A letter to Andy Wightman
In any functional nation, Friday’s revelations in Parliament by Sir David Davis would have been headline news. An extremely powerful figure, the then-First Minister’s chief of staff, was named and accused of conspiring with the Scottish Government, civil service and media to imprison an innocent man – the former leader of the country – on very serious charges of sexual assault, and of seeking to destroy his reputation by illegally leaking the false allegations to the press.
Liz Lloyd had never been publicly named as the suspect before that moment, so it was almost immeasurably bizarre that only two of Scotland’s newspapers (and two of its lowest-selling), namely The Times and – belatedly – The National, bothered to even report the accusation, far less spend any time seriously delving into it.
But it still wasn’t as odd as THIS response from a former Green MSP.
What on Earth is being suggested here? Let’s try to find out.
The first point to note is that Wightman’s tweet is, as a basic matter of fact, a lie in at least two ways. We’ll deal with the second one first. By “the investigation” he can only reasonably mean the Scottish Government’s inquiry into the first tranche of allegations against Salmond, made by two women known as Ms A and Ms B.
But that investigation definitely WAS concluded. Wightman is simply, plainly and inexplicably lying about that. (Obviously, as otherwise how could there have BEEN any “findings” to be “struck down by the court”?)
Its report was completed in August 2018, and subsequently leaked to Davie Clegg of the Daily Record and Kieran Andrews of The Times, who published part of it in a book three years later.
A highly improper process from start to finish, it had concluded that Salmond was guilty of wrongdoing, but was then thrown out (to use the legal term, “reduced”) in the Court Of Session by Lord Pentland on the grounds of being “unlawful”, “unfair” and “tainted with apparent bias”, to the extent that Salmond was awarded his costs on the almost unprecedented “agent and client” basis.
However, while Wightman’s statement about it is a demonstrable lie, one might argue that it was a slightly arcane technical point – it’s a reference (albeit an untruthful one) to a procedural matter rather than the allegations themselves.
Which brings us back to his other statement, repeated in the above tweet: namely that “there is no evidence that the allegations are false”. And that is a jaw-dropping falsehood, because the most serious accusations from Ms A and Ms B went on to form part of the charge sheet in Salmond’s criminal trial.
(Not all of them did – some were so ludicrously trivial that they didn’t even make the list of absurdly minor supposed infractions that the Crown scrabbled together in a vain attempt to firm up their case via the dodgy “Moorov doctrine”, given the total absence of evidence for the main charges. In other words, these were claims of misconduct even LESS serious than the catalogue of “hair-pinging” and shoulder-patting incidents that Salmond was accused of in the witness box.)
And of course, there’s an abundance of evidence that those allegations were false, because they were tried to the fullest possible extent in Scotland’s highest court and Salmond was found innocent on every charge – something which remarkably seems to have escaped Andy Wightman’s attention, because yesterday he declared that he himself had interviewed both Ms A and Ms B (long AFTER the trial at which their accusations were rejected by the jury, remember) and decided that in fact their complaints were “credible”.
That is an extraordinary statement. Wightman is announcing that despite a 14-day trial in which a mostly-female jury led by a female judge heard all the evidence, watched every second of every cross-examination of witnesses and the accused and concluded that the complaints were NOT credible, Andy Wightman (who did not do those things) knows better, and flat-out rejects the findings of the jury.
On the face of it that claim is utterly preposterous, and a grave insult to the intelligence and the integrity of both the jury and Lady Dorrian, who presided over the trial. So on what grounds does Wightman feel able to make it?
Andy Wightman got to interview Ms A and Ms B because he sat on the Scottish Government inquiry which attempted to discover why the initial investigation had been such a disastrous trainwreck. And everyone agreed that the last straw was Judith Mackinnon claiming on oath at the commission-and-diligence hearing under Lord Pentland not to remember a meeting she had with Ms A on 16 January 2018.
Ms A could have cleared up a question at the heart of the whole shambles which remains unaddressed: namely how on Earth could Mackinnon have completely forgotten by December 2018 this vital prior contact with Ms A just months earlier?
So Wings hereby puts on record the following question to Andy Wightman:
During your interviewing of Ms A, did you at any point ask her about her meeting with Judith Mackinnon on 16 January 2018?
It was also revealed that Judith Mackinnon (who as the Investigating Officer was not supposed to have had any prior involvement with complainers) had met with Ms B just a few days later, on 24 January 2018.
The meeting was not disclosed by the Scottish Government even to its own legal counsel at Lord Pentland’s judicial review until December 2018, to their considerable bewilderment and fury, and made their job of defending the government impossible.
Therefore we must also put this question to Andy Wightman:
During your interviewing of Ms B, did you at any point ask her about her meeting with Judith Mackinnon on 24 January 2018?
Because if he didn’t, that would appear to be a quite extraordinary dereliction of duty on his part, and render his assertion that these witnesses were “credible” to be farcical.
It was the collapse of the crooked, incompetent Scottish Government inquiry that led to Salmond facing a criminal trial, at huge cost to both him and the Scottish taxpayer. Ms A and Ms B, and their improper contacts with Judith Mackinnon, were ultimately the core reason for that collapse.
Andy Wightman appears to have signally failed in his duty as a member of the Scottish Parliament inquiry to properly investigate these facts, and has then compounded that failure by casting doubt on the verdict of the jury at the criminal trial, as well as on the competency and integrity of Police Scotland and the Crown Office And Procurator Fiscal Service, which declined to bring the more trivial of Ms A and Ms B’s accusations to court despite having set an incredibly low bar for criminality.
(So low, in fact, that Salmond WAS initially charged – though the charge was later dropped – for… recklessly opening a bottle of fizzy water.)
Wightman’s protestations that he’s referring only to the inquiry rather than the trial do not hold up, since he makes a blanket statement that “there is NO evidence that the allegations are false” (our capitals), but “the allegations” in the context of the Scottish Government investigation includes some which WERE tried in court and rejected. And the others were not considered even worthy of attempted prosecution, which at a minimum is circumstantial evidence that they were not credible.
