The Alex Salmond Fit-Up 671

This new report is from a friend of impeccable credentials with whom I am collaborating; it reveals stunning new facts on the Alex Salmond affair:


I am an investigative journalist who has been researching the Alex Salmond case. I am not alone as there are to my knowledge at least three television programmes doing the same thing. I make no claim to be impartial, partially because of my sympathy towards the independence movement and partially because my previous work has dealt substantially with failings in the criminal justice system. As far as the criminal case against Alex Salmond is concerned I will not be able to publish or comment until it is over. However the expenses settlement last week of Alex Salmond’s successful civil action allows me , without any prejudice, to relate just a few the dramatic and deeply troubling things I have already discovered about the civil case.

This same opportunity for comment was taken up with gusto last week by the mainstream media in Scotland. Their coverage centred on the scale of the legal expenses agreed to be paid by the Scottish Government to Alex Salmond. This was followed up by the Sunday Mail and the Sunday Post last weekend with stories suggesting that Salmond’s lawyers might have been overcharging and blaming the Scottish Government for not having them independently audited.

True to form the unionist press have gloriously and entirely missed the point. The reason that the expenses were an eye watering £512,000 and change is that they were awarded by the Court largely on an “agent and client” basis. “Agent and client” is a punitive award used by the courts when the losing party to litigation has been causing the other unnecessary expense. It means that the victorious party (ie Salmond) is entitled to full expenses as opposed to the normal 60 per cent or so which accompanies victory. Having the expenses audited (or “taxed” in the legal parlance) is a complete red herring. No such process could set aside the decision of the court for that element of expenses which were awarded on an “agent and client” basis.

And so to the real story which is why the expenses were awarded by Lord Pentland in the Court of Session in this punitive manner. The likely reason lies in three equally devastating parts.

First Salmond won the action. The court found on the admission of the Government that the process against him was “unlawful” and “unfair” in that it had been “tainted by apparent bias”. Despite the attempted spin of Scottish Government Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans, that all the mistakes had been an innocent and inadvertent error of process (a “muddle not a fiddle” as someone else famously said in another context) the statements in open court do not point to that nor does the complete collapse of the Government case. We should look rather to Salmond’s senior counsel Ronnie Clancy QC and his comments in open court that the behaviour of the Government’s Investigating Officer, was “bordering on encouragement”. In lay person’s terms it looks like Salmond was being fitted up by officials in the Government he once led with such distinction.

Second, we know that Lord Pentland in mid December 2018 granted a “Commission and Diligence”. This is a relatively unusual legal process for forcing the recovery of key documents in a case. Pentland did this having previously warned the Government from the bench that as a public authority it would be expected that they would freely produce all relevant documents. That such a Commission was necessary to secure key documents should be a clear warning to the upcoming Scottish parliamentary investigative committee, already concerned with suggestions that e mails may have been deleted. We have no way of knowing what came out of these hearings except that top civil servants were compelled to appear under oath and be questioned. I do know that Evans appeared before the Commission as did Investigating Officer Judith Mackinnon. I also know that Nicola Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff, a Ms Elizabeth Lloyd, was due to appear when the Scottish Government suddenly decided to collapse the case on January 3rd 2019. Finally we know that when Ronnie Clancy QC appeared in the Court of Session he had a large folder of killer documents to underline his case. Incidentally all of the expenses for this Commission and all other court hearings are part of the Salmond expenses award.

Thirdly and finally my researches point to a group within the Scottish Government who had been been established to defend the Judicial Review. I know that it either met with, or conferenced called, external legal counsel a minimum of seventeen times between August 2017 and January 2018. It featured key civil servants familiar with the case. It was this group who likely decided to prolong the legal action when they , by definition, must have known that they would lose spectacularly once the compromising information and revealing documents were forced into disclosure through the Commission process. I believe that the aforesaid Elizabeth Lloyd was a member of this group, an absolutely key issue which , when confirmed, will open a range of pointed questions, the most fundamental of which is what on earth a political appointee was doing on a civil service group charged with the defence of a legal action? The further interesting and devastating question will be what exactly did this group, or others taking the key decisions, possibly hope to gain by prolonging a legal action and running up the clock at such gigantic public expense?

Perhaps the full answer to these questions will have to await developments but answers there will have to be. For the moment let us content ourselves with this observation. Regardless of anything else, how on earth can a Permanent Secretary who, by her own admission and a Court of Session judgement , presided over an “unlawful” process still be in her position and who exactly is to be held accountable for the unnecessary loss to the public purse thus far of a minimum of £600,000?

All of my journalistic life I have campaigned for justice and equality including across race class and gender. However, without proper process there can be no justice. And from what I already know, some of which can print, and a lot more I can’t reveal as yet, this entire process against Salmond, already judged unlawful in the highest court in the land, stinks to high heaven.


