For readers in England it would be easy to be wholly unaware that Scotland is facing a massive political crisis.
No, I am not talking about the desire for independence.
Nor am I taking about the resignation of Richard Leonard as leader of Labour in Scotland yesterday, which is a matter almost inconsequential to Scottish politics , so remote is Labour from power in Scotland now.
Instead I am referring to a much more important question, and that is whether or not Nicola Sturgeon can survive as First Minister and leader of the SNP. This is in serious doubt, and for good reason, just months before Scottish elections are due to be held at which it is expected that the SNP will win by a landslide.
The doubts about Sturgeon's future are well founded. Two enquiries must report before the end of March. Both have to suggest whether or not Sturgeon misled the Scottish Parliament over her involvement in the prosecution of the former SNP leader, Alex Salmond, on charges of rape and serious sexual assault.
Salmond was cleared of all such charges. Although I know Alex Salmond, I am not seeking to discuss his case, as such. It has been resolved according to the due process of law. I accept that. In a very real sense, the allegations raised in that case are now closed.
What is not closed is the role of Sturgeon, and others associated with her (including her husband, in his role as chief executive of the SNP) had in that case ever being brought. The allegations here are of what might best be called corruption, and an abuse of public office.
I am not as aware of the facts as some who I know are. Robin McAlpine, the director of Common Weal, a think tank with which I have worked, is one person who has looked at the facts. He has written what I think to be an important article on the allegations made against Sturgeon. It was published yesterday. In it he says that his long political experience has taught him that:
Everything I have seen has driven me to the same conclusion; nothing is more important than integrity in public life. That may seem anachronistic to some (given modern political culture) and not particularly left-wing. But the positive change I want cannot be built on anything but the firmest of foundations; when corruption or misuse of power creeps into those foundations, nothing good can be built on them.
He added:
There is no doubt in my mind that there was and is a coordinated plan of action created by a powerful group of people, developed and executed in secret but using public resources, all with the sole purpose of forcing a perceived opponent out of public life in Scotland.
He elaborated, making clear the opponent was Salmond, and saying, having provided evidence, that:
The damage I believe this is likely to do to confidence in the conduct of public life in Scotland is substantial.
That the politician is Nicola Sturgeon, the man Alex Salmond, the civil servants a group surrounding Leslie Evans and the party officials a group surrounding Peter Murrell (husband of Sturgeon) should play no part in affecting the details I have set out above.
I reiterate that people like Robin McAlpine know a great deal more about this than I do. I have discussed it with others who have also reviewed it in detail. What I am sure is true is that this issue has the capacity to massively undermine confidence in Scotland just as it needs it. The political consequences can only be guessed at. But, they could be huge. The political rockiness of this moment does not look like it is going away.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The full details of this sorry episode have still to be revealed, but I would recommend the Wings Over Scotland blog for the forensic and well sourced details which it provides. Be prepared though for robust views, and ignore the comments completely!
Stuart Campbell makes me look decidedly timid
I always read your articles Richard, not always understanding all the technical points you make, but I find them in general very informative.
However, in this case I think you are listening to the wrong person if you are taking Robin McAlpine’s opinion as gospel.
Of course, I am biased as an S.N.P member, and a supporter of the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. Time will tell , but I am firmly of the belief that she will be found not to have breached the Ministerial Code, nor indeed, have broken any law whatsoever.
Her opponents would like nothing better than for her to be forced to resign her position. For why? They believe, incorrectly, that if they get rid of her the independence movement will collapse, and nothing could be further from the truth. No matter the outcome of this enquiry, the second Scottish Independence Referendum will go ahead later this year, and I fervently hope that on this occasion the people will vote to become an independent nation again.
I assure you that I am not only listening to Robin.
Or Alex Salmond, come to that (who I do know, a bit).
The evidence that Sturgeon has not acted honestly, at least, on this appears pretty compelling
I am appalled at you getting involved in this, as ex Labour I have seen you push the Red agenda of Yes movement for years but now you are no better than the vile Campbell who is living very comfortably off the hundreds of thousands of crowdfunding money that I’m sure he doesn’t want to come to an end if we win Independence. He doesn’t want Independence, he like Salmond wants revenge and now you are promoting it. Have you seriously looked at what Trump and Johnson are up to as leaders yet you haven’t heard from Nicola her side of the story, you are pushing for Scots to abandon Nicola and SNP!! In light of what M ANY leaders I have lived through right back to Wilson, I can assure you Nicola is a saint compared to them yet you are coaxing Scots to abandon her and SNP and favour the redsw of the Indy movement. I have promoted you as an honest man with integrity but have seen over the last few years you have worked closely with Common Weal and Nicola’s enemy Robin McAlpine and are doing his dirty work. You disgust me!!
I am sorry about your anger.
But I have noted what people I respect are saying and am reporting it.
Whatever the outcome though, Sturgeon promotes a quite right wing agenda that neither implies a desire fir independence or a will to see it succeed if it happens. Whatever else happens both are deeply troubling. Your faith is very misplaced.
I am not a member of the SNP, I admire Robin McAlpine & support Common Weal, however I gave up reading their “News” & “Opinion” some time ago, as I felt too much of it seemed to about spurious criticism in the absence of hard evidence.
RM has been disillusioned with the SNP for some time, regarding the Scottish Govt to be run on “Stalinist” lines where dissent is not tolerated, and that some high ups had briefed journalists that they had no intention of going for an Independence Referendum. I have no idea whether any of this is true or false.
But having read his piece, you would have conclude that everybody, from the FM to the Civil Service, including the police the justice system etc were “in” on this conspiracy, and not one of them, many of them apparently in very senior positions, raised any serious objections and were happy to lead the conspiracy to its conclusion – where it backfired spectacularly. Really??
Every government is riddled with problems and I’m certainly not happy with a number of things, for example the drift to the right, the influence of certain financial interests, timid social policies and so on. But as has been commented, the SNP are a vehicle and after Indy is achieved then it’s all to play for; and if we had a half-decent opposition and a half-decent media instead of frothing anti-SNP Unionists, then we might be in a better place.
I think your ‘really?’ misplaced
Yes, really
Graham, like you I’m not a member of SNP (or any other political party) and share your views on many of the issues you raise. I find it hard to believe that any sane person would be tempted to take part in a conspiracy to destroy another person’s career and life by engineering criminal charges on the flimsiest of evidence (evidence that failed spectacularly to convince a lady judge and a jury largely consisting of women), to be enacted in a very public forum. Did they not foresee that they might lose the case and thereby incur massive personal damage? Having said that, Craig Murray is about to face a similarly dubious charge brought by the Crown, so the Crown obviously thinks it’s worth the risk. Mind you the Crown possibly doesn’t consider reputational damage a big issue, given its historical record.
