to check.
Section 30 ( c ) – Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
The Scottish Government applied this exemption to nearly every aspect of the information that I requested. It did so as it argued that since the evidence obtained by Mr Hamilton was given in confidence, disclosing it would undermine that commitment to confidentiality as well as discourage individuals from giving evidence to a similar inquiry in the future.
From my own research, I found that there appeared to be no such confidence commitment. Neither the remit set by John Swinney nor Mr Hamilton’s report makes any mention of this. The 2018 ministerial code (the one in operation at the time) also makes no such commitment (though in Swinney’s revised 2024 ministerial code, a footnote (6.2) now covers this). I also asked the Scottish Government a few years ago in an FOI request if it had any written guidance for its employees giving evidence to such an inquiry, and it confirmed there was none.
As to the Scottish Government’s argument that individuals would be discouraged in the future if their evidence was published, one need only look at a prior ministerial code investigation in 2012 by Sir David Bell in which all evidence was published, yet Mr Hamilton confirmed in his report that all witnesses:
“gave me full cooperation and answered follow-up questions where necessary although I had no power to compel any person to cooperate with the investigation”
This exemption is also as critical, if not more so, than the contempt of court exemption. Even for information that the SIC found had been wrongly withheld under the other exemptions, if the Scottish Government’s argument was correct under section 30(c), then no information would be released at all. If even one exemption has been correctly applied to information (even if others have not) the information cannot be disclosed.
But the SIC determined that there would be no specific harm to the conduct of the affairs of the Scottish Government by disclosure of all the evidence (minus that which was legitimately exempted under other exemptions).
Indeed, so overwhelming was the case against the Scottish Government that the SIC didn’t even need to consider the public interest argument of this exemption (meaning that even if the exemption was correctly applied, the public interest could still have resulted in its disclosure).
It would be an understatement to say that this is a complete humiliation of the Scottish Government’s position. This was the most high-profile investigation in recent Scottish political history, and despite claiming that individuals gave evidence in confidence, and the harm that this would cause to future investigations, the SIC decided against them.
You might be wondering, as I did, given the strong evidence against them, why did the Scottish Government maintain this position? Why could someone like me who works several jobs, has limited time off, and has dedicated some of that limited time to exploring this with no financial support be able to see what the government of Scotland could not? I have no evidence-based answer to that question.
The end decision
Resultingly, minus information which the SIC agreed with the Scottish Government was correctly exempted under 26(c) (Contempt of court), 36(1) (Legal advice) and 38(1)(b) (Personal information), all other information has now been ordered to be disclosed.
Meaning that every single exemption employed by the Scottish Government in its revised response to me, which I appealed, was utilised either completely incorrectly or partly incorrectly (as determined by the SIC).
What evidence has been ordered to be released?
I have no idea what the SIC has ordered the Scottish Government to release (minus that specifically described above).
I do not know for example, if Mr Aberdein’s evidence will now be published. Part of his evidence was that he was told the name of a complainer by a senior Scottish Government official, which was described as “credible” by Mr Hamilton in his report. Mr Salmond and the Spectator, in their successful attempt to vary the court order in early 2021, did so in the hope that Mr Aberdein’s evidence would be published.
When the Scottish Government re-investigated the data breach allegation in 2021 it found that no such data breach occurred (despite it not obtaining any evidence from the key actors), instead relying on their accounts within the Hamilton report.
Mr Aberdein’s meeting with Nicola Sturgeon on 29 March 2018, as well as those with the Scottish Government official earlier, is critical in understanding who knew what and when regarding the complaints against Mr Salmond. It was her statement to Parliament that she first knew about these complaints several days later in a different meeting with Mr Salmond and others at her home. It was only afterwards that she admitted that she had “forgotten” about the meeting with Mr Aberdein, despite its explosive revelations.
The evidence may also shed light on the allegation that a senior Scottish Government official “’asked for account of when they knew about Salmond complaints to be changed”, as noted in an article by Sky’s James Matthews in 2021 – an aspect of the entire saga which has not been fully explored or discussed since the article’s publication (and is not mentioned in the redacted Hamilton report).
Ultimately, we do not know how much of each individual’s evidence will still be redacted under 26(c) (Contempt of court), 36(1) (Legal advice) and 38(1)(b) (Personal information).
What happens now?
The SIC has given the Scottish Government until 12 January 2026 to respond to its decision. It has given the Scottish Government a “marked-up” copy of the evidence, basically showing the Scottish Government what parts can be redacted in the released evidence.
If the Scottish Government accepts the decision of the SIC, the information will be released. If the Scottish Government believes that these redactions to do not go far enough and that the SIC has erred in law, it can appeal the decision to the Court Of Session (again). This would be the third time in relation to FOI requests related to the Hamilton Inquiry or the Scottish Government’s handling of information that the government has appealed to the Court Of Session in an attempt to keep the information secret.
There is even the possibility that the FM deploys the nuclear strategy of section 52 of FOISA (which has never been used), which allows the FM to essentially nullify the decision notice (the SIC wants this clause removed from the Act).
(This can only be used in relation to some exemptions, one of which is section 36(1), and I’m unsure if it would apply to the entire decision notice or just information related to 36(1).)
It may also, if it loses at the Court Of Session, appeal to the UK Supreme Court. Crucially, any appeal would almost definitely not be heard until after the Scottish elections in May. My FOI request was sent in April 2021, before the 2021 Scottish elections. For it still to be potentially under investigation after TWO Holyrood elections is, in my opinion, wholly unacceptable (not even counting the cost to the taxpayer).
For as the UK information commissioner and the SIC have both said:
“Information delayed is information denied.”
.
.
FOOTNOTE
How can an FOI request take this much time to resolve, and still not yet BE resolved? There are several possible answers:
(1) The under-resourcing of the SIC, which Mr Hamilton has recently commented on himself.
