Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Re shuffle is apparently this afternoon and the latest rumour is Gavin Williamson will be moved to Northern Ireland

He had a reputation as an excellent Chief Whip but seriously the blackmail material he has must be outstanding.

Edit: Meanwhile wholesale natural gas prices in the U.K. have jumped 20% today

Basically we're relying a lot on gas power plants because there's not that much sun or wind - then this morning there was a fire at an energy plant that's knocked out our connection to France so we can't import any energy through that. Not sure when it'll be back online.

[Tamas]

Re shuffle is apparently this afternoon and the latest rumour is Gavin Williamson will be moved to Northern Ireland

I mean, his general incompetence must be obvious even to Johnson. So best case is he was a good Whip indeed and the thinking is that's the sort of skill you need to manage the retardfight at NI. More likely, however, is that Johnson and co. expect things to get worse in NI and have no desire to try and prevent, let alone solve it. So they decided Gavin will be a good fall guy. 

[Agelastus]

Re shuffle is apparently this afternoon and the latest rumour is Gavin Williamson will be moved to Northern Ireland

I mean, his general incompetence must be obvious even to Johnson. So best case is he was a good Whip indeed and the thinking is that's the sort of skill you need to manage the retardfight at NI. More likely, however, is that Johnson and co. expect things to get worse in NI and have no desire to try and prevent, let alone solve it. So they decided Gavin will be a good fall guy.

Or Northern Ireland is still just the place people are exiled to who can't be booted "upstairs" yet but need to be given a job - doubly so now we can't send them to the European Commission...

[According to Yes Minister, anyway.]

[Sheilbh]

I mean, his general incompetence must be obvious even to Johnson. So best case is he was a good Whip indeed and the thinking is that's the sort of skill you need to manage the retardfight at NI. More likely, however, is that Johnson and co. expect things to get worse in NI and have no desire to try and prevent, let alone solve it. So they decided Gavin will be a good fall guy.

I think if he's as good a whip as people said, he wouldn't fall for that trap. But it is extraordinary: Chief Whip - very good; Defence Secretary - fired for leaking sensitive national security info (annoyingly I think he was actually right on this); Education Secretary -

For quite a short ministerial career he's had a few very big chances/good jobs and really fucked them up. Having said that you're right that given the one job he's been good at is about manipulating people and putting on pressure, it feels like actually it might be a good fit.

But I think Age is right - Northern Ireland is, because of history, a relatively important/prestigious job (plus you get stay at Hillsborough Castle when you're in Northern Ireland which is a nice perk). But it's not been actually politically important/relevant since about 2004 - and the rumours are Brandon Lewis is due a promotion because he's been competent and loyal.

It feels more like a decision you make if you don't expect things to get worse in Northern Ireland - if you did you'd appoint a heavy hitter (and possibly a senior figure who's been a minister before but is currently on the backbenches). Hopefully that read is right.

[Duque de Bragança]

Re shuffle is apparently this afternoon and the latest rumour is Gavin Williamson will be moved to Northern Ireland

He had a reputation as an excellent Chief Whip but seriously the blackmail material he has must be outstanding.

Edit: Meanwhile wholesale natural gas prices in the U.K. have jumped 20% today

Basically we're relying a lot on gas power plants because there's not that much sun or wind - then this morning there was a fire at an energy plant that's knocked out our connection to France so we can't import any energy through that. Not sure when it'll be back online.

Mwahaha!

I thought a new power connection to France was opened recently, from Normandy (IFA 2), with a new one, through the tunnel, slated for 2022.

https://www.rte-france.com/projets/nos-projets/ifa-2-la-nouvelle-interconnexion-france-angleterre
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2021/09/07/une-interconnexion-electrique-dans-le-tunnel-sous-la-manche_6093734_3234.html

[Sheilbh]

Don't know. Apparently there's two connections - the fire only affects one but it's the one with double the capacity of the other so we're at one third of our normal ability to import energy. Plus the lack wind. Worry is only one more thing goes wrong (unplanned outage in a power plant for example) and we might have blackouts

[Duque de Bragança]

The lights are not going out all over in Europe this time, unlike that incident with the sectioned cable in Germany years ago. 

[Sheilbh]

From Patrick Maguire - Williamson demoted to the backbenches - Northern Ireland spared

[Tamas]

How surprising that the denied reshuffle is going ahead about a week after the denial.

[Josquius]

From Patrick Maguire - Williamson demoted to the backbenches - Northern Ireland spared

I wonder if it was correct that he was being set up for the fall guy for things getting worse there and decided it safer to dodge it.
Would expect more noise however.

[Sheilbh]

How surprising that the denied reshuffle is going ahead about a week after the denial.

Wasn't the denial that there wouldn't be a reshuffle last week - which makes sense hold the prospect of a reshuffle over the heads of ambitious MPs when you've got a big/controversial/difficult vote like raising taxes.

I always love reshuffles because of all the drama/it's the closest British politics gets to Love Island.

Buckland and Jenrick are both also out.

[Sheilbh]

Away from Westminster - excellent piece on the SNP and who knew what when about Salmond. The quotes from a young and probably junior civil servant accompanying him on a trip are particularly grim:

Humza Yousaf has revealed a dark truth about the SNP
15 September 2021, 7:33am

Humza Yousaf has revealed a dark truth about the SNP
(Getty images)

American journalist Michael Kinsley once observed that in Washington DC a 'gaffe' should be understood as a moment in which a politician or public official inadvertently blurts out a truth it would have been better, and certainly wiser, to leave unsaid. By that standard Humza Yousaf, currently serving as health secretary in the Scottish government, is a mighty friend to journalists.

Pondering the meaning and significance of what has become known as the Alex Salmond affair, Yousaf told the comedian Matt Forde that the conflict between Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon was 'really upsetting because it could have done our cause a hell of a lot of damage – it still might do our cause a hell of a lot of damage'. Sometimes it is better not to say the quiet bit out loud. But nevertheless, Yousaf's remarks were a form of public service. For they revealed a deep, dark, truth about the SNP.

And Yousaf is not the only one. As another senior party figure told the journalists David Clegg and Kieran Andrews:
'I have asked myself, 'Was I blind?' We are talking about people – some of whom are good, close friends of mine – who have since said things about behaviours they have experienced that have horrified me that I was unaware of at the time. And do I have a sense of guilt over that? Of course I do. Do I have questions that I ask myself over whether I'm blameless or not? Of course I do. These are my friends. But set that aside – the bullying and the horrible human being that he was – why did we tolerate it? Because of the prize.'

Think on that. Think how much was known, even if only at some vague or inchoate level, about Alex Salmond and his behaviour. 'Why did we tolerate it? Because of the prize'. All things, including propriety, may be sacrificed if failing to do so might compromise the pursuit of independence.

I declare an interest. I know and like Clegg and Andrews, and the latter, who is Scottish political editor of the Times, is a colleague to boot. But even if this were not the case – and even if I were a wholly disinterested reader – I should have no hesitation in recommending their newly-published book, 'Break-Up: How Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon went to war'.

It is essential reading for anyone wishing to understand the extraordinary events that led to the former first minister being tried on a dozen counts of sexual impropriety and, following his acquittal, his attempt to destroy those he believed had wronged him. If that meant pulling down the temple Salmond did more to build than anyone else, then so be it. If it meant destroying his one-time protege and successor, then so be it.

Reporting restrictions mean many details it would be in the public interest to have revealed must remain shrouded in secrecy. But despite this significant handicap – and the sense that significant portions of the story have been snipped from the narrative on legal grounds – Clegg and Andrews nevertheless provide the clearest, fullest, account of a scandal of sometimes tortuous complexity. Anyone wishing a better understanding of why Scotland is governed the way it is will need to read their book.

Certain truths are too difficult to bear too much examination. It is considered somehow vulgar to note that just six months ago a Holyrood committee concluded that Nicola Sturgeon had misled the Scottish parliament. As this is an unseemly truth – and something which Sturgeon has denied – it has been cosigned to a deep, black, memory hole.

Members of the committee elected as representatives of the Green party, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives agreed Sturgeon had been less than candid in revealing what she knew about complaints made against her predecessor and, crucially, when she knew them. Only the four SNP members of the committee swallowed her story. Trashing the committee, the SNP suggested opposition MSPs were motivated purely by partisanship. If opposition members were predisposed to find Sturgeon guilty, it must also be possible that the SNP's representatives on the committee were determined to find her innocent. Partisanship, after all, cuts both ways.

In my view, the balance of probabilities makes it highly likely that Sturgeon knew much more than she admitted and that she knew it earlier than she acknowledged too. I do not happen to think there anything objectionable about this. If serious allegations of serious misconduct are made about a former first minister, I think the current first minister should hear about them.