A number of factors have played a role in the “Salmond Affair”:
The British State is undoubtedly a well-practised expert at infiltration, disinformation, subterfuge and dirty tricks, so I think it’s a given that the SNP has been infiltrated and are being played by the State. It’s easy to see how that can be done, given that civil servants in Scotland are part of the UK Civil Service and therefore their first allegiance is to Whitehall.
The structure of the SNP is unusual in that the two most influential players (the CEO and the party leader) are husband and wife. That can work in the running of a private family business, but in a significant political party in a democracy it may be unique. Certainly if anything goes seriously wrong it can have life-changing implications for the two players as well as the party and the wider independence movement.
Salmond, although not active in day-to-day politics, still has a substantial personal following in Scotland. His cavalier approach appeals to the more impatient among us, whereas Sturgeon’s canny lawyer’s approach irritates them. Two different people, two different personalities. Salmond is more of a political animal, with an opportunist’s eye for an opening and a thirst for headlines, while Sturgeon is more measured, which means she is more likely to play her cards close to her chest. These differences result in ongoing “noise” among their supporters and in turn that creates unwelcome tension.
Certainly the British State will have no qualms about destroying individuals’ reputations, careers or lives, and must be loving the tensions that have been stirred up. The redeeming factor is that the wider Yes movement has a very substantial presence and will survive any disruptions. The tragedy of all this, aside from Salmond’s personal reputational damage, is that there has never been a better time for Scotland to go for independence and these disruptions create undesirable distractions. It’s clear that Scotland’s future in the UK under a Tory government will be erosion/eradication of identity, economy, culture and political powers, so extricating ourselves ASAP is a huge priority.
As an SNP member who is desperate for independence I resent your remark that those of us who want Sturgeon gone are Unionists- quite the contrary. What I don’t want is an independent Scotland which has a govt just as corrupt as WM. What would be the point? This type of govt is what we want away from. Read the facts and imagine that this whole thing was being conducted by another political party, that it was Ruth Davidson who was being accused – looking at the facts, would you believe it then?
All you needed to write was “What I don’t wanbt is an independent Scotland”
One of the prime movers appears to be this lady (OK I’m being overly polite but I don’t want to be blocked for bad language!).
http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/fake-news-how-public-lies-begin/
Thanks, W-J. Very interesting read.
I have my fingers crossed for Scotland – all of the time for some time.
If independence goes wrong, it will be fire sale of assets to the rich.
I’m of the opinion the whole Salmond affair is about vested financial interests trying to control the trajectory of the Scottish independence movement A) to actually stop it happening if possible and B) if it does to make sure Scotland is financially tethered to England, i.e. not to have its own independent currency.
Craig Murray has written extensively on this issue on his blog. All is not well within the SNP.
Although Sturgeon has had high ratings for handling of the pandemic; some of my friends in Scotland and those with family links have not always been that impressed. Me? I do not know.
If Sturgeon falls it will be a happy day for Johnson and his chums, but, if Independence is right for Scotland, the moves toward it will continue. Indeed, if the proverbial hits the fan soon, it may be better for Scotland that the mess is now, rather than part way through another referendum process.
It may also allow a wider cross section of political thinking to join the process rather than only the SNP.
The attempt to restrict what Alex Salmond can say about these events is very worrying.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-whole-truth/
Yes-ers, perforce following developments online, have been frustrated at our FM’s worsening misdirection of effort and empty rhetoric of recent years. Some of this has appeared in the mainstream media, but with a selectivity that may have innoculated people against the worst of it – surveys point to widespread distrust of conventional media in Scotland. The most forthright criticism has reliably come from within the wider independence movement. I’m sure that disillusionment with the SNP or Nicola Sturgeon is priced in as far as the heart that movement’s concerned – and the movement’s not going away.
Can I offer the comparison of a government knee deep in venal corruption, its incompetence indistinguishable from sabotage, often offensively brazen, and another government abusing the legal system to pursue vendettas, obsessing over obscure subjects, yet not harming voters’ lives with quite the same casual abandon. It makes you wonder just who might be another’s asset and who might just be criminal. Strangely, both are doing well enough in polls of their respective electorates. These are strange times, a brave soul who’ll forecast the voters’ reaction.
I’m not the brightest. I hope I’ve chosen to follow commentators who are intelligent, knowledgable and who have a moral compass. I think the Yes movement has grown because facts change far less easily than leaders and while emotion may sway voters, facts do eventually assert themselves. Think “sea of opportunity” vs. reduced haddock quota and border checks.
“Its not Scotland that cant afford to be independent, its England”
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/01/14/a-guest-post-by-ernie-ross/
The role of the civil service colluding with the crown office stinks of a unionist plot into which Sturgeon became embroiled. The opportunity to remove her rival was too much of a temptation. The Scottish media including newspapers and the BBC are also involved via deliberate leaks and a campaign of continual smearing of Mr. Salmond despite his acquittal.
The whole sordid affair has the hallmarks of state orchestration. The attempted coverups to prevent disclosure of evidence and lying of witnesses under oath has been criminal.
The sensible thing would be for Sturgeon to resign whilst Scottish Labour are taking the headlines. No doubt that there will be an electoral hit but better to take it now than in the midst of an election campaign.
The independence movement is not the SNP. It has been sorely let down by the behaviour of the leadership in this corrupt administration. A new regime is required to restore integrity and focus on delivering independence with pragmatic policies that face the realities of our post Brexit situation and stand up to scrutiny. Engage with experts in the wider movement and beyond, encourage debate, find consensus and abandon the narrow groupthink.
This could be a moment of opportunity despite the gloom. Deal with it, take the temporary hit and move on.
The SNP is a necessary vehicle to achieve independence, but it is not the independence movement. That is far bigger.
Correction: the SNP is the ONLY vehicle to achieve independence.
It invariably needs a dominant national movement or party to secure independence from a polity that opposes it or is not prepared to freely grant it. But equally invariably it proves difficult, with such a dominant national party, to establish a functioning competitive democracy in the newly independent polity – with a government and a credible goverment-in-waiting imposing scrutiny, restraint and accountability and with both alternating in power from time to time at the behest of the voters. Effective permanent governance by those who favoured independence with a permanent minority formed of those across the political spectrum who opposed it is not a sensible or sustainable basis for democratic governance. It can lead to the majoritarian tyranny that characterised Unionist governance in NI from 1921 to 1972 or a bitter split in the national party and unstable governance – or a variety of other unsatisfactory outcomes.
It appears the SNP is already struggling with the effects of an excessive concentration of power in a dominant national party. It is much better that these issues are confronted now rather than after independence – if it is secured. If it retards, or even prevents, progress towards independence, then it might be a price worth paying.
It’s a strange one. All is definitely not well in the SNP, but the independence movement is stronger than it has ever been, as is support for independence. How that will play out remains to be seen.
