£25,000 Reward Withdrawn 514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 2 3 4 5
  • shugsrug

    Three questions.

    • Firstly can the COPFS be in contempt?
    • Secondly did NS defame AA in the rant yesterday?
    • And lastly, why no decision in the case of our blog host?
    • Penguin

      Yes. Yes. See answer 1.

      If CM can’t be imprisoned as it would confirm that the corrupt COPFS is acting to defend the evil Murrell regime.

      They can’t just announce his innocence as that would confirm the plot to destroy Salmond was real.

      There is also the very real possibility that CM has set a Deadman switch which will release details of the Alphabetties and their relationship with Margaret Hilda Murrell should he be imprisoned or silenced in any underhand way. I would.

    • Hamish McGlumpha

      On the last point, my fear/expectation is that the judges are working to make their judgement legally watertight.

      I hope that this is to ensure that there can be doubt as to why Craig has been vindicated: My fear is that it will be to try to make it appeal-proof – and given the identity of at least one of their Lordships – who has form in cases like this (and was formerly in the Crown Office) – it may be that that there is internal dispute on the bench over the verdict.

      My several friends and relatives who are Scottish lawyers tell me it works like this: They decide what is the desired (Establishment/Political/Class-based) result they want to see, and then they perform legal summersaults to reverse engineer it from statute and case law. More often than not, these acrobatics are perverse. You have to listen to (the right kind of) Scottish lawyer to get any idea of how corrupt and disgraceful the Scottish legal system is.

      It has, sadly, nothing to do with justice. My hope is that in this case they will conclude that it would be the utmost folly, and will backfire on them spectacularly, if they are mad enough to find against Craig, let alone jail him.

      Starting from that position, I hope that they are currently constructing an argument to show legal cause for that.

      • Lions Led By Hyenas

        I think personally that for some time now the ‘meeja’ are the real powers now and lawyers and judges are mere pawns to be manipulated as/when desired.
        Witness the case where the son of a famous footballer was caught driving whilst under the influence, received a ‘slap on the wrist’ by the presiding sheriff, who then was subject to the wrath of a tabloid hack for being soft on ‘celebrity crime’.
        So said sheriff’s next case involved another drunk driver. Sheriff determined not to incur the wrath of the press again, sentences the female driver to imprisonment where she, sadly, commits suicide.
        The same tabloid hack from the same National Daily, with no sense of guilt or irony at the hypocrisy, let’s rip at the same sheriff
        No wonder these poor judges require the wisdom of Solomon.

  • DiggerUK

    Andrew Neil, yes that famous non supporter of independence, damns all the usual suspects in this article in the Daily Mail. “How Nicola Murray’s storm troopers turned Scotland in to a banana republic without the bananas”

    But over and above every other usual suspect he trashes the Scottish press….. “And to a compromised legal system we must also add a supine press (the Scottish Daily Mail being an honourable exception). The broadcasters are especially compliant, often little more than Sturgeon TV, while Scotland’s once powerful big-city newspapers are shadows of their former selves”


  • N_

    If this is allowed to get to the end of April with Sturgeon and her cronies still in office, I could easily imagine the SNP giving out free booze vouchers in the week before the election. That’s not a joke. She may well ask us all to raise a glass and a rousing cheer for the “health workers”, meaning of course for the nationalist government and the criminal Partei that has extended its grip in so many places since 2007, including in the judiciary.

    Andrew Neil’s excellent article in the Daily Heil. (Sorry, but credit where it’s due.)

    If there seems to be prolonged majority support for a referendum, let there be one. But what there must be is a landslide against the SNP in May. The fascists (SNP plus Greens) must be voted out.

    • iain

      There are no good options to vote for in May. But the very worst is the one for whom Andrew Neill and the Daily Mail are tireless propagandists.

      • N_

        Abstaining is half a vote for the SNP. If the party still has a functioning leadership at the time of the election it will be helped to deploy advanced means of “voter suppression”. That will include the “rousing” of abstentionism among those who would otherwise vote against the party. I bet the Greens will get a lot of positive press too. It’s like a half-pincer movement. A Green vote isn’t half a vote for the SNP – it’s a whole one.

        How do you arrive at the view that voting SNP is better than voting Tory?

        I hope for a Scottish Labour landslide, but that obviously seems unlikely. A Labour-LibDem-Tory coalition would be greatly preferable to giving the SNP the majority back that it lost at Holyrood in 2016.

        Those who oppose the SNP and its Green allies have the option of voting for whichever opposing candidate they prefer in the constituency vote and then for the (regional-only) Alliance For Unity candidate in the regional vote.

        It has to be observed what a bunch of scum the Greens have shown themselves to be in Scotland since 2016, just what genuine leftwing radicals have always called them. It is crystal clear that they are far far to the right of a Tory like Andrew Neil.

      • Alf Baird

        There are now 6 pro-indy parties to choose from in May’s election, so plenty of options.

        I’m expecting some of these parties to be campaigning for this election as a plebiscite on independence, as Solidarity has already proposed: https://solidarity.scot/snp-hierarchys-11-point-plan-is-doomed-to-fail/

        The List vote could be used as a national vote on independence, taking the aggregate vote across all pro-indy parties who state in their manifesto that the election is being used by them as a plebiscite on independence.

        And if a majority of Scots vote for independence then Scotland could be independent in May.

    • TheBlogg

      I can’t read the DM without turning off my adblocker, and I’m definitely not doing that.

      • N_

        @TheBlogg – As a long-term despiser of both the Daily Heil and advertising in general, I can tell you that Andrew Neil is interesting on party control over the Scottish courts.

      • Tom Welsh

        Is there anything on the DM site that you wouldn’t want to block? Last time I went there (long ago) it looked like the last days of Pompeii with Nero conducting an imperial orgy.

      • Clark

        Try blocking JavaScript.

        The adblocker blocker might be implemented in JavaScript because it doesn’t block me, but I have JavaScript blocked 🙂

    • Derek M Morison

      I see poor Clive Thomson just got 6 months for deliberately naming names on Twitter. That must serve as some kind of benchmark for CM who is only accused of inadvertent ‘jig-saw’ ID?

  • John Cleary

    I think I get it now.
    A Member of the Scottish Parliament is forced to stand down, for what is a trivial offense. This is the time of Me Too, when every man is guilty of rape, and every woman is to be believed.

    Ms. 1 fears that this may be an opportunity for Alex Salmond to get back into Hollyrood. So she makes a charge of sexual harassment, just so that it is on the record for vetting purposes. We know this because this is what she said to the court.

    Nicola and Liz get to hear about this. They look at each other and ask “….Do you think there might be any others?”

    A fishing expedition pursues. They get two nibbles. Ms. 2 and Ms. 3.
    Heavy investment is made into encouraging a concrete complaint.
    They will be told harrowing tales about Ms. 1. They will be told how she needs their support.
    They want to support their sister.

    Judith McKinnon holds their hand all along the way. She writes their story. She hands this story to Leslie Evans, who nods gravely and pronounces Mr Salmond guilty as charged.

    She passes the dossier to the police, who refuse it.
    She announces that the report will be put on the record, meaning it is available under FOI
    Meanwhile Ms 1 has quietly slipped away.

    Mr Salmond seeks an injunction and a judicial review to protect his reputation.
    “Someone” leaks the report to the Daily Record. Everybody knows.
    Maximum damage to the reputation of Alex Salmond.

    SNP government try to bleed him dry. Try every dirty legal trick in the book. Keep on going even though told they will lose by their own briefs.

    Fearful of losing the judicial review, a second front is opened. Preparations had been made since December 2017, when Police Scotland were approached for the first time by Judith McKinnon.

    An array of evidence is compiled. Police Scotland were pressurized to open an investigation.

    The significance is that if Alex Salmond had been charged by the police, the judicial review would be “sisted”. It would have been closed down and buried (rather like the Board meeting of Anglia Television got buried) and there would have been no defeat for Sturgeon and her gang.

    With pressure, and a slow increase in the number of charges, the police did open an inquiry.
    At that point the charges amounted to Ms 2 and Ms 3, together with the Whatsapp gang.

    You see how important Ms 2 and Ms 3 are to the plot? Without them there is nothing.

    We know they were reluctant to go to the police.

    We know they were betrayed by their sister, Leslie Evans, who took the material direct to the Crown Agent against their explicit wishes.

    Now we learn that they were “instructed” by the Lord Advocate, or by something acting through the offices of the Lord Advocate, to make their statements to the police. Not unlike the actions of Malcolm Wall at Anglia Television. (see https://wingsoverscotland.com/to-the-national-union-of-journalists/#comment-2614929 )

    Yes, there are animals involved here. But the animal is not Alex Salmond.

    Those two women have been betrayed, used and abused by Sturgeon and her gang. Pretty much like the Lloyds Names were betrayed, used and abused by Archer and her gang.

    Will nobody help them? They must be terrified.

    • Hamish McGlumpha

      I think that is broadly correct. An important detail missing around this:

      “An array of evidence is compiled. Police Scotland were pressurized to open an investigation.”

      The police REFUSED to receive the evidence. Lesley Evans (Head of UK civil service in Scotland) was not put off. She passed it instead – contrary to all due process – to the Crown Agent Harvey – in the Crown Office. Agent Harvey is well named, for it has been revealed (by Craig) that he was/is an MI5 Agent – thus working for the British secret service.

      The Crown Office then pressures the police to investigate. This is the opposite direction of the proper flow between the Crown Office and the Police – perversion of normal process – the Police usually investigate AND THEN pass it to the Crown Office if probable cause is found – and the Crown Office then judge if a prosecution is merited.

      A jury thought that no crime was committed. But MI5 did get a result. Look what’s happening now.

      It would be wrong to under-estimate the role of the British secret State in fomenting the present catastrophe for the independence movement.

      Hard to blame them though – after all, they are only doing their job of undermining threats to the existence of the British State – the biggest threat against which is Scottish Independence.

    • Johny Conspiranoid

      “A Member of the Scottish Parliament is forced to stand down, for what is a trivial offense.”

      not an offense at all according to the jury.

      • Cubby


        I think he is referring to the SNP MSP Mark MacDonald. There was no jury involved or any case at all the SNP just kicked him out for sending a stupid text. He is currently an independent MSP.

    • Cubby

      John Cleary

      You were doing pretty well until “these two women were betrayed used and abused by Sturgeon …..” “Will nobody help them…….”


      I agree that it was said at the Committee that they did not want to go to the Police but is there evidence for that actually being the case. Remember the people who said that lied on plenty of occassions at the Committee meetings.

      If it is true it is probably because they didn’t fancy committing perjury.

      Either way they were not innocents being abused etc.

      • John Cleary

        Cubby, I really don’t understand that.

        Alex Salmond has reason to believe that the complainers were “instructed” to provide written statements to the police.

        Where does your absolutism come from?

        • Cubby


          I think I said it may well be they were forced in to the criminal trial but it doesn’t make them innocents and one in particular is far from a victim. I repeat – any reluctance on their part was likely to be because they knew they were lying and perjury is a serious criminal offence.

  • Ray Davis

    Hi Craig, I just watched the bravura performance on Nicola Sturgeon on the news this morning (25/2/2021). It put me in mind of another bravura performance some decades ago. That time it was Richard Nixon – “there can be no whitewash in the White House”
    (see youtube clip – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYjtDwNrwtY) This was just before the ordure hit the fan. A case of history repeating itself, a second time as farce ? Good luck,
    Ray Davis

  • Heinz Halbkrass

    In the Greshornish House Accord of 16 September 2008, Professors Hans Köchler and Robert Black said:

    “It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998.”

    The judges of Scotland’s highest court came to share this view. In a submission to the commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommended that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government’s chief legal adviser.

    In the light of this, the new First Minister Alex Salmond decided after his election 2007 that the Lord Advocate would no longer attend the Scottish Cabinet, stating he wished to “de-politicise” the post. Has anyone in the squad of the current SNP government ever revisited this unworthy weak point in the legislature? Or were they so overly power-hungry when they realized that they, at the levers of power, could use it for their own opaque power games?

    • Giyane

      Heinz Halbkrass

      Imho the office of Lord Advocate was deliberately politicised. A bit like having Herod and Pontius Pilate in one person. Or Assad and Putin, the one occupying a strategic port on the Mediterranean, the other ruling over a continent that spans both Europe and the Far East.

      I’m sure the Lord Advocate is aware that NATO’s pressious Tridents depend on him, while at the same time he is supposed to run the cps in Scotland.

      In fact, what Ruth Davidson wants is for the cockups caused by the conflict of interests to result in de-legitimising Devolution. The door wasn’t locked so I had a little mosey around .

      Of all the wretched characters in this soap., he is the most secure in his position. If Nicola Sturgeon keeps pushing Trans rights, she’s the weakest link, as well as being the most likely to win May’s election.

      What I find fascinating about this whole shenanigan is that destroying the fabric of society is macropilitical., weakening social cohesion, while simultaneously she runs the covid drama which glues it all back again.


  • writeon

    So… Geof Aberdein’s testimony about these events has already been made public during the Alex Salmond sex trial? Why bother then to expend so much energy attempting to suppress it and keep it out of the parliamentary inquiry? Is it because by pretending the information isn’t significant and hasn’t been seen by the committee, one can then let Sturgeon off the hook and save her career? But as the testimony, according to Craig Murray, has already been made public at Salmon’s trial, isn’t this attempt futile and bound to fail? Isn’t Sturgeon simply blustering and bluffing for all she’s worth to save herself, only it’s amounts to a delaying tactic that ultimately won’t work?

    • Cubby


      If a testimony is not published on the Inquiry website it’s contents or its existence cannot be referred to in the final report or during any questioning of witnesses attending the Inquiry. Therefore neither Salmond nor Sturgeon will be allowed to refer to it or be questioned on it by Committtee members.

      • Republicofscotland


        I was surprised that not one of those asking the questions to Sturgeon today at FMQ’s made that abundantly clear, sure Baillie, Davidson and Rennie made good points but none actually made that point crystal clear, is it any wonder then that Sturgeon said she relishes her chance to give evidence.

        I never thought I’d see the day that I’d agree with Davidson, Baillie or Rennie, what a sorry state the SNP has become under Sturgeon’s tenure.

        • Cubby


          It is a crazy situation that you have some redacted info that people have seen but it cannot be used in questioning of Sturgeon or have any input to the final report.

          You also have some redacted info that no one has seen and that cannot be used either.

          It is the height of contempt for the people of Scotland that she says she will answer all questions on a matter when she knows fine well that no Committee member can ask her a question on it due to the redactions and Aberdein’s entire submission not being published.

          An Inquiry where the people being Inquired into control what evidence is made available would appear to most thinking people to be fundamentally flawed. Flawed right from the start.

          Sorry to see an independence supporter getting jailed for 6 months for revealing alphabet women names on Twitter.

          I agree with you – Sturgeon is trying to destroy the SNP and devolved government. If I remember correctly Craig once called her a Toom Tabard. Perhaps Daniel Defoe may prove more accurate.

  • Andrew F

    Speaking of whistle-blowers and the publishing of vitally important information…..

    Craig, shortly will be the second compulsory 28-days remand hearing for Julian Assange – everyone knows the drill by now, every 28 days he must be brought before the Court to rule on whether he should continue to be held on remand, and every 28 days his lawyers fail to actually push for release and then they also fail to exercise his automatic legal right to go directly to the High Court to seek his release. This has been going on for over 2 years and there has never once been an application to the High Court.

    Craig, you’ve previously indicated that this is deliberate – presumably a cunning plan like Baldrick would have? – but there can be no plausible reason whatsoever why Julian would actually want to stay in Belmarsh and be gagged by his own inner circle rather than be out on bail and speaking his mind freely about everything momentous that’s been going on since we last heard a direct word from him way back in March 2018.

    As I’ve said before, I’m getting really Effing sick of pushing up against this brick wall.

    Please try to convince me that this is genuinely Julian’s own wish and why it is a good idea.


    • DiggerUK

      You will be pushing up against a brick wall for a whole while longer I fear.

      The ‘celebrity counsel’ advocating in Julian’s name, seem more interested in the preservation of their show from the freedoms they enjoy outside a prison cell, as opposed to Julian’s release from inside a cell.

      I have been appalled at the circus claiming to act in his best interest; since the silence generated following the outrageous claims, by those supported by Consortium News, that security agencies from the USA and the UK had been waltzing in and out of Belmarsh drugging and interrogating Julian.
      Not even our host has spoken out on that bizarre and ‘cancelled’ storyline that has had no supporting evidence…_

    • craig Post author

      I can assure you that not appealing to the High Court over bail is Julian’s own decision. I have been told his thinking. For what it is worth, I disagree.
      But there is reason to hope the hearing of the US appeal against his release may not be far off.

      • Jon Cofy

        Damn it Craig if anyone else said Julian Assange refused to apply for bail to any court I would call them a scurrilous liar.
        But this is true? Julian loves Belmarsh that much that he won’t leave?
        Maybe he has developed some form of Stockholm syndrome. Solitary does strange things to people.
        I could never understand why the UK was concerned that Assange would flee in the first place.
        The UK spent £16 million in a ridiculous police display at the embassy? Why? Let him go and Her Majesty can say sorry to Uncle Sam and good riddance at the same time.
        Now the Her Majesty is putting Assange up at hotel Belmarsh for £25,000 a month! (and he won’t leave)
        Even people who hate Assange must see this is insanity.

        • Goose

          Maybe he feels he’s done nothing wrong therefore shouldn’t have to play along with this whole farce?

          Nelson Mandela and other defendants all agreed they wouldn’t appeal , before their trial, if sentenced to death.

      • Andrew F

        Thanks for replying Craig, but that completely fails to convince me.

        As I’ve said before, I’m a Barrister. That’s not some boast, it’s just that I know what I’m talking about.

        I cannot conceive of any plausible reason whatsoever why Julian would not want to apply to the High Court for bail – as is his automatic right. If he doesn’t want bail for some obscure strategic reason (absolutely impossible to believe for anyone with functioning faculties), then why the “COVID” bail application in the middle of last year? If that was a serious attempt to get bail, why wasn’t that taken to the High Court?

        When you say you can assure it’s his own decision, did you hear that directly from Julian to you in his own words, or was it conveyed by one of the inner circle to you? That you say you have been “told his thinking” suggests it was the latter.

        If this is simply a legal exercise, then his team should at the very least be moving heaven and earth to get him into a low security remand centre with appropriate freedoms and protections. On the other hand, it has the odious smell of a PR exercise to this lawyer.

        Is “Hillgrove” still running the PR on this charade?

        • Natasha

          Andrew F, as a Barrister, your feedback on the following would be very much appreciated.

          On 18 January I sent Carline Lucas MP my most recent of eleven emails (beginning March 2020) inviting her to speak out publicly for the immediate release of Julian Assange.


          On 2 February 2021 Caroline Lucas MP sent her first public letter to the Home Office calling for Julian’s immediate release.


          (countersign here:-)

          On 25 February 2021 Baroness Williams of Trafford Minister of State for Countering Extremism at the Home Office replied (copied below) confirming the UK government’s ‘moral choice’ in particular that of the Home Secretary to not exercise sovereign powers, via parliament if necessary, to intervene, if it wanted to and order Julian’s immediate release, for example:-


          “Thank you for your email to the Home Secretary of 2 February about Julian Assange. Your correspondence has been passed to me for reply as the Security Minister has taken a temporary leave of absence for curative surgery.

          I note your comments about the extradition request for Mr Assange, but the request has been dealt with strictly in accordance with the UK’s extradition law, the Extradition Act 2003 (“the Act”).

          As you are aware, following an extradition hearing the District Judge decided that the statutory bars in the Act prohibited Mr Assange’s extradition to the US. The Crown Prosecution Service, acting on behalf of the US authorities, has applied for leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision.

          You ask that the Home Secretary reviews the decision to order Mr. Assange’s extradition.
          However, as the District Judge decided not to send the case to her, the Home Secretary has no role in the case under the Act. As the matter is still before the courts it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

          You also ask that Mr Assange be released with immediate effect and express your concern that he has not been granted bail. The issue of whether a person is remanded in custody or granted bail is a matter for the courts and it is not a matter over which the Home Secretary has any jurisdiction. Similarly, decisions about the placement of a particular prisoner within the Prison Estate are operational decisions made by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.

          Finally, I must disagree with your assertion that Mr Assange has been arbitrarily detained without due process. His case has been handled in full accordance with the UK law and his detention has been authorised by the court.”

          • Andrew F

            Whatever gets Julian Assange free and able to speak freely once again is worth trying.
            Personally, I have no faith whatsoever in parliamentarians – but that’s no reason not to keep the pressure on them!

            As a lawyer, my argument has always been the very simple fact that Julian has an automatic right to apply to the High Court for bail whenever it is refused – that is, every 28 days since about late 2019, because he is NOT a prisoner serving a sentence anymore, he is simply being held on remand.

            Never once has such an application been made. According to Craig, Julian wants to stay in Belmarsh (sorry Craig, but that’s the short version of your explanation until you give us the more plausible long version) for some unspecified and unknowable really good reason, apparently.

            All power to you and everyone else doing whatever they can to get this truth teller back out and telling the truth again.

        • Shardlake

          Andrew : Maybe a possible or plausible explanation why Mr Assange has chosen not to pursue bail in the High Court is that, like Nelson Mandela in January 1985 when P W Botha offered him release, there were stringent conditions to that release that were unacceptable to him and the ANC. Nelson Mandela was not released from Robben Island prison until February 11, 1990 when negotiations were completed and he was prepared to remain incarcerated for another five years after the first offer of release was made. It could be a matter of negotiation now which we have no information about. I guess Mr Assange knows where all the bodies are buried and the authorities currently holding him may require some understanding from him that he won’t divulge any further damaging releases. All speculation in the light of Judge Baraitser declaring him unfit for extradition.

          • Andrew F

            No offence, but I am sick to the gills with speculation and inuendo about why it may be that despite all logic and his own history of being extremely vocal about just about every important topic, Julian may just want to go all quiet for a few crucial years and do nothing to secure his freedom.

            Maybe he was eaten by Martians?

            Don’t be silly. Julian has been expertly wrapped up and gagged by his own inner circle since March 2018. I fear he has made terrible mistakes about who to trust and his silence is the result.

            You seem to suggest that some kind of deal is perhaps being negotiated between Julian and the 1% to allow him to be free, but not free to do the very thing they are imprisoning him for- telling the 100% unvarnished verifiable truth through source documents.

            Nobody who ever believed in Assange’s core project of truth telling could ever suggest that a compromise would be a good idea.

          • Deb O'Nair

            Andrew F – as uncomfortable a thought as it is, I tend to agree as Assange is so isolated that it is impossible to know what is truly going on. The lack of public statements from Assange via his team seems odd – given that at the Ecuadorian embassy Julian was keen on making public statements (and appearances from the window). Now we are expected to believe what; that he is engaged in a silent protest?

          • Natasha

            Since at least 2010 Julian has been afraid he may be a target of an extrajudicial killing, for example senior writers at organizations such as Politico and Mediaite have made this case. In 2017 Julian tweeted a compilation of videos showing US politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as TV pundits, calling for him to be “hanged” or “droned.” Perhaps Julian calculates he’s better off in Belmarsh, if he dies, then its clear that only UK authorities could potentially be prosecuted for his murder. If he’s free to walk the streets, anyone from any country could anonymously kill him and escape prosecution for his murder. The US regularly practice this dark art. Given these two utterly horrific terrible choices I know where my adrenalin levels would be lowest.

      • Goose

        Incredible seeing the guardian bemoaning the Russian media’s denigration of Navalny; claiming it amounts to character assassination. This from a newspaper that printed scurrilous reports on everything from Assange’s personal hygiene, his cowardice (over not going to Sweden) through to false reports about him hacking embassy computer systems and holding meetings with Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort.

        We really are down the rabbit hole.

        • Goose

          correction : his alleged cowardice – because we now know it wasn’t cowardice at all. Those fears of onward extradition were well-founded.

          It was James Ball (linked to the Integrity Initiative) and Luke Harding producing the most damaging stuff.

          • Goose

            Paul Mason praising John Healey’s Russia bashing speech today. And denouncing Corbyn’s hesitancy of the Skripals; not in joining the finger pointing before facts were established. They still aren’t fully established and probably never will be – we still don’t know when Skripal and his daughter are supposed to have touched that damn door, with the alleged wannabe assassins only arriving -based on the official narrative – after 12 noon using train timetables.

            Mason also seems to love Nato and the nuclear deterrent for some ungodly reason, given he claims he’s on the far left. He frequently posts about historical events involving progressive and left-wing movements that often involved violence and physical altercations. It’s pretty obvious what he’s really about.

          • Goose

            Report : GCHQ will use AI against “disinformation” inc “machine-assisted fact checking through validation against trusted sources”

            Wonder what AI would make of the ‘dodgy dossier’ or the fake staged-slaying of a journalist in Ukraine, which Boris Johnson quickly denounced on Twitter? Verified as ‘all true’ no doubt? If we start policing domestic dissent and having AI decide that which is malicious falsehood from that which is harmless conjecture, with well-resourced agencies acting as cyber vigilantes, then all claims to be a free society are gone. And how does this fit with obligations under the ECHR? How many adverse rulings must it take in European courts before fellow UK citizens are treated with respect and actually trusted to express an opinion?

            Had to laugh at Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins(?) appearance on the Daily politics yesterday, in which he urged more investigative journalism, more questioning. This at a time when dissenting voices are being hounded, whistleblowers are being threatened (OPCW) and jailed , dissent banned and pushed offline. Twitter recently banned accounts for alleged to have opposed NATO, it’s not long since major UK parties used to be in opposition to Nato membership. What the hell is going on in the west?

          • Goose

            AI is far from a neutral arbiter as Twitter users have found out. Algorithmic bias will almost certainly feature if secrecy surround this : news stories authorities want suppressing for various reasons, Groups and positions favoured(operation Socialist?).
            If they are going down this route it’s essential that unlike the secretive tech corporations, they do so with transparency and independent oversight. Because ultimately, they are supposed to serve the public, not shield wrongdoers among the political and official elite.

    • Jon Cofy

      “Craig, shortly will be the second compulsory 28-days remand hearing for Julian Assange – everyone knows the drill by now, every 28 days he must be brought before the Court to rule on whether he should continue to be held on remand, and every 28 days his lawyers fail to actually push for release and then they also fail to exercise his automatic legal right to go directly to the High Court to seek his release. This has been going on for over 2 years and there has never once been an application to the High Court.”

      Thanks for the heads up.
      I’m looking for recent evidence Assange is still with us. Is there an actual date for this hearing?
      Hypothetically what appeal lies after the High Court? Privy Counsel perhaps? After that the Queen?

    • Josh R

      Andrew F,
      I’m guessing here, but maybe it’s a matter of principle?
      Something about not jumping through your persecutors’ hoops to “request” your freedom when it should be granted unbidden.
      Does this 28 day thing extend to the “Crown” also having to rejustify his continued caging?
      Perhaps not wanting to continually shell out cash so that his tormentors can just laugh in his face and send him down again – building his hopes up before dashing them again, perhaps adding to his mental torture?
      They’ve got form for this, after all. Nothing about the process adheres to what we’d call “just” so maybe he’s fed up playing their game and not inclined to plead for swapping one set of bars for a more comfortable form of incarceration with uniforms outside his house, a tracker on his ankle and spooks bugging his family home?
      No idea what is the case, as I said, just guessing & ultimately it’s his decision, right or wrong.
      But I can understand why his supporters would be concerned.
      But I can also understand why someone wouldn’t want to go to the effort of “humbly” requesting of the Crown what should be rightfully theirs without asking, especially at some considerable mental & financial expense and knowing what a bunch of disingenuous, conniving cnts they are anyway.

      • Andrew F


        That’s all speculation – as you rightly acknowledge.

        Does the 28 day cycle apply to the Crown? – In theory it does. The way it works is this: There are 2 reasons for you to be in prison, the obvious one is because you have been sentenced to a prison term, but there is also “remand”. Remand is where you are being held in prison until you are dealt with by a Court (let’s say you’ve been charged with murder and have been refused bail while the case goes through all the steps before you actually get to Trial). There is what we call “the presumption of bail”, which means that everyone should be let go, usually on bail conditions, until they have had their Trial and guilt or innocence has been decided, unless there is a very good reason that they should be held.

        In extradition proceedings – which is what Assange is dealing with – there is always the presumption of bail. Under the relevant law, the person should be released on bail unless there is a good reason not to release them. There can be all sorts of conditions set to ensure the person does not abscond while on bail. I find it impossible to believe that Julian would rather be in England’s most notoriously bad jail rather than out on bail under even the most strict conditions – remember that when he was first arrested all those years ago he was released into effectively house arrest with daily reporting to the local police station at the country manor of Vaughan Smith. Do you honestly think that Julian would rather stay in Belmarsh than be released on similar bail conditions? Really?

        So, every 28 days the person being held on remand pending extradition proceedings must be brought before the Court and the Court must decide why that person should NOT be released, as the presumption says they should. Thanks to the silo of silence around these regular 4 weekly appearances (remember being told these were merely “technical” Court appearances?), we don’t know whether the Crown even bothers to make an argument. We know for certain that Assange’s “team” does SFA about arguing for bail each time. And, as I’ve said above and many times before, they never ever exercise his automatic right to apply to the High Court for bail.

        Financial expense? Julian’s legals are fully funded. We have no idea about the details of who and how much, but there is no fundraiser for actual direct “legal fees”, look closely and you’ll note that the fundraisers are for something vague such as “Julian’s Defence”, look into it and you will see that it is actually to fund the (Hillgrove?) PR machine, there has been no suggestion that there is a lack of money for legal fees to get him out on bail. If there was and there was a public crowd-funder run, I bet he would raise all the needed money within hours. So, money for lawyers isn’t the issue.

        Please Josh just think. I don’t know if you’ve ever been into a prison, but I have and there is no way in the world that anyone would deliberately choose to stay in one just to make some arcane point – while at the same time remaining completely silent about this point they’re making. Very Zen I suppose, but totally implausible.

        No, Julian is being held against his will and his “team” have totally failed him by not getting him out on bail, as is his legally presumed right. And, if they ever actually got around to asking for bail for a change and then appealing the inevitable refusal and then appealing that decision right to the highest Court possible, what would Julian have lost? Some quality time with all his new friends?

        Bottom line: there is no legal, financial, logical or humane reason for what’s going on. And what’s going on isn’t the doing of the police, the government, the Courts or the prison system – it’s 100% due to the “team” playing some weird games with a man’s life.

        Last point, you may not remember this but I’ve been following this matter extremely closely for several years. When Julian was first sentenced in April 2019 on the bail breach an appeal against the conviction was amazingly never lodged (what better reason could there have been for failing to appear in Court than that you had sought and obtained political asylum?), but someone lodged an appeal against the sentence. We don’t know who, but my suspicion is that it was Julian himself. A week or so before that appeal was to be heard his lawyers apparently advised the Court that the appeal would be dropped. WTF??? He had literally nothing to lose, but “someone” didn’t want attention drawn to his case.

        None of this makes any sense, and all of it stinks of a stitch up wrapped in a PR machine.

        PS: As a remand prisoner, Julian has every right to speak out and communicate with all of his millions of genuine supporters worldwide. Why have we not heard a direct word from him since he was gagged by his own “team” nearly 3 years ago?

        • Josh R

          Andrew F,
          cheers for the reply & your thoughts, especially the procedural stuff & timeline.

          “Do you honestly think that Julian would rather stay in Belmarsh than be released on similar bail conditions? Really?”:

          Couldn’t say one way or another but, like yourself, I do find it mighty strange & seemingly inexplicable. Personally, I would have thought staying with friends & family, even under virtual house arrest & tagged, in some nice countryside setting would be heaven in comparison.

          “Please Josh just think”:

          🙂 not so much ‘thinking’ as pondering and, as you say, “speculating”. I really can’t get my head around it, but I’m not in that particular ‘loop’ and kind of figure it’s not actually my business what Julian decides.
          If he was victim of something untoward by those who are meant to be representing his best interests, I would be very concerned. But I think both JA and his close friends would be onto that like flies on the proverbial, they’re a bright lot.

          “I don’t know if you’ve ever been into a prison”:

          A five stretch* CatB on remand and about 3 years on bail for what was basically a politically related case & fought as a matter of principle.
          *5 weeks :-))))
          Yes, prison is sh!t, really, really awful. Having someone lock you up and deprive you of pretty much all the freedoms of being a human being ?!? people def. underestimate what that actually involves.
          But also, when it is essentially a political battle, a matter of principle rather than being ‘criminal’, what might seem like an obvious course of action might not necessarily be so.
          Again, I’ve got nothing to answer this particular conundrum and even my original ‘speculation’ is simply a mental exercise in “wtf?!?”

          “And what’s going on isn’t the doing of the police, the government, the Courts or the prison system”:

          But it is though.
          Sure, the defence team could be reacting to this differently in the ways you state & it sounds like they could “challenge” the decision of keeping JA caged, but the ultimate decision to cage him is definitely “the doing” of those Crown agents you list above.

          “it’s 100% due to the “team” playing some weird games with a man’s life……..it stinks of a stitch up wrapped in a PR machine”:

          I really hope that’s not the case, but you could be right. I’ve got fk all idea.

          “None of this makes any sense”:

          Absolutely, your points & concerns seem perfectly valid & it’s interesting to hear all this, I’m completely baffled!
          & I truly hope JA is not being taken for a ride.
          Admittedly, I still don’t know the ‘half of it’, even though you give a good lead on considering the one ‘half of it’.


        • Natasha

          Andre F, Outside Belmarsh, Julian would likely be a far easier target for extrajudicial murder, which UK authorities could deny responsibility for, thus possibly explaining waiving his automatic right to apply at the High Court every 28 days? More here:-


          On September 9, 2020, Nils Melzer* stated “He […] only received a computer after a year in prison, he doesn’t have internet access, and on top of that, they have glued down the keys of the keyboard so he can’t write” (*UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment).


          Maybe we have not heard a direct word from him for nearly 3 years because he has been physically prevented from doing so, as Melzer describes?

    • Goose

      Notice Craig’s stated he’s still in the SNP. Look at the alternative(s) Tonight’s guardian :

      Labour to state ‘non-negotiable’ support for UK’s nuclear weapons

      Party’s commitment to Nato is also ‘unshakeable’, John Healey to say, in shift from Jeremy Corbyn era -Guardian
      Anyone flirting with dumping the SNP over this really does need to look at the alternatives, and especially this atrocious, ‘more Tory than the Tories’ incarnation of the Labour party.

      Sturgeon is but one individual in a party of many, many good people. Huge attempt underway, UK media-wide now to leverage this, after previously showing little interest, it’s purely in an attempt to divide and depress turnout.

      It’s a well trodden path, demoralising Labour supporters into not voting was a key tactic of the dual strategy used at the last general election. Andrew Neil was a key antagonist and tormentor back then too. Giving Corbyn and Sturgeon rough interviews full of rhetorical questions delivered in his loud hectoring tone. Corbyn and other opposition figures, including Sturgeon, were misled, told Johnson’s would follow them into Neil’s hot seat. As we know, Johnson never did, with no media outcry in the ensuing days.

      Don’t lose sight of who the real enemies of independence are.

        • Goose

          With headlines like this:

          SNP civil war heats up as Salmond says leadership has failed.

          Hard not to view this saga as the ‘useful idiots of unionism’. Salmond was cleared in March last year (2020) . The fact it’s all coming to the boil now on the eve of elections seems self-defeating ridiculousness.

          • Goose

            Craig Tweets:

            Extraordinary wishful thinking by the unionists.

            The desire for freedom of the Scottish nation is not dependent on any politician – not Salmond, not Sturgeon, not anybody.

            And of such politicians, Boris Johnson remains the best argument for Independence!

            That’s true , but the practical reality is that to deliver anything you need that Holyrood majority and the unionists’ tails are up over this absurd, self-inflicted nonsense.

            Shorn of that Holyrood majority, Scots rising up in revolutionary fervour to take back their independence is about as likely as Mel Gibson riding in to lead the charge. ie. more Hollywood fantasy than Holyrood .

          • Piotr+Berman

            “And of such politicians, Boris Johnson remains the best argument for Independence!”

            IMHO, Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC MP is an even better argument. Imagine that indefatigable efforts of BJ yield fruit and Tories lose the government. You really need the two of them to create the climate of utter hopelessness.

      • Bayard

        AFAICS, to have the SNP not end up in power at Holyrood will bring independence faster than having them win a majority. If they win their majority, the same not-interested-in-independence people will be at the helm, unassailable for the forseeable future. If they lose, then the party will turn on itself, as losing parties always do and there is a possibility that they can come out of the internecine strife with a leadership that is truly interested in independence.

      • DunGroanin

        As in the Labour Party – it was the membership who rallied to Corbyn as the attempted Chickencoup was launched in BrexShit result day. Democracy is not a gift it is a hard won right and the duty is to use the vote, in every institution that it has been won.

        Indy supporters who want the SNP to be their vehicle of choice to that independence must become members and from these grassroots only vote for these they KNOW are the real thing. As opposed to some planted saviour, that was carted into usurp the Cause, from when they were babies almost.

        These ancient devils know a lot about changelings.

  • The Smart One

    Hamilton should himself leak Geoff Aberdein’s unredacted testimony to you.

    He can trouser the £25,000 Reward.

    After all, he is not paid in cash (only in kind from his masters).

    He can then save his reputation by having the perfect excuse for not providing the whitewash demanded and expected from him by his masters.

    A win win situation for Hamilton.

  • The Smart One

    For your information Craig, Petra, who was kicked out of Wings Over Scotland and has taken over the comments at the Wee Ginger Dug, is accusing you of misleading people into donating to you while you had forked out over £600,000 cash to buy your home in Edinburgh. (her words not mine)

    The irony of it.

    Could someone ask her about the £600,000 ring fenced independence campaign cash that has been embezzled by Murrell and Sturgeon.

    • Josh R

      This is really prickly talk & is the stuff of those would seek to destroy anyone seeking to hold powerful criminals to account, by attempting to demean their character and divorce them from any public support.
      In that way it is a terribly transparent ploy and I hope and am hopeful that it is not successful.
      I’ve donated a couple of ‘wedges’ and will continue to do so.
      This is a public interest case of utmost importance. I am part of the ‘public’ and I am interested, so happy to share the burden, albeit in a tiny way.
      I do not expect CM to make himself destitute before I consider lending a hand, I do not begrudge him being able to buy a home for him & his family, or even upgrading, if that is what has happened, of having a holiday or buying a new shirt, if he chooses.
      The attacks against him are designed to punish him and inconvenience his life as much as it is to convict him. So any manner in which he is able to keep ‘living’ his life well amidst all this is a tiny victory I find heartening as there will be untold suffering he, his family & friends endure of which I will know nothing.
      So Solidarity! & fk all the naysayers and the viperous, vapid talking heads spreading their vicious poison.
      My help & support are not predicated on some ridiculously judgemental desire to fawn over superheroes, saints or saviours, just fellow human beings who face the wrath of injustice which threatens us all and who, incidentally, have oftentimes done more than I will ever be able to do to support others in a similar predicament.

      I think this sentiment extends to the questions over Julian’s situation. As outsiders, we cannot be privy to all the convoluted goings on, the strategies and emotions.
      We cannot presume to know better or demand more, even when we simply wish wholeheartedly that his trials & tribulations would and must end as soon as possible.
      Patience and the humility to lend a hand without expecting anything in return are worthy. Perhaps also the ability to accept others may know what they are doing and are, at the end of the day, only human and quite capable of not being perfect as much as their capable of wow’ing us..

      CM & JA are effective in their opposition to this sordid state of affairs we find objectionable. As such they are targets of those multitudes of agents employed to quell “dissent”.
      And as supporters we are also targets of those who’d seek to divide us, so worth getting our priorities straight.

      Sadly, many casual observers are easily ‘spun’ by the slightest of smears, but those of us amongst the often silent majority of folk who would be ‘good’, must stand firm and continue to raise a voice in our respective circles.

      • Squeeth

        The last I heard was that Craig had bought a bigger house to do it up and run it as a bed-and-breakfast-cum-hotel, to earn some money. That looks to me like a business investment, not the spending of ill-gotten gains.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      If Mr Murray is like 99% of the middle class, he will have been paying into a house fund for 30 years by now. He will have bought a UK pad whilst stationed abroad as an investment and, if it was in London, it would only have needed to have been a 3 bed flat in a salubrious area to have more than covered a £600,000 bill for a new house in Edinburgh.

      There are millions of people in the SE who are relatively cash poor but have a big property asset.

  • John Cleary

    Following it today. It’s clear that all she’s got is “those poor wee women. That animal Salmond and his behaviour.”
    And she’ll hide behind it to the grave.

    So we’ve got to deal with it, and we’ve got to be proactive.
    So let’s use our marketing expertise.
    Can we segment the “poor wee women” market, whilst maintaining their anonymity?

    It turns out that we can.

    There are two segments.
    There are the original two complainants who went through the Scottish Government “procedure”.
    Working class women, who probably did it more to support Ms. 1 than for themselves.
    These women are NOT liars.

    Then there are the nine (later eight) complainers who by and large comprised the Whatsapp group.
    Powerful upper middle class women.

    The original two (Ms 2 and Ms 3) did not want to go to the police at all.
    their stories were stripped from them by those acting for the British State


    First, when Leslie Evans passed this most personal history to the Crown Agent, and through him to the police*.

    Then again when something wicked “instructed them” to give those stories direct to the police in the form of signed statements.

    The Whatsapp eight (bar one, Ms 1) did not go through the “procedure” at all.
    They joined the action afterwards when it had already passed through the hands of David Harvie and James Wolffe.
    I make the point here. All of these allegations were trivial, apart from the one that was proven not to have happened in court and under cross-examination. The attempted rape.

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

    When you separate the groups it is quite clear that it is only the working class women that have been damaged by this affair. They continue to suffer horribly. They are terrified of all that has befallen them, simply for “helping” another woman. Another woman who withdrew her own charges rather than get involved herself.

    It is equally clear that this damage has been, and continues to be inflicted by Nicola Sturgeon, Leslie Evans, David Harvie and James Wolffe and their ultimate controlling mind, Queen Elizabeth II**.

    The posh bitches with their fancy clothes and their impeccable makeup have been touched by this not at all, only by the coming backlash..

    No way at all are they part of the “poor wee women” market.

    *The police, who got such a kick up the arse from somebody that 22 full time officers were assigned and more than 400 interviews conducted. Yet still they found no dirt.

    **What Elizabeth II has going on here is a “Modified Enhanced Assange”

    You’ve got the same two tentative complainants.
    You have no intention of complaining.
    Then force is applied. The police are involved in a criminal inquiry against their express wishes.

    The enhancement comes in with the piling on by the nine posh bitches who provide the ballast for the Moorov Doctrine (see Craig Murray)

    • craig Post author

      John, that’s kind of right, but only one of the original two women was not a liar. The one original genuine complaint, the second was the start of the weaponisation process.

        • John Cleary

          Doesn’t that mean there is a single person about which this whole thing revolves? Is that person not very vulnerable? Should pastoral care not be offered, say by Jackie Baillie, on behalf of the Committee?

          • Giyane

            John Cleary

            To rationalise the deep state with all its think-tanks into Elizabeth II is like saying that Biden is running the US. Your single vulnerable woman has the same level of importance to the state as any other of the state’s paid agents. Covert operations are not social work.

            Alex Salmond might have thought she was out if her depth, but her employers don’t care a fig about that.

            What Liz 2 has going on here is the permanent subjugation of a few handy annexes to her country, annexed and maintained by brute force by cynical, uncaring pieces of shite.

            At some point in every human life a decision has to be made to buy into or not buy into ruler bullshit. If anybody thinks ‘buying in’ is an easy option they should think twice, because they will have to ‘buy in’ for the rest of their life, even when their monarch throws them under the bus.

          • Giyane

            John Cleary

            The Queen is cuddly and respectable. Your reference to her was loaded with irony. But some people don’t do irony. The reality of what HM stands for is 1/ a fake creed that wants to destroy/ crusade all other creeds. 2/ a belligerent state that has WMD. 3/a failed empire that has liberated all of its territorial assets except its
            Nearest and therefore oldest assets like Scotland, for which it now claims ancestral rights.
            Last but not least, at this moment of time is ruled by criminals who fake elections using IT, and whose policy is to flog each and every nationally owned asset for the benefit of its own undemocratic clique.

            Your irony was short on detail, so my purpose was to restore it.
            Sorry if that caused offence.

      • Nino

        They are both correct as idioms of;

        “Heav’n has no rage, like love to hatred turn’d,
        Nor hell a fury, like a woman scorn’d ”

        William Congreve’s play The Morning Bride in 1697

        Pipped to the post by Colley Cibber’s play Love’s Last Shift in 1696

        “He shall find no Fiend in Hell can match the fury of a disappointed Woman!
        – Scorned! slighted! dismissed without a parting Pang!”

        “scorned” and “spurned” being synonymous in these cases.

        But was there a relationship, other than professional which went sour, or meant more to one party than the other that is fueling the current meltdown?


        Will Ms Sturgeon, in her evidence, retell of a moment in the past where she too fell victim to Salmond’s wandering attentions?

        I do hope so.

        A defence that will never succeed in Court; “yes gov we fitted him up ‘cos we knew he was a serial offender of the same crime but he was never nailed for it”

        If that is the direction of the FM’s strategy it might be best if she calls it a day now, she and her husband may well be looking at jail time (with others) but to inject more poison into the soup now is only going to create more difficulties for her and her cohorts.

        By the defamation she committed the other day she has already given Salmond more ammunition to fire (plus more compensation to claim in a civil case) she accused Salmond of being the master of his own downfall as far as the sexual assault claims were concerned, and just because he was acquitted does not mean he was not guilty – and then went on to say she would have plenty more to say on that matter – If she does she will be a very much darker shade of toast than she is now.

        • Wikikettle

          Nino. I really have to increase my monthly subscription for Craig’s investigative journalism notwithstanding the quality and analysis of many of his learned readership, such as your goodself. Thank you.

    • mark golding

      We learn of a chest infection Mary during the 2nd stage committee review and I hope this will not effect his quite extraordinary command of the proceedings in terms of sensibility, substance and veracity.

  • mark golding

    Ms Sturgeon said, “[Mr Salmond] is angry with me – and he clearly is angry with me – is that I didn’t cover it up, I didn’t collude with him to make these allegations go away and perhaps that is at the root of why he is as annoyed as he appears to be.”

    Alex Salmond has denied he was angry stating rather he was, “astonished at the ever shifting sands.”

    In an attempt to gain favour with sisterhood and invoke ripples of emotion, Ms Sturgeon stated the issue was the “age-old” situation where “a man is accused of misconduct against women and often it’s a woman that ends up sitting answering for them.”

    We must recall some people are brought into this life to build, and others to tear down. Craig and Alex are builders while without any doubt Sturgeon is a servant of the Establishment and entropy..

  • Matt

    On 2 successive days Radio 4’s Today program has had a talking head broadly critical of this mess (first a friend of AS, second was a civil servant with some kind of Crown Office connection) and both of them professed to not knowing what was in the redacted paragraphs. Surely anyone with the slightest interest in this issue would know that.
    Or were they steered away from any discussion, I wonder.

    • Garry W Gibbs

      We live in a world now where government employees are paid to profess not to know rather than being, as they should be, paid to know and profess to know.

    • Bayard

      I think Craig covered this some posts back. He, if it was him, said it was like gaming. While you are in the game, you are your character, King of Ishtaroth or whatever, then, when you stop, you are plain Joe Bloggs again. Similarly all these civil servants. When they are at work, they believe all the stuff to do with work, regardless of how unlikely it may seem from the outside, then, when they leave, they revert to being a their normal self. So if in the world of work, no-one knows what was in the redacted paragraphs, then they wouldn’t know. Nor would they find out any other way because it’s highly likely they don’t think about work when they are not at work. Why should they? they are not paid to think about work in their own time, they’ve got enough of their own problems to worry about.

      • Garry W Gibbs

        Does that mean that they only blindly follow orders unquestioningly and never question them, never think about them, never even query them and just put everything, no matter what it is, out of their head?

  • Justin

    Trouble is mounting for Nicola. Jim Sillars was unimpressed when she questioned Alex Salmond’s character and made fun of his “conspiracy theory” during Wednesday’s official Covid briefing. Jim has lodged a formal complaint that she breached clauses 1.1 and 1.3 of the Ministerial code.

    Read his formal complaint letter (and her comments) here:

    • Bayard

      From that letter: “During her attacks on Mr. Salmond, she said:

      “The behaviour complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, but that doesn’t mean that the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that””

      The other thing that can be inferred from this remark is that, if, all the “behaviour complained of” did happen and wasn’t criminal, then it must be the case in the eyes of the law that anyone also do those things, up to and including attempted rape and not be breaking the law. Perhaps someone should point that out to Rape Crisis Scotland.

      • Justin

        Yes, do you see the sleight-of-hand substitution? She implied that Alex Salmond did do the things he was charged with, but the jury decided those actions weren’t criminal. But that’s not how the law works. The judiciary defines what constitutes an offence. It’s not for the jury to define what constitutes a criminal act. They can only decide whether he is guilty of the criminal acts he was charged with. The jury’s verdicts of “Not guilty” actually mean that he didn’t those things (not that he did but they didn’t constitute crimes). The single verdict of “Not proven” means that he may have done that criminal thing, but there wasn’t enough evidence to determine whether he did or not.

        Nicola’s negative insinuation “doesn’t mean that” avoids making any actual definite claim, so it just amounts to empty spin. It’s a despicable smear, intended to denigrate his character without evidence.

  • Geoffrey

    It is an intriguing thought: to imagine Nicola Sturgeon as an instrument of the British state, which she has been so effective in undermining, particularly during this Covid crisis. Is she a double agent ?

    • N_

      Some more specific questions:

      1) who has been paying Nicola Sturgeon so far?

      2) who might help her when she gets into big trouble? (probably nobody apart from those whom she might expose, but hardly anybody will believe her if she starts ranting, and in any case she may find that the very methods she has been using against her opponents start to be used against her)

      3) who benefits from her fall? (other than most of us who live in Scotland)

      If the SNP is still in shape to fight the election, another thing to look at is

      4) who pays the Greens?

      • Bayard

        1) I think it likely she is being paid in kind: we will give you Scotland to run, so that you can pursue the “woke” agenda close to your heart and in return, you will make sure there is no real progress towards independence.

      • Rhys Jaggar

        If Nicola Sturgeon has been a good globalist girl, then she will be given a job overseas in a globalist organisation. You know, like Nick Clegg got employed by Facebook. Neil Kinnock joined the EU gravy train. Tony Blair joined the US-Zionist cabal.

        That sort of thing.

    • Giyane


      Nicola Sturgeon’s pit bull rag doll is patriarchy. White middle-aged males, probably pre-chewed, are her favourites. Whether this is a talent which is uniquely suited to running a small country seems to be the question. It’s when the back hair is erect, flecks of froth flicked with every shake, and the jaw clamped onto the victim’s neck, that the rule- based EU might go for the quiet life and turn Scotland down.

    • Sossy Pie

      As Craig has previously suggested, she is acting for Westminster in not enacting an ‘internationalist’ push for independence. The attack on AS is unrelated, as it stems from his media work, more likely, but has been usefully picked up in an attempt to destroy the indie movement, or at least the SNP. The clumsy late work by the Crown Office, I would wager, is MI5, not NS.

  • N_

    “Liz Lloyd is being tipped by senior SNP figures for a move in a post-May election reshuffle,” according to the Times newspaper.

    Dig the lingo. Dig the subtle purveyance of the assumption too. Who says the SNP will be in government after May? And who says Lloyd won’t already have been “shuffled” off by then, in a prison van headed to Barlinnie?

  • casperger

    Rivetting evidence from Alex Salmond!
    He’s coughing a bit, and needed a break from giving evidence. I hope the bastards aren’t novichoking him….

    • Goose

      No one knows precisely.

      But he must surely pissed the UK Security establishment off by joining Russia Today(RT) at a time when huge US/UK effort was going into discrediting Putin. Sturgeon very much buys into that whole Nato anti-Russian narrative, people are thus adding two and two together.

      • Goose

        Sturgeon was reportedly a big Hillary Clinton supporter. That says much about her politics, and her ‘black and white’ worldview in which we are always the ‘good guys’.

        • Goose

          Reported today : At least 22 dead in Syria as Joe Biden launches first airstrikes of his presidency·

          Old guy dipping his toes in, must feel good to be back. Déjà vu… How they love the killin’

          • laguerre

            In my view, those air-strikes were a zero for the US. It’s not wise to attack a pro-government militia (pro-Iraqi government). That will only stir up trouble for the US in Iraq.

          • Goose


            Got to admit ‘Bomber Biden’ has a certain ring to it. He’s also deployed four B-1 bombers to Norway.

            Glenn Greenwald has retweeted an amusing cartoon on his twitter page.

            No wonder Trump’s optimistic about being back in the White House in four years.

          • Goose

            #BomberBiden appears to be trending and before I mentioned it.

            36th day in office and he’s already killing people. The media will no doubt go into full apologist mode.

        • mark golding

          The real truth is Alex Salmond has been set up by the English establishment, the Royalty, the peers of the realm, the internal security services and political opponents aided and abetted by staunchly unionist newspapers and media outlets drooling at the prospect of taking down a champion of the Scottish independence cause.

          • laguerre

            Plan B for Johnson. If he can’t subvert Sturgeon under the table, and do it quietly, then a row and Scottish infighting may serve the same purpose.

          • Goose

            Far more likely Salmond joining RT that triggered this imho.

            I honestly don’t think the reason the media have left Sturgeon alone up until very recently is because they think she secretly opposes independence – as some assert . They left her alone because she fully supports the official narratives on Russia, Skripals, Syria and supports Nato etc. Had she questioned any those things they’d have turned on her very quickly.

            The Alex Salmond show – lending his credibility to a Kremlin funded TV channel which was the only TV channel questioning western narratives. The only channel raising the OPCW whistleblowers etc. Given the control they’ve gained over all other leftish media : guardian , BBC etc, him joining RT will have pissed them off.

          • laguerre

            The important point is that Johnson and his people will do anything, play any dirty trick, to avoid Scottish independence. It would be a catastrophe for them. The only question is what tricks they are actually playing.

          • Goose

            Sturgeon did tell him forcefully not to join RT, maybe she foresaw the consequences?

            First show airs November 2017, August 2018 news leaked that the Scottish government had investigated two allegations of sexual misconduct against Alex Salmond.

            Bit like the way Labour’s antisemitism ‘problem’ miraculously vanished the moment Corbyn announced he was stepping down. The integrity initiative aligned media plants can can turn it on and off like a light switch.

          • laguerre

            I’m sure you’re right, but Scottish independence was never going to be achieved without a no-holds-barred fight. A new referendum, and a legal path, will always be refused.

      • Tarla

        Joining RT seems like the possible explanation, as the ruling class couldn’t have someone, not prepared to shout about ‘that nasty Putin’, when the state needs to.

        • Goose

          This is why the UK media will only dig so deep into this, I’d guess. If it was a complex conspiracy to destroy the man, as has been alleged by Craig and Alex. It’ll be a case of :

          Well, don’t dig too deep. You might get burnt by the molten lava! – Cable guy (Jim carrey)

          • laguerre

            It was never ever the case that Johnson et al, including UK media, would ever agree to Scottish independence. Destroying the man is part of the game, especially if there’s a toe-hold, no matter whether it’s true or not.

          • mark golding

            From what I recall Alex Salmond was targeted by a Scottish government investigation into alleged sexual misdemeanours when it became known he was seeking a return to active politics. Hmm…

            We know ‘Now Scotland’ is an adjunct of the most pro-independence faction of the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP) and although Salmond is publicly keeping his distance thus far, and without prempting any such action, I believe Alex is viewed as a prospective leader of a “Plan B” movement, which would hold, if necessary, an illegal referendum, along the lines of the Catalan poll in 2017.

            I have to say though this is purely conjecture as I have no inside knowledge of any such plan.

          • laguerre

            Given that Johnson will always refuse a new referendum, illegal action will always be necessary to achieve Scottish independence.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      The most obvious reason is that he actually believed in Independence and the PTB thought he was the biggest danger to the status quo.

  • Peter

    Alex Salmond appears (as best as I understand it) to have closed the meeting with something of what they call “a zinger”.

    As I understand it, he has suggested that the inquiry “serve papers” on his lawyers to get the documents that the Scottish government is denying them, which would be legal, and which would provide them with the evidence by Monday morning to allow them to prepare for Sturgeon’s appearance on Wednesday.

    • Juteman

      @Peter. I thought i heard Salmond actually say it would allow them to prepare for the evidence of the Lord Advocate and the (ex MI5) Crown Agent? I never heard him mention Sturgeon.

    • DunGroanin

      An excellent twist of the usual line of lawyers not putting their clients on the stand!

      The client suggested that the Committee puts his lawyers on the stand. Ask and they would be on the stand on Monday morning.

      Hopefully all Scots watch the whole six hours.
      Direct from Parliament TV or YouTube.

      From that performance, you can see why he is still the biggest political character they have.
      When these dark eyes focus and the voice irons up, the recipient of the attention must surely know they are in trouble. What power! No notes as such and six hours of faultless testimony.

      The Groanids Severrin someone, didn’t take long to follow-up her bollocks article of yesterday, with some crap misreporting, instantly. I can’t be bothered to link to it.

      Alex pretty much suggested the Committee to grow a pair and demand the records.

      Wasn’t going to watch it all – but so compelling.

      • Peter

        “From that performance, you can see why he is still the biggest political character they have.”

        Yes, and that’s the thing, I think.

        Westminster primarily wants to ensure against Scottish independence. In the event of a second referendum Salmond would still be one of the, if not the, biggest, most effective proponents of independence. So they want him gone.

        If Sturgeon, as many now believe, is the biggest roadblock to a second referendum, Salmond would be unlikely to tolerate that, so she too would want to see the back of him. That, and a significant amount of personal ambition.

        However, they seem to have forgotten that he’s not one of the most successful and accomplished politicians of his generation for no reason.

  • Crispa

    Watching most of the Alex Salmond evidence session, I was left scratching my head about the calibre of the committee, so perhaps it is not surprising that it has run into so many difficulties. Had the questions been sharper and better thought out in their context, the session could have been over in half the time as there was so much repetition in the questioning leading to Salmond having to give more or less the same answers. There seemed to be some totally naff questions from one woman – a Miss Watt? The convenor at one point tried to steer Salmond away from the criminal trial when the question put to him requited him to respond in that vein. Salmond himself towered over them in every respect and dealt with the naff most statesmanlike. I kept snorting at the repeated question “where’s your proof?” when it was staring them in the face. Let’s see how they deal with Sturgeon next week! Not holding my breath for a forensic interrogation.

    • nevermind

      I had the same feeling, as if they did not want to find out, deliberately avoiding to use the powers to demand the missing papers/emails and or whats app messages.
      Repeating the same questions, some to which they had answers and information of a long time ago does not make for an effective inquiry, it appears to be deliberate obfusecation.
      It is to be seen what sort.of questions NS will be asked next week, or whether AS’s lawyers will be served papers on monday to provide some missing papers to the Inquiry.
      If there is none forthcoming then we know that the inquiry is a timewasting exercise designed to save the Lord advocate and his seemingly sole client NS.

    • Sarge

      As disheartening a collection of mediocrities as they could cobble together to go through the motions. Brazen wage thieves.

      • Bayard

        Well, quite, their brief was presumably to produce the most convincing whitewash they could come up with. I dare say the usual junior civil servant who’s pissed off someone in high places has been lined up as a scapegoat.

      • james

        indeed… govt run inquires are meant to do just the opposite, especially ones specifically examining actions of the gov’t!!! i think this is the part some folks fail to understand!

      • Giyane


        It would be very surprising if a committee set up by the Scottish Government was not interested in finding out the truth.

        Whatever is the point of Alex Salmond appearing before a bunch of bought toadies who have been selected for their complete lack of interest in any kind of truth?

        In fact it confirms Alex Salmond’s original point , that there is no accountability in Scotland’s devolved parliament. The lesson will be well learnt by every single observer of struggles for national independence, that Scoxit means Scoxit. Scotland must escape from the grip of these unionist stooges.

        Where is Scotland’s Bruce Johnson? Where is its ERG? Scotland is NOT a young nation, any more than Kurdistan, that can use its youth as an excuse for administrative incompetence.
        It is not a country where the executive needs political nappies and afternoon sleeps!

  • Mr E

    What email address to use for this?

    Not clear – and no reply to the donation or Craig emails. Guess they overloaded!
    Suggest whistleblower email address….. or you won’t get far with appeal

    • Goose

      Fair point given what happened to Reality Winner.

      Even emails contain hidden DKIM signatures – the email contents are turned into a hash value and then encrypted with server’s private key. This happens by default and it’s how Wikileaks proved the Democrats were lying when they said the Podesta emails must have been doctored – eg. the email revealing Hillary had picked Tim Kaine a whole year earlier to be her VP.

      These days, even leakers need to understand tech.

    • Giyane

      Mr E

      The £25k , as you well know , is no longer available.
      But you have a second chance. Everybody deserves a second chance. I presume you understand the rules.
      What is the meaning of Integrity Initiative? Is it:
      A/ Fake News as per ex President Trump’s definition?
      B/ Diverting public attention from facts to fiction?
      C/ A harmless substitute for unacceptable reality? Or
      D/ Just another failed Tory Think Tank ?

      The answer is of course :

      E/ Calling all truth-seekers Conspiracy Theorists.
      But of course you knew that.

  • Robert Dyson

    Very impressive statement and responses from Alex Salmond today. I noted that he has thrown down the gauntlet – the committee should request documents from his solicitors that the ‘other side’ has been tardy in supplying.

      • Wikikettle

        Giyane. It doesn’t matter anymore what they do, or what they don’t do. Alex Salmond, after having to stay silent and suffer this nightmare, has finally had an audience of the people of Scotland. The stupid and repetitive questions of some of the committee actually gave him repeated air time time to dismantle their already failed line of questioning. He spoke with reason, authority and extraordinary calmness under the circumstances. I hope he follows through and sues all of the criminals.

      • Robert Dyson

        But not taking notice is a public political act in itself. Some people who did not notice before may notice that. Given the current lockdown for covid I bet a lot of people watched the proceedings. I hope to see statistics on this.

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.