Conspiracies For Dummies
We’ve been here before. But let’s try to really dumb it down for the extra-stupid.
Because it isn’t actually very hard at all, and there’s no IQ test.
Nicola Sturgeon’s memoir is terribly huffy about the whole idea. It sets the scene for her to rubbish it with some cheap smears Sturgeon knows are baseless.
We’re not allowed to tell you all the details of the 2017 story but there was NO sexual element to it whatsoever. It involved a (male) Lib Dem councillor in Edinburgh making mischief by feeding a long string of trivial complaints about Salmond to anyone who would listen shortly after the SNP came to power in 2007.
One of them involved staff being annoyed at having to escort VIPs, including Salmond, through the airport (not because of anything the VIPs were doing, just because it was extra work for them), and one featured an innocuous joke.
If we told you where this former councillor worked now, readers, your eyebrows might well detach themselves from your face. But as with so many aspects of the conspiracy against Salmond, we cannot do so for fear of imprisonment.
However, we CAN tell you with authority that there was absolutely nothing in the Sky allegations that would have given Sturgeon any reason for concern about Salmond’s behaviour, and alert readers will have spotted that she carefully avoids saying that there was, just leaving the issue hanging in the air as vague innuendo.
The complaint that Sturgeon says “shocked” her, and which she claims Salmond “effectively admitted the substance of” is that of Ms A, later known as Woman F. This is a spectacularly disingenuous and deliberately misleading framing of the issue.
Woman F is the person Salmond admitted to drinking with in Bute House and falling asleep with in a fully-clothed and consensual cuddle. She later made an internal complaint that this behaviour had been inappropriate given their respective work statuses, he apologised for it, she accepted the apology and continued to work with him despite being offered an alternative job of equal pay and rank.
But by the time of the criminal allegations her story had, as was said in court, “grown arms and legs”, and transformed into something far more serious, which Salmond categorically did NOT admit and was acquitted of by the jury.
But we digress. Sturgeon then attempts to gloss over the massively unfair and biased internal investigation which Salmond won a crushing court victory over, being awarded costs on the almost unprecedented and punitive “agent and client” basis because the Scottish Government and civil service’s behaviour had been so appallingly heinous.
To read Sturgeon’s account, though, the whole thing was just a silly, innocent and trivial mix-up. But agent-and-client costs are not awarded for silly innocent mix-ups, and senior government counsel do not threaten to quit over silly innocent mix-ups, and independent reviews do not conclude that silly innocent mix-ups were catastrophic failings on every possible level and at every possible juncture and issue lengthy sets of recommendations on how to stop them happening again.
But then we come to the point of this article.
Let’s linger for a brief moment over this paragraph first, though.
“For a man accused of sexual misconduct to be able to bully the woman responsible for investigating him out of her job would have sent a signal that nothing had changed – that powerful men always win in the end, no matter how they behave. I did not want that to be the take-away. That was my judgement then and I stand by it, even now.”
Alex Salmond was acquitted of all wrongdoing. Leslie Evans was responsible for a massive screw-up that even if it had been innocently motivated nevertheless cost the government hundreds of thousands of pounds and was a colossal PR disaster to the extent that even Kenny Farquharson had to say something.
But even now Sturgeon still defends Evans (whose contract she even extended by two years after the fiasco), and makes Salmond out as both guilty and a bully merely for successfully defending himself against an incompetent, unfair and biased process, and she openly does so on the sole basis that Evans is a woman and Salmond is a man.
For anyone who still hasn’t accepted it: Nicola Sturgeon simply hates men.
And finally we come to Sturgeon’s dismissive denial of the conspiracy.
“It is worth reflecting on exactly what a conspiracy against him would have entailed. It would have needed a number of women deciding to concoct false allegations, without any obvious motive for doing so. It would then have required criminal collusion between them, senior ministers and civil servants, the police and the Crown Office.
That is what he was alleging, and his evidence for it boiled down to a leak that served his interests more than it did those of the alleged conspirators, a procedural error, and some out-of-context text and WhatsApp messages.
The ‘conspiracy’ was a fabrication, the invention of a man who wasn’t prepared to reflect honestly on his own conduct. When all’s said and done, this is what I found hardest to come to terms with.”
So let’s see how implausible it is.
—————————————————————-
1. THE MOTIVE
What was the objective? Why would there be a conspiracy at all? That’s an easy one. Sturgeon suffers, by her own repeated admission (throughout the book and in interviews elsewhere) from “impostor syndrome”, a condition that among other things makes people very paranoid.
In 2017, stinging from a general election in which the SNP had shed 500,000 votes and lost 40% of their seats, she arrived at the view that Alex Salmond, a man with a track record of political comebacks, had his eye on riding to the party’s rescue again and posed a threat to her job. (This wasn’t actually true – he had no such intention and was focused on an attempt to take over The Scotsman, not the Scottish Government, but paranoia isn’t rational.) So she wanted to remove him from the picture.
It’s important to note that this matter is in no dispute. At the trial, the woman who made the gravest of all the allegations admitted that she and SNP compliance officer Ian McCann had agreed there should be no action taken over her complaint – remarkable given its seriousness – but that it should be merely held over Salmond as a “vetting issue” if he tried to return to frontline politics.
The original goal was entirely political, nothing to do with investigating supposed misbehaviour. This is of course wholly in keeping with Sturgeon’s well-documented general modus operandi, such as the way she ensured Joanna Cherry was nullified as a threat and quit as SNP leader without an obvious successor in place.
So there’s nothing the least bit complicated or difficult to understand about the motive for the conspiracy. A political leader wishing to remove real or potential rivals is a story as old as time itself.
2. THE PLAN
There’s also nothing sophisticated or unusual about the strategy Sturgeon set out to deploy. Given that Salmond had already admitted a very very minor sexual indiscretion, and in the light of the “Me Too” movement that was at its height at the time, a new government process was set up to deal with complaints against Alex Salmond former ministers, with the intention that Salmond would be investigated, found guilty and discredited.
(As a bonus, she’d earn lots of feminism points for being seen to take strong action against supposed sexual predation even if it was on her own side. Although curiously in eight years the procedure has never been used against anyone else despite Holyrood supposedly being rife with sexual harassment.)
As First Minister it would of course be easy to pressure underlings into compliance. Those who’d made the complaints in the first place might not take much persuasion, while others in government or civil service roles depended on Sturgeon’s patronage for their jobs.
Contrary to Sturgeon’s assertion in the book, no “criminal collusion” on the part of the police or Crown Office was necessary, chiefly because neither the police nor COPFS was ever supposed to be involved. The plan was for an internal probe which would be enough to achieve the aim of damaging Salmond’s reputation.
But even when that failed and matters spiralled out of control into the criminal sphere, the police are obliged to investigate any claims brought to them, and the Crown Office is required to consider any report produced as a result. Those are simply their normal legitimate functions. They were NOT required to be part of the conspiracy.
The only “criminal collusion” required is the assembling of the initial claims, and we already know that presented very little difficulty. When you’re First Minister, lots of people will do what you ask them to even if they need to use improper methods, and the evidence that that happened is extensive and conclusive – it is, after all, the reason Salmond won his judicial review.
