We’re only two-thirds of the way through Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence to the Fabiani inquiry, and there’s probably not much point in expressing our opinion on it because you could almost certainly have guessed what it was going to be. The First Minister has been disingenuous, evasive, defensive and at times outright dishonest.
But although we were expecting all of that, this truly shocked us:
That’s the First Minister flatly stating, under oath, that even now she doesn’t know who all the complainers are. And readers can make their own minds up about how credible a claim that is. But I can tell you this:
I know who they all are.
Craig Murray knows who they all are.
Every journalist who covered the trial knows who they all are.
(And we can reasonably assume their editors also know who they all are.)
In fact pretty much everyone who’s in any way connected to Scottish politics knows the identity of every single one of these women. If you’re willing to believe that we all do but Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t, well, fair enough. But also, I’m a Nigerian prince and I’d like to pass several million pounds through your bank account. Please get in touch.
Yesterday’s evidence session at the Fabiani inquiry had several standout moments, but by a narrow margin this was our favourite.
And just in case you were wondering, yes, that IS Scotland’s top prosecutor, the Lord Advocate, chief of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, James Wolffe QC, repeatedly refusing to tell an MSP whether or not it’s a criminal offence in Scotland to refuse to comply with a court-ordered search warrant.
So next time you’ve ramraided a load of iPads and the polis come knocking on your door asking if they can have a nosy around your attic for them, just tell them they can’t come in because it’s a matter of your motivations.
We’ll say one thing for Police Scotland – when it comes to Freedom Of Information requests, dealing with them compared to the Scottish Government or Crown Office is a breath of fresh air. Responses tend to be reasonably swift and you actually get some straight answers, like these.
And in this case they’re pretty remarkable answers.
I became an SNP member aged 15 on the back of the 2014 independence referendum – gutted that we had not taken the step but hoping that it was just a matter of time.
Every Yesser I knew was either in the SNP or had just joined it, so I did too. Like many others, I didn’t want to disappear into the shadows and be put back into our box. We weren’t going anywhere.
Thus Nicola Sturgeon became SNP leader and FM, and rightly so – nobody was more qualified or deserving of the post. I went to her tour of Scotland and began to think how lucky we were that there was one of us, a woman of the people, leading the country.
Someone who spoke honestly, candidly, and you could relate to. Someone who upon speaking everyone’s hearts would open and our smiles would never leave our faces. She reaffirmed my commitment to the SNP and there was no doubt that she was going to take Scotland to new heights.
Alex Salmond had resigned, and even though he was also my hero and without him I would not have joined the SNP nor became interested in politics, the FM was the most important figure. She was FM, he was not. Where Alex Salmond had not succeeded, she would.
We’re just watching today’s session of the Fabiani inquiry, featuring the Lord Advocate, the Crown Agent and the Principal Crown Counsel. There’s been an extremely long preamble from both Fabiani and James Wolffe mainly concerned with the anonymity order passed by Lady Dorrian during (not before) Alex Salmond’s trial, which is the foundation stone of everything crooked that’s happened around the Salmond case.
The order – and for clarity we make no suggestion whatsoever that this was its intent – is the basis for every piece of evidence that’s been suppressed in the inquiry, and for the prosecutions of Mark Hirst, Craig Murray and others, and also for the threats of prosecution issued to this site, The Spectator and to Alex Salmond himself, preventing him giving his evidence in full to the inquiry.
And we couldn’t help wondering how different things would have been, how much less damage would have been done to the integrity and credibility of the entire Scottish political and legal establishment, if it hadn’t been for this guy.
(Doleman was not prosecuted for actually naming one of the women, although Craig Murray still awaits a verdict, five weeks after his trial, which could see him imprisoned for up to two years for merely allegedly hinting at their identities.)
Without the order, it would have been perfectly lawful for people to discuss the names of the complainers – whose allegations the jury found to be false – after the trial. It would have been possible for people to know, and form an opinion based on, who they were and who they were connected to and what the “plan” they were “mulling” was.
But because it isn’t, Scotland has been turned into a laughing stock – a byword for ham-fisted corruption and malice – the independence movement has been torn in two, and the Scottish Government itself may yet collapse.
So, y’know, thanks for all of that, James. Great job.
It’s the second sunny day in Bath since last September, readers, so we’re going to go out and feed the wildlife, but we thought you’d enjoy a quick roundup of some of the distractions the Sturgeonite elements of the Scottish media are punting today in a desperate attempt to avoid dealing with the devastating contents of Alex Salmond’s epic evidence session at the Fabiani inquiry on Friday.
Iain Lawson’s fine blog today reveals that Nicola Sturgeon has already taken it upon herself to answer Jim Sillars’ complaint from Thursday – which was sent to Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans, not to the First Minister – about her breaking the Ministerial Code by casting doubt on the jury’s verdicts in the Alex Salmond trial.
It’s certainly an innovative approach to justice – we presume that if we were to murder someone tomorrow the police would now simply forward the allegations to us and allow us to find ourselves not guilty without any external input.
But it was the precise nature of Nicola Sturgeon’s self-acquittal that really left us with an uneasy feeling about the current state of Scotland.
In the end the four-hour session ran for almost exactly six hours, and Alex Salmond looked like he could have done another six standing on his head. Now, it would be only fair to acknowledge that this site was on his side before the start, but by any rational objective assessment the former First Minister delivered the performance of his life.
(We use “performance” there in the Lionel Messi sense, not the Laurence Olivier one.)
The contrast with every other witness who’s appeared before the committee was night and day. With Salmond there was no evasion, no hesitation, no forgetting, no “I’ll get back to you on that in writing”. (We recommend the Twitter feed of Scotland Speaks for some choice clips.)
Every question was answered fully, directly, fluently and immediately, without recourse to notes, and the content was never less than devastating from his opening statement to the final surprise bombshell. We were exhausted just watching it.
His words, tone and body language all absolutely radiated candour, solemnity and honesty. When the SNP members tried to trip him up on some arcane point or other, he was on them like an extremely calm hawk, methodically tearing their assertions to ribbons with the correct fact or quote at his fingertips, and ice in his veins.
Salmond came across like a man who’d been planning this day for almost a year and wasn’t going to mess it up. And he didn’t. Heavens, how he didn’t.
From 12.30 this afternoon, Alex Salmond will attempt to tell the people of Scotland the truth about what happened to him in the last two years – a grave injustice which saw an innocent man have his reputation dragged through the gutter, be placed under incredible personal stress, be left greatly impoverished by proving his innocence, and then have the jury’s verdict endlessly traduced by the media and a gang of criminal conspirators protected from the consequences of their lies by lifelong anonymity.
His job will be a difficult one. Every single person in the room will be bitterly hostile to him – the four Unionist committee members because he’s Alex Salmond, and the others because he represents a deadly threat to the First Minister.
The inquiry’s convener – a woman sacked by Salmond years ago – will attempt to prevent him from presenting large swathes of evidence, despite having made him swear to tell “the whole truth”. The SNP members will try to run down the four-hour session with questions designed to only deflect from the real issue – the actions and behaviour of the Scottish Government. Andy Wightman will probably just cry.
We’ll be extremely surprised if there aren’t some attempts to slyly re-try Mr Salmond and paint him as a guilty man who cheated justice, and to drag up salacious details of the allegations in an effort to smear him in front of the cameras.
We believe Alex Salmond will be more than equal to the task.
When the Faculty Of Advocates – the most senior body of lawyers/QCs in the country – is handing out barely-veiled smackdowns like this to the First Minister, then you know you’re in some pretty uncharted jungle.
Geri on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “No. That’s just paranoia & they should seek help. The West has indulged in this nonsense long enough. Especially when…” Apr 13, 19:39
Geri on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Delusional. NATO has done nothing of the sort. It’s only attracted & instigated trouble including the whole U war. It’s…” Apr 13, 19:32
Geri on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: ““There’s something about becoming Christ’s representative on Earth that tends to resolve any sibling rivalry.” LOL!” Apr 13, 19:11
James on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “That the same sensible Scottish government that says men can be women?” Apr 13, 19:04
Mark Beggan on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Old Jewish proverb; If your enemy wants to kill you get up early and kill him first.” Apr 13, 18:49
agentx on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: ““his manner of speech and the formulations of the words he uses – is literally incomprehensible.” ————————————– As are the…” Apr 13, 18:49
agentx on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: ““Defence With independence, this Scottish Government believes Scotland’s defence and security priorities would be based on three main areas: joining…” Apr 13, 18:37
Mark Beggan on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Baby Trump says, Baby Northy has Baby Trump Derangement Syndrome. I’ll have to send Petey over to put him Strait.…” Apr 13, 18:23
James on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Bilge. Protected from what? You charcters are delusional. Meanwhile our thieveing southern neighbours steal everything we own.” Apr 13, 18:17
agentx on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “As part of the United Kingdom Scotland has been protected by the NATO alliance (formed in 1949).” Apr 13, 17:47
Northcode on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Trump, of course, is no longer human – if he ever was – and this is why the majority of…” Apr 13, 17:40
Mark Beggan on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Scotland has been protected by America since 1946. A free ride that has come to an abrupt end.” Apr 13, 17:20
Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Better link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LykbTn_sS4o” Apr 13, 16:27
Alf Baird on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: ““These freaks have zero morals & have zero regard for human life.” Indeed so, and to those of us studying…” Apr 13, 16:15
Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “‘HUNGARY AFTER ORBÁN: WHAT NEXT?’ Informed analysis from Professor Kim Lane Scheppele: youtu.be/LykbTn_sS4o?si=KH45kBQUuI_XS_mO” Apr 13, 16:06
Cynicus on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Young Lochinvar says: 13 April, 2026 at 2:24 pm “Gaun Leo Excommunicate Von Trumphausen!!” ========== How can even the Vicar…” Apr 13, 15:46
Geri on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “He isn’t Catholic. He’s protestant with a dodgy as fck personal wackadoo pastor that allegedly has an even worse background…” Apr 13, 15:28
Northcode on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “AI Dan – the artificial man – gets its electric arse kicked by Geri… yet again. Apparently, the most valuable…” Apr 13, 13:16
Geri on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Search “Economist’s EXPOSÉ of ‘Ending Poverty in 2020’ Leaves World STUNNED” ..for the full hearing in the European parliament if…” Apr 13, 12:47
Geri on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: ““COVID central” Was actually the West. There are current hearings going on right now. The Eppy class are experimenting on…” Apr 13, 12:09
Geri on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “They DON’T PRODUCE ENOUGH! Carry on reading that Google reply. California is a state. They import from Mexico & Canada.…” Apr 13, 11:45
Lorncal on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “H McH: don’t ever underestimate the human propensity to cut its own throat at the height of its ecstasy. Undermining…” Apr 13, 11:37
J Robertson on Not So Octopus: “Update to my earlier post of 9 April 5.34 PM regarding the lack of information on forthcoming election candidates on…” Apr 13, 11:34
Lorncal on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Well, H McH: Geri isn’t far wrong, is she? Apparently, scientists are experimenting on small mammals in the field of…” Apr 13, 11:28
Aidan on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “Of course there is no truth in anything you’ve said there, it is lies and nonsense in its totality which…” Apr 13, 11:19
Aidan on Do You Believe In The Westwood?: “So if I googled who are the largest producers of heavy crude oil would I get the following: “The largest…” Apr 13, 11:13