Tuning In The Shine
For any of you who haven’t caught it yet, my interview from Monday’s BBC Scotcast (which is also available on Spotify).
Sadly due to a summer scheduling quirk the video version won’t go out on the telly, and seemingly not on the BBC YouTube page either, so you’ll just have to listen to the audio and somehow live without seeing my gorgeous face.
(But it looked like this. Auld man needs some beard dye.)
You may notice the occasional abrupt cut. That’s because 10 minutes were snipped from the recording to fit the show’s timeslot, and they were pretty much the same 10 minutes I’d have cut if I’d been editing it myself, including the bit where I accidentally called Jeffrey Epstein “Brian Epstein”.
(While making the point that Epstein had been jailed but none of his clients had. I hope Peter Murrell doesn’t also commit “suicide” in HMP Dumfries.)
If you’re interested, the other stuff that didn’t make the broadcast discussed:
– Colin Beattie, and how he manifestly obviously wasn’t allowed to see the books any more than Douglas Chapman was, but was a compliant stooge who could be trusted by Murrell and Sturgeon not to ask any awkward questions. (Relating to Martin Geissler’s question about who the Crown Office could actually prosecute.)
– the SNP’s non-existent track record of actively pursuing a meaningful indy strategy, and what I’d have done instead. (Which is detailed here and here.)
– the fact that Alba failed (relating to the question about why I didn’t get involved in politics myself) because almost the only thing Nicola Sturgeon’s government did competently and effectively during its near-decade in power was trash Alex Salmond’s reputation.
– the mystery of why even now no proper newspapers support independence, even as a purely cynical economic move, despite it being backed by half the population.
– the parallels, in terms of online media doing the job the mainstream press failed to, between Wings coverage of the SNP fundraiser scandal and that of the Rangers tax case, possibly because I made a plucky but ill-advised attempt at pronouncing Phil Mac Giolla Bháin’s name.
(I note in passing that he seems to be the most recent Twitter user to lose his account to a scummy crypto scammer.)
I don’t think any of it got “censored”, I think they just decided that what was left in was better material, and I agree. So there you go.
Cheers Rev!
Interesting your remarks abut Colin Beattie. He has done a fantastic job of staying completely under the radar so far. I don’t know if a single media outlet has tried to interview him.
I was actually planning to post a comment on your X urging you to keep the decision not to prosecute Beattie in your sights as one of your targets.
If Murrell had been Treasurer, pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes while he looted the accounts, it might be understandable. But Beattie was supposed to be there scrutinising the accounts. That was his job. And yet he managed to notice nothing for years. “Compliant stooge” is right on the nail.
The decision not to prosecute Beattie would be a puzzler, were it not for the simple fact that it would have been almost impossible to prosecute Beattie without prosecuting Sturgeon as well. That’s an avenue of enquiry that deserves to be pursued.
Good point. The only interview I seen was when he was asked about the impact it had on his life he quickly deflected to the middle east. I think he is an idiot. Another garden gnome.
I cannot understand why Beattie stood again, (never mind why anyone would vote for him again) if not that he hoped to somehow still hold influence in ongoing enquiries. Bit like fraudsters being very reluctant to take a week or two off.
It is astonishing brass neck, and odd for someone at 75 who must have made a bit on money, not to enjoy their last few years of good health.
There might be a bit more to him.
That has come into my head ss well Ian. He evidently had a good job in Banking (international banking evidently). Titles are ten a penny these days, going by my work anyway. That said if you add in his 15 years as an elected politician. Just married once. He didn’t need the money and it wasn’t to ‘be there’ on Independence day. That would be nonsense. Maybe he had no choice in the matter.
I cannot understand why Beattie stood again…
Beattie didn’t “stand”. There was no fresh election after the elected treasurer and finance committee had been disposed of. Beattie was simply selected by the cabal and placed in post. He was selected because he was the ideal candidate, having proved himself for years to be a compliant stooge.
” ..Fru fru knickknacks for his kitchen..” My favorite.
Enjoyed that. The only comment I would make is how does Geissler not understand how there were two crimes commited?
Upton Sinclair explained this ~100 years ago: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Truer today than at any time in my life.
“don’t think any of it got “censored””
At least you got a Brit State platform Rev, congrats.
