Trying To Be a Good Citizen 69

In the light of the decision of the Fabiani Inquiry to exclude the statement of Alex Salmond as well as the evidence of Geoff Aberdein, leading to the effective collapse of the committee, I am trying to assist them.


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>

69 thoughts on “Trying To Be a Good Citizen

  • Silverside

    It should be “breach” not “breech”. Is it too late to correct it? That kind of mistake tends to lessen the impact of a hard-hitting email.

  • James B

    Craig Murray – as I understand it, the legal situation was irrelevant to their decision. I got the impression that they did not first seek legal advice on whether or not it would be legal for them to publish the statements of Geoff Aberdein or Alex Salmond – so whether or not Lady Dorian says something that would give them the green light from a legal point of view, is pretty much irrelevant.

    • Hamish McGlumpha

      Perhaps JamesB – we all know that this is a political decision – but the legal position is their fig leaf allowing them to claim a higher cause than mere political self-interest.

      Craig is very cleverly whipping away their fig leaf – exposing some horrible vistas.

      • James B

        Hamish – you know – this is something I really don’t understand at all. I fully understand Sturgeon and Murrell telling lies and doing everything they can to ensure the truth does not come out – because if the truth comes out, they will both be in prison.

        I’m having difficulties understanding how Sturgeon, Murrell and their cabal have been able to get such a large amount of support – from people who clearly know that Sturgeon and Murrell are utterly corrupt. I think there is endless material for Ph.D.s in psychology here – not the psychology of the corrupt leadership which is completely clear, but the psychology of its supporters.

        I think it will all fall like a pack of cards and it will fall very suddenly. The SNP members seem to be completely mercenary. They’re well aware of everything that Sturgeon has been up to, but nevertheless, right now, they support Sturgeon, Murrell, etc …. because that is the `correct’ opinion to have within the SNP. At some point this will become untenable and the whole thing will fall like a pack of cards. Exactly the same people who now support Sturgeon (knowing full well what she has been up to) will become anti Sturgeon and Murrell – and they’ll try to claim that this is the point of view that they always had.

        This won’t be a gradual thing – it will happen suddenly.

        • Alf Baird

          “I think it will all fall like a pack of cards and it will fall very suddenly. The SNP members seem to be completely mercenary.”

          I suspect the majority of SNP members have left the party in the past year or two, as I did. Fortunately there are now 6 pro-independence parties so there is plenty of choice for indy supporters. And some of these pro-independence parties are actively considering including a plebiscite election on independence in their manifesto, e.g. Solidarity, ISP.

          So the UK alliance arrangement between Scotland and England etc could be over sooner than we think. And I sincerely hope Ambassador Murray has a major role to play in the withdrawal negotiations as we will need his expertise.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            Not a hope in hell of CM being involved. It would require some huge revolutionary event in England as well as in Scotland

          • Alf Baird

            “Not a hope in hell of CM being involved. It would require some huge revolutionary event in England as well as in Scotland”

            Craig is already part of Now Scotland’s board, whose principal aim and purpose is Scottish independence. Why would he not be involved in Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK alliance arrangement?

            I’m struggling to see what the self-determination of the Scots has to do with other countries and ‘peoples’? According to the UN there should be no external interference in the self-determination process of ‘a people’.

          • dpg

            I didnt say he shouldn’t be involved-he’d be an asset, just that ‘england/rUk might object and not sure that he would be assured of support in Scotland

          • Alf Baird


            “‘england/rUk might object”

            Really? On what basis might there be such objection?

            England/rUK also objected to and fought against the independence of India, Kenya, Malaysia, Egypt, Oman, Ireland and dozens of other former colonies, all now independent countries. According to the UN, colonialism is a “scourge” and should be ended.

        • Stéphane+Séchaud

          Interesting that use of the word “mercenary”, is there not a tragic tendency in Scottish history for that to be the very thing that has thwarted it all?