The Salmond Affair indeed stinks to high heaven and no aspect of it stinks more than the role in steering the affair, throughout, of Liz Lloyd, Nicola Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff. Lloyd is also known to be personally friendly with David Clegg of the Daily Record who published what were claimed to be leaked details of one of the “allegations” against Salmond.

I am not amongst those who has faith in the fairness of the police and prosecutorial system in Scotland. In my view, the centralisation of Police Scotland made it highly susceptible to political influence. I recall the case of my friend the estimable Michelle Thomson, who was announced by the Police as under investigation for mortgage fraud, which “under investigation” status lasted for over two years, until Thomson was obliged to stand down at the 2017 general election. Yet the facts of the case were extremely simple, and would have taken two days, maximum, to clear up if the investigation had been genuine. After two years of being “under investigation”, in which entire time she was never even interviewed, Police Scotland announced there was no case to answer. By then the job was done and she was out of parliament.

Police Scotland put 22 officers full time into trying to dig up historic dirt on Salmond. I have personally seen a statement from a woman who was astonished to be interviewed by Police Scotland after having been seen, years ago, to have a greeting peck on the cheek from her friend Alex at a public function. This has been the biggest, and most maliciously motivated, fishing expedition in Scottish police history.

The Salmond case aside (phrase inserted on legal advice!), it ought to be a public scandal that the procurator fiscal can arraign and parade a person in public and charge them with grievous offences, then delay matters for months and years while attempting to somehow cobble together the pile of mince they have as “evidence” into some sort of case. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Meantime the parties behind the Salmond case can hide indefinitely from investigation on the pretext that it would prejudice a so-called independent criminal process.

There is one question to the Scottish government which from my own certain knowledge (which I cannot publish pending the never-never trial) would bust the entire Salmond affair wide open:
Could you please detail every contact between Liz Lloyd and Police Scotland anent Alex Salmond?
They will refuse to answer the question so long as the so-called “criminal case” is pending. Expect it to be pending for a very long time.

Meantime, as the above account makes crystal clear, we have a judicial ruling that the Scottish Government engaged in a process that was unlawful and had every appearance of bias. They persisted recklessly in that unlawful course of action and eventually cost the Scottish taxpayer over £600,000. Yet none of those responsible for these unlawful actions – Leslie Evans, Judith Mackinnon and Liz Lloyd – has been sacked. That fact is indicative of monumental arrogance right at the heart of Holyrood.

671 thoughts on “The Alex Salmond Fit-Up

1 2 3 6
  • Bob Marsden

    I’m an outsider. Could you tell me who are the people engaged in a punishment campaign against alex Salmond, and what is their motivation? Why?

    • michael norton

      Sex scandal is the way to remove people from public life as Indeyref2 gets more certain, this will be the weapon of choice of the establishment/newspapers.

      • N_

        “More certain”. No spin there, eh?

        You seriously believe that Alex Salmond, who resigned after losing the indyref five years ago, was on his way to playing an important role in a rerun? I knew most nationalism was backward-looking, but wouldn’t that be going too far?

        If David Cameron got wrongly accused of such crimes as Salmond has been accused of, might it be because he was all set for a starring role in a rerun of the Brexit referendum, which was held only three years ago? Don’t you realise that such a prospect would be ridiculous?

        • Hamish McGlumpha

          You entirely (and deliberately?) miss the point. Salmond, whilst he has currently withdrawn from politics, is nevertheless a potent voice of Scottish independence. ergo a target. He is currently silenced. Cui bono?

          His renown and reputation are dangerous to the Union – the aimin such circumstances (we know from history) is to sully the project by ‘playing the man’. What this article shows us that they have irrefutably done this already. One therefore cannot discount at least the possibility that the criminal case is ’round 2′.

          The Salmond case aside, anyone with any knowledge of Police Scotland, and their new masters, the unionist state cabal that is the “Scottish” civil service (I have some knowledge of both) will have no doubt of what they are capable.

          The deeps state wanted to get rid of any lingering hint of local accountability of the police by removing accountability to local authorities – where there was at least some prospect of elected representatives exerting such, one replacing it with the running joke that is the Scottish Police Authority – an unelected cabal stuffed with the usual business suits, who are either unwilling, or incapable of exerting meaningful authority over a law unto themselves.

          Indeed, it is an open secret in legal circles in Scotland, the the SPO should itself be the subject of investigation for its utter ineptitude – and probably worse!

          One always has to question deep state motives for forming a ‘National’ police force – apparently Kenny MacAskill, the secretary of state under whom this abomination was established, failed to do so. Anyone aware of the level of Kenny’s intellect would struggle to blame the man himself.

          All that needed to be dome was dangle the carrot of ‘massive expenditure savings’ – and all other considerations disappeared.

