|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 16 Mar 19:48
Using Parliamentary Privilege to attack the SNP`s handling of the Salmond case.
Get the popcorn oot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 16 Mar 20:57
A Charlatan and egomaniac
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 16 Mar 22:28
Good pal of Alex Salmonds
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parplod
Date: Tue 16 Mar 22:33
Will counteract Nicola’s “go get your hair done in time for the election” bribe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 16 Mar 23:12
Not suggesting things shouldn't be correctly investigated, but this is getting a bit "he said, she said". An "anonymous source" seems bit questionable.
Surely this is a Holyrood matter rather than Westminster? What I want to know from Westminster is when there's going to be an investigation into who profited from COVID and Brexit. Who signed off on these seemingly dodgy contracts?
Also, given the cost of COVID, why are we investing billions in missiles we won't need? Why are we progressing with HS2 when reports suggest little benefit?
This sort of stuff plays right into the hands of those seeking independence. "You can't afford independence because we've spent £100bn on saving 10 minutes on a train, £40bn on missiles we don't need, billions more on Brexit, couple of mill for a needless studio in Downing Street and a couple of hundred K on making No.10 looks like the Wayfair catalogue."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Wed 17 Mar 07:34
Agree with buspasspar
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 17 Mar 09:17
When he was the chief Brexit negotiator didn`t he turn up for meetings with no notes, thinking he could wing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 17 Mar 09:39
Also this wee eck :-
Barnier expressed concern about Davis`s commitment to the talks (he had been going to Brussels for the start and end of each round of talks, but had not been staying there for the duration).
Plus he ignored an MP`S unanimous binding deal and lied about Brexit economic forecasts ...... Just another lying Tory weasel really
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Socks
Date: Wed 17 Mar 10:46
Hard to know why he`s raised it, but to me this is just a further illustration that the Scottish Parliament is not a real parliament. The fact that parliamentary privilege exists only at Westminster is not a good thing, and the situation whereby members of a Scottish parliamentary committee could be prosecuted for contempt of court, for things said in parliament, is ridiculous.
Of course it should be a Holyrood matter, but if members of that parliament have no parliamentary privilege and are in the ludicrous position of being told by the Crown Office what they can and cannot do, there is clearly something far wrong. I`m still quite confused on the Salmond/Sturgeon thing but one thing that is surely not in doubt is that the blurred lines and lack of real boundaries between political and legal systems is not a good thing, an must be addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 17 Mar 10:57
Hard to know why he`s raised it
Its getting close to the May elections socks
Anything they can do to disrupt they will ... divide and conquer
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 17 Mar 14:14
He has probably achieved what he wanted - keeping the story alive. It`s on the BBC News website and a few journos asked Nicola Sturgeon about his claims at today`s coronavirus briefing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 17 Mar 15:39
hmmm - is his `parliamentary privilege` valid under Scots Law?
Given that it`s the Scottish court orders that he has decided to ignore...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 17 Mar 17:30
Update - yes it does...
The Scottish Parliament was not given the same protections as Westminster - which is why there was such a stramash about Salmond not being able to state his evidence.
Seems that Davis is doing it for him... Whether on his bequest or not.
This could be very damaging for the SNP in general, and a few senior members in particular!
Seems there was indeed a concerted attempt to stitch up Salmond like a kipper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 17 Mar 18:20
Is it part of an all-out Tory campaign to discredit the SNP and NS before the Holyrood elections or has AS asked him to do this? DD was his first guest at his Edinburgh Fringe show in 2017 apparently. Anyway the Holyrood inquiry now has these messages according to the BBC. As was proved at the Salmond/Sturgeon appearances there are two sides to every story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Wed 17 Mar 19:10
I think the truth is much simpler than a Tory plot. David Davies Is an old friend of Alex Salmond and knowing the frustration Salmond feels about his own evidence not allowed both in court and the enquiry, obtained the relevant information and used the parliamentary privilege to get it in the public domain.
The civil service are increasingly looking like the the actual conspirators in all of this and have hoodwinked some high profile SNP people in the process.
Leslie Evans the chief of all of this does not come out of the leaked info with any credit whatsoever and neither does Peter Murrell.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 17 Mar 22:40
The Guardian is reporting that the woman involved in the sexual harassment complaints says allegation against chief of staff is untrue.
`... in a statement released by Rape Crisis Scotland, an anonymous complainer said that she had approached the chief of staff for advice, as a “trusted senior person in government”, but did not tell them “who the complaint was from, who it was about or the nature of the complaint”.
As I said earlier, there are two sides to every story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Slop-par
Date: Wed 17 Mar 23:50
Has it occurred to him that perhaps the Civil Servant as a Senior Manager was concerned that said allegations should be fully investigated, for the good of both the complainant and the Civil service itself !?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 18 Mar 07:21
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 17 Mar 22:40
The Guardian is reporting that the woman involved in the sexual harassment complaints says allegation against chief of staff is untrue.