The really interesting – and in some ways frustrating – thing is that Scotland is crying out for decent opposition. The lack of genuine and intelligent opposition is partly what has brought us here. However the UK establishment cannot see anything beyond the constitution and unionism. As support for independence grows, an increasing number in Scotland (creeping towards 60% now) have no party to vote for but the SNP (and maybe Greens for the second vote, but they’re involved in some of the same destructive and dividing things the SNP are, almost in lockstep). To vote Labour, Tory or Lib Deb is to vote nothing but anti-independence, as that is literally all they stand for in Scotland now: preventing another indyref, any way they can and bashing the SNP and indy supporters, including many of their own lost voters.
So we have situation where an increasing number of SNP and pro-indy voters don’t want to vote SNP but have no choice. Meanwhile, we have a Labour Party which is all but dead about to elect yet another old anachronism to yell abuse at indy supporters. Even as demographics create a society in which that is the norm, especially among younger voters (it’s almost 80% pro indy among younger groups).
Having failed to secure devolution max, or fiscal autonomy, or federalism, UK parties will end up with what they most fear – a new opposition party emerging from the ranks of the independence movement, possibly led by someone like Salmond.
I think it is a small côterie around the First Minister, so civil servants, SPADs and paid staff at SNP HQ. I think a lot of them have put their careers, salaries and personal grievances before all else. Unfortunately when the SNP moved into being the party of government in 2007 it then started to attract those that wanted to be career politicians. We have a lot less of that at the moment than Westminster where I think something like 80% of the MPs have never had a normal job, but it needs to be guarded against. Maybe we need a rule that you can’t stand for election until you have had X years experience outside politics (in work, volunteering, bringing up a family, etc – just not in politics as a researcher, assistant, etc).
At the moment I think it is hard to see how Sturgeon can get out of this. It should have been dealt with last year. ‘I discovered there had been a plot, so I sacked those involved and ask the Party to forgive me taking my eyes off the ball blah blah’. Might have worked, though those sacked would probably have to have been bribed to keep their mouths shut. I think it is too late for that now. Hard to see how both reports are not going to be highly critical, so the Tories will probably move a motion of no confidence in the First Minister (March or early April). The SNP does not have a majority and the Greens could not be relied on. It would be in the interests of all the other parties to disrupt the SNP election campaign. So that would probably pass in which case Swinney as Deputy becomes First Minister. In theory that would not affect her position as Party Leader, but in practice it does so would fall to Keith Brown as deputy. I think Peter Murrell and Leslie Evans would get the boot, along with a few others.
Will it affect the election result? I suspect not a lot.
I think your conclusion is the one certainty in this
And that Angus a Robertson is next FM
They stitched Joanna Cherry for a reason
Angus Robertson as next FM?
What if it turns out that although probably not guilty of direct wrong doing, he nonetheless has dubious connections?
The fact that NS favours him gives me pause.
Angus Robertson will take over as leader.
Not if the Conduct Committee pull him up for breaking the rules set by the previous NEC on donations to be spent on campaigning for the selection race which I believe was supposed to be £50 not the £4700 he raised before the selection race was even called. Use the rules. Use the constitution. That’s why we all worked to get the GOOD Guys selected onto the NEC.
Richard there is no chance Angus Robertson will become FM. His fingers have also stirred the pot & enough people in Scotland know this.
I think Dr Rideout has almost ‘hit the nail on the head’.
I would go further though and compare the rise of the ‘Politically Correct Ultras’ who dominate the top echelons of the SNP with the rise of the religious crusade of Billy Graham in the late 50’s/early 60’s.
Then, as now, anyone who dared raising their heads above the parapet were hounded and cast out.
As the late great Kenneth Roy reveals
http://www.scottishreview.net/KennethRoy49a.html
I am most definitely done with Indy if Scots remove her, if she were the lowest of low like Johnson and Trump then I would not want her as leader but I would write pros and cons of what good Nicola has done and where her failures have been and the pros far, far outweigh the cons. It seems since you were voted in you are part of the cult determined to be rid of her, I have terminal cancer but have fought since 2012 for Independence and left Labour to join SNP when Nicola became our FM but I know how many ex Labour like me will be disgusted in the underhanded attempts to oust Nicola, hypocrites who call her and her team out for underhandedness doing the same to her. Oust Nicola and many will leave SNP, who would want to be under a party as dirty as the Campbell and Salmond crowd!! I lived through many rotten and corrupt leaders of mainstream parties since Wilson and it is pathetic you lot are making such a criminal of Nicola who has done far, far more good than any harm to Scotland….she hasn’t even had her say but the rogues who want rid of her to take over the party are far dirtier than you lot are trying to make Nicola. You all sicken me, its not you lot that seen Yes grow to 58%, it has been Nicola that has changed folks minds, now who the hell would trust any of you lot who get rid of a woman who has seen us through the Pandemic and Brexit, you lot would change our FM will lose us Indy and lets see the mess and anger of Scotland when its you lot that will lose us it. I sure as hell won’t vote for it, I don’t back dirty players and I don’t want to be in any party who cheers her removal on.
I am sorry about your cancer. I hope it’s management goes well.
But if there is corruption – and I stress that word ‘if’ fir that is fir others to decide – then it must be removed. There is no alternative if that is the case. Emotion does not come into it if democracy is to be protected.
I agree Tim, politicians with some worldly experience seem to be of a better quality (though some may have, ahem, perhaps … vested interests while still in business). I agree with your last, if action is taken, there will be no loss to independence support – with or without Nicola Sturgeon. I’d say Swinney has, unfortunately, put himself in the position of ‘covering up’ and stymying the inquiries though – I’m not sure him as interim FM is tenable either, not during an election campaign where any kind of squirrel-distraction could be harmful.
I’m still going to keep plugging away, calling for the May election to be a plebiscite – the only risk there is to political careers as far as I can tell, and, strangely, I have very little sympathy for those careers right now.
Good work on the currency stuff by the way – the work you are doing and the effort you are putting in is something we can all be proud of, along with all the others involved.
Interesting reading.
I dont follow Scottish Politics so I am not in a position to comment on a lot of it, but there is an interesting comment by Andy Wightman (I think) about the dearth of Local Government in Scotland with everything concentrated on Edinburgh.
What is worrying though is the difficulty many nations had, in particular former colonies in creating what for lack of a more obvious description a ‘Healthy’ politics.
Independence could clearly be a poisoned chalice, even at a time when events outside Scotlands control make it look look an obvious choice
“Independence could clearly be a poisoned chalice, …”
Clearly it could be, in equal-measure of to do nothing and to vote to continue in union is.
