Either Nicola Sturgeon or Geoff Aberdein is Lying on Oath – and Proving Which Will Be Easy 210

It is impossible that both Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein are tellng the truth about their meeting on 29 March 2018, which both now say discussed allegations against Alex Salmond.

Geoff Aberdein, Alex Salmond’s former Chief of Staff testified under oath in the Salmond trial that he was contacted in mid-March by phone by Nicola Sturgeon’s office to discuss historic allegations against Alex Salmond, and was asked to a meeting with the First Minister on 29 March. Aberdein testified he was so concerned that he arranged a conference call with Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton QC to discuss this.

By contrast, Sturgeon claims in her evidence to the parliamentary inquiry that the meeting happened by accident, that she had no knowledge it would discuss allegations against Alex Salmond, and subsequently she had entirley forgotten about it; forgetting about it especially when replying repeatedly to parliament, over 18 months, to questioning on when she had first heard of allegations.

As has been reported already, four days earlier – 29 March 2018 – I had spoken with
Geoff Aberdein (former Chief of Staff to Alex Salmond) in my office at the Scottish
Mr Aberdein was in Parliament to see a former colleague and while there came to see
I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think,
late January/early February 2019.
For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs
and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of
other matters.
However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted
to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that
the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.
Around this time, I had been made aware separately of a request from Mr Aberdein
for me to meet with Alex Salmond.

These two stories are utterly incompatible. Unless we are to believe that Nicola’s office set up a meeting for her without her permission, without telling her the subject, and without subsequently telling her they had set it up. We would also have to believe that Nicola’s private office knew of the allegations for weeks without telling their boss. I can tell you for certain, that is not how the Civil Service works.

The matter is capable of proof. Geoff Aberdein testified he held a conference call with Kevin Pringle and an eminent QC, Duncan Hamilton, ahead of the Sturgeon meeting. Presumably he would have informed Mr Hamilton of the genesis of the meeting to explain why he needed advice. Let the Fabiani inquiry call both Aberdein and Hamilton to give testimony.

It is important to note that if Aberdein is telling the truth – and I was in court when he gave his testimony, which sounded entirely credible – then Nicola Sturgeon’s private office was phoning him about allegations about Salmond weeks before Nicola Sturgeon subsequently claimed to parliament that she first heard anything of all this. Of course, they could have known many months or years before that, but the Aberdein testimony gives us mid-March 2018.

You may, if you wish, choose to believe that Sturgeon’s private office was pursuing these allegations without her knowledge, which must be true if she did not lie to parliament. In which case I have an excellent garden bridge in London to sell you.

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 by bank transfer or standing order:

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

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9

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.

210 thoughts on “Either Nicola Sturgeon or Geoff Aberdein is Lying on Oath – and Proving Which Will Be Easy

1 2
  • craig Post author

    As far as I can see, that is nonsense purely intended to obfuscate. If you can’t immediately explain it, I am deleting.

  • Republicofscotland

    How to prove that Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code and that she must go for doing so, both she and her husband Peter Murrell are exploring every avenue except the one that leads to the truth. On SNP business the party’s even hired very expensive lawyers to block the truth from coming out about Murrells texts.

    What of you Craig have you requested the documents that Sturgeon and Murrell want burned? You’d better be quick in doing so if you haven’t already. Pity the courts have put a block on vital information held by Salmond.

    • craig Post author

      Your question has been answered in exhaustive detail in earlier posts. I even published the actual request.


      • Republicofscotland

        Thank you Craig.

        What of this.

        Surely the Lord Advocate must go as well, for he’s allowing the COPFS to with hold very important material from the Alex Salmond Inquiry.

        I’m under the impression that the Lord Advocate can allow the material to be seen, and that for some unknown reason he is refusing to do so. His cooperation would help clear this matter up very quickly would it not?


          • Anonymous

            Craig, it might be best if you delete that comment. Knowing him he might sue you for libel / slander for calling him a crook.

          • Jennifer Allan

            The Crown Office has already admitted their prosecution of the two Rangers’ auditors was ‘malicious’. The then Lord Advocate (not the wolfman) attempted to make his position immune from prosecution, thankfully refused. This man is now disgracefully a judge.
            “Rangers administrators awarded pay-out over ‘malicious’ prosecution”
            27th August 2020
            I think the evidence which is slowly emerging from the Salmond Parliamentary Inquiry, could certainly be used to argue the prosecutions of both Craig and Mark Hirst are also ‘malicious’ on the part of the Crown Office, particularly since Sturgeon friendly press and media sources, which revealed far more information about the Salmond complainants, were left alone. Yes, it is the Crown Office which is ultimately refusing to release the vital evidence necessary for the Parliamentary Salmond Inquiry to proceed. How about a proper Judge led Inquiry into the workings of the supposed to be impartial Lord Advocate and the Crown Office, more than justified by even one admitted ‘malicious’ prosecution, bearing in mind those two Rangers administrators would be languishing in jail, had they not had the resources to fight the prosecutions, (more than £1million each in legal fees)?
            Craig we will ensure you are well funded. It is time for Scotland’s rotten so called justice systems to be overhauled.

          • Stonky

            Craig, it might be best if you delete that comment. Knowing him he might sue you for libel / slander for calling him a crook…

            One of the great things about legal cases is that they give you the right to access or publicise information to make your case. I would be very surprised if Craig doesn’t already know of information to support his allegation, and if the “Lord Advocate” isn’t perfectly well aware of this.

            I’m predicting a zero possibilty that the Lord Advocate will sue Craig for slander.

          • Hamish McGlumpha

            “One of the great things about legal cases is that they give you the right to access or publicise information to make your case. I would be very surprised if Craig doesn’t already know of information to support his allegation, and if the “Lord Advocate” isn’t perfectly well aware of this.

            I’m predicting a zero possibilty that the Lord Advocate will sue Craig for slander.”

            Correct Stonky – and if he were unwise enough to do so, then that very evidence would likely be used by Craig against him, and written/spoken into the record. These crooks will not want that to happen.

            COPFS is hopelessly and irredeemably corrupt – and is one of feeders of personnel into the stinkingly corrupt judiciary.

        • Father O'Blivion

          Those on the Committee who want to know appear to be doing a fairly decent job. There are two, small, virtual villages in play here, Holyrood and the Edinburgh legal establishment. Residents of small villages hear the rumours and at least like to think they know the truth.
          The focus on disclosure of the legal advice in the lead up to the challenge at the Court of Session is well targeted. Of course the advice was “go away and dinna be silly”! Who ever heard of an employer disciplining a FORMER employee? The whole proposition is ridiculous.
          The Committee has already heard that when the proposal to incorporate former employees into the investigative / disciplinary process was run by Whitehall, Whitehall told them where to go.
          Laird’s response to the Committee was (paraphrase) “Whitehall are very fuddy-duddy on these things, we in the Scottish Government are trail blazers in the age of #metoo.”.
          Illegal is just plain illegal. All of these people (Laird, Lloyd, Wolffe, Sturgeon) are smart enough to have known from the get go that their actions were illegal.
          Victims of their monumental hubris.
          Genius has its limitations, stupidity is not thus encumbered.

          • Cubby

            Father O’Blivion

            It was disclosed in the committee hearings that as far as the civil servants are aware NO other country in the world has such a harassment policy that includes FORMER ministers. No other country – but Scotland needs it for what – to get Salmond obviously.

            If it is a former minister then a complainer has recourse to the law and that’s what should have happened with all these alphabet women. I have noticed Sturgeon and other apologists trying to mix up the right to redress via the law and this new procedure as a smokescreen.

  • tartanfever

    Indeed, call up Mr Hamilton and Mr Pringle to give evidence to the inquiry, surely phone records of calls made/received would be available if necessary to provide a timeline ?

    From Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence, I get the impression that Mr Aberdein just ‘popped his head round the door in passing’ to relay a message, which is alarming in itself due to the serious nature of the allegations. Would a more careful person not have realised the potential dangers and pitfalls and have all meetings timetabled and logged officially ?

    I find her reply totally unsatisfactory.

  • Brotherhood

    NS claims that it was such a busy day, right after FMQs etc, that may be why she ‘forgot’ about it, and fosters the impression that GA ‘dropped in’ to say hello.
    Aye, cause that happens all the time at the highest levels of government, doesn’t it?
    ‘Hiya! I was in the area and thought I’d just pop in for a wee catch-up!’

    • Cubby

      Ian, at FMQs today Sturgeon called it ” a fleeting opportunistic meeting……….” laughable that anyone believes this. She is lying non stop now just like her hubby.

      All of the criminal cabal need clearing out the of SNP and the SNP members need to step up to the plate and do this for the cause of Scottish independence. With a new FM an investigation into the actions of the police and COPFS then needs to be carried out.

      • Tom Welsh

        I am desperately trying to see how Scottish independence is going to improve the lives of Scots people. It is looking very much as if Scots politicians, civil servants, and members of the legal profession are… let’s say very liberally economical with the truth.

        As well as apparently being malicious, vindictive, cliqueish and very happy to engage in conspiracies to pervert justice.

        There are some extremely vile and dishonest people in Washington, London, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, etc.

        But I am not seeing any convincing evidence that their Scots opposite numbers are any better.

        • Kitbee

          Well for a start the ‘Scottish Civil Service’ actually work for Westminster.
          Does Scotland have to be whiter than white to gain independence? Why?

        • Cubby

          Tom Welsh

          I don’t see the Scottish parliament passing laws that allow agents of the state to break the law but not break the law. That includes murder.

          • Alf Baird

            Scotland’s meritocratic cultural hegemony has not exactly been in rhythm with the culture of the mass of Scottish people for at least three hundred years. Politicians aside, Scotland’s institutions remain controlled and run by a privileged Anglophone unionist elite (see e.g. Elitist Scotland? Report 2015). Devolution has meant this meritocratic elite has remained in situ, leading to ongoing inequalities and a ‘cultural division of labour’ typical of internal colonisation (Hechter 1998). It depends on which form of ‘independence’ is delivered whether the present elite remains in situ. The question might be, post independence, do Scots independence supporters wish to remain under the control of a privileged Anglophone unionist elite, or not. I would have thought not. The prevailing cultural hegemony is oppressive for most Scots, and this is ultimately one of the main reasons for independence of any colonised people; i.e. to remove oppression. But to remove oppression one must remove the oppressor. The cultural hegemony controlling Scotland, as agents of imperialism, are the oppressor.

          • Bayard

            ” The question might be, post independence, do Scots independence supporters wish to remain under the control of a privileged Anglophone unionist elite, or not. “

            Replace “Scotland” with “Ireland” and this was the cause of the Irish Civil War, was it not?

  • Kaiama

    Krankie is busy destroying the scottish economy so she can claim independence is unviable.

    • Crunchie

      Kaiama, this is an opinion based on what verifiable proof? I don’t see how this is relevant to the issue being discussed.

      I should point out in case you are unaware, that your type of seemingly irrelevant comment is of a type often employed by “BritNat Trolls” and some others with a UK unionist view to either divert folks attention from the truth or to stir up a (usually) pointless argument that descends into petty, childish namecalling for example “Krankie” when referring to Nicola Sturgeon.

      • Tom74

        Good points. But just think – if the aim of the lockdowns were not public health at all but to enrich huge tech corporations, expand Big Brother, asset-strip the middle classes and shut travel to all but the very wealthy, they would have been very successful.

  • Andrew

    Do you think it wise for the SNP to dump Sturgeon at this stage given polling results and next years election. How would you proceed

    • Vronsky

      The longer the Murrells remain in place the greater the damage. If they really cared for the party and the wider independence movement they’d have gone already, probably as soon as Salmond was acquitted – events were only going to unfold one way after that. Far too many people knew who was behind the plot.

      • Clydebuilt

        Today at FMQ’s Ruth Davidson got stuck into The FM, regarding her “memory failure”

        The Tories are NOT trying to cover this up.
        They are NOT trying to protect NS,
        They are NOT trying to keep her in place because she doesn’t want independence.

        The Tories are exposing Sturgeon’s actions.

        The Tories want rid of Sturgeon to damage the SNP for May’s Holyrood election!

        • Penguin

          Given that they and their yoon media have spent 2 years of not attacking the whore of dreghorn over this open goal, one may come to the conclusion that they know she is on the verge of being hoofed out of office and into prison and want to claim some of the credit.

        • Clark

          From Ruth Davidson’s perspective, Nicola Sturgeon wants independence. Davidson’s doing what politicians always do; exploiting any available weakness in her opponent.

          Nicola Sturgeon wants independence, but apparently not as much as she likes various other things eg. power.

          And if the Tories did protect Sturgeon it would smell as fishy as hell, which would cast yet more suspicion on Sturgeon, so the Tories would be no better off, so they might as well score a few points while they have the chance.

          • Contrary

            Clark, I reckon that the (at least heads of) opposition parties, and all the MSM, know exactly what’s going on – the delay in exposing it is just that – a delay – to be revealed at a time of maximum impact: so the SNP lose the Holyrood election, so the morale of independence supporters is wrecked. Nicola Sturgeon has really caused untold damage by risking this and persisting in not stepping aside. I doubt she actually cares either way about independence – it is seeming most likely she is an ambitious sociopath who has used many people badly.

            If something is revealed into the public domain, yes people like Ruth Davidson will need to put on a show – but my guess is they’d have sat on it until March or April next year.

            If you’ve watched any of the committee sessions; I have to give Jackie Baillie her due, she’s really gunning for Leslie Evans and is in full-on interrogation mode – she doesn’t seem to be on a fishing expedition (fishing for SNP-bad gossip) like some others.

          • Cubby


            Spot on post. Of course the Britnats know. 1. All the Britnat journalists were at the crimnal trial every day. 2. Westminster/GHQ intelligence officers will have all the info. Both of the above will pass the info to the Britnat politicians to use as they see fit.

          • Contrary

            Yup, Cubby, exactly.

            Too many folk still naively – why, I have no idea – thinking the British establishment will play straight.

        • Cubby


          “Well said DrJim” do you think people do not read WGD. Care to share what you think DrJim said well on here. Somehow I doubt it. Get your head out the sand Clydebuilt.

    • Bob Mack

      Would you have raised a glass to Independence knowing it cost Alex Salmond his freedom for possibly life? I don’t think I could.

  • Aidworker1

    Strange how there was so much Scottish news yesterday.

    Closing bars, cancelling exams – you’d think it was a bad news day!

  • Peter Moritz

    And then there is this:


    “Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish National Party (SNP) Peter Murrell has admitted sending text messages, ordering the police to be pressured into investigating former first minister Alex Salmond. They were sent in January 2019 after several women accused Salmond of sexual misconduct.

    For those south of the border, something which is kept low-profile is that Sturgeon and Murrell are husband and wife. The two top positions in the SNP are shared in their marriage. This is at best highly unusual and at worst, unhealthy.”

  • Kate

    Surely this can all be proved one way or the other through the telephone records, Aberdein can ask OR have his lawyer ask for a record of his Calls both received & out for that date he says he was called by FM office. Also the record of him calling Pringle & Hamilton. I believe Aberdein, but too many believe St Nicola would never lie.. I just wish he would do this then give the Print out to yourself to post here on your blog, also to Wings, & every other blog, because Scottish media doesn’t seem keen to criticise the FM in all this, They just want ALEX.

  • Lorna Campbell

    It is all starting to unravel. Always tried to keep an open mind, while suspecting a witch-hunt, tried to give Nicola Sturgeon the benefit of the doubt. I knew for certain, in 2016, that something was very wrong in the party, but the whole attitude after 2014, smacked of collaboration that was unsustainable given that independence was supposed to be the core policy of the SNP, and it has been downhill from there. The GRA reform and the ‘hate crime’ bill were so out there that it was obvious that independence was being sacrificed deliberately for a social experiment that was going to bring misery in its wake to half the population. That all the divisions, including the Salmond affair, and created from within the party, were being exploited by outside influences, seemed only too obvious. What a mess. I hope that the FM stands down soon and with some dignity, but, whatever happens, there will be a bloodbath thereafter, when she does – if she does.

  • Crispa

    I read NS’s evidence yesterday, and, for what it’s worth as someone with no personal or vested interest in any of this, thought.
    1. It was strange for NS to “forget” the encounter with Aberdein when it should have set the alarm bells ringing, and at face value it was more like a “putting the encounter to the back of one’s mind in the hope that it will go away” response, which would have been quickly revived with the meetings set up with AS.
    2. The disclosures of the texting about dates, times and times of arrival and other details about the arrangements serves as wool pulling making the meetings appear mundane instead of the significant events that they actually were.
    3. As events turned out with the Judicial Review, AS’s view that it was a Scottish Government responsibility through NS to be actively interventionist as opposed to sitting on the fence was the correct one.
    4. Leslie Evans’s letter to AS / representatives was an extraordinary piece of writing, foolishly rejecting out of hand the arbitration proposal, instead badgering him to respond to the “substance” of the complaints when he had made it clear that there was no substance to which to respond. That read like Evans making up “due process” on the hoof to suit one side.
    5. The reference to the “Me Too” movement acting as a catalyst for the whole affair provides a good example of how both historical and modern witch-finding begins.

    • Tom Welsh

      If a party explicitly founded and run to obtain Scottish independence is assumed to be doing the exact opposite, how is Scottish independence to be won?

      • Royd

        ‘If a party explicitly founded and run to obtain Scottish independence is assumed to be doing the exact opposite, how is Scottish independence to be won?’

        By those same party turkeys voting for Christmas.

  • Ian

    Whatever the truth of all these matters, it seems to me that allowing a husband and wife team to control a political party in all of its aspects is a terrible, terrible idea, and is a recipe for all kinds of conflict, deception and rumour. It is a disaster in the making, as we can see. It is essential that any party has clear and transparent structures of governance, policy and accountability, with checks and balances built in, and independent oversight if necessary. Too late now.

    • lysias

      Ancient Athenian democracy’s system of choosing representatives and officials by lot from the whole ciizen body was the best system yet devised for mitigating the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

  • Calum+Macmillan

    There is clearly a massive schism within the SNP. The only thing the two sides have in common is a clear and obvious contempt for us the Gaelic people, our language and and our culture. I am sorry to say that this includes Craig.

    History teaches us one thing in the Gaelic world. Scots (especially central belters) only wish to dominate and control us, extracting our wealth, and forcing upon us poverty.

    As Gaels we have to learn that the Scots are not our friends. Better an alliance with the English than the Glasburgians, who take our young to their cities, and force their corrupt laws upon our people.

    • Penguin

      Did you think that you’d be writing lies online under false names when you joined the army?

    • john mckay

      I lived and worked in three overseas Brit extensions. South Africa, Australia, Canada and when asked where I came from I always quite spontaneously said Glasgow. Other areas of Scotland being foreign to me. Glasgow was always immediately recognised for different reasons.
      However I do remember gaelic speaking big Glesga polis chasing wee boays from kicking a ball about our streets and at times physically abusing them for doing so. For thus were we taught to respect and fear the polis.
      Other Gaels found jobs and housing and education in Glasgow and were our good neighbours. Your post is snide bigotry.

    • craig Post author

      If this is the 77th Brigade or Integrity Initiative’s latest initiative, it is pretty pathetic. Nobody in the whole of Scotland believes in a division between Gael and Scots. Not least because most of the people in the central belt are descended from highlanders. Murray. The clue is in the name.

      • Ian

        It is a laughable assertion, and the briefest of visits to the north and west would disprove it comprehensively. I have never heard a ‘Gael’ self-describe in that way, or make that bizarre distinction. Definitely an artificial attempt at division, based on ignorance.

      • Calum+Macmillan

        It was just a joke. I’m sorry that wasn’t more obvious.

        Please delete my silly comment and I will donate by way of penance.

        Keep up the superhuman work on various fronts.

