UPDATE
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.
UPDATE ENDS
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
Introduction
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:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
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.
ond
Craig. I gladly gave to support your court cases. I trust you’re not using any of that money as part of the £25k
I gladly gave to support Craig’s legal funds and I would trust that Craig has good reasons for offering the reward and I, for one, would be happy if my donation was part of that reward. Craig does good work and will have very, very good reasons for doing what he is doing, not least of which I would guess one would be trying to clear the Scottish body politic of the rank rotten corruption that has taken root there; birthed, nursed and nurtured by Nicola Sturgeon. For God’s sake Scotland is riddled with it now thanks to that malignancy at the heart of the SNP. We have to clean the infestation out somehow!
No, that has all gone to the lawyers already, In fact we are 13k short on the legal bills, which were a bit higher than expected.
Ignore David. Craig that money was a gift to you from us, you’re to do what’s best with it, though it sounds like it’s gone – if you do another blog fundraiser I’ll happily tweet the f*ck out of it- we should have you in the black in no time
Come on Murray,
Surely, by now, you must have figured out that when David slew ( or is that slayed?) Goliath, the weak needed but a stone properly aimed. We live in different and modern times now.
So, where is your small stone of 13K when you dare to have challenged Goliath.
You shouldn’t be surprised. You are challenging power and questioning the status quo.
You are rude and out of order; so pay your dues; 13K please.
Your comment is a “?” mark away from being a bit mean spirited
Hopefully the lack of such punctuation means you’re not questioning the fella’s integrity & simply asserting your “trust”?……in which case, I’ll mind my own business :-))))
Josh R,
Asserting both my trust and admiration – to be clear.
Sorry Courtenay,
I was referring to Batchelor’s post, not casting aspersions on your reply.
I really ought to get in the habit of putting names at the beginnings of my replies, I realise the comments layout doesn’t always make it clear, my fault 🙂
.
Dear Ambassador Murray,
Excellent article. I like your style.
Thankyou for bravely placing yourself in harm’s way for the sake of justice and the social sanity of many of us.
By the way, I see the Batchelor person has a gripe. Craig, if there is a problem, I will be happy to put any funds up to remedy any of Batchelor’s moan. Though I do doubt the veracity of his claim. If he has alighted into your website and read your work, then I doubt he actually donated funds.
Kindest wishes, Al.
Two thoughts. How would you know what’s handed to you is the correct piece of evidence/statement?
Secondly, should you be able to attract a minnow with your ‘enhancement’, to catch the bigger fish, would it be wise to take a trusted person to record the handing over from a safe distance?
Not that I hold my breath, most minnows swimming in this contaminated brook might not be able to see your hook.
To be perfectly honest, I think the chances of anyone coming forward in response to a non life-changing sum of money are zero. It is really a rhetorical device to make people think about the massive significance of Geoff Aberdein’s censored evidence.
Excellent double bluff there!
At 25 grand it’s a bold gambit for a rhetorical device!
Judging by the opening up of media coverage the veil over all this is now being drawn away.
Following Andrew Neil/Spectator a couple of weeks ago the Mail got involved yesterday, Newsnight led with it last night, absolutely nothing in three hours of Today this morning but World at One, this lunchtime, lead with a full frontal assault from Ruth Davidson/Scottish Conservatives.
The floodgates are open.
Sturgeon’s days must be numbered now, only the timing, nature and destination of her departure to be decided.
My sympathies are entirely with the Scottish people at this point. They/you have a thoroughly rotten government and polity; it seems certain the forthcoming elections, like the SNP, will be thrown into disarray; and any talk of independence in the midst of this foul morass will be off the agenda for sometime.
However, addressing and seeking to correct all of this will require a very strong personality/individual.
Can anybody think of one?
World at One: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sh8m
It was below Tiger Woods in the running order on this morning’s Radio Scotland.
“Tiger Woods in the running order”
Unfortunate choice of words.