(Wightman suggested that they “were found not to meet the criminal threshold” – by who? – and left them hanging as cheap vague innuendo like a coward, despite having admonished people to “stop minimising sexual harassment”. But the evidence above inescapably points to the conclusion that the supposed “sexual harassment” being alleged was of a level LESS serious than accidentally spilling water on someone.)
And last but not least, of course, Andy Wightman is unmistakeably implying that Alex Salmond is in fact guilty, or at least under suspicion of, criminal sexual harassment which has never been brought to trial and is not under any police investigation.
Our final and most pressing question to Mr Wightman, then, is this:
Which questions relating to the allegations of sexual misconduct against Alex Salmond do you consider to be “still unanswered”?
Specifically which criminal offences (if any) do you believe Alex Salmond to be still under suspicion of having committed, and does that include any of those of which he was charged and acquitted in the High Court?
Does your tweet at 7.46pm on 20 July 2024 imply, as it clearly appears to, that Alex Salmond was/is guilty of the civil offence of “sexual harassment”?
We look forward to his response.
He might as well argue that Salmond would have been found guilty in the criminal trial if the court hadn’t abruptly intervened and declared him innocent. It’s just as ridiculous.
No man in Scotland could have survived the scrutiny that Salmond was put under. Untold numbers of police investigated him for months, all sorts of people from his past were pressured into speaking against him, and it is clear that a multitude of conspirators did everything possible to demonise him — apparently going as far as making things up.
On top of all that, the whole MSM played along with this, using all their considerable power to blacken his name with.
I wonder how Wightman would fare.
All I can say here is well done Stu.
Corruption has an unmistakable smell, and the stink of this is disgusting. The persecutors of Alex Salmond would do fine working in an abattoir that never gets disinfected.
Keep wielding that steam hose Stu.
So, I was in the toon and this guy says to me he heard from a guy that this other guy was actin a bit dodgy n that and that theres something going on
– but when you tell folk this … they don’t believe you
that andy wightman – is it true he has cages and a sex dungeon under his house full of filipino children?
Has he ever denied it?
Is there any evidence that these allegations are not true?
Didn’t he once buy a spade out of B&Q?
Even if we dig up his house and find nothing, chances are he just moved it.
I believe it.
– are you saying “some guy in the street” is lying?
and it’s not like some woman with a grudge against a man will ever act upon it, like – not getting the job she wanted. This never happens. Women never lie.
Scotland, where false accusers get anonymity for life, and not the jail for perjury.
It is disappointing – inexcusable – that Wightman seems to be maintaining that Alex Salmond did behave badly. I can’t understand how Wightman can do this – hasn’t he read Craig Murray’s reports?
Again good investigative reporting to expunge the Whightman lies.
Wonder what he hoped to gain by even tweeting these nonsense comments.
Most, if not all, of the people who deride AS as guilty are Independence supporters.
Independence would be an absolute joke if a country had no faith in its police or judiciary.
If AS had been found guilty the court verdict would have been touted to enhance his wrongdoing. All the Sturgeon supporters would have felt vindicated.
However, the Not Guilty verdict is not acceptable to them, simply because it does not suit their agenda.
Anyone who can’t see how wrong this is – is beyond redemption.
Thankyou WOS for continuing to keep turning this rock over to expose the slimy, scuttling creatures beneath.
Surely by now even the dogs in the street can smell the putrid stench of corruption rising from the whole Alex Salmond judicial debacle. Yet, with a very few honourable exceptions, not a word from MSM or political commentators.
“… Which questions relating to the allegations against Alex Salmond do you consider to be “still unanswered”?
Specifically which criminal offences do you believe Alex Salmond to be still under suspicion of having committed, and does that include any of those of which he was charged and acquitted in the High Court?… ”
This, to my mind, is the crux of the matter. Andy Wightman is not the only person to suggest that the verdict needs to be look at again. One of the basic tenets, if not the most basic tenet, of the Scottish legal system is that a person is innocent until proved guilty, in a court of law, by his/her peers, and, if acquitted, walks free without a stain on his or her character.
These attacks are, I believe, driven by fear of Mr Salmond bringing a case successfully, and, thereafter, returning to front-line politics. That putative return was the underlying motive for the first, in-house challenge which was found to be illegitimate and illegal and which the mandarins in Whitehall warned the Scottish branch Civil Service to avoid, as retrospective challenges can backfire, coupled to which, no former PM or FM had ever been investigated and challenged in this way before.
No surprise that the SG did not listen (and the civil servants would have informed them), but the civil service is not off the hook either. Yes, the British State would have made hay had Salmond been found guilty in either the civil or criminal case, or both. They would have utterly destroyed him precisely because they fear him as a real Scottish Nationalist and not a pretendy, collaborationist one. However, this mess was home-grown and entirely in keeping with the farces that have occurred since in other areas of governance. Spite, jealousy, the ambitions of political and intellectual garden gnomes all played their part.
I am very disappointed in Andy Wightman who, albeit he has been a staunch defender of female rights, and lost his own political career over his stance, is way off beam here. He is undermining Scots civil and criminal law. It is not perfect, but it is all we have to protect us from the establishment and their lackeys.
Makes you wonder what else Wightman has written in his various works that could be factually eviscerated like this.
I know he ended up an independent but was a member of the Khmer Vert before that and THEY hate Salmond as he does not “swing” the way they like to do..
I contributed to Wightman’s defence costs (twice).
If I had known what a colossal nincompoop and malicious shit stirrer, he really is, I would have kept my money.
I thought he was a good guy but, hey, once a Scottish Green Party heidbanger, always a Scottish Green Party heidbanger.
Whightmans unbias opinion eh? Seem everyone & his dug knew about Salmons behaviour but nikla? Yet he was n that committe with his prejudice! link to andywightman.scot
What the hell is Wightman playing at here? he appears to be trying to go over old ground and if not change the outcome, at least instill a feeling of doubt, doubt that judicially doesn’t exist.
Alex Salmond was found not guilty by a jury made up mostly of women.
The big question must be is why is Wightman is going down this road after all these years especially when many Scots know now what actually happened to Alex Salmond and the injustices he suffered in the process.
Your last paragraph- should the date be 20 July?
