JIM SILLARS HITS OUT!

The pity of David Davis’s speech in the House of Commons was it was too short,  on the adjournment, not a full scale debate. It is worth revisiting for several reasons, including an error.

He had, from a whistle blower, a substantial number of WhatsApp messages between senior officials of the SNP, but time allowed him to quote only a few, but enough to confirm that Alex Salmond was the victim of a plot to get him into the arms of the police, court, and jail. That was the “game” Sue Ruddock described and was intent on playing.

We now have an English Tory MP with a store of vital information about which the Scottish people are denied knowledge.  How come?  While Davis pointed out the lack of Westminster type privilege in our Holyrood parliament, it is wrong to conclude that its committee of inquiry into the Salmond-Judicial Review case has not sufficient powers to command the same information.

S23 (now S24) of the Scotland Act gives parliament and its committees the following power: “The Parliament may require any person – (a) to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence, or (b) to produce documents in his custody or under his control, concerning any subject for which any member of the Scottish Executive has general responsibility.”

The members of the committee of inquiry have wrung their hands in public about how they have not been given this evidence and that evidence, either at all or piecemeal, or late. Yet they have had S24, compulsion powers, right from the start. Did the majority not want to use them? Or didn’t they know how to sue them?

In case it was the latter, Alex Salmond showed them how: deliver a  S24 notice to his solicitor and he would have been bound to do so, and thereby be free of threats of prosecution by the Crown Office. Although the committee was reported as initially being in favour of this action, somehow it never happened. One version for inactivity was that they were still not sure the parliament, and they, had enough power.

Enough power?  This is the parliament that has wielded power of a range and depth never seen before, even under divine right Monarchs. Power to lock us up at home, take away civil liberties that were taken for granted for centuries, fine us for having parties, close schools and universities, and make thousands of businesses shut their doors. Unprecedented power. Yet the committee did not use the statutory power of S24 to get the information, and publish it. We are left to thank an English MP for telling us he has it, and providing us with a few devastating excerpts.

What kind of people sit in that committee?  Is it that there is no backbone? Or is it that the majority do not want to know, or, more importantly, do not want us to know?

David Davis referred to the first minister’s chief of staff, and her interference in the Scottish government’s internal investigation into the allegations against Alex Salmond. Has she been recalled to give evidence?  No. This is where we come to the error in the Davis speech, when he mentions Liz Lloyd having been under oath. She never has been under oath in the inquiry, because she has never been required to give anything but written evidence.

Her two pieces of written evidence, especially the second piece where she makes assertions is no more than words on a sheet of paper. It has no claim to accuracy or truth until she is examined on it under oath. How is it possible that the committee has never examined her under oath?  She has been mentioned in evidence the committee received before David Davis referred to her. She is the chief of staff to the first minister, so was bound to have had a role in the fiasco.

Well, they did try to get her to come and be examined under oath. I am told from a good source that she laid down conditions: that she could have two lawyers with her, that they could not question her on the critical March date when Geoff Aberdein, as well as arranging the April 2nd meeting in Nicola Sturgeon’s home, was also told the identify of one of the two career civil servant complainers – and that the members had to sign their agreement to her conditions– if not, she would not appear. To their shame a number did sign. To their credit a number did not.

The arrogance is staggering. “I will come but only on my conditions, and you lot better sign in agreement.” What kind of MSPs were those who would sign up to that?

Here’s a question – why is Liz Lloyd such a privileged person, that she feels able to lay down conditions to a parliamentary committee for her appearance?

The only legally privileged persons in the Judicial Review case being examined by the parliamentary committee are the two career civil servants who made the complaint against Alex Salmond, the complaint having been made originally in 2013/14 and resolved then, but re-made when the new sexual harassment policy was being created in 2017/18.  Note: it was Alex Salmond who instructed his lawyers to get a court order to guarantee both of them anonymity. Was the Scottish Government so involved in hiding material from the Court, as it was found out doing, that it forgot about its duty of care to these two women?