It’ll be Birnam Wood tomorrow.
ALEC SALMOND! or THE CRAIGSTER!
Again I wonder why neither the press nor opposition parties are making more of this. Both hate the SNP and thoughts of independence so why miss an open goal, I find this quite worrying as what it suggests is almost worse than the actions against Salmond in the first place.
Doesn’t it tell us all we need to know about Sheldon Wolin’s managed democracy and inverted totalitarianism?!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It would appear all parties, even the supposed independence leaders and two cheeks on the same arse.
Salmond wasn’t, Corbyn wasn’t and look what’s happening to them!
Corbyn isn’t fit to lick Salmond’s boots, the snivelling Judas.
That’s a really stupid comment Squeeth
I wouldn’t give you tuppence and as for the so called £25k reward more like 20 pieces of silver I or any pro Independence supporters wouldn’t touch that blood money you should be ashamed of yourself all you will succeed in doing is destroying the Yes movements drive towards Scotland becoming an Independent country but you keep taking the kings shilling
Brian,
Matron is over there, run along now.
And ask her about commas and apostrophes and stuff.
Don’t you have homework to be doing?
The people standing in the way of independence now are those that won’t accept that Sturgeon is a corrupt stooge of the British establishment.
Sturgeon is a lackey of the British Establishment and is feigning her desire for independence in order to gather up pro-independence supporters and then lead them down a blind alley
Funny kind of lacky that continuously attacks that establishment and keeps a referendum in the public consciousness when now would be the easiest time in the world to set it to the back burner. The notion of independence comes with responsibility. A responsibility to recognise when things are wrong in our backyard and be honest about the reasons for them. This is a Scottish struggle. There is no evidence for anything other. Sturgeon wanted independence I think we can agree. She campaigned hard enough for it in 14. So what changed her mind? Her own agency and governance I say. Let’s own that rather than run to the same old clichés. The British state is guilty of much but not all.
“Funny kind of lacky that continuously attacks that establishment and keeps a referendum in the public consciousness when now would be the easiest time in the world to set it to the back burner”
Managed opposition has to retain credibility.
All political frauds have to drop their disguise when the time comes.
Brian Johnston, remember when your namesake said, ” the batsman’s Holding, the bowlers Willey ” that was funny, but not as funny as some of the replies to your carefully thought out post.
Aargh! It was the other way around, Vis
“The bowler’s Holding, the batsman’s Willey”
Michael Holding to Peter Willey
oh shit I blew it, a bit like Alex Salmond.
I was lying on the sofa watching the test with the sound off and TMS on the radio. I nearly fell off.
He never actually said it! Someone wrote a letter in claiming that he had… I’ve heard the signatory as either Miss Mainpiece or Miss Tess Tickle, and I think they just ran with it
You have to call out corruption whether it’s good or bad for the independence movement. If you don’t it will just get a whole lot worse. If Sturgeon can get away with this, democracy in Scotland will be poisoned for the future.
What she’s accused of is some way beyond corruption.
Brian, you’re absolutely right about 20 pieces of silver. I wouldn’t consider it, not for a moment. THIRTY PIECES and not a denarius less! Think I’m cheap or what?
Why not ask Geoff Aberdein himself?
He is constrained by his employment. He was able to fulfil his duty to offer sworn evidence to parliament, but is not able to undertake “political” action.
Mr Aberdein must have steam emitting from his ears, having to keep his mouth shut while his evidence, and that of his independent witnesses, is systematically suppressed and discounted.
Perhaps he could use the 25K himself, while looking for a new job?
Wee Jimmy Wollfe treating the Scottish Parliament with undisguised contempt. Refusing point blank to answer any of Jackie Baillie’s questions.
I’m aff tae sharpen ma pitchfork.
I disagree, Vivian. I thought him nervous, stuttering and indecisive.
Exactly the opposite of a man with confidence in his brief.