(2) The complexity of the case.
(3) The SG’s argument that it did not “hold” the evidence and its decision to appeal 004/2023.
(1) requires political parties to commit to enhancing the funding of the SIC, which still has only 11 FOI officers for investigations to cover every FOI appeal for all Public Authorities in Scotland – the police, councils, the Scottish Government, NHS, fire services, universities and more.
(2) is understandable to at least some degree, given the issue of contempt of court and the need to avoid publishing information which would identify complainers, but almost half a decade still seems excessive.
(3) The key failure in this case is the Scottish Government’s original outlandish argument that it did not “hold” the Hamilton evidence (which is now even more laughable given the SICs decision last week). Remember James Hamilton was an Advisor on the Ministerial Code, his remit was set by the Deputy First Minister, his secretariat was a Scottish Government civil servant, and his report, though not legally binding, was politically.
Thereafter, once the SIC found that it did hold the evidence in 004/2023, its decision to appeal to the court of session was simply disastrous. It cost the taxpayers a six-figure sum, went against legal advice from its senior counsel who told them that they would likely lose, and ultimately they did lose in humiliating style, with the judges conferring for less than 40 seconds after oral arguments had ended before announcing that the Scottish Government’s appeal was rejected.
However, what did the court appeal and the initial argument of not “held” do, which was of benefit to the Scottish Government? It delayed the entire process significantly. That decision came exactly two years ago yesterday. Under FOISA 2002, if the SIC (and courts if necessary) find that a public authority did indeed “hold” information, the clock simply restarts. The authority issues a revised response, whereupon it can utilise new exemptions and the information is not released.
If the applicant (in this case me), disagrees, we have to appeal to the SIC (again) and a new SIC investigation starts afresh. All of this adds up to months and eventually years, all because a public authority can claim it does not “hold” information that everyone knows it does hold.
This is one of the main reasons why I suspect an appeal to the Court Of Session may once again be on the cards. If the Scottish Government accepts the decision it will face inevitable scrutiny, not only about its handling of the case but the contents of the evidence (which it has gone to great lengths thus far to keep secret).
All of this dirty-linen-washing would then form the backdrop to the Holyrood elections in May. If it appeals, though, then any appeal would take place well after the elections, by which point power would have been cemented for another five years.
Just a reminder again: I put in my original request before the 2021 election, there exists the distinct possibility that if the Scottish Government appeals to the Court Of Session that it will not be resolved until after the 2026 election. So let it be said again: the truth is not just being delayed. It is being denied.
Sir, your persistence is to be commended.
The process is indeed the punishment.
Much kudos goes to Benjamin Harrop for his tenacity and diligence in trying to bring these rascals to account.
Good work. I look forward to further information being released, eventually.
Thanks Benjamin. I’ll look forward to your next post.
How does this relate to
link to johnsmytheinvestigations.wordpress.com
and are you the same GM?
John Smythe, the people assisting him and Benjamin Harrop are all on the same path but aye, what do you mean/whit aboot it?
just asking. I thought I had “seen this before” somewhere and was wondering if it was new. All keep up the good work.
Like GM , Benjamin I would like to thank you for your tenacity and doggedness in trying to get this myriad of lies and corruption EXPOSED to the sunlight , it is a despicable shame on the Scottish legal system and the Scottish judiciary that these clowns and carpetbaggers are still able to hide and protect themselves from the punishment they deserve
Still the dagger drips…
We can only be grateful for people like yourself who are prepared to do this, and dogged and persistent enough not to let them get away with it.
The SNP government will NEVER release the report–not in our lifetime, at least. Politicians can always find an excuse to do or not do something, when that action is in their self-interest.
And the latest polls show that the voters of Scotland will return the SNP to power in 2026. Which (sadly) means the voters implicitly approve of the secrecy. That will kick the release at least another 5 years down the road.
I can’t digest such beating about the bushes, trees, and gorse.
My conclusion, the SNP is rife with corruption and cover up and although they rattle the transparency sabre regularly they are actually as mud in a lead lined case.
The Freedom of Information Act and those paid to enforce it are without credibility and
the irrefutable proof is here as the Rev has just revealed.
It will be at an incredible cost to the tax payer to continue this coverup for possibly another 5 years if they can hold office by deception again.
Spot on, Effigy.
Stu, I marvel and wonder at your tenacity.
I love it.
We need you to continue to try to expose the truth.
I hope Moira’s legal team are well informed.
I’m always a wee bit astonished when pieces like this come out on Wings, simply because they betray the amount of time you spend, slogging quietly and dealing with bureaucracy, working hard behind the scenes.
Do you ever get any sleep?
Not a fact, this time – a personal thought.
NUSNP has shown itself unworthy to govern the Scottish people consistently over several terms of office on so many levels on so many subjects.
It has to go.
Yoons know this. Indy supporters know this.
Everyone knows that NUSNP will be reelected next year. The 3-way split in Yoon votes ensures this.
There is only one logical way that the c.30% of pro-NUSNP voters can be beaten. The c.20% of Indy supporters must lend their vote for one election next year to Labour. Together they will win.
Labour will inherit the mess left by NUSNP, but can maybe improve things – they can’t be worse.. Indy supporters will have 4 years to get things together and moving again, without NUSNP having control. Scotland can have a political reset.
Controversial, but perhaps worth thinking about.
Lolz, you maybe laid that voting initiative on jist a wee bitty too heavy.
Aye, coz previously Labour in Scotland were fuck all use for Scotland too, treating it as their own wee fiefdom and as corrupt as fuck, jist like the NuSNP have become.
Saddling us with PFI debts(see the Only Game in Town), and the likes of the then First Minister handing cash back to his Westminster masters because he couldn’t think of anything to spend it on…
Dan, I agree with you about Labour’s record in the past.
