The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

When it suits them

Posted on December 08, 2020 by

We’ve now filed a formal complaint with the Scottish Information Commissioner about this, because what we’d forgotten last week was that our original request was actually sent in September and it’s now been almost 60 working days with no sign of a proper response, not the 20 it’s supposed to take.

Because for some reason the Scottish Government REALLY doesn’t want you to know what the First Minister and Geoff Aberdein talked about in March 2018, and we think that you probably should.

We can’t say whether that was the same matter that Alex Cole-Hamilton was referring to in the Holyrood chamber last month when he said this:

But we can tell you that we sent this FOI request yesterday:

“To: ceu [at] gov [dot] scot
Name: Stuart Campbell

Date: 7 December 2020
Response required by: 8 Jan 2021

Information requested:

(1) Has the Committee [on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints] received a written submission from Mr Geoff Aberdein, former chief of staff to former First Minister Alex Salmond?

(2) If so, on which date was the submission received?

(3) Has the Committee accepted the submission?

(4) If so, on what date will the submission be published on the Scottish Government website?

(5) If not, for what reason/s has the submission not been accepted?”

And even though it’s taken 60 days to have our previous request acknowledged, we got an actual response to that one the same day.

It’s a fob-off saying “not our department, guv, ask THOSE guys over there”, but it nevertheless indicates that it isn’t simply a case of the coronavirus pandemic creating an unfortunate backlog that means requests take weeks to be looked at. This request was received, read, assessed and replied to within literally hours.

So there’s no possible excuse for the other one – which simply requests a clarification of two apparently contradictory statements issued by the Scottish Government, and should not be in any way difficult or complicated to provide a proper answer to – to have taken three months and counting.

But there’s good news, because we got another FOI reply today too.

So it’s now the offical position that the separate inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code DOES encompass not only whether she attempted to interfere in the inquiry, but also whether she lied to the Scottish Parliament about her knowledge of it (which we know, officially and on the record, that she did).

It is, to put it generously, now EXTREMELY difficult to see how James Hamilton can come to any conclusion other than that the First Minister lied to Parliament, now that we know it’s in his remit to determine that fact. And if he does, the Ministerial Code unambiguously requires her to resign.

As we write this, we’re listening to Peter Murrell give evidence to the other inquiry, and what he’s just told it (namely that the Salmond allegations were Scottish Government business, not SNP business) unequivocally proves that she broke the Ministerial Code over that too, by conducting Scottish Government business on Scottish Government premises without any minutes or records being kept of it.

(Murrell, extraordinarily, told the committee that the first he knew of any of it was when it appeared in the media in August 2018.)

The First Minister cannot, by any possible interpretation of the rules, remain in office once these two inquiries deliver their verdicts. It’s time for her to step down and give the SNP a fighting chance to get a new leader in place for the 2021 election, before the damage becomes irreparable.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 08 12 20 11:56

      When it suits them | speymouth

    73 to “When it suits them”

    1. John K says:

      I’m Irish so this isn’t my argument.

      But as an outsider I am amazed by the vindictiveness displayed by the SNP administration and apparently by NS and her team against Alex Salmond.

      Is it possible (without getting sued) to offer an explanation for this?

      NS and AS seemed to work well together up to the first IndyRef.

      So what happened to change that?

    2. Muscleguy says:

      Sturgeon is putting herself above the needs of this naton. She does not have the needs of Scotland at the heart of what she does, just her own political survival which ensures her husband keeps his job despite lots of folk saying he’s incompetent and inactive.

      She will only do what you suggest Rev if she still has any integrity left. Every day she does not resign her integrity, if she has any, rusts away.

    3. fraser reid says:

      “It’s time for her to step down and give the SNP a fighting chance to get a new leader in place for the 2021 election, before the damage becomes irreparable.”

      sounds good to me.

    4. Muscleguy says:

      i also wonder what other meetings the FM and other ministers have held without mention in their diaries or minutes being taken.

