Tomorrow is Another Day 322

I have received very many messages waiting for my take on the Alex Salmond acquittal. There is much to say and a need to take serious decisions about exactly when to reveal various crucial elements of information, because while the truth is vital, there can be a legitimate question at which moment it does most good. The most stunning information is in danger of being swamped by COVID-19 at the moment.

Secondly, you will not perhaps be surprised to hear that there has been some serious happiness in the Murray household today. This subject is best tackled stone cold sober.

It is tonight worth reflecting that people seeking to still cast aspersions are attacking the jury, who were diligent and contained nine women whom they are disparaging. Nine women on a jury drawn from No voting Edinburgh. A jury who for the last few years have been, like everybody else, indoctrinated with the rubric that it is a terrible moral wrong to doubt the word of an accuser making any sexual allegation #Ibelieveher.

I was worried that this was James Stewart of the Glen before a jury of Campbells all over again, but this jury looked carefully at the actual evidence before them, evidence that was – and still is now post verdict – in no way reflected fairly in the highly selective coverage of the mainstream media. That jury came to the only decision available to honest and sensible people.

But I want to make one thing quite clear. This is not a case where the major accusations failed because of the difficulty of proving what happened with two people alone in a room. In such cases it is often right to feel real and profound sorrow for the accuser with no means of proof. This was a case where there was very real evidence, from third party after third party, of certain accusers telling definite and deliberate lies. A case where eye witnesses stated categorically that claimed events did not happen. A case where eye witnesses testified people were not physically present when claimed. A case where witnesses testified that reports had not been made, and policies not instituted, as claimed by the prosecution.

A limited amount of evidence was also heard of some of the accusers conspiring together with others, including through a Whatsapp group created for the specific purpose, to fabricate and forward those lies. The vast bulk of evidence on this specific issue of conspiracy was excluded by the court both in pre-trial hearings and by dismissal of witnesses or evidence in the trial itself but, as Alex Salmond indicated from the court steps, will be out in due time.

It is also important to note that two thirds of the accusers – and indeed precisely those two thirds who were involved in lies, fabrications and conspiracy – were and are senior members of the SNP, very much part of the party machine, very much close to the leadership and especially involved in the non-independence related agenda that has taken over the party. With one exception, they are in highly paid party nominated jobs now with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. What we learned in the trial about careerism and self-promotion among those earning a very fat living out of the party’s current domination of Scottish politics was really very unedifying indeed.

That a party which has such a wonderful and committed membership – a membership who make me proud to be a member alongside them – should play host to a parasitic and highly paid professional elite with no discernible interest in Independence is a truly remarkable phenomenon. What we saw revealed in court was a procession of members of the political class who would just have happily have made their careers in the old corrupt Scottish Labour Party if it was still in charge. A major, major clearout is needed.

Now where did I leave my Lagavulin? For once, I feel I have deserved it.

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.

322 thoughts on “Tomorrow is Another Day

1 2 3 5
  • yesindyref2

    Craig, I’m delighted for you that Salmond was cleared of the mutliple charges. That sounds a bit strange but I’ve met you and not met Salmond. I am pleased for him.

    Thanks for your coverage, I didn’t read it all but skimmed it a bit, just as I did that in the H and N. I tried to keep an open mind before and during, but at the end I’d have come to the same verdict if I’m allowed to say that!

    • yesindyref2

      Oh for an edit. I meant I’d have come to the same verdict as the jury, I make no comment about the other matters.

      Having said that, I was somewhere around number 60 odd to contribute a very small amount to the judicial review crowdfunder way back end August 2018 as clearly there was summat wrong with the way Salmond was being denied information, with the redacted documents, and the way the SG had conducted the complaints handling process. And so it proved. That was NOT the same of course as giving an opinion on the forthcoming prosecution.

  • Jm

    Enjoy your Lagavulin Craig.

    You’ve seriously earned it these last few weeks.

    Thank you.

