A spokesperson for Mr Salmond said:
“Mr Salmond has never refused to give evidence and remains happy to do so.
On Monday, he had confirmed attendance at the Parliamentary Committee today to deliver his evidence. His submissions had been approved and were published that day. Logistical and health and safety arrangements had been made for the evidence session and travel plans had been organised.
On Monday afternoon the First Minister pre-emptively announced that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on her government’s part. This was before Mr Salmond’s evidence was even published
Then late on Monday night, after publication on the Parliamentary website the Crown Office intervened, which led to redaction of substantial sections of some of the very evidence the First Minister claimed did not exist.
In light of this astonishing decision to intervene at the eleventh hour and in light of the timing, Mr Salmond asked the Committee to defer his evidence by 48 hours to enable his legal team to consider the full implications of this extraordinary intervention.
Mr Salmond has now asked his lawyers, Levy & McRae, to write to the Lord Advocate as the Head of the Crown Office to ask for an explanation for the Crown’s unprecedented and highly irregular actions. In particular the Lord Advocate has now been asked to explain;

  1. What was the legal basis for the Crown’s intervention, when lawyers and counsel have approved the submission as being fully compliant with Lady Dorrian’s judgment? Their advice is that they can see no legal reason for this move.
  2. Why did the Crown not complain until now about the paragraphs they have asked to be removed from Mr Salmond’s submission, given that they have known about these since before 15th January and they have been in the public domain since then too? The Parliament also approved the submission before publishing it on the Inquiry website.
    Mr Salmond’s lawyers have also posed the following direct questions:
    • Why has the Crown’s position changed? What new information or intervention led to such a dramatic expansion of the material which the Parliament has been required to redact?
    • Specifically, given the fact that each of the paragraphs which appeared in the original submission on the Ministerial Code in the same terms as previously accepted, what about those paragraphs is suddenly now so legally “problematic” that a Parliamentary Inquiry is to be deprived of that evidence? If the evidence is not published, the stated position of the Committee is that it will not be considered.
    • What has now altered the legal analysis of this same text which means that members of the public following the evidence before the Committee on a matter of this importance are now not to have access to it via publication by the Parliament?

• What representations were made to Crown Office on this question, by whom, when and on what basis?
• If the submission remained a concern, why were no representations made about the balance of the submission before yesterday? Specifically, why was no aspect of this raised at the recent Hearing before Lady Dorrian?
Mr Salmond has instructed his lawyers to request specifically that the Crown preserve and retain all material and communications with all or any third parties which led to their decision to intervene at the very last minute just as he was set to give his evidence.”


    1. If this information has been in the public domain since 15 January,then it must have been available to enquiry long before now and they haven’t used it.So what’s the big deal?


      1. The big deal is that if it’s not published by the committee it can’t be considered and even though they will know it is untrue will have to report no evidence was found. Dem de rules!

        Liked by 5 people

  1. Is the Crown Office answerable to no one? Given that the Lord Advocate is also a member of the Scottish Government (I’ve got that right I hope) it seems logical that the this latest action needs to be investigated independently. Alex Salmond has been prevented giving evidence at the enquiry. For ‘Something is rotten in the State of Denmark…’ read ‘Something is rotten in the Scottish Government and Justice System’. No point in asking Police Scotland for obvious reasons.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. You’ve got it right. It is a custom carried over from Westminster that the Lord Advocate can be part of the cabinet. In 2007, as First Minister, Alex Salmond changed this as he wanted the law and government to be separated, he did not want the chief law officer of Scotland’s position to be politicised. The Lord Advocate is theoretically an employee of the Queen, but the person is nominated by the FM and approved by the Queen. In my opinion, Alex Salmond had it absolutely right, the impartiality of the law should never be in question.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. So if Alex Salmond had it right, how come it’s wrong now? Is each new FM allowed to make their own choice of what position the Lord Advocate Is given?


      2. Grannijanni

        The Labour/Lib coalition had the Lord Advocate as part of the government. When Salmond became FM he stopped that and excluded the Lord Advocate. When Sturgeon became FM she reverted back to the way it was under the Lab/Lib coalition. Wolfe the current Lord Advocate is part of the Scotgov and sits in the cabinet.