      All this also speaks of civil service capture. The civil servants should have objected strongly. That they did not should also be investigated.

    5. Roger Mexico says:

      But doesn’t the last boxed quoted just mean that she has to offer her own resignation to herself? She doesn’t have to accept it.

    6. Muscleguy says:

      She is also damaging her party. Not letting a successor take over with lots of time before May and ensuring that her inevitable departure disrupts the election campaign.

      The arrogance of it, the sheer self entitled, only I matter arrogance of it.

    7. Republicofscotland says:

      Coincidently on Sturgeon lying I read the other day that she was being touted for a position somewhere in the EU, after she leaves Holyrood.

      AS for lack of response on the FoI’s its a disgraceful state of affairs.

    8. Robert graham says:

      Murrell takes the oath , feedback and noise from the mike oops maybe the big guy in the Sky was either laughing or coughing and shouting aye yer having a laugh yah baldly wee runt , not a good start ha ha now let’s hear how bad this ones memory is , if it’s anything like the previous Liars we won’t be getting much , let’s see if Murdo can confuse him because that’s what he usually does probably unintentionally just in case anyone believes he is smart or even possesses a brain.

    9. Iain More says:

      The sense of Sturgeons self entitlement only matches the arrogance of the English German Royals who have crossed into Scotland.

    10. ken hunter says:

      I want Joanna Cherry. I too am extremely worried over the timing of this.

    11. Chris Baxter says:

      She will not resign over this (even though she should).

      There will be some blah-de-blah, obfuscating, and some mealy-mouthed words of contrition, but there is no way she’s leaving. The cult will protect her.

    12. Graf Midgehunter says:

      “Oh what a tangled web they wove, when they decided, us to deceive.”

      As for Nicla getting a high-level EU position, she’ll first have get Scotia its Independence and at a minimum an application in to rejoin the EU.

      Talk, talk won’t get her the job, success very well could.

    13. Giesabrek says:

      “It’s time for her to step down and give the SNP a fighting chance to get a new leader in place for the 2021 election, before the damage becomes irreparable.”

      And that is why she won’t resign, she wants to inflict maximum damage on both the SNP and independence.

    14. Giesabrek says:

      Just to add, the unionist press have been pretty quiet over this whole affair. But I suspect they’ll ramp it up to a deafening roar come March or April, if Sturgeon can holdout till then, with the unionist press helping her by staying quiet.

    15. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “But doesn’t the last boxed quoted just mean that she has to offer her own resignation to herself? She doesn’t have to accept it.”

      Don’t be silly.

    16. Dickie says:

      Your dreaming Rev if you think Sturgeon will resign. The key word here is “knowingly” and that will be her defence

    17. Kenny says:

      Good work, Stuart, keep pressing – you’re the only outsider making a clean effort on behalf of the country, or we’d know bugger-all.

      I’m wondering, at what point does the mountain of lies and distraction of this SNP hierarchy become too heavy to bear? I mean, the tangled web is becoming increasingly, and blatantly, threadbare in the face of mounting evidence – and Mr Salmond has yet even to crack a light.
      What I will say, is that I wouldn’t enjoy wearing their shoes, the whole rotted gang of them, for it’ll surely be nigh impossible to sleep in them at night. The inevitable collapse should be only a matter of time, but Sturgeon’s refusal to relinquish her blackened power – FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE – is just typical of her self-aggrandising hubris. Imagine it, devoting all that time and energy to chummy, unpopular, minority interests at the expense of Scotland’s independence?

      Get out now, you brazen scoundrel.

    18. Willie says:

      Sturgeon is being outrageously exposed as nothing but a pus bag of lies. She cannot continue as First Minister.

      Time she stood down to save the party. Remaining in post will only bring the party down she must bow to the inevitable.

    19. Robert graham says:

      o/t again
      Apologies to Murdo he is actually getting something out Murrell because the three previous people were just waffling and the questions were bloody mesmerising and baffling.
      Oops link down just as Murdo was getting warmed up ! I wonder ? . Eh technical hitch aye ok

    20. Cuilean says:

      Stu Campbell! Thy middle name is ‘Tenacity’.

