J’Accuse 293

A 22 person team from Police Scotland worked for over a year identifying and interviewing almost 400 hoped-for complainants and witnesses against Alex Salmond. This resulted in nil charges and nil witnesses. Nil. The accusations in court were all fabricated and presented on a government platter to the police by a two prong process. The first prong was the civil service witch hunt presided over by Leslie Evans and already condemned by Scotland’s highest civil court as “unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias”. The second prong was the internal SNP process orchestrated by a group at the very top in SNP HQ and the First Minister’s Private Office. A key figure in the latter was directly accused in court by Alex Salmond himself of having encouraged a significant number of the accusers to fabricate incidents.

The only accusations Police Scotland could take forward were given to them by this process. Their long and expensive trawl outside the tiny closed group of accusers revealed nothing. Let me say that again. Police Scotland’s long and expensive trawl outside the tiny closed group of accusers revealed nothing at all.

Let me give you an example. I have personally read an account by a woman who was contacted by the police and asked to give evidence. She was called in for formal interview by the police. The massive police fishing expedition had turned up the fact that, years ago, Alex Salmond had been seen to kiss this woman in the foyer of a theatre. She was asked if she wished to make a complaint of sexual assault against Alex Salmond. The woman was astonished. She told them she remembered the occasion and Alex, who was a friend, had simply kissed her on the cheeks in greeting. No, of course she did not wish to complain. She felt they were trying to push her to do so.

That is typical of hundreds of interviews in the most extensive and expensive fishing expedition in Scottish police history. That turned up nothing. Zilch. Nada.

What the police did get was eye witness evidence that several of the allegations they had been handed by the closed group were fabricated. Two eye witnesses, for example, appeared in court who had been within six feet of the alleged buttock grab during a Stirling Castle photocall. Both had been watching the photo being taken. Both testified nothing had happened. The police had that evidence. But they ignored it. A more startling example is below.

You may be interested to know the police also spent a great deal of time attempting to substantiate the “incident” at Edinburgh airport that has been so frequently recycled by the mainstream media over years. MI5 also hired a London security consultancy to work on this story. The reason so many resouces were expended is that they were desperate to stand up this claim as the only incident from outside the tiny cabal of Scottish government insiders.

They discovered the actual Edinburgh airport “incident” was that Alex Salmond had made a rather excruciating pun about “killer heels” when the footwear of a female member of staff had set off the security scanner gate. This had been reported as a sexist comment in the context of a much wider dispute about staff conditions. That is it. “Killer heels”. A joke. No charge arose from this particular substantial waste of police time, in which the involvement of MI5 is highly noteworthy.

You will probably know that I too faced politically motivated accusations of sexual misconduct from the state, in my case the FCO, when I blew the whistle on British government collusion in torture and extraordinary rendition. I too was eventually cleared of all charges. When you are facing such charges, there comes a moment when you reveal the evidence to those defending you. They, of course, will not necessarily have presumed your innocence. I recount in Murder in Samarkand this moment in my own case, when after going through all the evidence my representative turned to me and said in some astonishment “You really didn’t do any of this, did you?”. He had been disinclined to believe the British government really was trying to fit me up, until he saw the evidence.

In Alex Salmond’s case, after going through all the evidence, his legal team were utterly bemused as to why it was Alex Salmond who was being prosecuted; rather than the members of the WhatsApp group and senders of the other messages, texts and emails being prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. There could not be a plainer conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Not only were members of this very small political grouping orchestrating complaints in the documented communications, they were encouraging their creation.

It is much worse than that. There is plain reference to active and incorrect communication from the SNP hierarchy to Police Scotland and the Crown Office.The reason that Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal’s office prosecuted the victim of the conspiracy rather than the conspirators, is that they had themselves been politically hijacked to be part of the fit-up. I fully realise the implications of that statement and I make it with the greatest care. Let me say it again. The reason that Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal’s office prosecuted the victim of the conspiracy rather than the conspirators, is that they had themselves been politically hijacked to be part of the fit-up. Just how profound are the ramifications of this case for the Scottish establishment has so far been appreciated by very few people.

Alex Salmond’s counsel, in his summing up for the defence, said that the evidence of collusion and conspiracy in the case “stinks”. It certainly does; and the stench goes an awful long way. A new unionist online meme today is to ask why the accusers would put themselves at risk of prosecution for perjury. The answer is that there is no such risk; the police and prosecutors, the Scottish government including, but not only, as represented by the accusers, have all been part of the same joint enterprise to stitch up Alex Salmond. That is why there is still no investigation into perjury or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, despite the evidence not just of the trial but of the documents and texts which the judge prevented from being led as “collateral”.

I cannot begin to imagine how evil you have to be to attempt falsely to convict someone of that most vicious, most unforgivable of crimes – rape. But it is impossible to have followed the trial, still more impossible to know the evidence that the judge ruled inadmissible as collateral, without forming the view that this was a deliberate, a most wicked, conspiracy to fit him up on these charges. Furthermore it was a conspiracy that incorporated almost the entire Establishment – a conspiracy that included a corrupt Scottish Government, a corrupt Crown Office, a corrupt Scottish Police and an uniformly corrupt media.

