Here’s Two I Did Earlier 24


In the light of recent events, I thought I might revisit my appearances a few months ago on the Alex Salmond Show. In current circumstances people might have more time to watch.  It also helps explain why the state hates Alex Salmond.

https://youtu.be/-3dx3x05gYg

https://youtu.be/Wa1KQHmLPs8

The establishment have tried to “get” Alex SaImond in three courts.

The first was Scotland’s highest civil court, the Court of Session. They failed.

The second was Scotland’s highest criminal court, the High Court. They failed.

The third is the court of public opinion, and they are failing.

I am working on the question of who paid for Dani Garavelli’s much boosted hit piece. The answer proves to be much more interesting than I expected – by the time you watch the videos and have a bite to eat I will be close to publishing.

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]

Alternatively:

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

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.


24 thoughts on “Here’s Two I Did Earlier

  • craig Post author

    On the above when you get the no available watch it on youtube message, just click on the underlined link in that message.

  • J Galt

    Good gracious Alex up to his old tricks at 10.43 in part two – I wonder if she was approached to make a complaint!

    • kailyard rules

      With,it is said, over 400 plods out dredging for muck she might well have been. We now know the outcome of that trash hunt. Salmond innocent by a trial jury.

  • Cubby

    I noticed Michelle Thomson in the picture. Another one who was smeared but did nothing wrong.

  • Antonym

    In the second part of the interview Craig mentions that the British FO like to see themselves as “Masters of Dark arts”. Before 1940 they were for sure, I just wonder when (if ever) they were overtaken by the US State department / CIA?

  • Squeeth

    Morning Craig, had any tip-offs that Filth Scotland are trawling for false allegations about you?

  • Lorna Campbell

    Whilst I, personally, found Mr Salmond a kind man to deal with (outside the SNP environment, I hasten to add) and whilst I, personally, found the evidence against him to be too weak to sustain a prosecution, I also cannot see how he could have been brought down without Nicola Sturgeon also being brought down. For me personally, this is where it all falls down as an internal conspiracy. Oh, I’m not suggesting that there were, and are, not people in the top echelons of the party/party machine who would have liked to see him fall, they must have been aware that Nicola Sturgeon would fall with him. Just look at the fallout for her in the event of an acquittal; what would it have been like had he actually been sent down – and he would have been had the verdict gone the other way? Add to the the fact that the women are being utterly castigated on social media, another fallout that would and should have been anticipated by any internal conspirators, and you have a mystery heaped on a conspiracy. The mystery is, if this is the line to follow, how these people, entirely lacking in intelligence and foresight managed to claw their way to the top of the SNP? Doesn’t say a lot for those of us who tolerated it, does its?

    If the intention was to bring down Alex Salmond in order to keep him out of front-line politics, and the fallout was intended to bring down Nicola Sturgeon with him – because anything else is in the Inspector Clouseau category – who would that benefit? Cui Bono? Potential leaders, Angus Robertson and Joanna Cherry, have their own problems: Mr Robertson also follows the Sturgeon line towards a second indyref, a route that almost certainly would deliver zilch (and both he and Ms Sturgeon must know that) and Ms Cherry is more open to another route, but is also wedded to a second indyref. All the evidence for winning a PRE INDEPENDENCE referendum in the ‘mature democracies’ shows that, however you get to an indyref, you are most likely to fail, so zilch there, too. That is just fact, plain and simple, and the evidence for that is far stronger than any led at Mr Salmond’s trial.

    It is the indyref that is the problem, not the route to it, because Westminster and Whitehall have not the slightest intention of: a) allowing one; b) recognizing one; c) allowing one to go ahead without stymying it. It is the moribund thinking that states that only an indyref can deliver independence, that it is the only democratic route, that is the fundamental problem. No route is going to be easy. None. Others, however, are equally democratic and equally legitimate, and have more chance of success. A second indyref that failed would finish independence, but Westminster can’t take that risk, no matter how desperate it is.