    • Save Julian

      Yes, am thrilled for Alex Salmond (even if my attention has been focused on Covid19 in recent weeks). However, I sensed strongly that this was a complete fabrication and smear campaign, with political motivation. Fantastic reporting and amazing work done by Craig Murray. A rare gem in the slush that these days calls itself journalism. Truth is rarely found in 2020 in MSM.


  • Thomas Coyne

    Enjoy your dram Craig – you deserve it! I appreciate what you do for the cause of independence and standing up for principles that are so badly needed today.

  • Brianfujisan

    It’s a Great night.

    And I agree with Mary in the previous post…That you had a Small part in it.. with such detailed reporting.

    Don’t fret about when we hear all the truths.. EVERYONE in the indy movement Know that the Epidemic Comes first

    Cheers on the well earned Whisky.

    • Mary

      Cheers Brian but I didn’t say ‘a small part’. I said that without Craig’s forensic analysis of the prosecution case plus his articles, the outcome for Alex Salmond would have been very different.

      Mr Salmond needs a good holiday now and a new regime for his health and fitness.

      • Brianfujisan

        Indeed Mary…Using the word ” Small ” has bugged me during a sleepless night.

        Take care during the next few months.

  • Nick Gethins

    Thanks for your efforts Criag; both on the Salmond and the Assange case. I had been a member, an activist and local government candidate for the SNP, joining in 1998 at 20 years old.. The final straw for me was Sturgeon’s support for Clinton in 2016, alongside her Kissenger and Albright tweets. The careerist who you refer to, some of them who I know personally, would not have been out of place in New Labour.

    They are blinkered to the radical vision of what Scotland could be, this is evident from their treatment of the likes of the Common Weal who have been shown the door. Also their cowardly silence over the Assange case. They have signalled to the Neo-con forces that an indy Scot offers no threat to their agenda and that they are at home with the neoliberal hegemony. Its time the movement was led by someone who has he guts and the vision to challenge the Brit state and open the door to the real visionaries of the movement.

  • Alastair Stuart

    Dear Ambassador Murray,

    Thank you for your fortitude, time, courage, effort and dedication at reporting on Alex Salmond’s trial.

    May I impose please and ask a favour of you? I am disabled having been injured in uniform. Some mornings I wake up and shamefully complain: “Oh not another one of these” – in reference at a night full of PTSD and not quite wishing to live through another day of life on this earth in the trials of permanent pain.

    Today, I actually jumped up and punched my fist in the air on seeing that Alex Salmond had been found not guilty. It has been more than 20 years since I jumped at anything! Spinal surgery makes that incredibly challenging. This is the measure of my happiness.

    The grace, dignity and gravitas of Alex Salmond on the steps of the court were awe inspiring. He was more worried about the health and wellbeing of the very journalists who damage him, than crowing over the NOT guilty verdict.

    The man is a true leader.

    Ambassador, my favour is this: As you have a direct line of communication with the man, please would you be kind enough to relay my heartfelt thanks to Alex Salmond? Why? His leadership and inspiration gives me hope and a reason to want to get up in the morning. I want to live a life where Alex Salmond still stands a chance of becoming First Minister again and leading us to Independence.

    Sincere and best wishes,


      • Alastair Stuart

        Craig, I would like to buy both you and our former First Minister a Lagavulin, where, ironically I used to patrol in my Hamish Macbeth liveried Strathclyde police Land-rover on that beautiful island of Islay. Rather than a one-off honourarium for a nice bottle of malt, I just completed a recurring subscription for this excellent website. Maybe when you next meet up, you could dip into my site subscription and buy yourself and Mr Salmond a Lagavulin on me please? I kid he not sir. For it is decent men of principle such as yourself and Alex that give people such as myself the will to keep on living. I am determined to keep on going to see full independence for Scotland. Thank you both. Best wishes Al RM.

    • Minority Of One

      >>The grace, dignity and gravitas of Alex Salmond on the steps of the court were awe inspiring

      That will be what I remember most about this whole saga – just how magnanimous Alex was on the steps of the court. An example to us all, If you have not seen the clip, worth watching for the inspiration.