He has had an agenda all the way through the process. I contributed to his own legal case, which he won. Obviously he thought the courts behaved in a just manner on that occasion, or maybe he’s guilty despite the court ruling in his favour.
Outstanding work, as ever.
‘Does your tweet at 7.46pm on 21 July 2024 imply, as it clearly appears to, that Alex Salmond was/is guilty of the civil offence of “sexual harassment”?’
I think that date should be July 20 . . .
I don’t think Wrightman will answer those questions. As much as he’s done some excellent work on land ownership/reform (which the Greens dumped for gender ideology), he’s in a quandary here.
What is beginning to become clearer is that a large part of Scotland’s political class, backed by parts of the UK & Scottish media, with Police Scotland and the prosecutor acting to their will, tried to get Salmond convicted for reasons that seem to be to silence him & also, send a message to those even slightly disagreeing with Sturgeon, etc that if you too could get the police at your door.
If this is all true (and evidence is mounting that a large chunk of it is) then this is one of the biggest political scandals in UK history and the biggest in Scotland’s history. The fact the biggest media organisations in Scotland are ignoring this story tells its own story.
Any hope of people regaining confidence in the political system hinges on this being investigated & prosecutions happening. I do have some hope that something happens on the back of what Davis said as it’s in the interest of Labour to encourage that, though I also fear it’ll be brushed under the carpet and left to fester.
“Andy Wightman is not the only person to suggest that the verdict needs to be look at again.”
Well if COPFS thought the verdict needed to be looked at again, there is such a thing as an appeal process. Which they declined to launch. So if COPFS didn’t think the verdicts warranted appealing, why the hell does Andy Wightman (et al)? What are his legal qualifications and how are they superior to the actual prosecutors?
So is that Andy Wightman confirming he’s in the “Lost the Battle, but we’ll win the war” fraternity?
Perhaps several possibilities going on – 1 Andy Wightman has no insight into his own lack of intellect and is just being thick. 2 He’s been offered a way back into mainstream politics and this is the price he has to pay, demonstrating his loyalty to The corrupt core at the heart of the Scottish political machine. 3 Scotland is a Controlled Democracy, Andy recognises this and Andy is actively participating by claiming his oh-so-elite status, with a “look at me, I’m important” moment.
Why try to make any sense of what a Greens loon says? That’s like taking fashion tips from Billy Idol.
Stu, I challenged Andy on X as well and he obfuscated, so I think you will wait a long time for him to respond
Lorna Campbell @ 2:26 pm
“However, this mess was home-grown”
A colonial society is described as ‘a Manichean world’ in which the native group is forced to exist between ‘two cultural and psychical realms’ in conflict (Fanon).
The colonial environment, therefore, is never ‘home-grown’; politics and institutions in a colony are not the same as in an independent country. In a colony ‘only the values of the colonizer are sovereign’ (Memmi) and colonial elites hold only to those values.
Young Lochinvar??21 July, 2024 at 2:37 pm
?“Wightman…..was a member of the Khmer Vert before that and THEY hate Salmond as he does not “swing” the way they like to do..”
======
They ended up hating Wightman too because he prioritised women’s rights over the demands of trans-activists in the “Rainbow Greens.” ???
Andy Wightman appears to have signally failed …
Possible Typo ? Should ‘signally’ be ‘singularly’
It is amazing Andy seems to want Defendants to prove Allegations false; Is that because it appears how some decisions were reached inside Scottish Greens ?
Seeing as Mr Wightman is entering the fray and expressing some views on the debacle. I wonder if he also has anything to say about the total piss-take that is the metaphysical aspect of an individual allegedly attempting to rape an individual when both parties were not even in the same building at the time and date of the supposed incident.
And what are Mr Wightman’s views on giving an individual who made a verifiable false accusation against another party lifelong anonymity?
Especially taking in mind that said accuser had, in the balance of probabilities had previous interaction with some very significant people in positions of power and influence to guide them on a way to proceed with their conspiracy that allowed the alphabetty accusers to remain anonymous.
I smell kompromat…
Lorna Campbell @ 2.26pm: “he has been a staunch defender of female rights, and lost his own political career over his stance”
I’ve just re-read the explanation he gave as to why he left the SGP:
link to andywightman.scot
His mistake seems to have been that he thought he could support trans rights and female rights at the same time:
“I support reform of the GRA to become more person-centred but do not believe that it is necessary to change long-established concepts or scientific fact or meanings of words to achieve this. Far less do I believe that is necessary or relevant to have to embrace queer theory in order to support the advancement of trans rights.”
Further proof (if it was needed) as to why it’s probably not possible to take the ‘middle ground’ on this issue. The blog reads well enough but I also seem to remember seeing him give an interview at the time about his resignation and my memory is that he just came across as spineless.
And, rather ironically, given how he’s just smeared Alex Salmond, the reason Wightman gave for writing his ‘why I resigned‘ blog was that:
“…I am now aware that there has been some significant misinformation circulated by members and officials of the Party alleging to explain why I resigned.
I have seen emails, Slack channel communications, information from protected Twitter accounts and the Party’s Q&A following my resignation They make wild allegations about my motivations and character. Some of the claims being made are now being circulated and are having a negative impact on my reputation at a time when I am seeking work. I therefore wish to set the record straight.”
Superb effort as always Stu – you put those vicious hacks of the msm to shame!
O/T I see that one “Silver Fox” has been claiming on you tube that Mridul Wadhwa from Edinburgh R/Crisis Centre – you know that strange man in a dress – has been suspended, pending an investigation!
I am absolutely bewildered by this contribution by Andy Wightman who struck me as the sole honest actor in the Fabiani Farce. All the others were driven by party agendas : the 4 SNP members, including the preposterous Fabiani, were out to clear the SG and Sturgeon.
The unionists were determined to taint BOTH Salmond and Sturgeon. Wightman alone, it seemed THEN, was the only MSP on the committee concerned with the public good.
Where this latest intervention leaves me now I do not know.
panda paws @ 3.23
The prosecution deserves very little credit for anything in this whole episode, and one of the things you shouldn’t give them any credit for is putting up their grubby hands and saying “It’s a fair cop. You’ve got me there. I won’t appeal.” In fact the prosecution has the right of appeal in solemn proceedings (as these were) only in the very restricted circumstances set out in Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as (frequently and horribly) amended. None of these circumstances applied.
