Just a quick note to say that I am very aware that lately I have been rather bitter, which is not good for anybody, especially me. The disappointments and state outrages have been no worse than usual; my frustration at my poor health, and the subsequent constraint of my ability to fight back, has rather soured my mood.

My twitter posts have been unpleasantly acerbic. Last Sunday on the Crispin Flintoff Show I gave a rant aimed at the soft zionist English Palestine Solidarity Committee, which I immediately regretted as over the top – not wrong in substance, but lacking kindness and tolerance.

The good news is I am aware of this and think I can overcome it.

It has been a very embittering time. The Genocide in Gaza is entering a new phase, and despite the radical shift in international public opinion, those in charge of states – and not only Western states – still show no genuine intention to stop it. The Palestinians have been written off already by those in power over us, erased as a factor. Israel is now simply repeating the Gaza playbook in South Lebanon. I know the villages and towns they are destroying and in many cases have been a guest of the people there. The killing and the destruction of a profound and ancient civilisation is heartbreaking.

I am deeply shocked by the cancellation of the Scottish judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action. Until I entered the courtroom on Wednesday 27th, I was not worried.

Well, that is not quite true – I started to worry two days earlier when I found that although the permission hearing had been in Court No 1 and livestreamed, this much more substantive hearing would be tucked in Court No 6 and would not be livestreamed. Why was it being hidden?

I still find it hard to accept that the judge Lord Young who, in January, ruled in ringing terms that a Scot resident in Scotland, whose liberties were infringed in Scotland, was entitled to the jurisdiction of a Scottish court, has now ruled starkly that Scotland must accept the decision of the English Court of Appeal in the interests of “comity”.

It would be interesting if there were a clue somewhere that Scottish judges are subject to England. Here is a picture of Lord Young:

Interestingly this costume is subject to one of those beloved British lies, which is a straightforward fabrication but which you will find in every publication on the subject.

The lie is that the St George’s crosses, adopted in these Scottish legal robes in Victorian times, were a stylised representation of previous fastenings or rosettes in those positions, and are not St George’s crosses at all.

The problem is there exist many dozens of portraits of Scottish judges in robes before this costume was adopted, and not one portrait, anywhere, shows anything that remotely could be fastenings or rosettes in these positions which later became stylised St George’s crosses.

The official explanation of why senior Scottish judges wear the English flag is simply and completely untrue.

A previous Lord Young in the 1890’s refused to wear the costume with St George’s crosses, which was a scandal at the time.

Let us return to our current Palestine Action case. In January Lord Young ruled this:

I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant permission for this judicial review to proceed in Scotland notwithstanding the existence of English proceedings which are at a more advanced stage. As a matter of principle, a petitioner who has standing and whose petition sets out arguments of sufficient merit to satisfy s27B(2)(b) of the 1988 Act should not be refused permission because of the existence of parallel proceedings in another UK jurisdiction. The petitioner claims that his legal rights have been illegally circumscribed by the 2025 Order.
He is entitled to look to the courts of his place of residence for a determination of that complaint. The cases of Cherry v Advocate General 2020 SC 37 and R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] EWHC 2381 support the petitioner’s argument that there is nothing inherently objectionable with proceedings on the same issue progressing through different jurisdictions within the UK at the same time.

How can the same judge in the same case four months later then rule this, which is the precise opposite?:

In the current proceedings, the legal costs which will be incurred from now until the substantive hearing towards the end of June will increase exponentially. We know that a decision of the [English] Court of Appeal will have been issued prior to the substantive hearing. While that judgment may, or may not, be the final word on this issue, the judgments handed down by the Court of Appeal will be highly significant. It is
almost inevitable that the final decision on the legality of the 2025 Order will be made either by the English Court of Appeal, or by the Supreme Court on a further appeal in Ammori. The petitioner’s challenge to the 2025 Order in these proceedings is likely to be resolved, one way or the other, by the final decision in Ammori. It is said that a sist brings the petitioner’s right to have his claim determined to a practical end. But Ammori will resolve the issue he wants determined

The judge’s volte face was obvious in the courtroom literally in the first five minutes. His mind was not changed in the courtroom; it had been changed for him before we ever got to say a word.

His decision is to “sist” or postpone our case until after the English Court of Appeal case (and any appeal to the Supreme Court) – which means to close down our case permanently. I was informed by our advocates that because this is a “procedural” decision to kill our case administratively – thus avoiding an actual decision on whether the proscription of Palestine Action was legal – there is no chance of appeal.

I am really not happy to let the sleekit Lord Young get away with this and I have instructed the legal team to appeal against the sist. Even if leave to appeal is denied, I think we have to register protest and at least try to resist – the decision takes Scotland backward from the Cherry/Miller case where separate judicial reviews did proceed in Scotland and England over the prorogation of Parliament.

Cherry/Miller was a breakthrough against centuries of Scotland accepting the decision of English courts which have no jurisdiction here.

What is particularly unjust is that Lord Young stated that the reason for his ruling is that the Scottish judicial review had not started yet, whereas the decision of the English Court of Appeal is imminent.