  • Antonym

    Any details available on the jury’s voting in this acquittal?

    Any reaction from Nicola Sturgeon?

    • Stonky

      Sturgeon’s response:
      “The court has reached a verdict and that must be respected. I’m a strong believer in a vigorous, robust, independent judicial process where complaints of this nature, if they come forward, are properly and thoroughly investgiated, due process takes its course and a court reaches a decision, and that’s what has happened today. I have no doubt that there will be further discussion around this issue in due course, in the fullness of time – and I welcome that. But that time is not now…”

      Just managing to not quite choke on her bile. Never mind. The oily little snake can go and find solace in the arms of her good friend the war criminal Alastair Campbell. Maybe Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton will chip in wth a hug. And Henry Kissinger.

      • ciaris

        She’s a piece of work and no mistake. Women aren’t immune to the character changes wrought by the One Ring, for sure.

        I’d rather like Salmond to come back as leader of the SNP, and oust Nicola. I don’t think it’s a plausible scenario, but you never know. Can’t blame Mr Salmond if he wanted to retire and write some books. But I do wonder if her own party is looking very closely at all this. They know who the 9 are, for sure, just as Craig does. I don’t, but I’m sure I will rather soon.

        • Stonky

          I don’t think it’s a plausible scenario…

          I don’t see why not. I think there’s every chance he’ll make a comeback. And Nicky and her chums can go and found their own party.

          They could call it The Petty Little Grievance-Obsessed Identity Politics Party. I like that.

          Or The Pathetic Fleas On the Backside Of The Westminster Poodle As It Yaps Around Uncle Sam’s Ankles While He Destroys North Africa And The Middle East Party. That has a certain ring to it.

          Or The I Love War Criminals Me Party. Crisp and Punchy.

          Or The Fat Greedy Carpetbaggers Who Don’t Actually Give a Fig For Independence Party. Clear and accurate.

          Any one of these parties would win a large number of votes. Go for it Nicola!

    • Stonky

      They were all majority verdicts. Which means that on every single charge there were some jurors who (in theory) considered that the case had been proved “beyond reasonable doubt”. I take a less rose-tinted view of the wonders of jury trials than some commenters. Just on the basis of the evidence as it was reported by Craig I personally don’t see how any of the charges could have been considered proved beyond reasonable doubt, but some of them were just nonsense. The “touching a woman’s leg (through her clothing) in a car ten years ago”, while her husband was in the car. And the “touching a woman’s arms and hips (through her clothing)”, where the non-victim herself couldn’t quite remember if it took place in 2009 (eleven years ago) or in 2010 (only ten years ago). I cannot see how any sane person could consider that these charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. But some jurors did. Which indicates to me that some jurors went into the trial having already made up their minds that they were going to convict Salmond, whatever.

      • Cubby


        It could have been the one juror for each verdict perhaps even the same one.

  • Cubby

    The saddest thing for me about this whole matter was my son who always loved showing off his selfie with Alex Salmond started to doubt his innocence once the Britnat media plastered all the lies all over the papers and broadcast channels. The happiest moment was seeing his smile when the verdicts were announced.

    Thanks to Craig for his excellent reporting when he got access to the court. It helped to keep my son positive.

  • David

    Well done jury. Well done Alex. And well done Craig. Enjoy your whisky.

    This bit isn’t true though:

    “That a party which has such a wonderful and committed membership – a membership who make me proud to be a member alongside them – should play host to a parasitic and highly paid professional elite with no discernible interest in Independence is a truly remarkable phenomenon”

    Why do you find this “a truly remarkable phenomenon”? Unless you are using the word literally and merely claiming that this is a phenomenon about which it is possible to make a remark. Because if you are trying to suggest that this is soemthing unsual, or not to be expected, then I utterly fail to understand why you would suggest that. All political parties inveitably corrupt attractive people and attract corrupted people. Hehe – I’m quite proud of that one :-).

    My perpetual snarking about the nature of power and your (in my view) naivety aside, seriously – good job.

    Just occasionally – not often these days mind you – justice is still done.