      Fegs, but ye must hae been sicca thrawn wean!

      It’s yir puir mither ah feel fur.

    21. Robert graham says:

      Anyone getting the link to Holyrood ?

    22. Bob Mack says:

      I just watched Murrell being filleted by Jackie Bailey.

      She is right. Murrell stated under sworn testimony that Nicola had a government business meeting with Alex at their home, whilst Nicola’s sworn deposition states it was an SNP business meeting. Both cannot be true.

      Imagine the leader of a party refusing to tell the Chief Executive of what would affect the party even if Murrel was telling the truth.

      I think he should get a refund from his lawyers.

    23. Astonished says:

      The smoking gun with the murrell’s prints all over it.

      ” I remember nothing ” will just not cut it.

      The First Minister has to go.

      Holding on will just damage her reputation further.

      o/t I really like the idea that supporting the rape clause gender rather sex clause will FOREVER mark the SNP MSPs. If they choose gender then expect no help from me.

      And if they choose sex then the genderwoowoo will be incandescent with rage. And that means the SNP MSPs will need to face the genderwoowoo bullies down. Good.

      I note M+S have returned to sex identifiable toilets. And lush are losing sales hand over fist. And my wife stopped us going into starbucks. Never ,ever annoy the ladies – they are only willing to take so much.

    24. Terry says:

      Is she hanging on til the New Year to keep westminster happy? Then the deal/no deal is done. Scotland’s lifeboat will be gone and a chance for us to escape the uk is blown to pieces. Her reward? A job in UN or EU commissioner – whichever one needs London backing?

      Maybe the above is fanciful but just remember Alex stepped down twice for what he thought was the benefit of the party and Scotland. Sadly he was wrong both times – Swinney and then Nicola. He’d to come back after Swinney to get matters back on track – seems like him or one of his fellow independence minded snp politicians will have to do so again soon. Oh, and he resigned his membership of the SNP to save the party a stramash.

      Two scenarios – one of someone who puts Scotland before themself – the other one puts themself before Scotland.

    25. LM says:

      Wonder what Aberdein and Sturgeon discussed?

    26. Kenny says:

      Also have to wonder out loud: would Sturgeon have gotten away with her scandalous framing of the former First Minister had she announced an independence referendum prior to the December ’19 General Election? Or, would Alex Salmond have pursued her as vigorously – pre-independence – had her sole aim been Scotland’s independent future?
      Probable answers would be;
      a) no, she’d not have gotten away with it, under any circumstances, even after independence – although her place in Scots history would’ve been ensured, albeit decidedly less tarnished.
      b) Knowing Salmond’s integrity and his passion for his country, he’d probably have nailed her after our successful referendum.

      Sorry for the use of profanity, but what an utter, craven bastard Sturgeon is, and what an utter phoney this con woman turned out – you bet I’m angry.

    27. MaggieC says:

      Re Harassment and Complaints Committee ,

      This is the link to the main Ministerial Code page which is phase 4 of the inquiry from the committee with the links to the documents already published on this page ,

    28. Helen Yates says:

      It’s bad enough that we have a party where the hierarchy decided that the the #MeToo stoochie was the perfect time to move on the stitch up of Alex Salmond, maximum exposure, they then allowed it to go to court knowing it was going to be thrown out, again maximum exposure, but we have a CEO who apparently knows nothing about the goings on within he party that he heads and has some strange type of marriage to the leader of the Scottish government where they don’t discuss matters of serious interest to both the party and the government, they really do think we button up the back, she should resign but I fear that won’t be the outcome, the fact that this isn’t a judge led enquiry should raise even more concerns.

    29. Bob Mack says:


      I see my comment went into moderation Stu. Have I made a faux pas or is it something you are going to expand on yourself?

    30. Al says:

      Sorry I know you will block capital me again but I repeat what I said a month or so ago.