Coverage of the trial was a disgrace. The most salacious accusations of the odious prosecutor were selected and magnified into massive headlines. The defence witnesses were almost totally ignored and unreported. The entire stream of evidence from credible witnesses that disproved the prosecution case in its entirety was simply never presented in the papers, still less on radio and TV. A great deal of that evidence proved that prosecution witnesses were not merely mistaken, but had been deliberately and coldly lying.

Let us consider the lead accusation, that of attempted rape. I want you honestly to consider whether or not this should have been brought before the court.

Woman H claimed that Salmond attempted to rape her after a small dinner with Alex Salmond, an actor (the publication of whose name the court banned), and Ms Samantha Barber, a company director. Salmond gave evidence that the entire story was completely untrue and the woman had not even been there that evening. Samantha Barber gave evidence that she knows woman H well, had been a guest at her wedding reception, and that woman H had phoned and asked her to attend the dinner with the specific explanation she could not be there herself. Indeed, affirmed Ms Barber, woman H definitely was not there. She had given that firm evidence to the police.

Against that, there was a vague statement by the actor that he believed a fourth person had been present, but he described her hair colour as different to woman H, described her as wearing jeans when woman H said she was wearing a dress, and did not say the woman had her arm in a sling – which it was established woman H’s arm was at that time. One arm in a sling would be pretty debilitating in eating and the sort of detail about a fellow diner at a very small dinner party you would likely remember.

Given the very firm statement from Samantha Barber, her friend, that woman H was definitely not there, a number of lawyers and police officers with whom I have discussed this have all been perplexed that the charge was brought at all, with such a strong witness to rebut it, given that the police were relying on an extremely tentative identification from the actor (who did not appear in court to be cross-examined). The truth is, as the jury found, that woman H was not physically there when she said the incident took place. Woman H had lied. More importantly, the evidence available to the police and prosecutor fiscal showed that there was never any realistic prospect of conviction.

So why was the charge brought?

You might also wish to consider this. While the jury was considering its verdict, two members of the jury were removed. Here I know more than I can legally say at present. That might be put together with the chance that somebody was tailing Alex Salmond’s defence counsel and video recording his conversation on a train. If you look at the recording, it is obvious that if it were being taken with a mobile phone, that act of recording would have been very plainly visible to Mr Jackson. It appears far more likely this was done with a concealed device, possibly routed through a mobile phone for purposes of metadata.

I only have definite good source information on MI5 involvement in the attempt to dredge up charges at Edinburgh airport. While I have no direct evidence the juror expulsion or the Jackson tape were underlain by security service surveillance, I am very suspicious given the knowledge that MI5 were engaged in the witch-hunt. Which of course also begs the question that if any of the alleged incidents inside Bute House were true, the state would by now have produced the MI5 or GCHQ/NSA recordings to prove it (claiming they were sourced from elsewhere). Salmond has been considered by them a threat to the UK state for decades, and not only over Scottish Independence.

I also ask you to consider who has been, and who has not been, persecuted. Alex Salmond stood in the dock facing total ruin. The conspirators have faced not even questioning about their collusion.

I have published the only detailed account of the defence case. In consequence not only was I slung out of court by the judge on a motion of the prosecution, and threatened with jail by the Crown Office for contempt of court, the judge also made an order making it illegal to publish the fact that I had been barred from the court, in effect a super injunction. Yet the mainstream media, who published ludicrously selective and salacious extracts from the proceedings designed deliberately to make Salmond appear guilty, have received no threats from the Crown Office. They continue to churn out article after article effectively claiming Salmond is guilty and massively distorting the facts of the case.

One consequence of the extreme media bias is that lies which were told by the prosecution are still being repeated as fact. The lie that a policy and/or practice was put into place to prevent women working alone in the evenings with Alex Salmond, was comprehensively demolished by four separate senior civil service witnesses, one of them a prosecution witness. That was never media reported and the lie is still continually repeated.

It is only the person who published the truth, as agreed by the jury, who faces hostile action from the state.

Because the only thing that was not fixed about this entire affair was the jury. And they may well have contrived to nobble even that with jury expulsion.

We should be very grateful to that jury of solid Edinburgh citizens, two thirds of them female. They were diligent, they did their duty, and they thwarted a great injustice in the midst of a media hanging frenzy that has to have impacted upon them, and probably still does.

I would however state that, up until she inexplicably expelled me from the court, I had found Lady Dorrian’s handling of the trial entirely fair and reasonable. Equally it was a judicial decision in the Court of Session that had found the Scottish Government process against Salmond to be “unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias”.

Which brings me on to the role of the Head of the Scottish Civil Service, Leslie Evans. “We may have lost a battle, but we will win the war”. That is how, in January 2019, Leslie Evans had messaged a colleague the day they lost in the Court of Session. It is an interesting glimpse into the lifestyle of these people that the colleague she messaged was in the Maldives at the time.