I find it strange that those who “do not follow Scottish politics” always seem unable to prevent themselves commenting on how it would be… [insert synonym for “too-poor/too-wee/too-stupid” here]. Do not worry, neighbours. Scotland will be fine, thanks and in England’s case, they have already graciously shown Scots how not to be!
The SNP will never represent the Yes Movement and vice versa. They did and should complement each other and facilitate common-ground but that is it. Alex Salmond knew/knows this well and deliberately spoke of the distinction. Nicola Sturgeon, unfortunately for her, decided to co-opt Yes and attempt to “own it”. She then sided with those who sought to delete Salmond from ever potentially posing any threat to their future power-garnering.
As we say in Scotland, “If ye flee wi’ the craws, ye’ll get shot wi’ the craws”.
Robin MacAlpine has added his views to those (Stuart Campbell especially), who have demonstrated that, by her actions, Sturgeon has already broken the Ministerial Code and misinformed Parliament that she did not have involvement in what we now know was a clear-conspiracy to damage Salmond. She lied.
She can go, or events will take-over and she will be removed. That she will not be First Minister for much longer is in no doubt…the guns are waiting and the murder (of crows) are about to take to their Wings (Ha)!
Sturgeon is the SNP’s biggest electoral asset. The vast majority of independence voters could not care less about the Salmond affair or the Ministerial Code. We are facing possibly the final battle with the most vicious and dangerous regime in Europe and you think we have the luxury of some precious personal vendetta.
The issue is corruption.
But at a secondary level, I would worry deeply about Scotland if it were to win independence under Sturgeon. But as she shows no desire for independence I think that unlikely.
I support Yes. I have always supported and admired Nicola. However if it’s shown that she broke the ministerial code then she can’t do a Cummings and cling on when she should resign. She must go.
It will be a blow to the Yes movement but we’ll pick ourselves up and carry on.
It has never been so clear that Scotland needs an interim written Constitution adopted before independence and coming into effect ON independence day. The final Constitution can be prepared and adopted thereafter but we cannot have a vacuum.
I would draw people’s attention to the Common Weal paper “Foundations for Freedom” by W. Elliot Bulmer.
I am hoping that ISP (I am a member) will put forward just such an approach in our offer to voters.
There is actually, a Written Constitution sitting on Michael Russell’s desk and has been since October 2019 – one which Dr Mark McNaught, Assistant Professor of Law, Philosophy, and US Civilization at the University of Rennes (and who is half Scots), spent five year in the constructing, taking the best pieces of Constitution from countries around the world, and which was open to Scottish input that was added etc. Dr McNaught made sure it was possible to be revised when the people of Scotland decided that ‘events’ must demand the Constitution be amended. Dr McNaught made it clear that a Written Constitution would go A LONG WAY to paving the way to Independence & well worth putting in place. Everything is there, including the addition of a Corpus of Law. It is well worth a look and can still be found at:
http://wiki.scottishconstitution.com/index.php?title=Constitution_Of_The_Scottish_State
He presented it to Michael Russell, nearly a year and a half ago – and precisely nothing has been done with it. When he tried to engage with Michael Russell about getting a Written Constitution in place, all of a sudden, Dr NcNaught found Mr Russell would not even answer the phone to him.
Dr McNaught went on to construct the Digital Covenant. He declared that 2.5 signatures were an ABSOLUTELY LEGAL way to show what the people of Scotland wished for their country and was a perfect alternative to a Referendum we are never going to get. The voters can all be verified through it, thus no problem with paper votes of dead people, & second addresses etc.! and any ‘shenanigans’ can be seen as they happen so any ‘manipulating’ can be seen in real time. This hasn’t been pushed, hasn’t been talked about by Scotgov & hasn’t been properly discussed by even the Independence movement. Why are these alternatives not being discussed? Because SNP Conference BOO’D any talk of a Plan B! Because they would not let Chris McEleny & Angus Brendan O’Neill talk about alternatives to waiting on a Sec.30! That is ABSOLUTELY APPALLING! Boo’ing people who are actively seeking ways to gain independence! Would it work is not the point. The point is SNP WON’T EVEN LISTEN or discuss alternatives put forward by their own party members, never mind activists or the very members that elected them to the positions they now hold. That is despicable! Not only will Nicola Sturgeon not discuss an alternative route to independence, she will not even countenance talk or discussion about it. That’s how far down the road of dictatorship we are. It’s her way or the highway…
https://yesdayscotland.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/indy-covenant-and-community-empowerment-its-yours-scotland/
Sorry, that should be 2.5 MILLION signatures!
Many thanks
I will take a look
Kate
I am not enamoured of Dr McNaught’s effort. It’s full of pet policies and short on actual constitutional content (which sets out how the State will function, and how the citizens will be protected from the excesses of bad government).
Trying to develop a full Constitution when almost half the population are not yet prepared to engage is a dead end. However wonderful is, it has zero chance of being adopted. It will be hard enough to get a basic interim constitution in place in time for Independence.
Please read Foundations for Freedom
The treatment of Alex Salmond is a national disgrace.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-injured-party/
My wife and I have both signed the digital covenant mentioned above. I would recommend all Scots do the same.
There is also a participatory Constitution writing process, the stated purpose of which is to facilitate the writing of their own Constitution by the Scottish people – https://constitutionforscotland.scot/ Contributors must register and then sign in to submit comments and/or proposed amendments. Its a bit cumbersome but the intention is dead right.
Remember that the participative Constitution making process in Iceland failed utterly. A workable Constitution has to be for EVERYONE, not just a radical fringe. A lot of political people seem to struggle with that.
That’s because it seems hard – and it is – so the important thing is to focus on the bits that are the most important – primarily what the fundamental rights of citizens should be – simple stuff like specific rights to food, water, energy, housing, work, land, health, a pension, education, freedom of information as well as all the usual rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. This stuff matters to folk and does not need to be dressed up in constitutional legalese – aim to make it a peoples constitution, not a lawyers constitution.
Unless it’s also a lawyer’s constitution abuse follows
No Derek, they actually don’t., and that’s quite a patronising statement. You said, “The final Constitution can be prepared and adopted thereafter but we cannot have a vacuum.” I said there was one on Michael Russell’s desk, a Constitution that could be amended as events happened. Yes, we need something to START with. And Dr McNaught’s Constitution is a very good starting point. Sorry but I totally disagree that it doesn’t include the points you present, ie what happens after Indy & protection from processes of bad government. It certainly does. The fact is, when passed through legislation, it would be a full Scottish Government Constitution, passed into legislation & that would make it the Law of Scotland. To violate it would be to open yourself/the govt to criminal proceedings, just as any other Constitution in the world does. It doesn’t always stop processes of bad govt – BUT IT MAKES THE PRACTICE CRIMINAL and GIVES PROTECTION to the citizens of that country. And Dr McNaught’s would do just that. PS: I HAVE read Foundations for Freedom – what’s your point? Oh, never mind…
And it IS for ‘everyone’. ALL SCOTS were given the chance to provide input, NOT just ‘the radical fringe’. ALL SCOTS had the ability to go & read it and changes WERE made accordingly to what a majority saw as important to them in the rules for a new country. So I don’t believe you can say that this Constitution is not for everyone. Everyone who WANTED a say, had the chance. If you or anyone else didn’t have a say, I suggest its because you and others didn’t know about it at the time. Your comments certainly suggest that. That’s hardly Dr McNaught’s fault. He got it ‘out there’ and people ‘Retweeted’ & ‘Shared’ and it WAS mentioned in a newspaper article. Sorry I cannot now remember which one (I didn’t know I’d have to reference it so didn’t keep it). But obviously it has not been enough as I know lots of people are surprised to hear about it. But then – he cannot make people retweet or share – or read.
