Thursday, February 18, 2021

Some citizens are more equal than others in Our Precious Union

As scathing as I've been of the 'pop-up list parties' and their potential to indavertantly reduce the number of pro-indy MSPs by taking votes away from parties that can actually win seats, there's a small part of me that looks at what someone like Martin Keatings will be doing in May, and thinks "you know what, it might actually be quite fun to stand in an election, even as a no-hoper candidate" (perhaps even particularly as a no-hoper candidate). So in a daydreaming sort of way, the thought popped into my head that if in five years' time we're still not independent (heaven forbid), maybe I could stand as a paper candidate on the list ballot for the London Assembly - that way there'd be no harm to the SNP and I could give the long-suffering Scottish residents of Greater London a pro-indy candidate to vote for. But alas, that cunning plan didn't survive more than five minutes, because I checked the rules and nobody is eligible to stand unless they have strong connections to London - you either have to live there, or own property there, or have done so within the last twelve months. And, on reflection, I realised that was exactly as it should be (leaving aside the property bit), and I immediately checked the rules for the Scottish Parliament, naturally assuming that the same would apply here. 

And guess what? It doesn't. Scottish residents can't stand for the London Assembly, but London residents are entirely free to stand for the Scottish Parliament. Inspiring, isn't it, the equality we enjoy in Our Precious Union.


  1. Another issue Independence will solve!

  2. People living in the south of England feeling they can freely interfere in Scottish politics is unionism 101.

    Be that Boris or bloggers.

  3. To be fair, politicians or candidates not living in their constituencies are asking for trouble anyway. See what happened when Paul Nuttall's "house" was empty and advertised for rent(granted, his whole campaign was a train wreck).

    It may be somewhat of a cheap shot, but even George Galloway has better sense than trying to stand for a seat while living in England. He moved back to do that.

    1. Oh come now. Absentee candidates are a pretty routine phenomenon. And Galloway might as well have not bothered moving, for all the difference it will make.

    2. Wonder if he has a catflap ? .

  4. Sorry but this is nonsense:

    The information has been in the public domain for weeks now and if it had the slightest chance that it risked any form of identification of the complainants it would of been me made to be taken down.

    The fact that the publication that released the information into the public domain has been in front of the Scottish Judiciary, which had no issue with that they had printed underlines this.

    Of course, now that Salmonds statement is public record any witness to the enquiry can be publicly questioned on its contents (I believe that Salmond & Sturgeon are the last planned witnesses).

    1. Tom Gordon only links to his own pro-union paper article so it's difficult to comment. I'm guessing he's done that because it's not an official response, but someone's personal opinion.

      For me, Andy Whightman has no side here, so I've been satisfied with the decisions of the majority of the committee on this.

      Unionist MSPs have been a disgrace. For them the law and witness protection matters jack shit because they are not in power, so if the law is broken, it wouldn't not be them in the dock. They should listen to Cherry and her advice on making wild, unfounded accusations.

      Anyway, I look forward to Salmond's testimony. All clear for that now.

    2. The testimony which will bring to the public's attention exactly what the revolting murrell knew and how she tried to have an innocent man imprisoned under false rape charges?
      You're really looking forward to that?
      Somehow I don't believe you.
      You know who women AC&H are and how it is impossible for Murrell not to have know what they were doing. Every day they out themselves without our help. See the SAS funded missive from RCS for proof.
      Hubris, Nemesis then Retribution.

    3. The cover up and the length of time it goes on for just makes it all worse.

      To echo Smearer Skiers words - who the f**k is George Adams MSP - he is an SNP MSP who knows who these alphabet women are and what has been going on but desperately wants it all to be covered up. He has chosen option 3.

      Still no word on publishing Geoff Aberdein's submission. The main reason there has been miles of redactions in papers submitted to the Inquiry is to cover up SNP/Scotgov wrongdoing. In what way can it be acceptable that the people making the redactions are the people being investigated. In what way can it be acceptable that the people hiding evidence are the people being investigated.

      Everyone involved in this matter bring shame on Scotland.

    4. Erm, Salmond's submission has been published. That's hardly 'covered up'.

      And I can't see how he'll explain why he has tried to mislead the committee by failing to mention his very close 30 year 'like family' friendship he had with Sturgeon and the huge conflict of interest that created in his submission.

      Sturgeon doesn't try to hide it in hers, but is at pains to make sure the committee understands the truth here.

    5. It's really sort of comically pathetic to try and claim opposition parties (Andy Whightman) are 'covering up' for Sturgeon.

      This really is tinfoil hat stuff.

    6. pro-union paper article so it's difficult to comment

      You must off missed the screenshot showing the statement being released through the SNP Media office via email. The header of 'SNP Response' kind of gives away that it was an official response.

      As you stated the law decides what can be out in the public domain and can if it feels necessary stop information being in the public domain if ,for example, it felt that the information could lead to the identification of the complainants. Lady Dorian clearly has no worries in this aspect, hence her not stopping any information being published. Of course if the SNP feels that here decision is incorrect they are free to argue their points in the courts.

      Quite correctly - based on the courts not ruling that the information can be in the public domain the SPCB has said that Salmond's submission can be public record as part of the Enquiry.