“nervous, stuttering and indecisive.” also describes his appearances at the Committee hearings. Presumably it’s his default mode.
The point being he didn’t even make a pretence at aswering Jackie Baillie’s questions.
I’m surprised Baillie didn’t tear him a new one (in her ever so gentle, diplomatic way). Contempt of this manner requires payment in kind.
Careful, Vivian. They tried to prosecute Mark Hirst when he mentioned pitchfork.
Question: even if Aberdein’s statement miraculously becomes admissible, won’t it effectively come down to his word against hers?
Probably, but that doesn’t help her cause one bit – as she did not record the meeting which is again against the Ministerial Code.
It does not have to. Geoff Aberdein’s account is capable of being partially corroborated by other witnesses. See Craig Murray’s comments above:
“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.”
It seems Alex Salmond is to appear before the committee on Friday now, though reports are a bit foggy at the moment.
https://news.sky.com/story/alex-salmond-to-appear-before-harassment-inquiry-next-week-days-after-pulling-out-over-sturgeon-evidence-row-12227684
I think a cash reward is not a good idea because it tries to legitimise the public having to pay for information which by law should be available anyway. It’s a dangerous and retrograde direction unless you could later claim the money back from government and pay funders back. This is throwing bad money after bad money.
Salmond similarly had to fund his own legal defence with public money. Did those funders get their money back?
It’s like making us pay for the gross offences of governments.
Some of the comments on here have deeply alarmed me because the climate is psychologically unhinged, relying mainly on an offensive militant radical feminist far left political tactic that “victims” must be always actively believed even after they have been actively disbelieved in a court of law. That makes a mockery of the law.
Well said, Garry. I like to call it Woody Allen Syndrome – the police investigated and found nothing to substantiate the single allegation; a team of top child psychologists repeatedly interviewed the person who made the allegation and unanimously found her to be “untruthful” and “coached”; furthermore the brother of the person who made the allegation has since stated that he witnessed her being coached and that many of the details in her statement (descriptions of rooms, attics) are factually untrue. Yet movie stars are routinely coerced into making public statements to the effect that they should never have worked with Woody Allen, will never work with him again, have donated their fees to charity, etc.
The phrase “credible and true” springs to mind, for some reason.
Nice one Craig.
Please see if you can get the ultra heavily unredacted Anne Harvey letters thrown in the deal as well.
It has to be bombshell material.
Just an observation, but wouldn’t it be wiser to make sure you’ve raised the funds before offering it to someone to come forward? I’m not sure ‘reward’ is going to been as such a thing when the CO are threatening criminal prosecutions left right and centre. Very unlikely to be an amount of someone’s salary who has access to this info, and a salary they’ll be sure to lose for whistleblowing!
Thanks, Dan, for that erudite contribution. That evidence will be of great assistance in two months time, won’t it?
And what have YOU done for the cause of independence today?
From a link over on Wings provided by Hautey.
“SCOTLAND’S prosecution service is being ordered to release material Alex Salmond claims will show he was the victim of a high-level plot to destroy him.
The Holyrood inquiry into the Salmond affair is to use the parliament’s powers to compel the production of documents held by the Crown Office.”
“The feud between Sturgeon and Salmond could derail Scottish independence”, says Martin Kettle in the Guardian. Presumably this was part of the Johnson plan, if Plan A didn’t work out.
No, it’s just a clueless Guardian hack earning some corn.
I believe he was last proved right in 1995.
Apologies if this has already been posted, the bypassing of Holyrood begins, we don’t have years to hold an indyref, this May’s elections must be a plebiscite.
“THE UK Government has announced plans to spend millions on projects across Scotland by working directly with local authorities.”
https://archive.is/Av40K
Just as Lavrov calls the EU the “Party Committee ” as in the old USSR, so has the clique around Sturgeon, Police Scotland and the Crown Office morphed into.
I suppose the SNP leadership confederacy is now ready to burn their Atlanta as they finally get into an ever decreasing corner.