          In the matter of criminal cases, particularly those that touch upon the integrity of the State, I’m afraid the Scottish judiciary can be relied upon “to do the right thing” – again those with any knowledge of the bench in Scotland – and in particular their lordships, the justices of appeal, with be aware that no level of logical acrobatics nor legal tergiversation, is beyond the level of their intellectual litheness in the pursuit of the ‘right’ result. Great care is taken in their selection/.

          Salmond’s best chance is that the prosecuting authorities, as with the Scottish Government in the case cited above, carry out their duties with the level competence which is the inevitable result of appointment processes that rely on membership of masonic lodges and – in case above- the wimmin’s sisterhood against male badness – that account for so many senior public appointments in our new thrusting Scotland.

          Such a morass of debauched buffoonery is a gift the the Deep British State. It’s dismantling will be an absolute priority for the success of an independent Scotland.

          • N_

            I understand the argument perfectly. It says that Alex Salmond’s remarkable qualities were going to make him a big threat to the Union in a second referendum and therefore he had to be discredited. I’m addressing not the logic but the premise. In my opinion Alex Salmond had little or no political future ahead of him, any more than David Cameron does. Having been First Minister and Prime Minister for similar periods of time, they both came a big cropper in a referendum and resigned. Salmond even lost by a far bigger margin than Cameron. Their respective parties then went on to lose their majorities under new leaders, what with the ignominy of the now ex-leaders having failed in the referendums. Salmond obviously wasn’t going to make a comeback. But doubtless true believers know better.

            Some seem to believe that since they “know” their supposed “conclusion” is true, any premises on which it relies MUST be true.

            I’ve said it before, but I hope Alex Salmond gets a fair trial and without unnecessary delay. If anyone tells wicked lies against him in the witness box, let them get done for perjury.

          • Hamish McGlumpha

            No N you miss the point entirely. This NOT about Salmond per se. It is about throwing mud at the independence case and hoping for a ‘guilt by association’ effect.

            All the better that the throwers are the ‘Scottish Government ‘ who can be misconstrued to be the SNP Gov. , when rather it is the permanent British state using that misleading nomenclature.

          • Muscleguy

            The SNP lost their majority because their vote share went UP. They had occupied a sweet spot in the electoral system but increased support moved them off it. They won all or almost all of the constituencies in most regions which meant their List vote had divisors of 10-12 put on it.

            In advance many of us saw this danger and urged people to vote Green instead on the List to ensure a Yes majority. This worked well enough with enough more Green MSPs to ensure a Yes majority which for many of us is the only one that matters.

        • kathy

          You are not surely trying to compare Alex Salmond – an upright and honourable man – to the snake oil salesman, Cameron, are you?

          • N_

            Can you think of any other government leaders in these isles who got bashed in referendums in the last decade and who resigned both their government and party leadership positions on the spot? Oh wait, one’s nasty and one’s nice, so any comparison is uncalled for, right?

          • kathy

            Well, Alex did exactly that – resigned straight away after the 2014 referendum.

            He resigned for honourable reasons whereas Cameron resigned for reasons of abject cowardice.

            When you see the lawless state of the UK today (except Scotland)
            possibly verging on a civil war between leavers and remainers and an MP slain for her beliefs while we lurch towards the “Mother of all Catastrophes” he knew what was coming. Cowardice doesn’t cover it but – hey, he is penning his autobiography in his secluded and expensive shepherd hut so all is well.

      • Yr Hen Gof

        And to smear them after their ‘deaths’.
        Stephen Milligan M.P. and the spy in the bag Gareth Williams on our doorstep, no shortage of similar elsewhere.

    • Peter

      “Could you tell me who are the people engaged in a punishment campaign against alex Salmond …?”

      Not people, our old friends the Establishment.

      Probably because in anticipation of a second Indy Ref he is seen as the most effective campaigner and, in anticipation of a general election, like Corbyn, he is also seen as one of the most effective critics of the Westminster politicum and he therefore must be undermined.

      And, despite her protestations of sorrow, it would appear that Ms Sturgeon is fully signed up to the programme.

      • N_

        Probably because in anticipation of a second Indy Ref he is seen as the most effective campaigner

        Only by fools. He’d been First Minister for 7 years, he’d had a lot of public resources at his disposal for preparing a “Here’s what independence would look like” document, and he still got his arse kicked all over the place. SNPers groan when the currency question is mentioned, but the guy didn’t half look like a plonker when he couldn’t answer it – except to his admiring party faithful of course, where he looked like a victim of evil posh English Tories who were so wicked as to ask him a question he couldn’t answer. Polling at lower than 50%, he abjectly failed with his “We’re selling sunshine” shtick to win the crucial votes – can you guess where? – from “moderate” or “flaky” Unionists. That’s all in Referendums 101.

        I don’t doubt some have got it in for him. What would state and party and lawyerzone politics be in Scotland without backstabbing and lies? But I’ve yet to hear a decent explanation of a credible motive.