      As I noted once public record witnesses can be asked questions about the content. I'm sure that everyone will agree that the commitie should be able to question Salmond on the content of his submission, so cant now see any reason that they would not it to be published

    7. I would prefer to see originals. It's the herald FGS; it's not known for being a reliable source, hence the crashing sales over the years. It's hard to work out these days what's a cheap tat advert and what's the article. Even then it was just the statement of an MSP. George Adams very obviously doesn't speak for the entire membership so you can only read it as his personal opinion. That's why it said his name and not 'An official spokesperson for the party'

      As an aside, from the butchers apron waving loyalist rants below the Gordon tweet, it does seem Gordon has some interest readers!

      Personally, I agree with Adams in that unionists should not look to break laws around anonymity as that will risk women not coming forward in the future. Sometimes these cases are not black and white.

      And Andy Wightman voted against publication of the submission. He's not SNP and definitely not in any 'trans cult'. He was honorable. Unionists don't care if the law was broken as they just want to use all this for politics and know it wouldn't be them in the doc if the courts deemed Holyrood had broken the law. Really disgusting behaviour and another reason why they are polling badly.

    8. Unless you a journalist I don't think you get on the SNP press office mailing list you could enquire with them I suppose. Here it is in the National:

      Hope we are not going down the Trumpian route were things are 'fake news' when they are published it certain publications.

      With no risk of any laws being broken (which as you say would be wrong) I cant see any reason why the Salmonds submission cannot be published into public record.

    9. The herald does actually publish fake news. It's not Trumpian to suggest that. Unless you are sayin brit papers are all bastions of the truth and never publish anything that detracts from that? I really hope not.

      And the National just publishes the words of George Adams which I have not disputed. I don't see anything saying he was speaking other than in a largely personal capacity.

      Press accounts often just forward stuff on, including things from outside parties. An official statement is always states as such.

    10. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - says "Erm, Salmonds submission has been published."

      Is there no end to this guys deliberate lies. Is this what we want representing Scottish independence lies and cover ups of wrong doing.

      Salmond has had two seperate submissions published by the Inquiry. At least one other submission has not been published. The one where he states his opinion that Sturgeon broke the Ministerial code in a number of ways. It does not name any of the alphabet women. There is no legal reason why it cannot be published.

      Smearer you are a BLATANT LIAR!

      You are just running interference. Shameful.

    11. It was published by the spectator. Now the parliament as ok'd its publication too.

      That's hardly it covered up.

      Any why is nobody talking about Salmond trying to cover up his 30 year 'like family' relationship with Sturgeon in his submission? It changes just about everything he wrote.

    12. Smearer Skier (liar since (2014) - My original post referred to Geoff Aberdein's submission and did not mention Salmonds submissions.

      You are just a blatant liar - Salmonds submission on the Ministerial code has not been published by the Committee and it has still to go through the parliamentary process and then the Inquiry Committee have still to agree to publish it.

      Cover up and run down the clock is the SNP/Scotgov approach.

      Aberdein's submission and possibly others have been kept hidden.

      Not one special adviser has been invited to attend an Inquiry meeting.

      Lies and smears are all you have.

      Your nonsense about 30 year old relationship is just interference.

      Smearer - you are option 3 - deny and cover up - that makes you as bad as the people carrying out the wrong doing.

      Everyone taking option 3 are just like the Britnats. We will not get a decent independent Scotland acting like Britnats.

    13. If submissions are legal and relevant, they'll be published. If they can't be legally published, the committee reads them and takes them into account, but to prevent a breach of Scots law, they won't be published. Are you against Scotland/Scottish law? Do you think the committee should be illegal, ruining any chance of justice? Unionists seem to favour this.

      Who is would hide them? Murdo Fraser? Andy Whightman? The Parliament's corporate body?

      Sorry, but a 30 year family like friendship presents a huge conflict of interest. Salmond for example did not meet the 'FM' at her home, but he met a 'friend of 30 years'. Asking one to intervene on his behalf is very, very different to asking another.

      He's going to be asked why he has omitted his key fact which is fundamental to everything from his submission. It looks like he's being trying to hide it when Sturgeon was open and honest about their very close friendship and the massive professional conflict of interest that created.

    14. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - I hope you are not paying someone to tell you to say that pish about conflict of iinterest because you are wasting your money.

      Hey liar he did not ask her to intervene on his behalf.

      You are a disgrace Smearer.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Luke 8:17 For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed,
    and nothing concealed that will not be made known and brought to light.

  7. @James.
    Could you not simply self-id as a London resident?

    1. Micheal Gove and Wings self-id as Scots when it suits, but much prefer living in England as Englishmen.

  8. MSP's that have no particular connection to their constituencies are fairly common in Holyrood. Alyn Smith and Nicola Sturgeon spring to mind. Even when Salmond stood for Banff & Buchan, he didn't live there. No doubt, the list is long. Local representation is a joke at Holyrood.

    The chances of that changing are therefore zero. Probably as high as the chances of the Scottish government admitting that they shouldn't be the people investigating allegations of attempted rape, even when it is proven they are way too incompetent to do so, such is their arrogance.

  9. I thought Sturgeon lived in Glasgow where she's an MSP?

    If you are an MSP, are you not allowed live in a house near your constituency if you can't find one you like in it?

    We are not talking about Bath or something.

  10. I'd say something really needs done to make it, " Only a Scottish Resident and Only a Scottish Party" can stand for election at Holyrood. while we are doing this we could make it in local elections only a resident of at least 5 years can stand.