Tuesday 24 September 2013


Clearly there is something calamitous in the Cabinet Papers. We need to know what it is, before we make the biggest decision of our lives

What is it that we are too stupid, poor or wee to understand that our employees discussed in 1997 and 1998 and that is as potentially damaging as illegal warmongering in Iraq?
Grieve confirmed today his belief that their release would not be in the public interest.

A request had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee of Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions, dating from 1997 and 1998.

Such a veto has only been used twice in the past, once relating to further devolution papers and once over a request for Cabinet minutes relating to Iraq.

Now we know Westminster have something to hide from Scotland!! The people of Scotland should be disgusted at this, especially the claim this is not in the public interest. 



  1. 'Grieve confirmed today his belief that their release would not be in the public interest.'

    Now exactly which public interest are we talking about here?

    Is it the public interest as held by the population of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and that other country that I seem to have briefly forgotten the name of?


    Is it the 'public' as in the public schoolboys that currently inhabit both sides of the house of Commons?

    I suspect that Grieve will claim it is the former excuse but in reality it is the later that he is 'protecting!'

    How do you ensure that people stop believing you?
    You tell them that you have blocked publication of a government document because it is their interest! Simples!

    1. Exactly. There can be nothing more condescending or insulting that it is not in our interest to know our business.

      As I noted. It's been used before twice. once was to keep McCrone from us, lest we should know that we were sitting on the kind of wealth that has made Norway what it is today, and once over iraq, when it was though inappropriate for us to know that the reason that we were at war was that Tony Blair was in love with George Bush, whom God had told to do it.

  2. who gets to decide whats in the public interest?
    maybe we should agitate to force the release of these papers.
    Even if it doesn't result in the release of the papers we can highlight just how afraid they really are, in fact if you think about it, the non release of the papers is in OUR interests, we can just keep pointing to that to show they absolutely ARE hiding something, so what are you hiding? what are you hiding? what are you hiding?

    1. Dominic Grieve, it seems John. That font of all wisdom.

      I think we should agitate. I think an epetition would be an idea.

      Anyone know how to set them up?

      There can't be anything international (ie, we won't be letting out weapons secrets) so it must be about the economic situation.
      In other words, just how rich we will be,.

      So it's not in our interests really translates to, It's not in the interests of HM Government.

  3. I as most normal decnt law abiding people

    at the end of the day it will bejust another 50 year snp whinge
    again FFS

    1. Really?

      I find that hard to believe, Niko.

      They almost undoubtedly holding back for the same reasons they held back before. Economic.

      There's a possibility that the Cabinet said insulting things about sweaty socks and drunks and scroungers and how without decent upstanding Englishmen to lead them forward in the path of America, they would be completely useless.

      "i say, don't y'know. If they got all that bally money, they'd jolly well drink it dear boy.

      "Yes, or put it all on the horses.

      Damn old chap we can't have a pile of drunken subsidy junkies taking all our hard earned expenses and drinking them, can we old boy.

      "Jolly well not. I say, some more port old dear? Lovely stuff I found in the government cellars. At least 60 years old. Costs the bally earth. Still we're not paying, what! Haw haw haw...

  4. Tris

    I would suspect they are hiding the fact that most of Labour at the time did not want devolution but were shit scared of the SNP if they didn't.


    1. Aye Bruce. They certainly were and still are only it's the Conservatives now who are scared (and their wee lap dogs).

      If we were to lose they would cease to be scared of us.... and then pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff bye bye Scotland..

  5. As someone who's worked in FOI, i can guess the content is extermely embarrasing as it will maybe contain intemperate language regarding the SNP, Alex Salmond, the scots and other folk in the UK. Most of those at the meeting are still involved in politics and its release could scupper a few careers as well as the union. I'm not a conspiracy nut honest! :)

    1. Hi Anon... I'm glad our theories are backed by someone who has worked in FoI.

      And it didn't occur to me that you were a "conspiracy nut". Both logically (based on the information available and the reading of books about that time and process) and intuitively (what the hell could there be that is a state secret) I had come to the same conclusion, and I'm not a conspiracy nut either. :)

  6. You are all conspiracy nuts and you should appreciate that your station in life is such that information from your betters, which you probably would not understand anyway, is best kept from you by those who know best. You would, if you had the wits, understand that the reason you vote for the two main parties at successive general election is that you know your place and let those with the capacity to rule, rule.

    If you had anything at all about you, you would change things but having accepted the hegemony for years you are obviously too craven to do so. We, the ruling classes, therefore, will be in power, or should I say occupation for at least a thousand years.

    Dictated !!!! to John Brownlie by TAZ!

    1. "You are all conspiracy nuts"

      Please sir I don't like nuts!

      Can I be a conspiracy raisin instead?

    2. No sorry, it's part of my raison d'etre!

    3. Hmmm.... Now we have people arguing over whether they are raisi(o)ns or nuts. What hope have we got?

    4. Hazel will be raising a protest shortly.

  7. I seems to recall that David Milliband refused to give information regarding the Lockerbie bombing on the ground of "not being in the public interests" and could be damaging to "international relationships"

    1. We might have let it out that it was all a setup, that amazingly there were some top level people in the relatively remote borders of Scotland, some of them from the secret services... and nt all UK secret services. It's almost like they knew it was going to happen, and approximately where.

      And surely that couldn't have happened, could it.

      No I must be a conspiracy banana

    2. Is this a good time to plug a forthcoming book?