Remarkably, those close to Sturgeon knew about the allegations as early as late 2017. And yet, according to her own account, she remained in the dark until Salmond himself informed her the government was investigating complaints made against him under the provisions of a new complaints procedure introduced, and signed off, by Sturgeon herself.

Throughout this squalid saga, Sturgeon complained she was accused of covering up for Salmond and of conspiring to destroy him. These could not both be well-founded accusations.

Senior members of Sturgeon's office certainly knew there was an issue with Salmond's behaviour. As Clegg and Andrews reveal, Ms B, one of the two original complainers, had a meeting with Sturgeon's principal private secretary, Lisa Bird, shortly after Sturgeon became first minister in the autumn of 2014 – just weeks after Sturgeon became first minister – during which, she says, 'I told her that bullying and sexual harassment had taken place under FFM (the former first minister)'.

Clegg and Andrews write that: 'It is unclear what action, if any, Bird took after this meeting'.

I find it inconceivable, however, that the first minister's principal private secretary did not mention this encounter to the first minister. If she did not, it seems a catastrophic failure of judgement and duty. There would be others. Many others.

Ms B is clear that 'Everyone was afraid of him (Salmond) and no one wanted to put themselves in the line of fire (understandably) to stand up to him.' Most of all, and most damningly, she says, 'I felt angry that more senior people in the SG (Scottish government) and SNP clearly knew but felt powerless to do anything'. The words 'and SNP' are significant here.

Meanwhile Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary and Scotland's most senior civil servant, was informed of Ms B's concerns in November 2017. Later that month, John Somers, who had become Sturgeon's new PPS in February that year, met Ms A who explained how the complaint she made against Salmond in 2013 had been dealt with. This concerned an incident that would lead to Salmond being charged with sexual assault with intent to rape, a charge he was acquitted of with a 'not proven' verdict. We are still asked to believe – based, in part, on their own testimony – that neither Evans nor Somers mentioned these startling allegations to the first minister.

At the same time, the SNP undoubtedly knew there were gathering concerns – and serious ones at that – about Salmond's past conduct. In November 2017, Woman H gave a senior SNP official the 'broad outline' of an alleged incident that would later form the basis of Salmond being charged with attempted rape. In response, the SNP official promised to 'sit' on the information.

Once again, however, I think it incredible other senior SNP figures were not informed of this issue. If they were not, they should have been, for short of murder, the allegations could scarcely have been more serious. You would think the party's chief executive would have been told. And you would think the party leader would have been too. Even so, Sturgeon has always insisted she knew nothing of either the complaints made against Salmond or her government's investigation until he informed her of the investigation on 2 April 2018.

Regardless, the party was informed of an exceptionally serious allegation against Salmond and the party did nothing. The party knew and nothing happened. This is what counts rather more than whether or not the first minister was aware of 'concerns' but not, or at least not yet, of formal 'complaints'.

She did know of concerns, of course. And we know this because we have Nicola Sturgeon's testimony. In November 2017, Sky News approached the Scottish government about an alleged incident at Edinburgh airport some years previously. Salmond and his team successfully 'killed' the story, but Sturgeon recalled that 'even though he assured me to the contrary, all of the circumstances surrounding this episode left me with a lingering concern that allegations about Mr Salmond could materialise at some stage'. A lingering concern. These things happen.

Concurrently, this was the #MeToo moment. In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein affair, Holyrood was – like Westminster – engulfed in rumour and innuendo. It was a moment for some house-cleaning. I have no doubt Sturgeon's motivations in introducing a new complaints procedure were honest and well-founded. I'm in no doubt, either, that broadening the scope of such a procedure so it could cover the behaviour of former government ministers could not have been done without wondering, or having some inkling, a particular former minister might become the focus of attention.

This, of course, duly happened, though, typically, the Scottish government thoroughly bungled its investigation of the complaints made against Salmond. The investigating officer had made 'prior contact' with the complainants, a blunder of thundering proportions that ultimately left the investigation, in the words of Lord Pentland, 'tainted by apparent bias'. This was a procedural flaw distinct from the substance of the complaints which could, to this day, theoretically be revisited.