David Davis lifted the lid a bit on the conspiracy to set-up a citizen, send him to jail and ruin him and his wife (no one thought of her did they?). We must hope that another MP was the recipient of the whistle blower’s material, and that in a fuller debate in the House of Commons he or she, along with Davis, will the lid will be lifted on everything.

Our institutions have not only failed, but have become the very instruments of subverting the public’s right to know about the gross misuse of power by themselves. The Crown Office has sunk so low that Charlie Falconer QC, in the Holyrood magazine, can describe its head, our Lord Advocate,  and his role in the Judicial Review case thus: “It is interesting to see the whole thing set out like this because you can see the way that Wolffe has been corrupted by politics,  I don’t mean corrupted in any financial sense. I mean corrupted by the need to say whatever your boss or your client wants to hear.”  Who is his boss? The first minister.  

The latest madness by Wolffe’s Crown Office is to threaten The Spectator with unlimited fines unless it takes down Alex Salmond’s evidence which it published ages ago, and which has been in the public domain. This is insane over reach. But it hasn’t stopped there: It even went as far as to demand that The Spectator not tell is readers that it had received that threat. This is a government department that has forgotten it operates in a democracy where the freedom of the press is sacrosanct because, for all its faults, without a free press our freedoms would soon vanish.

The proper function of the Crown Office is the administration of criminal justice, not quashing information the people are entitled to have about those who rule them. The SNP, once the most open and democratic political party in Scotland, has morphed into an organisation set upon subversion of our law and justice.

Jim Sillars

MY COMMENT

Once again I am grateful to Jim for this article that again widens our knowledge of the extent of the measures that are in place to stop you and me ever finding out the truth on these issues. I particularly welcome his exposure of the special rights and conditions Liz Lloyd thought she was entitled to and the fact that the Spectator were warned to not advise their readers of the measures being forced on them by the Crown Office. Make no mistake important powers are being misused and our freedoms are under attack.

Free subscriptions to this site are available from the Home and Blog buttons on the top right of this page.

48 thoughts on “JIM SILLARS HITS OUT!

  1. You know what, Alex Salmond needs to sue the bloody lot of them. Every last one who was involved in this disgusting plot to ruin his life. Who the hell does Liz Loyd think she is, telling the committee what they could ask her. Her behaviour stinks to the high heavens. Alex, start a crowdfunder. I was happy to donate to the first, and I’m even more so now. Parasites, every last one of them.

    Liked by 18 people

  2. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-crown-office-the-spectator-and-a-fight-for-a-free-press

    Read the Spectator article and fear the power of corrupt Government and State.

    From modest beginnings in Dregorn to a very short career as a solitary which she abandoned after the Law Society identified three serious charges of malpractice, to a list MSP very soon there after, to the First Minister has presided over a Government that has wreaked absolute ruination on the law and institutions of state in Scotland.

    No one of right mind can now vote for what now masquerades as the SNP. It is a party in Government absolutely corrupt and criminally so. It must be removed.

    In the 1920s and 1930s a humble Austrian born German politician rose through the political ranks. We know his name. But have we learned the lesson of his ilk.

    Liked by 9 people

  3. Thank you for a good article. I imagine it was not Liz Loyd’s idea to demand a set of conditions be upheld by all the committee before she gave evidence. Possibly her boss, the FM? Liz Loyd knows where the bodies are buried and could not be questioned. The FM will have known which members of the committee would not sign the document, so LL would not attend. The question worth asking is: does the FM see Liz Loyd as a weak link in the chain who would not withstand questioning? People always talk, eventually.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Wasn’t Liz Lloyd due to appear as a witness when they finally decided to throw in the towel in the Judicial Review?

      Like

  4. Thanks for this Iain and Jim.
    John Swinney decided that under no circumstances should Liz Lloyd be permitted to appear (in person) before the Committee. Why, because her testimony could bury Sturgeon.
    It’s horrifying that the committee refused to compel her to appear and capitulated to her terms. Aberdein’s testimony was pivotal, as is her interaction with him.
    The Fabiani Inquiry is a complete farce.
    Half of Scotland knows who she is, aside from her chief of staff role.
    Every day more details of the corruption emerge and every day my disgust grows.

    Liked by 13 people

  5. Presumably it was the SNP Fabiani Four plus Andy Wightman that were spineless in not compelling the necessary witnesses to attend.

    And why is a spin doctor laying down the law! She’s a civil servant, paid for by us. As is the Committee.

    It’s high time we started getting a return on our investment. The dividend I want is a payment is kind namely,

    TRUTH.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. As I have posted on other forums recently – Fiat Justicia ruat Coelum (Let there be justice though the heavens fall).
      The Romans had the right idea.
      I cannot vote for people so lacking integrity despite the risk of delaying Independendence, possibly until after I’m gone.
      However, I hope there is time for some aspects of this to be resolved and there is a pro- Indy majprity in Holyrood as people realise how we have been conned by our government now and by Westminster previously in how our parliament has been shackled.

      Liked by 5 people

  6. Iain,

    You are beyond words now. I can’t read any more of your nonsense. Paranoid is too small a word. There was no conspiracy.

    Bye,

    Gordon

    Like

    1. Good to hear I can’t do anything for for those suffering from “blind loyalty delusions”. Would advise shock therapy because this will be all blown in the most public way very shortly.

      Liked by 11 people

    2. gordybhoy you are needin tae keep up. Word is she telt a lie tae her supporters, well imagine that! It will be in ra morras Record by the way.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. Gordon, so you really believe it all just happened by accident do you. I guess you believe in fairies at the bottom of gardens as well.

      Like

  7. Once again based on ‘a good anonymous source’ just like David Davis’s statement under parliamentary privilege – much of which was refuted this morning by an independent source. (a fact not even mentioned here) Davis – the arch Tory brexiteer. – like Sillars ? apparently had this info for weeks so why the last minute ‘revelation’ I didnt realise the Tory old boys network had tentacles stretched into Scotland but thats probably my naievity although I have always understood there are almost certainly many ‘plants’ who were/are hiding in plain sight. Time may tell but I will certainly be voting SNP who are currently the only possible route to Independence.

    Like

    1. Florence Nicola lied. Not me saying that the Committee has now said she did and that by falsely trying to mislead the committee she is in breach of the Ministerial Code. No anonymous sources, the Committee of Inquiry!

      Liked by 7 people

    2. And an innocent man condemned by an anonymous concert of women – who now – despite his acquittal, continue to abuse that anonymity by repeating the baseless calumnies dismissed by a jury – aided and abetted by corrupt state structures, likely coordinated by Brit security actors, in apparent thrall to the most evil, corrupt politician I can recall in my nearly seven decades – over half of that as a member of the SNP.

      I can barely believe that I have to write the above!

      Liked by 6 people

    3. What DD said was not “refuted” (which means disproved, not merely denied). All that happened was that a set of assertions were made that contradicted some of what he said, but which left more unexplained than explained. The source of this was far from independent, given that all the newspapers carrying the story described that source as “a complainer”, ie in the criminal trial, not the Scot Gov investigation, who was therefore accorded anonymity.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Aha, I wondered what that ‘independent source’ was that doing the refuting. So, not independent, and not refuting.

        But also, Florence seems to be under some amount of delusion that an anonymous source – that could be making up any old mince really – was doing anything except putting Liz Lloyd in a bigger heap of trouble. See GeeK’s comment over on GD’s site:

        https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/03/18/an-urgent-question/comment-page-1/#comment-2294

        SpAds shouldn’t be interfering in any civil servant business – that’s in their code of conduct. If Liz Lloyd did, as this anonymous source claims – she should be losing her job. Well, she SHOULD, but this is a SG through the looking glass, and anything goes.

        A very clever move to have Mr Davis make that speech: and a very stupid countermove to get some anonymous person to make a statement that makes things worse for the Scottish Government – their cover up is so rubbish, their ability to dodge condemnation is remarkable.

        You couldn’t make this up!

        Liked by 5 people

      2. I do not understand why a complainer, given anonymity by the courts, is then allowed to contradict what DD said unless she gives up her right of protection. That is interfering in a matter relating to the trial she was part of.

        Liked by 3 people

    4. An extremely reasonable explanation for Lloyd’s arrogance is of course that she is an intelligence asset and protected as such, so well done for bringing up plants.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. And she is not the only one by all accounts, and also not the only one who managed to avoid face to face questioning by the committee.

        I think we all know who is really behind this stushie, and it for sure aint just Sturgeon and Wolffe.

        Like

      2. Intelligence asset my arse. Liz Lloyd is Nicola Sturgeon’s asset, she does what Sturgeon tells her to do. Same goes for Leslie Evans. The stitch-up was all for NS’s benefit to eliminate Alex as a rallying point for all the disgruntled Indy supporters in the membership and thus a potential challenger. No input from Westminster required.

        Liked by 1 person

    5. “currently the only possible route to Independence”, but not a credible government. Yes, we need Independence, real Independence, but the SNP have to focus on real world – real time concerns; such as our miserable failing level of so-called education, such as the restructuring of the NHS to cut the very expense waste… and to keep it operational even in times such as Covid (one wing or building would have been sufficient, not closing the whole hospital to cancer patients, etc), dealing with the real underlying issues of social problems such as drug abuse, violence, etc.

      Like

  8. The fact that DD is speaking renders less rather than more credibility to this circus of hate towards the Scottish government, having to go to the imperial masters illustrates the weakness of the argument, disappointed to say the least in this bullying well supported by the tories !

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

    1. Bad luck Ann your comment just came in at the same time as the Committee made public that they believe Nicola’s account was untrue and that she has breached the Ministerial Code. Blaming DD seems a bit daft now does it noT?

      Liked by 10 people

    2. Ann,

      How does it lend what was said less credibility because it was David Davis speaking? Primarily he was talking about how unfairly hobbled the Scottish Parliament is at weeding out corruption; hobbled by Westminster. Then everything else he said ties up with the evidence that’s been given and is in the public domain, with a bit of extra information – he also can’t say he has evidence, in parliament, when he doesn’t – otherwise he gets himself into a heap of trouble too – so we have to trust that’s the case. We have to assume the accuracy of how he represented that evidence, that we haven’t seen, is fair by the fact it fits in with the rest of the sorry tale.

      ‘Circus of hate’ towards the Scottish Government – do you really think this is just the rest of the world randomly picking on the Scottish Government out of pure malice, and there really is nothing to see, and the government is so squeaky clean other people are randomly making up things to put them in a bad light? The SGs OWN EVIDENCE says they did wrong – and Nicola Sturgeon’s OWN evidence contradicts, not just her husbands, but the government’s own evidence!!

      The Laura Dunlop review of the procedure is now out – and it basically says everything in their original procedure was wrong and ill-founded – yet Swinney is still delaying – an unlawful procedure as ruled by another judge! – having it revised/ditched – WHY? What possible squeaky clean motivation could there be to delay “doing the right thing”?

      Which part of all that doesn’t ring alarm bells?

      Then we have had Crown Office suppressing evidence and threatening parliamentarians with prosecution – does that not give you pause? They are only suppressing evidence that shows the SG in a bad light – is that an acceptable and non-corrupt use of the prosecution services?

      One of the key problems is that I have yet to see ANY evidence that backs up ANY of Nicola Sturgeon’s statements – it’s not just an occasional slip of the tongue or a wee mistake. If you believe everything Nicola Sturgeon says, then give us an analysis – pick apart NS’s 8 hour oral testimony before the committee and tell me which piece of evidence applies to which statement, because I couldnt find anything of substance in there.

      Back up your claims that the SG is squeaky clean, and then we can have a reasoned debate about it. Tell me with some kind of reasoned analysis that none of the above is actually, in reality, happening.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Yes, I suspect not, Iain. I really get fed up of people – taking the effort to comment on here, claiming that everyone else is wrong because of some unfounded faith, without backing it up with anything concrete – why is it always those being critical that have to back up their claims, but not those with ‘faith’? I know you’ve tried to get folk to discuss all the issues, and it doesn’t work – but why on earth are people reading things they are trying desperately to blindly ignore? Ugh, cognitive dissonance.

        Anyway, I’ll blindly imagine that Ann is off gathering all her evidence and putting together a cutting riposte for me to analyse, I will check in regularly because I’ll be fascinated to see her substantiate her claims. I always listen to all sides of a debate.

        Liked by 4 people

  9. My, o my, Jim.

    I feel very privileged to have read this and to see you operating at the height of your very fine political and humane gifts.

    So clear.

    Respect.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. So Enquiry has concluded the Nicola Sturgeon misled the committee and parliament and has potentially breached the ministerial code.

    And that’s from a committee with an SNP Convener and inbuilt SNP Green majority.

    What now?

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Re the “protection” of Liz Lloyd – although it has now become clear that the Judicial Review was conceded because counsel refused to continue, at the time it was suggested by many people that the imminent summons for LL to give evidence was the trigger. She could not, for some reason, be allowed to do so, and it was preferable to concede and bear the cost than to let her testify.

    These reasons for concession are not mutually exclusive, of course.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes SF, certain prominent ‘actors’ in this case appear to have immunity from appearing before courts, justiciary and parliamentary. I wonder why that is?

      Liked by 2 people

  12. Every now and again the Universe has to rebalance itself!
    Only a resignation by Nicola will do so at this moment.The Independence movement will bounce back with an early Mia Culpa.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Story emerging is that Douglas Ross has used his Parliamentary email to do his work for the SFA and use his constituency office phone number to contact and receive calls to arrange his referring duties This is a blatant disregard for his constituents which has broken parliamentary rules.

    Looks possible he may resign. Might in fact beat Sturgeon too it?

    Liked by 3 people

  14. I think the guilt is shown by the actions of Lloyd. Who needs 2 lawyers unless you think you are in trouble, who lays down demands to a committee when they intimate they are innocent of any wrong doing. Statement analysis also shows guilt. And a statement by nicola stating she didn’t think it right she was involved, in facts proves the foreknowledge else why the need to recluse.Theres too many coincidences for it to be all smoke and no fire. Utterly disgusted and appalled at what the SNP, led by nicola and her nicophants (nicola sycophants). Caught red handed, hand in cookie jar, chocolate on face and still…”big boys did it and ran away”. Shocking state of affairs

    Liked by 2 people

  15. I hate using this Cromwellian quote: ” For gods sake go” but its really apt on a numbers of levels.

    Sturgeon has foisted on us internal dispute at the moment of victory and has alienated and sent home our best cadre.

    She must go so we can continue the struggle. Even the great Wallace knew when his time was apt.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “a rogue state”

      A colonial nation in conflict with the ‘mother country’ oppressor is always going to be made to look dysfunctional; ‘rogues’ are put in place to make it so.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. I thought that a Parliamentary Inquiry has the power to subpoena witnesses and that failure to appear is Contempt of Parliament for which you can go to jail. No ifs, buts or maybes allowed. Or is that only in real Parliaments and not the “wee pretendy Parliament” of Holyrood?

    Liz Lloyd’s arrogance is appalling, but it demonstrates the Sturgeon cabal’s utter contempt for accountability, from Sturgeon and Swinney and further down the ladder. They believe they’re untouchable and unfortunately Fabiani and the other SNP members of the Inquiry are letting them get away with it.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: