Information Wars Part 2 145

Through a solicitor I have now obtained copies of, or at least the text of, the court orders banning me from the Alex Salmond trial. These court orders are simply an extract of the minutes of the court rather than separate documents.

The Advocate depute submitted to the court that this case has received considerable publicity, with one member of the public, namely Craig Murray has been running a continuous blog. This individual has previously received a written warning from the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service with regards to the Contempt of Court Act 1981, he subsequently posted a copy of that letter. The individual applied to the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service for access to the media gallery which was refused. He has attended within the Public Gallery when the court has been opened. It has come to the attention of the crown that this individual’s blog has divulged information which would identify one of the complainers in this case. He invited the court to exclude Mr Murray from the court for the remainder of these proceedings as his continued presence would not be in the interest of justice. Further he submitted that the possible breach of the Contempt of Court Order was currently being considered by the Crown.

The Dean of Faculty advised the court that he has no objection to the motion to exclude the individual from the court.

The Court being satisfied that the advocate depute has set out a prima facia case that Craig Murray may have breached the Order made, in these proceedings, by this court on 10 March 2020 in terms of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, excluded the said Craig Murray from attending in the public gallery for the remainder of these proceedings, said exclusion being made at common law.

Ross Martin
Depute Clerk of Justiciary

The Court on the motion of the advocate depute directed that the close be closed to the public and members of the media. Further the court, on the motion of the advocate depute, there being no objection, made an order in terms of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 4(2) preventing the publication of the details of the issues raised in the legal submissions that took place, within a closed court between 10:45 hours and 10:49hours on 19 March 2020. Said order to be in place pending the resolution of trial proceedings against the accused Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond.

Ross Martin
Depute Clerk of Justiciary

This confirms some important facts. It was the prosecutor, not the judge, who had initiated my banning. Further, the prosecution had at the very least been following, and it is not a large stretch to assume been instrumental in, the refusal to accredit me as media and allow me to be present and report during the prosecution case. The reasons given for refusing my accreditation were a series of evident falsehoods and excuses.

The prosecution then brought a further motive to ban publication of the fact that I had been barred from the public gallery. That is a kind of super-injunction, and particularly sinister.

I also strongly object to the fact that the above court discussion of me was held in secret, without my being informed let alone present, and that I was given no opportunity to refute the points made against me. I was in fact in the queue outside the court while they were discussing me inside. As this was a legal proceeding and ruling by a judge, that is entirely contrary to natural justice.

The most important fact here is that it is all threat and bluster. I have not been found guilty of contempt of court. I have not even been charged with contempt of court. I was in fact very careful throughout to stay clear of contempt, more so than the mainstream media, as documented in detail by Wings Over Scotland. Remember that Contempt of Court carries up to two years in prison – and is decided by the judge without a jury, on a summary hearing.

As detailed in that Wings article, unlike the Guardian and the Times, for example, I omitted in my reporting the fact that one of the accusers had been present at a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein on 29 March 2018, precisely because to include it could have lead to her easy identification. I was much more careful than the mainstream media – but they were not threatened with contempt of court or banned from covering the trial.

The truth is that the prosecution were insistent I should be banned because of another, indisputable fact. Nobody else but I produced the in depth detail of the defence case that refuted the prosecution allegations, using eye witness testimony that in many cases proved the accusers were actively lying. The mainstream media gave detail of prosecution evidence and copied out the most sensational phrases of allegation to make lurid headlines; they gave virtually no detail of the defence witnesses or what they said on oath.

You can test this. Read my detailed account of the defence on the two days I was actually permitted in the court. Try doing a Google news search of the major defence witnesses who gave key evidence. What do you get? Virtually nothing.

I can and do make the claim that were it not for my reporting, the verdict would have seemed utterly perverse to the people of Scotland. Fortunately this blog has a large enough reach, sufficiently amplified by many thousands of other social media users, that I was able to get the truth out far enough to people, particularly within the Independence movement, to make a very real difference.

Despite the concerted attempts of the Crown to prevent me.

