£25,000 Reward Withdrawn 514

On Friday we withdrew the award offer, which had not been taken up. To be honest I was 99.9999% sure it would not be, and we don’t have £25,000. It was a rhetorical device trying to drive home to people the crucial importance of Geoff Aberdein’s evidence, which proves that Sturgeon knew of the allegations not days but at least three weeks before she said she knew, and that she knowingly lied to parliament.

Sturgeon compounded that lie by a further lie to parliament. When knowledge of Geoff Aberdein’s meeting with her on 29 March 2018 in Holyrood became public, Sturgeon tried to cover up by a now really elaborate lie about how that meeting was spontaneous after he had just called into parliament to meet somebody else. In fact Aberdein’s testimony – with witnesses cited – shows the meeting with Sturgeon was pre-arranged weeks before, specifically to discuss the allegations against Salmond.

So what lie will Nicola now use at the committee on Wednesday? The only lie I can see available to her is that her Chief of Staff knew of the allegations for weeks without telling her, and even set up meetings for Sturgeon to discuss the allegations, without telling Sturgeon about the allegations. That would be a lie, and it seems to me so wildly improbable that I don’t see how even such despicable creatures as Alasdair Allan and Maureen Watt could possibly claim to believe it.

The Sunday Times now has the Aberdein evidence and has fairly grasped its significance. This is a classic example of mainstream media catching up with a major story which I broke, in detail, a year ago.

I should say that I am really depressed by the astonishing output of Sturgeon loyalists on twitter stating “there is no evidence” as a mantra, when plainly there is a mountain of evidence, and overwhelming evidence that still more has been deceitfully hidden by the Scottish government with the collusion of the Crown Office, and of SNP committee members.


This website is offering a reward of £25,000 cash to help a public spirited whistleblower to come forward and reveal a copy of Geoff Aberdein’s evidence to the Sturgeon Inquiry, which the Committee of Crooks has refused to publish, accept or consider, because it categorically proves that Sturgeon lied to Parliament.

You work in the Crown Office. Did you really do all that studying and jump through all those hoops so you could aid and abet your ultra corrupt bosses in the fundamental suppression of both justice and democracy in Scotland? Did you never have any ideals of, at least, basic honesty when you started to work for the prosecutorial service?

Or you work for the Scottish Parliament. Did you never have a spring in your step at the thought you were enabling the democratic expression of the Scottish nation? As opposed to assisting the withholding of crucial information from both Parliament and from the Scottish people? Do you really want to be a part of making your parliament the most corrupted institution in Europe?

Set the truth free. Get to sleep easy at night again. Look your grandchildren in the eye one day when you advise them to live as honest people. As a whistleblower myself, I assure you there is life after whistleblowing, and our small reward will help you mitigate the risks or ease the transition to a more honest career. Release the testimony of Geoff Aberdein. You can reach me via the contact button top right.

Having published Alex Salmond’s redacted evidence yesterday, the Holyrood Parliament then redacted heavily a key part of it – the Submission on the Ministerial Code – and republished it in this redacted form. This has caused Alex Salmond to refuse to appear before the Committee. The point is that he would not be permitted to give evidence that touches on the redacted parts, and nor would any other witness. The committee would not be allowed in its final report to include information on the redacted parts.

Why does this matter? Because the redacted parts are nothing whatsoever to do with identification of Salmond’s false accusers (the corrupt Crown Office and SNP MSP’s excuse for blocking publication), but in truth are all about showing that Sturgeon lied to Parliament about when she first knew of the allegations against Salmond.

This is very easy proven, simply by publishing this now officially redacted submission in full, with the redactions outlined in bold.

Submission by Alex Salmond – Phase 4 – Ministerial Code


1. This is a submission to the Parliamentary Committee under Phase Four of the Inquiry. This submission is compliant with all legal obligations under the committee’s approach to evidence handling and takes full account of the Opinion of Lady Dorrian in the High Court as published on 16th February 2021.

All WhatsApp messages between myself and the First Minister referred to in this submission, have previously been provided to the Parliamentary Committee by the First Minister and published by the Committee.

The Terms of Reference

2. Mr Hamilton, the independent adviser on the Ministerial Code, wrote to me on 8th September, 29th October, 16th November, 4th and 19th December. I replied on 6th and 17th October, 23rd November and 23rd December. I finally agreed under some protest to make a written submission.

The reason for my concern was that the remit drawn up for Mr Hamilton focuses on whether the First Minister intervened in a civil service process. As I have pointed out to Mr Hamilton, I know of no provisions in the Ministerial Code which makes it improper for a First Minister to so intervene.

3. To the contrary, intervention by the First Minister in an apparently unlawful process (subsequently confirmed by the Court of Session) would not constitute a breach precisely because the First Minister is under a duty in clause 2.30 of the Ministerial Code to avoid such illegality on the part of the Government she leads.

4. Further, to suggest intervention was a breach would be to ignore and contradict the express reliance of the procedure on the position of the First Minister as the leader of the party to which the former minister was a member in order to administer some unspecified sanction.

5. It will accordingly be a significant surprise if any breach of the Ministerial Code is found when the terms of reference have been tightly drafted by the
Deputy First Minister to focus on that aspect of the First Minister’s conduct.

6. By contrast, I have information which suggests other related breaches of the Ministerial Code which should properly be examined by Mr Hamilton. I have
asked that he undertake that investigation. I have drawn his attention to the apparent parliamentary assurance from the First Minister on 29th October 2020 that there was no restriction on Mr Hamilton preventing him from doing so.