      What evidence is there that NS will resign as she has breached the ministerial code?

      Kenny Farq made a good point re the Patel case – that will be the basis for NS apologising to parliament and moving on. With the SNP MSPs backing her up.

    31. Worry is how long will it be before the 2 enquiries conclude and their report is published.

      It really needs to be out ASAP.

    32. Ian says:

      Allowing any couple to be FM & CEO of the SNP is ridiculous. Time that was ended. Would that be under the Party Constitution rules?

    33. mountain shadow says:

      If The First Minister is found to have told an untruth to Parliament, all she will say is that her memory was wrong and apologise.

      I cannot see her resigning and if it went to a vote, I can’t see The Greens voting her down.

      As Rev has said, she only has to survive to around April before Parliament breaks up for the election.

      We can complain all we like, but she’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

    34. Bob Mack says:

      I think if Stu is on track here, we can expect the resignation of one of the other of the Murrells. Soon.

    35. Dan says:

      You’d think that the head of a political party either lying / misleading / misspeaking, and then failing to correct for the record any past errors made, it would be grounds for the Party’s conduct committee to investigate in case those actions are deemed to bring the Party into disrepute…

      Confucius say: When events overtake the gradualists’ gains one is effectively losing ground.

    36. Contrary says:

      Well done Stu.

      I had just been doing a search yesterday of all your post regarding the Aberdein meeting. Was there one somewhere that was more specific on Swinney referring to the FMs diary entries – I can’t remember if it was here or elsewhere – does anyone have any ideas, or did I imagine it?

      I want to explore more about how unconcerned the FMs head of security – John Somers – is about missing diary entries.

    37. Grey Gull says:

      Watched a bit of the inquiry. I know this isn’t relevant to the politics of it all but I had a rue smile to myself when Mr Murrell Said that when they are able to spend some “precious time” together, they discuss what book she’s reading, what he’s making for the tea or what he has to wash for her? It’s certainly a marriage of convenience for Nicola!

    38. Breeks says:

      Helen Yates says:
      8 December, 2020 at 12:23 pm

      … the fact that this isn’t a judge led enquiry should raise even more concerns.


      I’m also curious… Who decided we’d be having a Parliamentary Inquiry, or maybe more revealing in it’s answer, who decided there wouldn’t be a Judge led Inquiry?

      Are there protocols being followed, or, just like Scotland’s unconstitutional subjugation, is the Scottish Government making up the rules and protocols as it goes?

    39. L says:

      Keep hearing about this Salmond airport incident? Will we ever find out what happened?

    40. stonefree says:

      The final paragraph,raises a point.
      I for one believe that she will either cling on forever (till at least after May 2021) or hang on to it’s far too late for the election
      Unfortunately it’s down to the members,some believe the NEC has been dealt with…I don’t
      Ruth MacGuire’s name surfaced , she just follows orders..
      The “people’s assets” are not the MSPs but the MPs who are in the wrong place, that suits Sturgeon.
      All the submissions/complaints arising from indiscretions go to the SNP lest they be made public……
      Just how many sweetheart deal have been done? i refer to the “Don’t you’ll hurt indy” type , by doing that the tight lipped have done exactly that.
      How many have submitted a request for their dat from the SNP, and are still waiting a reply?
      There are time limits for that response
      Things with Sturgeon/Murrell I feel don’t bode well for the people
      The pair should never be forgiven

    41. Kenny says:

      On reflection; Sturgeon’s most critical error, and the one guaranteed to both dispose of her and disgrace her – whilst paradoxically doing us all a favour – was her attempted stitch-up of Salmond. Her eventual undoing; if not for this single, heinous act, she’d still be enjoying power for the foreseeable. GRA Bill? Hate Crime Bill? they wouldn’t have ended her ‘now’, as it’s possible many will have overlooked both and swallowed her promises of ‘soon’.
      Whenever she finally goes – tomorrow, next week, end of the year – she’ll have remained for much longer if not for the Salmond error.

