8. Elish Angiolini –
Cuckoo in the nest…
Depending on who you talk to anything from half-a-million to
two pounds of public money was spent pursuing Green; and his treatment does
seem to have been unusually harsh, certainly unreasonable and pretty-much
pointless. So why spend that amount of public money giving Green a ‘kicking’?
One simple possibility is that attacks made by various
individuals on the Scottish justice system in relation to the Hollie Greig case
may have been politically motivated; to the great convenience of some. That the agenda and the brief was (and
remains) to try and damage the Scottish independence movement… That is stated not in defence of the Scottish
justice system or the Scottish authorities generally; for they are rotten and corrupt to the core; that much is plain.
But one might reasonably wonder what sort of ‘dirty trick
players’ would envision such a scheme… And for the answer to that question you
should look no further than Westminster itself, for until recently it was they and not the Scottish Government that
granted the fiefdom of Scottish justice. And let’s not forget, it is
Westminster that seems to be at the heart of the United Kingdom’s problem with
establishment paedophilia.
Much political capital has been made out of the Hollie Greig
case – and certain politicos do actively try to promote the lie that it is “Salmond’s shame”. Factually, Salmond could take nothing to do with the matter... To the extent that if you write to the First Minister's office about it they will pass the letter straight to the COPFS virtually unread.
The Hollie Greig case, throughout the run up to Scottish independence referendum, was actively leveraged by political animals – and I find it quite frankly revolting that people like Robert Green, Brian Gerrish and Belinda McKenzie should seek that to defend that which they themselves tell us themselves stinks to high heaven… For the benefit of those of a poor educational level, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are two different things. And the Palace of Westminster - paedophile central as some call it - sits at the rotting heart of the latter. Risisble that McKenzie for instance should, prior to the referendum, have spoke about still being able to protect British children... Well for a start post-independence Scots would not cease to be British. And it's not as if scandals such as Smith, Savile and Kincora say anything positive about the 'British' establishment's capacity to protect children!
The Hollie Greig case, throughout the run up to Scottish independence referendum, was actively leveraged by political animals – and I find it quite frankly revolting that people like Robert Green, Brian Gerrish and Belinda McKenzie should seek that to defend that which they themselves tell us themselves stinks to high heaven… For the benefit of those of a poor educational level, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are two different things. And the Palace of Westminster - paedophile central as some call it - sits at the rotting heart of the latter. Risisble that McKenzie for instance should, prior to the referendum, have spoke about still being able to protect British children... Well for a start post-independence Scots would not cease to be British. And it's not as if scandals such as Smith, Savile and Kincora say anything positive about the 'British' establishment's capacity to protect children!
Then there are the pitiful little Orange (bargain basement
Masons) lapdogs bowing and scraping obediently to the butcher’s apron… And it’s these clowns that present the most obvious lies…
Salmond’s shame? Really? - To their own shame that they're promoting a deliberate lie to advance the very system that nurtures perverts...
If these ignoramuses (and their hingers-oan) were a little
brighter they’d know that the First Minister really has no power to intervene in the administration
of justice. – I’ll tackle their biggest
lie – that of Salmond supposedly having been ‘found guilty’ by the information
commissioner of some imagined crime – in my next post. But I’ll start off with
the truth about the Lord Advocate…
The Lord Advocate of Scotland is appointed by the Queen on
the recommendation of the First Minister, with the (nominal) agreement of the
Scottish Parliament. The post has traditionally and until recently been a
blatantly political one; in the grant and favour of whatever political party was in
power. Thus, prior to the restoration of
the Scottish Parliament the appointment came directly from London. Post 1999
and up until May 2011, as Scottish Labour have never been anything other than a
puppet ‘branch office’ office of the London party, it is therefore from London
that the orders came in terms of who held the position…
For those who are a little confused at this point by the fact that
Scotland has had an SNP, not Labour Government since 2007, some appreciation of
the history surrounding the tenure of Elish Angiolini is essential...
She was appointed Solicitor General for Scotland on the
recommendation of Labour First Minister Jack McConnell in 2001 and it was of
course also McConnell who nominated
Angiolini for the post of Lord Advocate in 2006. At that time it was fairly
obvious that Scottish Labour were on their way out; this was therefore some
eight months before his Westminster-branch office of the London Labour party
was predictably relieved of its duties by the Scottish people…
The politicised nature of the Lord Advocate’s post has always
been contentious and objectionable. And
Salmond had, pre-election, committed to "de-politicise" it; McConnel was very much aware of this. And so he selected a particularly contentious Lord Advocate knowng full-well what an effective plant she would be for the first few years of SNP tenure.
True to his word, Salmond did de-politicise the post. For instance, from 1999 until 2007, the Lord Advocate
attended the weekly Scottish Cabinet meetings – he ended that
practice, and a few others!
Salmond was left
with a political problem in the shape of Angiolini though.
To be clear the Lord Advocate is actually a Minister of the Scottish Government.... They
are principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government and have influence upon
it. But decisions by them about criminal
prosecutions and the investigation of deaths are taken independently of any
other person. Essentially the Lord
Advocate has a fiefdom in the shape of control over the Scottish Justice
system. They are an unelected person sat at the heart of government. And they
are realistically answerable to no-one in terms of the practical administration
of the law in Scotland.
Those who imagine the First Minister or even the Justice
Secretary have command and control over the Lord Advocate are sadly mistaken… Those
who promote this myth really are deeply dishonest – or pitifully stupid.
Why did Salmond not sack Angiolini you may very well ask? Politics!