Guardianistas are still being fed the Jack The Ripper narrative as they refuse to question the woked witches of the North’s ever more brazen attacks on Alex. What’s left? To start tearing their breasts and claiming he actually attacked her years ago? And she never said anything to protect the dream, the patriotic, doing it for Scottish independence excuse? A panaroma special with tears?
Whatever damages the peoples desire for independence is my bet.
The MSM are obviously shifting into electioneering mode hoping to convert it into disillusionment of the voters. I’d be happily surprised if the spectator and Fail actually turn it into a full support of Alex and his integrity. Even if they don’t agree with Indy. They have never been on your side.
I get that CM is in a serious game of wits with high stakes. He and the true band of Independence, Now! Scots and people like me are not so few, as the State knows now. As the DS controllers and their puppets are obviously fuckwits, it is an almost one sided fight (;-)).
True whistle blowers don’t do it for money but conscience. So I can see that the reward offer is surely another move in this combat.
Regardless of that, I note that lawyers funds are still needed and as payday approaches I am readying a further pony to express to the war-chest!
Is anyone taking bets on what day Sturgeon resigns? Quite exciting.
She’s waiting for a job offer.
Heres the corporate state friendly media report on all this. Its message How disgraceful someone fitted up for rape by corrupted individuals in a corrupted case seek redress and to present the truth? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/alex-salmond-nicola-sturgeon-snp-b1806812.html
Andrew,
Just wait until live in a conjunction of “Believe the woman” and “Anonymity for accusers”
What a shitshow that’s gonna be.
The BBC call the criminally corrupt and immoral affair “The Salmond-Sturgeon feud”.
Apparently something big is in the pipeline.
https://twitter.com/Jeggit/status/1364674843245953031
Craig, are you using £25,000 donated by your followers to reward somebody? Is it fair?
Celine, are you asking this question without having read the reply at 15:43? Is it fair? Is it wise?
Celine, it is – how do I put this politely – none of your business. People subscribe, entirely voluntarily, to keep the blog going. If they don’t like the blog, they can unsubscribe at any time.
That is the nub of the issue.
You are asking people to pay government AND pay you.
No, thank you.
Garry – would it be easier for you if he had offered 10 000 pints of tartan special, at a bar of the informant’s choice, provided by the grateful contributors of this blog?
It might have to be spread over several evenings – I don’t see anyone drinking 10 000 pints of Tartan Special in a single session.
Craig, this is not very polite. The contribution is a solidarity with you, to help you with your personal finances. An independent fighter needs support from the community. What you do with the money donated by your readers, IT IS our business if you use it for another purpose than surviving and paying the bills. I can see that you don’t like to be challenged, same as the people that you are criticising.
Craig is not expecting to have to find the money. Keep up.
Celine people who think they can buy justice and impartiality and therefore have a infallible contract , are the people who cause most injustice, because to them Money is king. It is not. Life is not about Money. No matter how much or indeed how little any human has.
Celine. Did you ever watch Crimewatch ?
Patrick Roden
February 24, 2021 at 16:19
“It’s always a concern when you find yourself on the same side as these cretins [Andrew Neil, George Galloway].
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Patrick,
Andrew Neil is a dyed in the wool tory and I dislike his outlook on the world and those of right-wingers generally.
George Galloway is a democratic socialist who I have a lot of time for.
The only thing in common with them is that they both are of the opinion that the UK should stay intact but they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Neither of these men are cretins.
They are both linked by their strings.
They cover what is known as the Red/Brown bridge. Neil is an old sergeant major turned into officer type, enforcer of the Murdoch mafia.
Gorgeous George worked the other end of the artificial created ‘left-right’ spectrum, the radical Red type. You don’t get to be free-agent that seems to move freely between Hussein/Gadaffi/U.K. Parliament and major public media platforms unless you are ‘safe’. Their objective is to control the narratives from both ends for the same ends.
Hence they bridge the Left and Right and dragoon the neoliberal/con goals.
BrexShit/ War / anti Corbyn etc whilst pretending to be at the opposite ends. Just look at what they did against Corbyn.
The DS velvet gloved rusty iron fist is barely concealed now. Just how extreme they are going to get rather than concede is the question now. Their masters will not give up, ever, they are Daleks in their infallibility.
Historically they have only suffered setbacks when the masses have risen, and overwhelmed the heavily armed praetorians with pitchforks and their bodies. Because there are not enough bullets or bullies to control the majority. The Poll Tax was the last attempt to see how pliable the populace could be.
GG and Brillo are best seen as the raggedy velvet glove puppets.
This may be a silly question but why doesn’t Mr Aberdein simply provide a copy of his testimony to you?
Graham – I think that C.M. addressed this issue in a reply earlier on – Aberdein is constrained by his job and the testimony was supposed to have a level of confidentiality about it.
My guess is that C.M. already has this testimony (he has a lot of good contacts, so it is unlikely that he doesn’t have it)- and he’s simply trying to make the field of candidates who could possibly have leaked it to him as large as possible.
I’d say that the 25 000 pounds is probably the wrong angle. Why not instead offer 10 000 pints of Tartan Special, bought by contributors to this blog, to be consumed at a bar of the testimony-provider’s choice in convivial conversation with grateful blog participants.
They would then have no difficulties discovering who dunnit – look for someone who is very happy and somewhat inebriated in central Edinburgh …..
I see!
I think everyone is going a bit bonkers in Scotland. Maybe the prolonged lockdown is causing brainfog.There’s no need for a ‘bribe’. Sturgeon and her pet Wolfe are finished, whether they resign now or later. The SNP does not have the Thatcher equivalent of the ‘men in grey suits’ to get rid of a leader who has become a liability. Sturgeon will be as resistant as Mugabe to being unseated, but she can’t stop the public outrage and she is making mistakes, revealing herself as the glib liar she has always been.
According to The Herald QUOTE “SCOTLAND’S prosecution service is being ordered to release material Alex Salmond claims will show he was the victim of a high-level plot to destroy him.The Holyrood inquiry into the Salmond affair is to use the parliament’s powers to compel the production of documents held by the Crown Office.
MSPs want to see all the correspondence it holds between three senior SNP officials, including Nicola Sturgeon’s husband, and the First Minister’s top Government aide.”https://archive.is/H6mMz
This I assume includes the essential Geoff Aberdein evidence.
It worries me that some impoverished junior law clerk might be tempted to take up Craig’s offer, risking jail or at the least career damage in the process.
Jennifer Allen
Like all good sleuth soaps, the main man, or in your case lady, always gets a pithy , fine moral comment at the end, which keeps you watching the drama unfold, satisfying the human heart with pearls of cathartic wisdom.
” You see, good people have good principles, and not even the bribe of £25K would tempt them. Bad people? My toes are curling with moral indignation and grim satisfaction at the sight of justice being wrought.”
Unfortunately, this is Holyrood, not Hollywood. The scriptwriters are all on lockdown furlough. Nobody cares. The Unionists have had their crow that this is what happens if you leave government in the hands of irrational Celts. Salmond has had his say. Sturgeon has lampooned patriarchy’s big stomach.
Apart from this Winter pastime of Scottish flyting, nothing is going to change. The Lord Advocate will, like a good contortionist, stick his head between his legs to prove he is capable of holding two separate agenda at one and the same time.
I am not in the business of making ‘fine moral comments’ about anyone and I didn’t. I was worried, that’s all. The Salmond evidence will be revealed eventually without the need for ‘bribes’. Quite simply, the Crown Office cannot dictate to Parliament. This is supposed to be ‘beyond their remit’ isn’t it? The nonsense about protecting the complainants is now seen for what it is – nonsense. I am accustomed to ad hominem comments and I have a thick skin, but why bother attacking me with a fanciful load of ‘soap opera’? I have no doubt this particular Scottish Government ‘soap’ will be playing for a long time. I don’t have a crystal ball – but I can read the ‘writing on the wall.’
” Quite simply, the Crown Office cannot dictate to Parliament. “
That’s all very fine in theory, until they do. What then? Who is going to tell them they can’t, the First Minister? Police Scotland? Westminster?
Jennifer Allen
No need to take umbrage.
I’m just rather cynical about politicians.
Do you think Nicola Sturgeon is going to resign? In an age when they nobody cares if they politicians are elected or created by algorithms by Tory Head Office, imho she’s never going to resign.
I am slow to this and I am not sure if I missed something, but what is Craig’s argument about why the SNP status quo elite would target Alex Salmon after he had stopped being leader. Was he planning a come back or what?
He was the only person who could stand in the way of endless SNP majorities as NS and PM ride the devolution gravy train. They can push any agenda knowing that voters would check SNP for sake of independence anyway. As long as they don’t get independence they keep their positions and all their perks, cosy with the crown prosecutor service for example. He was the only person more popular than her, who could have said “you’re not delivering independence, move over!”
Anyone else?
Sounds like the old “Irish Party”, after Parnell had been hustled out of action by a sex scandal.
I had for a long time assumed that all the decent folk of Scotland had left! How marvellous to see the Phoenix rising! Lady M and her control of the Crown Office, the Scottish Parliament and the SNazi Party is being revealed. A full Public Enquiry must be held into exactly how much has the SNP infiltrated all civil service and government offices. What was devolution meant to be? And an audit must also be held, back tracking all SNP expenditure over the last 14 years.
“Blogger Craig Murray, who recently stood to be SNP president, has raised the stakes. He is offering a £25,000 “reward” for a copy of evidence provided by Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, to the Holyrood Inquiry. “[Daily Record]
£25,000 is not enough to make MSM. If the Guardian had offered such a reward it could have made international headlines. Perhaps £250,000 might make it newsworthy. £1,000,000 would make headlines.
Is Scottish independence worth a million pounds?
Julian Assange didn’t pay for information and anyone with enough integrity to “reveal” Aberdein’s evidence is unlikely to be after money.
Downloading onto Wikileaks’s servers is still a secure method of disseminating information. Admittedly the USA eventually caught Manning and information had been obtained from laptops stolen from Julian Assange in Sweden in about 2010 but the holder of those laptops now sits in Belmarsh prison without a laptop that can be stolen. Wikileaks is much more secure than contacting Craig Murray on his blog.
Please take care.
Sturgeon is banged to rights
This mornings toady R4 spindryer FM is still using the trial of AS and what he honestly admitted, to bash him, making out that he of all can’t be trusted.
Exactly as they framed him long before his trial as the rest of the MSM thereby putting conjecture and falsehood before any lawful outcome to this shambles.
No questioning as to why Lord Wolffe is refusing Geoff Aberdein’s statement and other evidence relating to uncovering the facts behind AS accusations and making these documents available to this toothless inquiry.
I am looking forward to Lord wolffe releasing the evidence before tomorrow’s appearance by AS. These delaying tactics can derail another Indy vote and tie up SNP alternative leaders and or candidates in ugly debates.
Independence must be the number one issue at the ballot box, not Johnsons proposed spending shower of freshly printed monies.
Finally, Craig should now be exonerated on all charges thrown at him as it has become clear as daylight that that Ms. Garavelli, the MSM and Sky were the real culprits in revealing the perjurers, so feted and protected by the Crown court.
I meant to add ‘public brainwashing’ before shambles, as that is how we are governed today.
Here’s me assuming Craig’s £25K is a method of concentrating minds, just rape headlines in the MSM were designed to twist minds. Neither the money nor the offences actually exist.
Yesterday on CM blog there was an aurora of different theories. Politicians lie. Live with it.