          • Alf Baird

            The Gaels at least have a Gaelic Language Act (2005) and £50m+ annually, Gaelic TV station, Language Degree and Higher courses, and a national regulatory body to promote the language.
            Meanwhile the state continues to deprive Scots bairns of learning their Scots mither tung, despite this discrimination being highlighted again by the Council of Europe:

            So there is still no Scots Language Act and no prospect of one either. We all know why this is don’t we, given that language (and culture) forms the basis of (national) identity. Unfortunately, British educationalists (and policymakers) still appear to take the view that Scots is ‘not a valid language’.

            Scots hiv a richt tae thay’re langage!

    • Hamish McGlumpha

      OK soldier – answer the following in Gaidhlig:

      Cò am fuck a tha thu a ’smaoineachadh a tha thu a’ magadh?

      A bheil thu a ’smaoineachadh nach eil an Gàidhlig againn air talamh ìosal?

      Is e mo bheachd gur e neach-ionaid Sasannach a th ’annad – is dòcha air a phàigheadh leis an riaghaltas, fìor no meallta?

      Rach agus stob do pheann suas asal an t-sargeant agad

  • Cubby

    I am assuming that the “former colleague” Sturgeon refers to that she claims Aberdein was there to meet will be, if she is pressed on this, be her Chief of Staff Liz Lloyd. She will then say Aberdein misunderstood the situation/ phone call.

    You are a busy FM having a very busy day but Aberdein can just pop in to have a meeting with her that is not recorded anywhere in the Scotgov system. Lies upon lies.

    Will this be called Sturgeongate by the wonderfully imaginative Britnat media.

  • nevermind

    Looks like there is more than one spider weaving nets here. NS seemingly has finally reached the Rubicon, which, once a little trickle, has grown into an insurmountable white water, threatening to take down all that work with her, as well as those learned people who call themselves impartial and balanced.
    Somebody else asked me the other day, we were talking about generating electricity from streams, if Scotland’s mills generate their own electricity supply. Can anyone help? the couple wants to move into the highlands.

      • Grace

        They certainly used to, and there is now a new one of the above-mentioned type, on the River Don. It would be quite possible, but I think you might need permission, as you would be removing power from other owners downstream.
        Grace. (living off-grid in Aberdeen!)

        • Bayard

          Er no, you are not removing power from others downstream. The energy you are extracting would otherwise have been dissipated as heat.

    • Deepgreenpuddock

      Nevermind: Not sure about using a stream to drive a small turbine. The resultant generation would not remotely cover the cost of the turbine. You also have to find a stream with a good gradient and a decent flow rate/volume” Usually involves earthworks and engineering to create a reservoir so the energy can be stored and released at an appropriate time.
      Creating dams in streams is not usually approved because there are usually different owners along the stream so arguments arise about who has the prior claim-essentially you are extracting energy from the system, which inevitably has an effect elsewhere. Also farmers get a bit irked about water being diverted where the stock have had that benefit for aeons.

      • al bolger

        The Menai straights would be a good location for a water turbine electricity generator ,strapped to the bottom of a ship,then turn the ship around when the tide goes the other way, Very powerful tidal surges here.
        apologies for not being in Scotland.

      • glenn_uk

        In places where there is high mains water pressure, it beats me why we don’t use some of that surplus pressure to drive a small turbine just after the meter. Or even in the street, for larger turbines, on a municipal basis – people would surely be happy with a slight reduction in water pressure for a few pennies off each kWh.

        • IMcK

          My initial reaction is your suggestion would be a ‘negative energy sum game’ but attempting to think it out is interesting. Needless to say it would involve the additional complexity of equipment including connection into the electricity network. Regards energy this would of course ultimately be drawn from the water network – most usually additional loading on the pumping systems (obviously with greater power draw than later recovered) unless that part of the network was purely head driven. Additionally it would further drop the network pressure – (without trying to tax my brain too much) I think both upstream and downstream of the energy draw potentially compromising the supply to downstream consumers.

          • glenn_uk

            IMcK: Your point about taxing pumping stations is absolutely correct, such generators could only be placed where the water is being gravity driven, not pumped. Many places in the country would be unsuitable, but for all those living on the coast – for example – they would usually expect their water to be held in reservoirs on a much higher elevation. The entire coastline is pretty large, a lot of population likes to live near the coast. It’s not going to make a massive difference, but would probably still help.

          • IMcK

            I have had a rethink – if a power draw is taken from the water line during consumer drawing of water, whether in the network line or branch line to a consumer (and assuming for this purpose that the flow is unchanged – which is a conservative assumption since if anything the flow would fall) then there is not any change to the power drawn from the pumping system. Similarly there is not any change to the upstream pressure it being only the downstream pressure in the line where the power draw is taken that falls. Thus a power draw in a branch line (under the conditions above) would not affect the upstream or downstream pressure in the main line. The upshot is the available power would be very limited and hardly worth the additional equipment as well as compromising the supply or supplies subject to the pressure loss.
            Interesting academic exercise – and I’ve probably left some stones unturned.

        • Bayard

          The problem is that there are two types of pressure, static pressure and flow pressure. “Places where there is high mains water pressure” are places of high static pressure. This is a function of location: the lower you are below the water main, the higher the static pressure. However, when you turn the tap on what you are interested in is the flow pressure, this is a function of the size and length of the pipe, and it determines the flow rate. If you put a turbine in the line, you still get the same static pressure, but your flow rate of water goes down, meaning your shower will be that much less powerful. To get any meaningful amount of energy out of the water would mean reducing the flow pressure and hence the flow rate to very little indeed.

          • glenn_uk

            Fair points. Would you think that since the size of the pipe is a significant factor in how much flow is reduced, we would be better off considering generators in the communal mains water supply rather than at individual properties?

            There are also occasions where high flow is not that relevant – to just about everything except the shower, really. One could branch off soon after the meter, with an unimpeded line straight to the shower, or even the ability to decouple the generator on demand. The simplicity of the idea is rather spoiled when it has to be tinkered with like this, admittedly.

    • nevermind

      Thank you very much for all the good tips and systems. I shall pass them on, I think they have the choice of a few locations.

      Leaves to see if the Int.Ini. has theirs up and running. You never know with blackouts in winter, and with jobs like theirs being in the eye of many, including the watchers of anonymous, heavy snow is just another calamity.

  • dcomerf

    The confusing thing about all this is why does it matter? Let’s assume NS is lying, what does this lie gain her? The issue is whether there was a conspiracy in the civil service and the SNP to get Salmond. It’s hard to see why denying this meeting and now spinning a we forgot story was in the interests of such a conspiracy. What’s the motivation?

    • dcomerf

      To be clear, I understand the motivation for the we forgot story, to cover up the initial lie. But why deny the Aberdein meeting initially?