Another cheapskate who thinks he can pompously and dishonestly spread innuendo without a shred of evidence, just hearsay and his own unbelievable opinion. The question is what it is about Davis’ detailed summary of the corruption in Scotland that he is keen for us to disregard. Because he has not refuted a single thing. Like the guy down the pub he just implies things with a knowing smirk, as if he has secret information no-one else has but can’t actually tell anybody what. Was he in a relationship with one of them? Is there something to come out about him? There is no good reason for him to even get involved in this unless he has something to hide. I wonder what that can be. The Greens have lost their credibility,
Wightman seems keen to follow them down that path.
Cynicus @ 16.50.
I fear you shall have to try live up to the meaning of your name in future judgements, Cynicus … and become one who distrusts others and believes they act only in their own self interest.
Should you find this challenging, just think of the behaviour of almost any of our MPs or MSPs and it should be considerably easier.
Cynicus
Ignored
says:
21 July, 2024 at 4:50 pm
I am absolutely bewildered by this contribution by Andy Wightman.
That wasn’t my reading of it at all. On his website. Front page spread was an article basically saying the whole event was down to Alec Salmond’s behaviour. I haven’t visited that website in a year or two but that was up for a while during and after the enquiry. During his time in parliament he did not lay a glove on the landed interest. He was quick to advertise he was short of money and in desperate need of employment and at the same time he was advertising his opinion on the Salmond affair. In his time in parliament he was found wanting. No independence voter either.
If it was in Wightman’s hands to deliver it we would be in the same situation with regard to land reform as we are with independence under Sturgeon’s SNP.
That seems to happen a lot.
Well, Biden has thrown in the towel. He’s standing down. Who would have thunk it after all that was said.
Maybe we’ll have some action here with the criminals who tried to set up Alex Salmond.
Remember what Sturgeon 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 the behaviour complained of didn’t happen and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that.”
link to theguardian.com
I don’t remember Andy Wightman being very impressive on the Committee.
The only person who impressed me was Alex Salmond
link to tinyurl.com
Here they all are.
No Andy Wightman?
While the conspirators have to be charged with perjury, he has to be charged with contempt of court.
Will it happen?
@ Willie
I’m guessing the States doesn’t have 5 years stock of formaldehyde to keep Biden fresh. Maybe there’s still time for Paul Gascoigne to rock up with a six pack of lager, some chicken, and a fishing rod to save the day.
Things like this make my tenner a month an absolute steal.
I am no fan of Cliff Richard. But didn’t he take the BBC on and win. He proved their allegations were bullshit. And now noone really bothers him.
However it seems Salmond , who took on the government, and won hands down. Is still guilty, according to Wightman. The courts made a mistake according to Wightman.
It seems guilt only requires the general publics agreement nowadays.
gm @ 5:45 pm
“During his time in parliament he did not lay a glove on the landed interest”
Even in the foreword to the 2013 edition of ‘The Poor etc’, Andy seemed unable (or unwilling) to make the obvious connection between the theft of our lands/resources and colonialism; much like most of the Scottish bourgeoisie more generally, who remain in denial. His website ‘hot topics’ all relate to land matters, yet he fails to make the obvious and necessary colonial linkage. By its omission, independence is evidently not one of his ‘hot topics’, much like his former Green colleagues.
Given the decision of the jury based on evidence presented (and not all of it was permitted to be presented), defending the arguably dubious honour of the alpha-betties seems an odd pursuit.
Alf Baird
Ignored
says:
21 July, 2024 at 8:06 pm
gm @ 5:45 pm. Odd pursuits.
Aye, being a coward only half explains it.
Wightman ever since he became an MSP was a continual disappointment. At every juncture where he was required by conscience and civic propriety to vote one way to the betterment of Scotland he ducked the issue and voted the other way. That includes in the Salmond Inquiry.
He continues to seriously disappoint me.
Panda Paws: yes, indeed. however appeals by the Police/Fiscal are usually made on sentencing, so not appropriate here. I have suggested in the past that the women might want to launch a civil appeal, but, of course, they won’t. Only those who are genuinely whiter-than-white and feel aggrieved that they have not received justice would ever attempt such a thing. The evidence would be examined under a much less stringent microscope and the law would undoubtedly favour Mr Salmond again. At least some of the women were carried along under pressure and gave evidence under duress. It doesn’t exonerate them, but it does explain a few strange anomalies.
Moixx: you are right that AW did, indeed, take the ‘middle ground’, but he did argue cogently for women’s spaces, etc. No, there can be no middle ground on the issue of ‘trans’. He, like so many others, think that compromise can be reached. It can’t. These people are part of a men’s sexual rights/men’s rights movement that will never stop at the door of the female loos. The number of people who still talk about ‘real’ ‘trans’ is quite shocking, given there evidence that has been accumulating. The ‘trans’ identified men are sexual deviants, but it doesn’t seem to matter how many of them commit disgusting crimes, there are still those who find excuses for them rather than believe women.
I think AW is one of those people who can never choose a side when, on some issues, we all must, eventually. He is far from being the only one in the independence movement. Craig Murray, much as I admire him for other stances, is so wrong on this one that you have to wonder about his motives because he is a human rights and civil rights supporter, yet he cannot see that females are disadvantaged to a massive degree by this stuff, their rights taken away as if they are lesser human beings. Neo matter how you dice and slice it, young women and, especially, children, are being harmed by the male-centric ‘trans’ lobby.
Andy Wightman tried to play both sides. I thought he was a decent MSP although he failed to take the necessary action when required. He was thrown under a bus by the Greens. The Patrick Harvie, Ross Greer and Maggie Chapman Greens nobody should ever vote for them again unless you have a multi coloured mohican. Talking about real Greens the local factor has destroyed the habitat of hedgehogs. They are in my garden in numbers. What do we do? They are not for moving a real Green issue.
I see the SNP are up to their old tricks trying to manage the conference to exclude the required remedial work.
The penetration of the party is much worse than I thought.
On top of macdonald’s talk of keeping trident!!!
If we get indy the uk is required by the treaties they have signed to remove them. It is not the snp it is the international community that requires their removal. Macdonald is a bampot.
Personally i want to keep our share of them we have really shit untrustworthy neighbours. Ukraine regrets giving up theirs.
Anyone else having problems with internet drop out/disconnection tonight?
Sorry Rev, but a criminal trial never finds the accused innocent, nor does it find a complainer’s account as not credible. The jury’s only task is to decide whether the accused had committed the crime(s) beyond reasonable doubt.
As a master of detail I’m sure this hasn’t escaped you and it shouldn’t be claimed otherwise.
“Sorry Rev, but a criminal trial never finds the accused innocent”
Oh ffs I’m so tired of this point.
An accused is innocent until proven guilty.
If they’re not proven guilty they therefore remain innocent, and have been innocent throughout.
He comes across now as another useless English Liberal Rent boy.
Not to mention that the hair pinging allegation which was only present to bolster the ridiculous “Moorov Doctrine” attack on Mr Salmond actually allegedly took place in a lift in a hotel in Hong Kong which the last time I looked was outside the High Courts jurisdiction for everything except certain forms of sex trafficking. The High Court now apparently accepts jurisdiction for offences if publishing the names of Alphabetties anywhere in the world in complete contravention to the Spy catcher case where in a case of alleged treason a story banned by the English High Court could legally be published in Scottish newspapers which ended up making the English ban so ridiculous that the subsequent ban in the English High Court was lifted.
” Tommy Sheppard: We need a brand new independence strategy…
link to archive.ph
Yeah, we’re working on one Tommy.
Stage 1 is getting rid of the dysfunctional charlatans exploiting the Independence cause for their own personal advancement while selling Scotland out, squandering mandate after mandate, abdicating Scotland’s Constitutional rights and integrity, organising bogus Independence events to clash with AUOB events, turning up at Pride Marches rather than YES marches, and not forgetting stabbing their own “colleagues” in the back.
Stage 2… yeah, we’ll tell you about that,… when or if we need the excess baggage of mind-numbingly stupid, gravy slurping charlatans to get on board with the real Independence movement…. again.
Besides… If we told you what Stage 2 was, you and McIntyre-Kemp would just pinch the idea and rebrand it as your own ersatz initiative.
Andy Wightman is an absolute piece of shit. I watched his performance at the inquiry and he was one of the most disgusting participants in it. Not a word of a lie.
Every question he asked Salmond contained a smear, every single time. This was exactly what the SNP on there were doing on there and Wightman was completely indistinguishable from the SNP in this regard. Every question was loaded and repeated the smears.
The only person on that did not do it was J@ckie B@llie. Even Murdo Fraser was no where near as lowlife as Wightman and the SNP. Interesting that it was them that showed Salmond respect, while this weirdo carpetbagger sided with the SNP in their stitch-up.
Wightman likes to position himself as not partisan but he is a complete two faced scumbag. I watched the little runt and he is very much a willing and conscious part of the let’s smear Alex Salmond campaign. Which is the little lying sack of shit is coming out with this garbage now. It is just more of the same…
He is a horrible little butthurt. I despise the prick.
The Green party and the SNP are a nest of sexual deviants. I am starting to think they hate Salmond merely for being a raging heterosexual.
As George Galloway said some time ago… the only thing Alex Salmond is guilty of is having extra-marital affairs.
The whole stitch-up is built around that one kernel of truth. The ‘sleepy cuddle’ for which Salmond apologized because she was his direct subordinate. That lady accepted that apology and declined a transfer meaning she continued to work for Salmond for years afterwards.
The whole thing is carefully crafted bullshit and Wightman knows this making him what here…
It is hard to put into words the contempt I have for him at this stage. Just repeating the same old tired smears like a broken record… it is truly disgusting.
If people want to talk about showing true contempt of court Wightman and Sturgeon are leading examples of it. It is really disgraceful. No sign of Dorrian on that though… shocker.
I will never forget what Wightman did, he showed his character during that inquiry. He can fuck off for life.
When someone has been subjected to two stitch-ups and been exonerated twice, by the highest civil judges in Scotland and a majority female jury, and there is then an inquiry into what happened… And you use that inquiry as a platform to re-smear the victim…what does that make you?
Because that is exactly what Andy Wightman did at that inquiry (along with the SNP).
Using the inquiry into why an innocent man was subjected to a stitch-up to re-smear him on the same bogus charges… That is what Andy Wightman did.
He is a despicable cunt.
I am surprised the names of the Alphabeties have not been made public.
The corrupt Scottish government after all leaks like a sieve.
The courts may say that they have the authority to impose a world wide ban. But somehow that doesn’t seem right.
One thing for sure is that the issue will not have gone away. And that may be why, despite Alex Salmond being found innocent, certain malcontents still try to disregard his innocencr as if he was actually guilty.
Andy Wightman clearly now falls into this class of malign defamers. Maybe he knows that the truth is lurking to emerge and the whole rotten shame of coordinated malfeasance of state might be about to emerge.
Wow, the Salmond/Alba Derangement Syndrome runs deep in the SNP.
If Salmond/Alba is a spent force, no longer a threat, why on earth do they still spend so much time attacking them? What are they afraid of? The fact that Salmond/Alba didn’t just give up and go away seems to have really rattled them. They must be quaking that their shenanigans will soon be fully exposed. Maybe it’s coming after all. Just sayin. 🙂
So frustrating for me let alone Alex Salmond, to find people of Whightman’s calibre could be party to an inquiry of this magnitude or indeed have such an absurd series of comments recorded in print.
Again we have irrefutable evidence that the U.K. media is totally controlled by the establishment who reject any and all truths and justices should they be related to support Scottish Independence or those who support it.
They are no better than an ink stained Mafia.
At press conferences with these fake journalists jousting for questions with any independence related politician they first should be asked why this major story that every citizen should know about and who deserves to know hasn’t been covered.
With their no justification reply they should be dispatched from the room as they are not there in the role of journalists or as unbiased commentators.
Luigi,
Derangement Syndrome is just another import from the USA. The children at the SNP see just how many tweets the Trump version generates and they want a piece of that action, otherwise they’d have to think of things to write all by themselves. There is also the social media solidarity angle where everybody can get together and fight The Devil. #metoo
Until the anonymous accusers come out publicly and describe what happened this will continue. When one side of an argument is hidden from the public it leads to a suspicion that the other side is lying. We need to have Alex Salmond’s defence fully reported and the Scottish Government’s, politicians’ and civil servants’ parts fully laid out there will continue to be speculation to the detriment of the person accused.
I watched the televised evidence of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and the only person to come out of it with any credit was Alex Salmond. He was the only one not to have a memory by-pass. Nicola Sturgeon was frankly unbelievable. The members of the inquiry ranged from cringing support for Sturgeon to lame ducks.
Whiteman sat on the FABIANI WHITEWASH.
He wanted his own WHITEWASH.
The establishment of Holyrood Whitewash.
Crooked and corrupt. Enough to shut Holyrood down. Get this piece of human filth off the Scottish tax payers income.
Get the GREENS TO FUCK!
I DESPISE THESE PEOPLE IN HOLYOOD.
THE FABIANI WHITEWASH. THE LOT OF THEM. SCUMBAGS. CROOKED AND CORRUPT AS FUCK.
SALMOND WAS INNOCENT.
JAIL STURGEON. JAIL PETER MURRELL. JAIL LIZ LLOYD AND WOMAN H.
THE LIAR. THE PERJURER.
ANDY WHITEMAN. THE PROTECTOR OF PERJURERS.
HUMAN FILTH. LAW BREAKING HUMAN FILTH.
SACK HIM.
Ahh that we pretendy Scottish parliament often used to put the brakes on Scotland by Westminster politicians.
You can’t blame them, after all it was their creation under their legislation and statues to expand the laws over “Scots laws” through the back door.
Or is this case the aiding and abetting, planning of false allegations charges in advance by Westminster politicians. Is usually called a Set Up job,
What else is there to say, except I have been explaining this (problem) for a number of years now,
Scotland does not have a Scottish parliament to set new Scots Laws,
Scotland does not have a Scottish parliament to compentently investigate any allegations under Scot law,
So every one that sits foot in the Westminster pretendy parliament branch office sent to Scotland under Westminster legislation and statue orders has to obey those orders from Andy Wightman, Nicola Sturgeon, Mr Murrell ,Patrick Harvie, Judith MacKinnon, Evans, etc etc etc.
Real majority mandates turned into garbage,
Running to Courts in England to let them decide the Scots laws, Free ports, Gender issues, Scotlands false Barnet formula, Climate change geo- engineering the clouds,
Things that the Sovereign people of Scotland never thought up, or even envisaged.
Now we can see the results of how a pretendy Scottish parliament under Westminster Statues and legislation for the Scotland act to work, having double Standards and double layers of laws in Scotland, and double the trouble.
Is it up to Englands politicians to run Scotland politicians into the ground Under the Colonial Control of a devolved parliament?
Should the people of Scotland have “True parliament representation” for the people that live in Scotland.
Or one for the usage and abuse of Westminster politicians when they require to squash under foot any Scot or Scottish politician wishing the for right to “self determination” for the nation in Scotland.
We cannot reconvene a Scottish parliament whilst it is under Westminster legislation and Westminster statues. Nor when Westminster has put the old Scottish parliament under DISSOLUTION and has never repealed it.
While Westminster parliament still governs and passes laws separately as a English parliament for England and Wales.
Scotland the Colony that is continuing its restless sleep walking., fighting the invisible enemy in nightmares.
“I am surprised the names of the Alphabeties have not been made public”
In normal circumstances, I would be surprised too. But these are not normal circumstances.
We have had the main arms of the British state involved on this to their armpits and from the very beginning: the civil service, the Police, the Crown Office, the main press and, at points, even the Lord Advocate and some judges.
It cannot be a coincidence that all these corrupt people were chosen to be in post at the same time. It cannot be a coincidence that none of them have been held accountable for anything. It cannot be a coincidence that this was also happening at the same time the SNP, with absolute majority after absolute majority in Westminster and with the power to rightfully end the UK right there and then, had just been defanged by the same political fraud, even before they reached the seats in 2015, which, with the highest ranking officer of the UK civil service in Scotland, appears to have been at the centre of the implementation of this alleged conspiracy.
It cannot be a coincidence that, what at first sight appears to be a clear cut case of fraud involving funds donated for a specific cause and used for something else, is taking such a looooooooooooooooooooong time to progress and which, incidentally, has the same political fraud, as leader of the party and wife of the CEO at the time, right at the centre of it.
It cannot be a coincidence either that under the stewardship of this political fraud, an unelected representative of the crown was invited to the executive so they could simply steal from the people of Scotland control over its legislative body and hand it to the English crown in the form of an English court and English judges. It is obvious this was done to stop a referendum bill that, otherwise and with a pro-independence majority in Holyrood, would have passed no problem and would have left the monarch with the uncomfortable choice of having to stamp it against their will or denying the stamping and, in doing so, violating the Claim of Right 1689 they had just swear to uphold.
It is clear as day that this matter is only a small part of a much larger puzzle which transcends well beyond a narcissistic political fraud, drunken in power and on her own self-perception of importance, and her carpetbagger minions.
What is not clear to me is how far up the UK hierarchy of power this conspiracy goes. But when you have so many elements of the state frantically standing on the lid and biting the heads of whoever attempts to lift it, you can only guess that this goes quite high up.
I would not be surprised on the least if, at some point in the future, we find out that things have not been revealed sooner because, somewhat, this whole story, including the active, forceful, persistent and systematic suppression of evidence of fundamental public interest in Scotland by elements of the crown, has been loosely linked to “a matter for national security”. It all depends how far up the hierarchy this thing goes and where the order to start all this came from.
When, in the context of the third decade of the 21st century, we heard about the absolutely idiotic and absurd demands of having to wear a tie in Westminster to be called to speak to represent their constituency, you have to wonder who/what completely detached from reality undemocratic nutter/nutters is/are really in control of the UK.
I mean, how many of the working class people in the UK wear a tie to work? So, the nutter/nutters, is/are sending the message that the tools sitting in Westminster only speak for tie-wearing citizens and to hell with everybody else.
In such absurd context, is it really that unlikely that such nutter/nutters rather abuse power and misuse the concept of “national security” than being exposed and held accountable for improper and unlawful interventionism?
I think we have seen worse.
Can we be surprised by Wightman’s craven attempts to change the story? He must still have friends to make somewhere in the establishment.
In a philosophical and quasi scientific sense an «allegation» resides in a «limbo state» until proved true or false. Of itself it’s existence is subject to «authentification» beyond mere «identification».
I might claim/allege/identify that there is a new chemical element, ok…go prove it!
Is law different in such matters?
Tony Little says on 21/07/24 @ 4am:
“Stu, I challenged Andy on X as well and he obfuscated, so I think you will wait a long time for him to respond.”
Well done Tony, i was going to say every Winger on ‘X’ should challenge his lies etc and refer him to this brilliant article. An exercise in real journalism.
@Mia (10.02) –
Aye, the ‘national interest’ excuse is a cracker, one size fits all.
Can’t ever be in the ‘national interest’ to have our so-called ‘leaders’ exposed as venal sociopaths.
@ confused 2nd post
It’s no Andy Wightman keeps kids chained up in his basement .
I think you are mixing him up with the other green guy whose still joint leader if the party. Allegedly .
Mia,
Its a shame Scotland gives all these miscreants a paid for political home in the pretendy parliament sent to Scotland.
It would be a great achievement if Scots, ( the people ) could see their way to the end TWO legislated Westminster parliaments by suspending the Treaty, due to it breaches the fallacious treaty of union itself.
The legal reality is that Scots are not in the treaty of union as Westminster parliament over a number of years have released this information to the world.
And the only people that were in the treaty of union from Scotland, by signature, which they alone ratified, was the pre- 1707 members of the three estates / parliament of Scotland, in which the Westminster parliament in England immediately under posthaste dissolved the Old 1707 Scottish parliament which Absolved it from all responsibility from upholding any of the required legalities and treaty terms of agreement
Either there is a set treaty of union between Scotland and England or there is not.
Westminster parliament, cannot legally hold the two unequal positions,
But these remnants of a hovering ghost treaty that is neither one or the other and only when convenient for Westminster has to be called out for what it is, Fallacious and legally in close proximity to a scam,
Alf: I absolutely accept what you say about colonized nations, but the Salmond debacle was cooked up at Holyrood. Responsibility for that lies right here, not down there, however much we might want it to, and, albeit no doubt the British State and Westminster would have made hay with it, had the Scottish branch Civil Service and the colonial Scottish government listened to the warnings from Whitehall, all of it could have been avoided. No matter how colonized you are, in the end, it’s up to you to decide whether you accept brainwashing or not. The ‘trans’ issue is another where brainwashing has taken place. Sometimes, we have to accept that some people – a lot of them – are just plain stupid.
Dave L: the Moorov Doctrine is a perfectly legal means of pinning down, for example, a serial killer, a serial housebreaker, and so on; it is not ‘ridiculous’. Every jurisdiction uses it in some form. It seems to me that it was misused in the Salmond case which became more of a fishing expedition that a nothing else.
The women are still under the protection of the anonymity umbrella – and, again, it is a perfectly reasonable legal device/convention when used properly. The best hope of breaching it is if one the women cracks and spills the beans. All anonymity orders are life-long, as far as I am aware. Without doubt, at least one of the women, possibly more, were pressured to give evidence not wholly willingly, I believe, or Mr Salmond and his team will blow the whole thing apart and it will become redundant.
I will keep on saying, the SG wanted Mr Salmond out of Scottish politics for good for the reasons I stated earlier: he was, and will always be, a thorn in the side of the collaborationists and devolutionists. Had he returned to frontline politics, independence would not be stalled. The SG knows it, we all know it and you can bet that Westminster and the British State know it, too. The SG’s actions were like a ripe plum falling from the tree into their lap. Now, why would that be?
Anyone who starts a sentence with “Yes, X was criminal, but…” has already lost any argument they may choose to make. The word choice minimises the actions which were provably criminal, to then criticise the person found innocent of criminal charges following the proper judicial process.
It is, frankly, the ramblings of an absolute cretin.
“the Salmond debacle was cooked up at Holyrood”
I have to disagree on this. I agree that the implementation of the “plan” must have been led by Sturgeon’s Gov and civil service, but the strategy and plan for this was not cooked up here.
Take a look at what was happening in Wales right at the same time. Take a look at the process that Mr Carl Sargeant was put through and that ultimately drove him to his death and to the resignation of the FM of Wales at the time.
What do you see?
The parallelisms are uncanny. It is not possible that both permanent secretaries in Scotland and Wales came up, randomly, with the same stupid plan almost simultaneously. They were directed to do this by somebody/something else. Nicola Sturgeon had no beef on Wales, therefore she cannot be blamed for that. It had to be something else above them all. Now, what do the permanent secretary in Scotland and Wales have in common?
In the case of Mr Sargeant, there was also an individual who dished historic accusations against him. This individual was immediately labelled by the press, the Wales Gov and politicians as “the victim” and Mr Sargeant was guilty before even an effing trial had taken place. He was even sacked. Mr Salmond was forced out of the party. The same as with Mr Salmond, Mr Sargeant was not given any information at all to be able to defend himself.
The complaints procedure in Wales was as disgustingly botched as the one up here and was also led, allegedly, by civil servants. In both cases, the accusers were given life-long anonymity.
Coincidence? Yeah. And pigs can fly too.
Now take a look at the circumstances when this was happening: this was happening from 2017 ownwards, after the EU referendum had taken place and the Uk was in negotiations with the EU for brexit and desperate to cut trade deals with other countries.
It was most convenient for the British state to have the two nations in the UK most affected by brexit, and which would cause mayhem if they suddenly started to obfuscate the negotiations with demands for independence referendums, “distracted” with something else.
Making the governments of Wales and Scotland look inefficient, incompetent and corrupt was of course a bonus if not done by design. Nothing would reassure other potential trade deal partners to the UK more than being shown that neither Wales nor Scotland could possibly govern themselves therefore their independence was not on the cards.
I do not know the reasons why Mr Sargeant was targeted. But, in my opinion, Mr Salmond was targeted for obvious reasons: to fabricate an irreversible division in the independence movement and to stall it for long enough so those those trade deals to go through.
I do not know if you remember about the early rumors in the press about an division in the SNP, with a pro-sturgeon camp and a pro-Salmond one. If I remember correctly, these rumors started well before the complaints procedure took stage. Was this an example of the classic “problem-reaction-solution” strategy? Were the prestitutes of the MSM already brainwashing us in preparation for the mother of all divisions of the independence movement that the British state were about to deploy?
In my humble opinion, Sturgeon or, heaven forbid Evans with her Music degree, lack the brain bandwith required to concoct such plan. They however can make a right arse of implementing it and leaving the Scottish Government and every other Scottish public structure particularly the parliament and COPFS looking totally corrupt and unfit for purpose. But, I am sure that was part of the original plan after all.
Isn’t it remarkable that we never heard anything of a similar botched complaints procedure for England?
…says Mia with her tinfoil hat tilted at a jaunty angle.
He seems to be holding out for the reality being that Alex Salmond was a mauchit chappie. But the evidence was not “beyond reasonable doubt”. But this misses the huge pile of smelly evidence of corruption, job seeking and incompetence that surrounded the sad story.
But he is also a good guy.
1. His work on land ownership is great and ground breaking.
2. He lost his ScotParl job because he opposed the Green gender excesses.
My point is he is a strong willed, innovative chap with iconoclastic views and an argumentative bent. Just the sort of trouble maker that a parliament needs. And just the sort of guy who can get it so right and so wrong.
But on this I think he is wrong. But always worth listening to.
I await his reply.
“But on this I think he is wrong. But always worth listening to.
I await his reply.”
You’ll be awaiting a while, I fear. I’d be much more convinced by your argument for him if he actually WOULD just come out and make his case, instead of this weaselly smear-and-innuendo shite. That’s kinda my point. One is allowed to publicly disagree with a court verdict.
The Salmond debacle was cooked up at Holyrood.
I disagree with that statement because Holyrood is the construct of Westminster parliament and under their Westminster Statues and legislation namely the Scotland Act, this is Westminsters version of a parliament in Scotland which breaches one of the main articles of the treaty of union,
Scotlands own genuine parliament last sat in 1707,
Cooked up at Holyrood maybe under the watchful eye of the mother of all parliaments?
hes another one with an agenda. Must have alot to hide himself!
The truth will come out.
Through all the accusations, lies, police inquiries, court cases, innocence,non perjury etc. the only person to do time was Craig Murray who was done for “jigsaw identification” He’s a reporter that tried to report the trial of Alex Salmon while many other arms of the media were doing the same thing against AS without fear of arrest.
With that kind stupidity going on in the Scottish courts our Scottish legal system is as perverse as our political parties.
Why is the SNP government giving millions of pounds of taxpayers cash to the likes of Shell oil and gas to help fund carbon capture?
Firstly its an unproven technology and secondly the likes of Shell which is pumping oil and gas and it makes huge profits shouldn’t be looking for subsidies from governments for a problem that IT and other fossil full companies have created.
English and Scottish governments have allowed these oil and gas firms to steal untold wealth from the mouth of Scots via our North sea assets, now the Scottish taxpayer is helping to fund them, the cash given by the treacherous SNP.
“One of Scotland’s leading climate change campaigners and the former director of WWF Scotland, Richard Dixon, told The National that if the technology was truly a solution then oil companies wouldn’t be relying on government funding to finance the project.
“Despite a billion pounds of public money being on offer in two previous government competitions, carbon capture has completely failed to get started in the UK”, he said
“There are few plants around the world, most are failing to deliver on their promises and many are linked to boosting oil production, so they actually make climate change worse.
“Carbon capture is an eye-wateringly expensive way to pretend we can keep burning fossil fuels in the future.
“The most obvious sign of this deception is that, if carbon capture is the great solution they claim, the oil companies would be using their huge windfall profits to make it happen, instead of expecting government handouts.
“Public money should be going into boosting renewable energy and energy efficiency, and electrifying transport and building heating.
“Every pound invested in carbon capture is a pound lost to the cheaper, proven and simpler solutions we actually need.”
“A FORMER Tory chancellor is reportedly assembling a £600 million bid for the Daily Telegraph.
According to Sky News, Nadhim Zahawi, who left Parliament in May after opting not to stand as an MP again, has approached a number of billionaire backers about helping to finance an offer for the newspaper, its Sunday title and The Spectator.”
____________________
Nadhim Zahawi is an Iraqi-born UK Deep state operative and politician who chaired Le Cercle from 2015 to 2017.[1] He has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Stratford-on-Avon since the UK 2010 General Election.
YouGov is a polling company founded in 2000 by Stephan Shakespeare and UK Deep state operative Nadhim Zahawi.
I see Republicofscotland has made an unwelcome return and isn’t letting his online spanking on the other thread deter him.
Is it a New Moon or something…? Other than RoS the tankies friend, the rest of the usual suspects seem rather thin on the ground. No wonder the threads seem much improved. 🙂
@LornaCampbell
In this instance it was ridiculous because Alex could theoretically be convicted of attempted rape for pinging someone’s curls in a lift in Hong Kong .
Also the Advocate Depute stated that he wasn’t going for Moorov whilst the prosecutions case was being heard even though it was obviously set up for that but then as the prosecutions case moved forward and Witness H made her cockups he gave up trying to win on the arguments and only questioned the first defence witness after Alex then sat in his chair and hoped for Moorov. It was also interesting to nite that the previous case where Moorov had been discredited was at Kirkcaldy High Court and the presiding judge was none other than Lady Dorrian. So it’s unsurprising that she’s at the vanguard of trying to take the decision away from juries as even with the weight of Moorov making it possible to get a clean sheet of convictions in a breach of the peace they seem incapable of doing anymore with a stitchup than protecting those involved in causing it. They must have been raging that they had dropped the bottle of fizzy water after the verdicts came in .