    42. Bob Mack says:

      Murrell told everybody he had no knowledge of the issues discussed because it was government business. In a private house with no officials taking notes.

      Snap goes the lifeline.

      You would have to believe also as Chief Exec of the SNP he would automatically be involved if it only pertained to SNP business given its serious nature. If not why is he being paid a lot of money?

    43. stonefree says:

      Oh PS .
      Folk that paid into the “Ring Fenced Money” scheme should be asking for their money back

    44. dandydons1903 says:

      Imelda and her wee fat husband need removed asap along with the poisonous woke clowns that they pander too. Lets be rational independence will not happen with Sturgeon at the wheel.

    45. Daisy Walker says:

      She will have her wrists slapped – her excuse will be she ‘forgot’ and there was nothing ‘knowingly’ about it. That excuse will be accepted by Holyrood with suitable grovelling and noises of indignation.

      Since she ‘forgot’ she could not reasonably be expected to pass it on to others to record. Wee fine maybe.

      Only if Alex and others have direct evidence that on one date the meetings were in the official diaries – and on a later date, they had magically vanished – will doubt be cast on whether she really did ‘forget’.

      At some point Alex Salmond’s evidence needs to be leaked to the public (notice I did not say media) however, by threatening AS’s legal team with contempt of court – the Government have effectively stymied that one, for the moment.

      Anyone who isn’t seeing complete backing by the Unionist media and Brit Nat establishment in all this, is living in wishful thinking, unicorn territory and giving Scotland away without a whimper.

    46. Alf Baird says:

      Jackie Baillie on the ball again.

      ‘Aa didnae encourage onybody tae go tae the polis’

      That’s not quite what the emails said.

    47. Gregory Beekman says:

      As others have noted, there’s a difference between saying something wrong and deliberately telling a lie.

      I think Sturgeon is already using this as her defence. “Yes, I got the facts wrong but I didn’t lie.” Like gender, unmeasurable and unproveable.

    48. Bob Mack says:

      Regardless of whether she forgot or not she has broken the Ministerial Code. This was inadvertantly revealed by her own husband and party Chief Exec in a sworn statement and in oral evidence today.

      Worringly by those same measures ,he as Chief Exec of the SN P also knew she was breaking it because he stated he knew it was about government business rather than just party business.

      If so, then he colluded to break that same code.

      One must go.

    49. Iain More says:

      Aye. They didnae lie. They just gender bent it a wee bit.

    50. Ross says:

      disappointing and surprising my comments are now being moderated. never been confrontational and generally supportive of this site whilst asking reasonable questions.

      Doubly disappointing when there are mildly anti vaxxy comments on here that are left.

      When it suits indeed.

    51. Ross says:

      I take it back, the moderation has obviously been lifted.. did seem particularly odd.

    52. Ross says:

      I take my previous comment back, the moderation has obviously been lifted in this article.. did seem odd.

    53. Muscleguy says:

      @Daisy Walker
      She cannot claim she forgot, there are civil servants charged with keeping her official diary up to date and accurate. For the Aberdein meeting NOT to be recorded takes more than ‘I forgot’. It requires an active act of ‘don’t record that’ AND it being obeyed and complied with without complaint.

      That the civil servants complied and did not blow the whistle (we only know because Aberdein testified in court to it. Salmond ensuring it got out that way is fairly scandalous in and of itself. It says the civil servants in her office have been captured by her. That should not be allowed to happen. The head of the Scottish civil service should object. Who is that? Leslie Evans, oh fuck.

    54. James Horace says:

      Great digging as usual Stu. I have become a real convert to this site in recent months.

      Essential reading for all aspects of the detail behind this inquiry. The pressure around Murrell and Sturgeon is building with each passing week, and with each meeting of the inquiry.

    55. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Keep hearing about this Salmond airport incident? Will we ever find out what happened?”

      He made a joke about whether someone wearing “killer heels” counted as a security breach.