7. Mr Hamilton has failed to give me a clear response as to whether these related matters relevant to the Ministerial Code, but outwith the specific remit, are going to be considered. However, in his letter of 4th December he did indicate that he was inclined to the view that such matters could be considered and will take into account arguments for their inclusion. Since that time I understand members of the Committee have received further assurances. It is on that basis I make this submission.

8. In doing so, I would note that it does not serve the public interest if the independent process of examination of the Ministerial Code (which I introduced as First Minister) is predetermined, or seen to be predetermined, by a restrictive remit given by the Deputy First Minister.

9. A restricted investigation would not achieve its purpose of genuine independent determination and would undermine confidence in what has been a useful innovation in public accountability.

10. I would accordingly urge Mr Hamilton to embrace the independence of his role and the express assurance given to the Scottish Parliament by the First Minister that he is free to expand the original remit drafted by the Deputy First Minister and to address each of the matters contained in this submission.

Breaches of the Ministerial Code.

11. Beyond the terms of the remit set for Mr Hamilton by the Deputy First Minister, there are other aspects of the conduct of the First Minister which, in my submission, require scrutiny and determination in relation to breaches of the Ministerial Code.

12. I was contacted by phone on or around 9 March 2018 and further the following week by Geoff Aberdein, my former Chief of Staff. The purpose of the contact was to tell me about meetings he had held with the First Minister’s Chief of Staff, Liz Lloyd, at her request.

13. In the second of these meetings she had informed him that she was aware of two complaints concerning me under a new complaints process introduced to include former Ministers. She named one of the complainers to him. At that stage I did not know the identity of the other complainer.

14. On receipt of the letter from the Permanent Secretary first informing me of complaints on 7th March 2018 I had secured Levy and McRae as my solicitors and Duncan Hamilton, Advocate and Ronnie Clancy QC as my counsel.

15. Even at this early stage we had identified that there were a range of serious deficiencies in the procedure. There was no public or parliamentary record of it
ever being adopted. In addition it contained many aspects of both procedural unfairness and substantive illegality. There was an obvious and immediate question over the respect to which the Scottish Government even had jurisdiction to consider the complaints. In relation to former Ministers (in contrast to current Ministers) it offered no opportunity for mediation. The complaints procedure of which I was familiar (‘Fairness at Work’) was based on the legislative foundation of the Ministerial Code in which the First Minister was the final decision maker. I wished to bring all of these matters to the attention of the First Minister. I did not know at that stage the degree of knowledge and involvement in the policy on the part of both the First Minister and her Chief of Staff.

16. Mr Aberdein had been asked by Ms Lloyd to be her contact with me and they jointly arranged a meeting with the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament on 29th March 2018. This meeting was for the purpose of discussing the complaints and thereafter arranging a direct meeting between myself and the First Minister. There was never the slightest doubt what the meeting was about. Any suggestion by the First Minister to the Scottish Parliament (Official Report, 8th October 2020) that the meeting was ‘fleeting or opportunistic’ is simply untrue. It was agreed on the 29th March 2018 at the meeting in the Scottish Parliament attended by Mr Aberdein and the First Minister and another individual that the meeting between myself and the First Minister would take place on 2nd April at her home near Glasgow. Self-evidently only the First Minister could issue that invitation to her private home.

17. In attendance at the meeting on 2nd April 2018 were Mr Aberdein, Mr Hamilton, Ms Lloyd and myself. The First Minister and I met privately and then there was a general discussion with all five of us. My purpose was to alert the First Minister to the illegality of the process (not being aware at that time of her involvement in it) and to seek an intervention from the First Minister to secure a mediation process to resolve the complaints.

18. I was well aware that under the Ministerial Code the First Minister should notify the civil service of the discussion and believed that this would be the point at which she would make her views known. The First Minister assured us that she would make such an intervention at an appropriate stage.

19. On 23rd April 2018, I phoned the First Minister by arrangement on WhatsApp to say that a formal offer of mediation was being made via my solicitor to the Permanent Secretary that day. In the event , this offer was declined by the Permanent Secretary, even before it was put to the complainers.

20. By the end of May, it was becoming clear that the substantial arguments my legal team were making in correspondence against the legality of the procedure were not having any impact with the Permanent Secretary. My legal team advised that it was impossible properly to defend myself against the complaints under such a flawed procedure. They advised that a petition for Judicial Review would have excellent prospects of success given the Government were acting
unlawfully. However I was extremely reluctant to sue the Government I once led. I wanted to avoid the damage both to the Scottish Government and the SNP which would inevitably result. To avoid such a drastic step, I resolved to let the First Minister see the draft petition for Judicial Review. As a lawyer, and as First Minister, I assumed that she would see the legal jeopardy into which the government was drifting. I therefore sought a further meeting.

21. On 1st June 2018 the First Minister sent me a message which was the opposite of the assurance she had given on the 2nd April 2018 suggesting instead that she had always said that intervention was “not the right thing to do”. That was both untrue and disturbing. On 3rd June 2018 I sent her a message on the implications for the Government in losing a Judicial Review and pointing to her obligation (under the Ministerial Code) to ensure that her administration was acting lawfully and (under the Scotland Act) to ensure that their actions were compliant with the European Convention.

22. The First Minister and I met in Aberdeen on 7th June 2018 when I asked her to look at the draft Judicial Review Petition. She did briefly but made it clear she was now disinclined to make any intervention.

23. My desire to avoid damaging and expensive litigation remained. My legal team thereafter offered arbitration as an alternative to putting the matter before the Court of Session. That proposal was designed to offer a quick and relatively inexpensive means of demonstrating the illegality of the procedure in a process which guaranteed the confidentiality of the complainers. It would also have demonstrated the illegality of the process in a forum which would be much less damaging to the Scottish Government than the subsequent public declaration of illegality. I was prepared at that time to engage fully with the procedure in the event my legal advice was incorrect. In the event, of course, it was robust. I explained the advantages of such an approach to the First Minister in a Whatsapp message of 5th July 2018.

24. At the First Minister’s initiative which I was informed about on the 13th July we met once again at her home in Glasgow at her request, the following day, 14th July 2018. There was no one else at this meeting. She specifically agreed to correct the impression that had been suggested to my counsel in discussion between our legal representatives that she was opposed to arbitration. I followed this up with a WhatsApp message on the 16th July 2018.

25. On 18th July 2018 the First Minister phoned me at 13.05 to say that arbitration had been rejected and suggested that this was on the advice of the Law Officers. She urged me to submit a substantive rebuttal of the specific complaints against me, suggested that the general complaints already answered were of little consequence and would be dismissed, and then assured me that my submission would be judged fairly. She told me I would receive a letter from the Permanent Secretary offering me further time to submit such a rebuttal which duly arrived later that day. As it turned out the rebuttal once submitted was given only cursory examination by the Investigating Officer in the course of a single day and she had already submitted her final report to the Permanent Secretary. My view is now that it was believed that my submission of a rebuttal would weaken the case for Judicial Review (my involvement in rebutting the substance of the complaints being seen to cure the procedural unfairness) and that the First Ministers phone call of 18th July 2018 and the Permanent Secretary’s letter of the same date suggesting that it was in my “interests” to submit a substantive response was designed to achieve that.

26. In terms of the meetings with me, the only breaches of the Ministerial Code are the failure to inform civil servants timeously of the nature of the meetings.

27. My view is that the First Minister should have informed the Permanent Secretary of the legal risks they were running and ensured a proper examination of the legal position and satisfied herself that her Government were acting lawfully.

28. Further once the Judicial Review had commenced, and at the very latest by October 31st 2018 the Government and the First Minister knew of legal advice from external counsel (the First Minister consulted with counsel on 13th November) that on the balance of probability they would lose the Judicial Review and be found to have acted unlawfully. Despite this the legal action was continued until early January 2019 and was only conceded after both Government external counsel threatened to resign from the case which they considered to be unstateable. This, on any reading, is contrary to section 2.30 of the Ministerial Code.

29. Most seriously, Parliament has been repeatedly misled on a number of occasions about the nature of the meeting of 2nd April 2018.

30. The First Minister told Parliament (see Official Report of 8th,10th & 17th January 2019) that she first learned of the complaints against me when I visited her home on 2nd April 2018. That is untrue and is a breach of the Ministerial Code. The evidence from Mr Aberdein that he personally discussed the existence of the complaints, and summarised the substance of the complaints, with the First Minister in a pre arranged meeting in Parliament on 29th March 2018 arranged for that specific purpose cannot be reconciled with the position of the First Minister to Parliament. The fact that Mr Aberdein learned of these complaints in early March 2018 from the Chief of Staff to the First Minister who thereafter arranged for the meeting between Mr Aberdein and the First Minister on 29th March to discuss them, is supported by his sharing that information contemporaneously with myself, Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton, Advocate.

31. In her written submission to the Committee, the First Minister has subsequently admitted to that meeting on 29th March 2018, claiming to have previously ‘forgotten’ about it. That is, with respect, untenable. The pre-arranged meeting in the Scottish Parliament of 29th March 2018 was “forgotten” about because acknowledging it would have rendered ridiculous the claim made by the First Minister in Parliament that it had been believed that the meeting on 2nd April was on SNP Party business (Official Report 8th & 10th January 2019) and thus held at her private residence. In reality all participants in that meeting were fully aware of what the meeting was about and why it had been arranged. The meeting took place with a shared understanding of the issues for discussion – the complaints made and the Scottish Government procedure which had been launched. The First Minister’s claim that it was ever thought to be about anything other than the complaints made against me is wholly false.

The failure to account for the meeting on 29th March 2018 when making a statement to Parliament, and thereafter failing to correct that false representation is a further breach of the Ministerial Code.

Further, the repeated representation to the Parliament of the meeting on the 2nd April 2018 as being a ‘party’ meeting because it proceeded in ignorance of the complaints is false and manifestly untrue. The meeting on 2nd April 2018 was arranged as a direct consequence of the prior meeting about the complaints held in the Scottish Parliament on 29th March 2018.

32. The First Minister additionally informed Parliament (Official Report 10th January 2019) that ‘I did not know how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaint, I did not know how the Scottish Government intended to deal with the complaint and I did not make any effort to find out how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaint or to intervene in how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaint.’

I would contrast that position with the factual position at paragraphs 18 and 25 above. The First Minister’s position on this is simply untrue. She did initially offer to intervene, in the presence of all those at the First Ministers house on the 2nd April 2018. Moreover, she did engage in following the process of the complaint and indeed reported the status of that process to me personally.

