Jackie Baillie exposes SNP’s lack of transparency, debunking their claims

**Title:** Exposing the Culture of Secrecy and Scandal in Scottish Politics: SNP’s Troubled Finances Revealed


Welcome to our thought-provoking YouTube video that delves into the shocking revelations surrounding the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) finances and the culture of secrecy that permeates Scottish politics. In this video, we dissect the recent scandals that have brought to light the questionable practices and cover-ups within the SNP, shining a light on their lack of transparency.

The recent revelations have been nothing short of extraordinary, with the resignation of the First Minister and the arrest of key party figures. It’s a shameful episode in Scottish politics that has let down not only those who believed in the SNP but also the entire Scottish population. The governing party’s preoccupation with scandal has diverted attention away from addressing the pressing issues that matter to the people.

As we delve further, we uncover how the SNP’s culture of secrecy extends beyond the party and infiltrates the SNP-led Scottish government. The close ties between the top party positions and the government highlight the intertwining nature of the two entities. This connection was especially evident during the inquiry into the Scottish government’s handling of harassment complaints, where emails and WhatsApp groups were utilized to avoid accountability and proper documentation.

Throughout this episode, we witness the arrogance of a party that has been in power for too long, operating under the misguided belief that it is untouchable. The contempt shown towards Parliament and the public is indicative of a party that has lost sight of its true purpose.

It is high time that the Scottish Parliament regains its ability to hold the government accountable. Scottish Labour has devised a comprehensive plan to tackle the issue head-on. This plan includes reducing the number of cabinet secretaries and ministers, imposing binding sanctions for breaches of the ministerial code, granting more power to committees to compel witnesses and evidence, and introducing a right of recall for MPs who break the law, regardless of their political affiliation.

The SNP’s tarnished reputation must be addressed immediately. With scandals and infighting engulfing the party, it is essential for Scotland to reclaim its political landscape and refocus on the needs of the people. Join us in calling for change and accountability by supporting a Scottish election that will bring about a long overdue transformation.

For more intriguing political news and insights, subscribe to our channel and stay tuned for our upcoming videos!


1. [BBC News: SNP Finance Scandal](
2. [The Guardian: Unveiling of SNP Scandals](
3. [Scottish Parliament Official Website](
4. [Scottish Labour Party: Plan for Holding the SNP Accountable](

*[SNP]: Scottish National Party

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings


  1. The United Kingdom Conundrum

    In the case of MacCormick and Another v Lord Advocate 1953 Court of Session (on appeal)*

    Lord President Cooper remarked
    The principal of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principal which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. ~ … ~Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. ~…

    Well our ancestors weren't stupid, they did the best they could with an English Naval blockade and an Army at the border. The Darrien expedition failed due to the blockade. Scots possessions in England were to be seized and Scots treated as "aliens".  The English clearly had "Mens Rea", a guilty mind, and were threatening invasion. So the Scots took the money, kept their English lands and prevented mass casualties, but by signing a treaty, they left the door with a key in the lock.
    Lord Cooper's remarks invite us to examine what was done, so lets have a look, let's examine the Treaty* and its implications for Sovereignty, the Constitution and the Law and the realisation that the merger could not be achieved and so a compromise was reached which camoflaged the situation. 

    The Treaty
    The Treaty of Union has stood as the framework for the United Kingdom since 1st May 1707. It is what binds Scotland and England together, it needs to be examined and interpreted. This examination includes both what it actually says and what it omits, the latter being the more significant.

    The Treaty is a legal document and should have a reference to the dictionary of terms. Failing that then the reader is entitled to use the ordinary meaning of words. The dictionary would naturally have to be one that existed prior to 1706. I can't find a reference to a dictionary.

    Don't worry if you are not a lawyer as long as you can read and interpret the words. The key here is don't make assumptions, the Treaty should be read as is without embellishment. The interpretation should be, in the words of the Pharaoh "As it is written, so shall it be".

    Article 1 of the Treaty is by far the most important as it links the two Kingdoms as being united as Great Britain. It states as follows

    "That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain,..~."

    Now there is a clear distinction between a Country and a Kingdom. If one goes outside and picks up some dirt, it has the characteristics of visibility, smell, touch, taste, and if you drop it you can hear it hitting the ground. This is the "Country or Land" where people live, so Scotland and England refer to a real tangible item defined by geographical boundaries inhabited by Scots or Angles as the case may be, a Country. A "Kingdom" has none of these characteristics, it is abstract, ethereal, imaginary and intangible a purely Political concept existing solely in the minds of men.

    For the two Kingdoms to be fully united as one, with one all powerful polity requires that Sovereignty be identical in the two Kingdoms. This was never the case, in the Kingdom of Scotland the people were Sovereign and in the Kingdom of England it has jumped from Monarch to Parliament and back on various occasions, to my knowledge it has never been with the people. This anomaly is obvious when you consider that James VI titled the King of Scots, became the King of England in 1603. If the Sovereignty had been the same the Kingdom of England would have been incorporated and renamed the Kingdom of Scotland. This was not done, confirming two crowns on one head and not a union of the crowns. In the ensuing century the Monarch was variously executed and forced into exile with Oliver Cromwell proclaiming the English Parliament to be Sovereign in the interregnum.

    Royal Assent
    The Monarch has to Assent for a Bill to be passed. That makes sense in the English Kingdom as the Monarch is Sovereign and therefore has veto power, not so in the Scottish where the Monarch is obligated to Assent as Parliamentary votes carry the people's Sovereignty.

    The Constitution
    Asked in the House of Commons whether the United Kingdom has a Constitution Jacob Rees-Mogg quipped "Yes, an unwritten one" or words to that effect. Wikipedia suggests that what is really meant is an "uncodified Constitution" a constitution by various written and unwritten laws and customs. So it exists and there being no evidence that it has solely been created since 1st May 1707 then it must have existed, at least in part, prior to the Treaty of Union, and was not extinguished by the Treaty. As the source must have been one or both parties to the Treaty it follows that both Kingdoms Constitutions must have carried forward. So the written Scottish Constitution must be extant as does the English. They were either commingled by the Treaty or they remained separate and distinct. If commingled then the written Scottish Constitution must be superior to the English given that they cannot readily identify their version. If not then both constitutions exist in the present but only have effect in the jurisdictions corresponding to their previously existing boundaries.

    The Law
    Now Article XXV suggests that the Laws of the two Kingdoms continued but effectively remained separate except for the specific provisions of the Treaty that stated otherwise.

    The Compromise
    Now we have the situation that the Sovereignty, Constitution and the Laws of Scotland remain extant, at least in Scotland.

    The differing Sovereignty and Constitutions were never resolved, they were conveniently ignored and the concept of the "Crown in Parliament" introduced as the compromise position. The two parties having voting blocks which largely agreed and where disagreement happened then the overall majority won out.

    This is NOT the implication of the Treaty. Sovereignty was never mentioned, and as it belonged to the Scottish people it could not be transferred to the new united Kingdom of Great-Britain. The two Sovereignties being oil and water cannot be commingled and therefore must logically coexist and by their admission that the United Kingdom has an unwritten Constitution then the Scottish Constitution must also exist and Scottish law is extant as described in the Treaty. So in regard to the three crucial matters the Treaty has hardly changed the lawful situation at all.

    Parliament of Great Britain
    In fact, "lawfully", the Scots Members of Parliament simply moved from Edinburgh to London and in moving they took the Scottish Parliament with them. Two distinct Parliaments sitting in the same Chamber, each Parliament representing their respective Kingdoms.

    So we have a United Kingdom in name only and these two voting blocks must be counted separately and legislation only passed for Great-Britain, as a whole, if both blocks agree. If only one block passes a bill then that can only be for that particular Kingdom and not for the other, alternatively some bills may carry a veto where both blocks must pass the bill otherwise it does not become law.

    So the Kingdom of England has no rights over the Kingdom of Scotland or the Country and cannot remove resources, real things, of any kind without Scots express agreement. 

    Further examination of the Treaty and the above commentary reveals that there is no impediment to the establishment of a Scottish Central Bank, a mint etc and a reduction in UK Government offices in Scotland including UK Income Tax and Immigration. Gas and Oil drilling licences can be cancelled and reissued by the Kingdom of Scotland, all revenues being Scottish. 

    By now you've got the drift, enforcing the Treaty provisions means Scotland can administer all the economic levers necessary to improve the way of life of its people.

    I'm sure there are benefits in retaining the UK, for example joining EFTA and transiting goods via the Channel ports and/or creating a Northern Ireland style of EU Customs checks.

    "maccormick and another v lord advocate on appeal" for Lord Coopers remarks.

    "Treaty of Union 1707" for the full version of the Treaty

  2. Do you not think ever party should be investigated by a higher body instead of the most corrupt parties in government scoring points will never vote Labour or tory they don’t give a toss about the people of Scotland labour are no knights in shining armour they are the tories squire’s

  3. Is this like the secrecy spin and cover up about Alex Salmond that turned out to be all lies? Or the SNP cover up to protect him that turned out to be all lies? Or the secret plot to frame Salmond that turned out to be all likes? Or the fake news ferry crisis that is all lies?

  4. Well said Jackie clear and to the point but what I don’t understand is the parliament empty and not just this one with such an important matter Jackie was only speaking to a couple of people don’t any other politician care ,is that why it goes no further or are they allowed to turn up when they want and still collect their money

  5. How refreshing to hear an honest politician.
    I salute you. Jackie Baillie Everything you say from Alex Salmond’s inquiry in 2019 and up until today is so
    The SNP are a motley lot indeed and not enough words to describe them. Are they intent on white washing the issue once again ?
    Why is N. Sturgeon being protected and sneaking into the background ? Why has ‘ she who knows everything ‘ not questioned by the police.?
    We need politicians and people like you Jackie to serve in Parliament.
    Thank you most sincerely for your efforts. You give us hope for the future.

OTB Ventures & Marcin Hejka: The Ideal Investor for Your Startup

Interview with Borys Musielak, Founder of SMOK Ventures: Unveiling the Equity Story