    Now, those off us know perfectly well that there is no way the SNP has been allowed to exist without deep infiltration by the state. Anyone who believe that it has, needs a brain transplant. Therefore, we can take it that there are double agents within the SNP and surrounding the SNP. Some, at least, will appear perfectly innocuous and even vociferous in support of the SNP and independence. They will appear to be above suspicion and close to the leadership, if the pattern follows that of NI, the NUM, CND, et al. It is how the British State operates, as Mr Murray will understand. It is a leaderless, rudderless SNP, the political machine of independence, that the British State would wish to see or, if not, one that is led by the same basic mistaken thinking as before. Alex Salmond would have changed that thinking; indeed, he was being urged to re-enter politics by those who place their faith in a different tack. I don’t claim to know what that changed thinking would have been.

    Leaving Nicola Sturgeon in position would not have been an option either, no matter how alienated she became from her mentor, because a large percentage of the membership, led by long-term members, is utterly disenchanted with the S30 approach to independence and want a far more pro-active campaign. Ms Sturgeon could not have held out much longer on that front, and I believe she would have fallen sooner rather than later if she had tried to stay on course with this policy; either that or the party would have split into two factions. Therefore, she, too, would have been in the sights, and the previous attempt to blacken her, and, hopefully topple her, by a civil service leak, failed.

    The women, who might have had legitimate concerns about Alex Salmond by his own admission are collateral damage. By focusing on them, by focusing on Nicola Sturgeon, by focusing on what might appear to be an internal jostle for power within the higher ranks of the SNP, could well be missing something far worse. The moment that you accept that the self-perpetuating British State acts always in its own interest and acts without principle or remorse or ethics or morality, and its propensity to do so is well recorded, then you must accept that this might – just might – be something more than mere ambition, jealousies, spite, seat polishing, but all of those harnessed – knowingly or unknowingly by many/some of the protagonists – to one cause: that of the perpetuation of the British State and its self-interest. Perhaps we are all bit players on the bigger stage, having our strings pulled by puppeteers we don’t even see.

    • Scotty13

      An interesting, if verbose contribution, Lorna.

      Nowhere do I see mention of Mr Nicola Sturgeon, the rather publicity-shy CEO of the SNP. Understandably some say Peter should be asked to explain his part in all this subterfuge, and whether Mr Salmond has spoken to him since the trial closed.

      I’m reading between your lines and deduce you favour the Sturgeon dynasty continues for the foreseeable.

      Or perhaps not.

      • Lorna Campbell

        I favour independence, Scotty13. I do not believe that anyone is bigger than the right of our people to make their own decisions about their own future. I am now, and always have been, in favour of resiling the Treaty of Union on the grounds of: a) England’s deliberate hi-jacking of the Union in 1707; and, b) on the grounds that England-as-the-UK has usurped powers it is not entitled to under the guise of the UK, that it has acted ultra vires. It has completely usurped all constitutional powers to itself and its parliament at Westminster. I have come to the conclusion that, at the end of the day, this will be our last, and only, course, but I may be wrong.

        The movement has stalled and is in paralysis, and, although this pandemic has probably saved Nicola Sturgeon, she will be faced with the same problems when we emerge from it. I cannot see how she could benefit in any way from Mr Salmond’s political demise because much of the membership is heartily tired of the torpor that has set in now. Something was going to give, whatever. I believe that it is the movement itself that is under surreptitious attack, by using the SNP as the vehicle for internal wrangling and division that will lead to its demise if unchecked. Without that political leadership, or a new party arising to lead the wider movement, it could destroy itself from within very easily. That is what is at stake here, and, if people in the upper echelons of the SNP haven’t realised by now that they have underestimated the forces lined up against them, and I don’t mean Mr Salmond, then they don’t deserve the loyalty and trust of the membership or the support of the wider independence movement. This is not about whose rear end fits the highest seat best, but about regaining Scottish independence – and not because it’s a nice, romantic idea, but because it is essential for our future well-being. If the SNP does not wish to go the way of Labour in Scotland, it had better get its act together.