The Crown had already attempted to terrify me into silence with its earlier threat of prosecution. This had failed, and as I expected the Crown had not been able to follow through on its threats of prosecution for contempt. That the Crown was able to stop my attendance at the trial based on further obscure allegations of contempt – again not followed through – is illegitimate state censorship.

The judge was very wrong to ban me from the court not based on anything in contempt I had written, but on the notion that I might in future write something in contempt of court. This is plainly a violation of my human right to free speech under the European Convention. I am taking legal advice on action. You cannot ban someone from court on the basis they might say something wrong in future, when they have never been convicted of, or even charged with, contempt.

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>

145 thoughts on “Information Wars Part 2

1 2
  • Hamish McGlumpha

    “As this was a legal proceeding and ruling by a judge, that is entirely contrary to natural justice.”

    How very, very silly of you to imagine courts about justice – natural or otherwise. Courts are about the exercise of State Power (founded on violence). State Power. Period.

  • Ian Caldwell

    Is it possible that the judge could see which way the trial was likely going by that point and decided to uphold the prosecution’s complaint in order to reduce the possible grounds for an appeal? It was near the end of the trial, after all.

    • Martinned

      How would excluding a member of the public reduce the grounds for appeal? If anything, it would add a ground. (Only the defendant can appeal, realistically, and excluding Craig might well have been a prong in Mr. Salmond’s appeal for bias.)

      • Lorna Campbell

        The prosecution may also appeal, Martinned, usually to have a sentence extended if it was felt to be too lenient, according to the guidelines for sentencing for a particular offence.

        • Piotr+Berman

          I had a trouble understanding, but, yea, advocate delegate (?) was hoping for the guilty verdict, but afraid that the sentence would be too low, and tried to pre-position a reason for appealing the sentence “the court refused to follow our request to exclude a particularly vicious blogger, catering to low-info vituperative Indies from the courtroom, thus revealing a profound bias etc.” Still seems a stretch, but it could sound reasonable to those people.

  • ChrisH

    “Trump soldiers on against the latest ‘impeachment’ but (got to laugh) his popularity has improved.”

    Er, no it hasn’t. Are you sure you’re not confusing ‘popularity’ with “approve of the measures taken in the fight against the virus”…?

  • Martinned

    I can and do make the claim that were it not for my reporting, the verdict would have seemed utterly perverse to the people of Scotland. Fortunately this blog has a large enough reach, sufficiently amplified by many thousands of other social media users, that I was able to get the truth out far enough to people, particularly within the Independence movement, to make a very real difference.

    I think you might overestimate your credibility among the Scottish people…

    • James

      Martinned – you think wrongly here. I know of people from the respectable middle classes, who don’t get their news from sources that they would regard as dodgy internet sources, who discovered that the MSM reporting had failed to point out that some of the witnesses flatly contradicted large parts of the narrative being put forward by the alphabet sisters. Craig Murray and Grouse Beater were actually instrumental in pointing out that the narrative presented by main stream media was misleading – and people have come to understand this.

      I don’t like two aspects of Craig Murray: (a) he is a Sinn Fein (a.k.a. IRA supporter) and (b) he supports Scottish independence. But he is right on the Alex Salmond trial – and he hasn’t overestimated his credibility on the particular matter of the Salmond trial.

        • James

          I’m sure that Craig Murray couldn’t care less. This Martinned chappy intrigues me though. Who is he working for? Does he really believe the bilge he writes? How much is he getting paid to write it?

    • J

      I think you may underestimate the clarity with which long time readers of Craigs blog perceive you.

  • Colin Alexander

    Craig Murray

    If you are planning to take legal action about this matter, would it not have been more prudent to save your arguments for court?

    Also, have you asked the ICO to make an assessment whether publication of photos of your home was lawful under the DPA while specifically identifying it as your home, taking into consideration your Article 8 rights v the Daily Record’s Article 10 rights?

  • Lorna Campbell

    While I think we can all agree that the evidence presented at Mr Salmond’s trial was very weak, perhaps we should stop and think about the circumstances which brought all this about. The procedure to catch ‘handy andies’ was put in place. Everyone who knew anything knew that. It was also to be retrospective. Everyone who knew anything knew that, too. That it was flawed, we all knew, too because Mr Salmond had won his civil case against the SG (the SG being the body that brought in the legislation, but not specifically Nicola Sturgeon; in such a case, any authority would be a separate legal entity from the FM; not many on here seem to understand that).