  • Stonky

    It’s amazing how heartening one single little candle glow can be in a world of darkness. This verdict won’t change anything for Julian Assange or Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. It won’t bring David Kelly back to life. It won’t stop the relentless destruction of North Africa and the Middle East. It won’t change Brexit. It won’t stop the relentless transfer of wealth into the hands of a tiny group of worthless parasites. It won’t provide the truth about the Skripals or Douma or Khan Shaykhun, or tell us whether the Manchester bomber and his brother were being financed, trained or armed by the British security services. It won’t stop the endless demonisation of Russia and China in the Western media. It won’t get rid of Boris Johnson’s Westminster majority. It won’t give American voters a better choice than one between a shallow overgrown man-child and a greed-maddened warmongering Wall Street buck-whore.

    But it’s still a victory to be savoured. Don’t have one Lagavuln too few, Mr Murray.

    • David

      With you on everything except Brexit. Just as Scotland is better off independent from Britain, so is Britain better off independent from Europe. Smaller is better when it comes to the ability of any society to provide fulfilling lives to its citizens. Whether the current crew in Westminster will take advantage of their opportunity is another matter, but hopefully one day someone will.

      • Stonky

        I’m not entirely opposed to your point of view David. To me it’s the ‘not proven’ among my list of charges. I just think that the actual Brexit we get is going to be such a hash that nobody is going to be any better off from it. And don’t forget that in addition to any other economic damage it might do, Scotland is going to get landed wth a bill for £4 billion to be paid to the EU for the privilege of being dragged out against the people’s will.

        • David

          I understand your perspective, although personally I think Scotland will be better off outside the EU as well as outside Britain.

          And Brexit may end up being a hash, but as long as we are independent we can eventuially fix it as we will ahve the right to renegotiate.

          Personally I would happily sign up for being a citizen of Wessex :-).

  • Gerry Bell

    Bravo Craig. There is definitely a sense of unfinished business within the ranks of the SNP executive. Enough has emerged in the trial to cast grave doubts over the ethics and aims of some.

    • Julian_n

      What is the equivalent in Scottish Law to what in English Law is called a Super Injunction?

  • Leonard Young

    I too am very grateful to Craig for his courage in reporting on this and the Assange case.

    I’m not sure I should feel grateful to the Jury particularly, any more than any other jury who came to the only logical conclusion based on the threadbare evidence they considered, in thousands of other cases. But I am glad that jury did not buckle under all the media coverage prior to the case starting, and we can see even now that most of the press is extremely grudging in its reporting of the right verdict.

  • Paul Spencer

    I live in the state of Washington, USA..This was the most heartening news that I’ve seen in some months, excepting only the release of Manning. It’s not a good sign when the best happenings are that good folks are escaping punishment.

  • DavidH

    If I’m reading it correctly, the jury decided “not guilty” on 12 out of 13 charges. With the Scottish option of “not proven” also available, “not guilty”, really does mean those men and women who sat and watched the whole trial thought the evidence proved he wasn’t guilty. Not just that the evidence didn’t prove he was guilty. On only 1 charge, the jury went for the “not proven” option.

    Again if I’m reading this correctly, this must open up more opportunities for follow-up action against those responsible for the charges being brought. You can’t necessarily blame prosecutors for bringing charges on evidence that a jury finds insufficient. That’s what testing evidence in court is all about. But bringing charges on evidence that could so convincingly be proven false to a jury must surely leave them open to counter action.

    Watch this space, I guess…

    • Patsy

      Your first thought occurred to me as well. Scottish juries when in doubt have the not proven verdict to fall back on and this jury didn’t do that.

      • Alasdair Macdonald

        Having been a jury member, I noticed that there is a tendency amongst some to seek the ‘comfort’ of ‘not proven’, because, for personal reasons, they do not wish to ‘judge’ a fellow human being. Since we cannot ask about these matters nor report what was said in the jury room, then I do not know what their reasons really are. They might, indeed, be completely sincere. However, a majority of those selected were prepared to take a decision – guilty or not guilty – and to give their reasons based on the evidence presented to us. I was heartened by the number of people prepared to do what they saw as their duty. In some cases, there was a genuine consideration of ‘not proven’ as an option. Although a majority of the jury – i.e. 8 out of 15 – is accepted by the courts, if we were in a position of 5/6/7 in favour of one verdict and 5/6/7 in favour of another, with 3/4/5 admitting to sincere uncertainty because they could see validity in arguments being presented for and against, then, I think it is clear that the case has not been proven to the satisfaction of a majority.

    • Stuart

      “You can’t necessarily blame prosecutors for bringing charges on evidence that a jury finds insufficient.”

      I can. The prosecutor’s office has an obligation to assess the evidence to determine:
      1) whether a crime has actually been committed;
      2) whether the evidence is credible enough to convince a judge to order the defendant to stand trial; and
      3) whether that evidence is sufficient to convince a jury to convict

      There are plenty of cases involving serious crimes where prosecutors have declined to go to trial due to insufficient evidence. And the allegations against AS can hardly be regarded as crimes except by rabid feminists (“All men are rapists”). Plus the only thing serious about this affair is that an innocent man was facing deprivation of liberty based on a farrago of lies. And remember that AS has had his reputation besmirched and put under enormous stress, not to mention the financial cost of paying for his defence.

      Based on what has been reported of the prosecution’s case the “evidence” was so flimsy that it’s astonishing that the police and prosecutor decided to proceed anyway. Especially when the police became aware that that the complainants had been specifically recruited and were “coordinating” their complaints. (I can think of another “C” word that’s more appropriate but won’t use it to keep Craig out of jail). It’s astonishing to me that the truth about that was kept from the jury – if they’d known that the acquittals would probably have been unanimous. I’m no lawyer but I would think AS would have a good case to sue for malicious prosecution.

      I hope AS exposes this whole cabal and brings them down, and Nicola Sturgeon with them. Clearly she was in this plot up to her neck. That whole rotten crew have to go.

      • David

        Unfortunately this is what happens when the state assumes the role of prosecutor and the power of dsicretion for all criminal cases. This is not how it always was, and nor is it how it should be. The decision to bring a criminal case should belong entirely to the victims, with the prosecutor having the power to decline the case if they feel it lacks merit leaving the victim the choice to hire a private prosecutor if they still wish to proceed, and the court the ability to award expenses in the event it determines a case to have been frivolous.

  • Dhuglass

    Thanks Craig. Once again, you were a light in the darkness. I raise my glass to you and of course Mr Salmond.

  • Stonky

    I got this interesting little snippet – which I haven’t seen reported anywhere else – from the Guardian:

    He (Gordon Jackson) alleged those efforts were motivated by revenge because Salmond had won his judicial review in January 2019, after the Scottish government admitted it had botched an internal inquiry into two sexual harassment complaints against him… One of those texts included one sent by Leslie Evans, as permanent secretary the Scottish government’s top civil servant, to another official after they lost the judicial review, which read: “We may have lost the battle, but we will win the war.

    Don’t know where they got it or why they’re allowed to print it. But with all the rest of her sh*t and incompetence, the lying conniving snake cannot possibly survive this

    • Stonky

      By the way, anyone who is suffering from low blood pressure should have a read through the Guardian’s post-trial effort by Severin Carrell and Libby Brooks ( I won’t dignify it by providing a link).

      Through teary snotters and gritted teeth, with the taste of sour grapes filling their mouths and the bile burning the back of their throats like acid, they manage to acknowledge Salmond’s acquital, and subsequently provide a bitter 1500-word rehash of the whole prosecution case and all the evidence that the jury chose not to believe.

      • Mrs Pau!

        I actually know Severin Carrell – I am not a journalist. I collaborated with him on a story about an environmental issue I got caught up in, many years ago when he was a jobbing journalist in London. I have been really surprised how he has been caught up in this.