I’m just suggesting the only scenario I can see where NuSNP can possibly be beaten.
Any other way, they stay in control of everything. For another four years. Then we face the same situation again.
I don’t trust any of the parties. But we need a way to break up the logjam. It will need political dynamite. Or it’s NuSNP for ever.
Stated this a few years back, but probably need an updated version of this old article, and it would likely highlight a similar web within modern day “Scottish” politics. Yet a lot of those old names are still active and influential today.
link to lenathehyena.wordpress.com
And pretty much anybody that has half a political clue about what’s been going on in Scotland in recent times will know the names, and connections, and their actions, which Benjamin’s latest article relates to, whilst the taxpayer continues to pay for the ongoing circus.
So you don’t trust any of the political Parties, welcome to the club, you’re about half a decade late though.
One of Stu’s recent pieces, I’m sure, outlined a plan for tactical voting: vote Your Party.
We’ll see nearer the time about more accurate tactical voting.
There you go, factchecker, Dan says no.
I’m afraid things still have to get a lot worse in Scotland before the faithful will be willing to ditch their ideological purity and engage with reality.
Tune in again in 5 years time, but don’t be too hopeful.
Nice try, fuckwit.
Lolz, you having a laugh?
To LABOUR? 🙂
Fuxache.
HaHaHaHa another wee yoonionist shittin his breeks , now lads we are all good Jockos lets get together and vote for Labour they are LESS SHIT than the shit snp
BUT are they, the current shower of arsewipes take stupidity and corruption to a whole new level of incompetence
You are either stupid or you haven’t lived under liebour governing Scotland, the snp are deviant perverts whose governance has been catastrophic for Scotland BUT they have only been in power since 2007 it has only been since 2015 that the sturgeon era has been a mind fucking debacle
Labour had been in power in Scotland mostly for the previous 70 years and the destruction and carnage they presided over is well documented , THEIR corruption and incompetence was the blueprint for sturgeon , they carried on where liebour led
Quite right! Both votes SNP, that’ll show the yoons! Or you could be one of the ten people voting for liberate Scotland. The FIGHTERS for independence silently FIGHTING the good FIGHT without telling anyone.
“Labour had been in power in Scotland mostly for the previous 70 years and the destruction and carnage they presided over is well documented”
Doing the math, 70 years back from 2007 takes us to 1937.
So the establishment of the NHS and the Welfare State. The explosion in living standards that saw the working boy going to his job on a bike in the 1930’s, through to the working boy with a car, central heating and a foreign holiday every year by 2000 was “destruction and carnage”.
You’ve totally lost the plot, TH. Ask nursy to put your tablet somewhere high up and out of your reach until your meds kick in.
@Aidan
Has it occurred to you that the Liberate Scotland boys are almost certainly FIGHTING among themselves?
I’ve no idea to be honest Hatey, but as long as they are FIGHTING that is good enough for me. After all, Twat tells us that anyone else likely to win power is a DEVIANT PERVERT. Unfortunately Liberate Scotland could hold a party conference in a phone box, so it’ll be either the red DEVIANT PERVERTS or the yellow DEVIANT PERVERTS. Bit of a bummer that, shame nothing can be done.
WOW Just WOW
An epic article in both length and breadth. A few reads will be required but after one pass I was wondering what the response would be and not in my wildest nightmares did I come up with Indy supporters should vote Labour. We have had vote Reform and now vote labour to get us independent. A bit like hitting your face with a broken bottle to improve your good looks. I wonder how the site troll/trolls will respond. The world waits.
David, to use your image, we’re getting our faces hit with a broken bottle right now. They’ll keep getting hit with NuSNP in power. Forever.
So maybe getting hit by someone else for four years would be worth the risk if it reset Scottish politics. I really can’t imagine a government less competent. And I’d choose Labour over Reform any day.
Baiy and switch? Vote Yoon, because, you know, reasons.
Nice try.
So, factchecker, how are you getting on with your crash course in tribalism?
Penny dropped yet?
Ask James to explain it to you if you’re still struggling. He’ll need both hands on his keyboard, but he’ll manage that fine for 5 minutes or so.
OH NO James isn’t onboard with the strategy!
I guess it’ll be another soiled ballot from you?
“the truth is not just being delayed. It is being denied.”
Should we really expect anything different in a colony?
Alf….give it a rest.
The article is about the failure of the SNP “Government”, no one else.
Where did you get your professorship?
Tehran.
An academic versed in colonial studys would know all the aspects good and bad. They would certainly know the benefits it brought to the indigenous people inadvertantly.
They would understand the origins of the policy of countries participating in colonizing.
They would know that muslim countries were the biggest human traffickers in history.
They would also know the methods used to gain access via collaboration of waring parties.
You addressed none of this.
A one way argument filled with group think rant.
Inevitably a colonized society is compelled “to make major compromises with outer forces of oppression” but in doing so a colonized people become merely “products of the psychopathology of colonialism” (Nandy).
Aside from the “aggressive Anglicised ways” of the culturally assimilated and other natives “given a bone to gnaw on” in the colonial system there are few ‘benefits’ for the colonized, only denial of culture, justice, self-determination, and freedom.
“aggressive Anglicised ways” of the culturally assimilated
See what you just did there, Alf? You wrote Anglicised where you should have written Anglicized.
You’ve become culturally assimilated by the Anglos! Unclean!! Unclean!!!
Anybody tempted to add “Burn the witch!” in response should be aware that Sturgeon looks badly on that kind of thing (I think).
BTW, I don’t recall you referencing Nandy before. Is that Lisa or a different Nandy?
‘The Initimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism’ (Ashis Nandy)
From which we might similarly consider, as Nandy does in regard to colonial India, that an Anglicised Scotland was made into “a subtradition (and ‘subnation’ also) which, in spite of its pathology and its tragi-comic core, is a ‘digested’ form of another civilization that had once gatecrashed into” Scotland, where it remains still.
“a ‘digested’ form of another civilization that had once gatecrashed into” Scotland, where it remains still”
Sure. There’s at least one Tandoori on the High Street of every town and even village in Scotland.
And to be fair to them, they know a thing or two about digestion.
Still though, when we’re discussing colonialism, it’s a very selective lens we employ to identify which colonists are BAD and which colonists we simply choose to ignore.
ALL colonialists are bad… that’s why they’re colonialists.
@ Northcode says: 8 December, 2025 at 5:50 pm
“ALL colonialists are bad”
Oh aye. That’s why you go to such extreme lengths to deny that us Scots ever colonised anywhere or genocided anyone.
That’s why you deny your own cultural and linguistic colonisation, even when you clearly demonstrate that you yourself are colonised, passing it off as being a personal choice, and vehemently denying that “adopting the mindset and values of the coloniser” could ever apply to Saint Northy.
None of the above really matters in the bigger picture. Deluded eejits gotta do what deluded eejits gotta do.
But the denial of the real ongoing colonisation, the creeping influence of Sharia, the re-imposition of long-abandoned blasphemy statutes into law, the warping of our institutions to pander to an increasingly big and increasingly vocal minority, etc. all of that does matter.
All you deluded eejits do is muddy the water and divert attention and concern from our real problem with colonialism.
I would rather be a deluded eejit than a colonialist… and, thankfully, I am. Phew!
And, yes. I WILL be leading from the front… leading with great compassion and kindness and sympathy.
We Scots will make yon English whole again; reclaim their souls from Satan and return them to The Lord; and, embraced in our loving arms, cherish them that they may see the true nature of their sins and renounce them in the presence of the Holy Spirit and be forgiven in His infinite mercy and endless love.
Here! I’ve been inspired to do a wee sermon this coming Sunday.
I will conjure up the speerit o’ thon thrawn auld meenister of the Kirk, my ancestor, Jock Tamson (or The Reverend John Thomson as he was also known).
“Saint Northy”
Oh here! I quite like that. I might set it up as a new moniker on here and deploy it on Sundays when channeling The Reverend John Thomson.
“…an increasingly big and increasingly vocal minority…”
Indeed, aye.
I was having a bite of lunch a couple of years back at The Real Food Cafe in Tyndrum.
A party of six or so Inglish were there and by Christ were they arrogantly noisy and extremely disruptive.
A body would hiv thocht thae wir livin’ it large in thair ain country such wis thair rude and inconsiderate behaviour in mine.
No.
But by fuck the wriggling on the line puts ALL worms to shame.
Talking of worms . . 😉
Rewind: worms are SO good for us, improving the soil etc.,
I should NEVER have drawn a parallel between worms and Holyrood politicians.
It’s about time someone in another country, eg Australia or USA revealed the names of the perjuring Alpha-Betties.
Maybe they’re all channeling their inner Trump.
Why should they act on behalf of a people, nation, culture, etc that sits on its flabby arse and won’t do anything itself?
Your post encapsulates Scottish Indy in one neat sentence:
Somebody else should do something.
Exodus (20:16)
‘You shall not bear false witnesses against your neighbour’
Information delayed is information denied is an apt line. But as we can see that is only one of the tools that rotten government use to mask malfeasance and criminality.
Rotten corrupt and criminal behaviour is woven through the fabric of governance in Scotland. It is in the DNA and it is vicious and nasty and this excellent article exposes another example of just how obfuscating our government is in the suppresion of the search for truth.
Absolutely, Willie.
And for all the senior pensioners reading Wings today they can uplift their spirits recognising that as a group of individuals the state now has the right to unilaterally access any of their bank accounts, be they current, savings or ISA to deduct £300.00.
Intended to allow recovery of tax coding adjustment, or benefit overpayment the money will just be whisked out. And if it leaves one short, or causes standing orders or direct debits for gas, electricity, or phones or whatever to fail, with the avalanche of bank charges or missed payment charges, then one can only say hard luck.
Its absolutely outrageous. £300.and especially at thecwrong time, unilateral taken from a pensioners bank account is brutal.
And why pensioners. Why the elderly. Its the actions of a totalitarian state, and the weakest are just the start. Not difficult to see how the state want to do in cash.
And of course, who are the group in society who are now restricted as to how much cash they can withdraw from the bank. The poor old hapless pensioners again!
Well done Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Party.and now we know where the mandatory ID is going and where every aspectvof ones existence will be known, tracked and controlled.
And then you look at the content of this article and how rotten corrupt government obstructs exposure of wrong doing.
“the weakest are just the start”
Since when have pensioners been the weakest demographic?
They’re far more likely than youngsters to vote. They take far more from the welfare system than they put in. The youngsters grafting away today to pay the taxes to keep paying the pensioners don’t have the luxury of a triple lock. The youngsters would probably scrap it in a trice, but they get outvoted by the pensioners every time.
The country, whether you are looking at the UK or just Scotland, is in an absolute shambles. It’s the pensioners, with their decades of voting behind them, who own most of the responsibility for the train wreck that has been slowly developing for most of their lives.
So now pensioners find themselves having to pay a tiny bit of tax in exchange for their vote. Seems fair to me. No representation without taxation sort of thing.
Political division speil of global planning,
The pensioners being older already paid taxes in their life to ensure financial security when older age comes to them, never mentioned.
The old and young are not each others enemy, its a bad financial governance decision to spend or give money away to outside Britain or those that enter Britain illegally, or paying British tax money for islands that are already classed as British,
Or to make infrastructures in other Countries, if you keep giving all tax payers money away there is nothing left in the coffers for the young, elderly or middle aged, your requesting the pensioners pay twice and the next generation to become pensioners.