        Here’s some help: it will be to do with MONEY.

        • Peter

          @N_ “…the guy didn’t half look like a plonker…”

          It’s worth remembering that, while obviously not working alone and it was shortly after he stepped down, it was largely under the leadership of Salmond that the SNP gained 56 out of 59 seats in 2015 in a Scottish Parliament that was designed to prevent any party obtaining a majority.

          Not something to sniff at.

          • Yr Hen Gof

            Ruth, I think you’re right.
            Further, I think what may have happened during the Scottish Independence Referendum was and is far from unique; those who are in a position to fraudulently affect an election result have been in bed with the establishment for over a century.
            Mi5 (for example) is charged with protecting the realm – they get to decide who the enemies of the realm are and not the government of the day.

        • Lachlan McLachlan

          Mr. Salmond was indeed a fine campaigner, an eloquent speaker on behalf of Scotland and ran rings around those foolish enough to challenge him on live television. The fact that the Scottish National Party allowed the British Establishment to run the Independence Referendum is a far more troubling fact than the abilities or lack thereof of the then SNP leader. Why was the referendum run along the lines that it was? Why were ballot boxes not more closely guarded by impartial guardians at all times instead of being transported around the country in cars with but a single occupant? Why were the postal votes sent to England for ‘safe keeping’ and why were no exit polls commissioned or permitted? Why did the SNP agree to such a terribly badly designed referendum run by the very people they were trying to defeat? I question your assessment of Mr. Salmond and decry your acidic summing up of his political career. You seem very bitter and angry. Perhaps you would be better employed castigating the Wastemonster establishment who have brought the UK to the verge of disaster and who wish Scotland and the Scots nothing but harm.

      • Muscleguy

        It looks more like the Sisterhood going for Alex though some having Unionist leanings cannot be ruled out. I can’t see Leslie Evans as an arch Unionist. She’s an SNP political appointee though a deep agent cannot be ruled out I suppose. Except Sturgeon refused to sanction any of them which tends to point more to the Sisterhood idea.

  • djm

    “The Salmond case aside (phrase inserted on legal advice!), it ought to be a public scandal that the procurator fiscal can arraign and parade a person in public and charge them with grievous offences, then delay matters for months and years while attempting to somehow cobble together the pile of mince they have as “evidence” into some sort of case. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

    Well indeed

    But isn’t this exactly the due process undertaken under the Code Napoléon ? The system you want the UK to be signed up to ??

    • Mr V

      More of the bent bananas and kippers alt right nonsense? Try ever traveling abroad, not only continental courts work much faster (and fairer) than ones using precedent medieval nonsense system, the judges can’t draw the process out indefinitely or sentence people with inane penalties pulled out of their arse. Also, procurator in continental system is officer that is supposed to see justice carried out (which means he will drop the case immediately if accused is innocent), not insane and frankly indefensible miscarriage of the legal process that is prosecutor of Common law whose only job is sending the accused behind bars, for life if possible…

      • Sopo

        Foreign courts fairer/faster. Amazing generalization. I almost hope you get arrested in Italy, just to give you time (lots of it) to reflect upon your comment.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    ” … my friend the estimable Michelle Thomson”
    She fronted for John Bolton’s bestest buddies the Mojahedin e Khalq. Just sayin’.

  • M.J.

    If the Scottish government is so corrupt, why call for Scottish independence? Human nature is the same on either side of the Scottish border. Beter to stick with nice people like Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Prince William …

    • Dr Jim

      There are two Scottish governments, the politicians the voters elect to Holyrood and the British civil service the voters don’t elect, guess which one has made the complaint

        • Mary Pau!

          You mean the Scottish office? More recently rebranded known as The Scotland Office.

          (On 21 October 2015, the Scotland Office re-branded their Facebook profile to ‘UK Government for Scotland.'[3] The Scotland Office Twitter handle changed to @UKGovScotland at the same time.) It is currently headed by Gillian McGregor. Gillian was brought up in the north-east of Scotland and was educated at Montrose Academy and Aberdeen University. She was awarded the CBE in the 2016 New Years Honours List.

          • Sloop John B

            I never understand why SNP members accept CBEs and such gaudy baubles, when ostensibly against everything they stand for. Really helps undermine their credibility.

    • Sharp Ears

      You omitted the eighth in line, P Andrew. He dropped down one when the Meghan/Harry baby arrived.

    • Moor Man

      Because, irrespective of dodgy machinations in ScotGov, a large percentage of Scots are craving independence. It is up to them to decide, not ScotGov, Civil Servants, or political aides.

    • N_

      “If the Scottish government is so corrupt, why call for Scottish independence?”

      Good nutshell question!

      • Alistair Shuttleworth

        It’s a silly question. The alternative is to be run by someone else’s corrupt government – as now.

