In Conversation with Mark McNaught 35


Last night I recorded for Independence Live these reflections on the Sturgeon Affair, on what has been happening to me, and on the way forward now for the Scottish Independence movement. It brings out much that I have been thinking that is difficult to sit down and write, and though rather gentle and ruminative I believe it is pretty watchable. It certainly helped to clear my own mind.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

35 thoughts on “In Conversation with Mark McNaught

  • Stonky

    Worth pointing out to some of your readers who won’t be aware of it that a recent discussion on Iain Lawson’s blog casts increasing doubts over the role of David Harvie, the “Crown Agent” at COPFS (I think he received the AS file from Leslie Evans), and creates a growing suspicion that he is an actual MI5 asset. It also makes Sturgeon look more and more like a stupid, pathetic, vindictive, shallow catspaw, who is being played like a fiddle by people around her and who is either too weak or too cowardly to do anything other than tag along with their schemes.

    https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/02/04/dark-forces/

      • Stonky

        Apologies Craig I posted before I listened to the whole interview. You do in fact make some clear references to Harvie and his role. But I still think it’s worth readers checking Iain Lawson’s blog, which contains further detail.

    • Stonky

      Let me make it clear that I’m not in any way trying to excuse or even minimise Sturgeon’s role in everything that has happened. I just suspect that with her pathetic obsession with identity politics and her #meetoism and her clique of wokey freaky pals (what sane person would give the time of day to a deranged psycho like Leeze Lawrence?), she’s regarded with complete ridicule and treated as an utter joke by her manipulators.

  • Kevin Cargill

    Having read all of the testimony from yourself and Alex and read many blogs from yourself and others it really is a very affirmative experience to watch and hear you express these events in your own words and with the clear passion you have for the truth to be exposed. This is a must watch for anyone still harbouring any notion of wrongdoing on Alex Salmond’s part.

  • T

    Those saying you should shut up about the Salmond frame up and that everybody should unite behind Nicola regardless have to at some point ask themselves a very obvious question.

    Why is Unionist media suppressing a story that would destroy any politician when this particular politician leads the despised Scottish independence movement?

    If Nicola is regarded to be the great asset to the independence movement that her supporters believe, why are her supposed enemies propping her up instead of destroying her, as they would any other politician who tried to have a predecessor jailed for imaginary rapes?

    Do you think there would be a person in the land who would not know about this if it had been Jeremy Corbyn who’d done it?

    How much more obvious does it have to be that you are being played??

    • James B

      T – as I’ve pointed out many times on this blog – I remember reading a Guardian article – can’t recall when, but it was probably at the time of the debates leading up to the EU referendum, where the Guardian were sympathetic towards her. They were trying to give the impression that independence was very much a secondary matter to her. The article indicated that even when she was at school, she was a political girl, who was influenced by political school teachers. One even gave her the papers to join the Labour party – and it was only because she didn’t like his style that she said some thing along the lines of `f*** you; I’m joining the SNP’.

      So I don’t think she is committed to the `independence’ cause; she is a career politician first and foremost and she’s for independence only to the extent that it is necessary to pursue her political career within the SNP.

      I’d like to dig out this article, but I can’t find it. It certainly gave the impression that she favoured `Guardian’ style politics first and foremost and her membership of the SNP (and any commitment to independence) was only a means to this end.

      • T

        If Corbyn had tried to have Tony Blair jailed for fake crimes (or even for his actual world-historic ones) the Guardian, BBC and all the rest of them would have foamed outrage every hour until Corbyn was himself imprisoned.

        Here we have sworn affidavits that Nicola did precisely this to her predecessor and there is barely a whisper about it from all the great anti-Scottish independence propagandists.

        How far onto the sand must Nicola’s supporters’ heads be buried not to recognise the choking stench?

        • James B

          T – yes, absolutely.

          I’m very worried about this – because I believe that every single one of her supporters is well aware of what is going on here – she is author of lies, slander, character assassination in order to get one of her political opponents banged up and `out of the game’. They’re all aware of this and yet they don’t care – for them this is all part of the game.

          I think we know where the Westminster establishment is coming from – NS make big noise, but basically she doesn’t want independence and she’s a Blairite – just the way they like it.

          I’m alarmed that Guardian / BBC / all the rest of them are actually getting away with this.

        • James B

          T – by the way, another thought occurred to me. Yes – it is somehow inconceivable that Starmer could try to have Jeremy Corbyn imprisoned in quite the way that Nicola Sturgeon tried to imprison Alex Salmond.

          But – there is a pattern here. Margaret Thatcher *first* tried the poll tax out on Scotland – and it went down like a ton of lead so she thought twice about trying it out on the English.

          They’re trying something absolutely outrageous in Scotland. If it works, then you can be sure that they’ll conclude that the same techniques could be employed in England and at Westminster. If the Scots turn a blind eye to lies, slander and character assassination in order to bang up a political opponent who expresses unwelcome political views, then you can be sure that before long they’ll do exactly the same thing in England.

          • T

            James, nothing would surprise me less than Starmer trying to have Corbyn jailed on false pretences, with the entire British media at his sails.

      • Stonky

        I think you have to bear in mind that people’s politics change over time. It’s quite possible that NS was once wholly committed to independence, but that her commitment has almost entirely shifted to identity politics.

        And I think that far too many people completely underestimate the profound seductive power of the #metoo cult – the desperate need to bask in the public adulation of your fellow feminists by bringing down a “big beast”.

        The best example I can think of is Professor Sir Tim Hunt. Universally liked and admired by those who knew him – particularly by women in science whom he had helped and mentored, he had his reputation and his retirement ruined by a hyena pack of “feminist journalists”. If he had been guilty of the worst he was accused of, it would have been ruffling a few feathers with a lame joke that fell flat in an off the cuff luncheon speech on the other side of the world. In fact even that was a pack of lies cooked up by his principal accuser. Not to matter – the Guardian’s “feminists” organised a pile-on that amounted to 60 (SIXTY!) articles attacking the man.

        I haven’t the slightest doubt that this was one of the main drivers of the whole Salmond affair, and Craig says so explicitly in the video. You don’t get anywhere in politics or the public sector these days without signing up chapter and verse to extreme political correctitude, and I haven’t the slightest doubt that every single one of the women involved here – Sturgeon, Evans, McKinnon, Richards, and all the rest and probably the few men involved too – are all cult members.

        When you’re associating all day and every day with your fellow cult members it removes you from all reality. It reinforces your cultish beliefs and cultish obsessions, until you’re overcome by an all-consuming need to secure a prey. And as in all cults, there isn’t any balancing force to say “Hang on. Take a look at yourselves. Look at what you’re doing. Can’t you see what you’re becoming…” The whole thing just spread like a cancer and fed off itself to the point where no lie was a lie too far, no deceit was unthinkable, no act of dishonesty was beyond the pale…

        • DiggerUK

          Your thoughtful post brings to mind an oldie, but a goodie. A quote that can be attached to almost any role model we admire from history.

          “Before convincing others of your nonsense, you must first convince yourself it is valid and true”…_

        • T

          Stonky, I dont believe for one second she is a genuine champion of women’s rights, anymore than the Guardian and the rest of the BelieveHer brigade are. Just ask any of them what they think about Tara Reade or Juanita Broadrick

          • James B

            T – I don’t think that Stonky said that she was a genuine champion of women’s rights. He said that she wanted to bring down a `big beast’ (even though she knew Alex Salmond was innocent – and indeed she was instrumental in inventing the false charges against him) just so that she could appear like one and receive adulation from the `metoo’ people.

            There might be something in this.

            You’re always going to get grotesque specimens like Nicola Sturgeon in the world; I’m simply amazed to see her getting away with it. I don’t watch TV; I don’t read newspapers very much, yet I have the information that she is entirely corrupt and that the whole business was a fit-up orchestrated by her, so I presume everybody else has this information too.

            I used to watch TV and I’m reminded of `I Claudius’, the part where Claudius thought it should be completely clear that Caligula was barking mad and that his days were numbered, but he received the support of the Senate anyway. NS is clearly as mad as Caligula – and right now, she still amazingly has support within the SNP.

        • Tim Donald

          “I think you have to bear in mind that people’s politics change over time. It’s quite possible that NS was once wholly committed to independence, but that her commitment has almost entirely shifted to identity politics.

          And I think that far too many people completely underestimate the profound seductive power of the #metoo cult – the desperate need to bask in the public adulation of your fellow feminists by bringing down a “big beast”.”

          This, for me, is the nub of it. I think this whole affair is principally down to feminist and gender politics. As much as Cherry keeps banging on about misogyny, I think that’s just her own bias and gender politics shining through. Feminism lies at the heart of this entire scandal. Feminists are the folk trying to get rid of her. Feminism is the doctrine that is telling her that she’s wrong.

          None of this is about misogynistic behaviour. None of this stems from misogyny. Misogynists don’t care about Cherry either way. They don’t care whether or not transwomen use female toilets or inhabit female spaces. All of this all down to feminism and feminist factions, feminists seeking revenge on the patriarchy and on men they feel aggrieved by, and in terms of the trans debate, it is one feminist doctrine in a pitched battle against another feminist doctrine, it’s got very little indeed to do with men. Blaming men and misogynists is like trying to blame Buddhism for wars between Suni and Shia Muslims.

          For all that we hear about toxic masculinity – and there is no doubt that certain aggressive or other traits that some men hold are toxic and must be challenged – we never hear about the toxic traits that you find more commonly amongst women, and whereas aggression and violence are problems you see more amongst men, backstabbing, bitterness, vengeance and vendetta-focused behaviour are more common amongst women. It is probably a surrogate for not being able to simply use violence to resolve grievances. There’s a reason why we have a saying ‘a woman scorned…’

          What lies at the heart of the Salmond/Sturgeon Affair is toxic feminism. It is as dangerous and damaging to society as any toxic masculinity. It is toxic feminism that fuelled the campaign against Salmond. It’s toxic feminism (and rank hypocrisy) that took non-criminal and in some cases utterly trivial acts and tried to see a man get sent to jail for them. It’s toxic feminism that lead to an unfair and inept complaints policy being drafted and applied. It’s toxic feminism that led to leaks to the press. It’s toxic feminism that led to Salmond still being branded guilty despite having been fully acquitted. Toxic feminism lies at the heart of all of this and it is what may very well derail independence.

          Sturgeon has become a bitter, vengeful feminist who is putting her solidarity for the sisterhood above all else. I am still undecided as to whether she herself was directly involved in the conspiracy against Salmond, but at best I think her feminism has blinded her to what’s gone on and that she’s either turned blind eyes or given the benefit of the doubt to those who have been up to their necks in it, all because of her feminist doctrine. The ‘believe women’ doctrine seems to apply to everything these days, even if a court says they’re wrong. That is rotten.

          Salmond’s government was guided by independence. It led the way and the party was a broad and tolerant church under it. Sturgeon’s government has been led by feminism, which has been divisive, discriminatory and intolerant. I doubt the SNP has even been so divided under any other leadership or doctrine.

          I have always believed in full equality and will always do so. Gender should have no influence on what you are able to achieve in your life. I will always support fair measures to secure equality. But feminism by definition (not the faux definition pushed by some of its flag wavers) will always put the views and interests of women first. We cannot ever secure equality where leadership pushes the interests of one sex before that other. What we have now is no better or healthier for our country that the days of misogynistic old boys clubs running everything. They think they have the security of some mythical moral high ground and that they can do no wrong, but as this farce has shown, they are wrong on both counts. We are constantly told that if women ruled the world it’d be a peaceful, caring land of milk and honey, but women have largely run the Scottish Government for years now and we’ve never seen a mess or scandal like this in Scotland’s modern history. The scandal, the ineptitude, the intolerance and the blinkered thinking is jaw dropping.

          If course, I do not believe for one minute that all women would be like this (look to Iceland and NZ for competent governments with lots of women involved), but what this does show is that while women are as good as men, they’re also as bad as men, and we have the very worst of human ill behaviour at the heart of the Holyrood government. It just goes to show that women are no better than men and no less likely to err and screw things up. We need to get to a politics where gender identity is not a driving factor and you’re not in a job because you’re male or female, you’re in it because you’re good.

    • DunGroanin

      She is guaranteed a damehood – I bet she practices curtsying in the mirror.

      She may even attach some gonads to herself to demand a kinighthood! Selfies exist of her with a giant nasty cock & bellend attached.

      NI and Scotland have always been adjuncts if the DS praetorians with ancient tie-ins to the nasty secret state, Apartheid South Africa, drug gangs of SE Asia and Bankers.
      The grouse moors are the least of it.
      In the next 100 years as the climate change opens the northern/artic corridors and waste swathes of land across Siberia become agricultural – there is a millennia of wealth that Scotland can access.

      Only independence NOW can save not just the Scots but the future of that environment.

      The great fall is very hard for many a supporter of the tack cuddly wee monster to bear. Just as it has been hard to convince them of the muddling against Salmond which exactly mirrors that of the fake charges against Assange – I am getting fed up of showing the facts to Groaniad reading self declared progressives of every variety – feminist, Woke, vegan …even independent journalists who think more of bird killing cats than they do of humans.

      I am beginning to get blunter by the conversation having put facts and had ‘but they wouldn’t have prosecuted, if there was no truth in it and why isn’t it in the papers or the Boob?’

  • Bea

    Have the crown office/intelligence services been flexing their muscles again: as at 8:30 a.m. GMT the interview seems to be unavailable.

    • Bea

      In case anyone else has trouble: the link doesn’t work on my mobile (samsung note 8, android chrome browser). It works fine from my laptop.

  • nevermind

    after writing 5 paragraphs questioning police scotlands resolve and trawling operation carefully avoided by Craig, I take umbrage with his assertion that top down dictatorial power structures that landed us in the rich poor situation today, left us wanting whilst massive tax evaders and lawyers ensured that the status quo carried on.
    It is top down Governments of leatned wise representatives that are the problem, not the solution.

    To say that referenda and binding citizen assemblies decisipns are bad and lead to the populism we have seen with Brexit is wrong.
    you would like people to sign up to Independence, take their pennies and the sculped a revolution wete the same top down structures and self serving will resume, whilst subject of Now Scotland will be told to do as the plethora of status quo bonzes says.

    Do have a look at Switzerland and educate yourself about important referenda to which the Government of the day, yes they have proportional elections as well, have to act on the will of the people, issue by issue.

    Enough of so called educated lawyers and barristers who jostle with each other in parliament, like minded forever taking.
    Any revolution that does not take heed of whats most important in peoples heart, the survival of their children and their future in an ever diminishing chaotic world, the environment and how to re generate evological diversity, rather than robbing it, is totally behind the curve, part of a status quo generation that takes only.
    There are massive holes in your ideas of a revolution, one that should organise the local and incorporate its decisions into the national, however well meaning it may be.

    • DunGroanin

      Swiss cantons are ancient and their systems are long in place. They don’t have just a single referendum as you know. Their citizens have a cultural and political ‘muscle memory’ of their system and are aware of their duties and responsibilities- many of which most of us would balk against. If that doesn’t help you understand I can only refer you to the Harry Lime speech in the Third Man.

      Top down is what we have.
      Bottom up is what is needed.
      They both look the same from a distance with elected leaders and representatives.

  • Muscleguy

    I agree that we will likely have to declare but following other countries, Norway, Ukraine for example, once you do that and the constraints of the enclosing state are shrugged off you can then hold a confirmatory referendum so people feel like there was a popular endorsement of the decision. Norway was 90% Yes, Ukraine 80%.

    I recommend Serhii Plokhy’s The Last Empire about the last days of the Soviet Union from the Ukraine perspective which argues it was Ukraine which in effect caused the breakup of the USSR and it’s replacement by the CIS based in Minsk, not Moscow.

    So there is precedence for doing things that way, if you know the public will back you.

    In terms of a physical attack, it will not happen. Scotgov controls Polis Scotland who are armed. Westminster cannot be sure about the loyalty of the Scottish Squaddies so firstly they can’t use them but secondly the troops they would use would then look like foreign invaders. For one thing Polis Scotland could arrest them for carrying arms in public without lawful excuse under Scots law.

  • Mike Hovit

    Craig,
    New to this but have spent a day reading around and empathise with your views and situation.
    Somewhat disappointed to hear your Brexit views but, fair enough.

    Two questions.

    1. When you (broadly speaking) characterise Brexit voters as anti-immigrants, do you not think that it was Establishment disinterest in the changes made to their lives and surroundings, without their consultation, that opened the door to this form of ‘populism’?
    2. In my view, assuming they didn’t want Brexit, the EU made an arrogant, fundamental and massive political mistake in sending DC back empty handed. From that time, that snub, Brexit became a real possibility and no longer a fringe pipedream. What’s your view?
    • DunGroanin

      1. Austerity as a political choice handed as loaded weapon by NuLabInc to their relay partners Cameron/Clegg/Osborne to trigger and keep in place as long as needed to introduce a real terms decrease in peoples disposable income along with lack of viable social housing and diminishing education, Health and Welfare – blamed on EU immigrants to trigger a viable BrexShit referendum fix is what happened – most people who believed in BS said that EU immigration was the reason why they supported Leave.

      2. The EU has long been aware (even before the U.K. was allowed to join) that the great project of ever closer Union stands against the Atlantic Bridges. Europe’s future as it has always been has always been with Eurasia.
      The Brits consistently used their veto to stymie a quicker progress and even did some nasty decisions to destabilise the EU – for instance demanding full membership for the central/Eastern Europeans. As soon as that Veto stopped working on the ONE thing that was protecting the Brits and Ancient Imperialists – a failure to abide by a level playing field for the grey City – the trigger for a hard BrexShit was pulled.

      It was long planned and only unexpected by the likes of your ‘innocent’ inquiry. Still thinking that ‘call me Dave’ or ‘Oik’ or ‘Spaffer’ and their Dr Strangelove technocratic architect bruiser Cummings – and the WHOLE MSM narrative of BrexShit was anything except a long planned and delivered war against the ever evolving EU and the exceptionalism of the City – which is now underway with the legislations on Singapore on Thames.

      And immigration? Lol the few hundred thousand coming and going EU citizens are instantly going to be dwarfed by a few million HingKongese (given rights by Parliament last week – what did Fartage and MSM have to say about that?) and millions more from India and every nation that Liz Trusses up a quick trade deal with – every one of whom will be qmwanting access for their citizens and businesses in return for that deal. And they will get a lot more than what they have from under the EU.

      I hope that helps your perspective on the EU and BrexShit, the EU as Jeremy Corbyn pointed out when he was campaigning for Remain is not perfect – it was 7/10 good and improving.
      I thubk without the perfidious Albion it instantly got to be 8/10 and is ready to steer towards that 10/10. Not even threat of war with nuclear weapons can stop it.

      The Empire is Dead. Long live the new Empire!

  • Contrary

    Superb interview Craig.

    When you make the exact distinction between direct and representative democracy – you will be pleased to hear I am totally with you on this, I wholly prefer and believe that representative democracy is the best electoral structure. I hadn’t realised it was unfashionable.

    The hard work you have to put into learning all you can about any issue, let alone many issues, to be able to vote directly on it, is time consuming and tiring, and as far as I’m concerned that’s what we pay the bloody politicians for! I felt that way about the EU ref – I didn’t want to be asked that question, and couldn’t answer it properly because I’m not in government, I’m not privy to all the information I needed – how can you weigh up pros and cons when you don’t know what they are? I’m still annoyed about the question being imposed on me – it’s the politicians job to assess the cost/benefit of such a treaty agreement, not mine, that’s what I pay them for – let alone everything that’s happened since.

    I was happy to be asked about Scottish independence though, and enjoyed thinking about it, debating it and weighing up the pros and cons. I think I’ve learned a ton more about it since then though, and the more I discover and learn only reinforces my conviction – we’d be stupid to stay in this Union, independence is the only way Scotland can survive as a separate nation or have any hope for the people to have jobs and live their lives fully.

    The union is a yoke, chains around our necks, holding us back.

    What about a plebiscite in the May election, to then declare UDI? You didn’t even touch on this – why not?

    I think I might join the Now Scotland thing (not the best name, but not the worst – I guess that’s what you get from decisions by committee!), even though I’m not keen on joining anything, especially after being sucked in briefly to SNP membership on false pretences – I’m a great believer in having choice and have always said there should have been more pro-independence parties, but everyone said it had to be one big monolithic party as ‘the only vehicle to indy’. Well, that’s been proved wrong now – it didn’t work, and it now should be several pro-independence parties working together. But a non-party campaigning group is a good thing – hopefully to pull ideas together (or throw lots out there) – maybe even collate the work that’s already being done?

    ‘Working together’ is meant to be part of the dream isn’t it, fairer and democratic society etc – let’s see some of that ability in practice then. Several pro-independence parties is a must.

    I can’t even imagine the stress you’ve been under – and particularly now with the waiting – but knowing what really was going on, knowing how many falsehoods were being spoken by Nicola sturgeon when few others knew – interesting stuff you said, by the way, about the identity politics which I’ll go and ruminate on (though NS is no feminist whatever label she dons, how can she be, when she is promoting the idea that wearing some make-up high heels and a dress in a parody of a woman makes that person a woman? It’s not acceptable to black up and pretend you are a black person – it’s offensive – why on earth is it fine for men to parody women? As though that’s the sum total of our beings? I find it extremely offensive.).

    Anyway, the more I find out about NS and the whole Alex Salmond affair, the more shocked I am. I’ve been reading the evidence about the complaints handling within the SG – it was more than just unfair, more than just unlawful, it was an absolute travesty – there has been nothing I’ve read that isn’t easily explained by the entire aim being to fit up Alex Salmond by making his name public in relation to sexual allegations (I get a headache when trying to fit any decision or behaviour of the civil servants et al into ‘fair and reasonable’). The civil servants are absolutely tight with their evidence – their coaching has been very good – but because they can’t admit to any one stupid minor thing in case the whole thing crashes down, they just look like incompetent morons. It took Kenny MacKaskill to mention that these people aren’t morons, they are highly professional and competent people – which means, they are lying, they are covering up, and they did wrong.

    Anyway, it’s heart wrenching for me, a political mercenary, to know the whole thing was a facade, and to see how bad things have gotten, it must be devastating for you, so it’s good to see you staying strong and thinking of the future (and independence in the near future).

  • James B

    Craig Murray – I watched the first 27 minutes of the interview and I’ll watch the rest later.

    One question: you received the information from Alex Salmond that Nicola Sturgeon was the author of the whole business, confirming what you already suspected, but you were not allowed to publish the information.

    Yet you were permitted to put exactly this information into the written affidavits, which you submitted at your trial.

    What changed? Why can you give this information now, when you couldn’t give this information before?

    Basically – what power do the Crown Office and courts have in suppressing such information?

    • DunGroanin

      He was not, not-allowed unless Salmond insisted it was off-the-record, afaik. It is clear that Salmond requested that it not be revealed at that time.

      The dumb charges and ‘trials’ against Hirst and Craig Murray by a vindictive state that failed in their conspiracy against Scottish Independence has allowed the facts of the conspiracy to be spilled, even as the State knows and had tried to conceal the conspiracy by not allowing the communications of the conspirators as they went about conspiring! They even guaranteed the false accusers full anonymity and no perjury charges for bearing false witness.

      That is astounding and needs repeating.

      Why was not a single lying complainant proved to have conspired and perjured under oath, immediately arrested by the police as soon as the verdict came in?

      Lying liars caught in a lie are NOT prosecuted?

      Reporters of which are, however?

      The police are bent as ever in Scotland – Any real police would have already arrested and charged the perjurers, their fellow police colleagues involved in the conspiracy and the whole bunch of conspirators. Scots must get over their crush on the wormtongued Nicola and the rest of the scabrous SNP.

      • James B

        DunGroanin – then I understand. Because in this case there has been much that is relevant and true which people were not allowed to say and not allowed to publish.

        Yes – everything you say about the trial needs repeating – and until it happened I would never have thought it possible. I was born in Scotland in the late 60’s and was aware that we had a different legal system and I was aware of some of the differences. All throughout the 70’s and 80’s …. and up to the Lockerbie bombing convictions, I believed that ours was superior (especially when Thatcher employed a Scottish Lord Chancellor to sort out the whole English system). The Lockerbie convictions were a disappointment to me – the person who got banged up was plainly innocent of what he got banged up for.

        With this Nicola Sturgeon affair, they’re no longer even pretending to be straight; the Crown Office is openly crooked (and openly in the pocket of a crooked First Minister), Police Scotland is openly crooked (and openly in the pocket of a crooked First Minister).

        I never really understood why all the police divisions were amalgamated into one Police Scotland, which then proceeded to apply the same style of policing to the whole of Scotland, a style that was perhaps suited to inner city Glasgow, but plainly ridiculous just about everywhere else.

        Now I understand it. Now that Police Scotland is all one unit, it is much easier for the First Minister to have complete control over the whole lot and engage in crooked dealings; there is no longer any possibility of an internal mechanism of control (calling in officers from other divisions to provide oversight).

        The whole business is clearly corrupt – from the top down.

      • James B

        DunGroanin – The analysis that Nicola Sturgeon is a corrupt psychopath is clearly correct – this is clear and plain. I don’t think she has any deep love of `identity politics’; it is simply a means to an end – the end being power for Nicola Sturgeon and adulation of Nicola Sturgeon.

        What I don’t really understand at all – and what could give material for a large number of Ph.D. dissertations is the question of the people following her. Every single one of them is very well aware that the Alex Salmond fit-up is lies, slander and character assassination pure and simple, but they’re prepared to do Nicola Sturgeon’s bidding anyway.

        Maybe she has something that I’ve failed to notice, but I have major difficulties seeing how she could get anybody’s favourite organ pressing against their brain so they can’t think. I just don’t understand why she has all these followers prepared to do her bidding.

  • M.J.

    I was interested in the bit dealing with NS’s motive in cooking up charges against Salmond. The explanation seemed to be that senior politicians and businessmen are psychos who think differently from ordinary people. So hunger for power was the proposed motive. But if so, it should be testable: if NS loses an election, would she behave like Trump, for example.
    The last bit suggested that the Scottish parliament would declare UDI by the end of 2023. Time will tell, but the following question may help: have there been any similar predictions on this website which didn’t come true? I have nothing specific in mind, just asking.

  • DunGroanin

    Libby Brooks gets evil on our arses with her wormtongued gatekeeping Narrative Construction in the Obsessive today.

    Manages to gaslight Now Scotland in passing.

    And completely decides that the story is holding with the populace who ‘believe’ Nicola who is finally going to be ‘allowed’ to defend herself after two years of ‘conspiracy’ theories. All backed up by that modern chicken guy spiller and Nostradamus of the modern Pathocracy – Sir John Curtice the man who fixes polls so that vote rigging can be carried out in a believable manner – one of the script writers of the Narratives, you don’t get Knighthoods for working against the status quo.

    Not a single mention of the proven perjury of the conspirators in the Salmond trial. Just more bollocks about jury trial which threw out the fake lies.

    And not a SINGLE mention of Craig Murray or Mark Hirst or the nature of the evidence being withheld.

    Libby doing her bit for trying to mess up the minds of Scots about Indy.