Half the population aren’t ready to engage? No of course they aren’t. But even UNIONISTS had the chance to input it, though I doubt, as unionists, they really care about that, at this point in time. They’re not convinced they have to. And I’m not convinced they’ll want to AFTER Independence either! That seems to be the nature of the beast when it come to unionists. They don’t want talk about ‘post Indy’… But that goes for ANY Constitution you want ready for Independence Day, NOT just Dr McNaught’s.
I’m sorry but your arguments are just full of contradictions. YOU wanted a Constitution ready – I told you of one that is READY TO GO. “Half the population won’t accept it”, you said – nor will they accept any YOU wish to push but you want one in place just the same. “It has to be for EVERYONE, not just the ‘radical fringe'” – but the one you have in mind will pass the ‘radical fringe’ test, right? No actually, it won’t, will it, if developed in an ‘independence’ situation. To be honest, by your comments, I don’t think you even bothered to read it. Because your comments don’t reflect that. I think you have an agenda. And that’s fine. Everyone has their ‘pet policies’, dontcha know…
You may feel Dr McNaught has ‘pet policies’. Everyone doing ANYTHING in this fight for Indy has them! He works hard at finding ways to promote & make Independence happen! Thank God SOMEONE is doing something, given what Scotgov AREN’T doing (you know prior to recent NEC elections, NEC didn’t discuss Independence EVEN ONCE, right?) to have SOMETHING ready for Independence day. He’s a professor and knows how to put together and present a project that’s worth considering. His Constitution is based on all the successful constitutions in the world & took five years of research & talking to govts etc., to write it, giving his time & energy to Scotland’s fight. He’s not just some unqualified, excited YESSER that wants indy; he is professional enough to know what is required to be acceptable to a new country. However – that is a difference of yours & my opinion. It doesn’t negate his work or mean we should not consider using his work.
We should have the capacity to consider everyone’s input. Everyone that is doing something to forward independence activities deserves some consideration. What SHOULDN’T happen is that people with ideas, people who elect our Representatives, people who ARE Representatives that we elected, shouldn’t be BOO’d off the Conference stage when trying to debate a really important point in what is supposed to be a outward looking government, that is open, and transparent & fair to all. That strikes me as being dictatorial & quite like the behaviour of someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg. I thought Scotland was supposed to be better than that. The Scotland I’m looking to be part of, must be better than that.
Ooops, sorry that would be: ‘NEC didn’t discuss Independence EVEN ONCE *during the LAST EIGHTEEN MONTHS*
Hi Richard
I remember you shredding the GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) annual financial report and rightly exposing it and labelling it as CRAP (your blog on it still available here I believe) to a commitee meeting in Holyrood. My impression of that event was that those listening to you speak seemed particularly unimpressed with faces so torn they could trip over.
My question then is did you hear anything positive back from them about it? Or anything at all, questions? requests for further information? Or is it as I suspect and simply collecting dust as further evidence of their inaction towards an independant Scotland?
A number of those present were persuaded and actively support reform
“A number of those present were persuaded and actively support reform”
Really? who?
There was an embarrassing silence (for you) when the chair of that meeting asked if anyone agreed with your opinion of GERS.
Unless you actually name names, I’ll assume that you are just making things up to try and save some face from a ‘car crash’ of an appearance. After all, if as you claim some are now “actively” supporting reform, they won’t mind you naming them.
Just go and look at the evidence
I for one never for a moment thought this a car crash
But then I have been told other interviews I have dine hav been car crashes when procurers, interviewers and others, plus objective observers very clearly thought otherwise
Just because one Unionist sought to suggest it was so does not prove a case
Haha! Might have known you’d get an out-of-context, out-of-time comment regarding GERS Richard 😀
I mean, considering the publicity surrounding the debunking of GERS since then, and the amount that has been done and said on the issue since it was initially brought up – it’s a teensy bit disingenuous to bring up the only thing the Tories have in their arsenal (which we know to be a doctored video) to argue against the debunking, which involves attacking the person not arguing against the substance, on a post that has nothing to do with the subject.
I think that one gets -1/10 for effort.
Hi Contrary
You’re right. My post was out of place, I realised it after but too late and should you or anyone find my mistake so terrible then I offer an apology.
However since you found it funny ‘haha’ and felt it necessary to speak out I would ask you where I should look to find out what has been done? I’ve seen nothing.
Sorry DaveL! – I realised my mistake after posting too – that shouldn’t have been directly in reply to you – it was in reference to Terry’s comment. I hoped no one would notice,,,
So, no don’t apply any of what I said you bringing up the subject (although not relevant, I wouldn’t have been snide about it) – though Richard has produced a fair amount of material, even some videos about GERS, and I’d recommend a search through his blog on the subject that can show you the outcome. While the politicians still insist on using it, it won’t go away I suspect.
Hi Contrary
Thanks for the reply, I’ll take your advice and make use of the search function. Cheers.
Beware of Trial By Media. Any media.
The UK of 2014 no longer exists. The Scottish referendum then was about leaving the UK and the EU (at least probably for a few years at least) . The vote was to stay in the UK and the EU.
In 2016 the UK referendum was solely about the EU. Scotland strongly voted to remain. England & Wales voted to leave. Scotland’s vote was swamped by the rUK vote and following four and a half years of what can only be described as shambolic ‘negotiations’, Scotland is now out of the EU and after only two weeks, is already suffering from severe economic consequences as a result.
So the the question that hasn’t been asked but now needs to, is whether Scotland wants to remain in the UK or the EU. Whatever anyone’s view on this, the fact that Scotland has been already been blocked at least twice from holding a vote on this is simply undemocratic. Given the amount of change since 2014, the repetitive ‘once in a generation’ is petulant nonsense.
