Political desperation by opposition MSPs

A statement from the SNP members of the committee:


BBC Scotland are ignoring this and the Herald is keeping it small.

10 thoughts on “Political desperation by opposition MSPs

  1. Ah but they all forget that once the May election officially kicks off Then Strict media rules apply
    Hence the Unionist rush to establish the narrative and hope it has legs
    Let it run faster and faster as a suddenly outstretched foot awaits to tip them into the cess pit that awaits
    Just like a simple Military command to your troops
    Position, Load, Aim and HOLD your fire

    Liked by 3 people

  2. EH , but hang on , seriously , seriously in todays political climate in Scotland with all the lies we had up to the 2014 scottish independence referendum with all the lies over four years of brexit with all the insults lies and ignorance the torylabourlibdems have shown are ANY of these people who wrote this letter surprised at what this committee has done ?

    Is anyone in Scotland surprised at what this committee has done ?

    NO of course not

    So we have to surely realise that Nicola Sturgeon , SNP ,Scottish government also knew this was going to happen .
    This begs the question what was it all for ?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. IMHO Had the SNP been in a majority in the current parliament then probably the remit of the committee (had one been formed) would have been stuck to as there would have been 5 SNP and 4 opposition members. (remember the make up of the wasteminster Scotland select committee which has a Conservative majority). Therefore even if they had worked out what would happen then the SNP had no choice.

      This is why a majority SNP government after the election is essential


  3. As I see it – the SNP members of the committee were appointed to Get Alex Salmond. Getting Alex Salmond was also the first aim of the non-SNP members – until the moment it dawned on them – during his evidence: the SNP is trying to Get Alex Salmond.

    They (the non-SNP members) woke up to the realisation, Salmond had been set-up. They then, particularly after Sturgeon’s uninspiring appearance, who the baddie really was.

    Maybe there was anti-SNP bias on the committee, but, there was also pro-Sgturgeon bias, which didn’t work.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Tainted by bias? Against a private citizen who was no longer a legal office bearer.


    “Your employer will need to investigate if there’s a complaint against you and may ask you for a statement. The investigation should be unbiased, fair and reasonable. It should also seek to establish the facts and not just collect evidence against you. You should be given copies of any information that comes out of the investigation.”

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The Committee is now lying. Just a total waste of time and monies. Just more nonsense. Anyone who falls for it. More fool them. Unionist nonsense. Who would have believed it. Just as expected.


  6. When SOME members of a Committee of Inquiry have to resort to this in response to what OTHERS deliberately leaked to the media for political ends, it only serves to demonstrate how utterly toxic party politics in Holyrood has become to the proper function of Parliament.

    On the statement itself, I strongly suspect the Committee were wrong footed by the question of “did the FM mislead” (rather than “knowingly”) and only realised it retrospectively after that nugget was leaked deliberately to the media for political ends.

    Scots may expect no better of the rabidly anti-Indy Scottish media, but they have every right to expect MSPs appointed to the Committee to park politics at the Inquiry door and conduct themselves diligently to the task at hand without prejudice.

    For all the intent of the anti-indy manipulators and the media, all they’ve achieved is to increase awareness of Scots on how devious and poisonous London politics has become. That won’t end well.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. The reality is BOTH main camps acted from a political stand point.

    The SNP members were biased and intended to dismiss from the outset.
    The Unionists were biased and intended to convict from the outset.
    Andy Wightman did his best to actually listen to the evidence, read the reports and ask detailed questions.

    I do not like blind Party loyalty in Holyrood, Committees or in debate.

    Apart from Andy Wightman the committee members did little to advance the publics confidence in Politics.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.