    • Father O'Blivion

      A small lie (pre-dating her knowledge of allegations by a few days) can be used to obscure a far greater lie (active involvement in initiating the whole conspiracy (and inclusion in the distribution list of the WhatsApp group?)).

      • Cubby

        Father O’Blivion

        Sturgeon does not need to personally be in any Whattsapp group if she has her husband and other close associates doing her bidding.

    • Cubby


      Sturgeon went out her way to ensure that as FM the new process stated that not only was she not involved in making any decisions on the matter but she would not even be informed of any allegations/complaints. The process stated that the Perm sec L. Evans would deal with them and Sturgeon would have no involvement. Kinda handy if you think Salmond complaints would be coming along pretty sharpish after its implementation.

      However, if Sturgeon initiated this meeting with Aberdein (as Aberdein stated in court) the question would be how did you know about the complaints and when and from whom?

      The FM of Scotland should not do “fleeting and opportunistic meetings ” as she claimed earlier today in her role as FM. They should all be documented as per Scotgov rules but of course this meeting was not.

      • Joseph Mellon

        …and of course Leslie Evans got her contract renewed in February.
        One would have thought she would have resigned/been fired directly after the Court of Session case or at the latest after the criminal case.
        One would have thought if they wished to be discrete she could have taken her hat when her contract finished, and left ‘to spend more time with her family’.
        But no: NS gave her a new contract – unbelievable!

    • Contrary

      Ministerial code.

      If a minister is proven to have lied to parliament, they must resign.

      It doesn’t actually matter about all the other conspiracy stuff for this – it is already proved she lied with the current evidence (she would have to prove Aberdein lied in court under oath, to wriggle out of it, those two accounts are not compatible) – so she has to resign. The meeting was not in her diary, but took place in government buildings – if it was a private meeting in government premises, she has to resign – ministerial code – but if the meeting was just not recorded in her diary because of an oversight – what was the meeting about (circle back to Aberdein testifying in court, under oath, that is was on the subject she denied knowing about then).

      Yep – if you are a minister you can kill as many people as you like in illegal wars – but heaven forfend you get caught out booking the wrong kind of meeting. Go figure. That’s the ministerial code.

      • Los

        Shame the Ministerial Code doesn’t appear to hold sway South of the Border, otherwise we’ve all have a major problem solved fairly quickly.

        • Contrary

          Ah, but it does hold sway – it’s just that their version of lying is not the same as ours!

  • Geoff Reynolds

    …………The good and brave hearted people of Scotland have now become aware of the lies and deceit of,


    You have managed, with stealth and integrity, to unearth OUR GOVERNMENT OF OCCUPATION to be a complete cess pit from top to bottom.

    Your ingenuity and skill base to weasel out the ferret’s is a masterclass, may i say, Craig?

    FANTABBY DOZY is now FANTABBY DOCILE as every spade full of shit just digs a deeper hole.

    The Scottish Legal Profession is now akin to a laughing stock, like a blind man trying to stop a colander of water leaking using his fingers……………

    They are on the ropes, Craig and i salute you for all you have gone through to expose this more than toxic, nest of vipers who seem to have the ability of shooting themselves in the foot whilst painting themselves into a corner…………………………..

    Wolffe should be crapping himself as all the sordid details surface for all to see.

    He has no authority as a Judge as he is exposed as one of the players.

  • yesindyref2

    Craig, your worst article ever.

    Imagine you’re on oath. Can you remember the 24th April 2012? Do you remember allegations made against Salmond in connection with his ties with Rupert Murdoch? No? Why not? What’s that you say, it’s a long time ago?

    Or could it be because there were so many allegations made against Salmond by the Unionists as soon as Indy Ref 1 – the first one – was in the air, they all blurred into one another? Just google – Salmond Murdoch – and see how many article there were from the Unionist MSM, intent on destroying Indy by fair means or foul, and for how long that went on.

    Now try – Salmond EU legal advice – Salmond Trump – and see how many there were. There were many others.

    Have you got it yet? Anyone during Indy Ref 1 seeing another headline, or even hearing someone say “Salmond accused …” would turn to the next article, bored out of our brackets, there were so many, time for a cup of tea.

    It certainly makes sense to me that Sturgeon wouldn’t remember it until Salmond said it to her face.

    But then I’m only human.

    • Bob Mack

      Pretty desperate reply if I may say. Mr Aberdein no doubt has at least a clear view of being phoned prior to an arranged meeting with the First Minister as he swore in court

      His expectation was that he would turn up at Holyrood on 29th March to be seen.
      How many get to see the FM without an appointment?. Especially in FMQ day.

      I’m not certain but had Alex not been denied entry to Holyrood by that time. By whom?

      She seems to have forgotten it completely.

    • Cubby


      Yesyouareonlyhuman – best change to that.

      You stated on WGD just recently you couldn’t care less about this whole business and weren’t interested yet here you are. Was that a lie or did you just forgot. I was impressed and continue to be impressed at your ability to post with your head so deep in the sand. Yes you must be super human.

      Best go back to the martyr that is WGD who prevents people posting ( free speech -what a joke). Where you and your nasty gang like to be unchallenged.

    • yesindyref2

      I said: “It certainly makes sense to me that Sturgeon wouldn’t remember it until Salmond said it to her face”

      that should have been:

      “It certainly makes sense to me that Sturgeon wouldn’t have paid attention to it until Salmond said it to her face”

      (and therefore might not remember the meeting or yet another “Salmond accused”)

      Seem to be a lot of robots around that have keyword accessible hard disk databases so they “remember” everything. If this all proves anything at all, it proves Sturgeon is not a robot.

    • craig Post author

      You are ignoring completely that it was Sturgeon’s office who asked for the meeting with Aberdein. That’s Geoff Aberdein, Alex Salmond’s Chief of Staff, known to all senior SNP people. To discuss sexual allegations against Alex.

      • yesindyref2


        “What’s in my diary for today?”

        “You have a meeting with X at 10, FM, Y at 11, and Z at 12”.

        “Oh good, I lunch at 1. Busy afternoon! :-)”

        You’re now living in an echo chamber Craig, where everyone agrees with you, including yourself, who is set on a rigid reinforcement strategy – everything supports your hypothesis. And you didn’t answer my question:

        “Can you remember the 24th April 2012? Do you remember allegations made against Salmond in connection with his ties with Rupert Murdoch?”.

        • craig Post author

          Don’t be stupid. Her Chief of Staff phoned Geoff Aberdein, Alex Salmond’s Chief of Staff, and booked him in to meet Nicola TO DISCUSS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ALEX. So much so that he consulted Duncan Hamilton QC before the meeting to get the legal position.