With regards to the SNP and in particular Nicola Sturgeon, leaving aside the events that at best apear to leave a nasty smell of subterfuge, it does seem that she did break the Ministerial Code of Conduct and lied to the Scottish Parliament. If so then she has to resign. Two points stand out from this –
1. Nicola Sturgeon is not the primary reason for such strong support for independence, in fact since she became the SNP leader in 2014, she has distanced herself in particular from the wider Yes independence movement. A small poll has also shown that if she wasn’t the leader of the SNP, the vast majority would still vote for the SNP and that poll was before serious revelations about her were widely publicised.
2. Before the main UK parties get themselves all twisted up in excitement about Nicola Sturgeon being forced to stand down, remember what is said about those in glass houses. The Brexit lies and Covid contracts for pals stand out among many serious cases of political self interest above all else, leaving the UK parties no right to criticise anyone else.
What Scotland needs now is to have a vote on the ‘UK or EU’ question. It can only be one or the other and that question has not been voted on. Political party leaders come and go, but the question of independence is far bigger than any political celebrity who turns out to be more Machiavellian than their public image would have anyone believe. Besides, there are a lot of proven very experienced and capable people within the SNP, unlike the UK parties who churn out ‘leaders’ that last barely long enough for people to recognise even their name. Richard who?
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-state-is-not-her/
Accepting that there are issues surrounding the Salmond case does it not seem suspicious that the vitriol being levied at the FM is a bit obvious in its intent. We are poised to gain Independence and those opposed to it will stop at nothing to destroy the FM and the SNP. We saw this in the vilification of Corbyn and now Leonard by people entrenched in the establishment. I am confident that the FM will come out of this particular attack with a clean Bill of health but we can expect more of the same. Scotland should learn from the abuse in England and show we are a more informed society and not in the grip of an abusive establishment.
I think it’s rather odd that you claim this
If anything the exact opposite is true
Purely objectively I would rank Sturgeon as the biggest on=bstancle to independence right now. She appears to have no desire for it, at all.
There is a growing number who agree with you
IF these allegations are true it only cements my thoughts on why I have no time for politics.
It seems that most, if not all, political parties have some skeletons in their closets. Any attempts to raise serious issues are hampered by fears of being exposed for previous deeds.
I’m sure I read somewhere, albeit a long time ago, that John Majors extra marital affairs were just the tip of the iceberg.
If that was the case, can you imagine what else goes on?
This the latest article published in “The National” by Robert Ingram who is Chair of the “Constitution for Scotland” project I referred to in my earlier comment. This is another call by the group to ordinary folk encouraging them to have their say.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19016410.scotlands-new-constitution-cannot-wait-independence/
On Richard’s point about the need for lawyers, I agree but the role of the lawyers is to frame in a legally robust manner the principles which the people themselves have said they want to be incorporated into their constitution. The constitutional lawyers’ job is to serve the people.
The plot thickens.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/only-a-corrupt-lord-advocate-stands-between-peter-murrell-and-prison/
I post the link.
I do not endorse it.
I have followed this with growing incredulity. A well known opponent of NS writes a piece alleging corruption and a conspiracy involving numerous people and government/state institutions, but without publishing any evidence or even taking the evidence to the Police (of course they are part of the conspiracy), which is what one would normally do if you had strong evidence, but claims to “know” what is going on thanks to his connections.he
And then the writer of a normally erudite and evidence-based blog endorses this hearsay without qualification. This is followed by numerous others claiming the case to be proven without the benefit of having heard all the evidence. Normally we convict after a jury has heard from both sides. The irony of claiming to “know” that NS is guilty of corruption without hearing her side seems to have escaped some posters.
Well, at least we haven’t had the claim, as has been made elsewhere, that she is actually a “plant” by the UK govt to ensure Indy never comes – a sort of cross between Mata Hari and Lucrezia Borgia.
I wonder if it’s just a coincidence that so many of her most virulent critics are men: Robin, Craig, Stuart and now Richard, plus many other posters. I am neither a supporter or opponent of NS, I believe she has been too timid in many areas, but I do know, as my wife reminds me that women do things differently – just look at the way BJ has handled the pandemic in public with his guns-ho announcements followed by U-turns and NS’s much more nuanced and cautious delivery – and dare I say it, more honest statements. (I make no judgement about the respective success in handling the pandemic, just their public persona) [There is some evidence that countries led by women have handled the pandemic better (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/female-led-countries-handled-coronavirus-better-study-jacinda-ardern-angela-merkel)]
I do not know if any of the allegations in Robin’s piece are true or not, but I am concerned that if there is evidence we should see it, or it should be handed to the police, and that we, while making general comments about NS is fine, we should be wary of claiming that “the election was rigged” without seeing all the evidence. To act as judge and jury on the basis of hearsay or one side only, leads to fascism, something we have deplored on here many times.
Graham
You do realise that there are two enquiries into this issue, don’t you?
And you do realise they happened because the allegations were made and found to require investigation? That us my best evidence
Your comment is, to be candid, really rather bizarre and from an alternative reality that as far as I can see simply does not exist
I am not saying you have to believe the allegations, but they are supported. Surely you at least want them resolved?
I am baffled by your comment
Richard
Yes I know there are 2 enquiries. I agree that serious allegations must be investigated – maybe I didn’t make that clear. But just because they are serious doesn’t make them true, even if some of the evidence we have seen suggests they may be. We need to wait for the investigations to conclude to know what has been going on.
I think I said that too
Graham,
There is something about your comment that has been bothering me, I think, like Richard, I am bewildered by it, though not sure what exactly what it is. I’ll try and not ramble in answer though,,,
Robin Macalpine – I’m not a fan of his writing, but he is known to be critical of Nicola Sturgeon – being critical doesn’t constitute ‘an opponent’. What he, and other bloggers that have more information than us, has written is necessarily anecdotal, and could be termed hearsay. And it should be read in that light.
The fact is – no one is allowed to present that evidence – because the COPFS is suppressing it! (That is, the ‘police’ already have the evidence) This is an ongoing and well-documented problem, that the procurator fiscal – that the Lord Advocate is in charge of – is refusing to release evidence, and threatening prosecution to anyone that tries to. Apparently the few leaked messages (to Kenny McKaskill) that there has been are being investigated right this moment.
The allegations of corruption mainly come from Alex Salmond, who has seen most of the evidence – and who has been threatened with prosecution by COPFS on numerous occasions if he reveals any of it – (and note here: there is no denial by the authorities, now, that it exists) – and there are going to be calls very soon (probably from Alex Neil MSP) for a judge-led inquiry into the matter, because there is now too much evidence that there is a good possibility of conspiracy/corruption. It would be up to the judge to determine any criminality – as far as I’m aware, none of this is a criminal matter, yet. Except maybe withholding evidence (by the government) from the two court cases.