    Now, while we might accept that there are persons of ambition, of seat polishing abilities and others, around the FM, she, personally, could have had no actual input into what happened because, if she did – and the FM is nobody’s fool – the evidence would have been there, and we have seen none. She would have to be insane or very, very stupid to have done that. She is neither. The inquiry and Mr Salmond himself might have evidence to lead to that effect, but we cannot reach a verdict on supposition, or we are all guilty of putting the cart before the horse, as was the case with many of Mr Salmond’s critics. Nor, I think, should there be any doubt that there are those in the higher echelons of the SNP, albeit not necessarily at the very top (usually not) who are double dealers. That is how the British State operates against threats, so that will be a given. Who they might be is another matter. If we ever discover that, I rather think we will be shocked. What should not shock us is how such double dealers, on behalf of the British State, might seek to use the former FM’s dilemma, and at least some of the women’s allegations, to ‘take him out’, as it were, but here’s the rub: had it succeeded, the FM herself would have fallen with him, as we can see from the aftermath of the trial in which he was found not guilty. Imagine if the verdict had been ‘guilty’? Joanna Cherry is still an MP, so could not have become FM without an election; and Angus Robertson is not elected. Ergo, the SNP, the political arm of the independence movement, scuppered, by its own hubris. The scandal would have finished it, if not forever, for a very long time.

    Also, there is a third point that bears examination. Personally, I have never heard of a conspiracy of females. Never. Not anywhere. Not in any age or era. Yes, there are honey traps, yes, there are women used to bring down men, but always – always – there are other men at the back of it. A single woman? Yes, that has happened to some men, undoubtedly, usually in rape cases or serious sexual assaults, but the penalty for such malicious behaviour is severe, and they are few and far between, certainly no higher than for other false allegations. Harvey Weinstein was found guilty and sentenced. No one believes he was not guilty of the charges because most people around him knew very well what he was like with the women who worked for him – and that includes many of the men around him. Mr Murray himself was subjected to a similar situation, but even he would admit, I think, that it was not the women he was accused, falsely, of seducing who were the main actors? They were incidental to the bigger picture, just as I think they are here, too. Someone somewhere wanted Mr Murray out of the picture, and disgraced.

    The two cases of Salmond and Weinstein are not comparable in any sense at all, and it is a gross insult to Mr Salmond to make any link. Mr Salmond was not accused of using his position to hurt women’s careers if they refused his advances, and the evidence given by the women did not convince the jury. What we are talking about in the Salmond case is a conspiracy of females alone – 14/13 women who decided amongst themselves to bring down the former FM, all with false allegations, if we are to believe the hypothesis, and for political reasons – to keep him out of Holyrood. Never been heard of, folks. It is always men who behave in this way, using women to do it because they understand their own weaknesses and vulnerabilties where women are concerned. Sorry, but that is the truth of this type of ‘conspiracy’, just as it is an inescapable fact that far fewer women commit crimes than men. It doesn’t fit the narrative, but there you are. It might be a first for women, but I doubt it. Is it not more plausible that the women were genuinely aggrieved, with a few very much over-egging the pudding, since Mr Salmond did admit that his behaviour might have been inappropriate at times, but not criminal. That was where it fell down. So, who would have benefited from the women’s case? Not the women themselves, obviously, because they have been castigated and called every name under the sun; not the FM, likewise. Isn’t it just too pat that a group of women should conspire to bring down the former FM and the present FM, coincidentally, in a sex scandal case that would have rocked the political scene across the globe and effectively destroyed the SNP and, probably, the independence movement itself? If this was nothing more or less than a group of man-hating females within the SNP determined to do down a good man, an entirely internal thing, what was the point of it? To make the workplace at Holyrood and Bute House more amenable to women employees? Yes, it certainly did that, eh? To show the world that women are sexually harassed every day? Women already know that. We’ve been saying it for generations. To little avail. Do men believe it? Evidently not. Or the misogynists and women-haters would not be attacking the women and the FM they way they are, and, indeed, all women, without a shred of proof that the whole thing was a set-up. I’m not saying it wasn’t, just that we have seen no proof. Cherchez l’homme? I think so.