        As for Peter Murrell, do you even begin to understand how insulting to all able women and supportive men it is to suggest that he is Ms Sturgeon’s eminence grise? Can he not be a man who is content not to take the limelight, but who supports his wife? His hand on the tiller has been a steady one for years. What real, long-term benefit would it be to him if his wife fell? If Mr Salmond fell? If the SNP crashed and burned? None, surely? I do not think there is a Sturgeon dynasty and I have explained why. There was an attempt to bring her down in the past, too. That is the whole point of my ‘verbose’ comment. Three-line tweets don’t work when you need to get to the root of something, so, if you have the attention span of a gnat, don’t bother. I intend to make a contribution to Mr Murray’s blog site for his indulgence, albeit I do not have much to offer. I believe that he was persecuted in the way he was for reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with his sex life, and I believe that Mr Salmond has also been on someone’s agenda for removal through the same means. However, I think that at least the majority of the women were used, unwittingly, for that purpose, with Mr Salmond himself admitting that his behaviour might not have been appropriate at times. Perhaps that is what the women felt, too, but the procedure, once started, was unstoppable, even though the evidence was very weak and easily holed below the water line? Who persuaded them? Like Mr Murray, Mr Salmond fought back and won. He could have lost and been jailed. Does anyone seriously believe that Nicola Sturgeon would have deliberately done this to her former mentor, knowing that she, too, would have fallen – because the Salmond supporters would have turned on her and the women, to be sure? What has happened since is evidence of that.

        So, cui bono? Who benefits? Some blame her for errors of judgement from 2014 onwards, but even Mr Salmond made errors of judgement – on the currency question, for example. No one is perfect. Both Salmond and Sturgeon are flawed human beings, just like the rest of us – but there is a big difference between errors of judgement and deliberate acts of conspiracy. Something changed in the SNP, with Brexit. Was there a threat hanging over Nicola Sturgeon because so much was now at stake in the Tory party, which, to all intents and purposes, is the establishment? She changed before our eyes, from a cautious leader with fire in her belly to someone who seemed to lose the will to fight the particular fight that needed to be fought against Westminster. I think we are all looking in the wrong places for the answers.

        • Cubby

          Lorna Campbell

          I’m guessing you do not know who was involved in the What’sapp group and who some of the women are. So when it was said in court that there was a conspiracy you are saying that this was a lie. You also seem to think that the alphabet sisters were not just plain lying despite the defence witnesses testimonies. So in summary the court believed the defence case and not the accusers but you think otherwise. You get a lot correct in your previous posts on independence but on this occasion you do not seem to be paying attention.

          This was a criminal conspiracy that attempted to send a man to prison for a long time.

    • Jm

      Lorna Campbell,

      It doesn’t have to be a binary issue though.

      Many involved may have been working to different and compartmentalised ends where ultimately confusion reigns and multiple conspiracies well might exist,each by degree unknown to the other or the extent to which there might be overlap.

      The only party with the resources and technology to know the fullest picture would have been the security services.

      • Lorna Campbell

        That is what I am saying, JM. There might well be people who were used, and people who knew they, and others, were being used, because they were part of it. I am basing my assumptions on the recorded evidence of a number of documented areas in which the British State has operated. I may well be wrong, and this was just a very badly constructed set-up all round from within the SNP – in which case, they are a bunch of idiots who do not deserve the loyalty they get. I think this goes much deeper than we are seeing right now, though, and Brexit has made all the usual perfidy even more necessary from Westminster and Whitehall’s perspective. If that is the case, then a battle royal between Salmond and Sturgeon, and their supporters, and egoistical retributions are the very last things that are needed. A united front is what is called for, and an effort made to turn these events to the advantage of independence

    • Squeeth

      Palmerston: I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

      Speech to the House of Commons (1 March 1848)

      The same applies internally.

