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 4 5 6
  • Neil macpherdon

    The article is very interesting and thought provoking however there is no way that Alex Salmond could face trial simply because it is not possible to find a jury of impartial folks in Scotland . One way or another they will be prejudiced. It’s nobodies fault , it’s just the way it is and the judicial system should be honest with the people about that now !

    • Alan R Page

      It could be possible to find a jury of impartial folks in Scotland if you trawled the Bar-L recent releases and the hospital wards with dementia sufferers. Much simpler is to rely upon the Court of Session without the complication of jurors.

  • Sharp Ears

    ‘In the last of a three-part series on the effectiveness of the politics of protest, the Alex Salmond Show features the recent marches for Scottish independence and asks whether peaceful action gets results in the modern world.

    Alex also interviews veteran campaigner for LGBT and human rights Peter Tatchell on the highlights of his 40 years of championing these causes and asks celebrated American activist Medea Benjamin to put the current international wave of political activism into a historical context.’

  • Tony Taylor

    I always suspected this was a stitch up. I also suspected there was some illegal activity taking place behind the scenes and it stank of Whitehall and Westminster influence. It will therefore come as no surprise when it eventually collapses amid allegations of rabid feminist conspiracy. It will be interesting to see who were the parties behind the original allegations. McKinnon and Evans should go down for this at least

    • Ken Kenn


      I reckon as usual that this is not about legalities ( like Assange ) it is about politics.

      I don’t know every dot and comma about Scottish politics but Salmond is on the ‘ left ‘

      The SNP as in any other political party breaks down into its political component parts.

      As an example Charles Kennedy (as Craig mentions ) was removed due to having a drink problem.

      Even a pissed up Kennnedy would have been better than what followed with Clegg et al.

      The pretence was that no-one at Lib Dem Headquarters knew and we know that’s garbage.

      I used to like kennedy and no doubt he would have had both hands up to get rid of Johnson and his mates but
      all that is left now is Swinson and her mates and they won’t vote the government down.

      Salmond seems to be in a similar position as Kennedy but I think it’s because he’s a ‘ lefty.’

      Sturgeon appears to me as not a lefty and maybe that’s the reason why she’s heding her bets on a Scottish referendum.

      Yes a Corbyn led government would hopefully keep Scotland in the UK without a referendum.

      An SNP/ Labour agreement in a hung Parliament might be perfect for Sturgeon.

      Needs must as the Devil drives I reckon.

      Salmond is pretty Corbynist and therefore he’s a threat in the possible resurgence of the left?

  • Willie

    The sex smear is a tried and tested weapon by the British.

    Ask the great Irish nationalist Charles Stuart Parnell.

    And if they don’t get you with that, and you are are risk to the establishment then ask the Scottish Nationalist lawyer Willie McRae.

    Or in Northern Ireland the Irish Republican lawyer Pat Finnucaine.

    That is how the UK state operates. Brutal, brutal, brutal, they didn’t get an empire by democratic means – and they won’t cede a colony democratically either.

    • Belfastlough

      In the Pat Finnucaine web site you can see how the state gave protection to the military personnel who gave details of his movements/address to the loyalist thugs.
      Going back further to 1575, the Rathlin Island massacre truly shocked me. The state are just criminals.

  • RandomComment

    No real doubt this is a “fit up” in my mind.I’d invite the readers to consider that this is not just a tactic used by the venal UK establishment, but is commonly practised world-wide by politicians/intelligence agencies/etc of all stripes and persuasions.

    We could talk about similar tactics used against US conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh, for instance. Why do some people believe his accusers, while disbelieving Salmond’s?

    • Deepgreenpuddock

      one must wonder whether this susceptibilty to accusation of sexual impropriety are a particularly strong feature of the US/UK. Is this something to do withe the white anglo-saxon protestant/presbyterian culture and the Nordic(swedish) culture. Denmark- no knowledge of Denmark, although visits suggest to me that Danes are much less up tight than Swedish people.Would the Alex Salmond thing be possible in France Spain or Italy? Perhaps not.
      I have seen many people suggest a fit up but I suspect this is no so straightforward.Isn’t it more likely that there will have been wind of ill-judged behaviour(perhaps after a wee swally) and a wedge/opportunity was perceived, and the powers that be decided to pursue it with a vigour that would not have been applied to many other less politically significant individuals.

      • RandomComment

        .Isn’t it more likely that there will have been wind of ill-judged behaviour(perhaps after a wee swally) and a wedge/opportunity was perceived, and the powers that be decided to pursue it with a vigour that would not have been applied to many other less politically significant individuals.

        That was my definition of a fit-up 😉

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          Of course but what I mean is that such people who ‘fit up’ wil have buried it in a tangle of just about believable testimony, half facts, hearsay and innuendo. It wont be obvious that it is a fit up and will need some extraordinary legal work to rebut the allegations.

          • Hatuey

            In other words, you are guessing there will be some truth in the allegations, a sort of ‘no smoke without fire’ argument. That’s quite an assumption in itself. For legal reasons, I’ll steer clear of this conversation, though.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            for logical reasons best steer clear. Of course, if it Is a fit-up, the kinds of people doing it are utter fools and dimwits and wont have the wits to create a credible line. It will be crystal clear to you especially.Maybe you need to offer your scintillating razor sharp insights to the defence team.
            Maybe it is my abilities as a puddock that I expect to swim in muddy waters.
            Here is some Muddy Waters to lighten the darkness

  • mark golding

    giyane & Hatuey show insight; we are,/i> in a post truth world where British intelligence conjure their dirty tricks to ring-fence the war machinations of perfidious Albion.