          This was NOT a casual meeting Nicola did not know the subject of.

          There is loyal, and then there is being a groveling lickspittle who would load people into cattle trucks if your glorious leader told you to.

          • yesindyref2

            Oh dear, you have gone downhill with that piece of senseless nastiness.

            I’m not even a member of the SNP.

            And you STILL dodged answering the question.

            “Can you remember the 24th April 2012? Do you remember allegations made against Salmond in connection with his ties with Rupert Murdoch?”.

          • U Watt

            Maybe this will all go away for Nicola if she just starts responding with your question.

          • Stonky

            “Can you remember the 24th April 2012?”

            As it happens, I can’t. But then that was eight years ago. Sturgeon first disclosed to the relevant officials that she had met with Salmond in June 2019 – two months after the meeting took place, not eight years.

            And I think if I was the First Minister of Scotland making an official report to the Civil Service about a meeting that had taken place two months previously on a subject that could have devastating consequences for the party and the government (and a man who was supposedly a close friend), and on which I had had several subsequent meetings, I might bother my arse to get the date of the first meeting right. Instead of “forgetting” about it.

            I suggest you take your idiocies and toddle off to Wee Ginger Dug. They’ll hoist you aloft and chair you around the room yodeling your praises, while Dr Jim plays“See The Conquering Hero Comes” on a battered old trumpet

          • Stonky

            And just for added precision, she wasn’t “asked a question”. Nobody suddenly jumped up and caught her unawares with a completely unanticipated demand.

            She was making an official report in her official capacity as First Minister, on a matter that she was duty bound to report accurately. And since her PA Liz Lloyd had also been in the meeting two months earlier, you might think between the two of them one might have “remembered” the meeting.

            But don’t tell anybody on Wee Ginger Dug that. They are expending enormous amounts of cognitive dissonance shoring up their idol’s feet of clay, and it’s really hard work.

          • Cubby


            Many thanks for your posts. I was thinking I should post something similar about the actual dates re when Sturgeon first “misremembered” relative to when the meetings took place to show indyref2 that his question re 2012 was a stupid comparison. But you have done a far better job than I would have done.

          • Stonky

            Many thanks for your posts. I was thinking I should post something similar about the actual dates re when Sturgeon first “misremembered”… But you have done a far better job than I would have done…

            Cheers Cubby. I did a great job apart from the small matter of being a full year out with the date of when Sturgeon reported to the Civil Service. 🙁

            The correct dates are obviously:

            29 March 2018: Sturgeon meets with Geoff Aberdein and her Private Secretary in her FM Office.
            2 April 2018: Sturgeon meets with AS at Bute House.
            June 2018: Sturgeon reports to the relevant Civil Service Officials. By then both she and her private secretary have “forgotten” about the meeting on 29 March.

          • Cubby


            If we are going for preciseness 😀😀😀 then shouldn’t “private secretary” in your post be Chief Of Staff.

        • Cubby


          It would appear that you do give a “rats posterior” about this scandal. I doubt Dr Jim feels the same.

          Sturgeon lied again at FMQs. ” a fleeting opportunistic meeting” laughable.

          Her husband is lying about the messages.

          Her associates at the criminal trial lied.

          Sick of Britnat lies and I ain’t accepting it from people in the SNP.

          Petra of course when she posted (on WGD) Sturgeons submission to the Parliamentary committee did not post the actual communications between Sturgeon and Salmond that shows Salmond clearly saying he has legal advice ( he actually offers to let her see his advice ) that he will win his judicial review and almost begging his friend to cancel the whole business as it would be better for the SNP, the Scotgov and all of them. He also makes the case that Sturgeon can intervene as it is now beyond the formal process and is a legal matter – a court case her Scotgov will lose. Of course the Scotgov will not publish their expensive legal advice. It was sad to see Salmond realise that the person who he thought was his friend and ally and who he thought would have the best interests of the SNP and Scottish independence at heart did not share this. She deliberately wasted large amounts of government money just to smear Salmond. To this day Evans says she cannot quantify just how much it all cost. People are having to go to foodbanks and money is just being thrown away on political smearing.

          All the alphabet women could have gone to the police without wasting gov money on this despicable charade of a process. They then did waste a lot more public money with their criminal trial which did not cost any of them a penny. Salmond of course has to pay for his lawyers fees, continues to get attacked by Scotgov funded Rape Crisis Scotland and has the liars taking part in BBC programs to attack him along with Garavellis article. These people have no shame.

          Sturgeon betrayed women who have genuine sexual assault allegations, Salmond, the SNP and Scottish independence. All the plotters have to go.

          If you don’t like the above comments yesindyref2 I suggest you back on to WGD and moan some more.

          PS WGD does know what has been going on. Chooses to now call it conspiricacy theories.

          • Contrary

            Cubby, I came to the same disturbing conclusion after reading the text messages between Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond – he was conned by her as much as we were and worse – a supposed friend of 30 years. His attempts to resolve amicably, shows he really was trying to do the right thing for everyone including for her. It made me conclude that she’s actually a cold, mean-spirited, sociopath.

            Interesting gossip re WGD. I occasionally flick up his latest piece, read the first sentence to see if it mentions ‘westminster’ or ‘boris’ – they all do – and don’t bother going further. Their lives must be fully embroiled in Westminster establishment concerns, and how terrible they are. I wonder at his strange turn to ignoring Scottish affairs in favour of the great and good/bad. He did do a good interview with Richard Murphy a wee while back though. Can’t even read his articles though, let alone venture to the comments section. Denialism won’t be getting us independence though.

          • Cubby


            I do not know Salmond personally and I do not do heroes – especially politicians but I recognise when someone is being done an injustice. Salmond and his family did not deserve any of this. 3 years of persecution – a disgrace.

            Some independence supporters say put your need for revenge aside. To me it is not revenge it is clear that Sturgeon will never deliver independence. The whole lot of them are compromised. Way too easy to blackmail/intimidate. If they ever got independence ( not that I believe they will) who would want them negotiating terms.

            Re WGD – I know for a fact he knows who the alphabet women are and did say Sturgeon should go – leave quietly. Why does he say it is a conspiracy theory (in a disparaging way ) now – I don’t know – I could speculate but can’t be bothered – lost respect for him.

            The main point is that we all know Westminster is bad for Scotland now and has always been but what we need to know is why are we not yet independent.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            I think you have captured what is happening pretty well.
            My main fear is that this SO disreputable that it will be very damaging.

        • Tony Little


          Please excuse my butting in, but I do not see the relevance to someone not directly involved with the scenario you propose if they recalled it or not. Why should I recall that specific day as I am not one of the parties involved. The comments by Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein are from the two people DIRECTLY involved. They can’t both be right.

