A short thread on an interesting day covering the Holyrood vote on Trump: I'm perhaps more interested than most in obtaining answers to Qs surrounding Trump's finances. I never thought they'd arrive via a legislature, whether in Scotland or the US. Today confirmed that.

The courts, whether via criminal or civil cases, is the likeliest avenue for transparency. The multiple cases involving Trump's firms may yet reveal that, but the progress is glacial.

After years of obfuscation and by the Scottish Govt, I thought @HumzaYousaf made a strong argument in his amendment and debate. It didn't adequately address the fact that a UWO is a civil power and an investigative tool, but the principle he set out is important.

Namely that there should be a separation of powers between a government and a justice system. Trump tried to install political appointees to the US Justice Dept to cling onto power. An extreme example, but one that starkly highlights the threat of conflating the two.

That said, the conflicting legal advice surrounding ministers' autonomy over UWOs suggests that the legislation as it stands is too vague, and makes sweeping presumptions about delegation of powers.

It also suggests the Lord Advocate wears too many hats. He is the government's advocate, and yet thr guardian of the public interest. Those roles are not always compatible.

So we'll see what happens next. It was a shame the debate didn't address in any substantive way the many financial anomalies and various other curiosities surrounding Trump's Scottish businesses, but I'll keep looking into them. A man needs a hobby.

And to those inferring today's vote is the result of a nefarious plot, bribe, or secret deal: grow up. If the last four years has revealed anything, it's that there are no easy or convenient answers to the Qs about Trump & his finances, no matter how hard you might wish otherwise