And no one has a choice to stay young forever, think about it, and think about the devision you sew between the population and communities of Britain in general,
Your doing the globalist one world new order work for them. Which is interesting.
More utter bollocks from the Site Prick, there. *Yawn*.
2:46 pm on a Monday and James finally has baith socks on (on his feet, that is).
Tired are you, James? They do say that too much of what ails you drains the vitality.
It should hardly come as a surprise that a corrupt criminal enterprise operating in the guise of a legitimate democratic government attempts to deceive the people it supposedly serves when confronted with questions about its non-democratic barely disguised criminal activities.
It should hardly come as a surprise that Holyrood – the field office of a colonising power with a long, well-documented history of criminality and the brutal subjugation of many peoples – is an administrative centre for organised crime in the pursuit of its foreign owner’s ambition to steal everything and anything of value from the Scots.
And it should hardly come as a surprise that England’s, “Plunder Operations, Scotland PLC”, organisation in the form of the Scottish Government is fronted by thick henchmen and henchwomen who despite claims of being proud Scots are nothing of the sort and are instead the proud lickspittle pets of another people.
Scotland is a colony… and colonies, history tells us, are viciously abused by their criminally minded colonizers
So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any Scot anywhere that Holyrood is populated with crooks; that the Scottish Parliament is a playground for crooks; and least surprising of all… that the ‘Scottish’ Government’s owner is Blighty, Bane of the Scots.
“But, Northcode… what is the solution to the colonial crime epidemic that has plagued the Scots for three centuries and more?” you ask… hesitantly… for fear of my mocking your ignorance with some witty and scathing retort.
“Decolonization, of course,” I reply.
“for fear of my mocking your ignorance with some witty and scathing retort”
Dinna fash, Northy. The fear is all yours, rattling around in that deceptively spacious but drafty heid of yours.
So the antidote to colonisation is decolonisation, eh?
Then we have the antidote to clutter, and the antidote to fenestration too. There will no doubt be lots of others, if I could be arsed to think of them. Cimal, for example.
Knowing the answers to things as you do, Northy, you must be wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of avarice.
Indeed, Northcode.
And for once, I’d prefer (hold me back, hold me back) NOT to go on a huge rant about how a corrupt gang squat in HR, like greedy cuckoos.
And how much I hate them.
For failing us all entirely.
“And how much I hate them.
For failing us all entirely.”
Quite a reek of smouldering breeks from that post, NN.
You hate them because you can’t bear to face the reality you were played like a gullible eejit.
And because you remain in denial, you will get played next time around too.
I was played like a church organ once…I rather enjoyed the experience.
Hmmm, Northy, you’ve taken that too far.
Cos I don’t want to believe you enjoyed having high pressure air blasted up your bahooky, I’ll believe instead it was a virtuoso of the pedalboard setting about you with her dainty size fives that you enjoyed.
Bet she wore stilettos.
“… you’ve taken that too far.”
I fear you might be right… I feel dirty now.
Not least because I invoked the spirit of God’s instrument in what I mistakenly thought a witticism – may God forgive my sinful soul.
I must away and self-flagellate for a wee while in penance… now, where did I put my stilettos?
They fear the truth!!!
This is an SNP Scottish Government remember! Parcel of rogues in a nation!
North code,
It is obvious that some people think that Scotland has a real genuine down to earth Scottish parliament,
Of course if that were true, then there would be no Union between Scotland and England, doh
Its a branch office placed in Scotland for control of Scotland, with reserved matters kept to owner.
If a fully genuine Scottish parliament it would have total control and the NuSNp and union parties would not be sitting in it, they would have footprints on the erses.
“a fully genuine Scottish parliament it would have total control”
Too true, James.
Seemingly, as reputedly wanted by a clear majority of us Sovereign Scots, the fully genuine Scottish parliament would use its total control to get us signed up for rule from Brussels.
Doh!
ASH REGAN MSP – THE LEGACY OF ALEX SALMOND
(Full Speech, Nov 2024)
link to youtube.com
No such thing at the moment as a Scottish Government, only the governance of Scotland through the Scotland Act from Westminster parliament.
If it needs saying twice, so be it, If there was a Scottish parliament, The treaty of union would have ended, and Scotland would not be seeking independence, it would automatically have it,
Fact, James Cheyne.
Sandie Peggie has won part her employment tribunal against NHS Fife on harassment grounds.
However, the claim made against transgender medic Dr Beth Upton was dismissed.
Another spurious decision from a Scottish judge – Camp Zeist/not-proven nonsense all over again. Get rid of the Scottish legal system the school system shyte Holyrood and the national football team while we’re at it. In fact get rid of all the toys that are only kept on to make Scots think that they live in a normal national state.
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the
public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define
the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the
provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not
involve making policy.”
4. This Tribunal also has a limited role. Its function in essence is to identify
the issues arising from the case before it, assess the evidence it heard,
consider the submissions made to it by the parties, apply the law as the
Tribunal finds it to be to the facts it has found established in order to
answer those issues, and give its reasons for doing so, as required by
Rule 60 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (“the Rules”).
The Tribunal does not purport to decide all of the matters that were raised
during the evidence in the case, some of which in the Tribunal’s opinion
strayed beyond the scope of any of the issues before it and into the
arguments in the public domain.”
———————————————-
It is important to note what the Tribunal was about and it’s limitations as stated in the judgment above.
Also the Judge was not sitting alone – there were two side members – one from and employees organisation – the other from employers. It was a unanimous decision.
Would you prefer the abolition of jury trials.
How many miscarriages of justice have taken place in England compared to Scotland that has corroboration and 15 Jurors and not proven.Should double jeopardy be reinstated or should state vendettas continue.