          I’ll sign off by stating I can recall my first job interview with a Local HRM of Barclays Bank back in 1976, he closed the interview by suggesting I get my hair cut!

          • yesindyref2

            Hi Tony
            It was an illustrative question but in two replies Craig avoided answering the question, and in the second reply got uncharacteristically rude and abusive to try to distract with bluster. He used to be polite and urbane.

            That drew my attention to my own question. Taking it with the article itself, it’s actually a trick question and Craig being super-intelligent of course, realised that, and that he had to evade answering it or contradict his own article in one way or another, with arbitrary provisions such as yours – such as he wasn’t one of the people directly involved, in the same way as it it was her office not her – or similar justifications such as “that was a long time ago”. So it’s not the question that matters – it’s that the person evades answering the question – three times now – drawing attention to inconsistency and arbitrariness.

  • Goose

    Must feel weird being on the same side as Ruth Davidson?

    That isn’t meant as a snide criticism, it’s entirely of Sturgeon’s own making if these allegations around who knew what when, are accurate. Shitty, messy situation nevertheless, when the SNP are in such a strong position to finally deliver independence and need to focus on winning.

    • craig Post author

      If Ruth Davidson said the earth goes around the sun, I would be “on the same side as her” on that issue.

      I am on the side of truth. In general Ruth Davidson is not, but on this occasion sees an interest in getting at the truth. I am not going to become a flat-earther to avoid the accusation there is something on which I agree with Ruth Davidson.

      • Goose

        Yeah I know, just unfortunate you’re both pulling on the same thread so to speak, trying to unravel these events and possibly Sturgeon’s leadership.

        I know you ‘d be mortified if the Tories and unionists were the main people to really profit from this mess. It’s a shame it can’t be sorted post-inde.

        • Contrary

          Goose, Nicola Sturgeon is not only denying us an independence referendum, she has caused great harm to Scotland and the independence movement through her actions – she left herself open to being attacked by botching a maliciously intended conspiracy – she is active via the Scottish Government in delaying legal action, by lying constantly now, and misleading many (on lots of different fronts).

          To think revealing her actions to the public, the voting public, is somehow on par with the lying mendacious Tories ridiculous accusations, is just denying our right to independence. Nicola Sturgeon does NOT = SNP and does NOT = Scotland or independence. They – the unionists, the British establishment lackies – will try to claim this, just as you are doing. They will try and claim, with her going down, that ‘there is no case for independence’ – which is rubbish, she isn’t pivotal, she isn’t even concerned about the cause (read some of her submissions, find out what she says and does, think about how it doesn’t tie up with the real world).

          It is YOU that is ‘pulling on the same thread’ as the unionists, not Craig. It is YOU that are doing their job for them. By equating Nicola Sturgeon to the SNP and to independence and keeping going the facade of perfection despite all evidence to the contrary – you are providing the unionists with exactly the ammunition they need.

          • Goose

            Well, that’s not my intention even if you perceive it that way.

            My point, and concern is purely strategic. It’s about how crucial the next six months may prove to be and how the combination of Johnson – Covid – Brexit may create the perfect storm to deliver independence, because if support rises to say 65%+ , even the ultra-cautious Sturgeon will have to yield to demands. A leadership change is far from certain to be smooth sailing. Look at John Swinney’s wretched spell as leader. Joanna Cherry may understandably be a rank and file SNP membership favourite, but that popularity isn’t certain to carry over to the wider Scottish public. And Cherry’s more confrontational style would see the whole UK media establishment on her back.

          • Contrary

            Goose, you are talking about a strategy that evidence shows will not work.

            You are setting up us to fail.

            The idea of cashing in on Nicola Sturgeon’s popularity is last year’s – hah, it never could have been we find out – possibility. Now her popularity is a liability.

            That popularity will be used to cause the biggest impact – why has it been advertised (MSM) how popular she is – the MSM is no friend of independence or the SNP – that she herself prefers the MSM to true independence supporters is teeth-grindingly ,,, poor behaviour – that very popularity will be how the British establishment will ‘prove’ our folly in thinking we could have considered independence.

            They will reveal all the sordid details in all their glory to great fanfare to the shock horror of swathes of the voting public.

            That Nicola Sturgeon, as leader of the SNP (any of whom may be targeted, they are considered valid targets by the State), thought she could ever get away with this is in the realms of the MOST IDIOTIC and fantastical thinking ever.

            Some of us have already gone through the despair, the feelings of betrayal (though maybe not the extent), and acceptance – that we need to move on, that this needs sorted before we can move on – and that we need to move on in a timely manner, so that the British establishment isn’t controlling the timing and the narrative.

            It needs to all come out NOW. You need to accept it NOW. You need to move on NOW. For us to have any hope of getting independence before we are totally destroyed through Brexit etc. We do not, if you actually want independence, have the luxury of waiting; or dragging this out to the nth degree while you come to terms with it.

            Evidence shows she has no intention of delivering independence, and shows she made herself a liability. And shows she isn’t a very nice person – but that isn’t relevant.

            By promoting her and encouraging her popularity you make a bad situation much worse. The basic facts are: you EITHER support independence OR you support Nicola Sturgeon; it CAN’T be both. She caused this situation, and is entirely to blame – there is no doubt in my mind any more. And that’s well before the full horror is revealed.

          • Cubby

            Contrary 9 October 07.30

            Another spot on post that all Independence supporters should read twice or as often as required for it to sink in.

          • Goose


            “Evidence shows she has no intention of delivering independence”.

            I don’t think the evidence is there for such a sweeping statement.

            I’m not defending her. If she and her husband retired the day after independence was certain it wouldn’t matter a jot to me. And as for her behaviour potentially being a liability – an accident waiting to happen – that may be true, but she probably has sufficient public authority and ‘goodwill’ in the tank to ride out new revelations in any campaign – this is me looking at things objectively.

            The SNP have gotten Scotland closer to independence than seemed possible even 20 years ago, in large part thanks to Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon being two of the most capable politicians of their generation. Don’t assume anyone leading the SNP could’ve done the same, they couldn’t. There’s a tendency here to see things only from the informed ‘bubble’ perspective rather than how low information voters see things – a place where Sturgeon still has much personal credibility (50% + approval rating). Winning Independence needs those who are disinterested in politics and the SNP’s Machiavellian internal power games and machinations, as important as they are to you, Craig(or me) don’t register with those who you’ll need to vote for independence.

          • Contrary

            Cubby, I’ve actually copied the that last comment and posted it on Iain Lawson’s site too – not sure if it will lose context – and asked John (talking up Scotland ) to read it, as a way to try and convince him that a path of putting NS on a pedestal is going to cause harm (he won’t listen, but I have to try, and there is more chance of him changing tack than WGD!). Long shot.

            I have decided to take a hard line on this – those like Goose still promoting wheesht for Indy are the ones doing the unionist job for them – not us – and it’s time we (particularly as a minority we should remember) stood up for ourselves instead of getting embroiled about squirrel-arguments and trying to be considerate (sometimes). I will not tolerate personal abuse aimed at either NS or the accusers mind you. It’s NS causing the divisions, not the people that are giving us real information instead of obfuscation, now that some of it is not just hearsay and suspicion, we can properly support those that truly have independence at heart and move on to making it happen. (Hopefully…. We really need to get that hope back).

          • Goose

            I just don’t think her relative silence on the inde issue can be interpreted as turning her back on independence.

            She and the SNP are in a bind, insomuch as, if she were start promoting independence heavily her unionist opponents, both press and political would claim she’s more interested in promoting independence than dealing with the current crisis that is the pandemic. The vicious press and Ruth Davidson can’t currently claim any such thing at the moment, and thus they’ll getting little poll traction against the SNP. The idea of forcing the pace now on inde, during a huge crisis would destroy hopes of independence for good imho. Just bad politics.

            And you’re going to like this next bit even less… If the pandemic isn’t resolved by Q2 next year there could be another delay. Look how absurd Johnson’s govt looks pushing Brexit through at the moment given world events. And he’s got virtually the entire MSM behind him, unlike the SNP.

    • Ingwe

      Your enemy’s enemy is not necessarily your friend. Davidson has a different agenda to seeing Sturgeon nailed for her lies to those of us wanting Scottish independence.

  • David G

    “The matter is capable of proof. Geoff Aberdein testified he held a conference call with Kevin Pringle and an eminent QC, Duncan Hamilton, ahead of the Sturgeon meeting. Presumably he would have informed Mr Hamilton of the genesis of the meeting to explain why he needed advice. Let the Fabiani inquiry call both Aberdein and Hamilton to give testimony.”

    Should the inquiry summon those lawyers, and if Aberdein agrees to a waiver of the privilege on these communications with counsel, it could be tricky maintaining the privilege on other communications he still wants to remain confidential.

    Maybe it can be finessed, but he should be careful.

  • Ingwe

    Mr Murray, I may have missed it, but did you ever get a reply from Ian McCann to your email to him of of 28 July 2020?

  • Ilya G Poimandres

    ‘I don’t remember’ during testimony – which almost always is on career defining moments – implies deceit. There should be some legal management of this response.

    • Tam

      ‘I forgot’ is up there with ‘I have no recollection’ a favourite of coppers giving ‘evidence’ in court.

  • zoot

    it is often the casual lies that catch and destroy these people. questions that initially trickle away eventually cascade like a mighty stream.

  • 6033624

    Maybe I’m the only one asking but why is the date Sturgeon knew about these things so important? I can understand that for a politician to have been seen to be lying to parliament is important but why would the date be worth lying about in the first place?

    • craig Post author

      Because she knew of the allegation much earlier, when she and Evans concocted, against Whitehall advice, the policy for extending the complaints system to encompass ex-ministers.

      In denying she was aware when the policy was first adopted, she seized on a much later date, a meeting with Alex Salmond, as a plausible story for when she first knew. That is now unravelling.

      She subsequently went on to organise, through her husband and through her Chief of Staff, for the party functionaries and others closest and loyalest to her to make extra complaints as it became clear the original two did not stand up.

      • David Rodgers

        This is the most credible interpretation of the events.

        What is NS doing working in cahoots with her English civil servant doing deals with Whitehall? Doesn’t seem to be the approach of a freedom fighter! Don’t think this is how for example De Valera & co. got Irish self rule.

      • Lorna Campbell

        Craig: did something happen (vis-a-vis Mr Salmond) that prompted this whole thing? Did he make some move to return to frontline politics or was there a festering grievance that had apparently been dealt with, but which was resurrected?

        I can’t help feeling that the (flawed) procedure was meant to damage him so that no comeback could be entertained, but that it got out of hand when criminal allegations followed. Why the retrospective nature of the procedure, against all advice, if it was not meant to snare Mr Salmond or to leave the SNP so squeaky clean, the Unionist mud would slide off? The Holy Willie stance of the SNP has been a source of worry for some time because it appears to give no quarter to human clay feet that we all have.

        Had Mr Salmond not challenged the civil case, would it all have been kept in-house and the criminal trial not seen the light of day? I cannot get away from the feeling, too, that had Mr Salmond been convicted (as he was supposed to?) Nicola Sturgeon would have fallen with him. He would have appealed, I’m sure, and what we are seeing now would still have come out, but sooner, and in a far more damaging deluge.

        It makes no sense unless there are other strings pulling the strings that tried to pull Alex Salmond’s strings. In other words, was this entirely in-house or are there other fingers in the pie for whom the all of two SNP leaders at such a definitive time in history would have seen off the independence challenge. The divisions between the ‘wokerati’ and many of the women in the party was also ripe for exploitation, made easier by the party apparatchiks not being aware that this legislation was breaching other pre-existing legislation.

        Then again, what independence challenge? The FM and her coterie seem happy to tread water and alienate half the party with half-baked ‘wokist’ pies. What an almighty mess.

      • Stonky

        These are some explosive allegations Craig, alongside your uncompromising statement earlier in the thread about the Lord Advocate.

        Personally, I’m glad it appears you are now taking the gloves off, but I hope it’s not left to you personally to fight the battle. Rather, I hope this may be the start of a process that will eventually cause the dam to burst. I don’t doubt that there is solid evidence to back up your allegations, and I’m sure, in the light of your own recent trials (if you’ll pardon the pun) that you are being very careful about what you say and when you say it.

        I asked you a question on Twitter but I didnt get a reply. I wondered if – in addition to Murrell and Ruddick, whose names are aleady in the public domain – there was anybody else involved in the message exchanges who wasn’t one of the alphabet sisters. I don’t think there would be any legal impediment to naming these people – it’s not the same as revealing the content of the discussions – and I don’t think it would do any harm to have a few more people feeling the squeeze. Eventually one of them will crack.

  • M.J.

    I have no idea whether Nicola Sturgeon arranged a meeting with Alex Salmond in haste in the middle of other things and then forgot (though I can well understand people doubting her). But my question is, why she would lie about it? Suppose she did have such a meeting. So what? Someone please educate me about the need to lie about it at all.

  • Colin Alexander

    “Scottish Ministerial Code 2016 edition

    Use of Government Property / Resources

    7.2 Government property should not generally be used for constituency work [19] or party activities. A particular exception is recognised where a building has been designated as the First Minister’s official residence. Where Ministers host party or personal events in the First Minister’s official residence, it should be at their own or at party expense, with no cost falling on the public purse”.

1 2

Comments are closed.