It is incredible that after a process Evans claimed in court to have “established” was described as unlawful and unfair by a very senior judge, her first thought was on “winning the war”. That message alone is sufficient to sack Leslie Evans. Is shows that rather than being a civil servant engaged in an effort to administer justly, she was engaged as parti pris in a bitter battle to take down Alex Salmond. She would not even accept the verdict of the Court of Session. It astonishes me, as a former member for six years of the senior civil service myself, that any civil servant could commit themselves in that way to try ruthlessly to take down a former First Minister, with no heed whatsoever either to fair process or to the decision of the courts.

It is quite simply astonishing that Ms Evans has not been sacked.

Well, Leslie Evans did carry on her war. At the cost of many millions to the Scottish taxpayer, she has now lost the battle in both Scotland’s highest civil court and in Scotland’s highest criminal court. The campaign to destroy Salmond has been trounced in both the Court of Session and the High Court. That Leslie Evans is still in post is a national scandal. That Nicola Sturgeon a few weeks ago extended Evans’ tenure by a further two years is an appalling misjudgment.

Evans has a particularly unionist outlook and regards her role as head of the Scottish civil service as equivalent to a departmental permanent secretary of the United Kingdom. Evans spends a great deal of time in London. Unlike her predecessor, who regarded Scotland as separate, Evans regularly attends the weekly “Wednesday Morning Colleagues” (WMC) meeting of Whitehall permanent secretaries, chaired by the Westminster Cabinet Secretary. She much values her position in the UK establishment. What kind of Head of the Scottish Civil Service spends the middle of the week in London?

Rather than any action being taken against the perpetrators of this disgraceful attempt to pervert the course of justice, even after their plot has been roundly rejected in the High Court, the Scottish Government appears to be doubling down in its accusations against Alex Salmond through the medium of the state and corporate media, which is acting in complete unison. It has now been widely briefed against Salmond that Police Scotland has passed a dossier to the Metropolitan Police on four other accusations, set at Westminster.

What the media has not told you is that these accusations are from exactly the same group of conspirators; indeed from some of the actual same accusers. They also do not tell you that these accusations are even weaker than those pursued in Scotland.

In the massive effort to prove “pattern of behaviour” in Alex Salmond’s recent trial, incidents which happened outwith Scottish jurisdiction could be presented as evidence in a separate “docket”. Thus the defence heard evidence from the “Chinese docket” of Salmond “attempting to touch” a colleague’s hair in a hotel lift in China. Well, the London “docket” was considered even weaker than that, so it was not led in the Edinburgh trial. The idea that Leslie Evans’ “war” against Salmond will be won in an English court, having failed in both the civil and criminal Scottish courts, is just black propaganda.

As is the continued campaign to claim that Salmond is really guilty, carried on by Rape Crisis Scotland. They yesterday published a statement by the nine anonymous accusers attacking Salmond further, and rather amusingly the nine wrote together to deny they were associated with each other. It seems to me entirely illegitimate for this group to be able to conduct a continued campaign of political harassment of Alex Salmond from behind the cloak of state-enforced anonymity, after he has been acquitted of all charges. I understand the reasoning behind anonymity for accusers in sex allegations. But surely state backed anonymity should not be used to enable the continued repetition of false accusations without fear of defamation law, after the jury has acquitted? That is perverse.

It is also a fact that Rape Crisis Scotland is just another instrument of the Scottish government, being almost entirely funded by the Scottish government. There is a very serious infringement of public conduct here. One of the nine conspirators, whose statement is being amplified by Rape Crisis Scotland, is personally very directly involved in the channeling of government money to Rape Crisis Scotland. That is a gross abuse of office and conflict of interest and should be a resignation matter. Here again, direct wrongdoing is being carried out from behind the screen of state-backed anonymity.

Let me give you this thought. Alex Salmond having been acquitted, you would think that the unionist media would seek to capitalise by training its guns on those at the head of the SNP who sought to frame him, who after all are still in power. But instead, the unionist media is entirely committed to attacking Salmond, in defiance of all the facts of the case. That shows you who it is the British establishment are really afraid of. It also confirms what I have been saying for years, that the SNP careerist establishment have no genuine interest in Scottish Independence and are not perceived by Whitehall as a threat to the union. And in that judgement at least, Whitehall is right.

I should state that in this article I have, absolutely against my own instincts, deferred to Alex Salmond’s noble but in my view over-generous wish to wait until the Covid-19 virus has passed before giving all the names of those involved and presenting the supporting documents. I have therefore removed several names from this article. Alex Salmond believes that it is wrong to move on this at a time when many people are suffering and grieving, and he has stated that it would indeed be narcissistic to think of his own troubles at this time of wider calamity. I find this extremely upsetting when his enemies are showing absolutely no respect nor restraint whatsoever and are engaged in full-on attack on his reputation. I can assure you this is even more frustrating for me than for you. But while the mills of God grind slowly, they grind exceedingly small.

Those who do not know Scotland are astonished that the Alex Salmond trial and its fallout have not damaged support in the polls for Independence nor even for the SNP. I am not in the least surprised – the reawakening of the national consciousness of the Scottish people is an unstoppable process. If you want to see it, look not at any single politician but at the mass enthusiasm of one of the great, self-organised AUOB marches. The spirit of Independence rides the SNP as the available vehicle to achieve its ends. It is no longer primarily inspired nor controlled by the SNP – indeed the SNP leadership is blatantly trying to dampen it down, with only marginal success. This great movement of a nation is not to be disturbed by fleeting events.

That is not to underplay the importance of events for those caught up in them. As Alex Salmond stood in the dock, he was very probably staring at the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison, of never being with his wife Moira again, and of having his reputation as Scotland’s greatest national leader for centuries erased. The party hierarchy had already overseen the Stalinesque scrubbing of his image and name from all online content under the SNP’s control. The future now looks very different, and I am cheered by the brighter horizon.

Let me finish this article by observing that the British state continues to keep the unconvicted Julian Assange in conditions of appalling detention and receiving brutal personal treatment reserved normally for the most dangerous terrorists. The British state has refused to let Assange out of jail to avert the danger of Covid-19. By contrast the government of Iran has allowed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe out of prison to reduce her danger from the epidemic. Which of these governments is portrayed as evil by the state and corporate media?

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


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


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

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

293 thoughts on “J’Accuse

1 2 3 4 5
  • Vivian O'Blivion

    The new head of MI5 (Ken McCallum) is a weegie. How convenient. McCallum’s greatest hits include heading up the Salisbury, Novichok nonsense.

    • michael norton

      I expect Ken and Nicola are acquainted.
      Boris was at the front with the Novichok business, I expect this new bloke had to be promoted.

    • Republicofscotland

      A modern day Sir John Menteith, who’d think nothing of selling Scotland out in the blink of an eye.

  • Ewen A. Morrison

    Thank you for another thoughtful and thought-provoking article, Craig; thank goodness that there are still honest and honourable people who are more than qualified to recognise real truth… your readers agree with you: “Truth shall set us free”.

  • Peter M

    “That Nicola Sturgeon a few weeks ago extended Evans’ tenure by a further two years is an appalling misjudgment.

    Evans has a particularly unionist outlook and regards her role as head of the Scottish civil service as equivalent to a departmental permanent secretary of the United Kingdom.”

    That assumes that Ms. Sturgeon still has any intention on a Scottish separation from the UK.

      • Peter M

        If the Scots do not separate from the UK – what do they separate from?

        cause to move or be apart.
        “police were trying to separate two rioting mobs”
        divide into constituent or distinct elements.
        “the processed milk had separated into curds and whey”

        • mogabee

          There are only two countries in the union ergo one leaves one is left. Do I really need to point that out?

          • Peter M

            “Scotland is not ‘separating’ from the UK. We leave then there is no UK…”
            “There are only two countries in the union ergo one leaves one is left. Do I really need to point that out?”
            To be correct – the Union consists of NI, Wales, England and Scotland, a total of four countries. Two of those are kingdoms.
            And you can only separate from a Union that still exists as of now. However. your comment indicates that before you separate the Union already does not exist. Time travelling?

            “Peter M you clearly have no idea.
            The United kingdom is the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
            we do not separate we are tearing it apart ”

            What is the difference? Do you mean a separation somehow does not mean to tear apart? I am confused, but I am only an ESL speaker and writer, so I might have to bow before your superior knowledge of the English language.

        • rob gray

          Peter M you clearly have no idea.
          The United kingdom is the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England
          we do not separate we are tearing it apart .
          youl be left with little England + Scotland the brave

          There will be no rUK . living in a dreamworld….

        • Cubby

          Peter M and pooh

          Scottish independence terminates the UK by ending the Treaty of Union 1707. Thereafter there is the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. The Kingdom of England includes the countries/province of England, Wales and N. Ireland. Now if the Kingdom of England wants to rename itself after the union is terminated there is nothing stopping it.

          The UK is a bipartite Union unlike the EU which has many parts. You really should not listen to the Westminster crowd who are always saying a Union of 4 parts. Westminster does not tell the truth you know.

          • Pooh

            March 31, 2020 at 12:56

            Thanks, Cubby. Sorry I missed your comment.

            Two Kingdoms, four countries. I was talking about the countries.

  • Jm

    Powerful indeed Craig.

    The spooks probably had ‘control‘ of the whole train carriage…total coverage as it were.They like that sort of thing.Total information awareness.

    The Leslie Evans of this world are rarely sacked.

    • Susan Smith

      If Gordon Jackson was travelling 1st class on. Scotrail train, only a small section of the carriage is 1st class .

      • nevermind

        Thanks for this bomb of a revelation, the explosion should be heard all over Scotland.
        I suppose the seat of the QC was booked in advance. Should one be able to find out which seat it was, it should also ve possible to find out who booked the seat behind/ in front. But it is obvious from the grainy coverage of bits of words that this was a hatchet job alright..

        Secondly, was rape crisis Scotland possibly threatened with withdrawl of funds if they did not follow the line? Or was it ‘in the bag’ beforehand to control who and who does not get judicial attention?

  • Peter M

    “As is the continued campaign to claim that Salmond is really guilty, carried on by Rape Crisis Scotland.”

    Which means that to the RCS has damaged its role as a trustin supporting women who truly are sexuallt harrassed and sexually assaulted. Critics can easily point to such a behaviour and claim a completely biases organization that cannot be trusted.
    The whole thing is also amazingly damaging to any further claims of assault, as it demonstrably shows accusations that are made by the ones claiming to represent the interests of women are demonstrably false and biased from the start.
    I wonder if those puppet masters ever consider that part of the process.

    • David G

      Much the same can be said about the recent employment of phony “anti-semitism” allegations to further the establishment agenda.

      In both cases, not only will future, actual victims have to overcome additional skepticism bred by these frauds, but resentment will increase against the very groups these supposedly righteous campaigners are allegedly defending.

  • Denton Scratch

    “begs the question that …”

    Sorry to be ped\ntic, but you are usually so careful with language, Craig. “Begging the question” is a formal notation for an Aristotelian fallacy – to it’s not a phrase that introduces a question. “Raises the question” is more appropriate.

    Sorry again, but that usage makes my flesh crawl!

    • Mark Golding

      Sadly In this universe, the weight of numbers is sometimes used to resolve truth where deceit dominates. Clearly deception permeates our lives and Craig once again has drawn the curtains wide open to reveal the routinely modus vivendi our security services add to this lying and distortion of the facts.

      Weight of numbers in its acceptable form resolves ‘raise the question’ meaning of ‘beg the question’ as satisfactory and your apparent repulse ‘Scratch’ to its use by Craig is in my book egotistic.

      • Tom Welsh

        If you prefer to be wrong with the majority than right with the minority, that is your right.

  • Peter M

    In the end – with institutions like portrayed from Government that in essence does not seem to be interested at all in Scottish independence to a judiciary that actually brings such a weak case only with the aim to damage the reputation of a political foe to the police that after finding nothing of substance still continuing their investigations – the question for me is: Is Scotland really able to govern herself. Is it strong enough to withstand the expected treatment by England after separation?

    • Cubby

      Peter M

      “Is it strong enough to withstand the expected treatment……………………”

      Perhaps that is one of the reasons independence supporters want to remain in the EU.

  • Ort

    Thanks for this tour de force, Craig; if there is an afterlife, doubtless M. Zola is smiling down (or up) upon you!

    To repeat a disclaimer of sorts, as a US resident the political ramifications of this gross injustice are not as compelling or urgent for me as they are for you and your countrymen.

    Even so, I hope that ultimately, Mr. Salmond’s unfortunate inclination to leave bad enough alone for the present in light of the pandemic does not diminish his prospects for precipitating a much-needed comeuppance for the conspirators and perjurers who sought to deprive him of liberty and destroy his career.

    We have already seen putatively decent politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders hamstrung by their reluctance to press home an advantage. One presumably unintended consequence of such high-minded delicacy is that it undermines and may arguably betray a politician’s loyal supporters and the causes the politician supports. I profoundly hope that Salmond’s admirable charitable impulse doesn’t backfire upon him and those who support him and share his political perspective.

    • David

      “putatively decent politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders”

      There are no decent politicians. How can you continue to put your faith in “that guy over there – he’s different”. They all sell themselves as different before they get elected.

      In the US (I emigrated some time ago) we have recently elected “Hope and Change” and “Drain the Swamp”. Well we did get to hope for a while (well – not me – but some people did). but we didn’t get any change. Nor is the swamp any less of a swamp than it was four years ago. Prior to those two crooks, we elected Bush (criminal from a crime family) and Clinton (criminal). Before that we had Bush senior, and before him Reagan who may possibly not have been a criminal so they shot him after which he followed orders like he was supposed to. This upcoming election we will likely be faced with a choice between “Drain the Swamp” again and Joe Biden (who will likely prove unable to memorize a slogan so may have to run without one). In every single case, some people believed they were getting someone decent and different.

      Despite my cynicism, let’s accept for a minute that Sanders and Corbyn are genuinely decent people. If that is truly the case then they have been duped. Because socialism is not the solution to the problems we have. Socialism and/or social democracy is one of the acceptable choices we are presented with that allow the oligarchs to retain power. All they need is a centralized power structure where the state dominates the individual to run their crooked schemes. Socialism works fine for this. Provided that centralized power exists they will find a way to wield it. That’s the nature of power and corruption. Our oligarchs prefer fascism of course (which they call “Capitalism” as if it were the only possible form of capitalism), but every so often they need to present people with the illusion of a choice.

    • Coldish

      Ort (30 March, 18.47): thanks for making the point about some politicians being too decent to press home an advantage. In Corbyn’s case, for instance, after the Grenfell Tower fire in 2016, he could have attacked Prime Minister May for hiding the report on fire safety which the government had earlier commissioned. He would immediately have been attacked and savaged by the media jackals for ‘making a political point out of people’s suffering’, but isn’t that exactly what was needed? People had suffered, died in horrendous conditions, and a contributory factor was the inaction of May’s government. Why not go for the jugular?
      Craig has made it clear that the UK establishment will not allow their campaign against Salmond to be back-burnered by considerations about the Covid epidemic. Salmond should not wait too long before hitting back

  • Tom Platt

    Many thanks for this article Craig.