        This shows to me someone wanting as much power and control as possible.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. The Lord Advocate is ’employed’ by the Queen, but he was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon. I believe he is a well known unionist (I don’t know him so I don’t state this as fact and only what I read.). It would seem to me that that position would, in the normal scheme of things, have him at loggerheads with an SNP First Minister, wouldn’t you think? And yet he seems to be doing all he can to facilitate the closing down of avenues that would show Nicola Sturgeon to be complicit in this conspiracy against Alex Salmond. Why would that be, do you suppose?

      This, by the way, would be the same Lord Advocate who is doing all he can to stop Martin Keatings’ Sec.30 case progressing, by throwing what I think of as caltrops, into the path to cause maximum disruption & maximum cost to the crowdfunders who are paying the legal bill. The Lord Advocate was working for both the UK govt & Scotgov, until… supposedly, Scotgov pulled out. Martin Keatings’ Solicitors, Aidan O’Neill, has tried very hard to petition the court to have the LA state whether they have actually done so, as the actions of the Lord Advocate would seem to suggest THEY HAVEN’T & he (the LA) is still working on their behalf. Now – WHY would the LA do all in his power to stop the case, where Martin’s Solicitors determine whether Scotland needs a Sec.30, if they are working for Scotgov. WHY would Scotgov want to throw caltrops into the road? Why would they want to run down Scots crowdfunded ability to pay to continue the case? Why would the Lord Advocate go to great lengths & then absolutely REFUSE to admit he is still working for the Scottish government. Puzzling?? I certainly find it puzzling…

      This is also the same Lord Advocate,who works for the crown & who has in their employ, a Crown Agent, one David Harvie. It is now common knowledge that David Harvie has been a member of MI5. Whether he still is, is not known. But given what is happening in Scotgov at the moment, would we be wise to believe he isn’t?

      It also pays us to remember that the Scottish Civil Service is ultimately in the employ of bozo. They work for him & Lesley Evans travels down to London every week and ‘reports in’. What do you suppose she discusses with her boss, the First Civil Service Commissioner (who is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of OH! The Prime Minister! How strange… )? I doubt they discuss the cost of train/air fare! And we mustn’t forget – this is the very service that got MEDALS after indyRef1 for the part they played in spreading misinformation throughout the REF campaign.

      It’s all very well daft people saying that the rolls of tin foil have disappeared off the shop shelves. But it really doesn’t take a genius to see that whether MI5, 77th Brigade or anyone else in WM employ is actively working on making sure Scotland DOES NOT leave the UK, the fact is – every unionist person who can make a difference in the Indy campaign, IS ABSOLUTELY IN PLACE.Throughout history these people have been in place to cause maximum damage to causes the British government do not want supported. To not recognise that fact is extremely naive. Though unionists will mock and call us ‘conspiracists’, the fact is, that is part of THEIR jobs of making us look too wee & too stupid to run our own country (and trying to hide the fact MI5/77th are on active duty).. And that’s as maybe. But DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACTS – Scotgov has many unionist allies in their ranks that are pulling strings & making sure there is enough discord, division & dirty tricks going on to persuade us of the futility of voting for Independence. And if we ARE too stupid to believe WM hasn’t penetrated Scottish government, we don’t deserve to have independence.

      What we do, knowing all this, is for each of us to decide.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Another very interesting thread by Martin Keatings… and worth considering: It just takes a few innocent comments like ‘I hear Salmond is coming back & he’s gunning for your job again!’ and voila! Back comes the reposte, ‘No way! He’s not doing this AGAIN & getting my job!” And thus the conspiracy comes into play, backed by a VERY malleable Civil Service, who all innocently say ‘Sure thing, Nicola! We’ll help you with this!!’


    3. Lord Advocate is Scottish Governments legal adviser but has not sat in Cabinet since 2007 and many would argue he shouldnt. Anyone question what side he might be on? The stirring side.


  2. Every morning seems to herald yet more disrepute for the institutions of Scotland, namely the Crown Office, the Scottish Parliament, the Office of First Minister etc.

