Alex Salmond says public have right to read Scottish Government legal advice

By Andrew Learmonth  @andrewlearmonthJournalist

Alex Salmond calls on government to publish legal advice on judicial review

Alex Salmond calls on government to publish legal advice on judicial review.

ALEX Salmond has called on the Scottish Government to publish the legal advice behind their decision to fight his judicial review.

His call came after the Holyrood committee investigating the botched probe into allegations of sexual harassment, published the open record of the court case, detailing the pleadings of each side.

The former First Minister’s lawyers said the document made clear “the numerous illegalities and obvious unfairness in the Government’s policy.”

Salmond had the results of the harrasment investigation set aside in January last year, with a judge saying it was unlawful and had been “tainted by apparent bias” because Judith Mackinnon, the lead investigating officer had been in prior contact with the two complainers.

The cost to the taxpayer was substantial, with Salmond awarded costs of £512000, and the Scottish Government spending another £180000 on lawyers. 

In a statement, the ex-SNP leader’s lawyer, David McKie from Levy & McRae, said he’d been instructed by his client to supply “extensive documentation from the court proceedings including correspondence between this firm and the Scottish Government. 

McKie added: “He has agreed to that private legal advice being published, despite being under no legal obligation to do so.

“In return, Mr Salmond calls on the Scottish Government to publish the legal advice given to the Scottish Government on the prospects of successfully defending the judicial review.

“As the Committee has already made clear, the Scottish Government can choose to do so. There is nothing preventing that publication.

“Moreover, there is a clear and overwhelming public interest in the public having the opportunity to read and understand the advice which is said to have justified the Scottish Government spending sums significantly in excess of £500,000 of taxpayers’ money in defending this action.”

The lawyer said Salmond was also calling on the Scottish Government to produce “all the relevant material from the judicial review which has thus far been held back from the committee.”

Mckie added: “‘The correspondence produced by Mr Salmond shows that, from April 2018, we repeatedly told the Scottish Government that they were treating our client unfairly and were acting unlawfully. Our client offered first mediation and then arbitration in an attempt to prevent the Government acting unlawfully. 

“His arguments were repeatedly dismissed and his offers were refused. The result of that intransigence was that our client was left with no option but to raise a court action.”

Earlier this week, the Committee wrote to Salmond with a “firm request” to be provided with a written submission from the ex-SNP leader at the “earliest opportunity”.

Linda Fabiani, who chairs the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints, asked for as much detail as possible.

McKie said that for Salmond to make “substantive and meaningful submissions to the Committee, he requires to be able to make reference to a number of documents revealed to him and to which he alluded to after being acquitted of all charges in the High Court.”

However, the Crown Office has warned that doing so could risk breaking the law.

Salmond has now directly appealed to the Lord Advocate, ”to allow him to place the relevant evidence before the Committee.”

The open record appears to show that the Scottish Government knew some two months before conceding the case that appointing Judith Mackinnon as Investigating Officer had risked the case. 

35 thoughts on “ARTICLE OF THE WEEK.

  1. So what’s the end game here.
    A small number of erstwhile Indy supporting bloggers some funded by the Indy movement via crowd funding ( though interestingly not in the last year ) have shifted focus to the potential dark going’s on within the SNP.
    This focus whether it’s on the alleged entryists or the lack of vigour in pushing for a referendum due to the FM not wanting Indy,to a plot against Salmond are pursued with vigour by both commentators and forum contributors.
    Each of them appear solely fascinated by their own avenue of investigation and each maintain that whilst massively supportive of our nation becoming independent they require their complaints investigated and sorted if we are to proceed.
    If as I’ve done you try and argue against this piecemeal picking away at the SNP you are called out as woke or facist or a Nicola Fan Boy.
    My concerns are simple.
    If the SNP aided and abetted by the media is destroyed so is Independence forget it for at least the next twenty years.Don’t think another party will take its place and ride to victory having won the war Westminster will never allow that.
    If we are looking for a way to exhaust supporters this is it constant picking away at the values and policies outwith the party will erode support and threaten the very thing you say you want.
    All of this is happening against a backdrop of rampant arrogance and criminality by the Tories which in past times would instead have been the focus of bloggers but not now.
    Finally what is the end game?
    Is it the only party remotely capable of delivering Indy torn asunder by factionalism cheered on and supported by these bloggers whilst Phoenix like a new purer version arises from the ashes. Only as some have commented for it to them go through the same destructive process.
    Pragmatism and acceptance that the SNP is an organisation filled with human frailty and open to change by legitimate means, as against internal wars cheered on by MI5 and continued vassal state to the Westminster elite.
    It’s time for the “hoodies croak for doom” to end.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If we had a proper media bloggers like Iain wouldn’t need to be asking these hard questions. The Salmond situation is bizarre and extreme by any measure and we still don’t have the answers. The SG are not helping themselves by being as uncooperative as possible.

      Liked by 6 people

    2. I have some sympathy for what you’re saying Bryan and have previously stated my concern about the damage done to our hopes of gaining Independence by internal implosion via factionalism and unrelenting focus on negative aspects of Party policy/politics here and elsewhere .However , who is to blame for sowing the seeds of this increasing dissent and dismay at the state of our aspiration ? The silence and outright hostility from the ” leadership ” on matters of crucial importance , the sense that a unilateral decision to ” park ” Indy for the foreseeable ( who agreed to THAT ! ? ) , the clear bias in favour of ” certain ” individuals and policies , the supine refusal to take a real , hard-edged stance against the horrors of the current Tory Government – sorry , Ian Blackford’s tape-looped HoC responses are nothing short of embarrassing – the list goes on . We all wish for a strong , commited front against our opponents and for a palplable sense we’re all working to the same end , where are our , alleged , leadership ?

      Liked by 3 people

    3. Bryan: much of what you say is, of course, true. The SNP is the means to reach independence. None of us deny the or forget it. The problem – and it is the absolutely crucial one – has been that subsidiary and controversial policies have divided the SNP and the wider YES movement, and, as a result, slowed independence to a state of inertia. The incontestable fact is, as any close scrutiny of the personnel in question will show, the people who are pushing these policies are also the ones who do not have independence as a priority. They can protest all they want, but they don’t. Their talk and their actions are the evidence that they don’t. One of them actually admitted as much, and, now they all keep quiet about that, appearing in their serried ranks in The National to tell us how good, little soldiers they are.

      At, and around the top are, mostly, the 1980s/90s crop of ambitious young things, all fresh from university politics, with little to no life experience, and, it has to be said, an arrested development in several cases, and the huge influx of post 2014 Labour people brought with it the ultra left cultists whose whole raison d’être is to create confusion and havoc, as they did in the Labour Party. All they appear to be interested in is changing society in their own image, whether society likes it or not, and, for reasons that are still not apparent, the leadership has conceded the ground to them. Interestingly, the membership has not, and the wider YES movement regards them with justified scepticism.

      I believe that those of us who want independence very soon and who have been very sceptical of the shenanigans of this ‘woke’ faction, want to see the legal advice, which can be turned over to the public if that is deemed to be in the public interest. I happen to believe it is very much in the public interest that we should know what advice was given and who gave it and in what circumstances, in relation to the Salmond affair. If that advice was tainted at worst, or misguided, at best, and knowingly, there is a definite public interest in it not happening again. However, it is very likely to happen again because the Scottish government is going to be called in a test case (judicial review, same as Mr Salmond’s) on the SG’s redefining of the word ‘woman’ to include men, but to exclude some women. It would appear that intransigence has set in again, just as it did in the Salmond affair, and this case, too, could cost the public purse a pretty penny.

      Taken as a whole, all the legislation pertaining to the protection of women (natal women) and their spaces and rights is unambiguous and that changing the definition of ‘woman’ is, apart from the gross insult to women, illegal, yet it has been championed by the ‘woke’ faction at every turn. It would appear that there is a void in the SG where its brain should be, and it has been filled to overflowing by ‘feelings’ instead of pragmatic good sense as in: “we FEEL this is right, so it must be, and what YOU feel is of no consequence, and neither is your rights “. The law says no such thing: evidence is a pre requisite for any championing of these policies just as it should have been in the Salmond affair. It matters not a jot to the law what someone FEELS, that does not bestow upon them the right to trample the rights of others in order to sate that FEELING. If the law and natural justice become nothing other than the handmaid of FEELINGS, we are all doomed, and independence with us, because it will be a legal necessity to cement independence into our new political constitution at the end of the day, and they must complement each other in a social democracy, not be constantly at odds because some want more than their fair share and are prepared to bring down heaven and bring up hell in order to have their own selfish, childish tantrum-strewn way.

      Liked by 4 people

    4. If the SNP is ‘ destroyed’ when they will only have themselves to blame.

      It is plain as the nose on your face that they have been indulging in skullduggery.
      They tried to put an innocent man in jail.

      If they have nothing to hide then stop hiding behind d the Crown Office and self imposed protocols and release the requested information into the public domain.

      The longer they resist the more it looks as though they have been up to no good.

      Liked by 3 people

    5. Sorry Bryan falls at the first hurdle, my blog makes very clear that I require no crowdfunding. I also limit any donation to £3 and I give an undertaking that any surplus over the running costs of the site will be donated to a pro Indy cause.

      Also I would suggest Oh look they are worse than us and we should accept malicious plotters, folk who have seized the Independence agenda away from the Party because we have an overwhelming need to be “pragmatic” whatever than means, is unlikely to be the influential argument you are hoping for.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. The party would not unite Iain it would fragment along a number of different lines,if both you and other contributors are correct in your analysis of the present factionalism within the SNP.

        You can’t have both a deeply fractured party as you argue, and a party ready to unite no matter how hard you might wish it were so.

        Thus the outcome or end game would by your own analysis be an SNP consumed by personal grievance and criminality according to this forum, unelectable and in tatters.

        I agree that over time other parties would emerge from the ruins who were focussed on Indy but not for years and as they emerged piecemeal they would be up against the Unionist Parties and probably what remained of Holyrood given the demise of the SNP would also mean no SNP Government and no opposition to the emasculation of our parliament.

        Westminster would salt the earth to make sure no opposition was allowed free reign to grow.

        Ross and Baillie would form an alliance on a centre right platform the media would back them and the rump Parliament would lose credibility enough that Scots simply lost interest.

        But we would have lots of time to investigate the individuals within the NEC and the SNP hierarchy who by then would all be older and no longer in a party that didn’t exist anymore but Tom Gordon would I’m sure help in this regard.
        All this assumes a steady state society which is no longer certain given what’s happening outside of Scotland .

        As to other bloggers crowd funding I did not mean yourself my aim was southward and I apologise.

        We have a dichotomy some believe we must purge due to the nature of the alleged sins and that either everything else can wait, or that once purged we simply pick up the pieces and jog on to Indy.
        They are helped in this by the at times stupid actions taken by the party and government
        Some not all see Nicola as complicit and remain convinced that conspiracies abound and entyism is ongoing.
        Others listen but can’t hear massed ranks of members calling for action look but can’t see criminality and worry that just as we have gained the trust and support of our nation we want to throw it away lest we win on a flawed ticket.
        In 7 short months our party my party goes to the polls.
        I believe it will have a manifesto that commits to a referendum
        It will face the combined might of ancient animosities and grudges as well as a security service let go the leash.
        I want you to remember how you felt on the morning of September 19th 2014 and I would ask that in every action we take ,every word we write,and every dream we pursue we look ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves am I making it more or less likely to happen again.


      2. A well written letter But I disagree, deal with the problems honestly and openly. It will be respected by everyone and the Party and Movement will reunite speedily. You are being defeatist. Nobody is arguing against Independence, quite the opposite!

        Liked by 1 person

    6. Bryan, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I don’t vote for the Westminster parties because they are proven crooks. I ain’t voting for a bunch of crooks in the SNP either. The whole lot of the disgusting gang in the SNP leadership need to be crowbarred out of the SNP before I will vote SNP again.

      No I don’t think this is jeopardising independence because the lot in charge at present will NEVER deliver independence. The current SNP leadership have been corrupted by power and are now compromised. The spooks in England will know what they have been up to.

      Liked by 4 people

    7. All of this is happening against a backdrop of rampant arrogance and criminality by the Tories which in past times would instead have been the focus of bloggers but not now

      Correct. Now the focus of bloggers is rampant arrogance and criminality by the SNP. But you seem okay with that, everything’s cool? Don’t rock the boat? Don’t make trouble? Frankly, I think you’ve some nerve using this forum to defend something evidently rotten within the Party hierarchy, and a bigger nerve to attack those who would make people aware of the undoubted problems within the SNP.

      I quit the SNP earlier this year, sick, not only by the continued lack of a campaign for independence, but because, under the current leadership, its lack of accountability and the obvious corruption within the Party, that campaign was never going to happen. 6 years we’ve had now and nothing; nothing but dubiety, cronyism and shameless covering-up, and now ‘forgetfulness’ to add to the list. I’m not a big earner, but I found a way to afford the subs of every month of those last 6 years – imagine how I felt when I realised our former First Minister had been framed, not by the Tories you’re quick to focus on, but but by the SNP?
      Where have my subscriptions gone? Why’s the current First Minister lying? Why are the msm permitted to print jigsaw identification articles whilst bloggers are charged with contempt NOT FOR printing such articles? Why is a current SNP MP using a blogger’s site as a platform to voice serious concerns?

      You bemoan bloggers requiring their complaints investigated and sorted if we are to proceed; the bloggers seem not to be alone, with MacAskill, Alex Neil and, LInda Fabiani all requiring a proper investigation – are these people solely fascinated? But you, Bryan, would have everything swept conveniently under a rug?

      If as I’ve done you try and argue against this piecemeal picking away at the SNP you are called out as woke or facist or a Nicola Fan Boy.. Oh, let me assure you, Bryan, we set-aside much stronger terms for you – you don’t get to choose the degree of seriousness of the charges here.

      I’m sorry, but I find your post to be spurious, disturbing and an insult to all who continue to pay hard-earned money, and loyalty, for the continuation of concealment and subterfuge. You write: they require their complaints investigated and sorted if we are to proceed: that statement alone is of gross concern. Yes, they require, I require, of course we require – why don’t you require?
      Eroding support? How dare you? you people should’ve thought about simple decency and transparency before eroding support and threatening the very thing you say you want.

      I’ll continue to inform and spread the word, amongst the decent people of this country, of the very serious occurrences of this current SNP.

      Good day, sir.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Kennyparrafinlamp thank you for that, you saved me the effort of writing similar, Bryan we Scotland are at a veritable crossroads (I wish) but be honest with yourself if we did get independence, do you really want our country and population to be governed by an amoral cabal of psychopaths whose primary interest is gaining access to women’s safe spaces and if anyone objects that person can be jailed for up to 7 years with the possible loss of their family and family home not to mention their employment or future prospects, all in the name of progressiveness, but no momentum on independence apart from vague PROMISES of a DRAFT BILL and a possible referendum at some futuristic date

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Couldn’t disagree more with your comments Bryan Ritchie. To suggest that acceptance of wrongdoing is some kind of pragmatism is simply outrageous. Such commentary marks you out as a thug and certainly no democrat.

    There was a vicious nasty and coordinated attempt to destroy a man on trumped up charges that could have caused him to spend most if not all of the rest of his natural life in jail. And you call that something that people should accept in the name of pragmatism.

    C’mon man, why don’t you go the whole hog. Why couldn’t Salmond just have been bumped off. Or wait about Bryan, as an apologist for a rotten to the core SNP clique, what is some came and tried to bump you off. Then we could accept it in the name of pragmatism.

    Truly sorry to have to be so blunt. For most ordinary folks, for most honest folks, they do not run with the absolute Blackshirt rationale that you accept. Such behaviour has no part to play in our party, our independence movement, our country.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. You have to be suspicious of the internal wrangling of the party leadership and the make up of the SNP staff while they try to sweep all this under the carpet. My concern is that if theres any truth in the “rumours” they are simply not fit to lead a country as a Sovereign government. Why get rid of Westminster politicians and an out of date institution to form one of our own full of back stabbers and more corruption in Holyrood?

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Couldn’t agree more Hugh Paterson. Why would you want to get rid of Westminster to form your own corrupt institution full of backstabbers.

      That’s why we need to get the SNP straightened out or a replacement formed.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Let’s assume we have independence and there is a general election and all the shenanigans are out of the bag, SNP would be decimated in the face of what other existing and new parties have on offer.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Well, for a start (and finish!) it would be OUR OWN institution full of backstabbers and corruption – so there is *always* a reason for independence in any circumstances.

      The problem is, the actual process for us reaching independence can’t be achieved with a mini-Westminster style corrupt Holyrood whose government has no intention of bringing about independence.

      It is the journey that can’t be achieved, the transition; under these circumstances.

      There is *always* a point to being independent – for a start: if Holyrood was full of corrupt backstabbers when we were independent, our votes matter – we can change it. We have no such influence over Westminster under the current regime. And we are stuck with voting for just one party – in whatever form they choose to take – in Holyrood to supposedly bring about independence, under the current regime. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, there is nothing we can vote for at the moment to move us towards independence. The SNP has created this situation.

      Independence gives Scotland choices, power over its own destiny, a say in its own policies and its own institutions. Independence doesn’t automatically make everyone suddenly nice, or morally superior, or law abiding.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Agree, Contrary. Independence will never be a guarantee of probity and decency, but I doubt that I have ever seen such blatant lack of probity and decency in one administration. If there is some fundamental reason why we cannot have independence now, but at some future date, what is preventing the FM from articulating that reason? She must see that the troops are becoming decidedly restless, yet she does and says nothing, but proffers promises of jam tomorrow, as per. The Covid crisis is extremely serious, no doubt about it, and I think the FM has handled it better than most across most sectors, although perhaps not the care home situation, but it looking distinctly like a shield now.

        What really puzzles me is what they hope to achieve in the longer term if it’s not independence? They are already mired in gunge so why get themselves into yet another area where the mud will stick? The Salmond affair was not done properly and yet, here we are again, the SG facing another judicial review (if enough cash is raised), and the same level of intransigence is being shown. What is wrong with these people?

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Hard to tell Lorna, and sometimes it’s better not trying to reason it out – I put NS’s strange behaviour down to a kind of sociopathy (mostly to stop myself wondering too long about it) – which is where all emotional behaviour is copied, it’s learned in a way that they can approximate, where you don’t have conscience enough to realise blithely condemning a supposed friend of 30 years by accusing them of things they’ve been found innocent of is not a good look. Someone else suggested narcissistic condition. But equally, she could just be an uncaring career-minded polititian (which is common, and par for the course – she just did a good job of pretending otherwise)

        So, the jig is up, and it’s like she doesn’t understand why the lies aren’t working as well as they did. Why aren’t people convinced by the one more mandate ,,, to us, it’s obvious, she promised things and didn’t deliver – including ‘transparency’ and ‘listening’ – logic says she should put on a better show of listening and reacting to popular demand, but she doesn’t.

        In a bubble? Too thick? Brainwashed by hubby? Sociopathic?

        Just take your pick and accept it is what it is, the whys might never be known – or we might not want to know! But the purpose is power, to stay in power, which they’ll lose after independence, so, not much incentive there. What kind of mad dystopian hell they have as a vision of our future, I really don’t want to know.

        Remember though, Westminster is always much much worse.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. If we had a proper legal framework designed for the purpose of establishing the truth, shit like this might not happen quite so often. This adversarial system where the result impacts on the prestige and future earning capacity of the participating layers, is tailor made for miscarriages of justice, malicious prosecutions and no action being taken, when perhaps it should.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I agree John, even though the Scottish Legal system has a couple of fail-safes that make it marginally better than other adversarial legal systems – I believe just the fact that it is adversarial makes it open to the problems you describe.

      I only have a vague notion of other legal systems, but they definitely have elements which would give a fairer system. I think would need a very slow and careful introduction of any changes though – even despite the very likely resistance of current legal bods, there would be a lot of readjustment for the whole of society too. No wide-sweeping immediate reforms I’d think – but things could be done to ‘clean up’ the current legal framework in the meantime. If only.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. I agree wholeheartedly with Bryan Ritchie. Currently the SNP is the most populary party in Scotland and in the history of the SNP it has never had more success in the independence poll ratings – spoil this at our peril.

    What is required is a dose of hard nosed pragmatism and a proper realisation that the May 2021 Holyrood election is probably the most important election ever in our path towards a return to being an independent country and we must hold together until that event has passed.

    We must use the best tools available to push us forward, whilst recognising not all of our tools are ideal. Our best tool at the moment is Nicola Sturgeon and in the eyes of the public at large and for now, she is not seen to be encumbered by the many problems which are the focus of many blogs. To paraphrase Mrs May “now is not the time” to embark on wholesale warfare within and I agree much needs to change but it should wait until after next May.

    That is not to say change cannot be effected when an opportinity arises such as the forthcomomg NEC elections or at National Conference voting. Iain Lawson outined 10 questions that need answered and they must be answered but the answers may have to wait until after May 2021 if obtaining the answers will impede the effort to gain independence.


    1. I could countenance the painful pragmatism involved in ” Flawed ( transient ) individuals v Pro-Indy carnage ” if I had confidence avoiding such carnage would enable a united front , but I don’t . There has been nothing from the leadership to suggest winning the next H.E would result in Independence becoming the sole focus of it’s energy – sure it may ask , again , for a S30 , the answer to that request being so utterly predicable as to require no speculation : beyond that , what ? a half-hearted , unconvincing agreement to ” look at ” a Plan B . It’s purely the great danger of allowing the Brit Nats to take control of Holyrood that is preventing an outright rebellion in our ranks right now , something that could be avoided by a display of honesty and integrity from ” above ” . The reliance on chimeric poll ratings to silence any legimate concerns is both dishonest and unproductive and likely to end in tears – ours

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, Castanet, I, too, don’t believe that a simple drawing together is going to change anything. I believe that we will be told yet again that we will have a referendum around this or that time, but it will not materialize and we will hand them another election victory to carry on for another administration term with sweet fanny adams to show for it. According to Alex Bell, who has no love for Mr Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon was somewhat lukewarm in her approach to the first indyref. I know he’s embittered, but I believe him. She was going to stand against Alex Salmond in the leadership fight when John Swinney stepped down, and he persuaded her that she would not win against him but offered her the deputy post if they went forward as a team. She must have been in her late 20s then. Imagine believing that you had enough experience and utter self-belief to lead a party at that age. Blair and Cameron were two other very young leaders who, full of their own hubris, brought their respective parties low after promising starts. There are few Pitt the Youngers in politics. I did vote for the two of them, but I didn’t give it as much thought as I probably should have done in relation to Ms Sturgeon, as I wanted to see Alex Salmond come back. Maybe we got a glimpse of the future FM then. I am prepared to believe we will see independence this side of 2050 if we get some kind of definite move towards it by the end of this year. Otherwise, it is likely to be the same old, same old.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. Alin Scot – ” more success in the independence poll ratings” – of no value if nothing is done to progress independence and this lot in charge of the SNP are fraudsters.

      Liked by 4 people

  6. As the single issue(independence) is the one that we are all supposed to be agreed upon, rallying support for that single issue becoming the SNP’s main priority should be a cinch – But it may prove tricky due to a substantial majority believing that it already is.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Many valid viewpoints on here. Personally I think if Nicola Surgeon were to make some comment or acknowledgment of how grass roots members are feeling on various issues and what she is going to do about it, might go a little way to ameliorate the situation.

    It is the silence which is deafening!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Alin, not in my book will it help. Trying to fit up someone for a crime may be acceptable to you – it ain’t to me.

      “Silence is deafening” – you say. You must be joking – Sturgeon had plenty to say 2 weeks ago on the Sophy Ridge show – and it was lies and more atrocious smearing of Salmond.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. It could help Alin , but a big part of the problem is trust , or lack of it , in NS herself , which given recent events is understandable

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Indeed Lorna , on reflection , it’s remarkable how we all just accepted the narrative of NS as ” natural successor ” to Alex Salmond , I remember saying ” yes , definitely the right person at the right time ” , words that have turned to ashes in my mouth now . I suppose she had had a ” good Referendum ” and we couldn’t know anything then about her ambivalence re the Ref to which you refer ( you would have thought others would have noted it ) and deeper questions about her character , I suppose that applies to any person in a position of trust and influence . As you have said previously , so many of the people who have reached positions of power have come straight from University with their untested political affiliations and lacking any real experience of the harsh realities of the lives of the people they assume or aspire to represent , I was watching a clip of Jimmy Reid on Parkinson recently , talking , among other things , about the hollowness of Tory notions of Freedom , how , theoretically we’re all ” free ” to reach the giddy heights of material ” success ” but how many actually do , given the many obstacles they have to overcome to do so ? His kind of passionate clarity and insight could have been from a 100 years ago , so far has our political discourse been debased and clouded by subsidiary ” issues ” and the idea of any current politician engaging in such honest speech is beyond imagining now


  10. If Alex Salmond’s legal bills were Pds500,000 or more, how is it credible that the Govt’s cost were only 180,000? That may be what they paid their lawyers but what about the time of all the internal lawyers and civil servants who must have worked on the case. (BTW the claim by Leslie Evans to the Parliamentary Inquiry that the cost couldn’t be calculated is a barefaced lie) I reckon the total cost has to be in excess of a million, assuming that the Govt would have spent as much or more than Alex. The fact that some of those lawyers and civil servants were already on the govt payroll is immaterial.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: