Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 10

[Roderick Spode]

WindyCommon said:

ant1973 said:

... Astonishing that a solicitor and a politician would make those allegations in such stark terms. Both ill-judged and unwise.
...

This is what happens when someone with NS’s personality traits feels threatened. She is angry, and thus ripe to be provoked into mistakes. Salmond should take his chance and surface all this - whether at the inquiry or elsewhere - now. She will do the rest herself.

Very much this. Whether the corrupt Crown Office allows him the freedom to do so remains to be seen.

[WindyCommon]

amusingduck said:

Lord Advocate says he was not consulted on Crown Office warning about Alex Salmond Inquiry
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lord-a...

Lord Advocate denies involvement in Crown Office intervention as committee demand access to SNP messages
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/lord-advoca...

Ok. I would like to see the responsible senior professional prosecutor confirm on oath that he made the decision without consulting/checking or otherwise involving the Lord Advocate

[ant1973]

WindyCommon said:

amusingduck said:

Lord Advocate says he was not consulted on Crown Office warning about Alex Salmond Inquiry
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/lord-a...

Lord Advocate denies involvement in Crown Office intervention as committee demand access to SNP messages
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/lord-advoca...

Ok. I would like to see the responsible senior professional prosecutor confirm on oath that he made the decision without consulting/checking or otherwise involving the Lord Advocate

Therein lies the issue. Who made the decision and on what grounds.

The Scotsman reports that the LA refused to say whether he had received any 3rd party submissions on the redaction issue...

Critically, did the COPFS also write to the Speccy on Monday telling them to make the specific redactions?

[Roderick Spode]

It seems Westminster is finally waking up and taking something approaching an interest in this growing scandal.

Guido Fawkes said:

In a point of order this afternoon, Liam Fox raised a Point of Order referencing the extraordinary intervention in proceedings in Scotland yesterday, where implicating the First Minister was censored from Salmond’s evidence against Sturgeon. Fox quoted Salmond as saying:

“the complete breakdown of the necessary barriers which should exist between Government, political party, and indeed the prosecution authorities in any country which abides by the rule of law.”

Describing the analysis as one that would be a damning indictment in a tinpot dictatorship, Fox asked Deputy Speaker Eleanor Laing what could be done to “ensure the conduct of the Scottish Government does not bring politics in the whole of the United Kingdom into disrepute”.

Laing herself stressed the seriousness of the matter and how it affects “the bedrock of our constitutional settlement“, stressed her concern with “safeguarding democratic standards“, and went as far as almost encouraging him to bring it before the House once again. Guido gets the impression this is only the beginning…

I'm sure the cybernats will be queueing up to denounce the mother parliament to keep their nose out of devolved affairs, while cosy feet Pete and the other nodding donkeys of the yellow party in the Big Smoke will clamour to defend the Chief Mammy against the 'Toareees'. Interesting times.

LINK

[Lim]

Ooof this is what I heard the moment I turned on the car radio today set to LBC. I don’t think this was an accident.....

She said Mr Salmond had conjured "an alternative reality in which the organs of the state - not just me, the SNP and the civil service and the Crown Office and the police and women who came forward - were all part of some wild conspiracy against him for reasons I can't explain.

"Maybe that's easier than just accepting that at the root of all this might just have been issues in his own behaviour. But that's for him to explain if he ever decides to pitch up and sit in front of the committee."

Edited by Lim on Wednesday 24th February 18:09

[sherman]

The SNP are slowly creeping into the BBC news headlines. They are the top story below covid.

[Ridgemont]

Roderick Spode said:

It seems Westminster is finally waking up and taking something approaching an interest in this growing scandal.

Guido Fawkes said:

In a point of order this afternoon, Liam Fox raised a Point of Order referencing the extraordinary intervention in proceedings in Scotland yesterday, where implicating the First Minister was censored from Salmond’s evidence against Sturgeon. Fox quoted Salmond as saying:

“the complete breakdown of the necessary barriers which should exist between Government, political party, and indeed the prosecution authorities in any country which abides by the rule of law.”

Describing the analysis as one that would be a damning indictment in a tinpot dictatorship, Fox asked Deputy Speaker Eleanor Laing what could be done to “ensure the conduct of the Scottish Government does not bring politics in the whole of the United Kingdom into disrepute”.

Laing herself stressed the seriousness of the matter and how it affects “the bedrock of our constitutional settlement“, stressed her concern with “safeguarding democratic standards“, and went as far as almost encouraging him to bring it before the House once again. Guido gets the impression this is only the beginning…

I'm sure the cybernats will be queueing up to denounce the mother parliament to keep their nose out of devolved affairs, while cosy feet Pete and the other nodding donkeys of the yellow party in the Big Smoke will clamour to defend the Chief Mammy against the 'Toareees'. Interesting times.

LINK

That statement from Laing was interesting: indicating it’s not a matter for the speaker however encouraged Fox to use his ingenuity to get the house to further consider further the implications of an erosion of separation of powers which, as Salmond indicated yesterday, is at the heart of the matter. Intrigued about this. Westminster has derogated powers to Holyrood, but I’m unclear what powers it has to pursue the issue further. I can only imagine that it might require intervention by the courts if needs be up to SC level, but I’m stumped as to next steps as the courts have already been involved and gave the evidence the all clear. What’s currently happening is the Clown office operating off reservation.

The underlying issues on separation of powers (the nexus of the FM’s office, police Scotland, the Crown Office) are fundamental constitutional issues.

Way out of my area of expertise. Not sure we have any Scottish constitutional experts to hand

[WackyWeaver]

Lim said:

Ooof this is what I heard the moment I turned on the car radio today set to LBC. I don’t think this was an accident.....

She said Mr Salmond had conjured "an alternative reality in which the organs of the state - not just me, the SNP and the civil service and the Crown Office and the police and women who came forward - were all part of some wild conspiracy against him for reasons I can't explain.

"Maybe that's easier than just accepting that at the root of all this might just have been issues in his own behaviour. But that's for him to explain if he ever decides to pitch up and sit in front of the committee."

Edited by Lim on Wednesday 24th February 18:09

She has a point and that is the issue with a lot of these grand conspiracies. Surely someone is willing to be a whistleblower if that were the case?

[Quisling]

WackyWeaver said:

She has a point and that is the issue with a lot of these grand conspiracies. Surely someone is willing to be a whistleblower if that were the case?

NOTHING is more important in Scotland than destroying the union

So no one will dare speak out incase it harms the cause

[coppernorks]

BBC 6pm main news giving the Sturgeon/Salmond shenanigans high billing, It will certainly please the SNP who regularly
accuse the BBC of ignoring stories that are of Scottish interest.

[Ridgemont]

WackyWeaver said:

Lim said:

Ooof this is what I heard the moment I turned on the car radio today set to LBC. I don’t think this was an accident.....

She said Mr Salmond had conjured "an alternative reality in which the organs of the state - not just me, the SNP and the civil service and the Crown Office and the police and women who came forward - were all part of some wild conspiracy against him for reasons I can't explain.

"Maybe that's easier than just accepting that at the root of all this might just have been issues in his own behaviour. But that's for him to explain if he ever decides to pitch up and sit in front of the committee."

Edited by Lim on Wednesday 24th February 18:09

She has a point and that is the issue with a lot of these grand conspiracies. Surely someone is willing to be a whistleblower if that were the case?

You don’t need a whistleblower: there is a document that has been redacted to remove any reference to meetings involving NS which would suggest she misled Parliament. As a result the Fabiani committee will not consider the matter despite it being material to the purpose of the committee.

That document has been requested to be viewed by Parliament but then the Crown office has intervened. There is no reason apart from political to do so, as Dorrian had previously ruled it was legally all clear.

So what the hell is going on?

[Troubleatmill]

WackyWeaver said:

Lim said:

Ooof this is what I heard the moment I turned on the car radio today set to LBC. I don’t think this was an accident.....

She said Mr Salmond had conjured "an alternative reality in which the organs of the state - not just me, the SNP and the civil service and the Crown Office and the police and women who came forward - were all part of some wild conspiracy against him for reasons I can't explain.

"Maybe that's easier than just accepting that at the root of all this might just have been issues in his own behaviour. But that's for him to explain if he ever decides to pitch up and sit in front of the committee."