This is infuriating because the Scottish judicial review was scheduled for March. It has been repeatedly – and deliberately – postponed by the Starmer regime by the repeated introduction of “secret intelligence” which has resulted in a number of “closed sessions” with the judge and the security services. We have no access to those sessions, we are never told what “intelligence” was given to the judge, and our interests are “represented” by government-approved barristers who are strictly banned from communicating with us.

It is this UK security service ploy which Lord Young allowed to delay the Scottish judicial review for months. Then something still more suspicious happened.

Last week’s hearing was originally scheduled for early May. It was then postponed for three weeks at the request of the Advocate General, a minister in the Starmer regime, who stated she wished to attend in person and that 27 May was her earliest available date. We protested, but Lord Young postponed the hearing to accommodate her.

During that postponement, the English Court of Appeal announced 15 June as the date they will give their decision in the Ammori case. The existence of that fixed date is now the peg on which Lord Young hung his ending of our case.

But here is the thing: it was really unusual of the Court of Appeal to announce a month in advance the date on which they will give their decision in Ammori. Why would they do that? If they have completed their work, why not give the judgement now? If they have not completed their work, why tie themselves to an entirely artificial deadline?

The English Court of Appeal actually asked the lawyers in Ammori about progress in the Scottish case during that appeal in England. They were very well aware of where we stood.

Was their date for judgement announced so far in advance in order to give Lord Young ammunition to torpedo the Scottish case? That seems to me extremely likely.

We need money to prepare an appeal, and in any event we need money because costs were awarded against us last week (pegged at 50% of the government’s costs). As lawfare is the government’s preferred method, I expect these costs will be substantial.

If we fail to appeal the sist, we may have a route to intervene when the English case gets to the Supreme Court. But unless that gives us a right to be heard (as opposed to just put in a written submission which will be ignored) I am not very attracted by this.

Given the major constitutional implications of Young’s rulings for the operation of the devolution settlement and the autonomy of Scottish legal system, the lack of any interest in the case by the Scottish government or by the SNP as a party – or the Greens or any other political party – has been a further deep disappointment to me.

The potential result of Lord Young’s ruling is that all the work we put into preparation for the Scottish judicial review which had been granted – hundreds of hours of work and tens of thousands of pounds of cost – is wasted. I am very conscious that this is your money from donations. It weighs on me.

One point we wished to raise at judicial review was the fact that the Home Office consulted nobody in Scotland about the proscription – they did not consult the Scottish Government, Police Scotland or the Scottish Counter Terrorism Strategy Board (CONTEST), let alone anybody in Scottish civil society. But they did consult the Israeli Embassy in London.

When I was taken so ill in Venezuela, family was of course uppermost in my mind, but something else was bothering me a great deal. If anything happened to me, the Scottish judicial review would fall. I am the petitioner and the legal team tell me I can neither be replaced nor can a judicial review case be run by my estate. No new petition can be raised by anyone else as it is now time-barred.

So I have to keep going.

Another thing that has greatly disappointed me at the moment is NHS Scotland. I did not have a routine pacemaker implant in Venezuela; it was undertaken as a part of an emergency procedure. I was kept in hospital for a week, and under close observation for another, before I was passed fit to fly. The Venezuelan cardiologist told me that it was essential I see a Scottish cardiologist immediately on return, and that my pacemaker be checked for attachment and function after six weeks.

Arriving home, my GP was excellent and saw me immediately. He sent an URGENT referral to cardiology at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

For a fortnight I was in daily expectation of being called in. Nothing happened. On a Friday I then phoned the Royal Infirmary and was put through to “cardiology waiting list”. After listening to music for 25 minutes, someone answered the phone. He was in a different department, and said the phone had been diverted to his extension. The person who did cardiology appointments was off work till Tuesday. He could not help me.

I called on that Tuesday but nobody answered the extension at all. I tried again the following Friday. After one half-hour wait listening to music, I hung up, dialled the switchboard and said this was not acceptable. The lady told me that the person who did cardiology waiting lists was off work until 1 June.

I found and phoned an NHS Lothian complaints number, and explained the situation. They logged a complaint and said somebody would phone me within 24 hours.

Nobody did.

On 1 June I called again and listened to music. After 20 minutes I took a screenshot to start documenting this.

Then after 35 minutes somebody actually answered. They again stated the person who did cardiology appointments was still off work and the phone had been diverted to them. I said that it was crazy that the entire system was failing because one non-medical member of staff was off work.

They agreed with me but said it was not their fault and they had to handle hundreds of calls. I commiserated.

While I was having that conversation, a letter arrived digitally from NHS Lothian on my phone. It said my referral would be assessed by clinicians, and I would then be added to the waiting list (I already waited almost a month). The letter included a link to see the current waiting times. If it was deemed urgent, waiting time would be another eight weeks. If not urgent, it would be fifteen weeks.

After a month of trying I have not had so much as an ECG. I am getting odd pangs and twinges, sometimes in series, from the pacemaker but have no idea if this is normal or not. I am continually exhausted and find concentration very difficult. The function-and-attachment test after six weeks is now overdue.

