Salmond v Sturgeon

[Woodsmoke]

Sorry Woody, with you on most things but saying your support isn't given at any cost is just a way of saying "I want my cake, but I want that one, if I don't get it I won't have one". Rather a selfish way saying "I only want it if it's better than what we have now, but I don't want to pay for it".

No, it's not. It's quite the opposite. D'you think I want Scotland to become Independent at the cost of having it held over us by any who consider they've made a gift of it? Or to become Independent and then be beholden to the likes of the SNP? No, our chance was back in 2014, and I truly believe we made the wrong decision based on misinformation, lies, scaremongering, and the disingenuous tactics of that slimy triumvirate in Westminster at the time. Yes, I support Scottish Independence. No, I do not believe it's now a viable option following years of SNP incompetence. And no, I most certainly do not consider Scotland to be anything other than an equal and fairly-contributing partner to the existing union.

Anyway, one thing I think we can certainly agree on, is an almost universal dislike of Wee Nippy

 

[Freeforester]

No, it's not. It's quite the opposite. D'you think I want Scotland to become Independent at the cost of having it held over us by any who consider they've made a gift of it? Or to become Independent and then be beholden to the likes of the SNP? No, our chance was back in 2014, and I truly believe we made the wrong decision based on misinformation, lies, scaremongering, and the disingenuous tactics of that slimy triumvirate in Westminster at the time. Yes, I support Scottish Independence. No, I do not believe it's now a viable option following years of SNP incompetence. And no, I most certainly do not consider Scotland to be anything other than an equal and fairly-contributing partner to the existing union.

Anyway, one thing I think we can certainly agree on, is an almost universal dislike of Wee Nippy

Had it gone the other way then, where do you think we might be now, Stu? The GERS figures (Scot gov’s own figures) were seriously compromised as to oil revenues, both actual and projected; and in the light of recent events we perhaps should no longer feel surprised that they were so skewed.

“What does it mean to be a banana republic?
In political science, the term banana republic describes a politically unstable country with an economy dependent upon the exportation of a limited-resource product, such as bananas or minerals.”

 

[Hayduke]

But is it only Scots that want independence, or to be split form the English.

Free Dartmoor, Independence for Dartmoor now!

 

[Woodsmoke]

Had it gone the other way then, where do you think we might be now, Stu? The GERS figures (Scot gov’s own figures) were seriously compromised as to oil revenues, both actual and projected; and in the light of recent events we perhaps should no longer feel surprised that they were so skewed.

“What does it mean to be a banana republic?
In political science, the term banana republic describes a politically unstable country with an economy dependent upon the exportation of a limited-resource product, such as bananas or minerals.”

I honestly don't know mate. One thing I'm certainly sure of though, is that we were all played as fools by those on both sides. The SNP has proven itself to be little shy of a Marxist dictatorship, and I truly believe we're only saved by the fact it still is kept more or less in-line by Westminster (much as I hate that establishment) As far as that goes, I think we've dodged a bullet. Had the vote gone the other way, I'd hoped to see a plethora of brand-new parties evolve, all of which would give Scotland a real alternative to the SNP, or the rest of the stagnant offerings we all have these days.

As it is, the stranglehold the SNP now has over Scotland leaves us in a very vulnerable position. As I've said often I would dearly love to see an Independent Scotland, but as things stand, I actually begin to question the wisdom of granting Devolution to a country now at the mercy of a Marxist dictatorship such as the SNP. Not that reverting to any previous state would be any better under the pathetic façade that purports to be political leadership in todays UK

 

[Freeforester]

I honestly don't know mate. One thing I'm certainly sure of though, is that we were all played as fools by those on both sides. The SNP has proven itself to be little shy of a Marxist dictatorship, and I truly believe we're only saved by the fact it still is kept more or less in-line by Westminster (much as I hate that establishment) As far as that goes, I think we've dodged a bullet. Had the vote gone the other way, I'd hoped to see a plethora of brand-new parties evolve, all of which would give Scotland a real alternative to the SNP, or the rest of the stagnant offerings we all have these days.