    56. Muscleguy says:

      or alternatively and much more worryingly the diary secretary could have an implicit understanding of which meetings are to be recorded and which not. Which means they happen frequently enough.

      Which is why some are calling for a judge led inquiry which can command attendance and at whcih witnesses risk perjury..

      Most people don’t realise that all this Trans stuff has big money behind it. The owners of the companies which make puberty blockers and cross sex hormones etc etc are funding it. What pressures and/or inducements is Sturgeon getting for pushing them so hard?

      Forget a plum EU job, let’s see which Co’s she ends up advising when she finally leaves.

    57. A Person says:


      Spot on as usual.

      I bet there will be a slow, gradual drip of information on this trial in the media which will then be ramped up during the election, combined with the GRA, HCB and exploitation of simmering resentments about the handling of covid (In the latter case, these may be resentments that any government would face for the handling of the pandemic).

      Combined with a lack of enthusiasm from SNP doorstep canvassers, and the Holyrood voting system, it is by no means impossible that the unionist parties will gain the few seats they need to have a majority. This election isn’t in the bag: look at what happened in 2016, or to Theresa May in 2017.

      Still, at least in a few years’ time Nicola and Peter will be having a grand time in New York while she works in a sinecure position at the UN.

    58. James Horace says:

      I was not aware of this “Killer Heels” comment!

      How very petty. Lol

    59. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      “It says the civil servants in her office have been captured by her.”

      Aye, you could be right @Muscleguy says at 1:25 pm

      On the other hand it could be that she, (NS) has been captured by the civil servants in her office!

      Either way unacceptable and more importantly, unsustainable.

    60. stuart mctavish says:

      Off topic I watched this mornings procedure and thought Mr Murrel came across very well – despite being prevented from expressing his opinion on Salmond joining the SNP rather than, say, ISP or Scotia future.

      On topic, and arising from same, assuming something similar to the ministerial code applies to members in committee, ACH and Jackie Bailey’s apparent assertion that chief executive officers of both the liberal and labour party would be fully aware (within days) of any unruly behaviour on the part of their own senior members may have exposed a lot more about how the London parties (and presumably the civil service) like to operate than intended – hopefully they will be invited to substantiate such intriguing allegations in due course..

    61. A Person says:

      I happened upon a story about this just now on another site where someone- I’m afraid it looks like a unionist troll- makes this rather perceptive comment:

      “We all know Sturgeon’s lying,
      We all know Murrell’s lying,
      We all know Evans is lying,
      They all know we know they’re lying,
      The trouble is they know we can’t do anything about it”

      Hopefully that is wrong…

    62. Grey Gull says:

      James @1.44
      This is from a Gordon Dangerfield blog where he quotes a Craig Murray blog. Both good forums for info and discussion

      Also, regarding the “substance” of the Edinburgh Airport allegations (of which I have no personal knowledge whatsoever), the following from Craig Murray’s blog is worth noting:

      “[T]he police also spent a great deal of time attempting to substantiate the ‘incident’ at Edinburgh airport that has been so frequently recycled by the mainstream media over years….

      “They discovered the actual Edinburgh airport ‘incident’ was that Alex Salmond had made a rather excruciating pun about ‘killer heels’ when the footwear of a female member of staff had set off the security scanner gate. This had been reported as a sexist comment in the context of a much wider dispute about staff conditions. That is it. ‘Killer heels’. A joke. No charge arose from this particular substantial waste of police time…”

    63. Mac says:

      He made a joke about whether someone wearing “killer heels” counted as a security breach.

      FFS… every time you get the details of these so called ‘incidents’ they melt away and amount to nothing. Every time.

      How many times has this “Edinburgh Incident’ crap been dropped in by the folk asking the questions during the inquiry. It has been a lot.

      Murrell gave me the boak today. I can only wonder what AS must think watching him. Murrell is definitely the weak link in all of this. The politicians and civil servants are relatively much more skillful at bullshitting (it is a massive part of their career). Murrell came across as really not being truthful and a couple of folk pretty much said it by stating their incredulity at his answers.