Nicola Sturgeon has been shown to have broken the ministerial code, she has been caught out telling a lie – and repeatedly telling it – in parliament. It was probably a throw-away minor lie for political purposes, on the date of a meeting, but she has compounded it by obfuscating (we have all come to know this word very well over the past year) instead of owning up to it. We heard Aberdein’s contrary evidence, under oath, in the criminal trial. There is now written evidence from Alex Salmond about who was in what meeting and the subjects talked about, and named witnesses too. Peter Murrell contradicted NS’s claims, but also contradicted himself, under oath, giving evidence to the committee. The ministerial code, again, is not a criminal matter. The lack of clarity, and verifying evidence, from Nicola Sturgeon is telling in itself. But I’m not sure anyone is expecting that much honesty from her even under oath at this stage.
The main point is, from an independence perspective, is that it turns out that the SNP, under Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, has sat on its fat arses and done nothing towards independence these last 6 years – indeed they and she have suppressed any moves towards preparing for, and moving towards, independence – convincing us all that there was a secret plan and we should wheesht with any criticism. There is plenty of evidence for this and Iain Lawson has revealed problems with the inner workings of the party – because of the action of people that have come to terms with the betrayal action has now been taken, we have had some good moves in relation to the make up of the NEC, who decides on policy. Including Dr Rideout being elected to the NEC – these moves were hard-won and not just a casual thing.
If we’d known earlier about how little the SNP was doing, we could have been preparing much of the material ourselves – something many have been working hard on this past year, now that we know. This is a crucial point in time – if we get independence now, we will still be EU compliant on many goods and services, and can probably join EFTA to give us immediate trade agreements for the the first stages of independence as an interim measure – what we finally want to do should be voted on. Iain Lawson has published this article (in two parts) by Isobel Lindsay of the SIC (not the SNP) on security and defence in an independent Scotland, and transition issues:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/01/17/section-two/
This is excellent stuff – this is what we want, and need, and this is the way to show more cynical citizens that indeed independence is not only feasible, there are ways to achieve it, and that the detail has been thought about. There are many areas that need to be covered. Dr Rideout has given us a broad outline of how and why our own currency is essential and can be done – he is now working on the detail, which I assume will cover transition as well as final set-up.
The SNP *did* set up a Citizen’s Assembly – this has just produced a report last week which I am still to read, but isn’t specifically to do with independence (which we are accustomed to when it comes to the SNP) but still applies. I was aware of some of their thoughts on how to make political changes, and liked their idea of citizen committees and perhaps an upper chamber of citizens – and I see on the summary that they have had the most popular agreement on these ideas.
My thoughts on it are – you could have an Upper Chamber of Citizens, that has oversight of parliament and government. You could have, say, 100 citizens chosen in the same way juries are (in Scotland) – this is an established method that should be easily implemented – to each serve a term of one year (in 6 month staggered selection for continuity), as part of their national service – it would be each of our duties to serve and there would be the usual guarantee of your job on your return, remuneration, and ways to wriggle out of it. The extent of their duties to be decided.
There is now – because we know of the SNP stagnancy – much happening, we are quite capable of doing this stuff ourselves, it was just the SNP promises of having everything in hand that held people back. We still have the problem of needing the SNP to politically bring forward a vote to allow us to choose the path we want. That will be resolved, in spite of the still many denials that anything is amiss.
In the interests of transparency, I declare that I am a woman and that I am highly critical of the SNP and of Nicola Sturgeon. I am critical of every political party in fact – I thought that was NORMAL in a democracy, but some appear to think we should submit ourselves without question to the whims of one person these days.
I am currently working within the SIC
Well well, are you now? Interesting. Maybe you could ask Isobel to remove the bit about ‘negotiating debt’ then?! 😉 I made comment about it on Iain’s blog, but not sure anyone will check for feedback.
I take no pleasure from observing that corruption in British politics (not just Scots) has now reached such an overweening arrogance that it can parade without shame through the various parliaments in these islands, believing that no one will hold it to account.
I share Robin McAlpine’s queasiness that a small cabal surrounding the Leader of the Scottish Parliament can plot to smear, bring down and arbitrarily seek to put in jail political opponents who are inconvenient to them. That is what we have become.
Will a new age of Puritanism be required to cleanse public life, the civil service and the legal profession of their corrupt members? McAlpine and Murray both retain their faith in judges. Let’s hope their faith is not misplaced. I would hope the self correcting mechanisms in our democracy will work in time to squeeze out and cleanse the pustulent sores on our body politic and puritanical zeal will not be required this time. Those working in our self correcting mechanisms had better get a move on. Where is the eternal vigilance?
Yes, all is not well. I see Nicola Sturgeon as a liability – something she has made herself into – and someone the unionists will be well pleased to see remain in power: at least up until just before the May election, because there is so much dirt on her it would cause chaos to reveal all just before the election. If the SNP don’t resolve it soon, they could see themselves in another minority government, and with yet more endless excuses for why they can’t do independence ‘right now’.
Maybe Tim Rideout has predicted right, but Angus Robertson as next FM is a definitive non-starter, he’s part of the ‘inner circle’. And late March / early April seems far too late – the SNP themselves need to be seen to take action themselves before being forced into it by opposition parties, or they lose credibility and respect.
All the evidence points to corruption, conspiracy and collusion – there are calls for a judge-led inquiry, with teeth, to investigate this & I think it will go ahead whatever else happens politically, because it isn’t just about a few political shenanigans, there are serious problems with the crown prosecution too – COPFS in Scotland – that the Lord Advocate is head of, someone that also attends cabinet (so political) meetings. Trust in the criminal justice system is starting to take a serious hit & can only get worse as more people hear about what has gone on.
There are so many complex aspects to the whole affair. I would recommend Gordon Dangerfield for a more detailed analysis of certain aspects, from a legal perspective, most particularly on the ‘Institutional Bias of COPFS’, but he has written mostly on the Harrassment inquiry:
https://gordondangerfield.com/2020/11/06/the-institutional-bias-of-copfs/
COPFS have form – for trying to ruin reputations of prominent independence supporters – so what was done to Alex Salmond was par for the course for them, and what they continue to do. There appears to be a big push on to take many independence supporters that have influence down – which indicates a certain fear amongst the establishment I’d say – but it’s a very dangerous path to tread: to make it obvious that criminal prosecutions are being used for political purposes – particularly just now when trust in policing at least is needed to help the population through the pandemic – and it needs to stop. The position of Lord Advocate – the role he plays, needs to change – at the moment it invites political corruption (even if he recuses himself, his deputy takes over, and the current incumbent appears to have strong views on such things as sexual harassment, as in suggesting people should be prosecuted for NOT complaining – so, let’s just say the decision to prosecute Alex Salmond was never going to be a rational, balanced one).