I offered Geissler a discussion on a number of topics he seemed interested in:
– the Scottish universities crisis
– the Scottish ferries crisis
– the Scottish constitutional crisis (to discuss the only book offering a ‘theoretical framework’ (Doun-Hauden) developed explaining Scotland’s colonial condition, and the Liberation Scotland UN initiative)
..but I never got a reply, and I didn’t really expect one either.
The big question for nationalists is
Why did the MSM protect the SNP
Why do legal professionals at the highest level and ket parts of the union protect the SNP
In short key establishment figures protect anparty whosr purpose is supposed to be promoting independence
How do we break this control
S @ 3.27
I’m afraid the answer to that is probably extremely unpalatable to the bulk..
Could we enquire why Guissler didn’t investigate or ask his bbc colleagues or bosses?
Because they are anti Scottish and pro unionist with Westminsters crown for propaganda.
Apart from talking down Scotland and Scotgov and SNP the BBC in Scotland is very controlling of it’s journalists and news output and even the dramas they commission, they must be put Scotland in an unfavourable light.The journalists are vetted at every level from trainees onwards and each news item must pass the Establishment line. The most humble non public facing journalists get it in the neck if they stray from the fold.
“John Swinney would live in a cave for independence” but he won’t be honest about money.
He can’t claim the the money was spent on “other things” because, if it was, then you would see £660,000 being spent in the accounts of the SNP.
The only way that it could be spent on other things would be if there is a separate set of accounts for the “referendum fund”.
Swinney cannot tell us it was spent without telling us what it was spent on, and there’s no evidence of it being spent in the SNP accounts, so where are the accounts for it?
I can’t believe the CPS don’t see this as an issue.
Er ye go, the assertions been made so over to you John Swinney – move into and live in a cave until independence is achieved.
That should focus the mind and actions on the subject somewhat eh?
The anglicised version of Mac Giolla Bháin is McElwaine, with the emphasis on the Mc, not the El
Wow, I was a LONG way out, then.
A speaker of Irish would most likely pronounce the name as:
“Ma-gila-WAAN”
Some no doubt would say “VAAN” (as would a Scot).
Check out this sound-file:
link to teanglann.ie
Not long before ‘Strictly’ calls?
“no proper newspapers support independence”
Ouch! That “proper” will sting over at The National.
Martin Guissler jumping to the defence of St Nicola. Colour me shocked
Yeah but,
Only thing I’d pick them up on, they taglined it as something like ‘Why Wings wont let the Murrell case go’.
Eh, screw the ‘Murrell case’, you could hardly make it clearer, you’re on the ‘Indy Fundraiser’ case, or the ‘Missing £600k’ case.
No?
F
Correct.
It’s called obfuscation.
Plus, the whole “who are you” thing, what job did you do, are you just going to sling rocks from the sidelines or stand for office?
Typical pulling down the interviewed in the publics eyes before a words even been said about the matter in hand allowing the lazy BBC listening lah de dahs to form a snooty look down their noses negative opinion in the first minute or two. Job done.
I realise you can be ambushed in such circumstances but personally I would have replied to his cross examination of why you, the ignored, think that “they” the MSN slung the whole issue a “deefy” by telling Geisler, MSN member, to answer as he’ll be better placed to do that..
Anyways, has Swinney moved into his cave yet?
Seriously doubt it Martin..
Seriously doubt if he ever even said as much as isn’t he (Niklas lackey) supposed to be honest?
Shame the video wasn’t available, the interviewer sounded extremely stressed/antagonistic towards the end. Would have been fun looking for the throbbing vein(s).
Was amusing listening to the BBC effectively defending the SNP though 😀 Plus ça change etc.
On-topic – I can’t see them granting a private prosecution. Civil case works both ways in terms of evidence so might get the SNP but not the target who will blame hubby. Judicial review is deep pockets time and as Craig Murray found out recently, not even that is enough when the UK state decides a decision won’t happen in Scotland.
Eventually someone is going to have to publish the whole rotten business – Salmond, the alphabetties, the referendum fund, “husband” stealing from his own company, Lord Advocate “bias” and let people make up their own minds who got away scot-free while being involved in all of them.
Won’t happen here though.