    • kathy

      “Beter (sic) to stick with nice people like Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Prince William …”. What the hell have that bunch of over-priveleged buffoons got to do with Scotland?

      • M.J.

        They are descendants of King George to whom Rob Roy in the Walt Disney movie said ‘And you Sire, are a great king!’

    • John2o2o

      MJ, if Scotland became independent then it could still in theory retain the Queen as it’s Head of State.

      (I make my comment with sincere apologies to republicans).

      Irrespective of the corrupt activities of some politicians, Scottish independence is still a desirable aim. One would hope that a better system can be established to weed out those engaged in nefarious activities.

    • kathy

      Is that the same Queen Elizabeth who delights in signing death warrants for prisoners on death row in The Caribbean, Belize, The Bahamas, Barbados, St Lucia, Jamaica, St Vincent, The Grenadines, St Christopher and Nevis. “The royal pen wields terminal power on death row”. She doesn’t seem very nice to me.

  • Alex Birnie

    Just one question, Craig. You are pointing the finger directly at Sturgeon. What could possibly be HER motivation for stitching up Salmond?

      • Alex Birnie

        I’m not really into cryptic stuff, Craig. Are you suggesting that Sturgeon is complicit in this arrempt to stitch Salmond up? If so, what theories do you have for her doing this? To ensure that he can never threaten her position? That seems to me to be a really dangerous and foolish move, both for her personally and for the SNP as a whole. If this turns out to be the case, then the damage done to the SNP would be immense, and she must know that if she forces the membership to choose between her and Salmond, she will lose – and lose badly! The only other alternative that I can think of, is that she is a “secret agent of the British state” which I dismiss out of hand.

        So, are you seriously suggesting that Sturgeon is playing Internal party politics, and stabbing Salmond in the process?

        • Jo1

          On the day the judge declared that the SG investigation into Salmond had been “unlawful, unfair and tainted with bias” Nicola Sturgeon told the media that she had every confidence in Leslie Evans. She added that the important thing was that the “victims” in the case must be provided with support. Not a word of apology to Salmond for the tactics employed by Evans and MacKinnon which broke just about every rule in the book governing Civil Service Investigations. Not a word. I thought that said a great deal.

    • Jimmeh

      I thought the story was that she’s a feminist fundamentalist, who has surrounded herself with other feminist fundies; and Alex is a man. If that’s the story, then it’s very similar to the Assange story.

      • N_

        Anna Ardin is CIA and it was just an accident she got assigned to adopt a “feminist” persona. Had she had a different case officer, she might have been cloaked as another Pam Geller.

        • JeremyT

          AA is a rapist. In what other world can you come home unexpectedly early to your own place, drink your invited guest into bed, then accuse them of consent and sexual health malpractices?
          Thinking about it, the Scotland Office sounds a risky place to accept the offer of a bed for the night.
          And where are AA’s test results?

    • Terry callachan

      Nicola Sturgeon did not and still does not have any motivation for seeing Alex Salmond stitched up ,you are missing an important point which is that once Nicola Sturgeon had been informed of the accusation she was in a no win situation.

      If she did nothing she would have been accused of protecting her old boss Alex Salmond and a lot of hay would have been made of Nicola not supporting women’s rights to hold abusive men to account.

      If she rubber stamped an investigation she would not be able to choose the investigators or control the investigation and as we have seen so far some aspects of the investigation have been corrupt.

      Nicola Sturgeon is asked why have the three women in the Scotland office involved in the investigation have not been sacked for inappropriately causing unnecessary delays in the process of the case and I would say that it would be wrong to sack them because if the court finds that they acted inappropriately it will likely being prosecutions for doing so and at that point they can be sacked with no compensation if found guilty.

      • Jo1

        “….because if the court finds that they acted inappropriately it will likely being prosecutions for doing so and at that point they can be sacked with no compensation if found guilty.”

        Not true. It was for the Civil Service to take action against Evans, not the Court. Evans bosses are in Whitehall and they did nothing. Sturgeon made no complaint either.

    • Sloop John B

      Jealousy? Hatred? Misandry? Wanting to undo all the good her predecessor did, like some politicians do when they get in office? Personal grudge for something? Feminist madness? Who knows. It’s definitely not logical, sane, or sensible, whatever her ‘reason’ is. She is stuffing the party with damaged SJW-type crackpots, and damaging the party and country at the same time. Remaking the party in her own image, and the country…and look where that’s gotten us so far.

  • Mist001

    And where does the buck stop? That’s right. Sturgeon.