33. I also believe it should be investigated further in terms of the Ministerial Code, whether the criminal leak of part of the contents of the Permanent
Secretary’s Decision report to the Daily Record was sourced from the First Minister’s Office. We now know from a statement made by the Daily Record editor that they received a document. I enclose at Appendix B the summary of the ICO review of the complaint which explains the criminal nature of the leak and the identification of 23 possible staff sources of the leak given that the ICO Prosecutor has “sympathy with the hypothesis that the leak came from an employee of the Scottish Government”. My reasoning is as follows. The leak did not come from me, or anyone representing me. In fact I sought interdict to prevent publication and damage to my reputation. The leak is very unlikely indeed to have come from either of the two complainers. The Chief Constable, correctly, refused to accept a copy of the report when it was offered to Police Scotland on August 21st 2018 by the Crown Agent. It cannot, therefore have leaked from Police Scotland. Scottish Government officials had not leaked the fact of an investigation from January when it started. The only additional group of people to have received such a document, or summary of such a document, in the week prior to publication in the Daily Record was the First Minister’s Office as indicated in paragraph 4.8 of the ICO Prosecutor’s Report. In that office, the document would be accessed by the First Minister and her Special Advisers.

I would be happy to support this submission in oral evidence.

Rt Hon Alex Salmond
17th February 2021

As you can plainly see, the entire purpose of these redactions is to obliterate Geoff Aberdein from the picture. Very plainly nothing in these redactions tends to assist the identification of one of the lying accusers in court. The document was passed by the Parliament’s own legal service in line with Lady Dorrian’s amended court order, before yesterday the corrupt Crown Office intervened in a panic to have this evidence subverted.

Geoff Aberdein’s evidence is the most crucial collection of fact in the entire Holyrood Inquiry. Why?

In early March 2018 Nicola Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff and closest confidante, Liz Lloyd, phoned Geoff Aberdein to set up a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon and told him it was about sexual allegations against Alex Salmond. That is a full month before the date on which Nicola Sturgeon lied to Parliament she first heard of allegations. Lying to Parliament is a resignation matter.

Why did Nicola lie to Parliament? Because she wanted to hide the fact she already was involved in the initiation of allegations in November 2017, when she instructed, against Whitehall advice, that an employment process was needed for complaints against ex-ministers. There is a mound of evidence for this, not least the fact that her Principal Private Secretary had already met with a complainant twice, on 20 and 21 November 2017, the day before Sturgeon’s written instruction to Lesley Evans to initiate the process.

To hide this early involvement, Sturgeon had to invent a date when she first knew about the process. She settled on 2 April when she met Alex Salmond. That was a lie by four months at least, but it is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That she lied by one month is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of Geoff Aberdein. That is why it is the most important document in the entire process.

Nicola has since admitted to the meeting with Aberdein on 29 March, claiming she merely “forgot it”, that she just “bumped into” Aberdein and it is only “three days” (sic) from the meeting on 2 April. But Aberdein’s testimony is entirely incompatible with even Sturgeon’s amended story. He testifies it was set up by her office, with the allegations agenda known and dictated by them, three weeks earlier.

Is there anything to support Geoff Aberdein’s story? Yes. Aberdein was so worried by this that before he met Sturgeon on 29 March in Parliament (the meeting she subsequently claimed to parliament to have forgotten) he arranged a conference call with Duncan Hamilton QC and then SNP head spin doctor Kevin Pringle to discuss the implications. Both are willing to testify, but of course the Committee does not want them to.

How do I know all this? Because Geoff Aberdein gave precisely this evidence, all of it, in Alex Salmond’s criminal trial. Openly, in public, with no reporting restrictions. The entire mainstream media were present, but as they had only come in the hope of seeing Alex Salmond hung, they gave Aberdein’s crucial evidence little weight. I was there, I heard it and I reported it at the time.

There is one extra thing in Aberdein’s suppressed evidence which is not in his trial evidence. He testifies that he was contacted subsequently by Liz Lloyd to amend a press statement to hide the knowledge of the allegations against Salmond in March 2018.

To be perfectly plain, for the sake of the Corrupt Crown Office, this website is offering a reward for Geoff Aberdein’s evidence because we will publish it. We will first take the advice of both our solicitor and counsel on any redactions necessary to comply with Lady Dorrian’s amended court order on identification.

As for our publication of the unredacted version of the Salmond submission above, you can still see the unredacted version as it appeared originally on the Parliament’s website, with its appendices, here. In publishing it highlighting the changes, we are following the Spectator, Daily Mail and Guido Fawkes among others, all of which did it first. I know that the Crown Office has a habit of pursuing genuine Independence supporters over matters for which unionist journalists are left alone, despite committing the identical alleged offence simultaneously, but in this case I don’t think even the ultra corrupt Lord Advocate and Crown Office would try that.

Two final points. This is a different part of Alex Salmond’s evidence to that I published yesterday. I was asked by a committee member, Andy Wightman MSP, to clarify that the part published yesterday had not been subject to refusal to publish by the Committee. I make that clarification.