Edited by Lim on Wednesday 24th February 18:09

She has a point and that is the issue with a lot of these grand conspiracies. Surely someone is willing to be a whistleblower if that were the case?

Or simply the committee could be allowed to hear the evidence from Geoff Aberdien, Salmond etc etc unredacted.
If it is not available to the committee - it doesn't exist - and even mentioning the words "Geoff Aberdien"is forbidden.

Scotland is a fking joke.

[NoddyonNitrous]

There are the tantalising unknowns, such as the woman who must not be named, the superinjunction(s), and the evidence that is not being released to the committee, that is is impossible to work out what the missing pieces of the picture are.
The CO action in preventing the SG publishing unredacted evidence while apparently being happy that it is still published elsewhere is impossible to see as anything other than an action to impede the committee.

[WindyCommon]

Ridgemont said:

The draftable link which Lim posted earlier (thanks!) is quite clear. That the crown office intervened can only down to 2 things to my non legal mind;

1) the redactions are due to the injunction (which appears to be LA’s stance) in which case the woman who cannot be named is clear for all to see on the page, and a whole different ststorm is in play as it would appear NS is personally compromised re the allegations

2) the redactions are not material but are political and NS doesn’t want to have to see Aberdein called to corroborate Salmond’s argument that she has misled the house.

Happy to hear any other options but the draftable link is pretty clear.

I understand (2), but not (1). Without getting yourself arrested, can you explain a little further please?

[Troubleatmill]

A superinjuction may / or may not exist - however if one did exist and even mentioning the name of the un-nameable woman.... can get you some jail time.

Of course - you could set to VPN to outside the UK - and do a search......

[Ridgemont]

i4got said:

Ironic isn't it. Redaction has enabled those of us who didn't know to find out who his accuser was.

The only weird thing is that Dorrian gave the all clear so I had assumed until Wolfe made his statement in the house that it was all political (ie option 2).
But Wolfe appeared to say that the legal professionals intervening did so without his consult and he wasn’t able to discuss anything adjudicated by the High Court, at which point all things being equal....

Of course it might be all political but I can’t see any other options.
I’m intrigued about Dorrian’s decision: would an adjudicating judge not be made aware of any named individuals referred to injunctions?

Anyhoo.

[jshell]

Publicly availabke:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210222194147/https:/...

[Ridgemont]

Lim said:

I’m not sure it’s correct the ‘who should not be named’ thing is the reason for the code redaction. Doesn’t it remain a mystery? Hence salmond’s surprise?

The code statement isn’t about the women it’s about process.

Edited by Lim on Wednesday 24th February 19:34

I had assumed so as well, but Wolfe’s statement very much appeared to say otherwise.

[paulrockliffe]

Ridgemont said:

Intrigued about this. Westminster has derogated powers to Holyrood, but I’m unclear what powers it has to pursue the issue further. I can only imagine that it might require intervention by the courts if needs be up to SC level, but I’m stumped as to next steps as the courts have already been involved and gave the evidence the all clear.

I wondered about this too, not enough to look into it, but I was curious. I think you need to read the Scotland Act and see what conditions it sets for the administration of devolved powers. It will contain restraints, probably in broad terms I'd expect. Something about standards. Next question is what it contains in terms of resolution if the administration of a devolved matter is executed egregiously, does it allow Westminster to invalidate the Act (unlikely) or is there powers for Westminster to take over administration of those devolved powers?

But don't forget this is one of Blair's things, so it's probably a complete clusterfk from a legal perspective.

[Ridgemont]

Ridgemont said:

Lim said:

I’m not sure it’s correct the ‘who should not be named’ thing is the reason for the code redaction. Doesn’t it remain a mystery? Hence salmond’s surprise?

The code statement isn’t about the women it’s about process.

Edited by Lim on Wednesday 24th February 19:34

I had assumed so as well, but Wolfe’s statement very much appeared to say otherwise.

For those interested wings has the appropriate segment. I may have completely misheard but it was clear from my perspective: I presume from what a couple of posters have said ref Wolfe he is playing a straight bat here...

It also explains his waffly answers and why stuff happened as it did. Bailey was applying a fair amount of pressure and he clammed up. From around 1.39 and onwards.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/contempt-of-democrac...