    • nevermind

      Alex Salmond will hopefully want to wait until this lock down situation is enabling the public to watch the defamation cases.
      With all due respect Lorna, you seem to have outlined a pretty good case for the SNP to be abandoned. The goal of Independence at the centre, such party should let MSPs take an oath to Independence in public, ideally and transmitted by whichever continental TV station wants to cover it.
      Time to prepare for a Scottish vote for Independence with a declaration of UDI straight after, followed by trade negotiations with the Irish border community, who seems to have the only communitative approach to the two state solutions of Westminster.
      A wholesale brooming of civil service floors and a wash down reform of stale judicial practises, marking a new Scottish justice system must follow. Without creating a distance from the neocon /msm driven narrative that is seemingly controlling Westminsters actions, any Independence would be a halfhearted undertakng.

      Off course, there must also be trade negotiations with Westminster and the EU, debates about what currency to adopt as well as onn the divisions of the once Independent kindoms.

      No time to waste for arguing with hangers on and wastrels out for their own good. Party politics as it exists today is ruining citizens life, and is presenting an unsustainable future for the next generations.

      • Lorna Campbell

        No, I would suggest that it calls for the precise opposite, Nevermind. It calls for a rallying of the troops on all sides and a new approach to the independence question.

    • N_

      @Lorna – I wouldn’t invite your participation on my side in any serious battle, given that you take the view that your opponents are “entirely lacking in intelligence and foresight”. Nobody ever won a serious battle who thinks like that.

      • Lorrna Campbell

        Sorry, you did not read my post properly. What I did say was that anyone who thought that this was going to wash, if they did, and that is what happened, then what would you call them? Giants of intelligent thought? Also, they are not my opponents since I have no axe to grind in this ‘battle’, except my desire for independence as a rational response to the mess we are in, as a rational response to the mess we have endured since 1707. If you think that the Union and its continuation of the status quo is a rational response to Scotland’s situation, then be my guest. You will be disabused of that notion sooner rather than later.

        • Lorna Campbell

          Oh, and, N, I mentioned nothing about MY opponents. You made that bit up. I said I have no axe to grind for either side or against either side. Independence for Scotland is my concern.

  • N_

    Good work, Craig. We disagree about independence, but I love the sound of your research into who paid for the Garavelli article and I look forward to reading about it.

  • Squeeth

    Vid 1. This is RT at its best and its worst. Craig Murray eventually gets to say something about British state terrorism and fingers that odious bastard Jack Straw. The context is that of a lesson being taught to a simpleton. What purpose does the wee Scotch lassie serve, apart from keeping us waiting while she reads an asinine script which is an internal advert about the programme? She kept interrupting the interview like commercial adverts. Come on RT, have some dignity, like Craig Murray.

  • Willie

    I think the alphabet women know what’s coming and they fear it.

    They failed, their backers failed and they will pay for it. They tried to jail an innocent man in a plot most foul and when the wider membership finds out they and their backers will be gone. Omega will be the alphabet women’s last letter.

    Treachery always comes to light.

  • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

    No doubt there are currently many new visitors to this site, in all honestly seeking to weigh the credibility of opposing claims. For context stretching back at least to the run-up to the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, I would draw fresh and renewed attention to GA Ponsonby’s painstakingly documented watershed book ‘LONDON CALLING: How the BBC stole the Referendum’. It is still available on Kindle for £1.99 —

    https://tinyurl.com/tgqr79c

    GA Ponsonby’s book subsequently gave rise in 2016 to the cogently evidential documentary: ‘LONDON CALLING: BBC bias during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum’, which can be viewed on youtube:

    https://youtu.be/TXQYuLUAbyw

    Craig Murray himself makes powerful contributions during the above documentary. And we can draw appropriate conclusions from witnessing Nick Robinson, at the highest levels of BBC political journalism, grossly misreporting the words of Alex Salmond and trying to sell a counter-narrative on the UK’s most influential news, thereby modelling and sanctioning such unprofessionalism for all in sundry. Moreover, we even find Gavin Essler risking the compromise of his own integrity by fronting a deeply dubious anti-independence presentation from Glasgow’s George Square.

    Both of the foregoing easily accessed resources are strongly recommended for anyone seriously seeking substantiated truth regarding the mainstream Media’s seasoned and entrenched collusive role in distorting the Scottish political narrative.

Comments are closed.