    I do think someone, somewhere wanted Mr Salmond removed from politics (and his politics show on RT) and also wanted the fall of the FM (there have been other attempts, have there not?) regardless of what she knew or did not know, regardless of what she did nor did not do, regardless of whether she felt the case justified or not. Now, who, or what, could that be?

    • Stonky

      Personally, I have never heard of a conspiracy of females. Never. Not anywhere. Not in any age or era…

      Then I suggest you do a targeted google search on:

      “tim hunt”

      Assuming they haven’t been memoryholed (which I’ll grant you is a big assumption these days) you can read the 50-60 articles published by Guardianwimmin on Professor Sir Tim Hunt. That savagery was orchestrated by Connie St Louis, a “science journalist” who might well be one of the biggest liars on the planet. But it was carried on by a rancid pack of Guardian scum who took the greatest pleasure in destroying the reputation and the retirement of a decent, harmless and helpless elderly gentleman – a man who had done greater service to humanity than the whole lot of them ever will in their entire lives – whose ‘crime’ had been to tell a lame self-deprecating joke in an impromptu lunchtime speech.

      That was women, although I’ll grant you there may be an out for your argument, in that “conspiracy” normally implies something hidden, while these people took great delight in savaging their hapless victim in the full public gaze.

      • James

        Stonky = didn’t you know – women do not smoke. Women do not drink. Women do not let off in enclosed spaces. And women would never, never, never mastermind a conspiracy.

        • Lorna Campbell

          No need for sarcasm, James. I said no such thing, so stop it. As for Stonky: do tell what happened? What was the conspiracy? Women, by the way, is spelled ‘women’, so why spell it ‘wimmin’, a spelling that is suggestive of scorn and denigration? I hope this whole situation does open up the sheer scale of harassment that women put up with at work because I think many of you misogynists are going to get a shock. Not that it would put you up or down, eh? You will always manage to find that one instance when a women harrassed a man amongst the hundreds of thousands of cases where the opposite applies. Ooh, these witchy women, always out to do a man down. I repeat, I have never heard of a sexual/political conspiracy aimed at bringing down a man that was perpetrated by women alone. There is always some powerful man/men behind it who use the women for their own purposes. As you admitted, the Guardian example was not a conspiracy. It was a totally inapposite example. I also repeat: the rate of false allegations against men by women is more or less on a par with other false allegations. Mr Salmond admitted that his behaviour had not always been appropriate, but never criminal. The evidence was very weak and he was, rightly, acquitted. The Moorov Doctrine was applied but it actually worked backwards in Mr Salmond’s favour.

          • Cubby

            Lorna Campbell

            Of course there are men involved in the Salmond criminal conspiracy but the vast majority are women.

          • Lorna Campbell

            Yes, Cubby, but was it the women who were instrumental in constructing the ‘criminal conspiracy’, if there was a criminal conspiracy? Nothing has been proven. The assumption of so many appears to be that all the women lied, that all conspired to lie, that all wanted Mr Salmond to be convicted and sent to prison. You have to believe that these women wanted him to be imprisoned for a fair number of years for absolutely zilch. That, in itself, makes no sense without a context. What was the supposed context? Many on here assume that it must have been to prevent him from returning to parliament. Why? Again, it is assumed that Nicola Sturgeon wanted him out of the way. Another assumption for which we have no evidence. Was he planning on returning to Holyrood? I have never heard him say so. What would have happened to Nicola Sturgeon had he been convicted. She, too, would have fallen, that’s what. Why would she do that? Because she has thrown in the towel on independence? Who says? It is speculation, but so many are calling these women and Nicola Sturgeon base names, and some are using language that is extremely misogynistic and aggressive, just like the language used by some trans women and their supporters towards women in a different context. They are using language and verbally abusing women in the time-honoured fashion: they are all out to do down men, and you wonder why women are angry? If Mr Salmond had there presumption of innocence, as all those charged with criminal offences must have, then so do women. I do not believe there was a conspiracy of women, but a lot of angry, aggrieved women who, perhaps allowed themselves to be manipulated and used. To what end?