    You have certainly convinced me that this was not just a campaign against Alex Salmond. If I have read your words correctly you have not ruled out that pro English Supremacist types, that I know to have existed in the UK Civil Service, might have been conducting an anti-Scottish action through the career and other ambitions of Leslie Evans and others..

    You have pointed to what I had already realised was a much bigger picture than this though. It was, by the SNP “women” a campaign against the behaviour of all men. Because this is Scotland the local campaign is against Scottish men. But it is wider. It is an international campaign which might be being led from Scotland. In the 1970s and 1980s the concept that “men are a waste of space and need to be got rid of”, “sperm donors”, “walking wallets” etc were mantra that were rampant amongst feminists. In those darker days some men would have referred to them as a “covens of witches”

    Now, fastforwarding to 2020 and we have the GRA stuff. I am getting out of my depth with all of it. It is easier for men to stay out of it.

    Is it possible that Nicola is hemmed in, her actions constrained, by separate groups of Civil Servants and gender reforming zealots. Can she break out? Please say that she can because I like what Nicola has tried to do. She is well placed to do so much more.
    I wonder what she will now actually do? ideally, I would prefer for Keith Brown to step up and Act as party leader until Nicola has completed her vital FM role coping with the virus. I have been trying to promote this idea but I am but a tiny cog in a big machine.

      • Tom Platt

        Were Keith Brown, whose pre-Pandemic role was to charge up the Independence drive, to be as fully engaged on keeping the momentum ticking over as the Virus progress allows, then I would not be making the above suggestion. Official SNP policy though, very controversial in the YES movement, is that this has now stopped during the crisis.
        If there is covert oiling of the bigger wheels that smaller cogs like me cannot see yet then my suggestion is not sensible as the oiling process at this time is very much more tricky than it normally is and will make even bigger demands on his time.
        Whichever way it is looked at, Keith Brown’s hands will hold the key to our future this next wee while, I trust that he is taking scrupulous care of himself. I dearly hope that he takes the view that hand washing must remain physical and not become metaphorical.

  • Republicofscotland

    With Sturgeons failure to sack Evans (indeed she even extended her contract) over the debacle that saw the Scottish taxpayer pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds to Alex Salmond.

    One has to seriously consider that Sturgeon knew exactly what was going on with regards to the fit up of Salmond. Civil servants are usually appointed to Holyrood from Westminster, Evans travels regularly to Westminster, looking at the Salmond case (we lost the battle, but we’ll win the war, said Evans) it must be assumed that Evans and the other Alphabet women, among others are actively working against Scottish independence.

    If Sturgeon wants to retain a shred of credibility, and it might be too late already for that, Evans must be sacked immediately, along with the Alphabet women whose credibility on the Salmond trial was left badly wanting.

    I don’t believe that all the minsters and SNP personell are involved in this disgraceful character assassination, its up to the membership to root out the bad apples before the whole SNP barrel goes bad.

    A good start would be to clear out the Westminster Civil servants based at Holyrood, and replace them with Scottish based civil servants if possible.

    However I fear more drastic measures might need to be taken, after Salmond reveals all.

  • shug

    Have they got “stuff” on Nicola??
    I have a few unionist friends and they frequently come away with some racy stuff about her. They are clearly reading some stuff about her I do not see in the MSM. So who leaks this material to unionists?

    I have always ignored it as orange unionist drivel but if some were true could they be holding her feet to the fire.

    • Ken Kenn

      Perhaps they are?

      We have the Alex Salmond and Julian Assange threats to The Realm.

      Once Corbyn retires or backs away from the Front Bench watch this space.

      The Establishment only attack those who are a genuinely real threat to The State so Sturgeon – Starmer
      and all the Centrist will be backed not sacked.

      I could comment on the ” extension ” but I think most honest people will know what that could mean.

      Shifty stuff and not even based on political argument or discussion.

      I honestly prefer a Right Wing Tory to any Centrist as at least you know where you stand.

    • Penguin

      it is an open secret amongst the “Scottish” MSM that NS is a rugmuncher. Why she would be worried about that being used against her when we had dugface at labour, paddy paedo award winner of the greens, Colonel McDafty of the conservatives all leading their branch offices while being homosexual.

      Jo Cherry MP QC is an out and proud dyke and favourite to replace sturgeon when she’s finally banged up. She also doesn’t seem to be in fear of people using her proclivities against her.

  • Iain Lawson

    Can you advise how the identity of the Alphabet woman can be made public? Would a write in campaign to the judge have any effect. I thank you for your excellent work in making sure that people got a much more accurate picture of the trial than the
    MSM provided. Thank you.

    • Penguin

      The only way to avoid prison for publishing their names is if you are based abroad. Most people already know the identity of Lady Marmalade and can work out the rest.

      Or you can wait for the truth to leak out.

      Do you think it possible that the jury won’t talk to their families? That they will be able to resist proving that they know things that put them ahead of the rest of us? Not possible.

      If it wasn’t for the golf clubs being shut half of Scotland would already know.

  • mogabee

    So many of us ‘ordinary’ members have felt massive disquiet for a while. Indeed many have either left or refuse to campaign because they saw this inaction and couldn’t quite say why apart from the unsettling notion that independence was not the most important issue for the SNP. The GRA was bewildering to many. Now I feel that many bloggers including Stu of Wings have been fully vindicated.