      You know things are bit fucked up when Jackie Baillie is the one leading the charge. Bless her. Looks like she was trying to lay a few traps today.

    64. MaggieC says:

      Ian @ 12.28 pm ,

      You wrote , “ Allowing any couple to be FM & CEO of the SNP is ridiculous. Time that was ended. “

      This is from an article in the Sunday Times on Sunday there ,

      “ SNP’s Peter Murrell faces battle to keep his grip on power “

      “ There remains deep uneasiness in some quarters within the SNP that the Sturgeon/Murrell axis places too much power in the couple’s hands. In October former Scottish government adviser Campbell Gunn, an ally of Salmond, revealed that the former first minister had warned his successor that it was unhealthy for her husband to be chief executive while she was leader. Sturgeon’s refusal to accept that advice marked the start of a breakdown in their relationship. “

      And the article from Campbell Gunn on 2nd October in the Press & Journal ,

      “ Former adviser on why Peter Murrell is at centre of Sturgeon and Salmond rift “

      “ Alex Salmond advised Nicola Sturgeon it was unhealthy for her husband to be SNP chief executive while she was first minister, it has emerged. “

    65. Mac says:

      Post in moderation – did I use a banned word?

    66. James Horace says:

      Great work as usual from Stu.

      Still no smoking gun from this inquiry though.

      Nicola Sturgeon is safe, and will remain in her job for the forseeable.

      She will fight and win the May election, then will probably remain FM for another 5 years or so, before moving into a very cushy semi-retirement. I reckon she may write a novel of some sort.

    67. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Off topic I watched this mornings procedure and thought Mr Murrel came across very well”

      Good lord.

    68. Spike says:

      Apologies to the mods if I overstepped the mark with a post on the last thread. Unsure fae Perth.

    69. G H Graham says:

      I don’t think she has any intention of handing her notice in despite the clear, indisputable evidence that she misled parliament on at least two occasions.

      The media seems somewhat disinterested in having her scalp at this conjuncture because they would risk having someone else step into the breech who actually had independence at the top of their agenda.

      I also predict that the opposition parties will wait til after Xmas before officially demanding that she relinquishes power.

      The closer to the election, the more damaging it will be for the SNP so there’s no additional benefit to the opposition by demanding her resignation now or asking for a vote of no confidence when there’s an election just over 5 months away.

      But who knows, the body politik in Holyrood might all feel very comfortable with the status quo; everyone still gets a handsome monthly paycheck, pensions get topped up for another 5 years and there’s expense forms to fill in.

      Why upset the applecart & risk that one way, gravy-train ticket blowing away in the wind?

    70. Christian Schmidt says:

      “So it’s now the offical position that the separate inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the Ministerial Code DOES encompass not only whether she attempted to interfere in the inquiry, but also whether she lied to the Scottish Parliament about her knowledge of it (which we know, officially and on the record, that she did).”

      I am not sure if that is right? I think the Scottish Government says that James Hamilton’s investigation *may* also include whether she lied *if* Hamilton choses to include it, but that there is no obligation for him to do so. And if he weren’t, then he would still fulfil the remit.

      Which I guess may be a very convenient excuse if he choses not to. The Scottish Government could then say that he could have looked there, but didn’t do so, which shows that there is nothing to see. Which would not be quit correct, but close enough to get the FM off the hook…

    71. robertknight says:

      I suspect that instead of abandoning ship, she/they will do everything possible to scuttle it and ensure it goes down with all hands, thereby screwing up any chance in 2021.

      You couldn’t make it up. Unless of course…

    72. Sweep says:

      @Christian Schmidt 4.01pm

      Yes, that thewas my understanding too. The wording in the FOI response is rather telling:

      “… other aspects of the Ministerial Code that he deems to be relevant.”

      Or in mock-latin-legal parlance: “Suptae him”.

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top