          • Cubby

            Lorna Campbell

            “Nothing has been proven.”

            It was stated in court that the initial info provided by one of the accusers to the SNP would be held in abeyance and used in the future if required. MCCann.

            There was a WhatsApp group.

            You are accepting the no smoke without fire stance. Wrong.

            Sorry but you have not been paying attention. Men and women carried out this criminal action so please stop all the framing as a battle of the sexes. It is political.

            You are wrong in so many ways in your post.

          • Cubby

            Lorna Campbell

            Mr Marmalade is of course a very jammy man not to have had his role in this matter published but it will happen at some point in time.

          • Lorna Campbell

            Cubby: nothing has been proven against Ms Sturgeon, yet her name has been dragged through the mud, too. I, too, believe it was a political conspiracy, but not in the same way that you do. I believe that at least some of the women were angry at Mr Salmond for inappropriate behaviour towards them at work. I’m sorry that you find that so trivial. I think that women in general have just reached a stage where they are no longer prepared to put up with this constant, often low-grade bad behaviour by men, which ranges from inappropriate touching and language too rape. I think misogyny will become a hate crime in the next few years, if not sooner. I am not commenting on the case itself because I think that the right decision was reached on the evidence given. It is a huge leap from there to say all the women were liars or conspirators or political/sexual conspirators. No instance of women conspiring together solely non their own, to topple a political figure by means of sexual accusations has been recorded, to my knowledge, but you never know. Every instance of this type that I could find turned out to be a powerful man/men behind the whole thing. I believe the same applies to the Labour Party in the anti-semitism row against Corbyn. Yes, we have internal players in both instances, but, and it is just my opinion, external factors came into play in both cases, and people were used to suit an agenda. Someone somewhere did not want Mr Salmond to return to front-line politics, and wanted Ms Sturgeon to fall with him, and someone somewhere did not want Mr Corbyn to ever become PM.

            A number of the quotes taken to mean one thing, could quite easily be taken to mean something else. In the end, the jury did not believe that the women had proved their case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. That’s it. I think that this might turn out to be one of those cases where it is best to leave well alone because the consequences could be very different from that which so many on here think they might be. Remember dear Oscar. He should have stopped while he was ahead. As for making it a male-female thing, it is entirely a male-female thing from the point of view of the prima facie case. The fall-out, with Ms Sturgeon, and all women being castigated, is precisely a male-female thing. What lies underneath is undoubtedly political, and the women were used to that end. That is exactly my point.

          • Eckle Fechan

            I’ve enjoyed reading your comment pieces here – extremely articulate and well written. I am also of the belief that darker powers are behind the plot, state-sponsored no doubt, and more than likely male-driven, but let’s see. As Craig has mentioned elsewhere in this thread and across his electrifying set of blog archives, the stakes are extremely high. Eck knows that too, and we live in hope that the truth will out some day, and that Scotland shall be free again to live and breathe and prosper independently. That might seem rather trite and obvious but I think we can all have a little more faith now, given the work that Craig and others are doing, and the way that words of truth can be spread via technology.

          • Lorna Campbell

            Eckle Fechan: it worries me, too, that so many state that the jury was predominantly women. I have news for them: studies done both in the UK and in America have shown that majority female juries are far likelier to acquit in sex cases than predominantly male juries, so there is no traction at all in the assumption that predominantly female juries are more likely to convict. It’s just another sex case myth, like claims that women lie and men go in fear of fake allegations. All nonsense. The facts are there for anyone to discover if he/she can be bothered. Having said all that, I still think the jury reached the right decision on the evidence. It did not manage to come anywhere near ‘beyond reasonable’ doubt, so like him or loathe him, Mr Salmond was acquitted with not guilty and not proven verdicts. He may come back with more information, but, sometimes, things are best left well alone. Which I now intend to do on this subject – at least, until we know more, if we are to know more.

          • Cubby

            Lorna Campbell

            “I am sorry you find that so trivial”. Where exactly do I say that? I do not find anything about this matter trivial at all. Clear.