    Time for the party to be inspected, opened up to scrutiny. I relish that…

  • CJ

    Put so eloquently as ever. That these people would remain under independence is worrying. Scotland is awash with corrupt sexual deviants. This episode refreshes that idea. The English will not let Scotland go. Even if independence were granted the English state apparatus won’t leave that. They will be out to sabotage that decision. It is what the English regimes past and present do. I know this to be accurate from history and from brilliant minds like you. Yet, knowing how the regime operates (to what level I do not know) and what they could do if so inclined, you keep reporting and risking your life. There are people who fight against injustice and hope to avoid state attention. Some are not so lucky, some change the world and make it a safer place. Under a regime that can tell us everything about Novichok but cannot tell us anything about “COOEE19”. I suspect some sort of understandable detail will emerge in the coming months. After the massive bailouts (mostly to the super rich) one might question current business models and essentially debt based growth. There are parasitical corporations who cannot exist without debt but these firms destroy small business who manage business better. Debt based growth is a disease on society.

    I would encourage protests at various corrupt locations, outside the homes, outside the Crown Office, outside Police Scotland, email all SNP councillors and MP’s MSP’s. Be heard, be noisy. The enemy of Scotland’s right to govern itself.

  • TomJoad

    An absolute epic post sir!

    Yesterday my Brennan B2 player threw up Peter Gabriel’s Biko.

    As a South African born this song always bring a deep sadness and shame to me – I was a child at the time, but thanks to people like Andre Brink I grew up KNOWING what had happened. I was angry and ashamed for so many year for what my people did to good men. I felt there was a just world out there where people stood on the right side of good and bad.

    I am still angry and ashamed for what my people did to good men in dark cells and behind closed doors. But words cannot describe my disdain at what is being done, in full daylight, in full sight of all, to good men.
    Will there one day be a song like Biko, a song like Asimbonanga, naming people like Mandela, Steve Biko, Victoria Mxenge, Neil Aggett, Julian Assange.

    Vanessa Baraitser, will you tell your father regarding Julian “Dit laat my koud.” Would your father recognise these comments from Hilda Bernstein, in her booklet “No. 46 – Steve Biko”, seems to describe your trial of Asange : “This was no ordinary inquest. It was in essence a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice; a conspiracy in which almost all the witnesses and most of the court officials joined.” And does this not sound like the case of Mr Salmond?

    As you say Craig: “Truth shall set us free”

  • D. MacIntyre

    An excellent and informative article. Well written and thoroughly engrossing. I have said to numerous people that there was a stench about this trial and how the alphabet group emerged unscathed when their accusations appeared unfounded.

  • Lorelle

    I was very worried about Julian Assange when I heard there was Covid19 in prisons. I do hope he is safe thru this, as I’m sure his immune system must be compromised.
    Thank you so much for the extra perspective on current events.

  • Giyane

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I presume that rank is all important in the civil service, even more than in the practical or tactical world of the armed forces. In other words MI5 can force the police against their will to waste public money and their time. Politicians can force MI5 against their will and foreign governments can force politicians against their will.

    An example of this would be that in order for politicians to secure British arms sales , somebody has to be gullible or bored enough to associate with famous criminals and do their bidding. One would have thought that one politician could have sat down with his counterpart in the US , but no, we need to do some heavy compromat on a Royal.

    My point is that we should accuse the top criminal bosses, not the little people who are scrabbling around like Upstairs Downstairs. The US has chosen to wield power in a criminal way. Everybody else although implicated are merely serving the evil US criminal Empire. Even China is unable easily to throw off the accusation of starting Covid 19 if Trump accuses.

    It’s extremely unlikely that any of the Downstairs staff, even the noble and literate Scottish butler could turn the millstones of God’s justice. Everybody has to play the tyrant’s game until it goes pear shaped. That is exactly the reason why Assange is being tortured and Alex Salmond being framed.
    We should focus on the Godfather rather than the little guts.guys or gals.

    • J Galt

      You’re right there is a pecking order – however I wouldn’t be too sure of the relative places of MI5 and the “Politicians” in it.

      • Giyane

        J Galt

        The bud is bigger than the twig, which is just a pipe supplying sap and mechanical strength.
        The engineer creates the engine but the driver risks life and limb.

        It would only take one second of Nicola Sturgeon’s time to say the Alex Salmond has been exonerated of all smears and accusations to trash the entire MSM and MI5 getting above their station. One sentence..
        Rubber on tarmac, steering wheel control.
        If you don’t take the risk, you’re one of the also rans.
        I personally think Nicola Sturgeon has the Hamilton instincts to use that SNP machine handed over to her by Alax Salmond to drive. I’m waiting for her adrenalin to kick in….

  • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

    Some four decades ago I had a brief conversation with an ex-editor of The Scotsman. It was during the Falklands War. He was defending self-censorship by news-media regarding British losses. I think the Thatcher Government had requested such. I shyly ventured the opinion that the media should be impartial.

