Jan 232015

Alex-Salmond-cropWith thanks to Ann-Marie Parry, Parliamentary Assistant to Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP

Former First Minister Alex Salmond has described the news that the Chilcot Inquiry will not be published until after the general election as a “classic establishment stitch-up”.

The Aberdeenshire East MSP said:

“Neither Labour nor Tory leaderships want this report out now. The hand wringing about delay is a mere cover for a classic establishment stitch up.

“We are now in the ridiculous position where Tony Blair has seen key sections of the report but not the rest of us.”

Mr Salmond who, as an MP, led a parliamentary campaign to impeach former Prime Minister Blair over the war said:

“Labour doesn’t want it out because of the inevitable revelations about Blair and other cheerleaders for the war.

“The Tories don’t want it out because David Cameron was pro war and the Tory leadership in 2003 under Iain Duncan Smith were as gung-ho as Labour.

“With a very few honourable exceptions most Westminster politicians would really like Chilcot to stay in the long grass for as long as possible.

“Chilcot has allowed himself to be blocked, tackled and delayed for years.”

Mr Salmond also said the “Maxwellisation” process, which allows individuals due to be criticised in an official report to see the criticism and respond prior to publication, had become a “device for procrastination”.

He added:

“Chilcot’s long wrangle with the Whitehall mandarins over Prime Ministerial correspondence was another stalling tactic.

“How could there be any serious objection to publication of talks between Blair and George W Bush, when Blair’s key wartime henchman Alistair Campbell had already published his own version in his diaries.

“There are a few decent MPs left at Westminster.

“They should make it clear that further delay is not acceptable and demand publication of at least a summary report now.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

  12 Responses to “Salmond Calls For Immediate Publication Of Chilcot Inquiry”

  1. Three SNP articles in a row in this weeks AV without any balancing pieces from other political views. I know AV publishes everything but this policy is now very obviously being exploited and makes the Voice appear highly partisan, especially today.

    • I completely agree Mike and whilst AV can hardly be held responsible for the apparent unwillingness of other political parties to submit articles, I feel that the right to submit such propaganda should be accompanied by a responsibility to respond to legitimate challenge, as is customary on such public forums.

  2. Has Alex Salmond no shame? This is the man who, in my view, intentionally misled the Scottish Parliament, the BBC and the people of Scotland by lying about EU advice and then using public money to cover up his deceit. This is the man who, allegedly, instructed civil servants to block the release of information explaining what he spent the missing £54,000 of public money on during a short stay in a Chicago hotel. This is the man who, in my view, intentionally misled the Scottish people by instructing public servants to produce a White Paper, based on a fictional minimum oil price of $113 per barrel, and declared that the result of the independence campaign would be accepted unequivocally as an expression of the “sovereign will” of the people of Scotland and then changed his mind when he lost. This is the man who held private meetings with a foreign billionaire, by the name of Donald Trump, days before an unprecedented decision was taken by his government to “call in” an application for a private development on behalf of Mr Trump, a move which would lead to the overturning of a democratic decision by local government and the circumvention of established legal and democratic procedure and process, the building of a private development on a unique piece of land which had the highest possible level of legal protection, the flagrant abuse of the rights of those living close to the development and the catastrophic failure of the resort to bring the jobs and tourism Mr Salmond himself had promise would result.

    Mr Salmond is, in my view, by far the most dishonest and unscrupulous politician to have “graced” the British political stage in recent years and it is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy for him to complain about the withholding of information. or to suggest the majority of MP’s are not “decent” hopefull the voters in the Gordon constituency will be sensible enough to thwart Mr Salmond in his quest to insult our intelligence from Westminster instead of or perhaps as well as Holyrood.

  3. Well, Mike – as always the “other political views” can post to AV if they can be bothered. Also, Bruce Wood has taken the time to respond to the piece.

  4. So incensed am I by this article, that I can’t resist continuing my response. Alex Salmond, in this piece, accuses all MP’s of all parties “with very few honourable exceptions” of deliberately delaying the publication of the Chilcot Report, for their own political ends, and even accuses Lord Chilcot himself of being complicit in causing this undue delay.

    This is an independent inquiry, chaired by an impartial and independent individual who is universally considered to be completely above reproach. The reasons for the delay, as has been explained by Chilcot himself, have nothing to do with political motives and indeed any effort by politicians to expedite the publication might even be interpreted as an attempt to engage in the kind of political interference which would compromise the independence and integrity of the inquiry.