    People still think she’s going to deliver independence for Scotland when she’s presiding over stuff like this? She and Salmond were best buddies until she took over the leadership, so what turned her head? I blame the company she keeps. I’ve believed for a long time that Sturgeon leads a secret life, one that she doesn’t want publicly known and that her marriage to Murrell is simply a marriage of convenience, if you catch my drift. Look at the circle she’s surrounded herself with. At least one of them has a serious axe to grind against Salmond and Sturgeon is unable or unwilling to go against the grain.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this woman has cost Scotland its independence. There is evidently a split right down the middle of the SNP, no matter how much people want to deny or hide the fact.

    And she’s a lawyer????

    • Mac

      “I’ve believed for a long time that Sturgeon leads a secret life, one that she doesn’t want publicly known and that her marriage to Murrell is simply a marriage of convenience, if you catch my drift”

      Who the fuck cares. Her business is her business, not yours to idly speculate

    • J

      “…this woman has cost Scotland its independence.”

      If so, you appear a little too desperate to confirm that for her.

      “I’ve believed for a long time that Sturgeon leads a secret life, one that she doesn’t want publicly known and that her marriage to Murrell is simply a marriage of convenience”

      So what if she does? And what exactly is the point in adopting the same smear tactics by response? How can real change occur through becoming what you want to throw out?

    • Sloop John B

      I do agree with the ‘marriage of convenience’ angle. It’s the only logical reason why Ms. Sturgeon is so obsessed with women and putting them in positions of power at the expense of men, and gay rights and such. These are her people…and they’re nuts, a power-mad cabal of manhater weirdos. And they are destroying the party. And this is conjecture, of course, but you are not the first, or second, or third, person to put that idea forward to me/in general.

    • Jo1

      “I’ve believed for a long time that Sturgeon leads a secret life, one that she doesn’t want publicly known and that her marriage to Murrell is simply a marriage of convenience, if you catch my drift.”

      Oh I’m catching your drift. There’s a word for it. Defamatory. You’re out of order!

  • Mac

    The truth will come out when someone in-the-know decides to reveal how much Government and establishment interest was focussed on the case in order to fuel it.

    Salmond, guilty or not guilty, that is not decided. But it looks like the establishment ARE guilty of trying to undermine the due process of law.

  • RuilleBuille

    Don’t be surprised at the length unionists will go to in order to prevent independence.

    In Ireland they will murder you.

  • Bibbit

    Any clear & present danger to the English establishment must be taken out. If we lived in a normal country, with actual newspapers, indy editors & employing actual investigative journalists, this murky back story would be front line news, in the press and on the BBC. But we don’t; so it isn’t.

    Well done Craig Murray. You show our press charlatans for what they are.

    • bevin

      ” If we lived in a normal country, with actual newspapers, indy editors & employing actual investigative journalists, this murky back story would be front line news, in the press and on the BBC. ”
      Can you name such a country? I doubt that any exist. And, if a few did they would not be normal. What is normal is a class of prostituted journalists, a media dominated by the wealthy, promoting the interests of an exploiting class and determined to shield the sordid truth from a populace too broke and worried to care very much.

      • Muscleguy

        The NZ press is pretty good at sniffing stuff out. There is one guy Nicky Hager who has made a career out of sniffing out political scandal.

        I read the NZ media online regularly and the contrast to here is stark. There are also the various student newspapers who can be pretty scabrous when they want to be. I went to Otago a city of 120k and the Critic plays a role and is read outside the university. The student radio station is also heard outside campus.

      • Twirlip

        I’ve long wished for someone to write a history of the use of the word “normal” as a term of approbation. When did it come into use?

        “Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years.” – R. D. Laing

  • Christopher Bruce

    Anger at the system imposed and controlled from the back rooms of Westminster, does not go anywhere near to describing my emotions.

    They have, quite deliberately, taken Alex out of the indy fight.

    But we will be rid of them, and soon.

    • Mist001

      My point is, if the system is imposed and controlled from the back rooms of Westminster and they have quite deliberately taken Alex out of the Indy fight, then how did they infiltrate the SNP and get to Sturgeon to do their bidding? She could have stopped it, but didn’t. She is a lawyer after all, she must have seen what the outcome was likely to be.

      As I said previously, I believe that she leads a secret life and that’s how Sturgeon is being manipulated.

  • nevermind

    What a waste of time and judiciary, just to think of what else they could have been doing. Will any of the accusers face having wasted police and Court time?
    BTW. If anyone smells burning, its the Amazon.

  • mbiyd

    Craig, in fairness to Police Scotland and the Crown Office it is standard practice in these types of cases to cast a wide net. When there is an alleged course of conduct individual allegations often can’t be corroborated. The police therefore have to investigate whether or not other individuals have also been subject to similar a type of conduct by the accused to provide the corroboration. This can be especially true of alleged historic offences.

  • John Leighton

    Thanks Craig. However you fail to identify that those very senior civil servants are appointed by the Westminster Government and are therefore imposed on the ‘Scottish Government’
    Otherwise thank you for a very interesting (if not unexpected) article
    Saor Alba
    Best wishes

  • John Lowe

    Excellent piece. I would suggest the enquiry was dragged out to specifically get an SNP bad story when costs where revealed.