`... in a statement released by Rape Crisis Scotland, an anonymous complainer said that she had approached the chief of staff for advice, as a “trusted senior person in government”, but did not tell them “who the complaint was from, who it was about or the nature of the complaint”.
As I said earlier, there are two sides to every story.
Rape Crisis Scotland , they've turned into a handy tool for all these anonymous liars.
Fully funded by the Scottish Government of course.
Wee Nicky didn't have much to say about David Davies interventions in the big Parliament about the corruption up here during her Covid Briefing yesterday but had plenty to say 3 weeks ago prior to her performance at the wee Parliament inquiry her words " I'm relishing giving my evidence to the committee " no wonder she was , on 60 occasions information was denied to them .
Hopefully we're going to end up with a judge led inquiry and get to the truth because the result of the findings of the ongoing investigation will be a political decision.
Power Corrupts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 18 Mar 07:32
She gats criticised when she answers non-Covid questions at these briefings and criticised when she doesn`t. Good to know you`re keeping such an open mind on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 18 Mar 09:24
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 18 Mar 07:32
She gats criticised when she answers non-Covid questions at these briefings and criticised when she doesn`t. Good to know you`re keeping such an open mind on the subject.
There was no criticism of her Covid briefings until she made a personal attack on an innocent man in-between his and her appearance at the inquiry.
The one that she had all the evidence suppressed.
Power Corrupts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 18 Mar 09:36
There has been criticism of her briefings from the start because opposition parties thought they gave her a political advantage. No such criticism was made of the briefings given by the representatives of the `big Parliament` for some reason.
As far as I can gather the committee now has all the evidence they have requested and they certainly had most of it when they interviewed her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 18 Mar 10:51
Aye right
https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/1367542180307435525?s=20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 18 Mar 14:13
I`m going to miss Nicola Sturgeon`s weekly evisceration of Ruth Davidson at FMQs when she moves to the unelected section of the `big Parliament`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 19 Mar 08:57
Statement from David Davis MP in response to what Nicola Sturgeon said at FMQ’s.
19/03/21 Part 1
There now follows a Statement from David Davis MP in response to the misleading information Nicola Sturgeon made to Parliament. As I believe our Parliament and the people of Scotland deserve the accurate facts I have published the statement today.
Scottish Government Statement
Yesterday evening, the Scottish Government issued a statement claiming to refute my comments in the House of Commons regarding disclosure of documents in the judicial review.
They said:
‘The assertions made by David Davis are wrong- this document was not withheld, it was provided to the Court on 21 November 2018.
The Scottish Government absolutely refutes the allegation that civil servants sought to obstruct or show contempt for the court process.’
Roddy Dunlop’s Account of the Disclosure
The Scottish Government offered up as evidence for their statement legal advice from Roddy Dunlop QC on 17 December 2018.
If you read that advice, however, you see that it is in fact evidence substantiating the comments I made.
On Wednesday 12 December 2018, junior counsel for the Scottish Government discovered that a redaction of an email address – one belonging to a Police Scotland officer, Nicky Page – had been wrongly made to a document without her instruction.
The document had therefore not been disclosed to the court. Only an inappropriately redacted version of it had been disclosed.
The unredacted version showed emails about potential reporting to police, against the wishes of complainants, and a draft of the policy itself, had been sent to Police Scotland on 23 November 2017, albeit supposedly inadvertently. It is not hard to see why counsel thought the redaction seriously improper.
An ‘immediate and clear’ direction was given by counsel that the unredacted email should be included in a disclosure bundle. This was thought essential by counsel on the grounds of the duty of candour to the court.
On Thursday 13 December counsel realised that their direction to disclose the unreacted email had not been complied with.
The Scottish Government claimed this was for personal data reasons- a judgment they reached without consulting counsel and without proactively telling counsel. Given that it was going to the court this is spectacularly disingenuous.
[This was so serious that] on Friday 14 December counsel reached the view that they could ‘not properly advise the Court that the Scottish Government had discharged its duty of candour’ as a result of this failure to disclose the unredacted document. They clearly view it as very important. It does not take any reading between the lines to see that counsel is angry.
Statement from David Davis MP in response to what Nicola Sturgeon said at FMQ’s.
There now follows a Statement from David Davis MP in response to the misleading information Nicola Sturgeon made to Parliament. As I believe our Parliament and the people of Scotland deserve the accurate facts I have published the statement today.
Scottish Government Statement
Yesterday evening, the Scottish Government issued a statement claiming to refute my comments in the House of Commons regarding disclosure of documents in the judicial review.
They said:
‘The assertions made by David Davis are wrong- this document was not withheld, it was provided to the Court on 21 November 2018.