As it is, the stranglehold the SNP now has over Scotland leaves us in a very vulnerable position. As I've said often I would dearly love to see an Independent Scotland, but as things stand, I actually begin to question the wisdom of granting Devolution to a country now at the mercy of a Marxist dictatorship such as the SNP. Not that reverting to any previous state would be any better under the pathetic façade that purports to be political leadership in todays UK

Your political observation is quite possible: Slovakia, the poorer, estranged brother of Czech Republic, had a very strong independence movement, rather similar to our own situation, where the moon and stars were all to be theirs in the newly independent ’land of milk and honey’; this of course did not materialise, and the independence movement, once their task was completed, disappeared in an ignominious puff of smoke, leaving the already straitened populace to pick up the pieces; the Nationalosts there have not been seen around since, and people are very bitter toward narrow-minded nationalist politics there these days. Might we not learn from this?

Economic relative well-being in a Union isn’t something to squander lightly; it’s the economy, Stu: without a viable economy, the country would be unrecognisable - this is not the Natsi’s strong selling point, judging by their appalling record in the past years of “power”; the head needs to rule the heart for the heart to flourish, it doesn’t work too well the other way around.

£15,000,000,000 per annum deficit is a lot to make up from a standing start, with little to offer as collateral. We‘re a long way from the fabled Brigadoon, and the road and time to set out on it is not to be found hereabouts .

Abstract​

This thesis analyses the socio-economic and political transformation processes of Slovakia since its separation from Czechoslovakia. The main question to be answered is how successful Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar’s policies were in attracting FDI into Slovakia.

After the Velvet Revolution in 1989, Czechoslovakia started to initiate fundamental democratic measures concerning the public administration in the country. Two interconnected reforms took place in 1990: decentralization and the civil service reform. In 1992 a new government was voted into office under the leadership of Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar from the HZDS party.

On 1 January 1993 Slovakia became independent by non-violent means from the Czech Republic, with Bratislava as its capital. For a country, which did not have economic wealth as high as the Czech Republic and an increasing unemployment rate, the total change of their whole economy meant that much time was spent on the question of how to finance the state.

In terms of economic changes, the Prime Minister wanted to create a strong entrepreneurial Slovakian class that would be able to control the economy. But his privatization policies led to financial difficulties for the Slovakian state, its economy and its people. Although there was co-operation with Russia, the unemployment rate in Slovakia remained at 16.2% percent at the end of 1998. Constant discriminations in Slovakia and the fact that Mečiar excluded the opposition parties completely from parliamentary control organs, the Slovakian Secret Service (SIS), the media and the process of privatization, caused international protests against Mečiar and his regime. This caused the EU to warn Slovakia that it would no longer receive assistance, if the government continued to misuse its power.

FDI have steadily grown in the CEE since 1997. The reasons for this increase of FDI were the fall of communism, the decrease in political risks, the attempt of the CEE to fulfil the criteria to become EU members, and the cheaper workforce of the CEE. Austria played a major role in new FDI in the CEE. In Slovakia this amounted to 7% by the end of 2002, which was only three years after its new Prime Minister Nikolas Dzurinda had been voted in.


During Mečiar’s leadership, Hungarian investors were not seen in Slovakia, but with the new Dzurinda government they started to increase their investment volume drastically. The three main sectors, which attracted most of the FDI in Slovakia were: industrial production, banking and insurance, and wholesale and retail trade. The two main regions in 2000 with FDI in-inflow were the Bratislava region and the Košicke region. The years before, only the Bratislava region experienced major FDI in-flow. In all the regions the total volume of FDI in Slovakian Kronar (SKK) increased between 1999 and 2000, but the percentage of the total FDI inflow changed differently in some regions. The major problems for foreign investors were bureucracy and corruption, a lack of political and economic stability, and the lack of industrial infrastructure.

GRIN - Socio-Economic Transformation of Slovakia since its Independence

Socio-Economic Transformation of Slovakia since its Independence - Business economics - Diploma Thesis 2006 - ebook 34.99 € - GRIN

www.grin.com

 

[dartmoordog]

Free Dartmoor, Independence for Dartmoor now!