Every single complainer was either a close ally of Sturgeon or someone she had power over who could be cajoled or bullied into participating, especially if reassured by a promise of lifelong anonymity. And in any case, even if they didn’t do so willingly (or became nervous when the matter escalated from an internal inquiry to a criminal matter that could involve perjury) the conspirators could just go over their heads.
But in the plan’s initial conception, these weren’t issues. Little real harm would be done to Sturgeon’s predecessor and mentor – the investigation would only be able to censure him, but he would be taken off the field of play for good by the reputational damage and no longer pose a danger to her.
All in all, it was a lean, elegant design that should have been easy to carry out.
3. THE EXECUTION
Unfortunately, from then on everything fell apart. But to anyone who’s observed Scottish politics over the last decade, there will be very little surprise at any venture involving Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP, the Scottish Government and the Scottish civil service being handled with rank, farcical incompetence.
The simplest of tasks – like Judith Mackinnon avoiding prior contact with the complainers or them being told not to discuss the case with each other via WhatsApp – were hamfistedly botched. The government’s own lawyers were deprived of vital facts while trying to represent their client.
And most ruinously of all, in their flailing panic at trying to avoid embarrassment over the judicial review, when the conspirators triggered a criminal trial they set in motion a chain of events which was always going to backfire in their faces, on the fundamental basis that they had nothing on an innocent man.
Not a scrap of evidence nor a corroborating witness for a single one of the claims was produced. A desperately weak dossier of absurdly trivial alleged misdemeanours, like opening a bottle of water in a car or touching someone on the shoulder in a busy nightclub, was cobbled together in the hopes that they could somehow shore up – via the sinister Moorov Doctrine – an allegation of attempted rape made by someone who was shown not to even have been in the same building as Salmond at the time.
—————————————————————-
What, then, is implausible or “absurd” about the conspiracy?
– Nicola Sturgeon being paranoid and controlling? As close to an uncontested fact as anything in Scottish political history, about as controversial as calling Salmond “ebullient” or observing that Kezia Dugdale has the IQ of unbuttered toast. After the 2017 election Sturgeon was probably feeling far more vulnerable than at any previous point in her career. The prospect of Salmond planning a coup, however imaginary, would have felt all too real to someone with impostor syndrome. Contemplating the humiliation of being deposed so soon after finally achieving her life’s ambition would have haunted her unbearably.
– It being possible to assemble a small handful of people willing to go along with an attempt to shame Alex Salmond and remove him from the political scene? Hell, half of Scotland would have volunteered for that given the chance, let alone those with a vested interest in earning Nicola Sturgeon’s favour. (And thanks to Moorov you don’t need any actual evidence, just people willing to make up a claim in the secure knowledge that they themselves will never face any consequences no matter what.) Falling off a log is The Krypton Factor by comparison.
– The SNP, Scottish Government and Scottish civil service being unable to organise a convivial drinks evening in a brewery? The only shock there would have been if they’d done a halfway competent job of something for once.
And that’s it. That’s all you need. Paranoia, resentment, ambition and ineptitude. A couple of dozen people at the very most, all of whom can be easily located in your immediate circle and controlled accordingly.
(Despite conducting literally hundreds of speculative interviews fishing for anyone else in the entire UK willing to complain about Salmond, the police couldn’t find a SINGLE woman outside of Nicola Sturgeon’s direct sphere of influence who said he’d had done anything to them.)
Everything else just happens automatically once you’ve set the wheels turning. A conspiracy failing abjectly in its aims doesn’t prove there was no conspiracy, it just proves it was conducted by a shower of bumbling amateurs. All it really takes at the end of the day is jealousy and spite.
And when it comes to Alex Salmond, and as revealed beyond the tiniest shadow of doubt by her book, Nicola Sturgeon has those in spades.
Sturgeon single handedly destroyed the SNP and her husband will be away shortly.
Liz Lloyd will be next to follow and the series of trials for perjury will be up and running before May 2026.
The book is a pure work of fiction,half price now anyway and it’s for the moronic followers.
It should have been titled FRANKLY THIS IS A PACK OF LIES!!
Trials for perjury? When were they announced? The unnamed women haven’t even been charged and probably never will be. If everyone who gave contrary evidence in a trial where the defendant was found not guilty the courts would be even more swamped than they are now, which is why perjury trials are so rare. Whether they should be is an extremely tricky question that even the people in wigs find difficulty answering. Whist I firmly believe Alex Salmond was stitched up, revenge perjury trials are not the answer and I wonder whether he would have wanted them.
“Whist I firmly believe Alex Salmond was stitched up, revenge perjury trials are not the answer and I wonder whether he would have wanted them”
I can answer that for you: yes he would.
Witnesses who lie are criminals. Of course they should be punished and of course Alex Salmond would have wanted this to happen in his case.
Scotland has been damaged hugely because of the Alex’s trial. The entire MSM has shown themselves to be corrupt beyond belief and nearly every MSP has failed the cause of truth by not speaking out.
“I know I will never quite escape the shadow he casts, even in death”.
So there is possibly the one absolute truth in the book.
And perhaps more true than she has yet realised.
Are we even sure that is an original Sturgeon line? Sounds a bit Mills & Boon to me.
Mills and Boon … only without the love.
Mills and Boon … only without the sex.
We are talking about Scots after all.
50 shades of oatmeal.
“50 shades of oatmeal”.
That made me laugh out loud, Hatey.
“That made me laugh out loud”
Just don’t ask me how I know 🙂
The other abolute truth is that wee voice in her head telling her “she wasn’t good enough”. It was bang on.
The irony being of course that if she had led Scotland to independence, she’d have been immortalised as the woman who surpassed Salmond.
There goes the MI5 theory.
That right, aye?
The thing that gets me James is the people in charge of the cause you support hold you in complete and utter contempt.
Really? You’re conveniently forgetting exactly who was Head Honcho of the Crown Office then – David Harvie, ‘ex’ MI5. We all know there is no such thing as an ‘ex’ Home (UK) Security Officer. Do you suppose for ONE MINUTE he wouldn’t be a part of a conspiracy to get rid of the most feared (by Westminster) man in Scotland? SERIOUSLY?? I doubt that very much.
That’s it! That’s your answer?
“The most feared man in Scotland” and David Harvie.
Can you guys not bring yourselves to accept the reality. It’s always someone else’s fault. You have all been taken for a ride by Scottish people. The referendum was done and dusted in 2014. Ten years to swim around in conspiracy and history. While the Scottish government ponce from one disaster to another. MI5 have got bigger fish to fry. There will never be independence in your lifetime or I doubt ever. The Scottish people won’t allow it.
Surely that’s just what they want you to think…
Well put Rev. Yes indeed the end is nigh! The carrot crunchers of the SNP grassroots are now demanding, yes demanding Independence. And Swinney is all out of cunning plans. It’s a gas!
Jeez, there goes comfy slippers failing to keep up as usual. It’s okay, Dreary, she’s gone now. No need to keep crawling.
As an aside – I’m sure Alex put up a short vid diary on The National website that he was returning to politics, I’m sure it was just weeks before the scandal broke or do I have the timeline wrong?
As an aside , in my quest to try find the vid, I stumbled on Alex telling us he was surprised to learn as FM that the Scottish government is responsible for parts of Antarctica as it’s not reserved LOL Oh deary me! Just as it’s becoming a hot potato.
Quick Barbs.
Start pushing the idea we should gift it tae poot!
Ye’ll get a double bonus fer that.
Re Antarctica:
It had been inadvertently devolved, but this was sorted out in 2012 using a Section 30 order, which contrary to some people’s belief is not specifically about referendums. It enables policy areas that are reserved to be devolved, or vice versa, either permanently or temporarily.
In the case of Antarctica, the direction of travel was from devolved to reserved, and the change permanent. In the case of the constitution (for the referendum) it was reserved to devolved, temporarily.
Page 5 of this covers the Antarctic:
link to researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk
Hi Geri I’m just wondering who you are directing that dribble to. Or are you just meandering in a darkened room.
“wondering who you are directing that dribble to”
The world and everybody in it. It flatly refuses to do as Geri says, or advance her the respect she believes she is due.
“But one day, oh yes, one day, and soon, they will know what it is to … they will rue the … Geri will not be … how they will howl and beg for …”
[lapses into incoherent chuntering before ripping up a hank of nylon carpet and stuffing it into her mouth].
The response, from Emma Wagner (Scotland Bill Support Officer) is as follows:
“Thank you for your email on 7th December concerning the Scotland Bill and in particular the clause on the reservation of Antarctica.
“Although as you mention, section 29(2)(a) does place restrictions on the Scottish Parliament from legislating in areas other than Scotland, Antarctica itself is not specifically reserved in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Therefore, despite the restrictions in section 29(2)(a), the Scotland Act does not prevent the Scottish Parliament from legislating with extra-territorial effect where the provision operates as a matter of Scots law, has a demonstrable Scottish connection and is not reserved.
“As a consequence of this, the regulation of activities in Antarctica will be specifically reserved to the UK through being added to Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act.”
Dammitall, x.
I was hoping we could open a Scottish asylum processing centre in Antarctica. Get some of those lovely billions Starmer is splurging on “Encouraging The Boats” for ourselves.
Jim Bowen would be proud of you for this piece.
Run Forest Run!
Forrest..
The difference in Salmond dignified action in reacting to the defeat of 2014 and Sturgeons victorious ascendency is hard to believe 10 years later.
How Nicola loved that day in the Hydro,,,that sealed the deal and sealed all our fates. After that, nothing else really mattered, just the Brand.
To see how some folk can dare say things like “Greatest Leader we have ever had” is truly sickening.
I do still think there’s a role at Westminster waiting, one way or another…or a nice Ambassadorship perhaps!
“Greatest Leader we have ever had”
Naw. That was Yousaf.
At least, alert readers could be forgiven for jumping to that conclusion.
Every time I criticise him on here, other posters immediately leap to his defence.
I’m hoping it’s just that there’s something about his uselessness and cringe-worthy persona that gels with their own lived experiences, and what they see every time they look in a mirror.
But I’m not ruling out the possibility that half the self-identifying, blue-ersed, saltire-waving “warriors” for Indy are fluent in Punjabi, Hindi, or one of the other many lingos of the subcontinent. And they’re here to steer Scotland in a path that suits their colonising agenda. Not that of us Scots.
If the die was not well and truly cast during the Sturgeon era then the rigged process that elected her replacement made it certain. I don’t recall anyone many giving Yousaf the time of day here.
@ GM says: 20 August, 2025 at 7:26 pm
“I don’t recall anyone many giving Yousaf the time of day here”
Sure, there’s plenty of rote criticism, but it’s all of the “he didnae get us Indy” kind.
As soon as I post a criticism of the fraudulent process that put him in place, or a “thought experiment” about the ludicrous and unthinkable equivalent event of a white Christian in charge of Pakistan, somebody will pop out of the woodwork. They will claim the election was valid, and that they’re all cants in the Tory party, and that in order to prove just how cute and nice we Scots are, we really need to have ethnic minorities re-arranging our country to suit themselves and their imported religious beliefs.
And fit aboot Navid in Still Game? Isn’t he great?
Usually all of the above in one post.
That’s maybe cause yer a hypocritter.
I don’t remember you complaining much when Sunak was a shoo-in. Not even elected by the Tory membership but by a handful of Tory mates, probably in a darkened room, tethered & made to bugger an orphan or something whilst reciting Rule Britannia!
You voted to keep that fraudulent UK process when you voted NO (If you were even here at all)
& Whilst we’re on the subject of “ethnic minorities re-arranging our country to suit themselves and their imported religious beliefs”
You do know that the Tory party membership is open to all, including ppl who don’t even live in this country & not likely to either. It must fill you with pride that foreigners get to choose this country’s Prime Minister. You & the Tories being the Patriotic sort an’all.
No one on this site backed Humza. It was mainly Ash with a few who liked Freeport Kate. You really need to stop with the jackanory stories & inventing stuff that never happened.
& Navid is great. He’d soon tell ya “Sose I hear yer pumpin Aidan these days? Ya dirty bassterd. Get oot ma shop!” LOL
“I hear yer pumpin Aidan these days”
Barbie is a classy lassie. If you never leave the scheme.
“via the sinister Moorov Doctrine”
It’s not normally sinister. Serious sexual assaults don’t usually have witnesses, they are the very definition of he said, she said. So establishing a pattern of behaviour via multiple SERIOUS complaints is a good thing or we’d have even lower conviction rates than the current abysmal ones. Joanne Cherry stated that in all her time working in sex crimes, she’d never come across a Moorov case with 3 of more complainers that didn’t result in a conviction.
The issue here is that that a bunch of spurious allegations with multiple witnesses stating it didn’t happen for things that even if they had happened (in the majority of cases) should never have been bothering a high court jury was taken to court for political reasons.
Attempted rape is a serious allegation and needs to be investigated though it does help if you were in the building at the alleged time(!!!) but why the feck was touching a knee taken to court in the first place especially when not corroborated by the other car passengers. Moorov should be restricted to serious allegations without witnesses and never used to throw shit at a wall in the hope some sticks!
Quite right.
Moorov is a valuable tool when used correctly. Here it was used very badly indeed.
Taking AS to trial diminished the Scottish legal system. The police absolutely should have investigated the allegations & the PF should have received a report (though if had been anyone other than a senior public figure I very much doubt they would have because the evidence just wasn’t there) but it should have stopped there. Instead the ‘politically independent’ legal system showed itself to be under the sway of the politicians.
Scotland is a banana republic in all but name.
Yes, indeed, PP, the Moorov Doctrine is an invaluable tool in law and is usually used sparingly and usually only with serial offenders to show a pattern of criminal behaviour. In the Salmond trial, it was used to bring out really weak evidence to back up, presumably, the more serious allegations. It failed miserably because: a) the back-up evidence did not, according to the jury’s verdict reach even the standard necessary for criminal intent; b) the more serious allegations themselves were weak, evidentially, also failed to prove criminal intent and could not be supported by the Moroov Doctrine, as a result. Both the police and the prosecution service had to do their work, but both must have known from day one of the trial that the evidence was far too weak and open to question to convince the jury.
Thank you for fighting for his name and laying out what was done to him.
Over on X it is easy to recognise an organised campaign and the one to deify her is an example of this.
As soon as Salmond was publicly named, Sturgeon had done all the damage she needed to, regardless of the outcome. Anonymity should have been provided to both parties. If one side is subsequently charged and found guilty of perjury, then anonymity should be removed. The whole process stinks to high heaven.
Late 2017: The Scottish government reviewed its policies for addressing inappropriate conduct in response to the #MeToo movement.
December 2017: New policies for handling sexual harassment and misconduct complaints were implemented. (if I recall correctly, retrospectively to include Salmond’s time as leader).
January 2018: Formal complaints against Alex Salmond were filed, triggering an internal government inquiry under these new rules.
January 2019: Salmond was arrested and formally charged with multiple sexual offenses, including attempted rape.
March 2020: Salmond was acquitted of all charges after a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh
“Out, damned spot!”
As seen over on the Daily Telegraph.
“JK Rowling has accused the liberal arts of “the most craven, bootlicking capitulation to the gender Taliban…”
The “gender Taliban” is a great description for them, as it encapsulates everything they are.
JK Rowling might be on the dark side, but there’s no denying her power as a wordsmith.
One bit I still don’t understand, given that the Judge heard all the evidence and points that you have highlighted, why did she grant the alphabets anonymity?
Why did she jail Craig Murray?
I expect both questions have the same answer.
Craig Murray was jailed so that his account of the case for the defence could be suppressed. The MSM simply ignored/suppressed it completely.
The alphabetties were given anonymity because otherwise everyone would see that they were all in Sturgeon’s inner circle.
A bbc journalist broke the convention of not revealing the identity of a complainer in court. They also gave a witness anonymity. Recall explanation of moorov along these lines – A serious charge surrounded by minor, even trivial charges (feigning pinging someones curly hair in a lift, dirty joke, touching an erse at Stirling castle photoshoot). The serious charge has to be there to hang the pish off and it needed a witness. In this case, to say that they were there in the place and on the night it happened. This witness misidentified or got details wrong about identity of the complainer. That was all they had.
Whatever the literary merits of FRANKLY in total, that screenshot double-spread above (beginning with the words “been wrong. Leslie had been right”) has clearly been very carefully crafted. How many people made suggestions and gave it the nod at draft stage? Did AI contribute? Diversion. Subversion. Inversion. Dagger resharpened and repolished many times over. Eventual slow smile of satisfaction…
Alex Salmond in his love for Scotland announced that there were things that should have been aired and exposed but were REFUSED to see the light of day
He said that NOW (during covid) was not the time for exposure of the real evidence of conspiracy but be reassured when the time is right he will produce said evidence
Unfortunately that time was not during his lifetime which enabled the poison dwarf to continue her debasement of his character and integrity,Alex deserves his name and character to be reinstated and the perpetrators of his years of anguish and isolation from his earned position deserve punishment and banishment
It was always Sturgeon at the heart of the conspiracy – guilty as hell – but extremely worrying was that the criminal case brought against Salmond lacked any substance. Police and COPFS pursued a highly flawed investigation and vexatious prosecution. Group think set in at the highest levels and no one had the brains to say from the outset there is nothing here – Salmond was completely innocent from the get go.
Yes & I’m sure even the lawyers advised her there was nothing of any substance & nothing to see here but they were instructed to press on regardless?
What did Leslie Evans and Liz Lloyd stand to gain from Alex Salmond being incarcerated?
You need to address that question to their London paymasters.
It started off with the complaints procedure, Alex fought it. It became a civil case in court. If you recall Sturgeon and her cronies defended the case brought by Salmond against the Scottish Government long after it was clear they were losing. The SG lawyers were ready to chuck it if you recall. They kept it going for months while Criminal charges were brought with the aim that the civil case would be suspended. ‘If the police tell me what evidence they need I’ll get it for them’. If AS gets done on Moorov with one of the lesser charges then a powerful sex offender would have been brought to justice and the Scots gov conspiracy attempt to ruin his rep. with the complaints process would be forgotten about. It was a panic measure. Some of the complainers were ok with ruining his rep. but didn’t want to go to court, tough luck.
See gordon dangerfield below for a proper explanation.
By (Scottish Solicitor Advocate) Gordon Dangerfield (12 Aug 2021) –
LIZ LLOYD’S INTERFERENCE IN THE SALMOND INVESTIGATION:
WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE BIGGER PICTURE
“There is much of importance to be drawn from this episode and I hope I’ve made most of it clear in what I’ve written above. But, at least for me, the overarching meaning of it is the meaning which looms over almost everything I’ve written about the Salmond complaints on this blog.The episode is just one more piece in the 1,000 piece puzzle that, when fitted together, provides the most compelling evidence that Nicola Sturgeon knew about, wanted, and directed, the campaign to get Alex Salmond, and that she did so from the very start.”
link to gordondangerfield.com
Racists are everywhere these days:
link to unherd.com
Has someone stolen Iain McWhirter’s identity?
Read the detail.
Scotland is awarded refugees but not an increase in cash to pay for them.
That extra money the Tories keep banging on about seems to cover an entire shopping list of the things the SNP should do with it to fit the current story. This week it should be refugees, next week it should be spent on the SNHS & the week after, on education or on pot holes, or on ..Zzzzzz!
He shouldn’t greet & nor should yoons. We’d a chance to be indy & be in charge of our own immigration policies & our own set of accounts. Nawbags preferred keeping some pocket money & another country deciding how much.
Suck it up, Sunshine.
Sure. A bunch of big English plastic Kens are responsible, and then they all run away.
“We’d a chance to be indy & be in charge of our own immigration policies & our own set of accounts”
Sure. The bits your icons are in charge of are going so damned well, aren’t they? Despite ScotGov taxing us far more than the lucky sods in the rest of the UK.
Trans weirdos, petty, parochial, paranoid score sizzlers, and now migrant spongers sucking from the teat of Scottish taxpayer’s largesse. If we were independent, your beloved politicians would be making even more of a pig’s ear of things than they are at present.
And not all your lying and name calling can alter the fact that ever more of us Scots see this clearly every day.
You should stick to making eyes at poot.
Every one from south of Gretna, or half wit Yoons just like you, judging by the butchers aprons, #SitePrick1?
Not forgetting those obsessed with their genitals, posting only with their weaker hand, while their stronger hand is “busy”. You keep it up for Scotland, James.
I dunno if anybody else has posted this link:
link to robinmcalpine.org
No apologies if they have. It deserves to be read twice.
Why not mention that Salmond had already supplanted Sturgeon as the head of the SNP once, years before…and she was such a narcissist psycho she made sure it would never happen again? He had form in that arena. It’s all very obvious.
When Salmond was leader and in a position of power, its funny how during his time as leader and FM there wasn’t a wrong word to say about him and now he’s gone and not in a position to defend himself the worms have appeared from the wood work and now have a voice.
They also seem to forgot how he and he alone made them what they are today and also gave them the wealth along with the big pension pots. Which if he had never been leader these very same people wouldn’t have got passed the vetting process in the first place.
You can’t say these people should be grateful because if you did they’d look at you with a stone cold face and say how. These are the same people who have screwed Scotland and our people over for there own monetary goals.
Alex made the SNP, Sturgeon and now Swinney will destroy but hasn’t it dawned on these two all these cushy jobs they’ve given the alphabet and aids who ever runs Scotland in the future there silence will not be a given and then all hell will let loose and these woman have no reason not to spill the beans.
After the referendum Sturgeon was MSM public enemy number one and now they can’t see enough of her, lets be honest she no page three.
What really pisses me off is that the identities of the alphabetties are known to tens of thousands of Scots, probably more. They’re known to tens of thousands of others all around the world.
It should be possible to go on Wiki and read their identities, along with a potted biog of each. Why should we be forced to deal with his lying accusers, ignorant of what they truly are? I despair that there is nobody with the guts to right this injustice. Compare and contrast the filth, scum and criminality that infests the internet, yet seemingly cannot be policed.
All charges against AS were thrown out. The ongoing anonymity of his accusers stinks to high heaven. It’s a crime against justice itself, and a scathing indictment of our people’s craven cowardice.
Any Scottish MP in WM could use parliamentary privilege to put the record straight. Yet they all lack the balls to do so.
And these eunuchs are going to set us free? Ha bloody ha.
(Gordon Dangerfield comment on own blog, Aug 13, 2021 at 7:35 am) –
« Yes, I wish more people could see how odd it is, on the face of it, that Scotland’s entire mainstream press corps, who still hate the SNP and loathe the idea of independence, have become fans and protectors of Sturgeon and her Government. As soon as you ask yourself why that is, everything falls into place but until you do, the cognitive dissonance must be all but overpowering. »
link to gordondangerfield.com
link to johnsmytheinvestigations.wordpress.com
At an SNP branch meeting a good few years ago, the Parliamentary candidate informed the assembled group that they believed John Swinney had been briefing Sturgeon that Alex was trying to oust her ‘like he did back in 2003 with me’.
You have to admit, the very real and very serious damage Sturgeon and her cabal pals have done to the cases of real sexual complainants is one of the very worst things to have come out of this whole psychotic brutal tittletattle debacle. Having such a delicate, sensitive, painful, tragic topic cynically abused as a mechanism for attacking a wronged man, as it has undoubtedly been (and often is in divorce cases), is spitting in the faces of women who have tragically, genuinely, horribly suffered at the hands of scum men. Using their tragedy and pain as a mask for political revenge is pretty much the sickest fucking thing a supposed ‘feminist to her fingertips’ could have done.
The Dreghorn dragon really has left herself zero ground to stand on as a decent, caring, sane, rational, sensible human being, hasn’t she?
Hell mend her and her scum cabal. I genuinely do wonder how she feels late at night sometimes, when the wine, women and swansong have receded and she has to deal with the soiled, spoiled memories of the time when a mere trusting nurturing guiding man, whom she later went on to stab in the back, front, and sides, gave her the world…so she could try to destroy him, and ultimately help hound him to his grave. That’s got to be a bitter pill to swallow as dawn slowly and revealingly comes in the light-admitting reality-illuminating windows. And may she be tortured and tormented by her vile, evil, sick, twisted, bitter, manhating actions for the rest of her miserable, broken life. She deserves every conscience jab she gets. Permanently.
Next episode in this drama will be Joanna Cherry’s book, and the best bit about it there is hee haw that SHE whose name shall not be uttered can do about it or to micromanage it..
Plus; print first and regrets at leisure; as the old saying goes; “The French have the honour of the first volley”..
It would be a job for an investigative journalist to winkle out how the women have fared, but, even so, I simply do not believe that they were all in on the conspiracy – and there was one at the political/civil service level – but I’d bet that they have all benefited in one way or another, if only, some of them, for making themselves look really, really petty. When you look at who has followed Mr Salmond, and everything they have done to avoid even mentioning independence, you can’t wonder why they feared him. That Westminster and Whitehall feared him is evident, but less than Holyrood, I’d wager.
Lorn; “I simply do not believe that they were all in on the conspiracy…”
I take it you’ve not read avout the ‘Vietnam group’?
“….tell us what evidence you need and we’ll get it…”
Course they were all in on it. Jail them all except for the not proven case.
I do not believe they were all “in on it”, James. I believe some of them were swept along and were too feart to step out of line. I know of at least one who did not report Mr Salmond at all, had no intention of doing so, until a third party told the police of an incident that could have been misinterpreted totally.
That person told the police it was trivial and hardly a criminal offence. However, it was used in the trial and she had to give evidence. Others stated that they had not wanted the police involved, but were caught up in the circus that the trial became. This happens more often than you would imagine. Circumstances run away with people.
Mr Salmond himself admitted that he had done things that he came to regret, as his QC, at the time, referred to, but that they came nowhere near the bar for criminal behaviour. He could be irascible and give people the edge of his tongue, for example, and he was a very touchy-feely person, as many are. That doesn’t mean they are criminals.
It is my opinion, and you certainly do not have to share it, that circumstances ran away with a number of the women, and though Mr Salmond was disappointed at the aftermath of the trial when he was acquitted of all charges, he did say that he did not want the women to be hounded. I think he knew very well that some of them had found themselves railroaded, almost. One woman did not give evidence because she refused to do so.
The umbrella of anonymity is essential for justice to be done in most sexual assault cases, and this is normally a life-long thing. It is not unusual at all. The conviction rate is so low for rape/sexual assault that even fewer women would come forward if it was removed. The clock cannot be turned back and anyone trying to ‘out’ the women would be subject to the full weight of the law.
That there was a conspiracy at the political/civil service level, I accept, but you would need the police and the prosecution service to be part of it, as well, for the kind of conspiracy you are talking about, and I also believe that it was entirely homegrown, and did not start in London, albeit London would have benefited from Mr Salmond’s removal from any idea of returning to front-line politics.
If the actual conspiracy, rather than the one dreamed up by so many, was to be uncovered – i.e. that it was politically-motivated and why, that would show that Mr Salmond was its victim. Even the ‘Watergate Conspiracy’, did not include every witness as a willing and participating conspirator. Some people just, stupidly, allow themselves to be used or are not even aware they are being used in someone else’s conspiracy.
Lorn;
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I’m not buying it.
No can be forced to give evidence in a trial if they don’t want to.
Lifelong anonymity – fair enough if the accused is found guilty but, as I said, jail this lot for perjury EXCEPT the not proven case. The jury decided that the events described [apart from not reaching the bar for being criminal]
actually did not happen.
@James – you absolutely can be forced to give evidence at trial. If you don’t turn up you’ll be arrested and brought before the court, and if you refuse to answer questions you can be sent to prison.