The (some might argue; I most certainly would!) sock-puppet
Lord Advocate of a sock-puppet Labour party in opposition could not be seen as
a good fit for the SNP government. But of course having officially
de-politicised the post it would have opened the incoming SNP government to
charges of hypocrisy to oust the incumbent Lord Advocate on the basis of her
political affiliation. Further, politically insensitive too since she was the
first ‘working class’ woman in post and had been there for such a short length
of time!
Certainly, Salmond was stuck with Angiolini, not enamoured of
her. And if there's a smoking gun here it's pointed straight down at his foot!
Effectively he was in the uncomfortable position of having a
political cuckoo in the nest, and one he could not easily undermine or get rid
of. ‘Scotland’s Shame’, or rather Alex
Salmond’s shame is that instead of having the strength of character and
integrity to rid the country of this vile political plant and ‘flush out’ the
culture of corruption, he played
politics and (publically at least) went through the motions of supporting her
and leaving her to it.
Decades of political bias within The Crown Office and
Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) had ensured a ‘service’ really not fit for
purpose. The Scottish legal system is
degenerate to the degree that it has (as I’ve said before) more in common with
a Poker game than it has the administration of justice. You can be fairly sure that the make-up of
those that held positions of responsibility within the COPFS will have been and
to some extent still is highly politicised and very much under the control of
the pro-Westminster parties.
For evidence of this you need look no further than the
disgracefully ‘flameproof’ nature of Scotland’s Labour politicians. Contrast and compare the treatment of the
quixotic Robert Green with that of people like Steven Purcell, former leader of
Glasgow City Council. Or the current City Council leader Gordon Matheson, who
in late 2012 was caught by the police allegedly performing an oral sex act with
an undisclosed 38 year old male in a public place.
The stench of political cronyism hangs heavy in the air. As
does the empty echo of justice not served. In both cases the COPFS decided not
to prosecute their friends; you know Robert’s story!
Clearly a root-and-branch reform of the Scottish justice
system was, and remains necessary. But politically this is a very tall order.
Just flushing out the rot sounds like a great idea. But publically ‘outing’
each and every rotten apple within the current system would further undermine
public confidence in it. There would no doubt be many challenges to past
convictions with a percentage emerging as unsafe and much public time and money
wasted revisiting safe convictions. And
then there is the problem of finding suitable replacements for these rotten
apples – good ones don’t grow on trees! The costs would be huge.
Depoliticising the Lord Advocate post was clearly a move in
the right direction. But if was nowhere
near far enough. And much as the
political reasons for leaving Angiolini in post are clear enough, this was for
Alex Salmond a huge mistake. For in doing so he actually armed some of those
who would eventually stand against him, and the ambition of freeing Scotland
from the perverted and corrupt grip of Westminster.
It should be understood that the law (like government itself)
is a machine of immense inertia. Once it is set running it will complete its
cycle and cannot easily be interrupted. Thus the incoming incumbent to the post
of Lord Advocate is often left to face the consequences of their predecessor’s
actions. To undermine them is to undermine the post itself, and this was
particularly difficult for the individual that followed Angiolini, Frank Mulholland.
********
A white paper for the proposed Scottish Referendum Bill was
published, on 30 November 2009. And, although that bill was eventually rejected
by MSPs it was fairly clear by mid-2010 that the Scottish people would again return an SNP government – with
a renewed commitment to a referendum.
Angiolini's coat was now on a very shaky peg... With no prospect of her political kin regaining power at Holyrood she had to look to her exit strategy. Because there would be no prospect of her staying on. And one might reasonably speculate that here exit might not have been pretty.
Rumour – or ‘open secret’ if you prefer – has it that
Salmond’s dissatisfaction with Angiolini was well known; it was certainly clear
that she could not survive a second term of SNP government, particularly one that
was moving towards an independent Scotland. Indeed, there is a strong
possibility that she would have no significant place in an independent
Scotland. Ever the egotist, Angiolini it would seem did not relish the prospect
of being put out to grass.
We have then a situation here then where an outgoing
political cuckoo in the nest had both the opportunity and motivation to cause
mayhem.
With the writing for her political overlords once again on
the wall Angiolini announced in October 2010 that she would resign as Lord
Advocate the following May, fleeing the political nest and, as cuckoos do,
leaving quite a lot of damage behind. One (to be fair minor) example of which
being the fact that Robert Green was by this time well on his way to jail...
Angiolini was in-post as Lord Advocate for just
four-and-a-half years. I don’t entirely agree with Robert Black QC who said her
tenure was a “disastrous experiment” – for he also went on to bemoan the fact
that “In the past, the law officers have traditionally come from the ranks of
the practising Bar and were supporters of the governing party…
Angiolini’s tenure was (in part) disastrous because she was a political sock-puppet; although
Black may have an unintentional point in that she was a sock-puppet for a party
that was seeking to undermine the governing party. As for the “ranks of the
practising Bar”? - Seriously? I’m afraid we can have no confidence in an
‘old boy’s club’ legal establishment that long-since gave up practicing law for
the playing of games!
It is irrefutable fact that despite Salmond’s efforts, the
Scottish justice system was a political fiefdom – and the stronghold of
Scottish Labour. Salmond would not and
simply could not interfere in any way shape or form with its machinations. His
Justice Secretary, the pointless Kenny McAskill was never anything more than a
‘Stookey Bill’. The perception however
(call it a smoking hole in his foot) created by Salmond was that the post was
apolitical and had the full confidence of the Scottish Government. Much as I understand the political reasoning
behind it, Salmond was an utter fool to leave Angiolini in post.
So, is it really just utter stupidity that causes some not to
attack the man who would have torn the heart from a paedophile-infested Palace
of Westminster? Or is it vested interest in deflecting attention from the real
miscreants and projecting it onto others?