The Dartmoor Independence Coalition Strategy, DICS, is well up and running.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Soooooo.
“The major problems for foreign investors were bureucracy and corruption, a lack of political and economic stability, and the lack of industrial infrastructure.”.
Pretty much describes the embryonic Krankislavic Republic to a T methinks!

 

[opticron1]

Although I have little time for Andy Wightman MSP (ex green, now Independent)..... his twitter/blog of the whole inquiry makes pretty informative and disgraceful reading with regards the cover ups and the misogynistic treatment of staff in and around the Scottish Parliament for the last ten years or so. He is very clear that this has been going on for a lot longer than has been claimed in evidence and it has been an open secret for at least ten years - I know of at least one person who worked at the dung heap in Edinburgh who agrees with this. There may still be some heads going to roll before all this been settled. It'll also be interesting to see what the final cost is to the tax payers and whether there'll be more exciting things to come out.........

 

[Sinistral]

Sturgeon wins confidence vote in Scottish parliament by 65 votes to 31

The Scottish parliament has rejected the Tory no confidence motion in Nicola Sturgeon by 65 votes to 31, with 27 MSPs abstaining.
On the basis of those voting numbers, it looks as though the SNP and the Greens voted for Sturgeon, the Scottish Conservatives and one other MSP voted against her, and the others - mainly Labour and the Lib Dems - abstained.

 

[CarlW]

Sturgeon wins confidence vote in Scottish parliament by 65 votes to 31

The Scottish parliament has rejected the Tory no confidence motion in Nicola Sturgeon by 65 votes to 31, with 27 MSPs abstaining.
On the basis of those voting numbers, it looks as though the SNP and the Greens voted for Sturgeon, the Scottish Conservatives and one other MSP voted against her, and the others - mainly Labour and the Lib Dems - abstained.

Time to start patching up that wall.

 

[Sinistral]

Time to start patching up that wall.

Missed this announcement yesterday, with all the excitement.

Scottish independence

Landmark draft Bill published for future referendum.

www.gov.scot

 

[Freeforester]

Missed this announcement yesterday, with all the excitement.

Scottish independence

Landmark draft Bill published for future referendum.

www.gov.scot

Back to the future:






An extract from Andy Wightman (the sole independent msp sitting on the committee that looked into the affair):
PREAMBLE

In early December 2019, I joined the Committee as a substitute when my colleague, Alison Johnstone MSP had to leave the Committee for health reasons. Later in December I resigned from the Scottish Green Party and have sat as an Independent MSP.

I have undertaken my Committee work with impartiality and have worked hard to discharge the duties placed upon the Committee by Parliament, namely to conduct an Inquiry with a remit:-

to consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s “Handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers” procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish Ministerial Code

The Inquiry was in four phases – development of the harassment complaints procedure, handling of complaints, the Judicial Review and actions of the First Minister in relation to the Ministerial Code.

This has been a difficult inquiry into a series of high profile and sensitive issues of sexual harassment in the workplace and involving Scotland’s two most recent First Ministers.

The Inquiry has been carried out in an increasingly fractious and toxic political environment where claim and counter-claim have become weaponised in an ugly debate on social media and more widely.

The Committee has, in the circumstances, in the face of serious impediments to its work and in a very tight final timescale managed to produce a report which will, I hope, lead to a far better response to the serious mater of sexual harassment in the workplace.

FINDINGS

This whole sorry tale arises because the former First Minister, Mr Salmond behaved inappropriately towards female civil servants.

There was an organisational culture of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond and complicity across a number of fronts in terms of people not challenging that behaviour.

The Scottish Government failed in its duty of care towards civil servants, in particular, some female civil servants during the period when Mr Salmond was First Minister. Safeguarding appears to have been wholly absent.

Very senior civil servants and Special Advisers knew about this and did nothing. Instead, they were complicit in covering up such behaviour.

The First Minister instructed a review of sexual harassment complaints in October 2017 and is to be commended for doing so. The new procedure included provision for retrospective complaints against former Ministers and it was right to do so.

Two complainers came forward with formal complaints and were right to do so. They trusted the procedure to deliver a just outcome for their complaints.

The procedure was developed in a short space of time with insufficient stress testing. The Permanent Secretary led the work and went on to have the key decision making role in the procedure as well as a number of contacts with the complainers.

The Scottish Government failed to identify the issue of prior contact by the Investigating Officer as a potential procedural failing never mind the subject of a potential legal challenge.

The Scottish Government breached their duty of care to the complainers by not ensuring the confidentiality of the final decision report which was leaked to the Daily Record newspaper in a shocking violation of the complainers rights to privacy. No-one has been held accountable.

In response to the Judicial Review, the Scottish Government failed in its duty of candour to the court in not identifying and disclosing key evidence from the Investigation Officer until so late in the process that the case become unstateable and had to be conceded.

At an early stage the Scottish Government was responsible for a serious, substantial and entirely avoidable situation that should never have arisen in a well run organisation.

In responding to this inquiry, the Scottish Government frustrated the inquiry by its failure to provide timeous documentary evidence and refusing to disclose legal advice and waive legal privilege until 6pm on the day before the appearance of there First Minister.

As the First Minister recused herself from Scottish Government dealings with the Committee, this failing is the responsibility of the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney.

In relation to the First Ministers actions in relation to the Ministerial Code, she has been cleared of any breaches by James Hamilton QC and the Committee never sought to make any determinations as to such breaches.

The Committee, however finds it hard to believe that the First Minister knew of no concerns about inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond prior to November 2017. Awareness of his behaviour was an open secret in Government and was known about at the highest levels of the civil service. The First Minister did not hear of any concerns because the truth was being intentionally concealed from her.

All senior members of Government including the then deputy First Minister have a duty to ensure the welfare of staff and to ensure no-one is allowed to behave with impunity. That means asking discrete but awkward questions at the right time.

Fundamental errors were made by a number of parties throughout the whole process from October 2017.

The First Minister misled the Committee by stating in her written evidence that she would not seek to intervene in the process. On the contrary she did offer to intervene. In the event, of course, she did not in fact intervene and that was the right decision.

The First Minister bears some responsibility for failing two women and many others who did not come forward. Mr Salmond and Mr Salmond alone, however, is responsible for his inappropriate behaviour.

As Head of Government, the First Minister responded appropriately in the wake of #metoo albeit long after senior members of ScotGov knew of Mr Salmond’s harassment of civil servants.

The First Minister should be perfectly capable of accepting the conclusions of the Committee’s report and committing to work with others to develop a robust and fair system for dealing with complaints that can be trusted by staff in the workplace.

Some MSPs and their parties should reflect on the extent to which they weaponised for political advantage an inquiry into how two women were failed over serious complaints.

Some MSPs and other in party machines should reflect on their role in breaching the MSP Code of Conduct, leaking confidential material and betraying the trust of the two women whose testimony to the Committee in private was meant to stay private.

It is time to work together to eliminate sexual harassment and sexual violence against women and men.

 

[Freeforester]

It appears that nobody has much to say about the ’propriety’ of obfuscation of information sought by deputy first minister Swinney

Ditto separation of powers re the Lord Advocates role (riding two horses at once)

Ditto the interference of SNP Chief Executive Peter Murrell in the affair

Ditto the actions and omissions of civil servants in the affair

Ditto the Crown Officers role in the affair, in particular their strenuous efforts to shut down the affair as much as possible, surely this is not in the public interest?

And particularly, the small matter of the bill for the entire debacle, being presented to Pedro’s 160

For now we will have to defer judgement as to quite how impartial the QC looking into FM’s breach of ministerial code is.

#unfit to serve.

 

[long_range_rob]

I watched A Passport to Pimlico at the weekend......just saying

 

[Foxyboy43]

Sorrier and sorrier. They should all hang their miserable heids in shame. Scotland deserves far, far better.

 

[User00025]

Well it just goes to show. IMHO anyone now voting for Scottish independence is of the same mental capacity as the first picture post 532.
But they will reap what they sow as the good book says.

 

[Mick9abf]

Back to the future:

View attachment 199124

View attachment 199125

View attachment 199126
An extract from Andy Wightman (the sole independent msp sitting on the committee that looked into the affair):
PREAMBLE

In early December 2019, I joined the Committee as a substitute when my colleague, Alison Johnstone MSP had to leave the Committee for health reasons. Later in December I resigned from the Scottish Green Party and have sat as an Independent MSP.

I have undertaken my Committee work with impartiality and have worked hard to discharge the duties placed upon the Committee by Parliament, namely to conduct an Inquiry with a remit:-

to consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s “Handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers” procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish Ministerial Code

The Inquiry was in four phases – development of the harassment complaints procedure, handling of complaints, the Judicial Review and actions of the First Minister in relation to the Ministerial Code.

This has been a difficult inquiry into a series of high profile and sensitive issues of sexual harassment in the workplace and involving Scotland’s two most recent First Ministers.

The Inquiry has been carried out in an increasingly fractious and toxic political environment where claim and counter-claim have become weaponised in an ugly debate on social media and more widely.

The Committee has, in the circumstances, in the face of serious impediments to its work and in a very tight final timescale managed to produce a report which will, I hope, lead to a far better response to the serious mater of sexual harassment in the workplace.

FINDINGS

This whole sorry tale arises because the former First Minister, Mr Salmond behaved inappropriately towards female civil servants.

There was an organisational culture of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond and complicity across a number of fronts in terms of people not challenging that behaviour.

The Scottish Government failed in its duty of care towards civil servants, in particular, some female civil servants during the period when Mr Salmond was First Minister. Safeguarding appears to have been wholly absent.

Very senior civil servants and Special Advisers knew about this and did nothing. Instead, they were complicit in covering up such behaviour.

The First Minister instructed a review of sexual harassment complaints in October 2017 and is to be commended for doing so. The new procedure included provision for retrospective complaints against former Ministers and it was right to do so.

Two complainers came forward with formal complaints and were right to do so. They trusted the procedure to deliver a just outcome for their complaints.

The procedure was developed in a short space of time with insufficient stress testing. The Permanent Secretary led the work and went on to have the key decision making role in the procedure as well as a number of contacts with the complainers.

The Scottish Government failed to identify the issue of prior contact by the Investigating Officer as a potential procedural failing never mind the subject of a potential legal challenge.

The Scottish Government breached their duty of care to the complainers by not ensuring the confidentiality of the final decision report which was leaked to the Daily Record newspaper in a shocking violation of the complainers rights to privacy. No-one has been held accountable.

In response to the Judicial Review, the Scottish Government failed in its duty of candour to the court in not identifying and disclosing key evidence from the Investigation Officer until so late in the process that the case become unstateable and had to be conceded.

At an early stage the Scottish Government was responsible for a serious, substantial and entirely avoidable situation that should never have arisen in a well run organisation.

In responding to this inquiry, the Scottish Government frustrated the inquiry by its failure to provide timeous documentary evidence and refusing to disclose legal advice and waive legal privilege until 6pm on the day before the appearance of there First Minister.

As the First Minister recused herself from Scottish Government dealings with the Committee, this failing is the responsibility of the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney.

In relation to the First Ministers actions in relation to the Ministerial Code, she has been cleared of any breaches by James Hamilton QC and the Committee never sought to make any determinations as to such breaches.

The Committee, however finds it hard to believe that the First Minister knew of no concerns about inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond prior to November 2017. Awareness of his behaviour was an open secret in Government and was known about at the highest levels of the civil service. The First Minister did not hear of any concerns because the truth was being intentionally concealed from her.

All senior members of Government including the then deputy First Minister have a duty to ensure the welfare of staff and to ensure no-one is allowed to behave with impunity. That means asking discrete but awkward questions at the right time.

Fundamental errors were made by a number of parties throughout the whole process from October 2017.

The First Minister misled the Committee by stating in her written evidence that she would not seek to intervene in the process. On the contrary she did offer to intervene. In the event, of course, she did not in fact intervene and that was the right decision.

The First Minister bears some responsibility for failing two women and many others who did not come forward. Mr Salmond and Mr Salmond alone, however, is responsible for his inappropriate behaviour.