    This barrage of criticism by Salmond, aimed at anyone and everyone except the SNP, is a disgraceful example of political opportunism,cynicism and hypocrisy in my opinion. Wouldn’t it be great indeed if we could have such independent inquiries in Salmond’s Scotland, where events such as those already mentioned in my initial response and the arrest and detention of journalists, for the crime of investigating private developments, including the role of the First Minister, could be properly scrutinised rather than, for example, asking the police, now a state police force directly accountable only to the Scottish Government, to investigate themselves behind closed doors.

  5. Ann-Marie surely has a point. In fact several. If you ignore the fact that she is writing from a partisan viewpoint and look at her bosses claim that “there are a few decent MPs left at Westminster” then what is there to disagree about?
    I particularly like the statement “Mr Salmond also said the “Maxwellisation” process, which allows individuals due to be criticised in an official report to see the criticism and respond prior to publication, had become a “device for procrastination”.
    I really wish I had said that.

    • So Duncan, if there is little to disagree about, then perhaps you or Ann -Marie or even the great Salmond himself can provide some substance to these accusations.. For example, which MP’s or participants in the inquiry are deliberately holding up publication of the report. Which politicians or participants has Chilcot “allowed” to block, tackle and delay. Is it all of them or some of them, George W Bush, a good old fashioned world conspiracy led by Zionist rogues, or are you in a position to name one single individual who is holding up publication and provide evidence for such a claim. If, like Mr Salmond, you are unable to do so, then I would suggest your comments might be based on a combination of prejudice and politics rather than an objective appraisal.

      • Why you would ever imagine that the likes of me could name names Bruce is beyond my comprehension. As for Zionist rogues, I wonder what you mean.

      • Hi Duncan,

        You support unsubstantiated claims that politicians have sought to delay the publication of a report and express your overt admiration for someone, on the basis of a statement which claims that individuals, “due to be criticised” in an as yet unpublished report, have used their right to view and respond to the report prior to publication, as a vehicle for delay.

        In expressing such support, one assumes you might just have some semblance of evidence to substantiate your claims and that you might indeed have specific individuals in mind. Otherwise, it might be assumed that your support and agreement with Mr Salmond is based on nothing more than prejudice. Your response would, in my view, appear to confirm the latter.

        With regard to “Zionist rogues” I use this term because, sooner or later, those who indulge, as Mr Salmond and yourself appear to do, in extremely imaginative and, in my opinion, crackpot conspiracy theories, these theories invariably end up pointing in the direction of “Zionists” “Jews” or the “Israelis” often via the CIA, FBI or some similar organisation. I’m sure you’re aware of people who suggest that there was a Westminster led world conspiracy to deny independence to the gallant Scots and that it was the Israelis who destroyed the Twin Towers, you know the kind of thing.

        Do you have any evidence to substantiate the claims made by Mr Salmond and supported by yourself or are you just another imaginative eccentric with a little too much time on your hands?

  6. I think it’s great that the SNP want to particpate in the Aberdeen Voice and are having articles submitted. Other parties should follow suit. But on the subject of Alex Salmond and inquiries, i’m not sure the pot should be calling the kettle to publish inquiry results. David Milne, Menie Estate resident, mobilised thousands of eligible Scots to call for an inquiry to look at issues POST the planning approval for Trump’s Menie Links course, which saw our SSSI protection overruled by the development proposals Scottish Enterprise and Trump came up with. This inquiry would have had 7 governmental agencies forced to reveal relevant information as to how they conducted themselves. This would not least have covered the arrests of jounalists, the lack of any real environmental monitoring (what there was of it was, IMO, a complete farce), and more. Alex Salmond’s government decided that the way forward was to ask the departments involved whether they thought an inquiry was a good idea and whether it was needed. Surprisingly, all the departments asked said that an inquiry was not needed – and that was that. Perhaps we should in future ask someone caught red handed in the middle of a crime whether or not they think a trial is needed? But do keep sending the articles in. I think it’s great that Salmond and his operatives have embraced media careers; good luck to Alex with his Press & Journal column (though I suspect luck and jouranlism won’t be greatly required). Alex – you are still awaited by your constiuents at Menie – do make that call.

    • Indeed it is the rank hypocrisy which is the most galling thing about this attack. Salmond’s decision to ask those, whose reputations would have been at stake, to decide whether or not there should be an investigation, is in sharp contrast to the public inquiries and robust committee interrogations at Westminster.

      Perhaps Mr Salmond should look closer to home when talking of dishonourable politicians?

  7. If anyone’s been following the news of late, Chilcot has explained his difficulties in conducting and concluding this inquiry, including the difficulty of obtaining correspondence between Blair and Bush. I for one would hate to see Chilcot rush his conclusions – which surely must, IMO, damn Blair’s actions. I trust everyone is now clear that (unlike I fear many other inquiries) Chilcot is trying to do a thorough job which should not be rushed.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>