        • bevin

          Those rats, so famous for abandoning sinking ships, are only a minority. In most cases the ships go down with most of the rat population, including the fattest ones still on board. Which is good really.

        • Mighty Drunken

          Much has been written about the merit and flaws of democracy and representative democracy. What I think gets relatively little attention is that democracy quickly forms itself into political parties. This drastically changes the dynamics of politics. Now your personal beliefs on what should be done is often forced to take a back seat to what is good for the greater political causes. Especially with first past the post where if you are not a member of one of the few major political parties you cannot win without great fame and publicity.

          So yeah, party politics Trumps everything. If you rebel you will be sidelined and dropped into obscurity.

      • Squeeth

        “Craig is very cleverly whipping away their fig leaf – exposing some horrible vistas.”

        Fnar, a reverse Denning.

    • craig Post author

      James B

      Really? Andy Wightman has put out a statement that he was bound by the legal advice received. That is their excuse, as I understand it. At least it’s his excuse, and his was the swing vote.

      • James B

        Craig – ah ha – thanks for the correction – I didn’t know that Andy Wightman had published legal advice stating that the evidence from Aberdein and Salmond couldn’t be published. Which lawyers gave him this advice?

        But it doesn’t make much sense at all. If publishing the evidence really was illegal, then why was it allowed to be voted on at all? Is the committee really allowed to vote on something knowing full well that a `yes’ vote would be voting to do something illegal and might end up with them all getting shoved in the slammer?

        I read what was put up on `Wings’ – and Salmond’s lawyers went over his whole written evidence with a tooth comb making sure that there was nothing illegal in there – so Wightman must at the very least have been extremely selective about the lawyers he chose to get his advice from – presumably one of the alphabet sisters advised him on this.

        I’m sorry – but Wightman’s statement just doesn’t make any sense to me.

        • Hamish McGlumpha

          “I’m sorry – but Wightman’s statement just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

          Precisely the point. I don’t think his advice came from Levy-McCrae!

          Much of the testimony (and the same content) is out there both in Grousebeater, The Spectator and indeed in another form in Craig’s own depositions.

          So they know it is out there. The point is if THEY publish it – then THEY must account for it in their findings AND they must interview Mr Salmond on the record.

          That is they part they do not want to happen, because the pre-ordamined whitewash (no pun intended) becomes untenable.

          In contrast, we know that the government legal advice comes from Mr Wolff – and we know that his advice will satisfy the political aims stated above

          • Hamish McGlumpha

            Sorry, as Vivian Oblivion points out:

            “The Parliaments legal advisors are headed up by the oddly named Paul Cackette.”

            It will not vary in any meaningful way from Mr Wolff’s.

            for as we know: A coquette is a flirt, a girl or woman who knows how to flatter and manipulate men with her charms in order to get what she wants.

            Make what you want of that.

          • James B

            Hamish – if James Wolff is one of those giving legal advice to the committee (e.g. Andy Wightman) isn’t that a bit of a conflict of interests?

            After all, one of the things the committee *should* be trying to ascertain is just how corrupt the Crown Office is (and, in particular James Wolff) and the extent to which he is in the pocket of Nicola Sturgeon (and why).

            Turkeys usually don’t vote for Christmas.

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          Yes what you say is correct. How can they take part in an illegal/unlawful vote. Wightman is shown as a man without a moral impulse, trouserless, without his ‘breeches’.

      • Ian

        That is Wightman’s craven excuse, a camouflage because he is getting trashed on social media, quite rightly, for refusing the Scottish people the right to hold the executive to account by examining the relevant evidence. He can say it. I can choose not to believe it. This committee have shown time and again a highly cavalier and selective attitude to what is legal and what is not, as have the executive in pre-empting what the committee can see or rule on. They have hidden behind all manner of spurious rules and self-appointed regulations, in order to prevent the inquiry from being an actual inquiry. It is a kangaroo court, and inquiry in name only, a Kafka-esque farce, not fit for purpose and a travesty of what was once the principles of the Scottish Enlightenment. A total insult to the Scottish people, a coup against democratic accountability. No amount of hiding behind claims of legal constraints can disguise that.