Do you support that abomination that is the GB team for the Olympics,which was only supposed to be a one off for London 2012.
And a large majority voted in favour of a Scottish Parliament
despite its present faults and poor standard of members.
link to judiciary.uk
Link to Sandie Peggie Tribunal decision.
And true to type, Misreporting Scotland has just treated us to a pile of wibbling drivel about the outcome and what they think will happen next.
I often swither between their being a union between Scotland and England or aTreaty,
If a treaty exists then the parliament of England must adhere to it, but they do not, when it come to following the Pre- terms, conditions and the Articles themselves.
Such as both The Scottish parliament and the parliament of England must cease to exist to create the new State of the united kingdom of Great Britain.
The parliament of England still exists, making treaties in the name of Englands parliament and later calling it a treaty of Great Britain,
On the other hand as the monarch of England pre- union, uses the Seal of England to create the treaty of union with Scotland on 1st May 1707 that has a failure to give royal assent to the Scottish side of the union.
In the same breath if the pre- terms, conditions and Articles of the union are to be considered as a real treaty between two parliaments of two Countries then Englands still existing parliament breaches that treaty,
At the same time claiming they have a contractual union with Scotland which they uphold then Scots have the private rights to overrule interference from public bodies into their private lives.
Meanwhile we are being fed the narrative that the treaty of union is so old and out of date Englands parliament has free will to change, alter or repeal any part of it, including Scots laws,
This only happens due to the parliament of England still existing and doubling up in a duel capacity as the parliament of Great Britain,
Thus we see the old parliament of Scotland dissolved pre- treaty and not able to join in a union with parliament that continues as the parliament of England with a added titles.
Are we seeking independence for Scotland when in reality we already have it?
And only the propaganda fools us,
And Should Benjamin Harrop be applying for information to branch office in Scotland or directly to the owner of the Scotland Act the parliament of Englands parliament of Great Britain/ as coloniser?
Usually if you can’t get a direct answer from the office worker staff, then you go to boss of the Company.
The cost of failure is nothing when compared with the cost to a people subjugated and seeking their freedom.
This, taken from the final scene of the movie “The Wind and The Lion” starring Sean Connery – loosely based on the real-life Perdicaris affair of 1904:
Both men then laugh aloud together when Sherif comes to the realisation that Raisuli (a rebel and anti-imperialist leader of the Moroccan Berber people), is saying, “Stop whining, you’re still alive, aren’t you?”
Well, it’s time the Scots stopped whining; it’s time they realised they are yet still a unique and living people with long held traditions and an ancient history and culture; and it’s time they started working together towards recovering their sovereignty and their nation.
“God for Wallace, Scotland, and Saint Andrew,” cry the Scots – paraphrasing Shakespeare’s Henry V in triumphant mockery of England – relishing the moment they are released from three centuries and more of subjugation and oppression.
“it’s time the Scots stopped whining”
Finally. Please tell us you’ll be leading from the front, although your “released from three centuries and more of subjugation and oppression” line suggests that you no longer even realise when you are whining.
““God for Wallace, Scotland, and Saint Andrew,” cry the Scots”
Sure, once some (most?) of us have been told who Saint Andrew was, and the necessary apologies have been made for the dated, patriarchal, non-inclusive nature of our Christian heritage and our Christian God.
God IS love.
Did you know that cat is just tac spelled backwards?
It’s a noitalever to me.
Ah ken that ane. It’s ane of the Apocrypha.
But dinna let oan tae Confused.
So what did I omit in my ramblings and thoughts to you all while I swither over the treaty of union existence,
It is a very important bit of information that not only slipped by myself, but most people in Scotland,
The Treaty of union has been dissolved many times unbeknown to most Scots,
An example of what I mean I will explain as follows.
The treaty of union was dissolved by the Great Britain parliament for a Treaty to be made with Ireland,
( there is no provision in the treaty of union pre-terms, conditions, agreement or articles for this to take place)
However after the treaty of union was dissolved between Scotland and England, The parliament of England????? …… made a treaty with Ireland to join England, as the United kingdom parliament had been dissolved.
Then the parliament of England, acting as the parliament of England all by itself reinstated the parliament of Great Britain, but either absently minded or forgot deliberate to ask Scotland and its people, parliament or territory IF Scots and Scotland wanted to join the new treaty kingdom of England with England and Ireland,
This has happened repeatedly in and as the parliament of England dissolved the treaty of union to create new treaties and agreements for England,
Trade deal with America,
And when Canada wanted changes in its country,
And every instance when another Country gained its independence from Great Britain and its dominions,
The Great Britain parliament and political treaty between Scotland and England ceased to exist,
The parliament of England after acting as the parliament of England to make treaties and contractual agreements legally cannot re- instate the parliament of Great Britain it had dissolved in which it had voided as a parliament with no jurisdiction over Scotland any longer.
Because the parliament of England was supposed to cease at the same time as the parliament of Scotland in 1707 to create the parliament of Great Britain
One of the reasons, (although quite important) why I swither, if following protocol and legal documents plus reports and records on wether Scotland is still in a union with England.
If England goes Solo as the parliament of England, and then when it please jumps back into a dissolved parliament of Great Britain,
The final analyses of the dissolution of the parliament of Great Britain time and again so the parliament of England ( which is not supposed to Exist at all) can act Solo, would be that Scotland is not in, and no longer part of the treaty of union or is legally part of the parliament of Great Britain, after dissolution, and it was never asked to join the new created parliament of England and Ireland.
This rather emphasises some facts that since the first dissolution of the treaty for a Great Britain parliament,
It is possible to maintain the position and claim that Scotland and its people are and do come under the category of colonised.
As the treaty of union and the parliament of GB ended at least as far back as 1800.
‘Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody in there, just nod if you can hear me, is there anyone home.