I therefore felt obliged, against my principles, to book a private cardiologist appointment. This is deeply disappointing politically, and also very expensive. Seeing the consultant is £250 – an ECG, ultrasound, X Ray and pacemaker monitoring (all of which the Venezuelan cardiologist says should be done) is each charged as extra. So north of £1,000 in all.

I must confess, I had not understood how dysfunctional the NHS had become. I am told if you actually have a heart attack it is still good; but I would hope we could provide healthcare before the point of death. It is being hollowed out, piecemeal-privatised and viewed as an asset to be stripped for profit.

The frustration of ill health has only grown. My health issues are right now preventing me from attending the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, an event I had been looking forward to. I had also planned to visit Iran in July. I want to get to Cuba. And I long to get back to Lebanon. It is essential to see realities on the ground, speak directly with people shaping events, and report the truth to you in ways that I cannot do from a house in Edinburgh. My body is not currently up to supporting the intellectual fight, and that’s a real downer.

In going through all the things that are getting me down, I would add the Murrell/Sturgeon saga. When Murrell first went off to Saughton jail on remand, I was gleeful. Murrell was at the centre of Sturgeon’s plot to organise her close associates to make false complaints against Alex Salmond. Sturgeon and Murrell’s corrupt influence over the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office were central to having both Alex and me prosecuted and having me jailed.

Having tried at the time to warn everybody of Sturgeon and Murrell’s highly criminal machinations to have Alex Salmond framed, obviously I feel in part vindicated by the public acceptance that Murrell is indeed a criminal. But one of the ways I realised I had become unpleasantly embittered, is that I found I was posting tweets rejoicing at Murrell being sent to jail, and hoping he had my old cell in Saughton.

I don’t really think that.

Scotland’s antiquated jail system is a disgrace to any modern society. The conditions are inhumane and some aspects are positively Victorian – I still have backache from sleeping on a steel slab mitigated only by a slither of ancient foam rubber “mattress” which had completely lost all resistance. I don’t believe anyone should be subjected to deliberate physical suffering.

I should be better than crowing at Murrell’s imprisonment.

On the other hand, it is deeply frustrating to see Sturgeon getting away with it entirely and even playing the victim card, reaching effortlessly for the gender politics in which she has always wrapped her grasping psychopathy. It is precisely the same corrupt hold over the Crown Office, which got me jailed, that enabled Sturgeon to escape prosecution.

Still more troubling to me is the incredible cult following which still worships Sturgeon and refuses to believe she did anything wrong. I am not terribly worried that they cannot see she is implicated in embezzling funds to boost her lifestyle. I am worried they cannot acknowledge her systematically having blocked proper scrutiny of the SNP’s accounts.

But what really fills me with despair is that Sturgeon’s followers cannot acknowledge that she betrayed Scottish Independence; she never did anything to further it nor had the slightest intention of doing anything to further it.

The Union was close to toppling when Brexit was implemented against the wishes of a very large majority of Scots (my opinion on the EU is immaterial here). Sturgeon simply ignored that opportunity for action. She also went to the Supreme Court in London and argued a case on Scotland’s right to a referendum on Independence which was certain to fail, because it was grounded in UK constitutional law and not in international law. The UK Supreme Court would always rule in favour of the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament.

Sturgeon piled obstacles in the way of Independence and never once articulated a coherent plan to achieve it.

John Swinney adopts precisely the same stance. We now have sustained majorities in public opinion for Independence, but a Scottish government not prepared to take any risk to reach for it. Meanwhile, blind loyalty to the governing party in Scotland prevents any radical action. The frustration is that loyalty is caused by an urgent desire for Independence and the deluded belief that the SNP intends to achieve it.

The hero worship of Sturgeon that is so much in evidence is a large part of the problem: Scottish Independence has been driven into a cul de sac. The infuriating thing is that these cult members ought to be those with whom I am most politically aligned: but they hate me because I do not join in their idolisation of She Who Must Be Obeyed.

So this has been, and is, a difficult period for me personally. The political outlook is grim, and I am increasingly worried about my own condition. Also from the Crispin Flintoff Show, this extract of me talking about Sturgeon reinforces my concern. Something is wrong cognitively. My natural fluency is gone in this interview and I appear unable to finish a sentence or maintain a coherent line of thought.

This is all very depressing. The world is dominated by bad people who control advanced mechanisms of power. But there is no fulfilment in resignation, no honour in standing down in a battle against institutionalised evil. The only joy lies in resistance.

Please contribute if you can to the costs of the Palestine Action legal case, but do not contribute if it causes you difficulty. If you know people who are able to afford to help and likely to be sympathetic, please do contact them and ask their assistance. We are trying to keep a lot of very good people out of prison.

You can donate through the link via Crowd Justice, which goes straight to the lawyers, or through this blog.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/scottish-challenge-to-proscription/

Alternatively by bank transfer:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Or crypto:

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

My work as a whole is entirely funded by subscriptions to this blog. It has no other source of income.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of subscription payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish, subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come to this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a