            It is a criminal conspiracy to send an innocent man to jail. Nothing trivial about that at all. The jury did not believe the women because they were lying. The evidence demonstrated that was the case.

            I said in two posts above it was men and women involved so just why do you keep saying otherwise. So I’ll repeat for you again it is MEN And WOMEN in the conspiracy.

            Quite frankly I am getting annoyed with your continual misrepresentation of what I post.

          • Lawrence AB

            Lorna, I’m an admirer of your posts on various matters – not least the verve of their expression – but here I think you are losing the plot because of your (in fact predominantly justified) belief that women are far more often the victims than the villains. But from there to allege that women never conspire is a stretch!

            Look at the evidence of the first judicial review which found clear evidence of illegal behaviour in first encouraging women to complain, then acting as “impartial” investigator. And who was involved: Ms. Evans, woman, stalwart representative of the Union, and her acolyte, woman. What did Ms. Evans write when her ploy failed and her behaviour was judged “tainted”: “we have lost this battle but not the war”… what does that sound like?

            She duly continued, right? Off to London mid-weeks, as Craig has revealed, to get general instructions on how to manage Scotland… I’m sure the impending trial came up with her Brit Est bosses. Yes, no doubt powerful men were guiding from behind but there is evidence of conspiracy through text groups and leaks of the actual plot run by women right at the top of the SNP.

            As you say, we can say nothing now, since that evidence was not admitted in the recent trial, but the other shoe will eventually drop. This story is not over and we can expect the perjured alphabet sisters to be challenged in court in due course. I am just a little surprised that a person of such acuity generally, can adopt such a naïve view about women’s inherent inability to conspire! I suggest you read a little wider in history. You might start with the Byzantine Empire, whose dynasties heave with powerful and highly conspiratorial women. Try the Empress Irene for one (752-803), she’s a shocker.

      • Lorna Campbell

        Come off it, Stonky, it was not a conspiracy, was it? Professor Hunt was a bit of a c**t, to quote a certain journalist in a different context and said things which, if said about black people or Asian people or Chinese people, or homosexual people, would have been both actionable and against the law. That is the point. It just was not funny except, perhaps, to you? We are living in a world where everyone’s talents and skills should be utilized to save us from self-extinction, but what do we do? We ensure that it is mainly men – missing out half the population – who are allowed to offer their skills without being harassed and demeaned. Try Googling – since you are so fond of Google – just how many female scientists missed out on Nobel Prizes or even jobs because they were female. If you happen to be a black female scientist, the odds are nobody will ever have heard of you regardless of what you do – unless they make a film about you, which, thankfully has been done in relation to the black women scientists at NASA. Women are over half the population and they have as much right as men to be on this planet, and they have the right not to be considered inferior beings by daft men making silly statements that are passed off as ‘bantah, when it is misogyny plain and simple. Try to think of women as human beings like yourself, rather than creatures to be feared and loathed. Patriarchy is equally cruel to both women and men, if only a majority of men would see it. Women are demeaned, denigrated, side-lined and harassed, but at least we can be ourselves. Men rarely can, so tight is the patriarchal straitjacket.

  • N_

    A third of all deaths in Scotland last week were “attributed” to Covid-19. (Guardian.) Where there are grants available,forms will be completed with whatever needs to be stated to get money. That’s the corrupt reality.

    Has this blog stopped supporting the SNP? Imagine what Scotland under that party’s rule would be like if it got a large majority at Holyrood and managed somehow to find the support it needs for independence.

      • Lorna Campbell

        Most cases are tried under summary procedure, N, and there is a judge (Sheriff/Justice) sitting alone. The most serious cases are tried under solemn procedure, and still require a jury. If the jury system were to be abolished, it would probably be under a system where three judges sat on a case, to reduce the incidence of appeals, and to reach, at least a majority verdict. Those indicted for serious crimes will always be told by their advocate not to conduct their own trial and to opt for a jury trial rather than plead guilty, even if they are as guilty as a puppy sitting in a pile of poo, as someone said in Blackadder – George I think, in the final series.

