The background to this is extremely complex. I have only half-followed the story. The basic allegation is that there was a conspiracy in Scotland to fit up the previous SNP leader Alex Salmond by the current party leadership acting in cahoots with figures in the police and government bureaucracy.
You don’t need to have followed the story to follow this one point I want to make. Craig Murray (dissident blogger, ex-Ambassador and alleged conspiracy theorist), who himself is being persecuted by the same allegedly corrupt establishment, has been demanding the release of certain messages from the Crown Office in Scotland. He has also been asking why the Scottish Parliament inquiry into a botched attempt to bring down Salmond with a disciplinary process has not asked for all these messages.
Recently it was reported in the mainstream press that the Scottish Parliament inquiry has demanded the release of documents. This is the Guardian’s account. If you read that you will come away believing that this is a bold move by the committee that will get to the truth of the allegations (which are essentially of a conspiracy by senior Scottish government politicians and staff to stitch up Salmond).
But, according to Craig, and I’m satisfied with the quality of his journalism and believe him to be accurate with respect to this matter – the Committee has only asked for a sub-set of the documents.
This means that the end result may well be a whitewash. Not only that but by having engineered headlines such as the one in the Guardian “Scottish parliament orders prosecutors to release Salmond leak evidence” it will be seen that people like Craig Murry were, all along, spouting conspiracy theories. After all the documents have been produced and there is nothing there. Craig would be justified perhaps in feeling like the man in the asylum who is told that the fact that he denies he is mad is proof that he is mad. (Of course there may be something even in the subset of documents which have been requested but according to Craig not the full story). This is how ‘inquiries’ tend to work in the UK. Their job is always to rescue the establishment. In this case the inquiry is a Parliamentary one and the people on it are elected MPs – not judges. But it doesn’t seem to make much difference. (Way out of scope, i.e. not evidenced here, but my point would be that ‘Parliamentary democracy’ – for which we are perennially willing to kill so many thousands in far-off lands – is never a government of the people. The representatives always get twisted along the way and choose to serve power instead of the people).