        • Ian

          And, btw, if there were such legal advice, why were they holding a vote on it, and why did four of them vote to publish? Will they get charged? And why did the vote split down party lines? Riddle me that, Andy.

      • James B

        OK – I just saw it on `Wings’ (if it is the statement that you are referring to).

        It isn’t a serious statement. He’s clearly making up some horse manure after the event – he knows it and everybody reading it knows it.

        According to Wings, it looks as if he is somewhat hot and bothered by the fact that the names of who voted for and who voted against were released.

        Really – if there had been serious concern that publishing Salmond’s evidence would have resulted in the entire committee getting banged up, then it wouldn’t have proceeded to a vote – and everybody knows that.

        At the same time – keep up the good work. Everything that you are doing is extremely good – and helps to expose the horse manure of little redacteds such as Andy Wightman.

      • Sarissa

        Presumably this means he feels he has to abide by the legal advice to the committee from Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, of which he is still listed as a member – until he is replaced by an alternative Green MSP (not that will make any difference as they’ve been bought off with the GRA /hate crime bill manouevres).

        This looks to be a clear conflict of interest, or at least responsibilities.

  • Sarge

    This has to be one of the most nakedly bad faith inquiries of modern times, making even the Iraq War inquiries look like models of probity. It bodes so ill for Scotland it isn’t true.

  • 6033624

    It appears that, despite knowing this AND having the presumed ability to put things on hold for an outcome, they have made their decision not to hear from Salmond who’s only request was that he be able to give full evidence.

    It’s not just the fact that this has happened that bothers me, it’s the fact that the Labour Party has cooperated in it. The SNP has a vested interest in sweeping this under the rug but Labour have a vested interest in making as much political capital as possible ESPECIALLY with an election and new leader coming soon. The fact they have chosen to do nothing (whilst trying to appear like they are doing a little) worries me in that they obviously feel they are benefitting or will get something for their ‘cooperation’ in this matter. What they hope to get will not be small either, what could it be?

    The only other alternative is that the Scottish Labour Party are so stupid as to be unable to use a win/win situation (for them) to their own advantage.

    • Peter

      @ 6033624

      “It’s not just the fact that this has happened that bothers me, it’s the fact that the Labour Party has cooperated in it.”

      That wouldn’t be (Sir) Keir Staliner’s Labour Party you’re referring to would it?

      Some people regard Staliner as an interloper. He looks more to me like a Trojan horse.

      • Los

        A Labour-fauxSNP alliance might be required to provide a Starmerist alternative Tory Government in the UK, so stopping the real Nationalists from regaining control of the SNP, keeping the fake ones in place may be Starmer’s Incontinuity Labour plan.

    • Antiwar7

      The Labour Party is headquartered in London, so they would naturally go with the Independence “Someday” faction.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    The Parliaments legal advisors are headed up by the oddly named Paul Cackette. The weird little blinky, stuttering chap that gave evidence to the Committee. As Gordon Dangerfield points out the Scottish Government’s legal advisers are Civil Servants and do what ever the fuck St. Nicola tells them. The Parliament ain’t got no proper lawyers (unless the Committee seeks external advice).

  • PhilM

    It is an historical fact that the ‘poor had no lawyers’ and that this led to injustice.
    It is a contemporary fact that these committee members DO have lawyers but we still have injustice.
    So a little justice would be nice…

  • Cubby

    Craig, you have a rare combination of qualities not found in many people. Some of them are intelligence, personal integrity, courage, nerves of steel, fighting spirit, politeness, wiliness, stamina, attention to detail and a desire to see a better world for all.

    Craig I once said to you I do not do heroes and I don’t but if I did your qualities would all be there. I think your new grandson will grow up to be very proud of his grandfather no matter the result of your trial.

  • doug scorgie

    Alf Baird
    February 9, 2021 at 20:35
    ” Fortunately there are now 6 pro-independence parties so there is plenty of choice for indy supporters.


    Which are the six pro-independence parties Alf ?
    Who set them up ?
    Wouldn’t this “plenty of choice for indy supporters” only fragment the SNP vote and kick independence into the long grass? Something the Unionists would desire.

    • Alf Baird


      The 6 parties are ISP, Scotia Future, AFI, Greens, Solidarity and of course SNP.

      Independence supporters set them up.

      A plebiscite election on independence in those parties manifesto’s will enable the pro-independence vote to be calculated.

      Who wins seats at Holyrood is immaterial in that sense, also given that it is presently a UK institution which would require to be dissolved upon independence.

  • Giyane

    When we are faced with the Ass of the Law, stating that rape complainants have lifelong anonymity even if nobody was raped, and therefore all discussion of the matter is blocked by the right to anonymity, Scottish Law sensibly provides a solution that it was impossible to prove that an offence of contempt of court had taken place.

    In other words, in trying to stop themselves being prosecuted for perjury the Murrells have buried enough of the evidence relating to the contempt case, to throw the contempt charge out of court.

    Similarly, Nicola Sturgeon has made herself look ridiculous in the eyes of all normal people by placing Trans rights issues above every other issue of government. This is out–Sweding the Swedes in matters of gender rights.

    Normalpeople feel incredibly uneasy about having to comply with two conflicting laws at the same time.
    If my rights as an individual supercede everybody else’s rights, this is a paedophiles charter SAS assassin’s charter, dog eat dog . If this is some kind of Norse zeitgeist, the sooner Hadrian’s Wall is electrified, the better.

    • Kitbee

      As pointed out on other forums there is a risk (or certainty?) that the name of one of the anonymous complainants will be deliberately leaked by the UK security services before the May SG elections. A truth bomb exploding just when the SNP are hoping for their referendum mandate. If this lady is interested in Scottish independence she should out herself first or the sake of Scotland.

      • Kitbee

        In fact The Spectator is arguing in court right now that it is in the public interest to relax the anonymity ruling. At least one of these ladies is sitting on a knife edge and should do the decent thing before it’s too late.

  • Peter Mo

    As a highly intelligent and influential activist I hope Craig dosen’t make the same mistake people like Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn etc have made. Craig must work together with a similarly minded younger activist able to inject extra impetus and carry on Craig’s campaigns.

    • mark golding

      No! Craig has delivered a momentum and is the motivation catalyst for an independent Scotland with energy an order of magnitude more than Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn et. al can deliver.

  • tdf

    Interesting that the Wings Over Scotland blog – once, broadly supportive of the current SNP leadership – has been very critical of them over a range of issues in recent months.

    • john mckay

      That’s because Wings very thorough investigative journalism of this debacle has exposed the rotten heads at the top of the present SNP and their legal buzzards.
      Wings,and many others, are all for an independent Scotland but not at any price.
      Clear and concise scrutiny will continue to expose the mendacity and bring the truth into the open. The SNP can then be purged of these corrupt plotters.
      We can then get on with the pressing business of self determination for Scotland.

    • Los

      Are there not at least 3 separate evidence statements from Alex Salmond, with some still remaining to be disclosed in full?

    • James B

      DavidH – does anyone have any idea how to get hold of Paragraph 26 (which isn’t in the `full text’ – and simply says `redacted’). I get the impression that web pages get archived just in case they get changed at a later date and that there is some way of reading the archived versions …..

  • Deepgreenpuddock

    Am I mistaken? hasn’t the AS statement been published already for a month in ‘the spectator’ and ‘wings’,
    every member of the enquiry are aware of this fact. it is reducing their own credibility as fair open minded individuals to zero, to deny this fact. a month is more than enough for lawyers/police to take action in the event there is a possibility of identification, not to mention those individuals covered by the order of anonymity.
    Emperor Fabiani et al apparently, figuratively, have no clothes to cover this flagrant shameless dishonesty.
    I notice you do not include Andy Wightman in your addressees.Is that because he does not ‘count’?

  • Jon Coffy

    “–judgement is expected any day now in my own contempt of court case, in which the central question is whether Lady Dorian’s order – precisely the same order – should be given a broad or narrow interpretation.

    It is relevant that Lady Dorian herself heads the High Court Panel that is about to deliver judgment —“

    Craig has a judge interpreting her own order in a panel of three and there are political and sexual discrimination ramifications.
    Wow. How long can Lady Dorian delay the judgment? Perhaps she could sneak it in over Christmas despite the two other judges.
    Will Lady Dorian be a dissenting judge while interpreting her own order?
    Something seems very wrong here. I bet the court somehow dodges the issue.
    Good luck Craig

  • Mary

    Good little blog here that exposed what Lady Dorrian claimed for in 2014 and for how much. Some jollies are included.


    ‘About this blog
    Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland’s legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issue.
    Contact the Diary of Injustice team, or send tips, news & other items for publication to : [email protected]

    • Yr Hen Gof

      Good spot,
      I found her appointment to the position of: Senior Commissioner, Queen Victoria School, Dunblane an interesting one. It is the only school in the United Kingdom managed and funded by the Ministry of Defence and has been the subject of numerous accusations of child abuse. Most of which it’s been claimed were either handled badly or ignored. I’m sure at the time of the tragedy of Dunblane a previous housemaster Glenn Harrison made comment on this.
      It’s been alleged that Thomas Hamilton was a frequent user of their shooting range.

      As to judges’ seemingly unrestricted access to the public trough of largesse, no surprises there.

  • nevermind

    have you missed out an ‘on’ between ‘radically’ and ‘their’ in your letter to the parliamentary inquiry. pre ultimate paragraph/sentence.

    • Dawg

      No, he didn’t leave a word out accidentally; but yes, that clause is a grammatical solecism.

      “It is a certainty that the judgement will need to be considered by Parliament’s legal advisers as it could impact radically their opinion of what evidence may, or may not, breech the Order.”

      Mr Murray habitually places an adverb between a main verb and its object, probably by false analogy with the strict grammatical prohibition against split infinitives (“to radically impact”). In Mr Murray’s sentence, the word “could” functions as an auxiliary verb to the main verb “impact”, which takes logical priority and shouldn’t be separated from its object “their opinion” by the interposition of an adverb.

      Incidentally, the preceding sentence contains a misuse of the word “However”. Although strict grammarians frown on sentences that begin with “However”, the rule is usually regarded as anally retentive. At the beginning of a sentence “However” can function either as a conjunctive adverb (“Nevertheless, …”) or a relative adverb (“In whichever way … “). In order to disambiguate the meaning and make it easier to scan, the normal convention is to follow “However” with a comma when used as a conjunctive adverb but not when used as a relative adverb. Mr Murray improperly omitted the comma.

      As with many grammatical rules, these are principally issues of style and convention which aren’t worth bothering about provided the meaning is conveyed correctly. Quite frankly, most people couldn’t less care.

      • Mittens

        In your haste to criticise Murray’s word order w,r,t placement of floating adverbs of manner, you appear to have missed Nevermind’s point, which is that as a transitive verb is grotesquely overused to the point of cliché in America, while impact in British/International Engllish is regarded as a noun, and where it is used as a verbal phrase (“have an impact on” smth, not “impact smth”), it really should imply “impact” and not simply “effect”. It is often noted here by commenters that Murray has a weird affinity for American (weird for a British establishment figure and leading diplomat). Compare, for instance, Alasdair Crooke or the Indian Punchline Blog. We’re not quite the 53rd State yet.

        Oh for the days of the much lamented Harold Evans, who “impacted” ineffectively in New York where he spent his days after being toppled by Murdoch. All writers for public consumption should be force-fed his journalists’ guidebook.

  • T

    Losing Scotland has been recognised for a long time now to be the greatest threat facing the UK.

    Suddenly out of nowhere the UK establishment is gifted a highly unlikely opportunity to rid itself of its nemesis, the hugely popular Nicola Sturgeon.

    By this stage any other politician revealed to have plotted to jail an innocent man would have been forced to resign in disgrace. Absolute bare minimum. Even beloved establishment figures like Bozo or Sir Keir.

    So why this continuing protection by the UK government, ‘opposition’ and media of the leader of the despised independence movement?

  • Ken MacIntyre

    Dear Craig, I hope that you are cleared of the ludicrous contempt charges and for information, here is an email I sent to the Guardian’s Reader Editor as a correction to Rafael Behr’s opinion piece today.

    Dear Guardian

    Rafael Behr states in his article today about the scandal which has engulfed the Scottish Government in its attempts to frame Alex Salmond:

    ‘The truth may never be excavated from beneath the rubble of civil war between nationalist factions’.

    This is seriously misleading.

    First, the truth about Sturgeon and her cabal’s botched attempt to ruin Alex Salmond with false allegations and then cover it up is publicly available and supported by evidence. ‘Conspiracy theory’ is now conspiracy fact, attested by the former First Minister and a sworn Affidavit by a former UK Ambassador.


    Affidavit Craig Murray.pdf

    Salmond submission to Hamilton.pdf

    Second, the process has involved the corrupt collusion of the Scottish civil service, the Scottish Crown Office and Police Scotland and goes well beyond nationalist faction fighting, to seriously question the integrity and impartiality of Scottish government and law enforcement.

    Third, as is well known, Salmond was found innocent by a jury last year, on all 13 criminal charges.

    See also Alex Salmond’s submissions to the Holyrood Committee on the judicial review below which found the Scottish government’s complaints process biased, unfair and unlawful, awarding the highest scale of costs.

    To suggest that this is a ‘civil war’ when it is Alex Salmond who has been the victim of a wicked plot to ruin him and send him to prison on false charges, followed by an obvious and clumsy cover up, is below the standards of reporting expected of the Guardian. Before Scottish voters cast their votes this spring they should be in no doubt of the nature of their government and it’s the media’s duty to report it.

    Kind regards

    Ken MacIntyre
    7 Northcote Crescent
    West Horsley
    KT24 6LX
    07582 355368

    See also



    • Peter

      @ Ken MacIntyre

      Dear Guardian

      Rafael Behr states in his article today about the scandal which has engulfed the Scottish Government in its attempts to frame Alex Salmond:

      ‘The truth may never be excavated from beneath the rubble of civil war between nationalist factions’.

      This is seriously misleading.

      Have you been away for a while Ken?

      To your list of guilty parties you can add the whole of the MSM, the English one at least – yes, that’s right, the English one – who are all fully engaged in a corrupt operation to deceive the British public and to cover up for Sturgeon. Journalistic Integrity has long since vacated the Guardian’s offices and the BBC is providing a daily Sturgeon cover-up service via the reports of Sarah Smith – corruption, live and in person on your TV and radio.

      Not so much in the Scottish press, which I don’t know so well, but ‘Wings Over Scotland’ at least are having none of it.

      • Ken MacIntyre

        I don’t watch or listen to BBC News broadcasts so that should explain. Sky News is on the case. No reply from the Guardian but no surprise there.

    • Bayard

      “To suggest that this is a ‘civil war’ when it is Alex Salmond who has been the victim of a wicked plot to ruin him and send him to prison on false charges, followed by an obvious and clumsy cover up, is below the standards of reporting expected of the Guardian. “

      Is it even possible for anything to be below the standards of reporting expected of the Guardian?

  • Republicofscotland

    Bravo Craig, even though the Sword of Damocles is hanging over you, you’re still hopeful the committee will do the right thing, well the five of four of whom could be expected to shut in down and the one, who once had a lot of respect and funding from people including yourself to help his court case.


    Joanna Cherry doesn’t want to lead the SNP, and she might quit politics altogether.

Comments are closed.