        • Stonky

          Then you haven’t followed his career very closely. For some years now he has been the Guardian’s Scottish affairs stenographer. He only has one story – “SNP Baaaad” – but he diligently rehashes it once or twice a week on behalf of his paymasters.

      • Gordon Hastie

        The Graun coverage reeks, doesn’t It? But if course the Graun has been happy to throw those who are no longer useful under the bus, and equally happy to see innocents go to jail if it suits their neoliberal, UK agenda.

        • Leonard Young

          Yes, and chief among the throwing under a bus syndrome by the Guardian is of course Assange, who was dumped by them the moment he told them they would not be getting the “exclusive” on wikileaks that they demanded and assumed was theirs. One day he was their international hero and the next he was a “womanising narcissist”.

          The Guardian also airbrushed Manning from its 2012 person of the year poll by not even nominating him, until the Guardian readership cried foul, whereupon Manning won overwhelmingly.

  • Watt

    Cheers all round!
    And then there’s that little, local, questionable difficulty with the judge herself vs Craig’s dismissal from attendance the other day.

    • Stonky

      She didn’t necessarily know anything about it. I don’t know this for a fact myself, but I’ve seen claims from people who appear to be well-informed, that an exclusion order has to be written and signed by the judge. And that would certainly make sense, otherwise anybody could just go up to anybody and tell them they had been excluded. It’s all water under the bridge now, but Craig should still contact the Court and ask for a copy of the exclusion order, and he should contact the judge and ask why the order was made.

      And if there wasn’t one, he should take the matter further. Even if he didn’t get the policeman’s number it should still be possible to find out who he is, and find out who told him about this “order”. It’s quite possible the officer himself wouldn’t know that an order has to be written and signed, and was only doing as he was told.

  • John Dickson

    Craig, we think the same and drink the same. Alway knew Alec was innocent. He was in the very front of Scottish politics for so long, constantly hounded by the brit MSM, and certainly watched by MI5 that it would have been out long before this if there was any truth in those allegations that have been proved to be false.

  • Alistair Taylor

    Thank you Craig, for your outstanding coverage of the Assange and Salmond cases.
    More power to your pen!

  • Kangaroo

    Happy days. Enjoy your Lagavulin. I will join you, but with a Glenlivet, Glenfidditch a Glenmorangie or a Hellyers Road. I seem to have a stock to pick through.

  • Mrs Pau!

    I have been following your brilliantly lucid account of proceedings. Alex Salmond’s lawyer. Gordon Jackson, did a brilliant forensic job. But I still not understand why “The Coven” ( I shall call them that as a woman and a feminist of impeccable credentials) were so set on destroying Alex Salmond.

    • MBC

      Because he wouldn’t stop interfering in the direction of Sturgeon’s leadership. He resigned the day after the indyref failure but was not content to disappear.

  • Merkin Scot

    Time to drain those particular stables, no?
    Much happiness to you and sleep first.

  • susan

    Thank you Craig for your lucid, if unfairly reduced, court reporting and thank goodness the jury saw through all the nonsense to find Alec Salmond not guilty. Some good news in this shitty world.

      • Stonky

        It was an orchestrated incident designed to provide a potential opportunity for a future accusation of sexual assault.

      • Laguerre

        It’s a kiss on the cheek; what you may do even with your worst enemy, in a pretence of professional friendship. Even an air-kiss, which is even more fake.

  • Billy Bones

    Take a good look my dear. It’s an historic moment you can tell your grandchildren about – how you watched the Old SNP fall one night.

      • Billy Bones

        ‘Tomorrow Is Another Day’ is Scarlett O’Hara’s mantra. Rhett Butler quipped this as he drove through the Burning of Atlanta. I simply replaced his ‘Old South’ with ‘Old SNP’.

  • Julia Gibb

    I have little to add to that excellent summary.
    I am certain many, many members of the SNP will agree with your comments. I would urge Independence supporters to remain in the Party and clear out those who have abused the trust awarded them.

    If they are too entrenched then perhaps a new Party can be formed. All we need is a charismatic leader 🙂

1 2 3 5

Comments are closed.