    • Cubby


      Imagine what life would be like under the rule of a moron like Johnson or a war criminal like Blair in the UK. Oh that’s right we don’t need to imagine – many many needless deaths.

        • Cubby


          It is boring to point out to Britnats that Scotland is in the UK and therefore under the control of Westminster but some Britnats (Kempe) do need to be reminded of that fact.

          • James

            Cubby – I seem to remember a time when Westminster was under the control of Scots – not so long ago – the cabinet was packed full of Scots under New Labour – and a fat lot of good it did us.

            That is my basic objection to independence. Unless something radical happens, Holyrood will end up as a `Wee Westminster’ with Nicola Sturgeon (or someone like her) doing an excellent impression of Tony Blair.

            The one thing that would make me return to supporting Scottish independence would be the major issue of university tuition fees – if we were somehow forced to impose them. Scotland doesn’t have them right now, while the English do. But I’d point out that the votes of Scottish MPs were needed to impose this on the English.

            Scotland is under the control of Westminster which isn’t very nice. England is under the control of Westminster too – and it isn’t very nice for them. Independence won’t solve this – the way things are going we’ll just end up with a `wee Westminster’.

          • Cubby


            The people you refer to are British not Scottish.

            Westminster has never been under the control of Scots – that is just nonsense.

          • Cubby


            Scotland is not independent – if you cannot see how that restricts Scotland in the current situation then old boy you need to try thinking about it a bit more. Not going to waste any more time with you.

  • James

    Cubby – the people whom I refer to were born in Scotland and would be entitled to Scottish passports if Scotland were independent. I perceive that you are a bit of a racist. Except that in your case it isn’t race that is the issue – it is something inside your own head.

    • Cubby


      Thanks for the insults.

      These people call themselves British. So what is the problem in me calling them British. How is calling British people British racist. I have family and friends who identify as British not Scottish so if I refused to recognise them as British what purpose does that serve. They would be insulted if I did not recognise them as British.

      Methinks you have totally lost the plot with your silly insults and irrational arguments.

      In an independent Scotland they would be entitled to a Scottish passport if they wanted it but most would prefer a British passport which they could get if Westminster agreed to it.

      Getting pretty tired of replying to silly Britnat posts – Kempe please note.

      • James

        Cubby – yes, they call themselves British. They also call themselves Scottish and theY *are* Scottish – whether you like it or no. You stated that they were not Scottish.

        How about Nicola Sturgeon? Is she Scottish?

        • Cubby


          More silly and irrational comments. So they are ScotBritnats. Nonsense – they are British and their loyalty is to the long departed British Empire.

        • Kempe

          James, you have to understand that in the Cubbiverse no one is allowed to call themselves Scottish unless they’re an out-and-out rapid Nationalist

          • James

            Kempe – yes – I see that – a strange fellow indeed. If one is in favour of England / Scotland / Wales union, then one is not Scottish (by his strange definition of the word). Also, he seems to think that this is an expression of loyalty and allegiance to the British empire. It is a somewhat blinkered view.

          • Cubby

            Kempe and James

            These people call themselves British. That is their choice.

            Your childish insults mark you out as a couple of silly Britnats. That is also your choice – own it – live with it.

  • M.J.

    “It has come to the attention of the crown that this individual’s blog has divulged information which would identify one of the complainers in this case.”
    Granted that the prosecution may have showed favouritism towards the press who may have done the same thing. But just what “information” did the prosecution have in mind?

  • Joe+Mellon

    Of course the media strategy of the Scottish government (that is the accusers or ‘victims’) is to create the space in which the supposedly independent CPS (part of the Scottish government) will not be required to prosecute a blatant and very serious crime (perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice) committed by … the Scottish government!

    • Joe+Mellon

      This is Banana Republic justice… if the Scottish legal system – the legal system of Hume and Cockburn – wishes to come out of this with its reputation intact it must pursue the conspirators with all deliberation, independence and severity.

  • roGER

    A brilliant series of reporting on the Salmond case, in which the jury seem to have delivered the correct verdict.

    If the even half the defence is correct, what a vile and sleazy thing to do to a man who’s no saint, but could have gone to prison for a very long time if found guilty.

1 2

Comments are closed.