    The British state representatives at Queen Elizabeth House might even be encouraged to add ‘too corrupt’ to the usual trio of insults assigned to Scotland and us this excuse to shut the lot down.

    Not that I’m accusing anybody of conspiracy or anything …

    Liked by 4 people

    1. It would be a bit ironic for them to allege corruption in Scotland when it is they who are pulling the strings, except that may well be what is planned!
      We need to expose this before more damage is done.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. So in summation
      The snp is corrupted, finances in tatters through mismanagement an the crown office is in the pocket of the Scottish government and Scotland has been duped into thinking that an independence referendum is happening when it cannot!?!?!?!?


  3. Every day there’s something. Every. Day. What the hell went so very wrong in the Party, so wrong with the leadership and those that signal their collusion with blind support or silence? What happened to their ethics, morals, commitment to fairly represent the people? What a mess.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Anything..ANYTHING to stop the truth spilling out into the public domain.
      We know.
      They know we know,
      yet it can’t be broadcast.
      All dignity lost…matters not.
      As long as they keep this up, who cares about decency and dignity.

      Liked by 6 people

  4. I think sometimes that Nicola believe she IS actually in an episode of Borgen and that at any moment some miraculous explanation or intervention will remove all the problems. Where is Katrine Fønsmark when you need her?


  5. Is there not a bigger picture here?

    Is there not a constitutional anomaly arising from the devolution settlement that nobody seems to have twigged?

    The Lord Advocate represents the Crown, yet is a also under the devolution settlement, a member of a government of a non-sovereign parliament. He therefore finds himself as an agent of the Crown, simultaneously able to resist the demands of a non-sovereign parliament, whilst serving a devolved Scottish government.

    When the Lord Advocate was a member of the Scottish government before 1707, it was in an entirely different constitutional context.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It seems to be acceptable in Scotland that you can be a member of parliament and get away with telling lies, being corrupt and being deceitful. These people are a disgrace to Scotland and obviously have no conscious


  6. She has one plan now. Repeat the mantra “no evidence” and run the clock down until the committee investigation closes.

    No matter what we all know from what is available on a dozen sites it is officially “hidden” from the committee by this sleight of hand.

    The Crown office should be motivated by one issue, The Public Interest. Sadly we have seen the reputation of this office trashed to accommodate a political manipulation of an investigation.

    The Crown Office cannot defend this because ALL the information is already in the public domain. They have not prevented any information from being released. They achieved one aim only. They prevented the Committee from including it in their report. This is the only outcome and it is so blatant and offensive that it insults the Law and Democracy.

    Whatever your politics, regardless of your position in society, All of Scotland, should be ashamed that The Crown Office has been used in this manner

    Liked by 8 people

  7. Shades of Stormont pre Suspension and Direct Rule. We need to get this sorted now. Every time it appears that the go-ahead for Mr Salmond’s appearance and Ms Sturgeon’s appearance, something else crops up that makes it imperative that this, that or the other piece of evidence might lead to identification of the women, so must be redacted.

    When are the women going to understand that anonymity for the trial and all related aspects stands, but what cannot stand is behaviour that has nothing to do with the trial or any ancillary aspects of the trial itself, but which just happens to be behaviour of people around the FM. That they might be the same people in both instances is neither here nor there. Anonymity does not stretch to lifelong anonymity in circumstances that have nothing to do with the trial and ancillary aspects of the trial. For example, are we not allowed to identify a person, say ten years before said trial, and in circumstances that have nothing to do with the trial, because, in later life she happened to be involved as a witness in a trial? Nonsense. It is an interpretation of the law that does not exist. We may as well delete and destroy all photos of them when they were in their prams and allow no photographs of them to be taken until they die of old age.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Hello Iain,

    I have posted a statement on my Joan Hutcheson SNP Conferences Committee Facebook Page today. I have also left the SNP. If you feel that it would be helpful to reproduce my statement, please feel free to do so.

    Yours for Scotland Joan


    Liked by 2 people

  9. It’s a about time the Scottish Parliament put the Crown Office in its rightful place – namely, second to the people of Scotland and their Parliament.

    If the Parliament does not assert its authority it will lose all credibility.

    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: