The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Lying liar lies again

Posted on February 24, 2021 by

Nicola Sturgeon turned today’s COVID-19 briefing into a full-on smear assault against Alex Salmond. Readers will have seen reports on social media about various aspects of the attack but we wanted to focus on one especially brazen falsehood.

Because Nicola Sturgeon knows for an absolute 100% certain fact that she WON’T be asked about the allegations in Alex Salmond’s redacted evidence, because the inquiry committee is NOT ALLOWED to discuss any material that it hasn’t published, whether it’s “in the public domain” or not.

By the committee’s rules, if it’s not on the committee website then it doesn’t exist, and the redacted parts are – belatedly – no longer on the website. (As far as we can make out the unredacted version was finally removed around midnight last night.)

Farcically, she also denied even knowing that this question from James Matthews of Sky News was about Geoff Aberdein, who is the subject of all the redacted sections, which are all about the meeting Matthews was asking her about.

The First Minister is a liar and has all but given up on even the most token pretence otherwise. She is a disgrace to Scotland.

Print Friendly

    173 to “Lying liar lies again”

    1. The manner in which the ‘case’ was orchestrated against Alex Salmond, is already STANDARD throughout the UK (& beyond) *secret* Family Courts system that facilitates false accusations of domestic abuse, driving amplified statistics for the media ‘PreCrime’ and court criminalisation of men, intended to lead to the destabilisation of the family unit and fracturing of society.

      ?”If you’re a man, you’re the last man. Your kind is extinct. We are the inheritors. Do you understand that you’re alone? You are outside of history. You unexist”. Orwell, ‘1984’.

    2. Al-Stuart says:


      Fabiani’s farce is a wet wimp whitewash.

      This needs a proper judicial inquiry with real UNTAINTED judges.

    3. Captain Yossarian says:

      Stu – I’ve never heard of Dan Vevers prior to a couple of days ago. He’s an investigative journalist with The Sun.

      I think he got started on this by reading-up on Gordon Dangerfield’s blog.

      He’s now very much in the game and, like you, will not have been fooled for a minute by Sturgeon’s untruthful and dishonest statement.

    4. El Mariachi says:

      My instinct on this is that James Hamilton told her that he was no threat to her when she had a meeting with him to “clarify” her evidence recently.

      I believe she is desperate to avoid Salmond shining a large, televised spotlight on her obvious breaches because it would reduce the effectiveness of Hamilton’s upcoming whitewash.

      I appreciate that James Hamilton has a good reputation, but it seems very strange to get the Crown to redact that specific part of Salmond’s evidence if Hamilton is just going to come along at the end of this week and confirm that she broke the code.

      I suppose it is possible that she has utterly lost it, however. From her current actions, that’s certainly not out of the question.

    5. Garrion says:

      Salmond is playing 3D chess, Sturgeon is screaming and throwing poop at the wall. I just hope that we’re at a chess match and not a zoo.

    6. ClanDonald says:

      I cannot express how deeply I despise this woman now. Is there any chance of her going before May?

    7. Fanana Bama says:

      A lot of this deception seems to be around evidence by Aberdein. Why can’t he just go straight to the press with his story?

    8. Captain Yossarian says:

      ‘I’m hearing the Lord Advocate will come to the Scottish Parliament to answer a question on the Crown’s role in the Salmond Inquiry at 3.50.’

    9. Liz says:

      I don’t hate anyone but I’m coming close with her.

      She is an out and out lying bitch.

      Is there anything that can stop her?

    10. Frank Gillougley says:

      To put this into a historical perspective, Joseph Stalin also denied the existence of quantum physics.

    11. Dave Hansell says:

      Don’t know about ‘straight into he shredder’? This is more like me the ‘Bonfire of the Vanities.’

    12. robertknight says:

      I’ve disliked the idea of a UK Supreme Court since it was first proposed.

      That feeling being tempered somewhat when BawJaws got his arse handed to him over the Prorogation of Parliament.

      However, having requested the COPFS hold on to any/all which concerns yet more redactions, I suspect the UKSC is where this will all end up.

      Or, we import a Canadian/Australian/New Zealand Judge to cast a (hopefully) honest eye over the whole debacle.

      Either way, Sturgeon and her cohort need to go – Now!

      Until then… #NoVotesSNP

    13. Milady says:

      She’s normally so quick to shut down most non-Covid questions but she’s champing at the bit to get all this out today isn’t she? Despicable.

    14. Gordon Keane says:

      I would be surprised if the First Minister was to resign before May.
      I doubt that she would want to go anytime soon, and just 3 months from the May Elections.
      And we kinda wonder that all this stuff with the Crown Office, etc, is being done to try keep her in place a bit longer.
      However, events, is what might just make her go earlier.
      Where that would leave SNP and the fight for Independence, we don’t quite know.
      What we do know, is that we can’t allow the pro London groups to ever gain control at Edinburgh.
      But SNP leadership just now, isn’t doing much to help things!

    15. Hatuey says:

      Man, that video clip was disturbing. I find her chilling. When she smiles it feels like an army of zombies walking over my grave.

      God speed, Captain Willard.

      Colonel: “Your mission is to proceed up the Nung River in a Navy patrol boat. Pick up Colonel Kurtz’s path at Nu Mung Ba, follow it and learn what you can along the way. When you find the Colonel, infiltrate his team by whatever means available and terminate the Colonel’s command.”

      Capt. Benjamin Willard: “Terminate the Colonel?”

      General: “He’s out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops.”

    16. Liz says:

      For the 1st time I agree, the May elections need postponed

    17. Hatuey says:

      Scottish Parly committee investigating the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints will take evidence from
      on Friday, Lord Advocate on Monday and
      on Wednesday.
      1:59 pm · 24 Feb 2021·Twitter for iPhone

    18. Hatuey says:

      Apologies, forgot to include the tweeters name…

      Colin Mackay
      Scottish Parly committee investigating the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints will take evidence from
      on Friday, Lord Advocate on Monday and
      on Wednesday.
      1:59 pm · 24 Feb 2021·Twitter for iPhone

    19. Skip_NC says:

      Can we really say Nicola Sturgeon is a disgrace if she is prepared to go to jail for talking about redacted evidence? I believe Alex Salmond and others have been threatened like that if they go off script.

      So really what we have is a fearless FM who has sacrificed every day of her life for a whole year to reassure a worried nation that it will all turn out fine if we just follow the rules for a bit longer. Not long at all. It’s just over the hill, but only if you, the adoring public, re-elect her as your First Minister. You know your duty. Prior to May 6th, just fill in your postal ballot, take a selfie and tweet #ImWithNicola.

      This BTL on WGD, isn’t it?

    20. Marie Clark says:

      Good grief, the wee besom has no shame has she. She obviously believes that she’s safe and has it shut down tightly. Well hen. I wouldnae be sae shure. Never underestimate Alex Salmond.

      As our American cousins say ” that dame is some piece of work”.

    21. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Sturgeon is trying to take Scotland back in time – to 1984.

    22. Elmac says:

      Liz @ 2.06pm

      Yes there is – vote the SNP out of office. The sooner we regroup and start again the better.

      Sturgeon will not resign because she is now in so deep and realises when she loses power she will be spending a lot of time in court followed by a long stretch in jail.

    23. Glen Clova says:

      At this stage, in any other party, at least one or two elected representatives, perhaps mavericks or members of the awkward squad would be sticking their heads above the parapet to say ‘enough is enough’. Sadly we seemed to have elected both to HR and WM a bunch of fearties and gravy-train riders.

    24. A Person says:

      This hysteria is so blatant that anybody watching of ordinary common sense, even somebody apolitical who hasn’t been following the story, would raise an eyebrow. Minds will be starting to change. She is not only sinister she is also fourth-rate.

    25. Glortard says:

      @ Liz

      Until some SNP MSP’s crawl out from her shadow and call for all the information to be released we are on a hiding to nothing I think. They need to realise its for the good of the parliament nevermind the good of party. Until that happen’s I truly think she believes she is bullet proof.

    26. Elmac says:

      Re Hatuey @ 2.17pm

      So the bitch wants the last word as always.

    27. Geoff Anderson says:

      She has rejected dozens of questions in the past as being unrelated to the Covid briefing. Why not maintain that?

      On the statement. The dogs in the street know that if information is not on the official record then it doesn’t exist.

      Half of Scotland have read what has been redacted but Nicola pretends she can’t see it. Amazingly the “Scottish Media” have joined the same childish game by following her rules.

      The Law and Journalism now fighting for bottom place in regard to holding the publics respect.

    28. Graham says:

      Why Crown Office has become ‘lickspittle’ arm of SNP Government – Alistair Bonnington (Former honorary professor at Glasgow University School of Law)

      Source: The Scotsman –

    29. Bob Mack says:

      The late great Tommy Cooper could have learned a few things about creating illusions from Sturgeon.

      Mind you ,Tommy made things re appear as well.

    30. SilverDarling says:


      Not just her life, her hair maintenance too.

      She cannot sleep at night for caring. Weeping and caring for all the women and all the poor and suffering. All that caring for everyone except for a man she would rather have in jail because he reminded her what her actual role as leader of the SNP is.

      Sorry, am I being disloyal to the poor women that have been used as her shield in this charade of caring?

    31. Hatuey says:

      So, I reasoned last night that Salmond should appear at the Inquiry, regardless of the redactions, and it looks like he will on Friday. I also reasoned that he should conduct a press conference and I expect he will do that too.

      If this is a legal battle, it’s also political. Public opinion has shifted. It’s time for Salmond to engage the enemy.

      When Salmond speaks the people will know the truth and the truth will set them free.

    32. Cenchos says:

      Paradoxically, things are actually quite a bit clearer now than they were a week ago, thanks to this week’s blatant attempts at obfuscation and smear.

    33. Willie Jay says:

      I’m just thinking a wee bit …
      A wee bit aboot the future …
      And it’s not too far down the road, I believe …

      One day, a Docu/Drama will be written about this whole corrupt farrago and I suspect that I can already supply the final scene and lines of one of the main characters:

      [Scene – womens’ prison jail cell]
      (Two occupants. Sitting opposit each other on wee bunks, behind bars.)

      PRISONER #1 : “How did it ever, *ever* come to this? Why was I no’ believed? Yon judge just hates women like me! So he does.”

      PRISONER #2 : “Never mind, dear. ‘Aa advised ye to nae get involved in manny’s things, but ye widnae lissen, so ye wouldnae!”

      PRISONER #1 : “Ach! ‘Aa was better than any manny oot there, so ‘Aa wos! Even my husband telt me that!”

      [Scene fades as –


      PRISONER #2 declares: “Och, come here, lassie and ‘Aal gie ye a cuddle. And we’ll tork aboot the happy days in Bute Hoose,eh?”

    34. LaingB French says:

      Lets add PADDY HOGG North Lanark shire councilor to the list of anti SNP dissent. Scotland is surely turning into a facist state even her own toon cooncilers are not immune to her dictatorial rule. Again no evidence but council are willing to stick their necks out on behalf of mien fuhrer Mcsturgeon just like Butterstone school, rangers F.C., Alex Salmond, there must be an endless supply of money on legal bafoonery. Do the SNP think that like the usa police they have QUALIFIED IMMUNITY?

    35. Mike says:

      I’m not on twatter but if anyone here is, please keep posting the following video on Sturgeon’s page and any other of these lying scum bags pages until they start telling the truth – this is beyond a joke!

    36. Hatuey says:

      Fanana Bama says:
      24 February, 2021 at 2:04 pm
      A lot of this deception seems to be around evidence by Aberdein. Why can’t he just go straight to the press with his story?


      A good question. We can only speculate. Apparently he wants nothing to do with it, all of a sudden.

    37. Mairi says:

      What can Alex do now to expose these charlatans?

    38. Frozone says:

      So James Matthews of Sky News has a copy of Geoff Aberdein’s witness statement?

    39. Ian McCubbin says:

      NS surpassed herself in Covid meeting and all her statement on AS inquiry did was pitch herself further into the mire.
      Most folk I talk to both SNP, Indy and not, think she should resign now before she is removed.

      Though I do think we should all vote SNP 1 and other Indy parties 2 at May election.
      A party is not the leader and this cause certainly never had her at the head as charismatic front person.

    40. Craig Murray says:

      It has been explained frequently in comments here that he is constrained by his currently employment. He could and did comply with his obligation to give sworn testimony on oath, but cannot take “voluntary” actions.

    41. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Captain Yossarian (2.05) –

      ‘I’m hearing the Lord Advocate will come to the Scottish Parliament to answer a question on the Crown’s role in the Salmond Inquiry at 3.50.’

      Can anyone confirm this?

      Also, does he just make a statement or does he have to take questions?

    42. Cath says:

      It’s a weird feeling once you see someone for who or what they really are. Everything they say, their facial expressions and body language looks different, darker. The pretence which you fell for becomes the mask you see. With every appearance now she makes herself look worse.

    43. Captain Yossarian says:

      Ian Brotherhood – I’ve seen in twice or three times now and so it is genuine. One report says to answer ‘a question’, another report says to answer ‘questions’.

      Plus, I understand he is being called before the Fabiani Inquiry on Monday.

      Last time he attended he spent the time smiling and laughing. I’ll bet there is none of that this time.

    44. Lawrence says:

      The Rev is sparing the majority of you the pain of actually watching her at today’s briefing.

      Have a go if you can find a video of it.

      I guarantee you will be grabbing your telling and throwing it out of the nearest window.

      It was bad enough listening to her answer James Mathews, but listening to her answer the second journalist was infuriating.

      It drove me nuts and my anger towards her hit new highs.

      What an evil, lying, bitch, who is now distorting everything to save her skin.

      And of course she couldn’t do all this today without letting us know she is the saviour of wronged women everywhere.

    45. Shaza says:

      I’m a Unionist, but I’m Scottish. I vote at our elections and I’m represented at Holyrood by someone. Much as I don’t like AS I find his treatment shameful.

      I now also know the name of one of the complainants, after all there is only one woman’s name in the redacted paragraphs.

      Setting aside all thoughts of independence for a moment, we should have fairness and justice for all in our country. I believe that should be the case no matter the government, alleged accused or alleged victim.

    46. Hatuey says:

      Thanks for that, Craig Murray.

      Nice to know he’ll be available for any future court cases.

    47. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Captain Yossarian –


      I’m just wondering – given the bizarre constraints the committee is operating under – whether this may be one of the final opportunities for someone like Jackie Baillie to get this dissembling wretch by the baws and wring some truth out of him.

    48. Ian Mac says:

      It’s the utter shamelessness of her posturing, the blatant, brazen lying to the public which she blithely assumes will get her off the hook, with all of her deeply compromised accomplices. That is what sticks in the craw. It takes some brass neck to accuse Salmond of not having the evidence, when she has moved mountains to ensure that the evidence is buried, kept away from the Scottish people she pretends to care about. The fact that she appears confident she can brazen it out speaks volumes about how deep the rot goes, how many people she has stitched up, or simply showered with patronage and positions. She is in contempt of parliament and the country in my opinion. She ignored parliament’s decision about the committee’s access to evidence, and now she has overridden Lady Dorian’s decision on what can be published. Why is she not held to account for these crimes and sanctioned? Because she has built an empire, binding people so close to her that they will fall if she falls, while expelling the rest. The classic move of dictators and despots. It is a matter of urgency that she is challenged, denied her cover up and investigated for contempt and perversion of the course of justice. A judge led inquiry seems the only way, guaranteed to be independent, nothing to do with COPFS or the SNP and guaranteed access to all the documents it needs. I’m not holding my breath, but some people are waking up to the implications of the collapse of our democratic institutions. She has disgraced Scotland and the independence movement in the most pernicious, shameless and vain of ways. Taxi for Nicola, now.

    49. SilverDarling says:


      I look at her differently too. I am reminded of Quentin Blake in the Twits:

      “If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until it gets so ugly that you can hardly look at it.

      A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

    50. Old Fogey says:

      Ian Brotherhood says:

      “does he just make a statement or does he have to take questions?”

      Ministerial statements are normally followed by a question and answer session. The convention is that the Minister giving the statement cannot be interrupted or asked “to give way”.

    51. Bob Mack says:

      I know how for sure who ran this show. Sturgeon did run it at arms length deliberately, precisely to give her cover.

      She handed the reins over to another who was a complainer.

      Anything that complainer then did was subject to redaction and legal protection. Cunning. Very cunning.

    52. Hatuey says:

      Frozone, I think Matthews was reading Salmond’s account of Aberdein’s statement, rather than the statement itself.

      Based on Sturgeon’s response, she’s just going to deny it and say his word against hers…

    53. Artur sweet says:

      BBC report AS will appear on Friday

    54. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Old Fogey –



    55. Geoff Anderson says:

      Try getting good odds on NS making it to May. The Bookies are ahead of the press

    56. Robert graham says:

      The longer this Drama goes on the more interest it attracts , people who don’t normally think about politics see something rather odd going on two previously good friends having a very very public bust up ,
      late to the fray Alex Salmond who has as far as I know been silent since he stood on the steps of the Court in Edinburgh Innocent of all charges lodged against him , on the other hand in the red corner full of bile and scorn about the jury’s verdict were , well we will probably never know exactly who keeps tossing shite at Alex Salmond from behind this Legal shield that seems to protect not only the complainers but has also encompassed the ones who are possibly guilty of perjury , like Mr Murrell as an example suspected not charged or proven yet of lying to the committee investigating not Alex Salmond although a lot of people are referring to this total fk up as the Alex Salmond investigation it’s not , its an investigation into the current Scottish government actions and the First Ministers actions ,
      Not the Alex Salmond investigation
      The more bizarre the actions of Nicola Sturgeons Government the more attention it will attract like flies round shite because that’s what it is and everyone can smell it and it’s getting worse .

    57. Captain Yossarian says:

      Hearing Holyrood is to:

      Attempt to use its powers to force release by Crown Office of all correspondence it holds involving those Alex Salmond accuses of plotting against him.

      Test in court its ability to publish all Salmond evidence.


    58. Cath says:

      Nice quote @SilverDarling and very true. Someone said Alyn Smith wasn’t looking too well on the TV either. These people don’t have pictures in their attic to take their sins.

    59. mp says:

      Interesting to watch the leadership faction of the SNP stand by whilst Sturgeon, Murray et al methodically demolish the useful contribution made to the Independence cause by the argument, “you can do better than be governed by a corrupt bunch of liars and their lackeys.” They look more like Johnson and his court of Brexiters every day, even finding a way to copy his refusal to call out and sack the ‘indispensable’ Cummings.

    60. Just seen a tweet from Glen Campbell retweeted by Craig Murray that Lord Wolffe to be recalled on Monday to give evidence before the Harassment Committee.

    61. EdinScot says:

      Good God Sturgeon just resign ! That takes some brasso standing there for all to see, shes done her utmost to stop the evidence being put before this sham of an inquiry. She forgets the submissions have been out in the public domain and many of us see her and the rest of her ugly cabal. What has Scotland done to deserve her and all this garbage in the year when we should have been headed towards independence.. I wont be giving the SNP any votes until the Murells’ resign and all this corruption is cleansed.

      The longer she stays and the more desperate she gets, the worse it will get for her.

    62. SilverDarling says:


      It is a bit simplistic but when she is allowed to use a Covid briefing like that it is as if she is revealing her motivations and true self. There are a few who elicit a visceral reaction now as if you are seeing them for the first time. John Nicolson is another one.

      I wonder if she realises how she comes across now or if the ones who surround her with opinion poll results will have the guts to tell her the truth. It is definitely out there now and not a niche issue.

    63. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Scottish Parliament Tell site lists ‘Urgent Question’ at 3.50.

      So, that has to be Wolffie, right?

      ‘Mon The Jackie!

    64. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Scottish Parliament Television –

    65. Wee Crabbit Bas says:

      Her hubris knows no bounds. A disappointing embarrassment to her country. The truth is out now and everyone looking in knows it. What must they think in Brussels now?

      Gerry Hassan’s ‘bubble story’ assessment last night on Newsnight was a tad ironic and out of touch, given the fact that the MSM have swarmed in the last few days and that he himself was now talking about it, on Newsnight! (Maitliss not The Wark, be grateful for small mercies.)

      The Crown’s intervention has thrown a petrol bomb on the bonfire, with The Spectator and Brillo relishing the explosion – and milking the moral imperative for all it’s worth, which is fair play TBH given the corrupt shit show we’re all witnessing play out in public.

      She’s surely on the lying path to madness now, the victim of her own pathological behaviour. Where have the cheery wee smirks and unprompted mid-sentence chortles gone now?

      Command and Control and micro-management – never works when you’re surrounded by incompetents and hangers-on.

    66. Betsy says:

      It will be interesting to seethe opinion polls carried out as this has started to gain wider traction. I’m sure she’ll remain popular but I would expect to see a drop in approval.

    67. Strathy says:

      Sturgeon took advantage of her BBC platform, in order to take advantage of the Scottish people.

      Ordinary people will not know that the redactions mean, as far as the committee is concerned, the evidence no longer exists.

      The public assume that the First Minister is obliged to tell them the truth. They are unaware that the Sturgeon government removed that obligation.

      There is an effective analysis of the Fabiani Inquiry’s failure in the New Statesman.

    68. Alf Baird says:

      Shaza @ 2:54

      “I’m a Unionist, but I’m Scottish.
      Setting aside all thoughts of independence for a moment, we should have fairness and justice for all in our country.”

      Colonialism, fairness and justice do not go together. That is why ‘peoples’ seek independence, which is decolonisation.

      Folk need to rethink what being a ‘unionist’ means.

    69. SilverDarling says:

      @ Betsy

      Yep. I think it will start to bleed through now. The Tories have real stuff to attack her with and it is her own fault. This should have been dealt with quickly and cleanly as she promised, open and transparent.

      We did warn that the SNP needed a cleanout but they pretended there was nothing to see.

      Hell mend them.

    70. Effijy says:

      Alex I hope will be asking questions of the committee
      and not just giving answers.

      Lesley Evans has been seen to lie to the committee, break the law and HR agreed protocol
      to specifically go after Alex. Why wouldn’t this lead instant dismissal rather than a £20K pay rise?

      Did she leak information to Clegg at the Record and if not, is an inquiry underway to find out who did?

      Has Evens had any dealings with former or current MI5 agents or Westminster secret services?

      Do the police have agreed powers and budget to form a 22 man team to lead contacts into
      making complaints against him?
      How much has this team cost?

      The Lord Advocates office seems to have lost control and understanding of the law.
      Potentially paying out £100 to Rangers directors and large sums again will be required
      to compensate Alex.

      COPFS have acted in many ways that seem out of their jurisdiction and the public interest.
      We need justification from them for their actions relating to this case.

      Why has the guarantee to provide all related documents been permitted to fail every time
      they are requested? Why has the will of Holyrood been blocked when requesting the documents.

    71. Skip_NC says:

      Ian Brotherhood, I’m not sure whether W James Wolffe will be appearing.

      “Urgent Question: Jackie Baillie – To ask the Scottish Government whether the Lord Advocate was consulted about the letter from the Crown Office to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in relation to the evidence from Alex Salmond published by the Parliament.”

      I have the broadcast on now. James Kelly is speaking right now and I am torn between muting and the fear of missing the statement.

    72. Skip_NC says:

      What did I post that required my comment at 3:34pm to go into moderation?

    73. holymacmoses says:

      Is Mr Aberdein being pressurised to deny his testimony in the final analysis?

    74. Johnny Martin says:

      Strathy @ 3:25pm:

      Deerin’s article lets itself down by sneering that Scotland is ‘as bad as England’ as if the comparison is what matters. Of course it’s intended to imply that the fact there is dubiety at the moment means we can’t have independence because we are ‘just as bad as Westminster’.

      However, there is a kernel of truth in there about what we’ve been led to believe and one of the things the Yes movement has liked to tell itself is that independence would let us ‘kick their arses because they will be closer’. But some of the movement appear unwilling to kick anyone’s arse no matter whether something wrong has gone on here, instead chanting ‘eyes on the prize, we can sort it later’ and might want to reflect on what that means about how likely they would be to ‘kick anyone’s arse’ for bad government later.

    75. Iain Lawson says:

      I am not a lawyer but if Alex Salmond on Friday just told the whole story and was charged with Contempt of Court would he not have access and use everything that has been redacted in his defence, including the evidence from the criminal trial?

    76. Mia says:

      I mean, I can see only two explanations for this kind of behaviour:

      a) either this woman is having a serious mental break down and it is really perverse an inhuman of those surrounding her to allowing her to harm and embarrass herself like this, instead of giving her the medical/psychological advice/assistance she may require


      b) She is just a disposable pawn in a much bigger game. A disposable pawn that has been instructed by her master to make a complete fool of herself by continue to peddle the line of Salmond bad well beyond any point of credibility. She is deliberately portraying herself as dishonest and vindictive.