The Scottish Government absolutely refutes the allegation that civil servants sought to obstruct or show contempt for the court process.’
Roddy Dunlop’s Account of the Disclosure
The Scottish Government offered up as evidence for their statement legal advice from Roddy Dunlop QC on 17 December 2018.
If you read that advice, however, you see that it is in fact evidence substantiating the comments I made.
On Wednesday 12 December 2018, junior counsel for the Scottish Government discovered that a redaction of an email address – one belonging to a Police Scotland officer, Nicky Page – had been wrongly made to a document without her instruction.
The document had therefore not been disclosed to the court. Only an inappropriately redacted version of it had been disclosed.
The unredacted version showed emails about potential reporting to police, against the wishes of complainants, and a draft of the policy itself, had been sent to Police Scotland on 23 November 2017, albeit supposedly inadvertently. It is not hard to see why counsel thought the redaction seriously improper.
An ‘immediate and clear’ direction was given by counsel that the unredacted email should be included in a disclosure bundle. This was thought essential by counsel on the grounds of the duty of candour to the court.
On Thursday 13 December counsel realised that their direction to disclose the unreacted email had not been complied with.
The Scottish Government claimed this was for persona
Post Edited (Fri 19 Mar 09:10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 19 Mar 09:10
Part 2
On Thursday 13 December counsel realised that their direction to disclose the unreacted email had not been complied with.
The Scottish Government claimed this was for personal data reasons- a judgment they reached without consulting counsel and without proactively telling counsel. Given that it was going to the court this is spectacularly disingenuous.
[This was so serious that] on Friday 14 December counsel reached the view that they could ‘not properly advise the Court that the Scottish Government had discharged its duty of candour’ as a result of this failure to disclose the unredacted document. They clearly view it as very important. It does not take any reading between the lines to see that counsel is angry.
Accordingly, the Scottish Government conceded the Commission and Diligence process, which proceeded to uncover further evidence which had not been disclosed to the court. This process is massively expensive and not normally necessary. The unredacted document and these further emails were finally disclosed on the 18th December 2018
Context of Roddy Dunlop’s Advice
Further, it is important to note the broader reasons behind counsel preparing this advice.
The note was written in response to events (i.e. the failure to disclose the unredacted document) ‘which led us to consider very seriously whether we were bound to withdraw from acting for the respondents in this matter’.
Counsel state: ‘we trust it will be obvious why this matter has given rise to such concern on our part about our ability to continue to act’.
The failure to disclose the document left counsel ‘in an extremely difficult position professionally’.
The fallout of the failure to disclose was very grave on counsel’s reading:
‘It is clear that the Lord Ordinary is unimpressed at being faced with a situation in which it appears the Scottish Government has not acted with full candour and in which a commission has had to be appointed. It seems inevitable that parties will now be put to expense and inconvenience of a commission’.
It is inconceivable that counsel would have written to the Scottish Government in such strong terms if disclosure had been properly made on 21 November, as apparently claimed by the First Minister today at Holyrood.
Ha Ha Wee Nick certainly stitched up the Duchess but what a way to do it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 19 Mar 10:33
Your double post would have benefited from some redaction. It repeats itself halfway through. I hope you weren`t trying to intentionally mislead anyone.
If the leaked opinion of the committee is correct it seems that the majority of the claims that Sturgeon misled Parliament have not been proved. There`s no mention of breaking the ministerial code by withholding documents, by misstating when she first knew about the allegations against Salmond, by interfering in the process, by ignoring legal advice, by being party to a conspiracy to `get Salmond` - all charges which were trailed whilst the committee was still in process. All they have come up with is an inconsistency in her evidence about offering to help Salmond in his predicament. Whether that is the case or not it`s pretty obvious she didn`t help him so I`m not sure what all the fuss is about.
Apparently there`s also a code covering membership of these committees to prevent leaks from happening. Will we get an inquiry into that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 19 Mar 10:42
Who knows Eck , one things for sure there's a lot of folk in denial of whats coming up the track.
Hold your breath if you think independence is coming in your lifetime because your going to be mightily disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 19 Mar 11:03
A double prediction - about independence and about my lifetime!
I don`t have a crystal ball but a lot depends on the outcome of James Hamilton`s inquiry next week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 19 Mar 11:13
Don't think next week will change anything, so many people up to their necks in it and wee nicks not just protecting herself but them also.
But in the mean time the party faithful are split in half over all of this and like 2015 at least 20% won't bother voting.
Thats why the urgency to encourage the support to postal vote before the MSM go full on.
Regarding the Salmond incident, he's not going to give up and I suspect this is going to end up with a judge led inquiry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 19 Mar 12:14
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. If this partisan committee could only come up with a technical breach I think there`s a chance Hamilton will clear her. I wonder if the MSM will give that the same coverage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