Ok that part should have read no one can be forced to give false evidence. So jail them for perjury – except the not proven which did happen but the facts were debatable.
@ James says: 22 August, 2025 at 1:34 pm
“that part should have read”
Dinna beat yer sel ower it, James.
Ye’d hae been focusing oan somefin else.
Has royal Catherine really been named as Queen of Scotland, to represent Scotland in the commonwealth, or is it fake news?
Oh dear.
Neo-Nazi facing jail for inciting hatred ‘changes gender in bid to go to women’s prison’
link to mirror.co.uk?
Yup
Just feel the “love” and “kindness”..
Be strong, beautiful and wonderful (with still – apparently- your full beard)..
The world has gone stark raving mad..
Convicted and want to hide away in a women’s jail?
Get the full chop, and then only maybe..
Stonewall with their apparently never ending pink money supplies must be so proud..
P3rverts.
Why can you not talk about the airport incident? If Alex was never charged or tried for this then there would not be any anonymity orders to be breached, is there something else? What legally prevents discussion?
The source of the information.
Speaking of which….
You say there was no conspiracy involving the police, but then at the end you have the quote where the police were fishing/pressuring a woman who had been kissed on the cheek years before to call that assault.
The police were definitely in on the conspiracy by that count.
Trouble is, even if her reputation is a bit battered by all this, she still has the big pension, the book contract and probs a few offers to sit on the board of directors of a few companies. Personally I wouldn’t be surprised to see her offered some sort of position at that Yoon infested shitehole Edinburg university.
And the plot actually worked, when you think about it. Why do you think Salmond couldn’t win a seat in the North East for Alba? Because his reputation had been besmirched by all this. And awful lot of innocent gobshite voters bought the idea that ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ or that Salmond ‘got off’. It’s a true saying, “give a dog a bad name and you may as well hang him”.
And, to cap it all, the Alpabetties remain shielded by anonymity.
Well I’m kinda hoping that her book has opened a door she might have preferred locked and bolted.
I also hope there are alphabettys sweating profusely at the thought their world is coming under greater scrutiny and about to go bang in their faces.
I look forward to retribution ,jail sentences and public disgust visiting all those who contributed to Alex Salmonds demise.
It’s not just men she hates: it’s women too.
SNP Annual Financial Report for year ending 31st December 2024, is up on the Electoral Commission website.
Head office redundancy costs are fully included in accounting period (a smart move, get the bad news over with).
Loss of “Policy Development Grant” (Short money) is bemoaned, together with Parliamentary levy income. I contest that any Policy Development ever took place.
Year on year comparison.
Total income: £4,596k
Total expenditure: £4,961k
Assets: £1.001m
Liabilities: £1.014m
Membership income down £261k (12%)
Donations up £568k (who died?)
Fundraising down £43k
Conference income down £107k (19.5%) Not a healthy sign when the corporations stop paying to put up exhibition stalls.
The cloth has been cut to accommodate straitened circumstances, in a timely manner. But many lean years lie ahead before the next Westminster election, when the gravy sookers can once again latch onto the teat of the British state.
link to snpgroup.com
Apologies my previous link was incorrect – this is the correct one:
link to search.electoralcommission.org.uk
Vivian O’ Blivion
“Donations up £568k (who died?)”
I suspect vast number of elderly members who were overcome by mental incapacity during the past couple of years we are unable to change their wills!
Shit I am not doing very well that second link is also wrong – please delete both links Rev.
Sturgeon and Co and all their Inglis chums and all the greedy foreign and domestic parasites swarming over Scotland droolin’ at the mooth and switched to max-overdrive-plunder-mode; they’re aw juist rippin’ the pish oot the Scots
And by twistit calculatioun and by craftie cunt, Sturgeon and Co and their chums cheat the Scots; what divine reckoning awaits their lackin souls, I wonder.
But to Hell with Sturgeon and Co and all the greedy foreign and domestic parasites – God telt thon auld meenister who haunts me, and who in turn telt me in a dream, that “they are all fucked for eternity” (God’s exact words, apparently)… ouch!
And now for some more
ScottishPictish words:Ingland’s mauchit empyre o illusioun haes at lang an laist fadit awa tae nocht… an howpfu suin ahint the auld-farrant Sir Walter and Burns blaflum an conceit o a dinky Scotish that niver wis tae.
Now the time has come to ‘retire’ the names Scot and Scottish and Scotland.
Fae the noo an forthward that quhich fir a speal wis cawd Scot an Scottish an Scotland sall be cawd noo Pict an Pictish an Pictavia – sic be the shamefu fauseness wrapte aboot the Scotish name efter thrie hunner year o thirldom aneath Ingland’s buit.
The Scots are deid… lang leeve the Picts.
Pictish – rhymes with Fictitious.
Hatey McHateface rhymes with……
“Prick”
“a Hank of nylon carpet”
You’ve done this before.
“You’ve done this before.”
It’s just that every time I see the ‘H’ word, in ma heid, it rhymes wi James.
“And by twistit calculatioun and by craftie cunt…”
I meant to tag on an explanation for this sentence but forgot.
Anyway, here it is now; ‘cunt’ (pronounced koont in Scots) in this context is one of the Scots spellings of ‘count’, and ‘craftie cunt’ means dodgy accounting.
I could have used the alternate spelling, coont… but for some unfathomable reason I was drawn to the spelling I ultimately used.
The Scots word for ‘count’ also forms part of the title for the BBC Scotland version of the popular Scottish TV quiz show, Cuntdoun.
Here’s another example of how to use the word in a sentence:
“A body wid be needin mair than twa hauns, or thrie or fower or fyve, tae cunt the number o’ cunts in the Scottish Government oan thair fyngers.”
It should be noted that the Scots spelling for ‘count’ is also rude Scots for the female pudenda – so be careful not to get the two mixed up, or an intended insult might fall flat and result in confusion, and quite possibly derision.
This is interesting stuff, NC. I’m intrigued by how it affects basic arithmetic.
To set a concrete example. Say you enter a room and find three alphabetties in it (and nae ither coont). If you were to speak in Scots, hoo mony coonts wid ye coont in the room?
For the purposes of this example, you may exclude yourself from the total, and pretend trans isn’t a thing.
A good news for all you guys and girls. It’s book is in free fall on Amazon as it is now down at, wait for it, forty four. Dropping like a stone and soon to be found on a nail on a wall in an outhouse.
The truth about how Sturgeon aided and abetted by the deep state tried to destroy Alex Salmond will emerge.
There is absolutely no way that the truth can be kept secret.
People should fear a state that can and will do whatever to destroy those who they have different opinions or political views. Soviet dissenters, free thinkers in Russia, or political opponents homosexuals or Jews in Germany its all the same.
And make no mistake the attempted jailing of Salmond, or the jailing of Craig Murray, or the killing of nationalist lawyers Pat Finnucaine and Rosemary Nelson in Northern Ireland, or the death of lawyer Willie McRae here in Scotland, it’s all in play when needed.
And the arrest of hundreds and hundred of predominately elderly people in Belafast and London for saying they oppose what’s happening in Gaza, what does that tell you. Facism, vicious nasty fascism is here. Make no mistake.
And so, the truth about Alex Salmond must come out. Else like the Palestinians or the Jews in Germany in the 30s we will all become animals in a pen.
In other news.
Sturgeon gets her first tattoo. It’s an infinity symbol on her wrist with an arrow pointing outwards.
Last week Sturgeon was overheard by a civil servant outside Edinburgh Playhouse telling Val McDermid it was her “divorce tattoo” and part of her plan to “reinvent herself”.
link to instagram.com
I just hope she fucks off to London sooner rather than later
Isn’t that symbol the same as was used in ancient Rome to identify untrustworthy street vendors who were caught peddling lies and falsehoods in order to promote their wares?
More appropriate to fit the branks on her, the only thing I can imagine that will shut her up..
Not a bad moniker for her: Branksy! 🙂
That’s the I hate cock symbol.
Had it once never again. If it’s gold then she’s never had cock.
Skip_NC says:
20 August, 2025 at 7:11 pm
Has someone stolen Iain McWhirter’s (SIC) identity?
======
It is strange that the piece referenced appears on UNHERD but not on Iain MacWhirter’s own
Substack. The most recent story there is headed,
“ The tragedy of Nicola Sturgeon: she was never a Scottish Nationalist”
The tragedy of Nicola Sturgeon: she was never a Scottish Nationalist
A couple of links on stuff other than Sturgeon.
link to grousebeater.wordpress.com
link to dearscotland.substack.com
Aye Dan. Doon wi they western cants in the middle east and up wi the yellow tunnel skulking lassie torturers.
An doon wi they western cants in eastern Europe and up wi the heroic imperialist orcs methodically reducing their neighbour’s “pretendy” country tae rubble – foot by foot.
I’m convinced. Where do I sign up?
And what’s gonna be Scotland’s role? Do we get to maim, rape and torture lassies tae, and dae we get to destroy and kill as part of our colonising mission?
Asking for a Scot who’s had it up tae here wi thon Jock Tamson’s Bairn’s shite.
Prick.
James is up and thanks to some fancy finger work, he’s gonna be keeping it up for some time.
Let’s hear it for James! The boy who has brought tossing his caber into the 21st century.
As seen in the Herald;
“ The SNP’s £60,000 loan to former chief executive Peter Murrell could be written off as the party’s accounts reveal a significant deficit.”
Whit!
@‘stuart
The herald got this totally wrong
Snp cant write this loan off
Only murrell can “write the loan off”
Begs the question if murrell is due these funds why on earth is he claiming Legal Aid
Murrell should demand repayment
“Begs the question if murrell is due these funds why on earth is he claiming Legal Aid. Murrell should demand repayment.”
———————————————-
Exactly – God knows how he qualifies for legal aid.
AS and AX
Between you, you have just squared the circle..
They really must think us mere electorate are total mugs..
THE SNP is no longer a credible nationalist independence party. That it might at the next Hollyrood election have to form an alliance with the dodgy dullards of the Labour party (Scottish region) in order to keep the creepy anglo-Brit-nat Faragists out indicates how low it has sunk into the mire of the obnoxious decaying state of which it is merely a dependency.
The agents of the British state set out to destroy the independence movement in Scotland, it has had signal success thanks to the many «enablers» within that movement.
The conventional party political route to independence is now a timewasters preserve, however, the smug British state aka Greater Londonistan, may have created something more fearsome. One might hope for the claws of the Scottish lion be ready to meet the requirements.
The cage door was never really locked.
THE ENDLESS TRIAL by Stuart Campbell
(Wings Over Scotland, Aug 17, 2020)
« The last words spoken in Kirsty Wark’s documentary “The Trial Of Alex Salmond”, which just aired on BBC Scotland, are spoken by an unnamed actress letting rip with the full BAFTA range of quivering emotions as she reads out the words of a completely anonymous woman (we don’t even get to know her trial pseudonym letter) who last year falsely accused Alex Salmond of sexually assaulting her.
« […] It’s important to remember that the jury of eight women and five men found that all of Alex Salmond’s accusers were lying. All of the accusers said, clearly and specifically, that Salmond had sexually assaulted them, but the jury concluded that he didn’t sexually assault a single one of them. In other words, the jury decided that every single one of the accusers wasn’t telling the truth. Some specifics can be debated but there’s no wiggle room on that. They decided that the things the accusers claimed didn’t happen.
« There’s also the way that, eight minutes in, Wark reads out, in her own voice, her own interpretation of events, intertwined with an actress reading out the accuser’s evidence from the courtroom. The two accounts – the actual evidence given in court and Wark’s paraphrasing of what was claimed – are blurred together until the viewer isn’t sure what’s fact and what’s fantasy. The jury, as we’ll recall, concluded it was all fantasy, but it’s clear that Wark’s own opinion is rather different…»
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Re the Kirsty Wark travesty…
Here are extracts from a review by the late, and so hugely missed, Iain Lawson –
« The most obvious lack of balance of course was that the day by day coverage of the trial jumped from day seven to day ten. Why? Because days eight and nine was taken up with defence witnesses whose evidence destroyed the previous allegations and resulted in them as being shown to be completely unfounded. Kirsty was taking no chances, you were not even going to be allowed to hear what that evidence was and how it displayed the allegations as false. Pravda would have been proud of her, after all it would have left her with an empty programme.
« I do not believe there is another country in Europe where a reputable TV company would make a programme of this type when every allegation that featured had been dismissed by the jury and thrown out so conclusively. Then of course the BBC is not a reputable TV company. It is the British State Broadcast company engaged in heavy propaganda to do damage to anyone capable of pushing Independence for Scotland forward. »
Read Iain’s full article online here:
KIRSTY WARK AND THAT PROGRAMME.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
And let’s not overlook Channel 4. When the Alba Party was launched (thereafter of course billed as “Alex Salmond’s party”), the Media responded with a coordinated editorial mix of blanking silence and virulent personal attack.
Salmond was interviewed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy on Channel 4 News (26 Mar 2021) with the premeditated intent of reinforcing in the public mind Nicola Sturgeon’s despicable insistence that the jury had got it wrong.
A truly disgraceful Guru-Murthy used almost half the allotted minutes of ostensible Alba Party election coverage to harass Alex Salmond again and again with: “So when are you going to apologize to those women?” –
youtu.be/7MRTEyUze1c?si=9NGTY8nzT5qvFeRP
To view the Channel 4 interview above between Krishnan Guru-Murphy and Alex Salmond, please copy and paste the Channel 4 URL link. Alternatively lightly block the URL address and click “open link” if that option is offered.
The Wings instructions for posting YouTubes is what I am following –
« 7. Don’t mess up the page for everyone else. If you post YouTube links with the http:// part at the start, they’ll embed on the page rather than being posted as links. So don’t include the http:// bit or you’ll find your video in the spam bin. »
@lochinvar
Ah i’ve worked it out
Murrell gets legal aid
After the trial he will demand repayment of his loan
Simples
Why cant the authorities see this?
I read on this blog, that Murrell was Nicky’s handler. If that’s really the case, then he’ll be protected by the British State. So will he really get a trial? And will he lose any money? He’s completely out of the public eye, so we don’t even know where he is.
Somebody should commission a poll to find out the percentage of Scots, long acknowledged throughout the world as a canny, sensible, rational race, who believe that Murrell was Nicky’s handler.
If it’s any higher than 0.1% we will be able to identify one of the contributing factors to our national decline – we collectively lost our grip on reality.
The late Iain Lawson did a few blogs about Peter, his first entrance to the SNP & his take over/ trashing of the SNP once Alex left. Removing internal party democracy & stuffing key positions full of yoons, the Gender Taliban, feckwit waifs & strays, the mentally challenged & dull careerists. 10 yrs of no policies – that’s quite a feat. That wasn’t all an accident.
Peter played CEO, handler, accountant, media & even returning officer LOL. A jack of all trades. All shady as feck & if anyone should know the skulduggery & highly questionable antics of the Murrell’s, it’d be Iain – he was there & was witness. Unlike a certain troll I could mention.
Iain’s blogg is still available. It’s a treasure trove of information & background. I hope it’s been printed off for prosperity.
The five eyes & it’s sixth secret new surveillance buddy is known all over the world for interference in governments through personal assistants, Lobbyists, NGOs, multiple Charities, student youth groups & policy advisors to either start regime change or to kill off an ideas of uprising.
Scotland, with it’s abundance of FREE natural resources that keeps the UK enjoying the status it has on the international stage, is completely immune tho. We’re not a matter of national security – No Siree! They only want good things for Scotland & the indy movement. They would only welcome us packing up the cash cow & leaving, taking with us their status in the world. They’ve never interfered in Scotland – Said no cnt other than moronic yoons despite 300+ yrs of evidence that they have.
Take a bow, John Main, you know nothing.
Murrell will either meet with a walking accident or suddenly find he’s too good for this world. I doubt he’ll ever see a court. The West doesn’t do courts.
“As part of the police investigation into SNP finances, a £100,000 motorhome was seized outside the home of Mr Murrell’s mother in Dunfermline in April 2023.
The latest accounts list the motorhome among the party’s assets, with a depreciated value of £41,284.”
————————————————–
£41,284 sounds like a bargain – what’s the mileage?
Where perchance is the luxury motor home these days?
Out on road campaigning, in the police pound, or back parked at Peter Murrel’s mothedr’s house. And how many miles has it done these last years – none?
With next to no mileage and use,reduction in asset control value of this £100,000 vehicle to just £41,284 will no doubt allow some lucky person to buy an effectively brand new motorhome.
“£41,284 sounds like a bargain”
Sounds like the usual depreciation on any vehicle.
It would be worth more if Sturgeon and Murrell had defo used it. The prospect of being able to lay your head where Scotland’s Mammie once laid hers is a privilege many of the faithful would still pay top dollar for.
If I were marketing the van, I’d delicately hint at the clandestine trysts it “might” have seen and then I’d be fighting off buyers with a shitty stick.
SNP membership falls and campervan now only worth £41,000 and Peter Murrell still owed £60,000 form the SNP even though he’s getting legal aid.
At this stage a conspiracy involving the Crown Office and police can`t be proved but isn`t it a tad odd that the police went over the top in investigating Alex Salmond and they have never pursued a blatant case of perjury.
Some are born anonymous; some achieve anonymity; some have anonymity thrust upon them.
No it’s not odd MacDuff.
The police, and for that matter the Crown Office are utterly political and pursue without fear or public approbation who they are told to pursue.
The B Specials in Northern Ireland, the old sectarian police force in South Africa, wher both displayed the de rigour required behaviour in British colonies.
And they said the Nazi Germany police were political.
But think of this blog and the Rev Stu. He got the treatment some years back on a trumped up charge. Or Craig Murray.
And here’s a thing to, only this week the Deputy Cheif Constable for Police Scotland released a statement to say that they could pursue crime due to the number of officers being deployed against Gaza supporting terrorists.
Work that one out and especially in the light of around 1,000 predominately elderly and utterly peaceful protestors in London and Belfast being arrested for the simple crime of wearing a tea shirt or having a placard saying they oppose the horrors being visited on Gaza.
Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh says:
21 August, 2025 at 9:25 pm
We all knew that Wark was and is nasty Yoon Piece of work. One of the reasons I stopped paying the English TV Tax over 15 years ago.
Aaaah!!
So the former Scottish National Party; now commonly referred to as the Scum Nonce Party is short of money and now up to its neck in debt..
Would that actually be “short of short money” following the Scottish electorates clear and unambiguous message to the Nonce Party that you’ve taken us for a ride long enough enough is more than enough and you’re not getting our vote anymore..
Yet still Provost Swinney prevaricates from obfuscation-land while his “precious” handler still pulls his strings in between bull-dyking up with tats and man hating outbursts while making money sheltered under tax avoidance techniques..
Why doesn’t she use some of her fortune and income from her book to help balance the ledgers of the party she single handedly destroyed in the electorate’s perception?
Nah??
Thought not..
Special place in hell for “Branksy” and there’s hee haw pal Val and the coven of acoloytes can do about it..
And dare I mention contrition from her?
Yes I’m having a laugh, narcissists don’t do contrition..
And once more;
#Where is sneaky Pete?
I read that Pete’s trial now has been delayed until after the 2026 election.
Don’t want to upset the applecart.
Quelle surprise!!
The SNP is not short of money…
The party’s latest accounts show a deficit of £455,254.
However, we’ve been told that a £600,000 fund, ring-fenced for a future Indyref2 campaign, has been carefully woven through the accounts, so there can’t possibly be a £455,254 deficit but in fact a £144,746 surplus!
Otherwise the true figure, once the £600,000 was removed for Indyref2, would be a deficit of £1,055,254, which of course wouldn’t be the case because that would require the £600,000 fund for Indyref2 to have already been spiffed up against the wall by the SNP, and they’d never be THAT dishonest, surely…
oh nooo! Never!
At least the party of Alex Salmond most certainly would not have been – the man could count and I counted on the man!
The sugarplum fairy has granted Swinney a repreive from a scandalous Courtroom drama.
I am purchasing a McLovin ID card so I can access what the Feminazi Brit Govt declares is Adult content. Brit Govt Surveillance and Censorship is out of control. I have few ideas as to whose photo I should use. Orwell was prophet when it comes to UK.
Off Topic.
Slugger O’Toole discusses the benefits of the Union.
link to sluggerotoole.com
Every time you think the current SNP can’t get any more inept or out of touch, you can always trust Peak Wetfart to follow through with more drivel.
Jealousy – tick.
Spite – tick.
Envy – two extra large, bold ticks.
BY fuck did she envy him his warmth of character, intelligence, political ability/acumen, sense of fair play, dignity, largesse (extended even to political opponents), and moral compass.
He was everything she was not and could never be.
And she hated him for it.
I agree with every word.
Brilliant piece well written and linked through.