    This protection and isolation eschews the command structures of NATO and even the Trident conundrum where the deep waters of Gare Loch support a rapid and stealthy access for weapons of mass destruction through the North Channel to the nuclear submarine patrolling areas in the North Atlantic.

    Ironically it is weapons of mass destruction through the long Chilcot debates on Iraq, when Salmond told MP’s that many of us suspected that Prime Minister Blair had given commitments to the American President which were unrevealed to this House and to the public. It was Salmond that said In his opening speech, that the inquiry had proved Blair had committed to joining George W Bush in Iraq regardless of the evidence about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

    At the now Brexit cross-road and our terms with the WMD hellion, the United States of America, Salmondgate is a high priority for the British intelligence services and Police Scotland are just one facet of a multi-pronged attack.

    • Hatuey

      And don’t forget, they’re dumbing the general population down all the time too. Brexit is possibly all the proof we need of that. I’m hearing some terrible stuff about the brain damage that 5G causes, over very short timeframes too.

  • Barry Haniford

    Great work Craig et al – I have been rigorously support the principle of ‘innocent until PROVEN guilty’ all my life and have been citing it repeatedly throughout this case. Michelle was treated abominably and this has reeked of a Unionist set up/witch-hunt from the start. I hope that those with power and influence in Scotland will be strong and swift in welcoming Alex back into the centre of the fight for Scottish Independence!

  • Mary Pau!

    I tend to agree with those who have asked what is the motive here? It seems a lot of effort to go to, to discredit a former politician.

      • mark golding

        Clearly RandomComment the ‘fire’ was as Salmond, quite rightly said, was the illegal war, enabled, facilitated and setup by the ‘smoke’ cover from the CIA and SIS. The British public are reticent by far to expose, condemn and punish the war criminals who still demand deference, thus, brave men like Craig on torture and Alex Salmond on war are left to bear the torture of false accusations, chicanery and frame-ups without the enmasse public support essential to heal the scars.

        • RandomComment

          Which illegal war are we talking about? There have been so many, I have lost count. I assume you mean Iraq2?

        • J

          When every message reads “You Are In A Minority” the one thing you can actually be certain of is that you’re not alone, otherwise the message wouldn’t need to exist. Why else do media work so hard to ignore a year of mass dissent across France?

      • Mary Pau!

        no not at all.I was just wondering what the motivation might be. Salmond is after all a retired politician this days.

        • RandomComment

          He may be a more “dangerous” and influential figure outside of political power, with his media outreach. I could possibly draw comparisons with Farage in that respect, but people will probably shout at me.

    • Hatuey

      What virtually nobody has mentioned is the lingering support that exists within the SNP for Salmond. It’s still there too. He was a hard act to follow.

      Sturgeon is a complete political lightweight by comparison. I remember feeling distinctly ill when I saw the “I’m with Nicola” slogan in 2015. I mean, to call that cheese is to flatter. She approved that. And that’s when I cancelled my membership.

      When May humiliated us all with the “now is not the time” insult, Sturgeon responded with exactly nothing. Would Salmond have taken that? I don’t think so. At that point the policy changed from “ we want off the Brexit bus” to “well, let’s see where the bus takes us first…”

      It’s because she took that and responded with nothing that they are treating us with contempt today. And this is why we need a new approach, ideally with Salmond back, Wings in support, people like Joanna Cherry and Craig Murray, providing something that resembles resistance and a little room for hope.

      • michael norton

        Well Nicola is probably correct, in that,
        Boris has nailed his colours to the Brexit bus, just prior to the Brexit bus going over the White Cliffs of Dover.
        This is apparently, going to happen on Halloween 2019, so there is no possibility of Indeyref2 before 31/10/2019.
        Bojo and the Donald seem to be the bestest of chums, the Donald is going out of his way to Big Up Boris and Brexit, talking about removing the E.U. leg-irons from the U.K.
        So over the cliff we go – together.

          • Mist001

            Notice that it’s a unicorn, the national (mythical) animal of Scotland? Is it sending a message or am I making the cartoonist seem more clever than they actually are?

          • Hatuey

            Mist, you’re correct about the unicorn being some sort of heraldic symbol of Scotland but I think the unicorn in that case needs to be in chains.

            Without the chains, it’s just a unicorn.

          • Republicofscotland

            The Unicorn goes way back to ancient times.

            The Throne Chair of Demark was said to be made of Unicorn horns, it’s actually made from Narwhal horns (A very long and protruding tooth.


            Even the great Leonardo da Vinci, had a somewhat romantic view of Unicorns, he wrote of them.

            “The unicorn, through its intemperance and not knowing how to control itself, for the love it bears to fair maidens forgets its ferocity and wildness; and laying aside all fear it will go up to a seated damsel and go to sleep in her lap, and thus the hunters take it.”

        • N_


          The Scottish Parliament’s next session begins later this week. You want to avoid going over the cliff? Then call for a Scottish general election. The SNP are currently polling at around 38%, slightly higher than the 37% they got in 2016 when they lost their majority. Are they scared? Call for an election and fight it on the line that the Brexit disaster means Scotland should be independent. That’s what many independence supporters are saying. So seek a mandate. Get a two-thirds majority in Holyrood and the election happens. If the motion passes, the Presiding Officer is supposed to propose a date. As far as I’m aware, there’s no set format for the motion. So include a clause saying the PO should propose 29th October? You want to stick it to the sh*tclowns at “Westminster”? Here’s your chance!

        • N_

          She’s crap and she can only appeal to her probably diminishing band of fans. She got the job by accident. She organises photos where she sits on a sofa like Margaret Thatcher. And she adopts and amends the “I agree with Nick” line uttered by David Cameron. Retch!

          Blairite? Well if @John says so. Which can also be spelled “Tory”.

    • Goose

      @Mary Paul

      There’s plenty of motive for those who practice the ‘dark arts’ if they are so minded to cause the SNP trouble.

      Salmond and Sturgeon were obviously once inseparable; they were by far the foremost recognizable political figures associated with the SNP and independence. The allegations against Alex Salmond place FM Sturgeon in a v. difficult position as they force her to choose between loyalty to her close friend or trying to remain professional as FM and totally uninvolved.

      All division in the SNP is grist to the mill for opponents of the SNP and independence. And Alex Salmond’s involvement with RT must rub some in the intel services up the wrong way. Especially if some of the subjects discussed here eg. Skripals, are anywhere near the mark..

  • Ishmael

    The system creates perverse incentives, …across the board. Stepping back, Id say the police are an institution that arises out of those incentives & is only justifiable in theory, & in context of what drives people in this system at any one time…Not in proven results.

    It’s kinda funny that an institution (& it’s attendant judicial system) that basically arose out of a colonialist capitalist system is taken on by every country after they claim “independence” …One assumes you’d not get recognition without these basic things?

    I think international law & law for institutions can often be justified given what they are, malign in nature, & this is why people who pushed & push “socialism”(in my understanding/reading of history, decentralised, more egalitarian without the fundamentally divergent interests of separates classes) do so, Because people are clearly not reliable especially under such incentives. …Including those at the bottom who are made to suffer forced scarcity… Why should they not turn to “crime” ? Are those who have vast sums better ? & How did they get this monopoly ? …Savagery. & it’s maintained by it.

    “History echo’s” .. Tariq Ali …(though maybe he got it from somewhere else)

    It does not shock me this is politicised, as the institutions dealing with it are & always have been. I mean really, what do these people know about justice? About doing good in the world? They act from calculation & a vision of them as historical actors, not direct humanity. …As noted, if they did that they would not be those actors, Or should I say “Actors” (those who go along whatever narrative).

    Of corse we must fight for the best outcomes in what is now, but little is going to change without fundamental re-ordering. …It does not have to be this way, & aside from a few who are possessed by control or using it to hide ,,, whatever, we would all get on far better actually organising society around more civilised principals.

  • Billy Carlin

    The reason that Police Scotland was created into one force is the exact same reason that the colleges and universities have been lumped into West of Scotland College. University etc and that is for when Scotland is taken into the EU – and if they get away with their agenda the United States of Europe – as a REGION and where England is going to be split up into nine City REGIONS with NO countries or national parliaments. Why do you think that every political party is committing TREASON with regard to the Brexit vote where we actually left the EU on March 29th 2019 re the Robin Tilbrook case and every party is ignoring that vote and the FACT that we have already left because all of the political parties are corrupt Vatican/Rothschilds etc Private CORPORATIONS listed on Dun & Bradstreet and being traded on the Stock Exchange for PROFIT as is the EU, UN, Countries, Governments, Councils, Courts, Police etc etc. These Elites are building up their New World Order – One World Government DICTATORSHIP agenda and every one of these parties are involved in that.

    Yes there is infighting going on for some reason here in the SNP and no surprise to many of us ex-SNP who became aware a long time ago now that the SNP have their share of crooks and are just another establishment party and that they and Salmond were corrupt and quite happy to rip off the tax-payers of hundreds of thousands of pounds of their expenses laundered into their party funds via a fake company that they had set up for that purpose and when we reported that to the police they and the Crown Office covered it up as did the mainstream media as well and the other parties knew about this and did nothing about either telling us all that the SNP were just another establishment party. If they were an anti-establishment party all of the above would have been all over this as was exposed here :

    • Mary Pau!

      I cannot see England becoming regions. The last attempt, by Prescott, failed because the regional committees were so irrelevant and seriously undemocratic. The regional advocates would need some vastly different basis for the franchise for it to happen. AND that assumes we would be in Europe when it happened.

      • Jo1

        Mary Paul
        I read something interesting about that the other day. (It may have been on another thread here actually.) Apparently, there was initially support in the NE for an assembly but a certain Dominic Cummings got involved.

  • John Goss

    Perhaps Scotland’s biggest failure is its failure to attempt to get to the bottom of who was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing where a bomb was planted at Heathrow with the apparent complicity of secret services throughout the western word to blame Abdel Basset Megrahi who clearly had no involvement. International lawyer Prof Francis A. Boyle predicted to Libiya that it “would be set-up as a scapegoat for the Lockerbie bombing by the United States,” Then there was what he refers to as the “kangaroo” Scottish court in the Netherlands.

    If it was not so serious it would be farcical.

    • Coldish

      John Goss: “…with the apparent complicity of secret services….to blame…Megrahi…”. As I understood it the known complicity (not just apparent) came later than the bombing. But I agree that evidence which was already available to the police just a few months after the bombing indicates with close to 100% certainty that the bomb was placed at Heathrow, not Frankfurt or Malta, and that Megrahi and Fhimah were framed. The whole episode shows the Scottish legal and judicial apparatus as incompetent and corrupt. Why has no serious attempt yet been made by the Scottish authorities to investigate who actually placed the bomb, which apart from those in the aircraft killed a number of people on Scottish ground?

      • Dave

        There was no bomb, see independent aircraft accident investigator John Barry Smith, everything else, lie begets lie, followed from this initial honest mistake!

        Reportedly it was a an old plane ascending to its flight height above Scotland in stormy weather when a cargo door fault occurred, not uncommon, but fatal due to its location, as the powerful slip stream across the nose ripped off the cargo door which in turn led to explosive decompression and the cockpit detaching in 3 seconds knocking off engine 3 and being the first item in the debris trail. Hence no word from the Captain.

        The elementary problem with the bomb plot promoted at court was the questionable ‘forensic’ evidence (not contested by the defence) to prove a bomb (described as an Improvised Explosive Device IED) was a burnt piece of T-shirt and fragment of circuit board from the ‘bomb case’ which wouldn’t have survived an explosion powerful enough to destroy a plane in 3 seconds.

        • John Goss

          Dave, I went searching for John Barry Smith and Lockerbie finding nothing but this link, which is Jim Swire’s blog and sound in its content.

          It would be useful if you provided quotes, links, places to find information. All it seems to have is another comment by you mentioning this fictitious (until I learn differently) John Barry Smith. Again it has no substantive information. Otherwise it wastes my time.

          • Dave

            You should try and add some key words like Pan Am 103, cargo door and explosive decompression. Try aircraft accident report pan am flight 103 part 1 consideration of reasonable causes.

    • George

      Ask Fred Newton the police investigating officer who done Lockerbie, he did very well with this incident rising up the ranks to become head of special branch then retired and now working for Europol in the balkans.

    • N_

      The time limit for a trial that was trampled on in the Lockerbie case is likely to be scrupulously respected in the Salmond case. It’s obvious that vested interests won’t want too much light shone in certain places. I doubt the monarchist nationalist will ever get tried on the attempted rape charges.

  • John2o2o

    I don’t know Willie. Here’s an excerpt from last year’s Queen’s speech:

    “Even with the most deeply held differences treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human being is always a good first step towards greater understanding.”

    93 and still working as well.

  • John2o2o

    No Mark. Your prejudices will not make Scotland independent.

    As for Prince Andrew. The law applies to him as much as it applies to Alex. He is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty in a court of law.

    • Sharp Ears

      So who is going to lay charges against P Andrew? I don’t think that the Royal lot are subject to the common law.

  • N_

    I reckon vested interests won’t want a trial to take place – not only because of what might come out about Alex Salmond, but also what might come out about other twats who have held or still hold jobs in the Scottish administration, elected or permanent. Maybe he’ll walk free on the technicality of too long a delay, a joy that wasn’t allowed to the Lockerbie defendants. How long does he have to wait now for the time to run out if nothing happens? It’s surely only a few months.

    And without any stripy sunshine too! I don’t know how common it is in Scotland for men charged with multiple counts of attempted rape and sexual assault to get bail in the first place?

  • Tom

    Sounds as if SNP govt. stitched up Salmond by your account. In which case indyref2 is off the agenda for some time. An entirely Scottish affair , nothing to do with Westminster

    • Ishmael

      I see your point, but centres of power have symbiotic relations & they all have far more in common with each-other than most people.

      & an issue with nationalist movements is they tend to obscure far greater critical divisions & it makes people lazy & start really believing those people are looking out for “our” interests eg- as a “nation”..inadvisable, Normally under some unifying arbitrary banner …etc.

      It’s really not just to do with Scotland.

    • defo

      You didn’t read the post Tom?
      It was civil servants, those paragons of impartiality, who managed the fit up.
      And our UKOK security service, playing the long game, engineered it.

      Are the initials KB relevant Craig?

  • Sharp Ears

    Nicola Sturgeon has been interviewed by Iain Dale at the Fringe on LBC. It is primarily a London station but does broadcast nationally. Does she have political ambitions wider than Scotland?

    ‘I started that section off by asking about the loneliness of a top politician, before moving on to ask if she misses Alex Salmond. I knew she wouldn’t be able to talk much about him given the pending court case, but she spoke rather movingly about how he had been her political soulmate. We then had a chat about what she might do when she eventually stands down and suggested that she might like a radio show. In fact I think she suggested it. I turned to James Rea and he seemed up for the idea. We talked about much else besides and the audience seemed to really enjoy it. I have to say she came across incredibly well. ‘

    Cringeworthy stuff. A recording? I don’t know.

      • Ishmael

        I got to the bit about being civil *&* polite to Boris.

        It reminds me of the moral force of the labour movement that was, How some would just blank tories, like they had no legitimacy what so ever or beneath contempt. …That’s opposition, Not this sycophantic stuff.

        It’s all like a stage & they must do what they must do. Like Trump must visit the queen (as JC said) etc, It’s like always chasing a dream of some “proper” order that just has the wrong players in. …Absurd. …Absurd rituals.


    I have said and thought from the very beginning Scotland’s fight for freedom would not be an easy one. Having been a soldier I well know from personal experience. The British establishment is rotten to the core. And it will use every means available. And its extensive to get what it wants.

    • N_

      Did they teach you to fight for freedom in the Army, @John? I thought they clapped soldiers in irons who disobeyed orders.

      • kathy

        Obviouslly he only bows to a higher authority…the same one that Julian Assange bows to. Sensible course of action if you don’t want to be charged with war crimes.

      • Hatuey

        If I remember correctly , the whole war on terror was officially named operation “enduring freedom”.

        It’s like something Milo Mindbender would come up with.

  • Sharp Ears

    Just for the record. In the midst of the country’s political turmoil these are the HoC recess dates.
    Summer Recess 25 July 2019 – 3 Sept 2019

    Then the conferences:
    The Conservative Party conference will take place in Manchester from September 29- October 2.
    Labour’s conference will be held in Brighton between September 21 and 25, while the Lib Dem conference will be in Bournemouth between September 14 and 17.

    Then Brexit 29th October 2019.

    Talk of a 5 week shut down beforehand.

    Boris Johnson ‘asked for legal advice’ on shutting Parliament for 5 weeks before Brexit
    Shutting down Parliament, also known as proroguing, could be used to prevent any attempt to stop a no-deal Brexit

    ie Make it up as you go along.

    • Mist001

      I’ll bet that they eventually close down Holyrood. It seems the obvious thing to do. Unfortunately, Sturgeon and the cult are busy trying to stop Brexit instead.

      • michael norton


        why do you think Sturgeon is so keen on the European Union, could it be that she sees her future as Vice President of the European
        Commission and thereby making herself very rich, like Neil Kinnock?

        • Mist001

          Yes Michael, I strongly believe that she has some kind of position in mind within the EU, if she hasn’t already been promised it already. It’s clear to me at least, that she’s taking instructions and direction from the EU regarding any future referendum and you know, for all this talk about Westminster fitting up Salmond, I have this nagging feeling that it’s the EU that’s behind it.

    • Mist001

      That’s when you know your hopes have been shattered, when you start to find that any nefarious behaviour by the Scottish Government no longer surprises you. The ball is burst, as the saying goes.

        • Mist001

          You seem to be blowing a lot of bubbles, so you should know about them but many people on here will know the saying as ‘The ba’s burst’.

          I take it you’re not Scottish then?

          • kathy

            “You never said “the ba’s burst”.

            You said, “The ball is burst”.

            Well spotted!

          • kathy

            “You never said “the ba’s burst”.

            You said, “The ball is burst”.

            Well spotted!

            So I take it you are not Scottish then Mist001?

  • RandomComment

    If you think it’s bad now, imagine what it will be like in a few years’ time, when it looks like we will be incapable of determining fact from fiction at all.

    Sunday afternoons, for introspection and a drop of melancholy.

  • John2o2o

    I am sorry to say that i have been a little disappointed with the language being used by some of my fellow commenters in regard to this matter. This article in the Guardian I think is interesting:

    Now, I don’t know if Mr Salmond’s position on this matter has changed, but he doesn’t seem to be one who would ruffle the feathers of any Royalists out there. And personally I quite like Salmond’s idea and have made a similar comment (actually before I read this) on an earlier article of Craig’s.

    The problem with these sorts of accusations is the mantra that those making such claims “must be believed”. This is not something I have ever agreed with, but it has become accepted as people claiming abuse and harassment have campaigned very hard for it.

    I think it is interesting that only a few days ago Craig published an article on Epstein and mentioned allegations made against Prince Andrew. Many people here have a prejudice against monarchy and it would appear are very willing to believe the American woman making these claims. I personally don’t think they are likely to be true. “Being forced to have sex with a well known prime minister”? Seriously. I very much doubt that. She met Prince Andrew. Okay, that much is true, but as to the rest I really have my doubts.

    Similarly with Alex Salmond. I personally very much doubt the allegations made against him are true, but it is interesting that people here immediately leap to his defence.

    People are not guilty or innocent because you happen to like them. And in this country (currently the UK) all persons are innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty in a court of law.

    • RandomComment

      I suspect you may need to dig deeper into the Epstein case. Guiffre (“American Woman”) is not an isolated example. Nor does Salmond have some weird occult temple on a private island.

      And so on…

      • John2o2o

        Random, I am not talking about Epstein. I am talking about Prince Andrew. And I agree with Craig that the matter should be further investigated. But I am not convinced of anything on the basis of what has been said about Andrew.

        “Nor does Salmond have some weird occult temple on a private island”

        Nor does Prince Andrew have some weird occult temple on a private island.

        I am not a big fan of his, not at all. I just think he is entitled to be presumed innocent.

        • RandomComment

          Other people here have answered better than I – just don’t be saying, down the line that “I’m not talking about Savile, I am talking about Prince Charles”

    • Dom

      Do you believe the great man met up with Epstein after the latter had served time for soliciting underage girls? Or is that an anti-royalist myth?

      • John2o2o

        I have no idea. But I am not convinced of anything other than that Andrew met this woman as evidenced by the photograph.

        • Dom

          Woman? She was a 17 yr old girl and the great man had his arm round her waist in the London home of Epstein’s madam. Why do you think that girl had been flown there from America and why do you think the great man was in that particular house with her?
          Put the old grey matter to use John.

          • John2o2o

            Yes Dom. Ms Guiffre is a 35 year old mother of three according to the Sun.

            The photograph taken of her with Andrew as Craig says:

            “there is no indication that Prince Andrew is doing anything illegal in this photograph”

            Okay. Now. I am not a fan of Andrew. I am a fan of justice. Any man accused – whether First Minister of Scotland or a Royal Prince – is entitled to the protection of the law. That is to say the principle of the Presumption of Innocence:


            I am also entitled to form my own opinions on this matter. As are you.

          • pretzelattack

            she was 17 when the photo was taken. you know, the relevant period. like the rest of us, she ages when time passes. did you have a point in making the comment about now being a 35 year old mother of 3?

          • Deb O'Nair

            “But I am not convinced of anything”

            That’ll be called “sticking your head in the sand”. Flying out to Epsteins island, staying in his luxury NY apartment, going for walks together in Central Park…? It’s not about a single photograph, it’s about a pattern of behaviour. Either Andrew is the dumbest royal to have lived who has been used by a convicted paedophile to garner some respectability or there is a massive denial campaign in operation.

    • Hatuey

      You don’t seem disappointed, 2020. You seem quite keen to twist these unrelated stories into some unified argument that puts you and your lofty moral values right in the middle of it all.

      Epstein of course like Salmond had been to court before. Unlike Epstein, Salmond won his case and walked free with expenses.

    • kathy

      I think Prince Andrew is as guilty as hell although he may be guilty of little more than extreme stupidity. To supportt this argument we know from his past behaviour that he is an extremely stupid man. On the other hand, I think Alex Salmond is innocent. To support this, the accusations against him would be totally out of character judging by his past behaviour which has been nothing but upright and honourable – not even a hint of sleaze. I grant you, he may have been “gulty” of mild flirtatiousness (being the friendly and gregarious character he is) after a few drams but nothing more serious than that. Unfortunately the “sisterhood” find fun between men and women to be totally unacceptable.

      • John2o2o

        “I think Prince Andrew is as guilty as hell”

        That is for a court to decide if a police investigation finds that there is sufficient good evidence on which to bring him to trial.

        And Epstein was a convicted criminal.

        Andrew – thus far – is not.

        All persons in this country are entitled to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

        • Hatuey

          You lack consistency. Below you seem to presume the innocence of a prime minister whom allegations have been made against, and you also presuppose the person making the allegations is guilty of what, making stuff up? So much for innocent until proven guilty.

          “Many people here have a prejudice against monarchy and it would appear are very willing to believe the American woman making these claims. I personally don’t think they are likely to be true. “Being forced to have sex with a well known prime minister”? Seriously. I very much doubt that.”

          The bizarre thing is that the common denominator in all your comments and rants is an assumption of having the moral high ground.

          • John2o2o

            “The bizarre thing is that the common denominator in all your comments and rants is an assumption of having the moral high ground.”

            Thank you for your opinion Hatuey. I am not an experienced debater.

            “Below you seem to presume the innocence of a prime minister whom allegations have been made against”

            I’m not sure any Prime Minister was actually named (correct me if I am wrong), but yes the allegation does strike me as ludicrous. I have no great affection for any recent prime minister, but I really cannot conceive that they would do such a thing as Ms Guiffre claims.

            That in itself in my opinion calls into question the validity of the claims against Andrew.

            They are just claims – allegations. If an investigation reveals more substantial evidence then fine, but at the moment I am not seeing that.

            And again the principle of the presumption of innocence applies.

          • RandomComment

            Fortunately you’re not defending Epstein, against whom Ms Guiffre made claims.

          • John2o2o

            @ Random

            No, I am not defending Epstein, as I made very clear earlier.

            Ms Guiffre is not the only person to have made claims against him.

            Epstein was already a convicted criminal.

            I do not believe Ms Guiffre’s claims against a prime minister or Andrew. That is my right. That is my opinion.

          • RandomComment

            Far from me to get in the way of “I am a man of faith” argument 😉

            I mean you have flight logs, photos, accusations going back many years, but I admire your conviction nonetheless.

          • Hatuey

            2020, you more than anyone I have seen on here are prejudging people. And yet you’re the one preaching about things like ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

          • N_


            I have no great affection for any recent prime minister, but I really cannot conceive that they would do such a thing as Ms Guiffre claims.

            If you are ever summoned to serve on a jury in such a matter, John, you should tell them that your prejudice would prevent you from doing a proper job. Of course everyone is legally innocent until proven guilty, but those who really try criminal cases rather than commenting about them on the internet should put aside any preconceptions they have about whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, and they should only form their view on the evidence that’s presented in court.

            That a person was Prime Minister (or First Minister) is no defence against a charge that they committed any kind of crime.

            You have heard of powerful men who take advantage of their position to abuse women?

          • N_

            I don’t mean to be rude, John. Please don’t get too unsettled by the cut and thrust here. I believe you’re probably telling it how you really see it, which isn’t true of some who post here.

    • defo

      TJ, So, that’s quite a long leap from what we know thus far, but I imagine you’re on piecework, so fair enough.

  • Msry

    Thank you for speaking up for Alec Salmond. I for one believe all you are saying. Police Scotland are so bias that they even slowed up the independence March this year in order that around half of the march never got to the Glasgow green in time for any of the speakers. We were so late getting there that folk were leaving and for us it was all over. Well done Scottish Police for denying due democratic rights.

    • willie

      The Scottish Police are low on crime high on politics.

      They are no longer the police of the people. Speak to ordinary cops and the disconnect between them and the senior political offers is huge.

      Very much the para military when needed at a moments instruction their extensive, and indeed hugely expensive investigation into Salmond, illustrates exactly how Police Scotland are an organ of the establishment security service read.

  • John2o2o

    I’m just putting this down here. I didn’t really want to say anything more about this matter as it is not really on topic.

    I expressed an opinion (as a random and fairly ordinary member of the public) that I did not believe 35 year old Ms Guiffre’s claims against Prince Andrew as part of another point I was making.

    I have then – for daring to express this opinion – been subjected to a fairly aggressive trollathon by a number of other commenters, bordering on harassment.

    The point about accusations of childhood sexual assault is that it is generally not children who make these claims. It is adults.

    A child is innocent – they must be believed if they make these claims.

    An adult is something entirely different. Adults may have all sorts of motivations for claiming childhood sexual assault. They may be telling the truth. I am not suggesting for one second that all of these claims are false. Far from it.

    But it cannot be said that all of these claims are true. It should not be presumed that they are all true.

    In this case I just don’t believe what this woman is saying. I’m sorry. But no amount of trolling me is going to change my view. If further evidence comes to light then I will happily change my view. But until then I will keep my opinion.

    I will not respond to any replies to this post, nor will I read this thread again.

    Thank you.

      • Hatuey

        It’s okay to doubt someone who claims she was abused, but not the fair prince…

        Yeah, I’d eff off too if I said that.

    • zoot

      he will never stand in the dock like alex salmond. ‘buckingham palace’ says he didn’t do anything, so that’s that.

      • OnlyHalfALooney

        “he will never stand in the dock”

        It’s an interesting question. What happens if the US wants to extradite Andrew Windsor from the UK or a third country? He is not a “head of state” or an accredited diplomat. It is doubtful whether he could claim immunity (certainly in third countries).

        If any crimes have been committed, it is likely at least one occurred in the United States. The charges could be very serious indeed, sex with a minor is statutory rape and a minor cannot be a “prostitute”.

        As far as my own opinion (and simply based on press reports), Andrew Windsor must be either a complete imbecile or “the palace’s” statements are not the complete truth. But I suppose one must always assume innocence until otherwise proven.

        It is almost inevitable that Ghislaine Maxwell will be indicted because she is named in almost every document accusing Epstein. She may decide to flee to France (her mother was French), in which case she will be safe from extradition to the US. Or she may decide to cooperate with US prosecutors in exchange for a light sentence.

        Ghislaine Maxwell is in the same infamous photo showing Andrew Windsor with Virginia Roberts.

        • Vivian O'Blivion

          France? A more obvious candidate would be a certain Eastern Mediterranean country with a history of refusing extradition requests for its citizens who hold a passport for purely “ethnic” reasons. It appears to be irrelevant in any case as Maxwell is living in LA and judging by her behaviour is supremely confident that she is untouchable.

          • OnlyHalfALooney

            Maxwell is a French citizen by birth. France does not extradite French citizens (except within the EU in response to an EAW). It is theoretically possible for a French citizens to be tried in France for crimes committed abroad, but this is quite rare. (See the Roman Polanski case.)

            It has been reported that French authorities are investigating whether Epstein committed crimes against French citizens/residents or committed crimes at his Avenue Foch apartment in Paris. Also French authorities are investigating Epstein (and Maxwell’s) friend Jean-Luc Brunel. These investigations may lead to prosecutions, but they may not.

            Maxwell may also be able to claim Czech citizenship as her father was born there and presumably both paternal grandparents were Czech(oslavakian) citizens. The Czech republic also does not extradite Czech citizens to non-EU countries.

          • OnlyHalfALooney

            Afterthought: If Maxwell and Brunel think they are untouchable, why are both on the lam?

          • Republicofscotland

            France does have a extradition treaty with the US, though its notoriously difficult to get a French citizen extradited of which Roman Polanski is very grateful for.

          • OnlyHalfALooney

            France’s laws simply prohibit extradition of French citizens. The extradition treaty between the US and France does not affect this. The same applies to Germany and several other countries.

            Why have an extradition treaty then? Because France has no problem surrendering non-citizens.

          • Sharp Ears

            Recommend Galloway’s piece in the ICH.


            and his speech in the HoC in 1998 when he was the MP for Kelvin Glasgow on the Gulf Crisis. His oratory is amazing. From the middle of this page and following.

            See how the stooges such as Ivan Lewis LFoI and others ganged up against him to shut down his truth telling. Lewis and the others voted for the Iraq War that followed in 2003 needless to say. Many of the nitwits in that debate at the time have disappeared without trace. So have the millions of Iraqis killed and wounded. Galloway’s warning went unheeded.

          • OnlyHalfAaLooney


            Thanks a lot for the link.

            It seems very probable to me that Epstein and Maxwell passed on videos of their targets (reading between the lines, this is what lots of their “friends” actually were) to certain organsations who would be very glad to have them as “kompromat.” The KGB/FSB was never alone in using such methods.

          • OnlyHalfAaLooney

            Does sitting at a burger bar in plain sight count as being on the lam?

            Of course she’s on the lam. Eating at an “N-and-Out” burger bar? Ghislaine Maxwell? This is a person used to eating in the finest restaurants in New York, London and Paris.

            I think it does mean she’s not being protected by anyone. (Unless the whole sighting was a carefully orchestrated ruse, which is possible but not very likely.)

            If I were in her position I would be just as worried about being found “suicided” in a motel bed as I would be about being arrested. (Of course the “suiciding” could also take place in a prison cell, but that might be just a little conspicuously coincidental.)

    • Deb O'Nair

      “I have then – for daring to express this opinion – been subjected to a fairly aggressive trollathon by a number of other commenters, bordering on harassment.”

      Now you’re playing the victim card, “bordering on harassment” = LOL.

    • SA

      I have sympathy for what you are saying and am sorry you feel trolled and harassed but stay in here, your contributions are interesting. I think the reason why many in here are skeptical about Andrew is that he has condemned himself with his own pronouncements. He says he found what Epstein is being accused of abhorrent despite being seen with him in 2011 and filmed, after Epstein was convicted in 2007. This is just not simply an error of judgement, it is a sort of flaunting impunity. However I would also like to make another comment, other more powerful people have also been associated with Epstein and they do not seem to be getting the same amount of flak as Andrew is getting.

      • John2o2o

        SA thank you, I very much appreciate your kind words. I have no great love of monarchy or of the Royal family.

        I agree, Andrew was extremely foolish to have continued his friendship with Epstein after his initial conviction, but I rather think he regrets it himself now.

        My personal view is that the strong dislike as expressed by many here for the royal family is damaging to the cause of Scottish independence, which I support.

        An independent Scotland as republic or with the queen as head of state will need to maintain strong and mature links with its neighbours. Hostility is counter productive in my opinion.

  • Surfer Dave

    Liz Lloyd served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Tony Blair’s last administration.
    Kind of says it all really.
    Tainted, forever.

  • Republicofscotland

    I’m absolutely disgusted that 300 officers from Police Scotland are to be sent to Northern Ireland in the event of a no deal Brexit.

    Not only that, they are forced to go under a Westminster contingency plan, but they’ll also be sent in earlier than their colleagues in the rest of the UK.

    I was outraged in 1971 when Scots soldiers entered the troubles in NI, they had no place being there, Police Scotland officers shouldn’t be policing in NI either.

    Mr Yousaf, grow a backone and say no to Westminster on this one.

    • Hatuey

      I agree, it’s disgraceful and they shouldn’t be involved.

      I’d be willing to bet the SNP establishment are up for it.

      • Republicofscotland

        I’ve no idea, but the SNP government should be railing against this measure, our officers are not properly trained to police NI.

    • Mist001

      Maybe they’ve run out of crime in Scotland? Someone has to justify 300 police officers wages and what better way than to send them somewhere where they have absolutely no business being, since they have nothing better to do in Scotland.

      Kind of the same thing as when the West decides to take democracy to a Middle Eastern country really.

      • Ishmael

        What business do they have being at all? A violent capitalist elite institution forced on the Irish first, then on the English working class. “Democracy” ..A jack boot.

        Seems some just what to make sure they are the ones ordering them about. A jack boot of our own *heart* Indyref2. The same right wing fact free stuff looks like it’s now coming to bite JC in the ass, though of corse the police never really target the upper class, We will be the ones suffering the random electric shocks these problem solvers seem to want.

        & “We” don’t decide btw, Though most here seem happy to go along & seem believe that kind of system is entirely legitimate. Religious fanatics.

      • Republicofscotland

        Its not just that, Police Scottland aren’t in my opinion properly trained to police NI in the first place.

        Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation has concerns for the officers well being, Police Scotland officers do not regularly carry firearms, nor are they trained to the level of the PSNI on counter terrorism measures.

        They won’t know the terrain, nor the locals, nor who is a real threat and who isn’t, they’ll be sitting ducks.

        Deploying Scottish police officers to NI will undoubtedly foster bad feeling towards Scotland from parts of NI. The ill thought out disastrous no deal Brexit by Westminster, will not only damage the economy of the UK, deploying police officers and troops from other parts of the UK to enforce what Westminster wants could lead to civil unrest, they could be what triggers it.

        • .giyane


          Blah Blah Johnson has today thrown down a gauntlet to the EU because they have stood firm with Ireland on the backstop.

          The EU will punish him massively in ways above my pay grade because is pig ignorant about the good Friday Agreement and criminally deranged if he thinks he can put any British police on the front line of a confrontation he has pig ignorantly made by his own hand.

          The police are not allowed to strike but they do have certain tools up their sleeves such as knowing exactly how much of a spoilt brat Blah Blah is in real life…

          Therefore imho Blah Blah will push the abhort button and call an election long before any pig swill starts hitting media fans.

          Or he won’t be Blah Blah any more . He’ll be black pudding and gut-garters

      • Republicofscotland

        It’s more than likely they have no say in the matter, and will be deployed where they are told to go to.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.