Salmond is an innocent man but no innocent. His own lawyer, Gordon Jackson QC, conceded that his client was an 'arsehole'. His behaviour may have often been deplorable, but it was never criminal. It is hard to credit, however, the idea this behaviour only became apparent in his final 18 months in office. Hard to believe that no-one had a clue before then; hard to swallow the proposition the Scottish government and the SNP were wholly in the dark. Hard to believe these things because the accumulated evidence supports the creeping conviction, however unpalatable it may be, that they did. And they didn't care. Or, at any rate, they didn't care enough to do anything.

On 28 April 2014, a young civil servant accompanying Salmond on a trip emailed a colleague in Salmond's private office, to say the journey was 'all fine'. 'He's a pig, but he's not an angry pig today. Just a disgusting one.'

Her colleague replied:
'Just keep safe. And keep away from situations or conversations you may feel uncomfortable about.'

Ten minutes later, Clegg and Andrews reveal, the woman replied:
'Too late. Didn't even get through the journey without him speaking about having sex with me. To be honest, I think I need to minimise my time with him this week after tomorrow'.

Once again, nothing else was done. And it was not done, in large part, probably because it was too dangerous and too risky to do anything. In the months leading up to the 2014 independence referendum, all concerned were abundantly aware of what might happen if any of this linen were aired in public. By such feebleness do institutions aide and abet their own diminishment.

The picture which emerges from Clegg and Andrews's vital book is one of a deeply corrupted civil service, too craven and too weak to protect its own staff, too concerned with external appearances at the expense of internal propriety. Subsequently, the Scottish government would be revealed as an organisation riddled with incompetence too. Not that they were alone in this: none of the institutions touched by this affair – the government civil service, the governing party, the Crown Office, Police Scotland, the Scottish parliament itself – emerge from the mire with any great measure of credit. Each of them are tainted by their failures.

Perhaps it does not matter if the first minister misled the Scottish parliament. The presence in Downing Street of a Prime Minister utterly unconcerned with matters as trivial as the truth tacitly permits similar licence in the devolved administrations. Sauce for Boris is sauce for Nicola.

Even so, it is still not too priggish to think the truth should matter. Nor to insist that the truth is somewhat more important than it sometimes seems to be, especially in Scotland. Who knew what and when remains a matter of public interest and this is so even if it proves inconvenient.

Four words lie at the heart of it all: 'Because of the prize'. The implications that stem from that should wound and bruise and sting. And they should not be forgotten even if, no quite and precisely because, so many are so plainly interested in burying this reality and all it implies. 'Because of the prize', indeed.

[The Brain]

He was a prize-winning pig?

[Josquius]

As much as I dislike the SNP.... Isn't this pretty standard?

Not to defend it, something shit is still shit even if everyone is doing it.
But it does seem pretty standard to me when someone on 'your side' does something bad that more so than even seeking justice politicians will worry about how it damages what they're aiming for.

[Sheilbh]

As much as I dislike the SNP.... Isn't this pretty standard?

Not to defend it, something shit is still shit even if everyone is doing it.
But it does seem pretty standard to me when someone on 'your side' does something bad that more so than even seeking justice politicians will worry about how it damages what they're aiming for.

Yeah - I suppose you're not meant to admit it. That's the definition of gaffe he uses of accidentally revealing something that's true.

I think it strains credibility that Sturgeon and other senior leaders in the SNP didn't know about it and didn't know Salmond's reputation (and I'd be astonished if this behaviour was something that only suddenly happened in the last years of his leadership). He's been a prominent figure in Scottish politics for as long as I can remember and leader for 20 years (1990-2000 and 2004-14) so it'd be surprising if there's not been other allegations about him in the past.

But more importantly the problem isn't that a political party behaved like this but that all of the independent institutions failed they were either too weak or too craven or too sort of corrupted by that party. As he says, there's the SNP (and I do think parties should have a formal way of dealing with these issues - they can't be outside harassment as a problem), the civil service, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal and the Scottish Parliament that all should have in different ways been able to deal with a man who had dozens of allegations of sexual assault including attempted rape.

He got a not proven verdict in court, of course, but it's incredibly grim. The nearest I can think of is Ken Livingstone. Because I'm not involved in politics but I've heard rumours about him (a bit like I'd heard rumours about Kevin Spacey despite not being involved in the theatre world) sort of friend of a friend experiences.

Edit: Incidentally - whisper it softly - but I think in the last couple of weeks I've seen a couple of Labour attack lines that I think actually work. Maybe Starmer's growing into the leadership a bit and got a bit of grip on comms