Relax, relax relax………….’
Well done Sandie Peggy.
She’s got balls!! ?
Looks like she’s in line for compo.
Do you think she’ll want to divi it up with the poor saps paying for it? Us!
Maybes naw.
Typical pleb with hands out begging for your tax back.
Good news for once?
The branding for Great British Railways (GBR) has been revealed and the amount of blue in it far exceeds the amount of red in it. Perhaps a bone thrown to the colonised by our imperial, colonialist masters?
There are actually two shades of blue. I don’t have the Pantone references to hand, but maybe somebody could find them out and check they are acceptable to the purists.
The Sandi Peggie result is a good one. Very much in line with public sentiments.
Putting a biological man with balls into a women’s changing room is just outrageous. To harrass and harry Sandi Peggie in the way that Fife health boards did by suspending her and trying to destroy her career is beyond outrageous.
But this is what the Health Board supported by our perverted Scottish Government did. And now the hapless public pay for Mr Swinney and his team of bent administrators nasty policy.
Sandie Peggie will receive compensation. But what of the other costs. What of the huge costs of the legal teams involved over many years. What of the costs of all the NHS diverted onto defending this case. And we say the NHS is short of money and staff.
The costs of all of this for the Sandie Peggie case alone will most probably run well over ten million pounds.
But what sanction for the unrepentant First Minister Swinney who wantonly pissed the public hard earned cash up the wall. And what of the people denied or delayed treatment due to his ideological insane crusade.
Anyway, great news for Sandie Peggie and more to come.
The information I posted can be found in
House of Lords.
Select Commitee,
Parliament Business,
Lord grey Vs government,
This debate was on wether Scottish peers should be in the House of lords still today or extinguished and wether the articles of the treaty would be breached,
I would have been asking the same question from the alternative point of view–If the Great Britain parliament is dissolved……?
It makes a huge difference for instance on How our Courts would work compared to how labour want them to work.
How finances would work…
How the independence question would work.
This remains a key question, James, as to why none of Scotland’s three elected majorities of supposedly ‘nationalist’ MPs since 2015 failed to pull the plug on the mankit Union charade.
The Privileges Committee report confirms that the UK parliament primarily exists only so long as Scotland’s representatives turn up there. In other words Scotland has been de jure independent since the first of three majorities of SNP MPs were elected in 2015, as many in Scotland believed and the report confirms:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Too many weasel words, Alf.
I’ve taken the liberty of modifying your sentence so that it would work in the real world:
“The Privileges Committee report confirms that the UK parliament [DELETED] exists only so long as Scotland’s representatives turn up there. In other words Scotland has been [DELETED] independent since the first of three majorities of SNP MPs were elected in 2015”
Alas, while my modified version would work in the real world, your unmodified version doesn’t.
And hence, in the real world, we are where we are.
The important point in liberating any colonized people is that elected national representatives no longer hold allegiance or take an oath to serve an imperial power; SNP majorities have opted for the latter, hence oppression of the people continues.
“…while my modified version would work in the real world…”
It might well work in some other ‘real’ world… just not this one.
“In other words Scotland has been [DELETED] independent since… 2015.”
Because Scotland, as we independistas on here are all too painfully aware, has NOT been independent since 2015 – not on any real world in this universe, anyway.
Once the parliament of Great Britain came under dissolution in 1800/1801,
The Westminster parliament of England cannot reinstate the treaty, while acting as parliament of England.
Which is what happened.
The following are excerpts from the closing pages of the book ‘THE DREAM SHALL NEVER DIE: 100 Days that Changed Scotland Forever’ by Alex Salmond (2015) –
« For all my political life I have believed in Scottish independence. Since the referendum campaign this year [2014] I have believed it to be a matter of when, not if.
« There are a number of situations which could provide the circumstances. There are a number of events which could precipitate the next opportunity. There are a number of variables which will dictate the timing, a timing which ultimately lies in the hands of the people.
« And that is the point. The YES side lost the vote but the referendum changed the nation. The people who emerged from the 100 days’ campaign are different from those who embarked upon that journey. That changed nation will both create and secure future opportunities for progress.
« The means and the procedure are now set. The Scottish people can, if they so wish at any Scottish election, vote for a party or parties who wish to put the issue to the touch once again.
« After all, everyone deserves a second chance.
« Every person and every nation.
« […] In the tenth century, the monks at Deer Abbey in Aberdeenshire, a few miles from Strichen, rounded off their treasured biblical folio in Latin with the following colophon in common Gaelic (i.e. common to Scotland and Ireland). It demonstrates that Buchan wit, as biting as the wind, is rather more than a millenium old. It reads:
« ‘Be it on the conscience of anyone who reads this little book to say a prayer for the soul of the poor wretch who laboured so long in writing it.’
~ Alex Salmond MSP
Strichen, March 2015 »
(‘THE DREAM SHALL NEVER DIE: 100 Days that Changed Scotland Forever’ by Alex Salmond, published by William Collins 2015, pp 262, 263).
“The Scottish people can, if they so wish at any Scottish election, vote for a party or parties who wish to put the issue to the touch once again”
Good to see that the late, great Alex Salmond and myself are in perfect agreement.
Which is why we will all choose to vote once more for parties who wish to seriously pursue the various options available for Indy in May 2026, especially the option that will most easily and certainly deliver Indy if Indy is truly Scotland’s desire – the plebiscitary promise.
[Haud oan – is that right?]
Alex wouldnae piss on the likes of you if you were on fire.
It might not be true, but I heard somewhere, somewhen, that Salmond pissed pure alcohol… so he might very well would have, James.
Ah, the fragrant James has dragged himself once again, out from under his stone.
You can choose to believe that the late, great Alex Salmond was a tribalist, knuckle-dragging ignoramus like yourself, James, but others know better.