A note here that the Judicial Review of the Scottish government’s harassment policy and handling, led by Lord Pentland, it ruled that Leslie Evans’ Decision Report (based on the investigation reports by Judith Mackinnon) should never see the light of day ever again – it’s that report that the Scottish government keeps trying to punt onto the committee as evidence claiming that Alex Salmond’s lawyers are preventing the evidence being produced. The actual evidence needing to be produced is being withheld by COPFS and the Scottish Government is refusing to order it released (either party can do so very easily).
The Scottish government is withholding evidence, redacting everything and anything on evidence that is produced (I know, because I’ve read through quite a lot of it), and it has just been revealed that they withheld relevant evidence not just from the Judicial Review (that had to appoint a commission to get the evidence asked for after the judge realised that the government was not, after all, going to be fully compliant as expected), but also the criminal trial. The government also uses the technique of flooding everyone with documents, most of which are irrelevant, in order to waste time and money and then say ‘we have provided thousands of documents’ – well, there are relevant ones hidden in there, but it takes a lot of effort to pick them out.
I can’t imagine the actual costs of the whole affair – the Lord Advocate has conceded millions in compensation for his illegal prosecution to the Rangers directors, too – and this is all coming out of a fixed budget to the Scottish government, we won’t be printing more money to pay for it (until we are independent). Is this in the public’s interest? For government to be prosecuting and persecuting private citizens willy nilly? I think not. The idea that independence supporters are fair game is old hat, not acceptable in this day and age when there is majority support for that constitutional change in particular – the arguments must be made politically and rationally, not by imposing fear of prosecution on anyone willing to speak out in support of it.
I’ve gone on a bit there – my point is that: the problem is more far-reaching than who is leader of the SNP, and she has support from the establishment (evidenced by the distinct lack of howling at the moon scandalous headlines; and using the Occam’s razor simplistic view that, if you have to put up with pro-independence sentiment, you are best off with a controllable neo-liberal gradualist in charge), and what she has done. Breaking the ministerial code is a certainty – how that is presented and what’s done about it are the unknowns.
The SNP – yes I include the whole party, because they have allowed this situation to arise, and are allowing it to continue – have put us in a very awkward position, and although some action has been taken to start to fix things, it needs to be much more and happening a lot quicker – and I really believe the SNP needs to be SEEN to be fixing it itself to keep their credibility. Without change, a plebiscite election in May is the only situation where I’d consider voting for the SNP. The leadership has been shown to be lying and untrustworthy, and so far from transparent as to be the exact opposite – all the while they claim to be the opposite. But we hear nary a dissenting voice from almost all MSPs.
Nicola Sturgeon as party leader is responsible for the state of the party, and as First Minister is responsible for everything in government – from ‘work place procedures’ for the civil servants right through. The tired old trope of ‘but she’s popular’ doesn’t cut it – there are many others that could be just as, or more, popular if they’d been given the chance before now – but that chance has been lost along with many others, and we are now in dire straights of needing to move quickly and salvage what we can. In the hope and belief that support for independence is not dependent on just one personality – as I believe it isn’t, and as it shouldn’t be.
A final note Richard – current phrasing on the allegations against Alex Salmond is to say false allegations – for indeed they were found to be false in a criminal court. It’s very MSM-y to say what he was charged with by COPFS, rather than state the outcome.
I used the word allegations to refer to those in corruption not re Alex. The law says he is innocent.
The story so far from Gordon
Dangerfield.
https://gordondangerfield.com/
The time to discuss this is AFTER independence, not before. Why? Because, under the current convoluted and extremely flexible so-called constitutional arrangements, there is ZERO chance of an outcome that is clear, fair and accountable on all sides. I am really quite surprised that you can’t see this. Whatever your friend AS wants by way of justice/revenge/satisfaction, now is absolutely not the best time to do it.
Scotland has a devolved government now that must be properly run
And independence is several years away, whatever happens
I am suggesting allegations need to be paid to rest here. Is that so unreasonable? WHy not?
Mark Hirst and now Craig Murray soon to be in court. Many issues i fear that need to be publicly aired.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and-freedom-of-speech/
@Contrary
Your post (17.01.21 11:06) is a brilliant summary of the problems we face and the cross-roads we are now at. I’ve also followed this sad saga closely for over two years now and you are right on the money in every detail. Well done!
Richard, have you considered opening your blog to guest writers? I have also followed you quite closely for some years since you first started to become interested in Scottish affairs, initially because of your professional economists’s annoyance at how goddam inaccurate the GERS figures were, up to this present really valuable forum you have created for all who care for Scotland’s future.
If so, invite Contrary on!
It’s an idea
Progressive Pulse was created for this purpose but did not really work
I’ll raise the issue in a post and see what reaction is
Thanks lawrenceab, very kind of you to say. I admit to just wincing at the bad grammar myself!
I had hoped to be able to get a succinct summary for Richard soon – which was always my plan, to put the information we do have into order and give it context to make it comprehensible to the wider public, and didn’t want to pester Richard with the confusing detail during development, which would have taken up too much of his valuable time, and not been that useful in the interim. There is still much to do on the civil servants actions, which is crucial, and I need to drill down into more detail before getting anywhere near a comprehensible summary – I can, of course, go on at length about much of it, as you’ll know if you read Gordon’s blog!
On that score – Richard is FAR too busy to be hosting guest posts (though I think he already has others in mind he might like to host), and this is his favourite (perhaps!) hobby so should always be his choice what gets shown or not – I trust his judgement on what he thinks is important to highlight. I find it useful to write for a different kind of audience, it makes me think about the common assumptions and abbreviations we use, and it tests the reasonableness of those. (Haha, remember the ‘London’ stooshie?!)
Anyway – Richard is already hugely tolerant of my massive, often getting off-topic, comments, and reacting to what I have read is my preferred way of writing, and he knows I’d be scared of someone using double-entry-speak at me anyway! From a Scottish perspective, if Tim Rideout wrote a regular wee article, that would be good, and if the articles I read about the security and defence considerations from the SIC is anything to go by – highlighting their output (and yours Richard!) would be good.
Richard – this will be fixed, by whatever means (though I can’t tell if it’ll be in time for the May elections – but for that we just need it fixed ‘enough’), and in a way this whole affair has brought to light inherent weaknesses in our systems and shown us what needs fixed. I always thought it would be our councils that would be the biggest problem! They need a big clean out too – but they are more numerous and opaque so more difficult to tackle – but if the top (Holyrood etc) is put in order, other parts are easier to tackle. Surely?! The council tax problem (hah, that’s another one the SNP promised they’d fix, and haven’t) needs sorted too… Sigh. There is just too much happening, eh? I’ve barely paid attention to the uk government problems (too numerous). Well, if we get through January, the rest of the year will be a breeze,,,
(P.s. a poll has come out showing a majority in favour of a plebiscite election in May – remarkable – this might put pressure on the pro independence parties to start getting serious)
See today’s post, just out, on some of these themes