The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Cracks in the fog

Posted on September 17, 2020 by

Over the last year or so, this site’s commentary on matters surrounding the attempted imprisonment of Alex Salmond over false allegations of sexual abuse has attracted a considerable amount of ire from a section of the readership, demanding “proof” of the involvement of the current First Minister.

Such proof has been impossible to provide for legal reasons. But it’s always been the case that the truth could only be suppressed for so long, and events in recent days have brought the first chinks of light through the wall of smoke and mirrors the Scottish Government has been attempting to surround the matter with.

So in our very lightest and softest shoes, let’s tiptoe through what is both a labyrinth and a minefield and see if we can make some of it a little easier to understand.

The Daily Record’s front page today brings into the public eye, via an anonymous leak to Kenny MacAskill, material we’ve been aware of for some time, in which the SNP’s chief executive Peter Murrell and its chief operating officer Sue Ruddick discuss – in the private WhatsApp group shared with several of Salmond’s accusers – how they can put pressure on Police Scotland to prosecute Mr Salmond and how they want him to be attacked on as many fronts as possible.

It ought to go without saying how massively improper it would be for a high-ranking official in the party of government to ever be attempting to influence a serious police investigation in such a manner.

It would also be, let’s say, remarkable if they were to do so without the knowledge and approval of the party leader, especially if that also happened to be their wife.

Mr Murrell recently told the Parliamentary inquiry that when Nicola Sturgeon met with a senior adviser and Alex Salmond to discuss the affair at Sturgeon and Murrell’s home in Glasgow in April 2018, Murrell was not present and had no idea what the discussion was about, because it was a government matter not a party one, and therefore none of his business.

Yet last year Sturgeon had insisted that the meeting was NOT government business but “a party matter”, which if true would make it quite incredible for the party’s chief executive to be excluded and then not informed for several months.

(We know the meeting wasn’t treated as a government meeting, because even though Sturgeon’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd – a government employee rather than an SNP one – was present, no minutes were taken, which she would have been required to do if the meeting was government business.)

So unless there’s some sort of cataclysmic private war going on between Murrell and Sturgeon, well, readers can draw their own conclusions.

Interestingly, Craig Murray recently asked the Crown Office for copies of the messages between Murrell and Ruddick as part of his defence in his impending trial for contempt of court. We know this because he published the full exchange on his blog last month. This was one of the items requested:

And this was the blanket refusal he received:

But the Crown Office went further. In July, Kenny MacAskill had asked it if it had any evidence or knowledge of any attempt by Peter Murrell to influence Police Scotland either directly or indirectly with regard to the investigation.

To which the Crown Office replied that it did not.

This seems, on the face of it, to be a direct and unequivocal lie. If the story in today’s Daily Record is true – and let’s say that we must assume their lawyers are satisfied with it to have made it the front page lead – then the Crown Office definitely DID know about the Murrell/Ruddick messages, and had them in its possession at all times, and yet has seemingly told a Member Of Parliament that the messages did not exist.

(The best defence we can put forward for Lindsey Miller there is that she may be trying to use weasel words to say that Murrell ATTEMPTED to influence Police Scotland but did not SUCCEED in doing so, which would both be a highly questionable proposition in itself given subsequent events, and also clearly not an answer in either the letter or the spirit of the question.)

Readers can only speculate about why the Crown Office, which is a department of and at least theoretically answerable to the Scottish Government, might lie to a Scottish MP about a serious criminal matter, and in whose service they were doing so.

Also in the last few days, a seemingly very confusing story has appeared regarding the release of documents to the inquiry. On Saturday the Daily Record ran a surprising piece saying that Alex Salmond had blocked certain documents that the Scottish Government had wanted to give the inquiry, suggesting that this was hypocritical on Salmond’s part given his previous calls for transparency.

On Tuesday the Herald ran a much longer story on Salmond’s response.

Stripped of long screeds of impenetrable legalese, these are the events revealed:

1. The Scottish Government undertook an unlawful and biased inquiry into the allegations against Mr Salmond, producing a report. It admitted this when he took them to court over it, and the Scottish Government conceded the case before any information about the report and how it was produced became public, paying over £500,000 towards his legal bills.

2. The court “reduced” the report in question, a legal term meaning that it was to effectively be stricken from the record and ruling that it must not be published to anyone because it was not trustworthy.

3. Last month the Scottish Government attempted to give the biased and unlawful report to the Parliamentary inquiry anyway, from which its contents might become public, despite having promised the court it would not do so. (The inquiry committee had NOT requested the report.)

4. The Scottish Government formally notified Alex Salmond of this move, in the certain knowledge that Salmond’s lawyers would properly remind them of their obligations not to release it, which they duly did in a letter marked “PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL”, noting that the release of the report would be in breach of the outcome of the judicial inquiry and be committing contempt of court.

5. Someone in the Scottish Government – the only lawful recipients of the letter – then selectively and illegally leaked that private and confidential letter to the Daily Record for the purposes of smearing Salmond as a hypocrite.

We’re sure that for the diehard loyalist supporters of the current SNP leadership, all of these facts will be brushed away as hearsay and tittle-tattle and the work of Unionist MI5 plants in the Yes movement and whatever. It is a position that is getting harder and harder to sustain with every day that passes.

The Scottish Government has done everything possible to hide this entire affair behind a veil of silence. But silence, readers, is a fragile thing. One loud noise and it’s gone.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 17 09 20 12:56

    Cracks in the fog | speymouth

319 to “Cracks in the fog”

  1. Ian Brotherhood says:


    Could this be the beginning of the end?

  2. ahundredthidiot says:

    A couple’a wee shites are aboot tae git fun oot

  3. P says:

    Well said Stu, stand up job! xx

  4. AndyH says:

    Holy Flaps!

  5. Ian Brotherhood says:

    ‘Yet last year Sturgeon had insisted that the meeting was NOT government business but “a party matter”, which would make it quite extraordinary that the party’s chief executive would be excluded and then not informed for months.’

    This is the type of thing that makes folk want to scream.

    We’re supposed to believe that NS sent her man to his room while she talked with the adults? And he didn’t earywig at the door?!

    Honestly, just GTF.

  6. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “We’re supposed to believe that NS sent her man to his room while she talked with the adults? And he didn’t earywig at the door?!”

    As far as we know from reliable witnesses, Murrell definitely wasn’t in the room. And since it’s utterly inconceivable that the party’s CEO would be excluded from a party matter of such import, the only possible conclusion that can reasonably be drawn is that Nicola Sturgeon was lying when she told Parliament it was.

  7. Ian Brotherhood says:
    17 September, 2020 at 12:14 pm

    Could this be the beginning of the end?

    I hope it’s not the end of Independence?

    The end of Sturgeon and Murrell I do hope.

  8. Polly says:

    Exactly so.

    ‘…how they can put pressure on Police Scotland to prosecute Mr Salmond and how they want him to be attacked on as many fronts as possible.’

    As many fronts as possible – and the papers at the weekend trying to paint him as the one who has something he wishes to hide from the inquiry was exactly of a piece with that strategy. As you say the strands are unwinding and that latest leak shows just how manipulative the forces behind it are.

  9. Shug says:

    So will unionists in the parliament attack sturgeon on this or will they protect her and stay quiet

  10. Wulls says:

    Difficult indeed to see how this farce can be maintained.
    We either have a Government, Police force, Civil service, and Court system we can rely on to show honesty and integrity.
    Or we do not………
    At this stage it is painfully obvious we do not and the only question remaining to be proven is the width and elevation of the dishonesty.
    Right now the only people likely to come out the other side of this with their dignity intact is Alex Salmond and Craig Murray.

  11. Frank Waring says:

    If legal action is not taken against this blog almost immediately, everyone will believe that it is true(except, perhaps, for some of those whose salaries depend on their honestly believing that it is false).

  12. Dear god, this is a reeking midden. I know it’s neither here nor there, I’m so heartbreakingly disappointed.

  13. Willie says:

    Sturgeon cannot and will not last.

    The more that comes out, the more she, her husband and her coterie of control are revealed to be the scheming vicious unprincipled scum that they are. The sty needs cleared and it will be cleared. The members of the SNP and the wider movement know it, the sands are shifting, and soon they the poison will be gone.

    Good stuff Rev Stu for releasing this info to the wider audience. It is not difficult to understand why WoS is, despite the effort of trolls, the far preferred go to site for information and analysis.

  14. Black Joan says:

    Wulls @ 12.32pm

    Also emerging with their dignity intact are the members of the Jury, who saw the truth. And the Rev, of course.

  15. F Mooney says:

    I do love your work.

  16. Annie 621 says:

    A mole, a whistleblower that we desperately need.

  17. John Thomson says:

    One step to the truth, really is getting to be a very long but necessary journey for people to travel.

  18. Sharny Dubs says:

    Stu! Your the man!

    Many salutations.

    Shooggly pegs abound in the high heed yin’s of the SNP, hell mend them.

  19. Bob Mack says:

    “How we can attack him on as many fronts as possible”

    Numerous charges of sexual assault. Leaking innuendo to newspapers. Laying false charges.

    Yep, seems to fit the bill.

    How anyone can believe that Nicola or her husband had no part in this defies belief. The aim was purely to neuter Salmond politically from ever standing again.

  20. Oneliner says:

    What a great time to attempt to topple the SNP government with both them and the Independence cause leading in the polls.

    Oh dear, you’d almost think it was planned.

  21. Lukas Scholts says:

    The dates are obviously key.

    Now we see why it was so important to get Robertson into position.

    They’re toast.

  22. Effijy says:

    How on earth can we move forward to our Independence
    without a water tight justice system, an Independence Party
    that looks corrupt at the highest level and a Neo Fascist
    majority at Westminster?

    Could we request legal assistance from the EU who can examine
    In detail the justice system that looks like being anything but just?

    The need to be put out of office and maybe put in prison.

  23. Bob Mack says:


    Oh it was planned all right, but it never turned out the way the plotters wanted it to. Alex still has his freedom.

  24. Giesabrek says:

    Absolutely dynamite stuff here Stu and hopefully this will bring the “woke” brigade and their leader down quickly enough that the true independence fighters can reclaim the party, hopefully with someone like Joanna Cherry at the helm (this will obviously need that very dodgy rule overturned that blocked Joanna from becoming an MSP while still an MP).

  25. Polly says:

    ‘So unless there’s some sort of cataclysmic private war going on between Murrell and Sturgeon, well, readers can draw their own conclusions.’

    Was there any truth in the rumours they might not get on as well as they portray? I remember unionists referencing affairs or even possibility of divorce being likely. Supporters may try to lay all the blame on Murrell and truth be told if they aren’t on the best terms, and he is so powerful within the party, perhaps he is the Svengali. Married couples in all walks of life do put on a front for the outside world, and in their case she could worry about damaging the cause of independence too by any rupture.

  26. David Caledonia says:

    I will allways vote SNP, if anyone thinks people like me are stuoid then dont vote, or go one even better vote for a unionist party
    I had a lot of rotten things done to me in my life, people stealing from me, borrowing money and not paying me back
    Do I care about the money, not in the slightest, but what did upset me was the fact that these people not only did it to me, but they did it to people who could not afford to lose the money or their goods
    So there you have it, stupid old me, the guy tht allways votes for the SNP, but I will reveal a well known secret if I call it a secret, I have never voted for any individual candidate because I thought they where any good, in fact they where all pathetic, I am from Inverclyde and the clowns are still running the circus here, they are career monkeys, grab the dosh, say the right things that people want to here, and slag each other off inbetween, and I will still vote for the SNP, even if they put a hairy monkey up for the election, I would quite happily chip in for bag a bananas and a cup o tea tae wash them doon way lol

  27. Blackhack says:

    In the words of a Scottish actress…..I can smell shite.

  28. I can’t wait for Kirsty Wark to have an in depth program about this ???

  29. Clydebuilt says:

    With the SNP and Independence riding high in the polls and an election coming up in May, the enemies of independence are desperate to damage the party and it’s current popular leader.

  30. susanXX says:

    The hierarchy of the SNP are not going to come out of this vindicated. It stinks to high heaven and doesn’t bode well for an independent Scotland.

  31. Oneliner says:

    Seems quite obvious that the Scottish fiscal framework has been heavily infiltrated by several harmful people.

    That’s either a coincidence or a plan.

  32. Angry Weegie says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave …….

    It’s becoming more difficult by the day to believe anything other than some important members of the SNP are actively trying to prevent independence. The lack of action following the second reading of the internal market bill is surely the last straw.

  33. Tinto Chiel says:

    So the leaking is starting? Looks like the pressure you have been exerting on The Salmond Affair and COPS is beginning to take effect.

    We can only hope others come forward to do the decent thing and be on the right side of history.

  34. June Maxwell says:

    Thank you Stu for your usual clear presentation of facts and explanation. Here comes the dirty laundry! However, plain truth talkers like you can be threatening to some. In fact I suspect parts of the odious Hate Crime bill (if it ever passes) were drafted with you in mind. So please, watch your back. ?

  35. Polly says:

    @ Oneliner

    I’m guessing a plan, which like all good plans can take coincidences and run with them. Certainly a better plan than was cooked up by the alphabet sisters. As you say coming at the time when polls and support for independence are high and rising and a crucial election coming up. Unlike the current SNP these planners aren’t going to let any opportunity go to waste.

    On the balance of probability I feel Sturgeon has to be involved with at least a portion of the trouble caused for Salmond, but I always come back to the fact she did agree to meet with him privately a number of times knowing it could be used against her as in the papers above. There’s also the fact believing her to be capable of the worst type of betrayal against him means you have to believe he was fooled all those years when he nurtured her career and worked with her so closely. It makes one or other either a cold assassin or a naïve fool. I still can’t reconcile either of those as legitimate and guess the truth is somewhere between.

  36. Bob Mack says:


    Any of the people who did the dirty on you tried to send you to jail for life? Somewhat different bud.

  37. tartanfever says:

    Can we clarify one point? both those newspapers articles (Johnson, Telegraph and Carrell,Guardian) claim that Alex Salmond was there in person.


  38. MightyS says:

    So, the 6 million punted to the Scottish newsrags over the lockdown period wasn’t really to maintain jobs…was it.

    I quite imagine the press and media and even the Unionist politicians will quite happily keep quiet about this because they know how hard the Murrells prefer devolution.

    Worth putting up with them if the status quo continues eh.

  39. Graham A Fordyce says:

    If a solicitor has sanctioned the letter from the Crown Office to Kenny McAskill, and that letter contains a falsehood, then that solicitor has breached his professional duty which would attract a severe sanction from the Law Society of Scotland and/or the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Believe it or not, lawyers are supposed to be honest and have integrity. Just ask Lord Keen.

  40. Stuart MacKay says:

    The pressure keeps on building and building. I wonder who will be first to break in an attempt to save their skin.

  41. A2 says:

    Anybody else ever had experience of a seemingly calm and competent jealous partner unexpectedly behaving irrationally regardless of the consequences.

    Then found themselves covering it up to avoid looking stupid for sticking with them? (asking for a friend obviously)

  42. Wee Chid says:

    Sturgeon could get out of this with dignity by resigning due to stress and overwork because of COVID. The majority would believe this was a genuine reason and it would pave the way for a leader who is actually interested in independence. As for MI5 plants – Murrell would be my chief suspect, with or without Sturgeon’s knowledge and approval.

  43. Breeks says:

    Effijy says:
    17 September, 2020 at 12:44 pm

    ….Could we request legal assistance from the EU who can examine
    In detail the justice system that looks like being anything but just?

    The need to be put out of office and maybe put in prison.

    The EU, unfortunately will have to take the perspective that all of this is an internal domestic UK affair with which it cannot interfere. The UK is the sovereign entity they recognise, and their hands are tied accordingly. We must change that perception by disputing UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. There is no alternative. It must be challenged.

    Unless, and until, Scotland asserts itself as a Sovereign Nation inside a bilateral Treaty with England to thereby create the UK, then Scotland carries as much clout in International relations as a Region.

    Furthermore, if that perception still goes unchallenged, then Scottish Independence will not be seen as the emancipation of an ancient and sovereign Scottish Nation, but instead, Scottish Independence will be perceived as an act of secession, creating a “new” Scotland rather than liberating an old one. That’s a real can of worms essentially, – think UDI and all that entails. We DO NOT NEED A UDI TO ASSERT THE SOVEREIGNTY WE’VE ALREADY GOT!

    I keep harping on about Brexit, but that’s the fork in the road where Scotland (led by the SNP) went one way, and Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty went the other way. We will not make progress until we retrace our steps, go back and revisit Scotland’s emphatic and democratic rejection of Brexit, and assert before the International Community that Scotland HAS Constitutional Sovereignty as a Nation, and that Brexit an unlawful colonial subjugation of that Constitutional Sovereignty. We have to assert this, and make it stick.

    Scotland is a Nation with it’s own Constitutional Sovereignty, and the Union is a bilateral Treaty between two Kingdoms, and Scotland’s Nation status is currently under aggressive colonial assault.

    The EU cannot help us, not until we help ourselves first.

    But! I’m not sure whether the same can be said about the Council of Europe or the UN. Scotland should have been engaging with these agencies since 2016, and under better leadership, I feel certain we would have been. I have no idea what planet Sturgeon has been living on, but she has really dropped the ball constitutionally.

  44. Jan Cowan says:

    Thank you for all your hard work. I look forward to an independent Scotland with a new FM. Joanna Cherry is an honest candidate……if Alex Salmond, understandably, decides to take a back seat.

  45. stonefree says:

    @ Graham A Fordyce at 1:33 pm
    You make a very valid point, regarding both integrity and honesty.
    Is it not under the fact they are Officers of the Court and they bring the Court into question by their misdeed?

  46. Breeks says:

    Black Joan says:
    17 September, 2020 at 12:36 pm
    Wulls @ 12.32pm

    Also emerging with their dignity intact are the members of the Jury, who saw the truth. And the Rev, of course.

    Thank heavens for the diligence of that Jury.

    The ramifications have a way to run yet, but history will come to record that Jury’s verdict as a truly pivotal moment.

  47. stuart mctavish says:

    Apart from the identity of the phantom document leaker, one intriguing take away from the above is the COPFS reference to a potential misuse of disclosed documents.

    ie, setting aside the likelihood of whatsapp transcriptions existing anywhere other than a national security database, someone from the whatsapp group (or the prosecution team) must have informed the defence of their existence in order for them to have been disclosed.

  48. Stu hutch says:

    Seems what is coming out now was the reason joanna cherry wanted back to hollyrood. if there is any honour and integrity left in the hierarchy of the snp they should all resign I think the NEC stitch up should be abandoned and joanna should return to hollyrood to take over the reins.blackford should stand aside for whitford as westminster leader.kenny MacAskall back at justice to uncurrupt the lawyers and police.(who is justice secretary ?!!!) Then have alex to lead the list partys to get our 2/3rds of hollyrood. we need a clearout of the snp msp and mps that have conspired to put innocents in jail.really sad was hopeful of nicola taking us to independence but hey ho. Time to get fighters in for the big fight in front of us.

  49. Mac says:

    I cant take seriously anyone who still thinks NS was not up to her neck in the plot to send an innocent man to jail and what would have likely amounted to a death sentence. I mean that is pretty bad right…

    But think of the damage it has done to the independence movement even with a full acquittal. If AS had been found guilty… wow.

    They were not just ratfucking AS they were ratfucking the independence movement. Someone prepared to utterly trash the reputation of the independence movement just to take out rival from you own party is fucking psycho nutcase or they are not what they pretend to be.

    And some of you loonies still want her in charge of our last chance if we got indyref2?!

    FFS how much more do you have to see before the penny finally drops.

    The woman is a rat. A wrong’un. She is not working for YES, quite the opposite.

  50. J Galt says:

    One takes it that Mr MacAskill’s invitation to Christmas Lunch at Bute House may be in some doubt.

  51. Dave Llewellyn says:

    Re the Easter Monday meeting.
    If it was a party matter why were chiefs of staff present?
    If it was a government meeting why did the same chiefs of staff not take minutes of said meeting?
    They can’t have it both ways.

  52. Breastplate says:

    I hope you’re not implying that people who think it’s not OK to form a conspiracy, cook up some sexual allegations against the former FM in a bid to jail him, lie through one’s teeth in a court of law, continue to suppress documents that will reveal the truth, should be chastised for voicing their opinions?

    The SNP hierarchy put themselves under the microscope without any help from the Yes Movement.

  53. kapelmeister says:

    What’s that term?

    Oh aye,..gross Murrell turpitude.

  54. James Che. says:

    I notice that peter murrell is willing to hang his own wife out to dry by claiming he was not there as it was a government issue not a party issue, and Nicola sturgeon seems to think it was a party issue, also that he says Nicola sturgeon had meetings did this or that, he seems quite vocal in pointing blame away from himself to his wife, not some one in love or loyal to ones partner, perhaps they are having problems with in their marriage, and, that contention is spilling over into the snp itself,
    We will presume some where and some how, we will find out in what capacity the meeting took place,
    It appears mr murrell committed himself as to his personal opinion to sue ridduck on the private what’s app about Alex Salmond and perhaps how to try to influence the police and put pressure on mr salmond,
    interesting loyalties for chief executive of the snp and the husband of Nicola sturgeon.

  55. Clydebuilt says:

    Aye it was planned allright.. . . Salmond was supposed to be behind bars . . . . .

    Then leak documents, get Sturgeon, both leaders discredited and worse.

    What should we expect to happen in May.

  56. Beaker says:

    Never mind a senior official doing it, anyone trying to influence the police is surely either conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or obstructing the police in the course of their lawful duty?

  57. Beaker says:

    @stuart mctavish says:
    17 September, 2020 at 1:48 pm
    “ie, setting aside the likelihood of whatsapp transcriptions existing”

    WhatsApp has the security of a wet paper bag. If the media can hack a mobile phone then they can do the same with WhatsApp.

  58. Breastplate says:

    You talk of leaked documents that would “get Sturgeon”. These leaked documents you talk of, would they be lies or the truth.

    If they uncover the truth, surely this would be a good thing?
    If they are lies, then wouldn’t you want to know who was responsible for them?

  59. Desimond says:

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”

    Its just the that just need joined now…and like the domino dots, they will then fall.

    The COPS aspect is intriguing. Whilst Engerlund and Boris are fighting tooth and nail to destroy the Judiciary, the Scottish Govt seem to be well in cahoots and happy to ignore recent judicial disasters…quid pro quo Clarice and all that.

    If this ends up with the fall of Murrell and Nicola, so be it, absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that. Sadly I suspect it will at the very most only end up with the Top Civil Servant getting a Damehood expense account and a half dozen Quango Chairwomenships to keep her cosy and silent.

    Mind you…the sites old pal Lindsey could be the one to crack…

  60. Mr C M Howie says:

    Though I think its obvious NS and her cabal have been going after Salmond for years, I’m honestly not sure why they would do that. I don’t really understand. Is it to stop him making a comeback? The woke influence? Gradualists? I don’t get it.

  61. robertknight says:

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…”

  62. Bob Mack says:

    Meanwhile on other Indy sites these revelations are being avoided like a skunk with BO.


  63. Karen Ross says:

    Stu, do we know why FM and co seemm to have wanted to attack Salmond?.

    Surely not just to take him out politically…..has to be something more important than that?

  64. Colin Alexander says:

    In case anyone had any doubts:

    There is an ongoing political civil war happening right now.

    I’m sorry to say it, but with every passing day, with each new fact established, I become more and more convinced that the Murrell’s and a number of SNP senior politicians are not on the side of Scotland’s freedom.

    I would go as far to say, some of them are active enemies of Scottish independence, whether by choice or British Imperial coercion.

  65. Phydaux says:

    The truth will out, to coin a phrase and largely down to you Stuart, brilliant as ever.

    Now we get to find out the real mark and measure of you, Mr. CEO Murrell, a thoroughly nasty piece of work, morally corrupt and who abused your position of power, manipulated those around you for your own selfish interests and political expediency, lied and tried to cover up. You appear to be full of hatred towards Mr Salmond, a man who will continue to be held in high regard and whose integrity, intellectual prowess and decency were never in doubt.

    Any reputation you thought you had is now utterly destroyed. I don’t like anyone who thinks he’s entitled. Put simply, you give me the creeps and you disgust me.

    So many of our ain folk with talent, passion, ideas, creativity, all of whom have been ignored, sidelined, marginalised, criminalised by you and your despicable party, Shame on you. When ordinary people are given the opportunity to participate in civic life, just like the jurors at Alex’s trial, their integrity, humility, honesty and courage shines a thousand times brighter, in contrast to the stinking cesspit coming from you and yours, Mr CEO Murrell.

  66. Merkin Scot says:

    Just like a Ludlum novel about Sottogoverno.
    Will the film be better than the book when it comes out?

  67. terry moore says:

    Iam not really into politics in a heavy way,but nonetheless i commend this website and Stu Campbell for their relentless pursuit of the truth in what is turning out to be a malicious,& evil personal attack on a fellow politician.

  68. Breastplate says:

    it shakes the very foundations of their belief system so I’m quite sure it’s easier to ignore and will also avoid any cognitive dissonance which can show oneself up as hypocrite.
    Better to avoid nasty things like that and chant WOS bad, WOS bad, WOS bad….

  69. Jason Smoothpiece says:

    No one can deny that there is a sulphurous stench in the air.

    I actually find it difficult to believe the circumstances we find ourselves in.

    Those found to have a hand in this must see the inside of a prison cell.

  70. susanXX says:

    I for one am glad Stu, and Kenny, have kept this in the public eye. An independent Scotland needs to be a clean Scotland where probity is valued.

  71. stuart mctavish says:


    Good point- doubtless including the ability to edit in real time, let alone years later!

    Which then begs the question, over and above the process by which such transcripts are accorded legal status (rather than eg potential smear status) as to how the prosecution had acquired this particular transcript and what benefit it sought to extract from it at trial.

  72. James Barr Gardner says:

    Nicola has only choice left to get out of this oncoming onslaught, she must hold a IndyRef this year and win it, after that everything pre-referendum will evaporate into the mists of history.

  73. robertknight says:

    There can be no doubt that the British State has got its claws into almost every tier of Scotland’s Government, Parliament, Political Parties, ‘State’ institutions (i.e. Civil Service, COPFS, Police Scotland) and mainstream media.

    Tear off the tartan gift-wrap and you’ll see the red, white and blue underneath.

    I fear things are about to get a lot worse before they get better – if ever.

  74. Helen Yates says:

    What a great time to attempt to topple the SNP government with both them and the Independence cause leading in the polls.

    Oh dear, you’d almost think it was planned.

    What Stu and others are trying to do is to save the SNP and to help get Indy delivered, not destroy it, if you think indy will ever come when the party are rotten at the top you’re deluding yourself. better to get the muck raked out now while we still have a chance of moving independence on.

  75. Big Jock says:

    It makes absolute sense that Murrel would b the Judas.

    He is a power hungry individual. He wanted the empire for himself. To do so he needed a Queen. Nicola is the Queen of his empire. Salmond was the pretender to the throne and had to be eliminated.

    We now have Murrel and Sturgeon , a married couple dictating policy , funding, membership and strategy. This empire will crumble , as all empires eventually do. It is never a pleasant outcome for the empire or the people they rule over.

  76. shug says:

    just an observation!

    If an employee/party member came to you alleging assault/rape you would instigate an investigation and you would consider, if you have sufficient information, should I inform the police. This was just the sort of issue the Catholic church failed on. There is a moral responsibility to inform the police if you are told about an event.
    What was the nature of the communication with Police Scotland??

  77. Bert says:

    Hi, Do you have links to the evidence Murrell gave to the Parliamentary inquiry where he categorically stated that NS told him it was “government business”?

    Has this been published? The article linked above (Simon Johnson)only states he was told she couldn’t discuss it.

    Something may be a party matter but two party members could agree that the matter is only to be discussed between the two of them.

  78. Ian Brotherhood says:

    When the committee e-mailed Murrell on July 7th this year, it asked:

    ‘The Committee also seeks from you, in a personal capacity the following information:

    a. details of when you first became aware of the existence of complaints against Alex Salmond made under the Scottish Government policy, and who informed you and in what capacity;

    b. details of any actions you have taken in a party capacity in relation to the complaints;

    c. details of any discussions or communications that took place between Scottish Government ministers or special advisers and yourself on complaints against Alex Salmond;

    d. details of your first awareness of, presence at, or contributions to, any meetings between two or more of the following: the First Minister; the First Minister’s Chief of Staff; the former First Minister, Alex Salmond; and the former First Minister’s former Chief of Staff, Geoff Aberdein.

    The Committee is also seeking written submissions on the development of the complaints policy, the judicial review, the application of the ministerial code and the civil service code, the handling of the complaints by the Scottish Government, and the culture within the Scottish Government, prior to the procedure on handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers being in place.’

    His reply, on August 4th (the deadline set by the committee):

    ‘3. Requests of me in a personal capacity

    a) I became aware that complaints had been made under the Scottish Government procedure when the matter became public in August 2018. I knew about the meetings between Nicola and Alex Salmond at our home on 2 April and 14 July 2018 and I had the sense that something serious was being discussed. Nicola told me she couldn’t discuss the details. The nature of Nicola’s job means that when she tells me she can’t discuss something,
    I don’t press it.

    b) There was no action taken by the SNP in relation to these complaints before the matter became public in August 2018.

    c) The only such discussions would have been after the matter became public in August 2018 and in relation to the Party’s response.

    d) I was aware of meetings that took place at our home on 2 April and 14 July 2018, involving certain of the individuals listed. I was not present at these meetings and made no contribution to them.

    I have no direct knowledge of and therefore no comment to make on the development of the Scottish Government complaints policy, the judicial review, the application of the ministerial code and the civil service code, the handling of the complaints by the Scottish Government, or the culture within the Scottish Government.’

    The correspondence can be found here:

  79. Lothianlad says:

    The Mi5 plants are hard at work in the SNP Scottish government. They are the enemy within.
    Sturgeon is controlled by the British secret service.
    Much the same way senior Republicans in the IRA were controlled.

    It’s not far fetched to think this, just look how close we are to indy and how the SNP hierarchy is messing it up.
    No coincidence

  80. Robert Graham says:

    A wee bit o/t

    Just seen comments from Dross the temporary tea boy kidding on he has any influence in well just about everything , this is also on the back of a statement from that throw back to the Victorian era Rees Mogg who stated it would be easy to replace the recently resigned legal bod who was in the service of the English establishment , quote from both probably dictated by Cummings , it will be no problem replacing what is regarded as a jumped up Lawyer the inference being Pay them enough and they will dance to any required tune for Boris and the English government.

    A whole parallel universe exists one occupied by crooks and Barefaced Liars , the other by people in Scotland who by now even with all the propaganda shovelled out of the BBC are slowly starting to waken up , once the majority are awake unfortunately all the shit won’t fool them again , even with control over 99.99% of all the Media it’s not working and that f/kn scares the shit out of them.

    Regarding the main article a whole lot of people who have previously given unquestionable support and backing to the current SNP leadership are going to be very very disappointed , well a lot of people here tried to warn them and received abuse in return , well f/k you all for being so stupid

  81. Cath says:

    Can this shite be sorted out before a No Deal Brexit and those who are clearly not on Scotland’s side – whoever that is – be got rid of? Pretty fucking please. We are now on a precipice and anyone wishing to push us over it deserves whatever they get.

  82. Republicofscotland says:

    Looking at the bigger picture, and assuming that Sturgeon and Murrell are guilty of which it now appears they were at least hiding something.

    If we successfully chase this down to its conclusion, and Sturgeon and Murrell are removed from office, and replaced with a more Scottish independence minded leader, what kind of time frame would that be in and will Johnson have stymied Holyrood by then and in the process make it far harder to obtain independence.

    Yes Sturgeon doesn’t look like hooding a independence referendum, I agree there, however, isn’t there a slight chance that with the power grab which will affect just about every aspect of Holyrood and the government’s ability to govern properly if at all, that Sturgeon’s hand will be forced into holding a independence referendum.

    What has happened to Salmond and Murray is disgraceful, and heads need to roll for it, however with Sturgeon’s popularity running high, the polls on our side,and the power grab about to devastate our parliaments ability to function properly, and hopefully Sturgeon’s hand forced on independence, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on this first and foremost.

  83. Oneliner says:

    @Helen Yates

    Think ‘irony’ not self-delusion.

  84. Lorna Campbell says:

    “… We’re sure that for the diehard loyalist supporters of the current SNP leadership, all of these facts will be brushed away as hearsay and tittle-tattle and the work of Unionist MI5 plants in the Yes movement and whatever. It is a position that is getting harder and harder to sustain with every day that passes… ”

    Personally, I have little doubt that the British State is present within the SNP, and causing division and stirring trouble, but, to a large extent, the SNP leadership and higher echelons have played right into their hands with their petty squabbles and trying to force the party in a direction the majority simply do not want to go. That is how the British State operates – always. It is naive to believe they are not there, even if the party is causing trouble for itself by its own actions. Sometimes, you just can’t see the strings.

    Alex Salmond was out of the picture – albeit there was word that he couldn’t let go completely, though how true that is, is anyone’s guess – so what happened that made him such a threat – if, indeed, he was a threat? However you slice and dice it, had Alex Salmond fallen in the court case, Nicola Sturgeon would have quickly followed him.

    Was it the case that the (flawed and retrospective) procedure was meant to see him off and it all went pear-shaped when he challenged its legality? If so, why? Was there never actually meant to be a criminal prosecution, and he was meant to be rendered ineffectual after the procedure had caught him – after the informal complaints became formal complaints? So, why did they become formal when they had already been dealt with informally and the matter supposedly closed? There must have been something that triggered that response? Was Mr Salmond intending to stand again? Was he perceived to be a threat to the FM? Something must have happened at that point.

    I remember a conference some time ago now, and the FM’s body language spoke volumes when Mr Salmond rose to give her a peck on the cheek. I know it is easy to say now that something was awry, but it was obvious at the time, and I recall thinking that they had had a wee tiff or something, and then thinking little of it. Whatever happened, whatever the truth or otherwise of the FM’s evidence, whether it was party or government business, Nicola Sturgeon would never have survived Alex Salmond’s fall from grace had he been convicted – two SNP FMs with one stone. Cui bono within the party and cui bono outwith the party?

  85. Margaret Lindsay says:

    It’s a pity Alex Salmond resigned in 2014, then we wouldn’t have had to put up with this dastardly duo in charge now. I hope folk who have decided to vote yes who previously voted no, don’t revert when this shitstorm exploded further. Excellent work Stu, we’re indebted to you.

  86. A Person says:

    Oh well, seeing as they’re on opposite sides of the independence debate, no doubt Sturgeon and Murrell will be attacked for this by the likes of Andrew. Will, Alex Massie, Kenny Farquharson, George Galloway, etc… because surely they’re on different sides, no?

  87. Breeks says:

    Big Jock says:
    17 September, 2020 at 3:30 pm
    It makes absolute sense that Murrel would b the Judas.

    He is a power hungry individual. He wanted the empire for himself. To do so he needed a Queen. Nicola is the Queen of his empire. Salmond was the pretender to the throne and had to be eliminated.

    The nonsense is, if they’d actually delivered Independence, they’d have presided over a second Scottish Enlightenment, with a renaissance of Scottish Culture and heritage being re-examined after three centuries of impoverishment.

    No Empire, or Imperial mindset, but Scotland would have been jewel in the EU’s crown, leading the way in standards, sustainability, renewable energy, and (I very much hope), undertaking to restore Scotland’s Great Caledonian Pine Forest to something resembling the original, repopulated with indigenous species.

    Scotland will be a wealthy country, but I hope diligent with inward investment, preparing for future generations just as Norway has shown us. Scotland’s Islands could have been awash with investment, ferries, wildlife, whale watching, maybe even sea planes for island hopping… a really vibrant place to live and work, – Gaelic communities made safe and sustainable permanently…

    The truth will out in the end, and Scotland will know it’s friends from it’s enemies, wherever they are.

    If Murrell and Sturgeon had delivered, they’d have wanted for nothing in Scotland. They way things stand, it looks like ‘nothing‘ is exactly what they’ll be left with.

  88. Daisy Walker says:

    So, as more evidence comes out, in dribs and complicated drabs, our fellow Yessers who have invested so much emotional faith and hope in NS and the SNP are either going to refuse point blank to accept it (and blame any who try to get them to evaluate the information), or be broken hearted and demoralised.

    And we need them, they are our fellow Yessers, all be it they see a different path up the same mountain.

    The reason NS’s current policy of ‘we can only keep asking nicely for permission’ is twofold.

    It creates a bottleneck jammed up route to a direct vote at the ballot box (HE or WM).


    It creates enough discord and confusion, that we stop campaigning to educate our fellow voters in Scotland that we now need Indy to save Scotland.

    Getting support for Indy over 60% by years end (calls NS’s bluff – since she said this is a requirement) and would lead to the Brit Nat Establishment having an emergency meeting and deciding – do they keep investing in her as the new Tony Blair – and maintain the bottleneck/unused mandates, or do they throw her – and all the evidence against her – to the wolves, in a bid to discredit the SNP in the run up to HE.

    And there is one further possible course of action getting support for Indy over 60% before years end – she might jump rather than get pushed.

    But what else happens if we campaign now, and get yes over 60% by years end – we build momentum, we build confidence, we gain support (in every sense of the word) from former No voters (and like reformed smokers they are going to be formidable) and we are a rock for those let down by elements of the SNP in recent years.

    What’s that phrase? ‘play the ball not the man’.

    Right just now, regardless of NS and the SNP – regardless of did they/didn’t they, regardless of S30 order, regardless of the BBC, regardless of whether you think NS is corrupt or the new messiah.

    Right just now – we need to convince the voters in Scotland that they need to save their country and the only way to do it is with Indy. We get support for Indy over 60% by years end.

    Its not a big ask really – Believe in Scotland, Believe in You, We Can Do So Much Better Than Boris.

    Oh aye, and one more thing, hate to be the one to mention it, but the nights are fair drawin in…. winter is coming.

  89. Effijy says:

    O/T. Watched a news clip of a little girl and her sister walking into
    School for the first time.

    A very laboured strenuous walk but none the less wonderful
    When you hear she was told she would never walk by NHS

    Fund raisers were held and £100K raised to send her to America for treatment.

    We know from Cummings that the Tories don’t give a damn about the NHS or ordinary people
    But what would the cost be in providing wheelchairs of different sizes as she grows, taxis to school,
    perhaps a mobility vehicle in later life?

    The cost must be similar but one instance gives a child the chance of a normal mobile life.

    Sickening to think others might be in this same position but without the funds in 21st Century England.

  90. kapelmeister says:

    Put the immorality aspect temporarily aside and look at Murrell’s efforts to get the former FM. He wanted Salmond attacked on all fronts we’re told. This surely highlights how stupid and/or arrogant Murrell must be. If you’re slyly doing, as they say, a number on someone, you can’t attack on all fronts and not be found out. Especially against someone as clever as Alex.

    So this proves that as well as lack of moral fibre, with Murrell there’s lack of brains too. And this creature has been running the SNP for 21 years on a secret salary!

  91. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @kapelmeister –

    Murrell has been in place for 21 years?


  92. auld highlander says:

    And how much is Murrells secret salary reckoned to be?

  93. Breastplate says:

    I’m not quite sure why you think if Alex Salmond “fell” then so would Nicola Sturgeon shortly after.

    I’m of the opinion she would have distanced herself as much as possible, maybe even do that before the expected guilty verdict.
    Maybe even remove all mention of him from the party website?

  94. kapelmeister says:

    It’s clear that the Sturgeon fans have lost their ability to do joined up thinking.

    Supposing Sturgeon stays in office. Leads the SNP to victory in 2021. Then just suppose she amazes some of us and secures Scotland another indyref. The unionist establishment and media, which have been going remarkably easy on her over the Salmond case, would see their golden chance in the indyref2 campaign and would bring it all into the spotlight. And derail the Yes campaign.

    Not that Sturgeon can secure an indyref anyway. But even if she did she would be a total liability. She must go.

    Well Sturgeonites, there’s your introduction or re-introduction to joined up thinking.

  95. CameronB Brodie says:

    re.” ….Could we request legal assistance from the EU who can examine
    In detail the justice system that looks like being anything but just?

    The need to be put out of office and maybe put in prison.”

    Scots law might not have gotten around to defining legal protection of our Economic, Social, and Cultural rights (ESCR), due to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, but that does not mean they are not protected elsewhere.

    Guide: ESCR Litigation
    2.3.2 Violations of ESC rights

    Examples of violations and how judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have dealt them with across the world are addressed at length in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. The present section describes, at a general level, the nature of violations of rights.

    As mentioned in the introduction to this section, States may be responsible for a violation of human rights and ESC rights because they fail to take the measures necessary to realize the rights or because their conduct, whether through act or omission, has interfered with enjoyment of rights by individual or groups of individual rights-holders….

  96. Bob Mack says:

    It’s all very well stating put Independence above everything, but an innocent man could have been watching this unfold from a prison cell where he undoubtedly would have been spending hard time if the plot had worked.

    I think his legacy deserves better.I have no doubt now at all that Murrell was behind this.

  97. Republicofscotland says:

    I want Sturgeon and Murrell gone just as much as the next man or woman, but I want the union gone more. If there’s even the slightest chance that the power grab, (which will have wide ranging consequences for our parliament,and our country) will force Sturgeon’s hand on an independence referendum, (turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas) then shouldn’t we let it play out.

  98. Bob Mack says:


    What on earth do you think Kenny McAskill has been doing posting on Wings?

    He knows the power grab will happen because the SNP leadership is going to do nothing about it. Does he need to draw diagrams?

    Time is short. Many know this and are trying to react before it’s too late. It may already be.

  99. Beaker says:

    @stuart mctavish says:
    17 September, 2020 at 3:18 pm
    “Good point- doubtless including the ability to edit in real time, let alone years later!
    Which then begs the question, over and above the process by which such transcripts are accorded legal status (rather than eg potential smear status) as to how the prosecution had acquired this particular transcript and what benefit it sought to extract from it at trial.”

    What is needed is the device that a message was originally sent from, or the sim card. It is nearly impossible to permanently delete messages short of breaking the device.

    Having a copy of a message I don’t think would stand up in court. You need to prove who physically sent it.

    I see the point of editing messages. But if you go into the guts of a device you can see when a change was made and when. You may not be able to see what had been changed, but the change history will definitely be there. I’m not techy enough to know how it’s done.

  100. Frazerio says:

    It is standard compliance practice in business that married couples can’t hold top positions at the same time due to clear and obvious conflict of interest.
    In my first job one of the Partners married a head of department and the HoD had to leave the company. On Radio Scotland the other week, Tom English interviewed Suzie Wolf (former Scottish racing driver). She can’t get any job within Mercedes F1 team because her husband, Toto, runs the F1 side of things. German compliance forbids it.

    Who in tenSNP thinks its a good idea that the Chief Exec and Leader of a major political party are allowed to be a marred couple? This shouldn’t even be a discussion point. SNP members get it sorted please. It is clearly a hinderance to our main goal.

  101. Beaker says:

    “when a change was made and when”???

    omg looooong day

  102. Frazerio says:

    Marred couple, brilliant typo!!!

  103. Oneliner says:


    I preferred your tenSNP – how prophetic could that be?

  104. Heaver says:

    The SNP is old, tired, confused. All it wants is silence.

    One new, true, single issue Independance Party, and it’s gone.

  105. Republicofscotland says:

    “He knows the power grab will happen because the SNP leadership is going to do nothing about it. Does he need to draw diagrams?”


    That isn’t a certainty, the Holyrood parliament voted by a large majority against the Internal Powers bill, why then would they sit on their hands and do nothing to counterit, and in doing so they would be effectively damaging their own positions at Holyrood in the process.

    Sturgeon has said that she won’t hold an indyref until the Scottish economy recovers from the pandemic, however the power grab bill will affect Holyrood’s ability to function properly I can’t see Sturgeon, no matter how duplicitous she has been of late see her party go into demise when the power grab bill passes it way into law and by the first reading it looks like it probably will.

  106. The Truth Will Out says:

    Don’t mind admitting it, I thought Alex Salmond must be guilty when I heard 10 women came forward but, having followed the trial and worked out some other bits and pieces myself, it looks like a couple of wrong ‘uns set out to destroy him.

    Seems they’d plenty willing cohorts and at all levels too.

    The public aren’t as stupid as they think we are and we – the public – want answers.

  107. Big Jock says:

    Republic. I agree. If Sturgeon can deliver Indy, then why remove her.

    However I think we all know she can’t, and won’t. So I am afraid we have to think realistically about our future.

    Yes it wall cause problems. However not as many as leaving her to run down the clock on Scotland’s sovereignty.

  108. Bob Mack says:


    When the Internal Market Bill(now on its second reading) goes through, Holyrood can take any action it wants. It will be neutralised by the Bill passed in Westminster.

    Parish Council status politically comes to mind. The SNP will have lost power and credibility in one sitting and will be unable to control councils to stage the infrastructure for any type of vote on anything.

  109. holymacmoses says:

    Clydebuilt says:
    17 September, 2020 at 1:03 pm
    With the SNP and Independence riding high in the polls and an election coming up in May, the enemies of independence are desperate to damage the party and it’s current popular leader.
    Who are the enemies of independence?

    ‘It’ can never possess anything:-)

    Being Independent doesn’t mean we have to be run by a set of liars and much much worse.

    You’re not thinking too clearly about the consequences of NOT revealing what Sturgeon et al are capable of doing.

  110. susanXX says:

    No such things as transwomen, they are gender identify males ie gender nonconforming MEN. Suck it up scotgov.

  111. Republicofscotland says:

    Big Jock and Bob.

    Tell me guys can you say with any certainty that Sturgeon isn’t going to use the power grab, as weapon against the union, surely they’ll be public outcry for independence if Westminster railroads this through.

    I’m not saying that Sturgeon is a trustworthy politician,from what we’ve read she isn’t, but can both of you guys see a good scenario for the Scottish government if Sturgeon stands by and allows the power grab to successfully negate Holyrood, independence is surely the only viable alternative.

  112. Black Joan says:

    Kapelmeister @ 4.38 pm: ” This surely highlights how stupid and/or arrogant Murrell must be . . . as well as lack of moral fibre, with Murrell there’s lack of brains too.”

    There’s a common theme here. Woman H had her remarkably flexible versions of her story soundly demolished in the witness box and yet appears confidently to have expected her inconsistencies to outwit a roomful of senior lawyers and a diligent jury.

  113. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “both those newspapers articles (Johnson, Telegraph and Carrell,Guardian) claim that Alex Salmond was there in person.”

    Gah! I’ve been cross-referencing so many meetings recently that I mixed that one up with the one four days earlier. Fixed now.

  114. CameronB Brodie says:

    OT but here’s a bit more of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. If only Scotland’s legal Establishment wasn’t so disgustingly Tory in outlook, Scots might be able to enjoy some justice in their lives. I wasn’t joking folks, we’re being pumped from both ends.

    Your Human Rights
    Key concepts on ESCRs – Can economic, social and cultural rights be litigated at courts?

    Yes. Decisions of courts in countries from all regions of the world covering all economic, social and cultural rights demonstrate that these rights can be subject to judicial enforcement. Nonetheless, the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights has traditionally been questioned for a number of reasons.

    First, economic, social and cultural rights have been seen by some as being too “vaguely worded” to allow judges to justify decisions on whether violations have occurred. While adjudicating such rights may raise questions of what constitutes, for example, hunger, adequate housing, or a fair wage, judges have already dealt ably with questions of what constitutes torture, a fair trial or arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy. Filling in the gaps in legislation is a clear function of the judiciary, not only in human rights law but in any area of law.

    Second, the realization of economic, social and cultural rights depends heavily on Government policies. Yet, reviewing Government policies in this area, as in any other, to ensure that they are consistent with constitutional principles and obligations under international human rights law is clearly a function of the judiciary. While the role of the judiciary in reviewing Government policy may vary from country to country, policy review is not policymaking. The judiciary is therefore not overstepping its constitutional role by taking decisions on economic, social and cultural rights.

    Third, and linked to the previous point, some have questioned whether it is possible for a court to assess the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Monitoring progressive realization can rely on several mechanisms, including the courts. In South Africa, courts have assessed whether the State is meeting its obligations towards progressive realization by considering whether the steps taken by the Government are reasonable. A failure to take into account the needs of the most vulnerable in, for instance, a housing policy would suggest that the policy would not meet the test of reasonableness.

    Judicial enforcement of human rights is fundamental. A right without a remedy raises questions of whether it is in fact a right at all. This is not to say that judicial enforcement is the only, or indeed the best, way of protecting economic, social and cultural rights. However, judicial enforcement has a clear role in developing our understanding of these rights, in affording remedies in cases of clear violations and in providing decisions on test cases which can lead to systematic institutional change to prevent violations of rights in the future….

  115. Garavelli Princip says:

    “So unless there’s some sort of cataclysmic private war going on between Murrell and Sturgeon, well, readers can draw their own conclusions……….”

    Well – I’d love to say what I have heard.

    But on the wider front – to those of us who know how Sinn Fein and PIRA were penetrated by the security agencies, and how they operated in that case – this will all be very familiar.

    To be concise – they had operatives at the very top of the organisation, and a major modus operandi was to spread lies, rumours and innuendo by one faction against the others, to the extent that they ended up fighting among themselves, rather than against the enemy.

    Another method will be familiar to those aware of police agents provocateurs in the green movement: engage in intimate relationships with main players and gain intelligence and sow mayhem.

    The playbook is well known!

  116. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “And how much is Murrells secret salary reckoned to be?”

    Well into six figures.

  117. Bob Mack says:


    By the time she uses the power grab it will be already done.
    Westminster fund Councils direct and set standards. Holyrood will have no power to hold anything without council agreement.

    That is why it is imperative they act now.

  118. Kenny says:

    The two of them seriously remind me of the Macbeths (obviously, in Shakespeare’s version).

  119. twathater says:

    To all the people saying NS is the reason people are supporting the SNP and possibly independence, what happens if and when this shite gains public oxygen , are people just going to say poor wee Nicola she saved all oor lives against that bad covid , or are they going to be fed all the salacious deviant gossip that the bbc and MSM are holding in reserve , are they going to be fed the drag queen sex education teachers, or the sex education being taught to children that Anal sex is normal ,or that children should practice masturbation whilst watching porn on their parents computers, as taught in sex education in schools, or are they going to be fed msp’s allegedly engaging in grooming children

    I wonder what they will all think of poor wee Nicola and will she be as popular when the MSM reveal that she has presided and facilitated all this sleeze in her government, will they still think she’s a nice wumman and vote for her

  120. Oneliner says:

    Imagine you’re the MI5 operative in charge of the disruption of the SNP and the wider independence movement. You’re going to be feeling pretty smug that after years of intelligence gathering, your moles within the SNP have started to deliver results way above your expectations.

    Then another credible independence List party appears on the horizon. You have to start allover again.

    Bummer or what?

  121. crazycat says:

    @ RepublicofScotland at 5.50

    surely there’ll be public outcry for independence if Westminster railroads this through

    Only if the public knows about it; the Tories are presenting this as additional powers.

    (Also what Bob Mack says at 6.07)

  122. One_Scot says:

    To be honest I don’t really know much about this whole affair and I’m not really sure where I stand on the in’s and outs of it.

    But I have a genuine question, and please don’t shout at me too much for asking.

    If as a result of all of this Nicola Sturgeon ends up standing down, do you think that this situation will benefit the Independence cause or harm it?

  123. Duncan Clark says:

    Every day, I come closer to hoping to be killed with hammers.

    How big a crowdfunder would we need to get the moon to crash into us?

  124. CameronB Brodie says:

    Oneliner 🙂

  125. fillofficer says:


    “If Murrell and Sturgeon had delivered, they’d have wanted for nothing in Scotland. They way things stand, it looks like ‘nothing‘ is exactly what they’ll be left with”

    heartbreakingly poignant

  126. Black Joan says:

    Fillofficer, Breeks,

    “If Murrell and Sturgeon had delivered, they’d have wanted for nothing in Scotland. The way things stand, it looks like ‘nothing‘ is exactly what they’ll be left with”

    This is what is so utterly baffling about the whole sorry saga. Makes no sense unless there is some serious kompromat involved.

  127. Graeme says:

    I think reading the posts we’re a bit too focused on Murrell & Sturgeon, sometimes we need to take a step back and look at the broader picture and to me this is starting to explain one of the greatest mysteries in Scottish politics, Why was Leslie Evans not sacked ?
    Could it be because she knows too much ?
    The question is what does she know ?

  128. Andy Ellis says:

    There are doubtless many future PhD theses to be written about what happened to the SNP. The truth will out eventually of course, however long it takes.

    The archives will be opened, former loyalists will decide (or be paid enough) to break ranks and spill their guts, a significant anniversary will come around prompting a media exposé (“2059 and still no #indyref2! Where did it all go so wrong!!” etc. etc…).

    Some of us may not live to see it, or it may happen sooner than we think or at an unexpected juncture. I’m not sure how kind history will be to the party for its performance post 2014. There is of course plenty of blame to go around, not least the collective responsibility of the movement for letting these charlatans away with it for so long, but I feel sure the harshest judgement will, quite legitimately, be delivered against the leadership of Sturgeon, Murrell and their creatures in the party.

  129. Astonished says:

    One-Scot : It will help independence.

    The first minister has the mandate and the polling but has not called indyref2. And she appears to have no intention of calling it.

    Yet she has pushed forward the idiotic GRA reforms and Humza’s thought crime bill.

    It’s way past time we started to fight.

  130. Republicofscotland says:

    “By the time she uses the power grab it will be already done.
    Westminster fund Councils direct and set standards. Holyrood will have no power to hold anything without council agreement.”


    Its my belief that people only act, when an event is imminent, an example of that would be an election where most of the public don’t actually give it much attention until it approaches near the day of the voting.

  131. Republicofscotland says:

    “surely there’ll be public outcry for independence if Westminster railroads this through”


    I’m quietly confident the 92 MSP’s who’ve voted against the power grab will be vocal about it,when Westminster attempt to push it through.

  132. fillofficer says:

    Black Joan

    i’ve read that most elected SNP representatives are unaware of the long term plans of the inner sanctum

    maybe they just assume, same as us, that moves are afoot

    the events of 31 jan was my wake-up call

    realised FM NS was compromised into passivity

  133. Bob Mack says:


    I completely understand that philosophy of waiting to see what happens or failing to act because you didn’t know.

    However there is no room for that here. When Johnson passes the Internal Market Bill he minimises the power and financial status of Holyrood. In addition he cuts our ability to legislate on numerous areas.

    Hollywood becomes a symbolic gesture whilst Westminster governs via local Councils and the Scottish Office. Now we know why do many civil servants have been taken on in Scotland.

    It is too late.

  134. Breeks says:

    This I find incredible…

    To quote, “I don’t think an independence referendum is a priority “at this time” either because we are still in the middle of a pandemic…

    I honestly don’t get the mindset. Some SNP seem to see COVID as a great excuse to do nothing with a clear conscience, while the rest of the world see COVID as an obstacle that requires ingenuity to get around and somehow make progress in spite of COVID… (and by that, I don’t mean psychotic Brexit nutters like Boris Johnson, who are dumb enough to greet COVID and shake it by the hand).

    To me, that waiting strategy is like a rabbit sitting in the headlights, which isn’t going to move until the riddle of the big white lights has been resolved. Gradualism is exasperating enough, but this isn’t gradualism, this is worse than gradualism.

    What’s actually wrong with these people? Are they drugged on some kind of tranquillisers? There seems no survival instinct, no urgency, nor any situational awareness to the impending devastation, ETA December.

    For my part, not only do I think a referendum next year is much too little, much too late, it is already too late for any referendum coming to the rescue in the time slot available. It MUST be a decisive legal / Constitutional response delivered BEFORE December, with democratic ratification to follow on some time later.

  135. Black Joan says:


    It’s looking increasingly likely that they are unaware because there ARE no plans, of course.

    The generally supine tolerance of the Murrell/Sturgeon dominance is also hard to understand. A party machine that allowed FM and CEO to be a married couple must have had a rotten rule book, even before it was revealed as being capable of launching the Get Salmond outrage.

  136. CameronB Brodie says:

    “It is too late.”

    Haivers. It’s too late when the people allow the government and judiciary to shape the law in a manner that is harmful to their well-being and culture. We’re not quite there yet.

    There are well developed avenue to enable Scots to access international justice (ECHR, ICJ), simply a lack of will to acknowledge them by our Establishment. 🙁

    International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 11, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 270–274
    Socio-Economic Rights. Adjudication under a Transformative Constitution

  137. Bob Mack says:


    Far as I know Westminster are shaping the law right now in spite of your theories. Maybe tell them eh?

  138. CameronB Brodie says:

    OK, we are past the point of our Establishment inflicting legal harm on us. I meant IRREPARABLE harm.

  139. CameronB Brodie says:

    Bob Mack
    I was too quick on the trigger and didn’t squirm my wurds correctly. 😉

    The Convergence of Constitutions and International Human Rights: Taiwan and South Korea in Comparison

  140. Bob Mack says:


    Repairing bad or faulty legislation at Westminster can take decades. The European Court of Justjce is one of the first items on the Brexit list to be sidelined in favour of UK law. They will be powerless.

  141. CameronB Brodie says:

    Scotland could do with a few legal officers who did not believe that the legal universe is bounded by British constitutional practice, or that time began in 1707. In other words, law officers who understood how respected the law, rather than the diktats of Westminster’s authoritarian legal exceptionalism. Just saying.

    Constitutionalizing Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in the New Millenium

  142. Bob Mack says:


    International law is just as bad. Have you heard of the Mandate for Palestine, decreed by the International Court in 1922. It simply said that the Jewish people had a legal right to parts of Palestine. It was never superceded.

    Not very fair to Palestinians but there you go.

  143. Bryan says:

    MI5 now own WOS and if you support him your a lackey of WM.

  144. CJ Robertson says:

    Good leak,bad leak?

  145. Bob Mack says:


    You put much faith in the law justice and human rights, but actually in every country they are very different. The law is the law the world over. It’s expected standards for the population in terms of right of wrong.

    Justice in the UK could mean a £50 fine for theft whilst in the Middle East it could mean loss of your hands.

    Human Rights are a noble ideal. A Nirvana. They will remain so forever. Since time immemorial we have groups and countries who violate for their own designs. Concerns 23rd century we will still be talking about them. Maybe sooner.

  146. Joe says:

    @Bob Mack

    Please. Cut the anti-semitism. These people are a powerless minority who need our constant support and government donations along with laws criminalising criticism of any of them or for any insensitive questions regarding post-war propaganda sorry – i mean history 🙂

  147. Bob Mack says:


    Do you have an “A” level in stupidity? . I think you could go on to do a Masters.

  148. Bob Mack says:


    It’s just historical fact.

  149. Beaker says:

    Just had a thought (I know, careful now).

    Did Ian Blackford not have a falling out with Alex Salmond over the SNP finances when he was treasurer? So I can guess where his loyalties lie.

  150. CameronB Brodie says:

    Bob Mack
    International law has evolved significantly since then, as has public morality and constitutional practice in the civilised world. International law and is open to settling disputes brought to it by individuals and groups denied fundamental rights. Just as well, as neither our government or judiciary appear to be capable of supporting the rule-of-law. Effectively anyway.

    African Human Rights Law Journal >> 2014 >> [2014] AHRLJ 32
    Judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights in South Africa and the separation of powers objection: The obligation to take ‘other measures’ (Chapter 16 Vol 2) [2014] AHRLJ 32


    The framework for constitutional democracy in South Africa assigns to the courts a pivotal role in assuring effective protection and translation of the range of entrenched socio-economic rights into material entitlements. This has enabled the courts in some instances to exercise considerable authority that has significantly influenced policy to the extent that power relations between the judiciary and the political arms of government have been threatened.

    Proponents of the doctrine of the separation of powers have expressed concerns, claiming that the meddling of the courts in the domain of policy making is politically incorrect. Consequently, the judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights has increasingly suffered setbacks, which to a large extent have retarded the constitutional vision of social transformation.

    Thus, in spite of South Africa’s acclaimed global leadership in the enforcement of socio-economic rights, little has actually been accomplished in terms of improving the livelihood for victims of socio-economic deprivation. Considering that the enforcement of socio-economic rights is context-specific, I question the rationale for avoiding a ‘jurisprudence of exasperation’, which demonstrates greater potential to produce transformative outcomes than the preferred ‘jurisprudence of accountability’ which has shown little transformative effect.

    Just as the realisation of socio-economic rights through political strategies amounts to material entitlement, I argue that the result of positive adjudication should equally amount to entitlement to the same material things promised by the rights in question. I conclude with the suggestion that the judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights should be seen as a complementary strategy to the political objective of social transformation, rather than as an oppositional force to the proper functioning of government.

    Key words:
    socio-economic rights; South African Constitution; judicial enforcement; separation of powers; ‘other measures’

  151. Joe says:

    @Bob Mack

    But what if facts are anti-semitic?

  152. Beaker says:

    @Bob Mack says:
    17 September, 2020 at 8:10 pm
    “Justice in the UK could mean a £50 fine for theft whilst in the Middle East it could mean loss of your hands.”

    Losing a hand for a first offence I suppose reduces the chance of a second…

  153. CameronB Brodie says:

    Bob Mack
    There’s a reply to you in moderation, that points to the need for judicial support for ESCR, of which there appears to be little in Scotland.

  154. Bob Mack says:


    Ask the International Court. Though they were probably pro Semitic in this instance rather than anti.

  155. Joe says:

    @Bob Mack

    I can’t wait for our new hate crime bill to come in and lock away brutes like you and your horrid views.

  156. Bob Mack says:


    I’ve seen people pick pockets with their toes. True.

  157. ben madigan says:

    With regards to SNP policy that Scotland can’t hold a Referendum because of Covid – Scots might like to know Italy is holding a Constitutional Referendum about reducing the number of MPs in the Italian parliament this Sunday and Monday, that’s right Sept 20th and 21st 2020. And Italy’s got Covid too!

    @ Breeks who wrote “not only do I think a referendum next year is much too little, much too late, it is already too late for any referendum coming to the rescue in the time slot available. It MUST be a decisive legal / Constitutional response delivered BEFORE December, with democratic ratification to follow on some time later.”

    I agree completely. The time to act is now. In some way, any way Scotland needs to halt/delay the Brexit process for herself if she wants Independence. Personally speaking I would throw as many legal irons as possible into the International Courts, hoping for success with at least 1. But in any case buying time for Scotland to get its act together.

    Like many, I am unable to countenance this terrible SNP policy of stalling and stonewalling.

  158. Bob Mack says:


    Do you know what Interpretation used to mean in grammer?

    Did you fail?

  159. Albaman says:

    “Divide and Conquer”, Aye. It’s working, as was the intention.

  160. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    When I saw that story in The National today, I was fascinated. A few scales fell from my eyes. Murrell attacking his old boss because of previous feelings of inadequacy from working under him. Also getting revenge for his ‘missus’ having to step aside for Alex Salmond to take Scotland into the indyref, and making sure his old boss could never come back as FM. Interesting how we always think of the FM and never of her spouse. Made perfect sense.

  161. Bob Mack says:


    But who is doing the dividing? That’s the question.

  162. CameronB Brodie says:

    Bob Mack
    Suggesting that post-modern critical social theory is a Jewish plot to enslave humanity, is twisting history to support a view that indicates an intrinsic hostile towards Jews. It is also straight out of the Big Boys Book of How To Be A Nazi. So when he suggested the Nazis weren’t that bad, it’s a pretty good indicator that something’s not quite right with the lad. 😉

  163. Bob Mack says:

    Albanian (sorry)

  164. Ian McCubbin says:

    Keep up your investigation and analysis of this case Stu.
    Well done the only clarity around.

  165. Tannadice Boy says:

    Another excellent article. Stu you hold the MSM to shame. A real investigative journalist trying to get to the truth in murky waters. Yer team is doing well. A small consolation in these troubled times.

  166. cynicalHighlander says:

    FM has to go ASAP we have no other choice IMO. She and Evans with both of their partners are the gang of four in this stitch up attempt.

  167. Asklair says:

    Keep going, keep digging, no one else will, cheers.

  168. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    ‘kapelmeister says:
    17 September, 2020 at 4:38 pm

    So this proves that as well as lack of moral fibre, with Murrell there’s lack of brains too. And this creature has been running the SNP for 21 years on a secret salary!’

    Sure that would be news to Alex Salmond.

  169. Contrary says:



    Timing is everything.

    So. BritNat rags are revealing little leaks here and there. They will not deploy any career-destroying information until the perfect time of just before the Holyrood election – hell why not do it during purdah, doesn’t matter up you break the rules as long as Empire flows in your veins.

    So – a question – is the full horror going to break, and is it career destroying? (For Nicola sturgeon, a scandal about her husband isn’t hugely relevant to votes)

    If the answer to both those questions is ‘yes’, then the only chance of salvaging anything for a pro-Indy majority at Holyrood is for the scandal to break now.

    Nicola Sturgeon could have stepped down with dignity years ago, but it seems obvious she won’t do that – she’s playing this to the end by the looks of it. If she lied to parliament, she’s broken the ministerial code and will need to resign – is that correct? So her career is in jeopardy – hah, she’s put independence in jeopardy the uncaring witch – and with the enquiries and leaks, it will probably all come out….

    Fucks sake, the SNP have made a complete dogs dinner of this – and you have to try hard to make this big an arse of things.

    Things are actually going to go backward aren’t they – the Nicola-popularity vote is gone and all those people that feel ‘betrayed’ will likely decide that means they don’t like independence after all (because that’s the sort of non-logic people that have faith in politicians tend to follow), maybe just briefly,,, but briefly at the wrong time could have unfortunate consequences. And are likely to.

    Okay, so it’s inevitable it’s going to happen – correct me if I’m wrong – and if the BritNat press and BBC and unionist polititians are in control of WHEN, they will deploy it either at Holyrood election or an Indyref to our detriment – that means the process needs to be speeded up.

    It’s not exactly ‘control’ over the situation and the outcome will be a wildcard – it may be devastating – but, but, there is also a chance that things will glue back together, SNP gains some semblance of order, or a new party or several viable ones (containing the existing politicians that have some credibility) emerge in time for HE.

    Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want Nicola Sturgeon in charge of anything to do with Indy – she doesn’t have any of the skills necessary to do it (she obviously knows that herself the way she has studiously avoided it) and couldn’t negotiate her way out of a paper bag – but with so much happening and time so short and her with a high popularity rating – if we could have used that to get us through (this would need some influence or control over her obviously,,, ). It doesn’t matter so much about her backstabbing morality.

    We are half way through September already,,, fuck. Well, I’d better start the no-deal Brexit food-stash again,,, and better make it a bigger more comprehensive one I guess for the combined economic disaster. And the,,, Ach PISH

  170. Bob Mack says:

    I’m pretty sure the Rev knows most of the facts already. Obviously he is extremely limited in the way he can present those facts in a fashion that is not like playing dodge the ball in a legal minefield.

    He seems convinced there is a case to answer and today’s revelation supports that.

  171. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    ‘CameronB Brodie says:
    17 September, 2020 at 8:30 pm
    Bob Mack
    Suggesting that post-modern critical social theory is a Jewish plot to enslave humanity, is twisting history to support a view that indicates an intrinsic hostile towards Jews.’

    So, ya know…

  172. Scotland`s Watergate,

    wonder who is acting as `Deep Throat` (behave) and leaking all the info to the hacks,

    SNP has always had a problem with security leaks from way back.

    Deep Throat turned out to be FBI , they got their info the same way as Nixon was caught trying to get his info.

  173. Bob Mack says:


    Todah Rabah.

  174. CameronB Brodie says:

    OT again, but I think I should re-post this in case my reply to Bob doesn’t clear. It might be of use to those interested in the judicial role in realising Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Which are ours by dint of being human, and there for the taking with the correct approach to the law. So it’s just unfortunate you’re on to plumbs in Scotland, as our legal Establishment are all Tories, apparently.

    African Human Rights Law Journal >> 2014 >> [2014] AHRLJ 32
    Judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights in South Africa and the separation of powers objection: The obligation to take ‘other measures’ (Chapter 16 Vol 2) [2014] AHRLJ 32

  175. CameronB Brodie says:

    Bob Mack
    You’re welcome. 😉

  176. LeggyPeggy says:

    What is more annoying is while of this was going on at Snp headquarters all the members and activists within the party were out working their socks off campaigning , manning stalls , leafleting and chapping doors all year round to convince people to vote for the party .

    They worked bloody hard for the two election campaigns last year for the Eu and Westminster elections especially for the December election when it was winter weather and that’s what hurts the most out of all of this happening but it’s nothing compared to what they’ve put Alex Salmond and his family and friends through .

    The party needs cleared out from the very top , the whole headquarters and especially the NEC committee after stitching up the rules to stop Joanna Cherry and others standing in Holyrood .

    As my granny would have said “ it’s time to lance the boil and get the poison out “

  177. Contrary says:

    Right, so, the section 30 review court hearing starts on 30th September (and should only be maybe 3 days, and a week for judges to produce a judgement) – yes I know we don’t actually need a s30, and I know we should not even be asking for it, but the SNP insist they need it – so IF that says the law as it stands allows for a referendum without a s.30 (40 – 50% chance of this, so it not a no-hoper) – then by mid-October we can put serious pressure on all pro-Indy MSPs to get on and hold an indyref – could if be organised for December?

    Shit time of year to have a vote – but a lot of visceral fear of no-deal Brexit driving people to go out and vote, we don’t need sunshine for that.

  178. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’m in no position to judge the science’s integrity, but the subject is rather suggestive of English Zionism, which was a culturally influential social fad in 19th England, that encouraged the belief that the English were second only to the Jews in the eyes if God. I’m pretty sure what we are experiencing today is not unconnected with contemporary English Zionism, and attendant ideologies.

  179. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    ‘CameronB Brodie says:
    17 September, 2020 at 9:05 pm
    I’m in no position to judge the science’s integrity, but the subject is rather suggestive of English Zionism, which was a culturally influential social fad in 19th England, that encouraged the belief that the English were second only to the Jews in the eyes if God. I’m pretty sure what we are experiencing today is not unconnected with contemporary English Zionism, and attendant ideologies.’

  180. Robert Graham says:

    A bit sad reading a lot of the comments , sad because I probably agree with most if not all of them , the list of really disturbing things that have been done by the current SNP management , is not rumour , or innuendo The really damming evidence and facts that are slowly becoming obvious to once totally loyal supporters is starting to leave a very sour tast , and a real sense of betrayal , in these circumstances most competent leaders would make efforts to resolve any questions over events that have happened , the selective use of one newspaper in order to get information out that really shouldn’t be in the Public Domain not only raises more questions it points to a real vendetta being pushed , if it was being pushed by outside influences I would have thought the SNP government would be loudly protesting ,

    Listen carefully

    No your hearing is not impaired

    That’s the sound of Silence

    And that answers all my Questions.

    Conclusion . Disgusted and very very troubling a once trusted organisation showing really strange and what now appears accepted dubious practices , The SNP management has lost trust , lost members , and more worryingly Lost its Way and evidently it’s whole Purpose .A Very Sad Time for us all , totally self inflicted it should have never come to this point .

  181. Mist001 says:

    I just read the report in the Herald for the first time about ten minutes ago.


    But what happens next?

    She’s obviously using Covid and the threat of lockdown as a deflection tactic and I’ll be in absolute despair if this matter is allowed to just fizzle out and be forgotten about as seems to be par for the course these days.

    Keep up the good work Rev, this is THE reason I visit wings despite everything else telling me not to waste my time.

    As an aside, it has always been my belief that the Murrell marriage was simply one of convenience and just for appearances sake, a bit like these usually Tories who are happily married in a heterosexual marriage until they’re found out with a rent boy. I see a similar thing with Mr. and Mrs. Murrell, so I think you’re on the money with the statement, “So unless there’s some sort of cataclysmic private war going on between Murrell and Sturgeon, well, readers can draw their own conclusions.”

    My conclusion was drawn a long time ago regarding this pair of charlatans.

  182. stuart mctavish says:

    @ Beaker @5:12

    The when and the when highlights the error of my original comment because, whilst document discovery during the judicial review would imply some foreknowledge (of the document(s) being sought), disclosure for the criminal case simply infers that the documents being disclosed were collated by the prosecutor for use in the prosecution.

    Accordingly, assuming it did not accidentally mislead Craig Murray, COPFS must, at some point, have intended to use records of a conspirational plot against Mr Salmond, as part of its (cunning) case for the prosecution of Mr Salmond!

  183. Beaker says:

    @Contrary says:
    17 September, 2020 at 9:02 pm
    “then by mid-October we can put serious pressure on all pro-Indy MSPs to get on and hold an indyref – could if be organised for December?
    Shit time of year to have a vote – but a lot of visceral fear of no-deal Brexit driving people to go out and vote, we don’t need sunshine for that.”

    Playing Devil’s Advocate for a moment, a December vote won’t happen. Given the current rise of COVID infections across Europe, do you honestly believe any minister is going to risk a rushed vote that could backfire?

    Over a million people have now downloaded the Scot Test Trace App (me included). Imagine the outcome if after that thousands of people suddenly had to isolate as Christmas approaches?

    COVID infections are rising in Europe at a higher rate than in March. Given we are usually two months behind, that’s going to be really bad timing, especially as the winter flu season will be in full swing.

    There are a few people screaming for an indy vote now, as if we are in a cup final with 2 minutes to play, forgetting that fuck all was done for the preceding 88 minutes. The only course of action is to rush everything in a last gasp effort. Rarely works in football (Man Utd excepted) and not going to work in politics.

  184. CameronB Brodie says:

    You’ve got to laugh at folk who still haven’t twigged to my outlook being scientifically, ethically, and legally robust.

    Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850

  185. Lorna Campbell says:

    Breastplate: the reasons for thinking that Nicola Sturgeon would have fallen, too, are: 1. she could not have distanced herself from the flak emanating from the Unionist parties; they would have nailed her as they are trying to nail her now in the inquiry, but with far greater success, every document and email demanded; 2. Alex Salmond’s supporters would have created such a shitstorm, as they are doing now, but with far greater success. There would have been no way for her to escape it. I am not trying to cover the FM’s back here, I am telling it as I see it, and the Carmichael affair was the first indication, to my mind, that she, too, is in the firing line.

    I do think that there was a move against the former FM. I believe that the informal complaints, having been dealt with, should never have been resurrected at all. I have tried to visualize a scenario where the FM had active participation in Mr Salmond’s downfall, rather than, perhaps, just giving it all a nod of approval on the informal complaints (Mr Salmond did admit to some inappropriate behaviour but never to criminal behaviour) and keeping her distance. She is not a stupid woman, so she must have been aware that she could, and very probably would, be dragged down with Mr Salmond. She could not risk being involved herself. The whole affair might even have toppled the SG in the end because any inquiry that followed a conviction would have been very much deeper and far more ruthless than this one.

    That there are people within the SNP who are feeding information to the media, who are feeding information to, and doing the bidding of, the British State is a given, but there are also those within the party machine itself who are having their strings pulled even as they pull the strings of others. This is a double-layered cake. I know the classic response is: och, paranoia. It is not; it is precisely how the British State works, using people from within to undermine from without. The pattern is there. So many of the SG’s apologists insist that this is fantasy, that there is nothing untoward, others, more sceptical, believe that the whole shenanigans are contained within the SG itself, but see no outside influence. Time will unravel the truth, as it did in NI and in the colonies.

  186. Tannadice Boy says:

    Follow the Revs lead keep it factual. We don’t have to personalise the argument. The net is closing on the SNP leadership.

  187. Republicofscotland says:

    “I completely understand that philosophy of waiting to see what happens or failing to act because you didn’t know.”


    I’m pretty sure Sturgeon knows what’s going to happen with regards to the power grab bill, she can’t plead ignorance on this one.

    I guess I’m hoping that as Johnson breaks International Law and rides roughshod over devolution that Sturgeon uses Johnson’s illegalities to hold an indyref with or without a S30 order. I’m confident the International community would understand and back it. Now that the UK is seen as untrustworthy on the treaties front.

  188. David Morgan says:

    Why did the do this to Mr Salmond?

  189. Clydebuilt says:

    Big Jock @ 5.35pm

    “However I think we all know she can’t and won’t “. (Deliver independence)

    On 13th March 2017 Sturgeon launched an Independence campaign, soon after May announced a UK GE. For June. The SNP lost MPs. The campaign was stalled.

    If she had what it took to go for Indy in 2017 why would she not go for it with the SNP and Independence riding high in the polls.

  190. Beaker says:

    @stuart mctavish says:
    17 September, 2020 at 9:31 pm
    “The when and the when highlights the error of my original comment ”

    Naw, my error was simple bloody bad grammar. I think I was trying to write “how and when” but got bamboozled 🙂

  191. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’m just fortunate to have a powerful skill-set and a strong desire for justice. I’m sure there are more like me, who are in a better position to lead a grass-roots petition to international law. At least I hope there is.


    ….Jeremy Bentham’s powerful metaphor of “Injustice, and her handmaid Falsehood” reminds us,4 if we need reminding, that justice requires not only just laws, and just administration of those laws, but also factual truth- objective
    factual truth; and that in consequence the very possibility of a just legal system requires that there be objective indications of truth, i.e., objective standards of better or worse evidence.

    Any case would illustrate the point, but the case of Kerry Kotler is especially vivid: in 1992, after serving eleven years of a twenty-five-to-fifty year sentence for r4pe, Kotler was released from prison when DNA evidence established that he was not the perpetrator; less than three years later, he was charged with another r4pe, and again convicted -this time on DNA evidence.’

    But unless there were an objective fact of the matter about which r4pe, or r4pes, Kotler committed, and unless DNA
    evidence were objectively more truth-indicative than eyewitness testimony, etc., this would be, not justice, but a ghastly farce. Not to labor the point: the law is up to its neck in epistemology….

  192. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Please don’t forget to keep up with what regular WOS commenter Craig Murray is doing:

  193. Ron Maclean says:

    A new leader must win a majority at Holyrood 21 as well as re-introduce the idea of independence following Brexit and during a pandemic. After six years of inaction from Ms Sturgeon there won’t be much in the bottom drawer. A new leader will have to provide leadership, vision, policies, courage, determination and a way ahead. That’s a bit more than we’ve been used to and might take some time.

    If a new leader wants a surfeit of pedantic, irrelevant links …

  194. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    ‘CameronB Brodie says:
    17 September, 2020 at 9:45 pm
    I’m just fortunate to have a powerful skill-set and a strong desire for…’

    Please feel free to…go away. The mix of mentally ill, superior-feeling, schizoid, hateful, stupid, arrogant, and chaotic you give off..I don’t know why Stu tolerates you, if you are even one person, and not a group of zoomers reporting round-the-clock.

  195. Big Jock says:

    So Murrel was at the heart of the Salmond conspiracy.

    Why is this no surprise to me. Murrel is not working for Scotland.He is our enemy within.

    This is going to be horrible. But if it gets rid of Murrel it’s worth it. The man is beneath contempt.

  196. Bob Mack says:


    Because by May Holyrood will have no power to speak of.

    Johnson is diverting power and funding to councils direct and the Scottish Office. He is also taking over legislative control of Scottish affairs. That’s the problem. Hollywood will have no leverage at all by May.

  197. crazycat says:

    @ Contrary at 9.02

    Right, so, the section 30 review court hearing starts on 30th September

    Will it, though, now that ukgov’s representative has resigned? Maybe they can’t delay it and will either have to nominate another spokesbod or do without a presence. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, if they manage to wangle something.

  198. mr thms says:

    October 2016

    “MacAskill backs “federal” solution to constitutional stalemate

    Scotland should consider the prospect of a federal future, according to the ex-SNP minister Kenny MacAskill.”

    August 2017

    ” Kenny MacAskill: It is time to restate the case for a federal solution”

    October 2019

    “Many who so far haven’t been persuaded about independence have preferred federalism. But two issues mitigate against that. Firstly, there’s no real clamour for it south of the Border.

    For sure the large cities are benefiting from the power and status they’ve been granted, but there’s little push for it elsewhere in England.

    Moreover, with the Tories intent on offering no more devolution – or even removing some rights – and Jeremy Corbyn having as much interest in it as in shinty, then it’s not happening. That’s even before the difficulties of asymmetrical federalism are considered. That’s where you have one large and one small entity which international examples show to be much harder to operate than the normal situation of numerous members of varying sizes, in the style of German lander or Canadian provinces.

    Secondly, and more importantly, federalism doesn’t provide the nation state status necessary for international recognition and, most vitally, for EU membership. Many voted No in 2014 worried about an independent Scotland losing it, now it may be the only way of retaining it.

    A devolved or even federal Scotland wouldn’t be a member of the EU, never mind other international organisations. I hope the rest of the UK choose to remain but it’s looking finely balanced with the most likely option being some soft Brexit with a consequent loss or rights and influence. For many, that makes an independent Scotland in the EU preferable.”

    January 2020

    “Keir Starmer, the Labour leadership frontrunner, has called for a fully federal UK, devolving power to the nations and regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland after Brexit.

    The shadow Brexit secretary said only a new federal structure for the UK could “repair the shattered trust in politics”,”

    I am curious about what does Mr Macaskill thinks about the new leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer supporting a federal England and if he believes the SNP should put independence on the back burner and embrace federalism?

  199. Jules says:

    Guys, you do realise that Nicola is probably the main reason why we’re 10% ahead on a Yes/No question right now?

    I have no affinity to any party, or leader, or leadership group. Only to Indy, after which we can all fight like ferrets in a sack about policies and personalities, just like every other country does.

    But if Nicola goes or is holed below the water line, we lose our lead for Yes. Of course, the case for independence goes far beyond any one person. But given that we finally, for the first time in over 300 years, have a consolidated majority for independence… and the yoons on the run… well, to blow that would destroy me, to be honest. Those revelling in this – please think carefully.

  200. Bob Mack says:

    @Mr Thms,

    Kenny has called for federalism to acknowledge that Scots who were not ready for full Independence would still be governed whilst still keeping the hope of Indy alive for its supporters.

    Instead we got the fudge of the Smith Commission.

  201. Bob Mack says:


    Revelling is perhaps the wrong word in this case. More drowning.

  202. CameronB Brodie says:

    Careful now, you’re stepping into the realms of abuse, as I’ve made my disability public knowledge, on a number of occasions. Mind now, I’m a bit of a ninja social scientist and rusty student of the law.

    I’m only hostile to those who deserve it IMHO, mostly right-wingers but also snobs and sexists, though there are strong cognitive links between these identity traits. I’m happy to apologise when wrong, so you might want to reflect on the fact that I’ve not offered you one, and appear unlikely to do so. Btw, the only reason I’m having to get all pissy and superior, is because of the resistance to my approach, which is what the RTPI thought the best approach to the decolonisation of British culture. Strange that.

  203. robertknight says:

    Jules @ 10:16

    Late to the party?

    The reason “that – we’re 10% ahead on a Yes/No question right now?“ is absolutely bugger all to do with NS. She’s done nothing, zip, nada on the Indy front for years!

    The Academy Award for best recruiting Sergeant for Yes” goes to Boris “Ass-wipe” Johnson for “Hard Brexit”.

  204. Jules says:

    Robertknight 10:27, I respectfully disagree. Boris is a great asset to Yes, granted. But it’s the comparison between him and Nicola that’s swung it.

    Her personal approval ratings of up to 82% during the pandemic mean she’s reached parts of the electorate that the SNP or Yes movement simply have never been able to reach before. She’s earned these people’s respect and gratitude, and the right to be heard. These are huge assets for a political leader who could be about to lead a referendum campaign, and we jettison them at our peril.

  205. Willie says:

    Given our constitution, and the tights of the people of Scotland can we stop Brexit through purely legal means.

    A legal challenge would most surely put a spoke in the Brexiteer’s wheels. They can try and break the law, they can unilaterally try and do as the please, but we can challenge and stay within the law, and international law too.

    As for Sturgeon and Murrell a private prosecution for the abuse of office would be in order for them. But they will be history soon.

  206. Bob Mack says:


    Impressed by a woman who helped plot send an innocent man to jail for life for political gain ?

    Ok then.

  207. David Wardrope says:

    @Jules 10:16pm

    You might have a point. However, if any serious actions of corruption were to occur which betray the trust of the people (or even perhaps the law) and if those actions were by senior players in political parties charged and trusted with guiding Scotland to independence, would turning a blind eye and swallowing our morals be a path we’re willing to walk in the name of chasing our goal?

    Is it really independence at ANY cost?

  208. Breastplate says:

    I don’t agree with your premise that Nicola Sturgeon was not involved in Alex Salmond’s fit up because she wouldn’t have been able to avoid the flak if he was found guilty.

    It is certainly a valid view but I also don’t believe the evidence backs it up. You are of course entitled to believe that if you wish and I can not say it is impossible that you are correct but my own personal view is that it is improbable.

  209. Bob Mack says:

    Nicola Sturgeon 2014. “My aim is to build a better Scotland that all those who live here can be proud of” I believed her then. I don’t now.

  210. mr thms says:

    Bob Mack @ 10:20 pm

    Seems to me he has no excuse not to back Sir Keir Starmer since he is now the leader of the Labour Party and he has said he wants federalism for the regions of England.

    The UK is/was a signatory to the Treaty of Lisbon. Its long name is…

    “Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community”

    And the UK government has invoked Article 50.

    But I have my doubts very the UK want to leave the EU because Part 5 says a country can rejoin under Article 48.

    Something else is going on. What can it be? Is it the dissolution of the UK? Is it the reunification of Ireland? Is it a federal UK? The EU Commission, the UK and Scottish governments with their treaties and new UK and Scottish laws incorporating EU law into UK and Scottish law are preparing the groundwork for what? And it isn’t a power grab.

  211. stuart young says:

    Indy always SNP not so much now

  212. Al-Stuart says:

    Thank you Stuart Campbell. Thankyou Kenny MacAskill.

    This article is titled: Cracks In the Fog.

    It feels more like: Light At The End of The Tunnel.

    At long last we have some hope that the truth will out. That we will see the end of Sturgeon, Murrell and the McWokeists.

    Just for curiosity I Googled some words…

    “Peter Murrell” and “Alex Salmond”.

    It returned over TEN major newspaper articles already, SIX of those being mainstream. This has got legs and the oxygen of publicity along with the disinfectant of sunlight. Thank goodness.

    Kenny, you and Stuart are helping LANCE THE BOIL. That septic carbuncle of a man with 30 pieces of silver in his pocket is set to stop grinning and start a job serving spuds whilst resident on B Wing at the new HMP Glasgow. Sturgeon will soon be volunteering at the Dreghorn Foodbank and Leslie Evans will be unemployable.

    Stuart, when you were interviewed by Alex Salmond a long while back, you made a comment stating that you HOPED YOU WERE WRONG about the current First Minister.

    Stu., you were not wrong. Thank you for staying the course. When wee pricks like Scot Goes Plop were having digs and all the Sturgeonite supporters were giving you dogs abuse, you kept digging.

    I think it is reasonable to state Sturgeon and Murrells shelf life is limited. They will be getting their jotters and in a fair & just world will be stripped of their pension and liberty.

    But there is a really hard job ahead of EVERYONE who wants Scottish Independence…

    How the Helll do we repair all the fallout between (a) those that saw through the Murrells and (b) the SNP Party faithful who will soon, genuinely be licking their wounds?

    That will be THE BIG JOB.

    Repairing the damage after Sturgeon has gone will take a bromdignagian amount of political talent.

    Without someone to repair the damage wrought by that pair of tractor drivers, we are still no further forward with gaining our Independence from the English Tory Government.

  213. Contrary says:

    @ Beaker

    I appreciate devils advocate type arguments, it helps with considering all angles. As someone mentioned above – Italy is having a referendum this month (although,,, I’m not sure Italy is a nation known for ,,, it’s prudent actions, so I’ll say no more about it!). You think this is rushing things? Well, it wouldn’t be a rush if the referendum had been planned for – as it should have been after all these years, and draft bills, and asking for section 30s – it should only need to be deployed, things set in motion.

    The authorities threw together a hospital in a couple of weeks – a referendum should be easier in a few months. But yes, the Covid issue, IS an issue. You could make it a predominantly postal ballot. Or declare independence based on opinion polls – do the paperwork first then do the vote later effectively. Are we having a Holyrood election? Do you really think things will have improved Covid-wise by then? I doubt it – so are we forever not allowed to vote? There will be a solution, if the will was there.

    The impending Brexit finale at the midnight hour is a massive motivator – that will get any Indy vote over the line – why would you not use that (and allow us to avoid economic disaster)?

    @crazycat – good point about the Advocate General, Keen’s resignation,,, nah, it shouldn’t affect the case – they have tons of lawyers, I think it would have to be exceptional,,, oh. Or BritNat excuses. To delay a case. Maybe then. Hm. We will have to see what unfolds I guess.

  214. kapelmeister says:

    Since the SNP has a Chief Executive post why the hell does it have a Chief Operating Officer too?

  215. Contrary says:


    Nicola Sturgeons popularity rating is worth nothing – worse than nothing even – if she has no intention of bringing us independence.

    Worse than nothing, because she is hogging the limelight that someone else (who does want to bring about independence) could be holding. So the higher that personal popularity rating goes, the less chance I see of us becoming independent.

  216. Hatuey says:

    If the price for getting rid of the Murrell Regime is SNP votes or SNP popularity at the polls, I say it’s a price well worth paying. The SNP is a vehicle for independence or it is nothing.

    And I say we should be prepared to pay more than that too.

    If the price for dealing with these people is Holyrood and Devolution itself, I say good — it’s all a scam anyway, a gravy train, riddled with second-rate woke morons who would otherwise struggle to hold down a job in the real world. I’ve been cringing since they built that shit hole.

    If we got one good thing out of devolution, it is the realisation and understanding that it’s crap, a big rip off.

    There is no Scottish Government if an elected Scottish Government can’t hold a referendum after securing umpteen mandates. And if that’s true, which we know it is, then devolution itself is nothing but a deception.

    Devolution and Holyrood have been nothing but a big distraction. If they didn’t exist in reality or as an option, the country would be wholeheartedly and straightforwardly demanding independence today. In that respect, it’s functioning entirely as was intended.

    Time to get back to fundamentals – independence or nothing. Everything else and in between is crap.

    We tried the nicely-nicely political route. It’s time to consider other more traditional routes.

  217. Michael Laing says:

    Jules @ 10.35pm: Where do you get the idea that Nicola Sturgeon “could be about to lead a referendum campaign”? Since 2014, Nicola Sturgeon has barely mentioned independence, and has actively obstructed any moves to secure independence. It doesn’t matter how popular she is, it’s clear she has no intention of campaigning for independence or doing anything to secure it. Based on her commitment to independence alone, she is not the leader Scotland needs. But it looks as if she is a great deal worse than that.

  218. CameronB Brodie says:

    “How the Helll do we repair all the fallout between (a) those that saw through the Murrells and (b) the SNP Party faithful who will soon, genuinely be licking their wounds?”

    Just a suggestion. 😉

    Building Bridges – Ubuntu and Servant Leadership

  219. Big Jock says:

    Harvey. I have said this before.

    Imagine devolution didn’t exist. We have a yes vote at 55% and 48 mps at WM. We would have simply declared independence and held a confirmatory referendum.

    The Section 30 is a mechanism of devolution. Devolution is a mechanism of the union. Sovereignty cannot be achieved by using the tools of the union.

    Sovereignty must be taken by and for the people. Holyrood is not sovereign, the people are.

  220. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Discussing this with a friend just a few minutes ago, I made a total arse of myself by speculating, in proper Sherlock-sucking-his-pipe-mode, that the whatsapp messages by Murrell may somehow be connected to the conversations allegedly conducted on that same platform by the Alphabet Ladies.

    I thus exposed myself an an extremely un-alert reader, because this is what appears in the post we’re all commenting on:

    ‘The Daily Record’s front page today brings into the public eye, via an anonymous leak to Kenny MacAskill, material we’ve been aware of for some time, in which the SNP’s chief executive Peter Murrell and its chief operating officer Sue Ruddick discuss – in the private WhatsApp group shared with several of Salmond’s accusers – how they can put pressure on Police Scotland to prosecute Mr Salmond and how they want him to be attacked on as many fronts as possible.’

    And that, for me, puts an entirely different complexion on the whole thing.

    If McAskill has sent this material to the committee, they will have to publish it as ‘written evidence received’, won’t they?

    Well, they do have a dedicated page for such material, and it is here:

    So – should we now look forward to a heavily redacted document appearing on that page, or should we expect nothing at all?

  221. mr thms says:

    An interesting series of tweets from Aileen Mcharg.

    “The UK Govt’s line that the UK Int Market Bill incs the powers of the devolved parls is simply a lie. Even ignoring the de facto effect of the Market Access Commitment, there’s nothing in the Bill that incs devolved competence, but there are things that explicitly reduce it.”

    “What does increase the powers of the devolved parls is the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which will remove the obligation to comply with EU law at the end of the Implementation Period. But remember, the devolved govts had to fight tooth and nail to get to that position, because the”

    “UK Govt’s original proposal was simply to freeze devolved competences as they stood when EU law ceased to apply. What the UK Internal Market Bill does effectively is to undercut the effect of the EU Withdrawal Act by saying, well, we might have had to concede extra powers, but”

    “much good they will do you, because you won’t be able to enforce them against goods/services produced in/imported into other parts of the UK. You can regulate your own producers/imports, but only at the risk of putting them at a competitive disadvantage.”

    “And importantly, the rules in the UK Internal Market Bill are not simply a like-for-like replacement for EU law – they clearly go much further in certain respects, and are unclear in their operation in other respects.”

    “Oh – and the spending powers. You devolved govt don’t want to spend money on, say, new roads because it would be incompatible with your climate change commitments? Tough, we’re going to do it anyway, and who cares about the lack of democratic legitimacy.”

    Glad someone is keeping an eye on the ball

  222. Fireproofjim says:

    Got to agree. Regardless of how much NS is culpable of malpractice or disliked by those in the know, there is no doubt that the vast majority of voters think she is doing a good job right now.
    Removing her now or just before the election would be a crazy move and would play into the Unionist’s hands. Can you imagine the media feeding frenzy?
    There really is no alternative to the SNP in the short time left before the election, at least on the constituency vote, if there is any hope of independence.
    After that a clear out of the Wokies is a must.
    Of course if there is no firm commitment to Independence by NS and the party before the vote then it is all a waste of time and a root and branch reconstruction must start right away.
    We are kind of in the same situation as Churchill was when Hitler invaded the USSR. He knew Stalin was a murderous despot but put aside his animosity in the greater interest. He said “I assure you if Hitler invaded Hell I would find a kind word for Satan.”
    OUR greater interest is Independence and we must use the tools we have to achieve it. That includes NS,
    .afterwards – well that’s another story.

  223. Donald Raymond says:

    SNP membership cancelled.

    Note to self: be careful who you give your money to.

  224. cynicalHighlander says:


    Ask the deceased of Dresden before praising Churchill.

  225. Tartanpigsy says:

    There is reasonable probability that Murrell (Mr) has a close relationship to the British security apparatus

  226. A Person says:


    “Up to 82% popularity…could be a great asset for a politician who’s about to lead an independence campaign”.

    Aye, and they’d be a great asset to a politician who’s about to fly to the planet Neptune, or who’s about to swim the English Channel, which are two other things that Nicola Sturgeon has zero intention of doing.

    Do you just not get it, or do you not want to get it? Nicola Sturgeon, occasional hot air to the contrary notwithstanding, doesn’t want to lead an independence referendum.

  227. Tackety Beets says:

    On Sept 19, 2014 AS resigned, my first thought was FFS, gutted. I quickly realised, way hey, he can sit back & help/guide NS without the pressures of office etc etc Its fair to say most of us admired his tactical ability.

    As per above there was something troubling.

    Could it be AS knew about certain “Uk Influencing” & thought to try to discuss with NS or maybe he even pointed directly, that’s the stushie.

    Hence the rest of the story.

  228. Polly says:

    For anyone who hasn’t seen it or doesn’t use twitter.

    Alex Salmond at his best.

  229. CameronB Brodie says:

    re, traveling in hope in a way that succeeds. Fortunately I know a bit about this sort of stuff. 🙂

    AALS Section on Academic Support Learning Curve, p. 13, Winter 2012
    The Psychology of Hope: Legal Educators Must Strengthen Students’ ‘Waypower’ to Succeed

  230. MaggieC says:

    Ian Brotherhood @ 12.00 am

    The agenda for this Tuesday’s Committee meeting has been published and so far the meeting will be taken in private and it’s also private papers for the meeting . Has Kenny McAskill passed the papers to the committee and that’s what they’ll be discussing ?

  231. CameronB Brodie says:

    It’s no surprise to me really, that we’re in the position we are in, as British constitutional practice simply places politics above the law. That’s law, not arbitrary legal practice that supports racism and authoritarianism.


  232. MaggieC says:

    Polly @ 1.20 am

    This tweet from Alex brought tears to my eyes when I saw it . Just remember his words

    “ The dream will never die “

  233. Beaker says:

    @Tackety Beets says:
    18 September, 2020 at 1:18 am
    “On Sept 19, 2014 AS resigned, my first thought was FFS, gutted. I quickly realised, way hey, he can sit back & help/guide NS without the pressures of office etc etc Its fair to say most of us admired his tactical ability.”

    I thought he was being totally professional. It was a dignified resignation with no barbs thrown at his opponents or bitching about the result.

    Be interesting to see what happens when the SNP leadership changes, whenever that may be.

  234. David Gray says:

    Jules we do not need to get rid of NS just at the moment, although it will come, but we do need to be rid of Murrell and McCann from the party admin. We should also take a serious look at a Minister for The Constitution who believes that we should push for independence “sometime in the life of the next Parliament” but appears to have lost the draft constitution he was sent some 20 months ago. We also need to look at the Minister for Justice who believes that the treatment of Palestine by Israel is fair (he also happens to be the man who authorised the cases against AS and CM, although he has denied this).

  235. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’m honestly not the pushy type (I missed a silver badge out of politeness 🙂 honest), and I try to take folk as they present themselves. But I really do know a bit about this sort of stuff and I’m not simply stroking my ego in public. Though some may suggest I’m being kind on myself, which is kind of helpful towards being healthy. So.

    Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2020;34:996–1004.
    Veracity is in the eye of the beholder: A lens model
    examination of consistency and deception


    Research has attempted to explain perceived cues to deception based upon self-report of what participants believe are ‘good’ cues to deception, or self-report of what cues participants say they base their veracity judgements on. However, it is not clear to what extent participants can accurately self-report what influences their decision-making.

    Using a within-subjects design, 285 participants completed a questionnaire regarding their beliefs about deception before rating a selection of truthful and deceptive statements on a variety of cues. Expert coders also rated the statements for the same cues.

    Laypeople and expert coders do not conceptualise between=subject consistency in the same way. A lensmodel showed that whilst perceptions of cues, such as consistency and amount of detail, influence veracity judgements, these perceptions (and overall veracity judgements) are mostly inaccurate. Fundamentally, there seems to be inconsistencies between how deception research examines consistency and how it is understood and used by laypeople.

    consistency, deception, investigative interviewing, lens model, veracity judgements

    link opens the uni page which has a pdf link to download, if you’re into that sort of thing. You know…science. 😉

  236. CameronB Brodie says:

    Hope we get this dealt with as we’ve a democracy to restore.

    Crime, Governance and Existential Predicaments pp 129-155
    Heidegger, Restorative Justice and Desistance: A Phenomenological Perspective

  237. Willie says:

    Justice Minister Humza Yousaf.

    Reports are suggesting that his wife is a women candidate being widely tipped to be the preferred candidate for a seat in Fife. Another power couple perchance as part of the coterie of control.

    Like Angus Robertson who hails from the North East but was promoted by the leadership to stand for the Edinburgh Central seat against the local Joanna Cherry, we now have Humza’s wife being another leadership insert for a Fife constituency – where she too does not live.

    But one thing in all of this is the arrogant assumption that voters like sheep will simply vote for this leadership insert candidate – and or that the local membership will support any campaign.

  238. The Honourable Yona says:

    Dear Stu.
    Your explanation and analysis is spot on.
    Thank you.

  239. Oneliner says:


    Geographical probity is a non-starter. Winston Churchill was MP for Dundee until they rumbled him.

    Power couples on the other hand…..

  240. Effijy says:

    Facts speak louder than words!
    Promise of a Federal State, Aye like everything they
    Ever promised Scotland throughout 300 years of history
    Has been a lie.

    For those of shorter term memory, look at the Vow of 2014
    signed by all English Party leaders.
    Each and every promise broken, a lie.

  241. Donibristle says:

    Reads like Macbeth but they failed in the murder. The plot reeks just as badly. They sought to kill a mans freedom, reputation and ability to provide.The actors in this play seem to be many and weeding them out won’t be simple.
    Most worrying for me is this Westminster connection to Scottish Gov. that is malign and impossible to remove.

  242. John Dickson says:

    Never trusted Peter Murrell, and love can blind one’s thought processes and cloud the judgement.

  243. Jimmy says:

    This article is very interesting, by former SNP MSP Campbell Martin, also check out the 11/9/20 post too on the same site. I don’t quite know if it clears the fog or thickens it, but it’s interesting

  244. Breeks says:

    If I understand correctly, there is more evidence to come, and as it emerges it brings with it more questions about it’s suppression behind aggressive secrecy and threats of contempt.

    I feel a change is in the air. A clearer picture is forming of the shabby activities by a somewhat grubby SNP top tier, but the extent of wider co-conspiracy is eye popping. Bad enough that one man should be agitating for the Police to go after Alex Salmond, but it raises important questions to be answered about the integrity of a Police force and Crown Office which subsequently did…

    Every revelation which escapes the veil of blanket secrecy is beginning to resonate, because it spawns even more questions and further revelations. It’s a tangled web alright, but the weave is slowly coming undone. The truth will out.

  245. Pipinghot says:

    Are you on something? There is no fucking way I am putting a cross anywhere near an snp box in May and condoning this fucking shit show. Vote for a party with ns at the helm?…….

  246. Big Jock says:

    Everyone needs to vote SNP on the 1st Vote.

    It’s as essential as breathing.

  247. stonefree says:

    For some reason I have thought this.
    Are Murrell and Sturgeon the Nicolae and Elena Ceau?escu of Scotland , and Should they be looking forward to a quite Christmas

  248. Lukas Scholts says:

    On the basis of what we’ve heard so far, it’s over for the lot of them. And we can assume there’s much more to follow. Are they going to take the whole SNP, judiciary, and independence movement with them? Trash the whole country in some pointless effort to save their own skins?


  249. Breeks says:

    Big Jock says:
    18 September, 2020 at 9:02 am
    Everyone needs to vote SNP on the 1st Vote.

    It’s as essential as breathing.

    Agreed, but it is equally essential that the SNP does not make itself unelectable. Prompt remedial action is required on that score.

  250. Lukas Scholts says:

    Big Jock says:
    18 September, 2020 at 9:02 am
    Everyone needs to vote SNP on the 1st Vote.

    Hilarious. You’re assuming there is an SNP to vote for. The only chance of that is if Salmond takes over. It’s such a mess that justice could only be done and seen to be done if he, the victim in all this, was to clean everything up.

    The gravity of this situation is unfathomably huge. Everything is changed by this, everything in politics as we know it.

    Let’s get on with that change. The last 6 years have been dire anyway. What do we have to lose?

  251. Fireproofjim says:

    Piping hot
    Well, that’s your right. But not voting SNP Next May means no to Independence. There is no other way to get it.. change can come after.
    Who will you vote for? The others are all Unionists except the Greens. Spoil your paper? That’s no use either.

  252. Lukas Scholts says:

    Does this explain why sturgeon has been so timid on independence in the last few years? Is this the thing that people speculated “they” had on her?

    Why didn’t Ruth address this yesterday in Holyrood? It was on the front page of Scotland’s best selling paper. She normally jumps in head first.

    It looks like there’s some sort of agreement in place.

  253. Big Jock says:

    If anyone thinks that by not voting SNP on the first vote they are helping the cause. They really are deluded.

    How does allowing unionists in on the 1st vote help our cause? 2017 wasn’t that long ago. Remember when the SNP lost 20 mps? How was that used against our movement. Personally I believe that scared Nicola into retreat.

  254. Mac says:

    Salmond created a clear successor for himself in Nicola.

    Nicola in contrast has done the opposite. She has created a strong sense of reliance on her because there is no clear successor. Where is her strong second? We do not have it…

    I dont think this is an accident. Instead she actively weeds out any real competition like Joanna Cherry.

    I am also stunned that some of you are still clinging to the faint hope that NS just happened to completely surround herself with ratfucking pieces of shit, married one, who just happens to be CEO of the SNP, you know, the party she leads, but somehow… somehow… she is not involved in what they tried to do to AS.

    Dearie me… Come one folks, the writing on the wall could not be clearer at this point. They have both got to go. And the whole poisonous coterie of creepy wankers that she surrounded herself with.

    But the problems run much deeper. Team Murrell have spent the last 6 years replacing MPs & MSPs in their own image. They have diligently and methodically New Labour’ed the SNP for the last 6 years and that is not going to be easy nor quick to undo.

    People think the SNP are stronger than ever given the polls and on a superficial level they are right. But underneath we have got some serious problems to address before we can go anywhere near indyref2 or whatever route we elect to take. Some want to pretend these issues do not exist because they so desperately want independence. It is creating massive cognitive dissonance amongst many people.

    But no we cant avoid this if we are really to move forward. You cant have a bunch of rats running the show and think things will actually turn out well. That is just stupid and deep down you must know it.

  255. Johnny says:

    I know not what all has transpired here but I am amazed by those trying to make the argument that if it’s all true ‘we should just leave it until we have got indy and then sweep the wrongdoers out’.

    I can see that there is room for most of us to doubt the chain of events as yet, and I don’t have a particular quibble with anyone who doesn’t feel they have enough information to make a judgement. But these arguments go beyond that into ‘well, it might be true but let’s just ignore it even if it is’. Wow is all I have to say to that. Are we not supposed to be going to do it all better in an indy Scotland?

    Again, I speak only theoretically as I am not privy to any insight that allows me to state what has gone on with any certainty, but those arguing ‘ignore it!’ are rather asking us to go into the ‘early days of a better nation’ mired in corruption etc IF it turns out to be true. Not healthy, I thought the point was that we were supposed to want indy to prevent this sort of thing, to be able to kick arses when the powers-that-be stepped out of line?

    Moreover, I find it most odd that a belief could be abroad that it would be easier to ‘sweep the bad people away’ AFTER you have given them even more power over the state apparatus with which to protect themselves.

    So IF this is all true, it would seem to be a lot healthier for Scotland to deal with it sooner rather than later, for the reasons outlined in the previous two paragraphs. Otherwise the idea that we are embarking into the ‘early days of a better nation’ might be in great peril.

  256. Breeks says:

    Fireproofjim says:
    18 September, 2020 at 9:14 am
    Piping hot
    Well, that’s your right. But not voting SNP Next May means no to Independence. There is no other way to get it.. change can come after.
    Who will you vote for?

    I think you have a point Fireproofjim, but the “who else will you vote for?” just absolutely sticks in the craw. It like throwing down the gauntlet and daring me to pick it up. I’m Scottish. Of course I’m going to pick it up.

    I do see the SNP as essential, not though any fondness for the SNP, but due to the complexity and inertia involved getting the whole spectrum of Independentists to move allegiance somewhere else en masse. I think that option would only be viable if the SNP was to shut down altogether, but that’s Armageddon scenario. It’s a much better option to fix what’s broken with SNP and have it returned to the coal face with all of back on board and pulling in the same direction.

    But time is of the essence. Decay unchecked consumes what might have been salvageable. There may already be disillusioned people beyond the point of forgiveness, and a trust betrayed can take a lot of effort to restore… effort which the current SNP doesn’t seem prepared to countenance.

    The optimum result in my humble opinion would be for Nicola Sturgeon to take a leaf out of Alex Salmond’s book, and step down voluntarily, to “devote herself to clearing her name”, and to quell disquiet and possible rebellion amongst the Wokerati, formally declare Joanna Cherry as her preferred successor.

    With Joanna Cherry in charge, I think there would be a sea change in attitude and urgency, and before years end, we could realistically expect a decisive Constitutional interdiction to throw a spanner in the works over Brexit and Scotland’s unconstitutional subjugation, leaving the Union untenable and in it’s death throes.

    Do I think Sturgeon is ready to step aside? No I don’t. I think she will choose to be brought down in ignominy rather than step down with grace. Without knowing her personally, I suspect she might only listen to what she wants to hear.

  257. kapelmeister says:

    A large complex company employing tens of thousands can justify having a Chief Operating Officer as well as a Chief Exec. A political party is a much more simple organisation, with far fewer full time employees.

    So why does the SNP have a Chief Operating Officer? The party machine is not in government. A party Chief Exec can surely administer things without needing a COO. Who created this COO role in recent years and who appointed Sue Ruddick?

  258. highseastim says:

    I would take anything read in the Daily Record with a pinch of salt, nothing but a “unionist cheerleading” rag!!

    Just look at the garbage and lies they constantly spout from down Govan way, yet never seem to follow the money trail!!

  259. Bob Mack says:


    I think the Rev made it clear he has known this same into for some time. Whether it was in the Daily Record yexterday is irrelevant

  260. Big Jock says:

    The SNP have been hi jacked by Murrell.

    That doesn’t mean the party and all it’s MP’s, MSP’s ,Councilors, members are corrupt , or bad people. I am a member. I see the truth. I am disgusted , but I will still vote SNP.

    We need to remove the henchman at the top , who is a Mussolini character. We don’t need to abandon the party.

    I would say 90% of the SNP collective are good people. There are 10% who have too much power and need to be supplanted.

  261. Bob Mack says:

    May 2021.will be too late. You can vote for any party you like because by then we will have left the EU and all the Brexit and Internal Market legislation will be active.

    It won’t matter who you elect. They will be powerless to give you what you want because Holyrood will be nullified by then.

  262. Juteman says:

    Beware new posters saying they will never vote SNP, and encouraging the same from others.
    They can’t vote SNP from their English HQ anyway, me thinks?

  263. Graeme says:

    Lukas Scholts says:
    18 September, 2020 at 9:25 am

    Does this explain why sturgeon has been so timid on independence in the last few years? Is this the thing that people speculated “they” had on her?

    Absolutely Lukas I also think it explains why Leslie Evans is still in a job and a whole lot more, The cracks in the fog are beginning to reveal some pretty shady goings on in the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon and her husband are right in the centre of it.

    Nicola has to go and I think she knows it, the problem is she’s hugely popular so who can replace her while maintaining the level of support we have ?

  264. Pipinghot says:

    Fireproof Jim. If you think for a minute if sturgeon gets in with a majority ln May she will be removed by you or anybody else you are very much mistaken. I am not alone in not voting for the snp, family and friends think along these lines also. Voting is not compulsory so I will just not bother and sleep with a clear conscience. I will vote for the party again perhaps when and if sanity returns. The hero worshiping of sturgeon in todays papers and the lack of the scandal of murrel being mentioned speaks volumes.

  265. susanXX says:

    Well said Mac @9:42.

  266. Ross says:

    There are two lines here.

    1. When did Murrel know or did he contact Police Scotland about the investigation?

    2. The leaking of the report.

    The first is mostly irrelevant. Wings will need to spell it out why a ceo ensuring police investigate a serious matter within his organisation (and is seen to do it, if necesssary) is a bad suit.

    The second does seem to display bad practice.

  267. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “ The Salmond Affair indeed stinks to high heaven and no aspect of it stinks more than the role in steering the affair, throughout, of Liz Lloyd, Nicola Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff. Lloyd is also known to be personally friendly with David Clegg of the Daily Record who published what were claimed to be leaked details of one of the “allegations” against Salmond.”

    They apparently were on the same US State sponsored visit together.

    Craig Murray has commented on this.

  268. Big Jock says:

    No ifs no buts. If you say you are not voting SNP on the 1st vote. Then you don’t believe in independence.

    As much as Stu despises the current SNP leadership. If he were in Scotland , he would be voting SNP on the 1st vote. Correct me if I am wrong Stu.

    You do not advance independence by giving the enemy free seats. Our objective is to remove as many British parties as possible. We do that by winning all the first seats and then voting for the indy party on the list.

    I do realise this is all theoretical on the basis that we still have a parliament next May!

  269. MaggieC says:

    From Craig Murray’s twitter feed ,where he makes reference to the P&J article .
    “ This is really not the way to go , looking to arrest more people to cover up the plot to frame Alex Salmond . Are police Scotland really prepared to be used again in this way “

    Archive link to the P&J article ,

    Instead of an investigation into the messages , the crown office want police to investigate the leak of the messages . Unbelievable .

  270. Andy Ellis says:

    @Big Jock @Juteman & other “loyalists”

    Nobody thinks everybody in the party is as politically compromised and lacking in courage as the leadership so obviously is. Of course there are many good people in the party. If you’re conscience allows you to remain in the party &/or still support it, good for you: you’ve a stronger stomach than me and many others. I do wish however that party loyalists would stop imputing the worst motives to those (like me) who have left the party in disgust and are now unlikely to vote for it.

    We’re not the delusional ones: nobody is obliged to vote for a party that no longer represents us, not do we believe the “just 1 more mandate/eyes on the prize/Nicola’s got this” schtick. It just won’t wash anymore, OK?

    The party being popular, or folk being satisfied with the SG’s performance in comparison with Westminster is more a comment on the execrable nature of the opposition, not a huge endorsement of the party or its policies. Also, that popularity brings us no nearer independence if there is no plan B. That stark fact isn’t going away, and party loyalists will never, ever answer it. They insist we must have faith and trust the leadership to deliver.

    It should be very obvious that a growing number of people wouldn’t trust the leadership further than they could throw them. It behoves those criticising “malcontents” to demonstrate how they’re going to change the party, because so far we’ve seen zero evidence that’s going to happen.

  271. Stoker says:

    “The insistence that England must decide what Scotland eats is a gift to the independence movement.”

  272. MaggieC says:

    Me @ 10.36 am

    More from Craig Murray’s twitter , I didn’t want to put too many links together in the one post to save it going into moderation ,

    As of now all charges should be dropped against Craig Murray and Mark Hirst as they should never have been brought against them in the first place .

  273. Big Jock says:

    Andy I understand all that.

    However what is the alternative? More Tories on the 1st vote. A unionist majority?

    You sometimes just have to sup with the devil.

  274. Robert Graham says:

    Aye yer off and running early this morning Bob Mack

    Anyway I agree with everything you have said so calm down ha ha

    All Independence supporters have been manoeuvred into a political straight jacket , we can’t turn to any other party so we are left with one choice , right now at this late stage there are no options,we either destroy ,because we can destroy this current version of a once well thought of and mostly honest party , or we hold our noses clench our teeth and hope we can change the direction of the management,

    A case of who blinks first , rather than calm the fallout of this self inflicted problem what do we get , bloody Silence , it’s as if the new found friends that have increased the popularity ratings have went to some people’s heads and the ones who have done all the groundwork are embarrassing now ,

    I first got a little inclination something wasn’t quite right when Nicola Sturgeon was asked about the Name of the party she said in hindsight she would have preferred a different one that didn’t include National , I wonder who she is taking her lead from and exactly what direction they intend we go

    This obvious problem won’t be solved with silence it will just make the Gulf between both sides wider with no obvious mediator at hand , because this ain’t going away in fact I doubt if we have seen the worst of it yet, as I said previously a very very sad time and it’s been self inflicted.

  275. Del G says:

    There are multiple agencies involved here.
    The SNP.
    That part of the Scottish civil service controlled through Holyrood.
    The other half of the Scottish civil service controlled by Westminster.
    Which parts have got the dirtiest hands?

  276. NotJock says:

    This is top stuff and all the more credible for the calm and restrained dissection of the pantomime.

  277. Andy Ellis says:

    @Big Jock

    The SNP aren’t going deliver a vote still less independence though are they? Absent some palace coup that ejects the current leadership (which has to be seen as a long shot) we’re stuck with them. Folk in the Yes camp who agree with Stu’s line & those like me who will now struggle to vote SNP at all, never mind just for list candidates, have a decision to make: do we hold our noses and vote for a party we now see as dysfunctional in the probably vain hope they will actually deliver on their promises – or that members will force them to grow a pair of political bollocks – or do we do something else?

    I’m not about to be manipulated into voting SNP because not doing so might increase the number of unionist MSPs, particularly by an organisation intent on spiking the guns of pro-indy list only parties.

    I’ll happily eat my words if the party delivers, but I have very little faith it will do so. More importantly there is next to zero evidence the party wants to change and even less evidence that “mainstream” members have the power, influence or time to muck the Augean stable out anytime soon.

    Given that, the only sensible way forward is for folk who actually want independence not more sitting on our hands, to build something new. That’s not going to happen overnight, and will likely require more folk realising that the SNP are about to let them down and fail to deliver on their promises.

    When that happens, there will be work to be done.

  278. Juteman says:

    @Andy Ellis.
    I’m not a member of the SNP, never mind a ‘loyalist’.
    I just understand that we need the SNP to win the next Holyrood elections, or there will be no chance of a referendum. Do you understand that?
    Folk calling for a boycott of the SNP are the enemy.
    Remember folk saying in the last ref that ‘i’m no voting for that Salmond’, and we had to explain that you are voting for Indy, not Salmond.
    It’s just the same now. You’re not voting for any person, your voting for Indy. Hold your nose if you have to, but make sure at least your first vote is for the SNP.

  279. Papko says:

    This pretty well sums up the SNP morphing into what they once despised.
    “At the end of Animal Farm, Pilkington and other human farmers come to eat dinner with the pigs at the farmhouse. As the other animals watch through the window, they find they are unable to tell pigs and humans apart. The pigs have started to dress and behave exactly like humans. The book’s final image expresses the animals’ realization that the pigs have become as cruel and oppressive as human farmers. The ending also makes the argument that political power is always the same, whoever has it and whatever ideology is used to justify it. Powerful people are cruel and selfish whether they’re pigs or humans, Communists or capitalists. Above all, the ending suggests that all powerful people are liars and manipulators. In our last glimpse of the dinner party, Mr. Pilkington and Napoleon are arguing because they have both tried to cheat at a card game in the same way at the same time. The ending doesn’t offer much hope for a workable political system with true equality for all. Rather, the ending posits that the corrupting nature of power dooms all political systems to failure.”

  280. Andrew F says:

    Here’s how it works Robert Graham:

    FM: “I’m going on TV to stab a kitten in the head repeatedly with a knitting needle”.

    Advisor: “Are you sure that’s a good idea?”

    FM: “Will Robert still vote for me if I do it?”

    Advisor: “Yes”

    FM: “Then stop wasting my time and pass me the kitten”.

  281. Lukas Scholts says:

    The only person that could be trusted to clean out the stables here is the victim and target of their skullduggery himself. That goes without saying — if he says it has been fixed and is clean, we are good to go.

    It’s officially popcorn time. And yes, I’m enjoying this, celebrating. The Sturgeon regime was a barrier to independence and I’m celebrating and joyous because I know it’s coming down.

  282. Polly says:

    ‘Power couples on the other hand…..’

    I agree entirely that should be discouraged. If both are working in a political party when they meet, that seems different to promoting family members to become politicians in your wake. When Sturgeon supported her father into being a councillor was when I first doubted her judgement, since her mother was already there. Nepotism is never a good look and a party run by extended family in various branches is always going to be less rigorous. However in the last six years I’ve also come to see that even when they meet through the party, being married or related and continuing in power is also unacceptable unless there is clear demarcation or roles and enough space and total transparency between.

    @ Big Jock

    I strongly support you and others who say at the next election we have no alternative but to vote SNP on the first vote. To do otherwise is self defeating for everything we have hoped for the last 10, 20, however many years you have supported independence. To allow unionists in now, just before we are finally out of Europe’s transition period, when we know they’re coming for Holyrood is beyond question a stupid statement for any real supporter of independence to make. I understand only too well people’s reluctance and dislike of blackmail, it sticks in my throat too that ‘wokes’ will get in or family members, but if they fail then the thought of independence will start to crumble with them.

    We have to vote for them this one last time at this crucial juncture otherwise we cut off our own hands, and however diseased or useless those hands are to grasp independence firmly or grasp the weeds which bind their feet and hold them in place – without those hands we’re helpless politically, with unionist gloating that we don’t really mind brexit or Tories governing us and treating us like dirt. If the SNP is as corrupt as many think, then that is what they want, for us to be hobbled, handless and in the dirt at their feet. We have to vote SNP since it’s too late this time to change them and any leadership challenge just before such an election would be disastrous, even if successfully carried out now. Whatever happens with SNP or anyone in it after a good win next time, then let them rot while we rebuild the party and create another. I’m willing to vote for them because Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry are still there, they haven’t given up on it yet, so I won’t either. Let’s see first what they and Salmond do before trashing the thing that’s so important to them.

  283. Al Hunter says:

    BANG ! Let’s get that silence broken quick and get Ms Cherry gang ready for a takeover bid !

  284. Andy Ellis says:


    The fact you’re happy to call people like me “the enemy” tells us everything we need to know about you.

    The SNP will have to be spectacularly inept not to win a majority at Holyrood in 2021. The issue is what they do with that majority. The smart money right now is that they’ll do more of what they’ve been going for the past 5 years… in truth we can kiss indyref2 goodbye until 2039, because no British nationalist is going to “allow” another vote on the same terms as indyref1 for a “real” generation.

    Your analysis is flawed. You, and the unreasoning lumpen support (whether members or not) better prepare themselves for a long wait. Or you could actually think for yourselves rather than uncritically accept the gradualist magical thinking that Westminster will simply give us what we want because *reasons*. Folk laugh at Pete Wishart coming out with that kind of guff for a reason.

  285. Lorna Campbell says:

    Tannadice Boy: facts are always open to interpretation. There is nothing personal in it. At Alex Salmond’s trial, the ‘facts’ would have seen him go down. His lawyer interpreted them in ways that questioned the apparent scenario. That is all I am doing. I do not know, any more than anyone else who is not in the know, if you see what I mean, what occurred.

    It is the supposed link between the FM and the ‘conspiracy’ that makes little sense for the reasons I have stated. Look at what is happening now. She seems unable to prevent people’s assuming that she is connected DIRECTLY with all of this. I am not questioning the evidence the Rev says is out there. I am questioning the interpretation of that evidence.

    I still do not see how she could have distanced herself from events, had Mr Salmond been convicted, to the extent that she would have survived. If her husband is proved to have been implicated in a conspiracy, that might also see her fall, by default. Do you see? As I said, she is not stupid. Why would she have left a paper trail that would almost certainly implicate her? Why would Peter Murrell leave a paper trail that led to her? Why would she lie to parliament? She would have known that she would have been found out? I know: people do daft things, smug in the belief that they are untouchable, but she has never struck me as someone who does not know the ropes on that score.

    If the business in her home was not discussed as party business and not as parliamentary business, what remains? Personal business? Did she see the former FM on a purely personal level? The Rev suggests that there is a lot more to come out, so we might eventually get to the bottom of it all.

  286. Lukas Scholts says:

    Juteman: “ I just understand that we need the SNP to win the next Holyrood elections, or there will be no chance of a referendum. Do you understand that?”

    What an idiotic thing to say.

  287. Dave says:

    Isnt this the same Daily Record you’ve trashed in the past for its constant outpouring of fake news regarding anything to do with the Scottish government the SNP or Independence?

  288. OldPete says:

    Alex Salmond and Ms Cherry have no chance of leading the SNP or the Scottish government at any time in the future. You have to accept this and move on or you are doing nothing but wasting your time.

  289. LeggyPeggy says:

    One way to look at all of this within the Snp is that sadly after six years ago today when certain people voted no to Independence is that the Snp became too big after the surge in membership after the no vote and lost it’s touch with the grassroots of the membership and genuine independence supporters who were voting for them before most of the officials , MPs and Msps were even born .

    The more members that the party had the more the head office and NEC became far too powerful for its own good . Yes there are genuine Independence supporters within the party but how many people that joined and became MPs in 2015 and Msps in 2016 really want Independence or did they just see it as an easy meal ticket to keeping their themselves in a job .

    When power corrupts at the TOP of any organisation it flows all the way down to the BOTTOM but the Snp is not an an organisation it’s a political party that has lost its way in the last six years .

    It’s time for the clear out to happen now before the end of the year and and give the party time to regroup and refocus on Independence before May 2021 because if not the unionist press will have a field day with all of this .

    It’s not the Yes movement that have given up on Independence it’s the Snp .

  290. Polly says:

    @ Andy Ellis

    ‘The SNP will have to be spectacularly inept not to win a majority at Holyrood in 2021.’ You are probably one of the ones who thought the same in 2017. Nothing can be taken for granted when the Tories already used dirty money to win here before.

    Andy, I’m not loyalist. As I’ve said more than once I agree much more with you, except when you’re banging heads with other men on here. However, you’re wrong on this. You believe more in Joanna Cherry and Alex Salmond, as many do – well theyre sticking it out for the moment and they know more than us. If they’re not willing to damage the party why are you so uncaring? Until they make a move then we should suck it up too, for they’ve both had far more to suck up than you think you have.

  291. Juteman says:

    I make no apology for saying that folk saying don’t vote SNP with your 1st vote are the enemy.

  292. Juteman says:

    If the SNP get a majority in May, and don’t do anything with it, then that’s the time to reject them. Not before.

  293. Big Jock says:


    If your actions help deliver a unionist majority.Then you are indeed the enemy of independence.

    This represents an extreme example of self harming. One thing is guaranteed. If the SNP don’t win a majority then independence is dead forever.

    The question of what the SNP may or may not do with the mandate. Is a theoretical hypothetical scenario.

    So there is one certainty and one hypothetical.

    I choose the hypothetical.

  294. Johnny says:

    Dave @ 11:36am:

    Would be first to agree that the DR has to be watched closely and the sins of omission they and other media are committing currently by not explaining the dangers of the proposed Internal Market Bill is another example of this.

    However, in relation to the fall-out from this failed prosecution, it is plainly wrong to view the “SNP” as a monolith; they don’t and won’t all agree as to what happened here. What the Record is reporting will back up what some SNP members and politicians think happened, and others won’t agree.

    So where the SNP is two ‘sides’ of an event/opinion/viewpoint, how do you decide which is ‘correct’ in judging whether the Record is accurate or not here? Some ‘SNP’ have to be ‘right’ and some ‘wrong’ no matter what turns out to be the truth.

    Some folk will argue that it must be the case that the Record is only reporting it because they think it must damage independence if it is all true.

    But look at it another way….. if something has been done wrong and those in charge don’t get to just dismiss it, then isn’t Scotland doing something better than Westminster (again)? Couldn’t we say we don’t allow malpractice here? Might sorting out any issues not *boost* the case for independence in some eyes by showing ‘Scotland won’t be just the same and let them all away with it’?

    I am not saying I think one thing or the other, just that the whole issue (and probably what the consequences would be for independence) is not as straight-forward as we likely think and, to go back to the start, that begins with being too easy to say ‘the Record is just being bad to the SNP as usual’. Which SNP?

  295. Breastplate says:

    The Independence can has been kicked down the road and many of us (not all) have already accepted this. There is little talk of a referendum this term of government even though that is what was promised, yes, yes, I can already hear the wails of “but the coronavirus….”

    Many of the arguments are positioned around what will happen and what is going to be done next term of government in 2021.
    Vote for SNP, don’t vote for SNP, vote for a list party, vote for both, vote only one party, stop the Unionists getting in.

    Many of us have already been programmed to accept yet another delay with no more than a bit of a whine and a whinge or with the joy and conviction of a zealot that everything is going according to plan.

    We all want the same thing, Independence.

    Yes, there is a split in the SNP and yes, there is a split in how individuals in the SNP are perceived but this can be remedied by securing a referendum (or plebiscite by other means) this term, this would ensure consolidation of the Yes Movement and no need for arguments or discussions about who to vote for or how to vote in HE 2021.

    It would mean the SNP placing country before party. Are we there yet?
    No? As you were, then.

  296. Andy Ellis says:


    This isn’t 2017. Of course a week is a long time in politics, but it’d have to be some political earthquake to result in a unionist majority at Holyrood in 8 months time. Why wait to start the work of replacing an organisation which is no longer fit for purpose?

    Alex and Joanna’s motives are their own: their calculus for leaving or staying is doubtless very different from mine. I’d love to see one or both of them drive a political stake through the heart of the current leadership, but it’s a huge ask for anyone. I do think if they did so we’d have a chance of real change and progress, probably our only realistic chance.

    The alternative, aided and abetted by all those who share your view, is accepting that independence is most likely off the table until 2029, because you’re locking us into the gradualist tram lines of accepting a unionist veto on whether we are “allowed” a vote.

  297. Bert says:

    Thanks @Ian Brotherhood

  298. Big Jock says:

    Stu – I think your bet is safe regarding Boris and the granting of a Section 30. Never going to happen. Why? Because there are no consequences to his refusal.

    Imagine if you were at school and every time you asked a bully to leave you alone. He hit you harder. What does he do? Now imagine if you got your 6ft brother to beat the crap out of him. Would the bullying continue? Actions and consequences.

    Personally I believe Boris will resign in December. Gove will be the chief of the Basil Faulty Gestapo. Gove wants to britify everything , even history in schools. Does he sound like he would agree to a Section 30?

    It’s important that bad faith operators suffer consequences for their belligerence. Otherwise they just keep on truckin.

    Boris and the Tories are about to suffer the consequences of their illegal activities in the withdrawal agreement. The problem is , that when Westminster farts , Scotland gets shat on.

    We will continue on this skid marked trajectory until we get some big boy pants.

  299. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “If the SNP get a majority in May, and don’t do anything with it, then that’s the time to reject them. Not before.”

    There’s an indy majority in Parliament right now. Parliament has already voted twice for an indyref. It makes no difference to anything which party or parties those votes come from. Nothing becomes possible with an SNP majority that isn’t possible now.

  300. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Why would she lie to parliament?”

    This is not a hypothetical. She DID lie to Parliament. We know that for an unchallenged fact. She told Parliament she knew nothing of the allegations until 2 April, but she has also told us she met Geoff Aberdein to discuss them on March 29. These are matters of official record.

    Had Salmond been found guilty, I am at a loss as to how you would imagine that would have impacted negatively on Sturgeon. She’d have been seen to have enacted the very process that convicted him and would have been totally vindicated. She needed him to have been found guilty of something, anything. When he walked free from that court, the clock started ticking on her political survival. It’s only a matter of time.

  301. Polly says:

    @ Andy Ellis

    ‘The alternative, aided and abetted by all those who share your view, is accepting that independence is most likely off the table until 2029, because you’re locking us into the gradualist tram lines of accepting a unionist veto on whether we are “allowed” a vote.’

    No that isn’t the alternative – and a bloody loud NO, I do not accept that. Yes, Joanna has been checked for the moment, maybe because she realised she didn’t yet have the support needed or because she felt it better to wait out the inquiry. We none of us know what might happen with the febrile and unsettling stuff coming towards us from this inquiry, from brexit, from wider forces. If SNP does win a majority, with or without help from other parties, under present leadership it might be that gradual process you fear, or it might not, depending on what happens with Sturgeon or what happens when Alex eventually speaks out – don’t you want to wait for that?

    Salmond is the one most affected by all this, he said he’d have his say, he showed with the tweet last night about our ‘arrival’ rather than ‘travelling hopefully’ that he’s still willing to fight. He’s not given up, nor should we yet. Even if you are right about voting for them would lead to a gradual creep forward, not voting for them will not achieve any more but less than that if they don’t win. After the election is different. Or it might be. Let Salmond be the guide, he never failed us yet.

  302. Juteman says:

    I totally agree. I would go for it now. Sturgeon just has to say the actions of Westminster means she has to call a ref to protect Scotland.
    However, if she doesn’t, we need a SNP majority for the next leader to use if she gets punted further down the line next year.

  303. Big Jock says:

    Polly the measure of the man (Salmond).

    Is that he could have chucked Sturgeon and Murrell under a bus straight after the not guilty verdict. He didn’t because he cares more about the movement than himself or any righteous grievance he holds against Murrell and Sturgeon.

    He knows how damaging this could be to the cause. However I think he has now reached the point where he is just scunnered with the whole leadership. He may feel that damaging the movement is something that now cannot be avoided.

    Who knows. Maybe we will come out of this in a better positon in the long term. I simply don’t know!

  304. CameronB Brodie says:

    Apart from a tendency towards narrow-minded and parochial legal practice and authoritarianism that is not too dissimilar to fascism, the party is clearly getting appalling legal advice, and appear incapable of supporting democracy. I blame British constitutionalism, which has evolved to become a vehicle to carry the will of expansionist and far-right English nationalism. That’s what you get for placing politics above the law. That’s international law, not culturally bound and ideologically laden legal practice that supports racism and authoritarianism.

    The international law of human rights and constitutional law: a case study of an expanding dialogue.

  305. Polly says:

    @ Big Jock

    You’re right Jock, none of us know. But if he has his say then we will know what he feels and which road we should take. I agree with you not voting SNP this last time would be hampering the future, since we don’t know what that future could be. If he chooses to damage the party then we will know it really is unsavable, but we both know he’ll not damage the movement.

    And the heart of it is, that if SNP have been corrupted and infiltrated, then those who have done so will want the party to lose support, so at this juncture we can’t allow that. Do people really want to give the weasels what they want? I’d urge anyone to vote for them on constituency at least one last time. Then wait for what happens to see our way forward and how we fight it from there. Fight for it, or fight against it with another party – but fight we must. Good luck to us all.

  306. Big Jock says:

    There has been some speculation that the independence vote will be combined with the Holyrood vote , same day.

    If that came to pass, then it may just in the nick of time to save us. I worry that winning the election alone will force the Tories into action to prevent any chance of independence. In other words they will neuter Holyrood.

  307. Liz says:

    If lady Macbeth aka Mrs Robertson gets elected, there is no justice

  308. Andy Ellis says:

    @Big Jock

    There isn’t going to be an independence vote on HR 2021 Election Day unless true SNP make it a plebiscitary election. It’s vanishingly unlikely they will do so.

  309. twathater says:

    All the talk of vote or don’t vote is further evidence of the BLACKMAIL,BLACKMAIL which I have been going on about for ages, not only is Sturgeon NOT rising to the Imperial (not a typo) Market she is still so reluctant to mention independence

    As Kenny McAskill is wont to post on here, howsabout Kenny you KNOW the depth of feeling on here regards Sturgeon and her woke cabal why not liase with the REAL genuine independence supporting MP’S and MSP’S and either FORCE Sturgeon to legally challenge the Imperial Markets bill or name a date for indy ref2 if she won’t do either then howsabout a LEADERSHIP challenge by Joanna Cherry, with the situation and feelings being in the dumps I would even join the SNP to vote for her

    Sturgeon’s disinterest, capitulation , procrastination and cowardice is THREATENING our nation , surely all the official MP’S MSP’S cannot be happy that THEIR country is being destroyed by a DICTATOR who will NOT use every means at her disposal to defeat our subjugation

  310. Cag-does-thinking says:

    Sometimes you need to make a stand for what is right. If the honest politicians (I know what you are thinking but there must be some, right?) see that their seat in Parliament is under threat then they will be the quicker to sort out the mess ahead of the election with less fuss.

    After all what will stop people voting would be the idea they were voting for people who were guilty of behaviour and conduct which falls short of a standard of ethics even for politicians.

    They will vote for the party if it is clear that the matter has been dealt with. To do otherwise would just be to condone it and that needs to be seen as a clear choice for those in charge. Stay and lose or go and win.

  311. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    When you come in from the pub on your birthday and start reading the comments section on a political blog…you know there’s either something very wrong with you…or very right. 🙂

  312. Al-Stuart says:


    How dare you call me “the enemy” for reconsidering whether to vote SNP on the constituency vote next May?

    Do you read this website and the work that the owner puts into it?

    Or are you just a crass waste of space?

    I LENT my vote to the SNP at every election since 2007. Principally because of the leadership of Alex Salmond.

    Jute, when ignorant chumps start calling me the enemy… well perhaps you best go read Rev Stu’s article on posting etiquette! Post as if you are looking to persuade someone to vote YES. Not insult the Hell out of them.

    The reason I am considering voting elsewhere (fluck knows where as all Holyrood parties are cr@p) it is because I will NOT vote for a party who are forcing through the GRA and “Hate” Bills.

    Jute, PLEASE think about this: If the Wokeist Hate Bill is enacted, then Wings Over Scotland will be SHUT DOWN.

    Do you doubt me?

    If yes, then go read The WOS Twitter feed. Oh you can’t! That got closed down by the Wokeists.

    I GUARANTEE YOU THE HATE CRIME BILL IS A WOKEISTS WET DREAM. They will abuse that legislation to lock down debate they dislike and LOCK UP the website owners.

    So Juteperson, before you call me the enemy, go look in a mirror. At this point only a cranially challenged plankton would vote for Sturgeon’s SNP.

  313. Derick Tulloch says:

    Donald Raymond says:
    18 September, 2020 at 12:15 am
    “SNP membership cancelled.

    Note to self: be careful who you give your money to”


  314. Polly says:

    @ WhoRattledYourCage

    ‘When you come in from the pub on your birthday and start reading the comments section on a political blog…you know there’s either something very wrong with you…or very right. ?’

    Something wrong if you spend it here I think, but I hope you have a great night. Happy birthday.

  315. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    ‘Polly says:
    18 September, 2020 at 9:45 pm
    @ WhoRattledYourCage

    Something wrong if you spend it here I think, but I hope you have a great night. Happy birthday.’

    Oh, I was out with friends earlier, fun day, but thanks anywyay. 🙂

  316. hazelwoods says:

    The irony of the Crown Office denying facts stated to them by the former Justice Secretary is wonderful. The world recognised Justice Secretary. The one who, rightly, released Megrahi before he died in a Scottish jail making us a target for Iraqi terrorism.
    You couldn’t make it up, could you?

  317. StellaA says:


Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top