THE DEBATE CONTINUES.

Mia responds to the article from John Smythe Investigations that I published yesterday. This site has hosted excellent debate in the last week highlighting the truth of what happened during the organised plot to take down and remove Alex Salmond through the use of false allegation and smear. I hope we can continue to highlight the fraud until everyone in Scotland understands the scale of the crimes involved and the gross misuse of political power that made it all possible. It is important to balance the scales of justice. This will be the last in this series but I will return to this topic in due course.

MIA RESPONDS

Thank you so much for this John. It is really helpful and very much appreciated.

Needless to say that I am enraged by the seemingly unfair and unjustified concessions towards Liz Lloyd. It is like she was wrapped in cotton wool during the whole process. Being Sturgeon’s chief of staff at the time, one would expect she would have been the first one to be interviewed in that inquiry, and not in a private fashion, but publicly, like all the others were.

This was a parliamentary inquiry after all. Those sitting in that inquiry were representatives of the people of Scotland acting on behalf of the people of Scotland to scrutinise and extract information from a corrupt government who in collusion with the UK civil service had just abused its position of power to enact an unlawful complaints procedure that ended up passing a bill of millions of pounds to the Scottish taxpayer. Money that could have been put to much better use.

The evidence was of great public interest for the people of Scotland to prove for starters that the Scottish government is a functioning democratic institution and not a colonial administration, to prove that justice had been done and rogue actions accounted and paid for. The chief of staff is an unelected civil servant whose salary is paid by the taxpayer and should act in line with the civil service code of conduct, therefore the members of the inquiry should have been given the opportunity to question this person and the Scottish people the opportunity to listen.

All the obscurantism surrounding the evidence and special concessions to some of these characters stinks at cover up and cowardly attempts to escape scrutiny. Frankly it removes all credibility from that parliamentary inquiry reducing it to just being a convenient tool to whitewash Sturgeon’s government and civil service, help them avoid accountability for their developing and applying an unlawful complaints procedure that should have never seen the light of day, and for the way positions of power were abused to great expense to the taxpayer simply for the sake of timewasting and stopping Mr Salmond returning to politics. 

As a taxpayer in Scotland who sees so many other things that money could have been put to better use for, I find the unscrupulous and cowardly way all this information was supressed and brushed under the rug of inconveniences with a toothless inquiry totally unacceptable.

I don’t understand either how coaching in a situation like this can ever be seen as acceptable. I do not know about the rest of the readers, but learning that these civil servants were coached does not inspire me any confidence they were telling all if any truth and even less having any trust on their statements. What value have those statements if they might not even be genuine because they were instructed, reviewed and potentially rehearsed with a third party tasked to stop uncomfortable information coming to light? Did the coaching involve deliberately stalling and delaying the process by giving “inaccurate” statements on purpose to delay the process? Was the mentioning of the magpies in the garden as a stalling/distracting strategy part of the coaching as well? Was the coach with Judith McKinnon when she spoke by phone? Why did taxpayers have to pay even a penny for this? When exactly did we agree to pay for the coaching of unelected civil servants to help them avoid scrutiny for not respecting their code of conduct, for ignoring the law, for redacting and applying an unlawful complaints procedure and for allowing leaks of confidential information protected by GDPR to the press? Taxpayers should be paying for their prosecution, not their coaching to escape scrutiny.

As Iain says, the questions and investigations on the disgusting attempt by self-entitled, corrupt rogues to ruin the reputation of the former FM of Scotland to stop him returning to politics, engineer division between yes fundamentalists and devolutionists to stall independence, and continue wasting years of our time while our assets are being handed to foreign interests, cannot stop until the truth is fully exposed and all the culprits accounted for.

We cannot simply allow a band of unprincipled, unethical and morally corrupt self entitled rogues laugh at us while they abuse our democratic and justice institutions as if they were their personal political hoover and our public money as their personal bottomless pit of cash to get rid of inconvenient political opponents they appear to be simply too mediocre and incapable of defeating on fair terms and using lawful arguments.

As today, all this could happen again tomorrow and we would have exactly the same corrupt individuals using the same strategy to suppress information enabled by the copfs and lord advocate, we would have the same characters escaping scrutiny by providing some decaffeinated and coached statements, and we would have again a parliamentary inquiry chaired by somebody clearly on the side of the government and unable to bite because the unelected COPFS and a lord advocate with a bum cheek in the cabinet and another in the COPFS are allowed to waltz in and tamper with the proceedings of a democratic institution conducting a parliamentary inquiry on behalf of the people of Scotland, by removing the dentures of the parliamentary inquiry making it a complete farce.

So what exactly did that inquiry, the coaching of civil servants, the wrapping of a chief of staff in cotton wool, the intervention of the COPFS to supress information and sending the police in a goose chase at great public expense so the corrupt press had something to smear a politician with, achieved from the democratic point of view?

Because other than letting rogue individuals escape without scrutiny and free to do it all over again , I see nothing else having been achieved. It seems like very poor value for the money they spent us.

Scotland deserves much better than this abuse of our public funds, blatant suppression of evidence, and such an unacceptable contempt for Scotland’s democratic rights, for the sake of preserving the union while protecting the reputation and indulging the self-entitlement of a bunch of corrupt rogues.

MY COMMENTS

My thanks to Mia and John Smythe. Scotland is well served by you both. You have displayed that Scots will put in the effort to defend others when they see injustice. It is exactly that quality and bravery that will make an Independent Scotland a country we can all be proud to call our own.

I am ,as always

YOURS FOR SCOTLAND

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some sites had given up on being pro Indy sites and have decided to become merely pro SNP sites where any criticism of the Party Leader or opposition to the latest policy extremes, results in censorship being applied. This, in the rather over optimistic belief that this will suppress public discussion on such topics. My regular readers have expertly worked out that by regularly sharing articles on this site defeats that censorship and makes it all rather pointless. I really do appreciate such support and free speech in Scotland is remaining unaffected by their juvenile censorship. Indeed it is has become a symptom of weakness and guilt. Quite encouraging really.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Are available easily by clicking on the links in the Home and Blog sections of this website. by doing so you will be joining thousands of other readers who enjoy being notified by email when new articles are published. You will be most welcome.