You’ve undoubtedly had a sad life, constantly in the wrong about things. This is just another thing you’re wrong about.
You can suck it up. You’ve had a lifetime of practice.
Good point, Northy.
EL RETRATO EN LA ROCA
by Pablo Neruda (extract).
Miré y allí estaba mi amigo:
de piedra era su rostro,
su perfil desafiaba la intemperie,
en su nariz quebraba el viento
un largo aullido de hombre perseguido:
allí vino a parar el desterrado:
vive en su patria convertido en piedra.
PORTRAIT IN THE ROCK
(Extract after Pablo Neruda)
I looked and there was my friend,
his features sculpted in stone,
his face opposing the storm;
the gale rending from his nose
a long groan of persecution.
There the banished man is now found:
settled in homeland; enduring as rock.
PORTRAID SA CHREIG
(Earrann às dèidh Pablo Neruda)
Thug mi sùil agus siod mo chàraid.
Bha aodann mar chloich,
a bhathais a’ toirt dùlain dhan droch shìde,
a’ ghaoth na shròn a’ dùisgeadh
donnalaich duine fo gheur-leanmhainn.
Sin far a leigeas an dìobarach a sgìos dheth:
ri còmhnaidh na thìr fhìn; cho maireann ri creag.
(please note: Any text capitalized and italicized and spelled in American-English and surrounded by single quotation marks in any of my comments indicate thoughts which I believed were the silent prisoners of my mind and yet by some error have escaped to the digital page. Ignore them… they were not meant for human consumption.)
‘WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, FEARGHAS???
I planted my face in the sun-softened tar of a freshly re-surfaced pavement one hot Scottish summer when as a child of just a few years I tripped while being chased by bigger and badder boys than I.
The imprinted, timeless and unchanging features of my distressed visage can still, even to this day, be clearly seen embedded in the frozen tar of that Maryhill path leading up to the Osprey Heights.
Written by Anonymous:
———————-
Much ado about Alex: I was standing at the bar of the Kilcreggan Hotel, alone, on a whimsical trip over on the Gourock Ferry. A bottle of zero-alcohol beer could be heard fizzling in my tall glass, it was so quiet.
The barman who said nothing as he served me was staring blankly at nothingness as he absently polished a tumbler. The squeaking of damp cloth on glass accentuated the empty reading room acoustic as I opened Alex Salmond’s The Dream Shall Never Die and continued to read…
I am careful about what I am seen to read in a pub. There had been an irritating incident in Tennent’s Bar back in Glasgow when I was reading Mein Kampf. “What the hell are you reading that for?” I was asked. I was annoyed by this rudeness and claimed I was reading it because I wanted to be a Nazi Stormtrooper when I grew up, what did he want to be? Eventually, I calmed the halfwit down by agreeing it was indeed badly written, full of obscure German names with which Hitler hoped to aggrandise himself by association, vile expansionism and unabashed racist rants. I was reading it simply because I hadn’t.
The door of the Kilcreggan Hotel swung ajar and a tall thin man, almost dapper, swung in with it. The silent barman placed a pint of lager on the counter. The tweedy dandy slid over to me as I closed the book and put it down on the counter.
“Good afternoon,” was the last civil thing the newcomer said as the cover photo of Alex loomed up at him. “I hate that man,” he shouted. He thumped the book with his suddenly clenched fist. “I hate that man!!” Thumped it again. “I hate!” Thump, thump. “That man!”
I looked at the barman. He polished the tumbler, staring into nothingness. Squeak, slowly squeak went the damp cloth. Squeak. Squeak. Polish. Squeak. No help there.
I asked the gentleman to desist, but he persisted until I insisted he remove himself forthwith and hate Mr Salmond elsewhere.
He slugged back his beer, grabbed the door open with another venomous “I hate! That! Man!”.
He stepped outside and slammed the door, but it wouldn’t slam because the slow-close spring was too strong. His face appeared again, now twisted with frustration and running with angry tears as he tried to shove it shut – every failed push accompanied by I, hate, that.. but he was a broken reed, and he failed away to himself invisibly outside.
I looked at the barman. He was still staring into nothingness, polishing the same glass, the slow rhythmic squeak now the only sound in the emptiness of the indifferent air.
I think I must have met that man in Edinburgh one lovely sunny afternoon in the gardens when a great gathering of independence supporters were enjoying listening to Alex,Margot and many others.
To no-one in particular he announced , ‘That man wouldn’t be allowed into my golf club, he’d be barred’.
We chortled merrily and left the sad bastard to his rant.
Funny you should say that. I nearly caused a riot when I started reading my copy of, ‘Homosexually in modern Scotland Is there a cure?’ in Tennents.
I had a similar experience when reading my hard(cover) version of “Fashionable Frocks for Clydeside Welders” in Tennents a few years back.
I had just ordered two Polar Bear cocktails for my male ‘friends’ and a Pina Colada for myself and was flipping nonchalantly through the pages of my book while waiting at the bar for my drinks order to be fulfilled when an errant glimpse of my reading matter by a barside neighbour prompted a ruckus among the regulars… all of whom were Clydeside welders.
It transpired that I had inadvertently been the catalyst responsible for re-igniting an earlier argument when members of the “Clydeside Welders Literary Club” had come to fisticuffs over which frock from the club’s ‘book of the week’, the very one I held in my shaking hands, went best with a Jassic Pro Mig 450 MIG Welder.
A salutary lesson for us all when sidling up to strange men in a working man’s public house… one never knows what ‘book of the week’ will trigger a bare knuckle barroom brawl.
Fit’s a Clydeside Welder?
“A salutary lesson for us all when sidling up to strange men in a working man’s public house…”
————————————-
That’s something I have never done or even thought about. But hey-whatever floats the boat you have just welded!