As Head of Government, the First Minister responded appropriately in the wake of #metoo albeit long after senior members of ScotGov knew of Mr Salmond’s harassment of civil servants.

The First Minister should be perfectly capable of accepting the conclusions of the Committee’s report and committing to work with others to develop a robust and fair system for dealing with complaints that can be trusted by staff in the workplace.

Some MSPs and their parties should reflect on the extent to which they weaponised for political advantage an inquiry into how two women were failed over serious complaints.

Some MSPs and other in party machines should reflect on their role in breaching the MSP Code of Conduct, leaking confidential material and betraying the trust of the two women whose testimony to the Committee in private was meant to stay private.

It is time to work together to eliminate sexual harassment and sexual violence against women and men.

Andy Wightman writes with a style which he tries to put a front that he was completely impartial throughout which is far from the truth, he puts a smokescreen of questioning the First Minister however contradicts this later and pointing the finger at Salmond, who is by no means innocent and in fact I dislike considerably but less so than Sturgeon who is a lying control freak, something that Salmond at least partially admitted.

My take is that Wightman fell out with the Greens who are Nationalists with a different name but who has always relied on the SNP and in fact been used by them to further, in particular, Land Reform Policy under the Green banner to take it one step away from the SNP and some of their quite rabid supporters.

Wightman perhaps saw the potential for writing on the wall but stopped short on many occasions of putting nails in the coffin. My tuppence worth; there will no doubt have been some political jiggery pokery and I suspect that even after May this won’t be the last we hear of Andy Wightman MSP.........

I stand by my prediction early on in this affair which I may have posted but sent to @Feugh back in February and has proven to be faultless, but not complete thus far.......

“Murrell is toast but I reckon that with the protection afforded from the SNP members of the committee and Andrew Wightman that Nippy will survive, battered, bruised and damaged but still there, albeit the Teflon coating will be particularly thin.

A few high profile skulls will be thrown under the bus for the cause of the greater good, or rather Sturgeon, they will of course, be rewarded with well paid jobs in the shadows for Das Partie to ensure their loyal.... silence.

Of course Sturgeon as will be so hurt by the deception and lies she has been the ‘victim’ of and it will be ‘leaked’ how the trust between her and Mr Murrell has eroded so much that she will have no option to divorce him, she will of course get supported from close friends and allies mon amis so fear not.......

In three to four years time, when there is still no movement on ‘Indy Dreams’, and after about a combined £1m in wages and expenses I expect she will announce her decision to step back from mainstream politics to hand over to...... well whoever is a relatively clean skull who hasn’t f**ked up too much but will remain a paid member of the SNP unless she can swing some other high profile job in the political or charity/business sphere.”

 

[Freeforester]

Andy Wightman writes with a style which he tries to put a front that he was completely impartial throughout which is far from the truth, he puts a smokescreen of questioning the First Minister however contradicts this later and pointing the finger at Salmond, who is by no means innocent and in fact I dislike considerably but less so than Sturgeon who is a lying control freak, something that Salmond at least partially admitted.

My take is that Wightman fell out with the Greens who are Nationalists with a different name but who has always relied on the SNP and in fact been used by them to further, in particular, Land Reform Policy under the Green banner to take it one step away from the SNP and some of their quite rabid supporters.

Wightman perhaps saw the potential for writing on the wall but stopped short on many occasions of putting nails in the coffin. My tuppence worth; there will no doubt have been some political jiggery pokery and I suspect that even after May this won’t be the last we hear of Andy Wightman MSP.........

I stand by my prediction early on in this affair which I may have posted but sent to @Feugh back in February and has proven to be faultless, but not complete thus far.......

“Murrell is toast but I reckon that with the protection afforded from the SNP members of the committee and Andrew Wightman that Nippy will survive, battered, bruised and damaged but still there, albeit the Teflon coating will be particularly thin.

A few high profile skulls will be thrown under the bus for the cause of the greater good, or rather Sturgeon, they will of course, be rewarded with well paid jobs in the shadows for Das Partie to ensure their loyal.... silence.

Of course Sturgeon as will be so hurt by the deception and lies she has been the ‘victim’ of and it will be ‘leaked’ how the trust between her and Mr Murrell has eroded so much that she will have no option to divorce him, she will of course get supported from close friends and allies mon amis so fear not.......

In three to four years time, when there is still no movement on ‘Indy Dreams’, and after about a combined £1m in wages and expenses I expect she will announce her decision to step back from mainstream politics to hand over to...... well whoever is a relatively clean skull who hasn’t f**ked up too much but will remain a paid member of the SNP unless she can swing some other high profile job in the political or charity/business sphere.”

They underestimate just how much is already known and provable, and seemingly also lack the intellect to consider this. Using the Crown office in such a manner as to close the affair down as it may best suit them is a rank abuse of power, manifesting itself too in the conviction of ’the diplomat’ for alleged contempt of court, while overlooking other, less critical reporters who have clearly imparted far more information into the public domain.

So far, not a scintilla of contrition for their obfuscation has been offered by these players, it’s as if we are not meant to be aware of the despicable behaviour and perversion of the course of justice, in the name of their cause.

One wonders how they sleep.

 

[Feugh]

And STILL it is not over!

STATEMENT FROM ALEX SALMOND AT CONCLUSION OF INQUIRIES

This is my third and final public statement on the subject of the parliamentary and Hamilton investigations and the Dunlop Review.

The Inquiries are over and despite their manifest limitations, the findings are in and must be accepted, just like the verdicts of juries and the judgements of courts.

A year ago, outside the High Court, I said that there was evidence which I wished to see the light of day. Some of that key material, including the government legal advice, eventually emerged through the Parliamentary Committee. Much of it did not.

A month ago, I gave public evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry itself. I called for some in leadership positions to consider their position. It is in the public interest that such action be taken to prevent a damaging erosion of trust in the institutions of government. As the record shows I did not call for the resignation of the First Minister.

I have waited to see the response from those individuals to the publication of the reports. Unfortunately, it appears that the clear intention is to carry on regardless.

Thus I intend to take two specific actions which emerge directly from the findings of these reports.

First, the Parliamentary Committee has made clear that the catastrophic failures in this matter are not just systemic, but can properly be laid at the door of individuals, and in particular, the Permanent Secretary.



I was previously forced to take the Permanent Secretary to the Court of Session over the illegality of her actions and was successful. Despite being found responsible for that unlawful and unfair process and incurring a vast and avoidable cost to the taxpayer of over £600,000 in legal expenses, the Permanent Secretary did not offer her resignation on January 8th 2019.

Now, more than two years later, and despite the most damning condemnation from a Committee in the history of the modern Scottish Parliament, the Permanent Secretary still refuses to accept real responsibility.

Instead, the waste of public resources has continued to grow as has the impact on all the people concerned.

This cannot stand. I have therefore taken legal advice and will shortly be instructing my lawyers to bring proceedings in the Court of Session arising as a direct result of the conduct of the Permanent Secretary. I hope it is the only legal action that I am required to take.

I have complete faith in the outcome of that Court process, coming as it does with all the proper powers of recovery of documents and thus the ability to properly interrogate those individuals responsible, the absence of which so restricted the Parliamentary Committee.

Secondly, the report of Mr James Hamilton makes clear that the question of the leak of the story of the original complaints in August 2018 was not part of his remit but should instead be referred to the Police.



The Parliamentary Committee Report was fully condemnatory of that same leak noting the extreme level of damage to all concerned. I agree.



I will accordingly now make that complaint to the Police and allow them to discover who within the Scottish Government was responsible for passing these details to the Daily Record newspaper. I have every confidence that Police Scotland will pursue that matter with rigour.

I intend to make no further public comment on these issues and will leave the police and the courts to do their job.

Instead I intend to move on, just as Scotland should now move on to debate the key election issues before us all, principally economic recovery from the pandemic and the future independence of our country.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Oh yeah Fat not so Slim Boy “I intend to move on” ..... but not until I have bayoneted (again) the Perm Sec (plus a few others) and left my foot in the door to have another rattle at Mrs K.

Author’s note. For clarity the use of the word “rattle” has no intended nor implied sexual meaning or connotation, at least not in this context, as far as we know........