Finally, I very much hope that Alex Salmond will eventually appear before the Committee despite the censorship – and then give a press conference afterwards to fill in the censored bits. There can never have been a more hypocritical episode in Scottish politics than Nicola Sturgeon’s hysterical round of TV interviews inviting Alex Salmond to “produce his evidence” and “bring it on”, when all the time she and her machine were acting furiously behind the scenes to ensure that the corrupt Crown office and her parliamentary minions censored the evidence specifically that damages her.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

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
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

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>

514 thoughts on “£25,000 Reward Withdrawn

1 3 4 5
  • Lizzie55

    Having watched all of AS testimony and read blogs on many sites recounting others testimony to this harassment committee, I have a couple of queries. Both complainants made aware their allegations during November 2017, when Evans etc were still completing their new policy. Evans knew about these complaints as soon as they were made. Part of that policy was that any allegations against a minister past or present were to be immediately made aware to the FM. It is inconceivable that NS was not aware of these allegations from Nov 2017 onward. Even if she was not informed until the policy was approved by her sometime jan/feb 2018 it was the duty of Evans to make her aware as soon as she knew about the allegations….back in Nov 2017. Either it was withheld by evans or NS is lying. Either way this is braking the civil service code of conduct or if NS knew she is lying by saying she first new about the accusation against AS at the 2nd April. This is completely inconceivable. I believe she knew and this is why she has never sacked Evans. Evans can easily prove she was lying. I find this very disturbing…amongst a host of other things. The whole think stinks.

    • John Cleary


      Yes. That’s why there is a whole lot of ducking and diving over terminology – complaints, concerns, whatever – in order to elide this inconvenience. Gordon Dangerfield does a good job on this.

    • DunGroanin

      My opinion – It is impossible that NS didn’t know of the ‘complaints’ well BEFORE her April meeting claim. That is why they have tried very hard to stop that going back just 4 days at that previous meeting with Aberdein.

      Once they are forced to concede these 4 days the question then will be when should she have known and the evidence they are sitting on that would show that ‘deniability’ would be requested – again.

      She isn’t Reagan. This isn’t Iran contra. And the cutouts aren’t going to be as wholesome apple pie munching good soldiers.

      All the journos still fancy themselves as truth seekers. The odious Harding’s fawning over the even more odious Higgins, with his latest bearded chic, bloody sheepskin disguise, last week was nauseating. All the journos who value their wages won’t even investigate the odure in their own office!

      Never mind the gross injustice of the State they are supposed to be a check on.

      That Lady Dorian has washed her hands by delaying justice is a stain that will colour her career now. And made it easy for any future challenge.

      In my opinion.

    • Suilven

      Even if Evans holds the li(n)e that she didn’t communicate the initial 2 ScotGov complaints to NS or her office, another salient point is that the timeline I have is that Woman H communicated her complaint (that was ‘sat on in case we ever have to use it’) to SNP HQ on or around 5th Nov 2017. It’s inconceivable IMO that both Murrells were not made immediately aware (if they weren’t already aware before the complaint went in…). Surely even Sturgeon can’t think the Scottish populace are so stupid that they’ll buy that she must have been aware of a SNP complaint against AS, and saw a revised ScotGov Harassment policy being extended to former ministers, and didn’t put 2+2 together to realise or ask the question if they had further complaints in the pipeline.

      Plus at least one of the original complainers fits the ‘revolving door’ category between ScotGov and SNP that Craig mentioned during the trial – it’s also inconceivable that this person wouldn’t have let SNP HQ/Ian McCann know what they were doing with ScotGov, and again, it would be passed straight to the Sturgeon/Murrells.

  • N_

    The second sentence of the update to this post is hilarious. Readers drinking coffee should make sure they have a tight hold on their mugs when they read it. To add to the fun, if the estimate of the probability of paying out £25K as 0.0001% was correct (leaving aside the problem with the very concept of a “correct” estimated probability in such a context), then the fair price of an insurance policy would have been literally tuppence ha’penny.

    But I doubt Warren Buffett would have been any more interested in insuring our host against paying out £25K than he was in insuring Dominic Cummings’s Vote Leave against having to pay out £350M. He’d have wanted more than 2.5p for the policy anyway. (And who can blame him?)

    In politics, government, and business, “There is no evidence” means it’s true. It’s not as if the postulate is about pyramids on Mars.

    Cf. “That’s just speculation,” which also means it’s true.

    The only lie I can see available to her is that her Chief of Staff knew of the allegations for weeks without telling her, and even set up meetings for Sturgeon to discuss the allegations, without telling Sturgeon about the allegations. That would be a lie, and it seems to me so wildly improbable that I don’t see how even such despicable creatures as Alisdair Allan and Maureen Watt could possibly claim to believe it.

    It would be hearsay too. They’d need to call the said chief of staff. She should be able to clear matters up, lol. She’s not shy, right?

    It’s hard to make any sensible predictions about what the next week or two will bring. Certainly Sturgeon seems to be on the ropes. Her filthy side aren’t getting any blows in against their opponents. She may try to use the judiciary. But perhaps it won’t take the bunch of crooked freemasons at the top of that “profession” very long to wake up and realise what side their bread is buttered on. We shall see. Sturgeon may already be negotiating her exit. How is her health? Will she do a Challenor? Staying out of prison has got to be one of her main objectives. Surely, surely she’s already f***ed her chance of staying in office until the election?

  • Iain Stewart

    “which proves that Sturgeon knew of the allegations not days but at least three weeks before she said she knew”

    • Nino

      “Had away and shite” springs to mind but I think it important to frame correctly what the problem is.

      It isn’t that the FM lied. All politicians lie, on a daily basis, Ministers more so. The FM’s line manager Al Johnson has made his career out of lying. He lied over Novichok, he lied over Covid, he can’t help himself and he doesn’t need to, lying is an accepted practice (I can quote instances).

      The “Ministerial Code(s)” are only used when the Establishment turns on one of its own.

      We the subjects should not be cheering on the Justice awaiting NS we should be insisting it be applied equally and fairly across government; politicians and civil servants alike.

      Yes I want to see NS exposed for what she is along with her cohorts and husband but more than that what I want to come out of this ugly affair is that everyone in government is made aware that the Rules apply to them. All of them all of the time. They do not at the moment and without real change they never will.

      Otherwise we will turn up with our knitting to witness the dispatch of Nicola and a few of her unpleasant inner circle but the reason they were allowed to get away with what they did will remain – Us; We Allowed them to,

      If this does not trigger institutional change another set of scumbags will take control, that will not be their fault (they are bred for it) it will be our fault as it has been to allow the current nonsense to take shape.

  • Dave Albiston

    Er, has anybody thought to check the security register at Holyrood? If Geoff Aberdein was there to see someone else then he would have been authorised by them. If his entry was authorised by the First Minister’s office then she is caught bang to rights!

  • Goose

    That ‘Oh shit!’ moment when it drops through Craig’s letter box tomorrow, replete with demand for £25k to be paid in bitcoin.

    That’s a joke btw. Disclaimer in case it actually happens.

    • DunGroanin

      Whoops that reply belongs to the next comment!

      Any chance of putting right Mods?

      [ Mod: Yes. Repost the comment in the correct place, and we’ll delete the one above. ]

  • Goose

    The UK media are claiming support for independence is dropping on the back of this?

    If that’s the case, then those people never believed in independence. Sturgeon is “a transient here-today-and-gone-tomorrow-politician” ,in the words of the late, great Robin Day, interviewing then Defence Secretary Sir John Nott (1982).. If this grubby episode puts you off independence, then your support must have been pretty shallow to begin with. Scotland will be what the people make it, supporrt shouldn’t rest upon views about a transient politician.

    • Goose

      Unionists leaping about pointing at polls showing inde support a few percent adrift from its recent highs. I’d wager if you put to them, the fact they must be confident of winning any referendum then? They’d quickly retreat to their ‘no new referendum’ stance.

    • DunGroanin

      Polls are rigged.
      They were for the last GE more than ever.
      They were ‘managed’ for the previous GE and somewhat for the referendums.

      The reason for rigging polls is to allow vote manipulation / cheating so that the ‘result’ is backed by the ‘polls’.

      Professor sir lord high wonk Curtice is the demented Dr Strangelove of that grand whiz. Rolled out in every msm channel to defend the ‘methodology’ of such made up numbers.

      That all pollsters and the msm they are reported in, have become fully controlled over the years, is why the ‘story’ hangs together when they conduct the crime of stealing, not winning.

      There is a census due any day now – a simple addition to Scottish households collecting the opinion of all persons over 16, on the simple question, Do you support an Independent Scotland from the current Union? Yes/No ?

      That by-passes pollstera and actual riggable voting.

      A qualified majority ”Yes’ in that opinion allows an immediate UDI. Hang what the colonial masters want and how ever many black and tans they threaten with.

      A failure of a majority means the opposite – the campaign can be abandoned for this generation.

      Do it. Now.

  • Brian

    Agree with others on the language. What lie will Sturgeon come up with? If you watch the Evans, Mackinnon and Allison sessions at the Handling of Harassment Inquiry, they make a big play of the difference between what they consider ‘concerns’ versus ‘complaints’, such that in Nov 2017 they knew of multiple ‘concerns’ some of which related to Salmond. But these were not formal ‘complaints’ at the time – and by the time they did become ‘complaints’ the policy had been redrafted (Baillie’s questioning of Mackinnon caught her out by asking if she had not read Paragraph 10 relating to the investigator, when she became the investigator. Mackinnon responded ‘no’ because she was operating on the basic intention of previous drafts). The redraft removed any role of the FM in the process – Evans was put in charge.

    Thus, by the time ‘concerns’ became specific ‘complaints’ Sturgeon was officially out of the loop. Probably means she will argue she did not know of any ‘complaints’ about Salmond even though there is evidence she was told about ‘concerns’ (Sturgeon had been told about the Sky news and Edinburgh Airport by Evans in Nov 2017).

    • Giyane


      You mean she was in the loop, but formal steps had been made to take her out of the loop , long after she was already in.

      Whatever one becomes aware of, becomes your conscience. You cannot separate your witness in from your testimony out. That’s why we swear to God in the witness box. It is important to load whatever one has discovered in life into your mind, not leave it in a separate box where existing opinions are fossilized.

      That is the meaning of Integrity Initiative. Constructing a different mindset from actual experience. So for example your capitalist banking system goes into meltdown, but your response is to re-finance it, saving one the bother and inconvenience of re-thinking.

      Sturgeon appears to have held fast to certain teenage mindset about sexuality, and been unable to change them in spite of witnessing Alex Salmond’s decency as a man. Such inability to process evidence is tragic

      Political life being full of lies, .is the perfect environment for personal denial, as Craig has described work in the FCO where at work certain lies were internalized, which after work were dismissed.

      One wishes well for every human being, but preserving Nicola Sturgeon in a cocoon of work deceit by keeping her in post, might be blocking personal growth. Personal growth is connecting your witness to your consciousness, harmonizing existence and inner being.

      Life is letting go, and knowing that God’s infinite mercy encompasses our confliction, and realising that what He plans for us is infinitely more amazing than what we plan for ourselves.

  • Mac

    I don’t doubt for a second that Sturgeon lied about when she knew.

    But why? What was so important that she had to lie about that?

    • Colin Smith

      If she didn’t know then she couldn’t conspire. She could not have been instrumental in putting pressure on the police, or in sending out search parties for victims, or involving the crown office, or not putting what was been done in the background on the record.

      If she did know then all the questionable behaviour could have been under her direction, or something that she could and should have put a stop to.

    • DunGroanin

      Mac, the reason – motive – is simple and obvious.

      She has conspired to stop the return of Salmond to reclaim the campaign that Scottish Independence be made real, as the ONLY main priority of Holyrood.

      NS is just another cog in the anti-Indy reactionaries strategy, least of all the purring Queen and her cousins Camerons giveaway desires, and the apparatus of state who have high offices in Scottish institutions for no reason beyond colonial might.

  • Mary

    Andrew Marr was disseminating misinformation today.
    and SNP MP Angus MacNeil took Marr’s lie to a possible conclusion. As he tweeted

    ‘His #AusterityCausingTV hashtag is apt. Because this £300bn lie could well pave the way for more cuts to public spending and/or tax rises. That is, the Tories could bring in more austerity.’


  • John Cleary

    This fella’s on tomorrow.


    Mr Salmond comments: “I believe that the Committee should ask the Lord Advocate
    directly whether he instructed two unwilling complainants to make police statements.”
    I did not direct any complainer to make a police statement; indeed, I have no power
    which would enable me to issue such a direction.

    James Wolfe, Lord Advocate and specialist in malicious prosecutions.

    The game is called “Spot the Sophistry, identify the casuistry, and see if they can tell the difference”

    Anyway, my warning to Ms F.

    John Cleary says:
    1 March, 2021 at 10:49 pm
    Sooner or later Ms F will realise that she MUST out herself to save her own life.

    Learn from others. Monica Coghlan and Angela Peppiat.
    And of course Jill Dando (though unintentionally).

    You are in the same place as Angela Peppiat.
    When she saw what had happened to Jill, and then Monica, she knew she had to fight for her life.

    Lord Archer’s QC sought to under-mine her honesty. But questions about expenses claims and a disputed £10,000 bonus failed to dent her credibility.

    Why did she risk her reputation in what some would describe as an act of disloyalty to a man who had trusted her so much that he left a picnic basket full of signed, blank cheques by her desk? The answer is that he offended her deeply by questioning her integrity.


    Ten days of hostile cross-examination, because he questioned her integrity?

    I think not.

    Angela Peppiatt became Lord Archer’s personal assistant in 1985 after he was appointed deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. She was a main witness in the recent trial.

    During the perjury trial she told the court that in May 1987 Lord Archer asked her to fill in a blank 1986 diary, using a list of names he provided, and to deliver it to his solicitors. She says this was the diary used during the 1987 libel trial.

    Mrs Peppiatt told the court she had kept the genuine diary after she left Lord Archer’s employment in December 1987, and handed it to police in 1999.

    She said she had photocopied the new diary pages before and after making the entries. The court also heard that she counter-signed a letter with another assistant, Caroline Norman, saying she had acted under Lord Archer’s orders.

    Angela Peppiatt told the court she had falsified a 1986 diary

    During the perjury trial she told the court that in May 1987 Lord Archer asked her to fill in a blank 1986 diary, using a list of names he provided, and to deliver it to his solicitors. She says this was the diary used during the 1987 libel trial.

    Mrs Peppiatt told the court she had kept the genuine diary after she left Lord Archer’s employment in December 1987, and handed it to police in 1999.

    She said she had photocopied the new diary pages befor

    e and after making the entries. The court also heard that she counter-signed a letter with another assistant, Caroline Norman, saying she had acted under Lord Archer’s orders.

    Michael Stacpoole was a good friend of Lord Archer’s for around 20 years, and worked with him on business and fund-raising deals.

    He was a high society PR man who later gained notoriety when he was photographed handing over an envelope of cash to the prostitute Monica Coghlan, on Lord Archer’s behalf.

    When the Monica Coughlan story broke, Mr Stacpoole left the country.

    Monica Coghlan

    In 1986 Monica Coghlan claimed that Lord Archer had agreed to pay her £70 for sex. She told her story to the News of the World which then taped Archer on the telephone offering her money to flee overseas.

    Lord Archer told Ms Coghlan to go to London’s Victoria station to collect the money. Michael Stacpoole was photographed by the paper offering Coghlan a packet said to contain £2000.

    The scandal caused Lord Archer to resign from the Conservative party. He sued the Star newspaper, which had alleged he had spent the night with Monica Coghlan.

    Lord Archer won the case and £500,000 in damages.

    Monica Coghlan died in a car crash in April 2001.


    John Cleary says:
    1 March, 2021 at 11:04 pm
    holymacmoses says:
    1 March, 2021 at 10:22 pm
    I wonder why Mr Salmond suggested that the committee should ask Mr Wolffe whether he suggested that the two complainants should make statements to the police?


    Salmond’s suggested question was whether the office of the Lord Advocate had instructed the two complainants to make their statements to the police.

    We are talking about coercion by those very same people who are acting “in the complainants interests”. The original complainants (F and K) were forced, against their will, to do what they did NOT want to do.

    They were using “royal prerogative powers”.

    Naturally Queen Elizabeth II knows nothing about all of this.

    Remind me again about the definition of rape, of sexual assault. Anything to do with using force to overcome resistance?

  • N_

    The “Little Trumpers” of the SNP should mind how they go, now that the Anti-Defamation League are getting mentioned in articles about CPAC’s use of the “Othala” rune, which the SNP also uses, at the event recently addressed by insane ex-king Donald Trump.

    Even Deborah Lipstadt is getting her oar in: “‘I am sure the shape is inadvertent,’ Lipstadt told The Times of Israel this week. ‘But the fact that nobody noticed is a very big oops.’ (…) ‘Bystanding is complicity. At the least or very best, these are not friends you can count on.’ ” Taken a look at the SNP’s logo yet, Debs?

    It’s easy to poke fun, and obviously Zionists have no right whatsoever to speak in the name of the victims of the Nazis. But there was nothing amusing about the fact that the crowd that attacked the Capitol building was geed up in the park by a speaker who openly praised Adolf Hitler.

  • John Cleary

    Something wicked your way comes…

    Dando death claim in Archer case

    Disgraced peer Lord Archer is to appeal against his perjury conviction, citing evidence including a claim that he was responsible for Jill Dando’s death.
    He says the verdict should be quashed as some evidence – such as the baseless claim – was not shared at his trial, his wife has told the Mail on Sunday.

    Police were told Ms Dando was killed by mistake after the former Tory peer ordered a prosecution witness’s death.

    His ex-employee Angela Peppiatt lived in the same road as the TV presenter.

    ‘Preposterous claim’

    The former deputy Tory chairman was jailed for four years in 2001, and was released in 2003.

    Archer’s wife Mary said that her husband was preparing his appeal, but could not say how long it might take before it reached court.

    His argument will hinge on claims that certain allegations against him were not divulged.

    These include the charge that he ordered Ms Peppiatt to be killed.

    The claim was that television presenter Jill Dando – who lived very close to Ms Peppiatt and drove a similar car – was murdered in 1999 by mistake.

    Speaking on her husband’s behalf, Mary Archer told the newspaper: “I have long known false allegations were made to the police to assist the prosecution and undermine Jeffrey’s defence.

    “I am astonished that the police did not make known to us, as the law requires they should have done, the preposterous claim that Jeffrey commissioned the murder of Angela Peppiatt.

    “We believe that some of this material was included in the successful applications by the prosecution to the trial judge to withhold material from the defence on the grounds of public interest immunity,” Mrs Archer said.

    She added the failure to disclose all of the information “fatally undermines the fairness of Jeffrey’s trial”.


    A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) spokesman said it would not comment about a case ahead of a possible appeal.

    “If an appeal is launched then we will deal with it in the normal way and deal with the Court of Appeal in the normal way,” he said.

    Barry George was jailed for life in July 2001 after being convicted of Ms Dando’s murder.*

    Jeffrey Archer has served a five-year ban from the Conservative Party, and in February Conservative Party co-chairman Dr Liam Fox hinted the party would consider his return.

    “I’m sure that in line with people having served their sentence and having done some reparations for what they did wrong, we would look at that sympathetically,” he said.


    *Subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2007.

    Yes. Another fit-up.

  • nevermind

    Looks like the Lord advocate is going to use the inquiry, as he would use a trial, it seems to all blur into one listening to the toady R4. He wants to go challenge/divert the inquiry back to a case that cost Scotland a lot of money, horse and bolted springs to mind.
    More important will he also provide the twice refused emails and whatsapp messages to the committee of SNP hopefuls?
    I will be eating my socks today listening to him….the man is playing both sides like a conductor/magician

    now you see it, now you don’t. Be prepared for lots of legal waffle.

  • John Cleary

    Wolfie Smith to the Committee:

    Any suggestion that prosecutorial decisions in that case were susceptible to political
    influence would not only be unfounded, but would be a serious slur on the integrity
    of the professional prosecutors involved, who, as part of their professional
    responsibilities, routinely take difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions, always
    independently, in the public interest.
    I also reject the criticisms of the steps which the Crown has taken in respect of the
    evidence to the Committee. All decisions, in relation to these matters have been taken
    by senior professional prosecutors, exercising their professional responsibilities
    independently and with a view to the proper application of legal rules and restrictions
    which are designed to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.


    Can this possibly be the same team that submitted a signed statement to Lord Pentland to the effect that there were no further documents?

    You know. The same team that committed this perjury?

    Now I know that they have faced no sanction for this felony, but that does not mean that Wolfie and his gang are not criminals: they are.

    It just means that Queen Elizabeth II has taken a personal interest.
    And of course, she knows nothing about what she is doing.
    That would be a breach of her Coronation Oath, wouldn’t it?

  • Willie

    Sadly we live in disinformation times and that Craig is why the Scottish and U.K. governments try to censor, incarcerate, hobble or otherwise attack you, and bloggers like you.

    Sturgeon is indeed one such minded individual. But you know what, despite all the redaction, foot dragging, spin and lies, the truth is coming out.

    She truly is poison. But she’s got other pals just like her.

    Keep up the good work Sir.

  • John Cleary

    Does anybody know whether Lady Dorian is an afficionado of Scottish Opera?

  • Ken MacIntyre

    Thanks Craig.

    The evidence of a cover up of wrongdoing is the ‘Broken Kettle’ routine over the 29 March 2018 meeting. The Broken Kettle is a series of contradictory excuses or explanations – I return a kettle to you broken. First I deny borrowing it; then deny it’s broken; finally I say ‘it must have been broken when you lent it.’

    Thus the Geoff Aberdein meeting:

    1. It didn’t happen.
    2. It did happen but was ‘fleeting and personal’.
    3. It did happen,was government business but I’d forgotten about it.

    It is impossible for all of these to be true. The Broken Kettle is a sure sign that something dodgy is going on.

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.