  • N_

    Just checking: is there a source for the investigative journalist’s contention that in Scotland it is normal for the victorious side in a legal case to be awarded only 60% of their costs?

    It means that the victorious party (ie Salmond) is entitled to full expenses as opposed to the normal 60 per cent or so which accompanies victory.

    • John Macadam

      that source is any lawyer who works in the courts. I have argued many cases and only seen ‘agent and client, client paying’ once.

      • N_

        @John – So normally if you win a case the client still has to pay 40% of his costs? Even if all he’s done is been wronged by the other party and sought redress.

        Change that and Edinburgh might start getting more “Russian” business.

  • N_

    so long as the so-called ‘criminal case’ is pending. Expect it to be pending for a very long time.

    As in how long? If the trial does not begin, how long must Alex Salmond wait until the charges get dropped?

    I don’t have much knowledge of the Scottish jurisdiction. The answer may be somewhere in this document:

    The (Preliminary Hearing) must be held within 11 months of (Committal for Further Examination) and the trial must commence within 12 months (…)

    In all cases, if the 11 and 12 month bail time limits are not complied with, the proceedings come to an end and the accused can never be prosecuted on those charges.

    What stage is the criminal case at now? And when must the next stage be held by if the case is to make progress and the accused man is not to be released without trial?

    Then look at it from the point of view of the accused man’s legal team 🙂

      • N_

        Thanks John. Can you spell it out a bit please, because I don’t know the procedure. Isn’t the trial supposed to be provisionally set for January 2020? What was the most recent stage which started a clock ticking, and when will the charges be dropped if the next stage isn’t reached?

        I have no idea whether he is guilty or not, but if he is guilty then delay followed by a time-out might be his best bet if he wants to keep out of prison.

        I’d be surprised if he didn’t make any lasting friendships in state circles in Edinburgh that he can call on.

  • Hatuey

    “indicative of monumental arrogance right at the heart of Holyrood.”

    It’s indicative of a lot more than that, Craig, as you obviously know.

    When the story broke on Salmond, I called it out on this blog. I believed then what I know now — this whole thing is political. We should remember that they more or less changed the rules so that they could go after Salmond.

    Leslie Evans is the highest paid civil servant in Scotland and, regardless of her motivation, she screwed up massively. She was appointed by Sturgeon personally, as far as I understand it. As if that isn’t suspicious enough, we now see that instead of being sacked for this monumental and costly failure, she is being protected.

    It looks like the civil case was “collapsed” just as the really damning evidence (not on Salmond but on the real architects of this failure) was about to be revealed.

  • Osakisushi

    One almost suspects you believe Mr Salmond to be innocent of all charges.

    Please, I truly hope you are correct and equally, I hope he does a “Rev Stu” and goes after some of the commentators.

  • Republicofscotland

    So the civil service at Holyrood are carrying out their Westminster masters bidding. Costing the taxpayer a fortune then blame the Scottish government, (via their media buddies) whilst fitting up Salmond to keep him out of the independence picture, and attempt to taint the indy cause as a whole.

    These three amigos Leslie Evans, Judith Mackinnon and Liz Lloyd need to be sacked, and Humza Yousaf must look into the actions of Police Scotland surrounding the disgraceful treatment of Michelle Thomson.

    Sturgeon may feel her hands are tied on the Salmond matter, however she should clean house even if she has only a inclination of foul play, hopefully she herself isn’t part of the problem, or Rev Stu, will have a huge following at Holyrood come the next Scottish elections, of which I’d fully expect Craig to stand in.

      • Republicofscotland

        That’s what the Republicans thought of General Mola, but his Fifth column proved them wrong.

        However I agree the driving force for indy is strong, but we could be hamstrung if Holyrood bureaucracy via Westminster machinations ties it up.

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      If we’re forming an “untouchables list” of “sisters” that remain beyond reproach regardless, I add Donalda MacKinnon. She demonstrabley lied about the Question Time / Billy Mitchell scandal and nere a word was uttered from Bute house.

  • John M Rudkin

    westminster decided to take alex salmond out of the independence fight,their dirty tricks with the civil service the police and the press,along with mainstream tv stations have made sure alex salmond is finished in scottish politics,none of this would or could happened without the help of nicola sturgeon .

  • Sinclair

    Salmond won his civil case but the criminal proceedings against him must start within 1 year from the initial court appearance. He will be served with an indictment in October laying out all the charges he will face in court (interesting to see if any are dropped or added from original charges) He is scheduled to appear in court on 18 November for a brief hearing where a court date will be set for January or early February 2020. Salmond’s legal team can seek an extension if they need more time to prepare.

    It looks like the case will run & run …

  • Sharp Ears

    Old Fluffy played a part in the demonization of Salmond with the help of Murdoch’s rag.

    ‘HAVING E-GO Scots secretary David Mundell slams Alex Salmond over crowdfunder to cover costs of sex pest probe legal action
    Mundell says the former First Minister is only out for himself
    6 Sep 2018
    DAVID Mundell today blasted embattled Alex Salmond and claimed he is only out for himself.
    The Scots Secretary slammed the ex-First Minister over his sex scandal crowdfunder and his chat show on Kremlin-backed telly channel RT.

  • Tony

    Our understanding of so many things is often wrong.
    Watergate is one such example. It now looks like it was an undercover CIA operation to force Nixon out.
    Like JFK, Nixon offended people with power such as the CIA and the military chiefs and that is why he was dumped in a coup.

    He may well have been lucky to avoid the same fate as JFK.
    According to Roger Stone’s book ‘Nixon’s Secrets’ the CIA tried to assassinate him in early 1972 but the attempts failed because the hit man backed out when he was told who the target was.
    Such a claim is difficult to prove but neither can it easily be dismissed.

    Nixon’s relationship with the CIA was very difficult for a number of reasons. He had worked out that LBJ and the CIA were behind the JFK assassination and he was eager to see their files which they actively resisted. Nixon’s strategy of détente with the USSR, the opening to China etc. were also fiercely opposed by the CIA leaders and many in the military. Indeed, General Alexander Haig was one of the key plotters.

    Seen in this context, the use of Watergate to force him to resign may well have been a ‘plan B’ coming as it did so soon after the alleged assassination plan was abandoned.

    So when we look at the Salmond affair, it is important to look critically at what is going on. Do not simply accept the official version of things and always ask this question: ‘Who benefits?’

  • DEB

    It’s been obvious from the beginning that Alex Salmond has been stitched up… that was on the cards…let’s hope his excellent council unpick every rotten, deliberate malicious lie and finally expose the truth to the world…. AS is the victim of a horrible character assassination by the establishment, and that includes the Scottish contingent also.
    A massive scandal is unfolding.

  • Scott

    Fascinating story. Is Salmond really such a threat to the SNP leadership, to warrant this fit-up? If he was a threat before, imagine how determined he will be once his reputation is restored!

    Kind regards,

  • Lorna Campbell

    What really worries me is that these women had already accepted an apology and had let the matter drop. I doubt whether that would have been possible, from the women’s personal point of view, had they been serious sexual assaults (as has been the contention), as these would not have required any new legislation to pursue a case, the individual being irrelevant. I am not, in any way, trying to suggest that the women lied or that even less serious sexual assaults are not actionable, just that serious sexual assault of several people would have had to have been investigated, by necessity, unless there was a cover-up, and these alleged assaults would have been known to all the women, strengthening their case, whether or not Mr Salmond was a minister or not, whether he was FM or not. Is a cover-up being alleged?

    I understand that the new legislation allowed investigation of ministers, but a trawling expedition is acceptable only in certain circumstances, and that should be only where there are already established good reasons for believing a crime has been committed and links to other, similar crimes are being looked at because the first crime is not sticking for lack of evidence. I think the Moorov Doctrine might apply where a crime is suspected to have been committed by an individual, but evidence is not sufficiently strong, and there are suggestions that others have been committed, too, but not brought to the attention of the police, lending a ‘propensity’ element, or where there was one crime, sufficiently strong, but also others where the evidence was weak. Did the women themselves want this resurrected when Mr Salmond appeared to have apologized for conduct that might not have been entirely appropriate, and they had accepted the apology, or was this instigated for reasons other than the women’s welfare? Or, if it was for the women’s welfare, was it carried out in ways that negated their right to let the matter drop because someone else had a agenda on sexual politics? There have been so many cases where the women or woman at the centre of allegations and investigations appear to have been lost sight of in the melee to attach blame for reasons that have nothing to do with the case itself. This kind of thing was rather prevalent in pre civil rights America, and used and exploited women for political reasons that had little or nothing to do with their ultimate welfare, creating a hostile environment for both black men unjustly accused and an imposed set of moral standards on white women unjustly awarded sainthood when they had never asked for it. If other women are willing to exploit their sisters in this way, it becomes even more depressing.

    • Hatuey

      As I understand the law, Lorna, this comment is in contempt of court. And I’d advise the mods delete it immediately.

      • Lorna Campbell

        No, it isn’t, Hatuey. It is my belief that Mr Salmond cannot receive a fair trial. It is also my belief that the women might well have been used to further someone’s agenda. It is also my belief that that agenda will do the Scottish government no good at all. I am speculating and alleging. I do not know what actually happened and neither do you. As Mac has said in an earlier comment, and I concur with his comment, all we do know at this stage is that due process was undermined and the rest follows from that.

1 2 3 6

Comments are closed.