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.
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.
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.
Is the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of Scotland institutionally corrupt? I don’t believe so, but it’s certainly a troubled organisation.
The cost and reputational damage to it from the Rangers FC case are of a magnitude never seen before, and the actions in the Alex Salmond case and related actions by the Lord Advocate and Crown Agent have called its independence into question.
There must be structural change and individuals must be held to account.
I had hoped that Stewart Stevenson, the new National Secretary and convener of the Conferences Committee, would be similarly inclined.
In summary, my endeavours have been ignored.
In the three months since our election (supposedly more than halfway towards a spring conference), and despite repeated emails, documents and requests for meetings, the Conferences Committee has never been convened.
As a result I have resigned from both the committee and the SNP, and the reasons for my doing so are outlined below.
For the record, we thought you should see what the Scottish Parliament considers to be the appropriate treatment of an “Urgent Question”.
For a little over eight minutes, the Lord Advocate was allowed to ignore and avoid a series of questions put to him regarding the abjectly corrupt Crown Office’s recent interference with the work of the Fabiani inquiry by redacting evidence which in no way identified anyone as a complainer in the trial of Alex Salmond.
By the committee’s rules, if it’s not on the committee website then it doesn’t exist, and the redacted parts are – belatedly – no longer on the website. (As far as we can make out the unredacted version was finally removed around midnight last night.)
Farcically, she also denied even knowing that this question from James Matthews of Sky News was about Geoff Aberdein, who is the subject of all the redacted sections, which are all about the meeting Matthews was asking her about.
The First Minister is a liar and has all but given up on even the most token pretence otherwise. She is a disgrace to Scotland.
If we can somehow find the time amid the relentless blizzard of current Scottish political activity, we’re going to put together a list of all the legitimate and important questions that Alex Salmond’s lawyers have asked the Fabiani inquiry which haven’t even had the courtesy of a reply, let alone a satisfactory one.
We fully anticipate that the contents of the letter below, sent today, will be on that list.
It really can’t be overstated what extraordinary tweets these are.
That’s the editor of the conservative, ultra-establishment Spectator openly linking to a document that the Crown Office – the agent of the Queen herself – has threatened to prosecute the Scottish Parliament for publishing, and which has officially been deleted but is for some reason actually still available on the Parliament’s website.
The Spectator is giving the Queen the finger. And that’s not even the mad bit.
Colin Dawson on Faces In Sand: “Collette Stevenson’s mistake is quite understandable, given the SNP’s total obsession with transgender issues over the past decade or so.…” Oct 19, 00:00
Bilbo on Faces In Sand: “Is this migration coming from that war torn country that was serving conscription papers on beaches? That is just another…” Oct 18, 23:05
Elmac on Faces In Sand: “The title of Faces in Sand would be more appropriate as Faeces in Sand. How anyone with a brain, a…” Oct 18, 23:02
Willie on Faces In Sand: “Let’s try again to get through moderation. The potential for huge white immigration from a European country looms large. They…” Oct 18, 21:41
Willie on Faces In Sand: “20 million Ukr##nans are wanting to leave. With Britain in lockstep political alignment, if not blood brothers, the UK might…” Oct 18, 21:35
Bilbo on Faces In Sand: “@ Hatey My comment was meant to be criticism as too many people have no critical thinking nowadays due to…” Oct 18, 21:17
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““colossally mishandled by the French state, of course” No “of course” about it here. You should back up your claim…” Oct 18, 21:04
Bilbo on Faces In Sand: “@ Spartan 117 This talk of certain demographics need to be taken in context. I haven’t been following the protests…” Oct 18, 20:49
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““Most of the French think it’s a great thing” Michty! My BS meter has shorted out again. But we can…” Oct 18, 20:49
WhoRattledYourCage on Faces In Sand: “I’ll write about what I feel like writing about. It’s not important, I did say that. I am bigoted against…” Oct 18, 20:48
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “There y’are, Hatey. Woke before it was even a thing. Then there’s was that Scottish engineer fae Lithgae on the…” Oct 18, 20:48
Bilbo on Faces In Sand: “Found this article about Gen Z woman revisting classic British comedies where on one comedy they found The show’s physical…” Oct 18, 20:44
Bilbo on Faces In Sand: “I doubt there will be any white asylum seekers coming over on the channel in a dinghy. Most of the…” Oct 18, 20:34
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “@Spartan 117 There was a Scottish black bloke in Porridge. The mind boggles!” Oct 18, 20:31
Bilbo on Faces In Sand: “Rab C Nesbitt wouldn’t have been so popular south of the border if it wasn’t for the drunken Scotch stereotype.…” Oct 18, 20:30
agentx on Faces In Sand: “” John Swinney compared to dictator as bus plans branded ‘business confiscation’ John Swinney has been compared to dictators as…” Oct 18, 20:24
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “It is indeed concerning as it appears to be spreading. The demographic *allegedly* driving the unrest, if true, is noteworthy…” Oct 18, 20:24
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “Right. So there is. Rab wisnae offensive then, or Pete The Jakey, cos it was Scottish. Best not mention Navid…” Oct 18, 20:12
Southernbystander on Faces In Sand: “Thing is the article spends the first half slagging off a panel of three women, white, brown and black for…” Oct 18, 19:56
WhoRattledYourCage on Faces In Sand: “Those programmes are all Scottish, and none of them was done out of pure hatred and bigotry and cheap laughs.…” Oct 18, 19:40
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “What’s going on in France right now is quite concerning. Just when it looked as if WM was making inroads…” Oct 18, 19:24
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “To be fair to James, that was a pretty good post of his with good points, a by no means…” Oct 18, 19:20
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “Presumably you also take extreme offence to Rab C Nesbitt, Chewin’ The Fat and Still Game for their tropes.” Oct 18, 19:02
Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “I grew up in a rough as fuck area of SE Edinburgh in an ex-Cooncil Hoose during the Major/Blair years,…” Oct 18, 18:51
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Surely “pricks”, CC? James didn’t write that on his own. He lacks the attention span, even for a copy-and-paste that…” Oct 18, 18:45
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “I expected him to be deid, but he’s nae. Which rather spoils my post, because I was gonna say you’ll…” Oct 18, 18:37
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Odd, sarah. All the other countries in Europe, and indeed the west, who are maxed out on debt, at least…” Oct 18, 18:22
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““disrespecting us” Never! Surely not you, Confused?” Oct 18, 18:10
twathater on Faces In Sand: “Oh no confused now you’ve upset spartan 007, another one who knows what everyone in Scotland wants and thinks, does…” Oct 18, 18:07
Captain Caveman on Still Time To Save Her: ““Human dross” Is that right, Chief 😀 Dick.” Oct 18, 17:32