    “And who is impartial about the Falklands?” he asked, eyebrows raised.
    “Well, *I’m* trying to be”, I said.
    “Good for *youououou*…”, came the supercilious put-down.

    How naive I had been. Only when mulling over this exchange years later did I fully realise that when the British State is “at war”, neutrality is considered tantamount to treason.

    The British State is obviously “at war” with those who want Scottish independence. “Impartiality” betrays Britain in its hour of need. But apparently no premium is put on truth and integrity. Lying on behalf of a threatened United Kingdom is “honourable”, sanctioned, and rewarded. After the 2014 referendum we saw this principle operative at the highest levels in the bestowal of Better Together knighthoods, lordships etc. Also in the guise of Sir Nicholas Macpherson and the “non-political” Civil Service with their emotional mutual-award ceremony following eventual “success”.

    So also the flagrantly reductionist media determination (since well before 2014) to present the venerable independence movement of our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents as the “One man’s crazy dream!” of a daily-headline demonised Alex Salmond. And thus likewise to hermetically enclose Scotland in perpetuity within a distorting ‘Truman Show’ Bubble of blank-eyed Britishness.

    So thank you yet again Labour. You were so cynically prescient (no doubt way beyond your own “crazy dreams”) when you despicably deprived the equivalent of Denmark of any independent broadcasting facility. The subsequent career-long smirking complicity of so many of our journalists and broadcasters in your national life-crushing stratagem remains demoralising on every human level.

  • Simon Abbott

    Another great and important job, Craig. Having witnessed the extraordinary disparity between the BBC website coverage on Alex Salmond’s case (pages and pages) and that of Assange’s (virtually nothing), it was entirely clear what the establishment agenda was and always has been. Destroy this man’s reputation while we have a chance…never mind the case will fall apart. The damage will have been done.
    What a stupid stupid waste of time and money for something that will only achieve precisely the opposite to that intended. And you’ll be well shot of us too. I’d rebuild Hadrian’s Wall if I were you..

  • Laguerre

    I have no doubt that Westminster will do anything, embark on any trick, to avoid Scottish independence.

  • Peter Jeal

    I have always believed that the British State including MI5 were involved in bringing false charges against Alex Salmond. The following blog by former British Ambassador, Craig Murray lifts the lid on some of the vile, corrupt practices of the British State aided and abbetted by the pro-union press that in Scotland, mascarades as Scottish by simply putting the word Scottish in the title e.g. ‘Scottish’ Daily Mail when it is nothing of the sort. It is precisely this kind of foul play by the British state that has made me, and many others in Scotland, even more determined that Scotland should be free of the corrupt British state and become a fully independent, progressive country where politicians are there to serve the people, not the other way around. The Scottish independence movement can never be crushed, it is a grassroots movement, and has among its supporters, people who have served in the British military and police, who feel betrayed by the lengths the UK government will go to maintain its grip on Scotland and her huge resources. If some in the SNP hierarchy have been a part of this stitch up, then shame on them. They will have to face the consequences to their political careers of their involvement being made public. Be in no doubt though, the independence movement will only get stronger as a result as people see the cesspit that is British politics.

  • Out of Affric

    I apologise if this timeline of events has been identified previously – I have searched the internet but cannot find anything relevant.

    November 2017: Alex Salmond’s first show on Russia Today is aired to cries of ‘treason’.
    December 2017: A month for refection and goodwill (?)
    January 2018: Alex Salmond is accused of multiple acts of sexual misconduct.

    Just saying.

  • James McNaughton

    This article demonstrates the lengths the media will use to condemn a wholly innocent man! I wasn’t surprised by it but Alex Salmond?

  • Jones

    i suppose the establishment expect us to believe the person who recorded Gordon Jackson on the train was just an ordinary citizen who after accidentally finding him/her self sitting close to Jackson suddenly became so concerned about justice being done that he/her decided to turn on his/her recording device in advance to capture what Jackson was ”’about to say”’ just in case it needed reporting.

    To quote Jackson ”it stinks”.

    • Cubby


      The ordinary Britnat in Scotland wouldn’t be able to contain themselves if they recorded this video. They would be all over the media -MSM and social media – boasting about how they got Salmonds lawyer on video etc etc.

      As long as no one confirms it is a genuine recording that they take ownership of then it must be unreliable.

  • Cubby

    Be careful Craig you need to leave something for Alex Salmond to write in his book.

    • Brianfujisan


      I was thinking..And hoping that Craig is Helping Alex with the Book. 🙂

      • Brianfujisan

        I’m Not saying that Alex can’t write..Just that they would make a good team…Aye.

        • Cubby


          Both Craig Murray and WGD are excellent wordsmiths who could certainly help in that respect.

  • Daniel Tobin

    Excellent article I hope this will inspire Scots to look again at the cabal in the government and seek redress for a fine man. I thank you for opening my eyes .

  • Soothmoother

    In a previous thread I stated that I thought that Mr. Salmond’s behaviour was sleazy. After reading the facts as presented here, I would like to withdraw that opinion.

    Sorry Mr. Salmond.

    • Cubby


      Only idiots dont think about changing their minds when the facts available to them change. Clearly, you are no idiot.

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.