      Both options converge on the same objective:

      to deliberately make her, to make her government and to make the COPFS and the inquiry look bad, unfit for purpose and farcical.

      I am now convinced that the ultimate goal of these people, and I include here Sturgeon, members of her cabinet, the UK civil service, the mI5 plants in the SNP and the COPFS is to prepare us for the closure of HOlyrood.

      The closure of HOlyrood has been predicted by pro indy supporters for years as the immediate consequence of Brexit. You don’t need to be a genius to realise that without Scotland’s assets, England out of the EU will tank and the English pound will tank.

      Well, that time has come and the fraud leading the SNP, supported by the mI5 plants, crown agents and Uk civil service is helping the British state to undermine the authority and credibility of HOlyrood and our courts in order to make more palatable for the electorate to see England MPs destroying our democracy and taking over Holyrood so they can pounce on our NHS and other assets and sell the lot. They will not stop there, though. They will destroy our body of law too so there is no room for super QC’s like Cherry to stop the England clown of the day attempting to force Henry VII laws or to denounce breaches of the treaty of union that can lead to its end.

      Sturgeon’s name will go down in history as the fraud who sold Scotland’s parliament for second time and destroyed our democracy and courts.

      The Salmond saga was a deliberate attempt to divide and conquer, just like the genderwoowoo or the assaults on Cherry. The

      British state needs Sturgeon to remain until the election (if that ever happens) because they need the next compromised puppet to take over to ensure that upon pouncing on Holyrood, the next SNP leader is as compliant as Sturgeon and would never lead that sizeable majority of SNP MPs to end the union.

      I thought this woman was much smarter, actually. It turns out she is shallower than a rain puddle and more transparent than a drop of water. She is beginning to emerge in my eyes as a dedicated hardworking soldier that follows the script that somebody else generated for her to the letter, but that beyond doing as she is told, delivering a decent speech every now and then and take a darn good selfie, her strategic abilities do not span much further.

      When was this woman recruited by New labour?

      How many of the current SNP MSPs and MPs are actually new labour?

    77. Lawrence says:

      Urgent Question

      February 24, 2021 15:50

      Urgent Question

      Jackie Baillie – To ask the Scottish Government whether the Lord Advocate was consulted about the letter from the Crown Office to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in relation to the evidence from Alex Salmond published by the Parliament.

    78. Captain Yossarian says:

      Next-up in a couple of minutes: ‘Jackie Baillie – To ask the Scottish Government whether the Lord Advocate was consulted about the letter from the Crown Office to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in relation to the evidence from Alex Salmond published by the Parliament.’

    79. Neil Wilkinson says:

      Urgent Question

      February 24, 2021 15:50

      Urgent Question

      Jackie Baillie – To ask the Scottish Government whether the Lord Advocate was consulted about the letter from the Crown Office to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in relation to the evidence from Alex Salmond published by the Parliament.

    80. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Wolffe in the hot seat right now…

    81. Glen Clova says:

      Iain Lawson says:
      24 February, 2021 at 3:48 pm
      I am not a lawyer but if Alex Salmond on Friday just told the whole story and was charged with Contempt of Court would he not have access and use everything that has been redacted in his defence, including the evidence from the criminal trial?

      He won’t be allowed to tell the whole story as Fabiani will be told by the voice in her ear piece when to shut him down and then switch off his mic if he doesn’t comply.

    82. Cath says:

      The Lord Advocate is sounding incredibly nervous and has dry mouth. Like some of my nightmare job interviews…

    83. Willie Jay says:


      I am may be in my cups …
      Though as they say, “In Vino Veritas” …

      The most abhorrent thing coming out of this latest absolute twisted, corrupted, lying spiel from the leader of a party I have supported in the past with both votes and *cash* for many a year …
      Well … the absolute, *MOST* abhorrent thing of all, is *THIS*:


      And by THE LAMBS, I refer to every single SNP MP in Westminster and every single SNP MSP in Holyrood.
      It is truly horrendous that hardly a single soul, *HARDLY ONE OF THEM*! has decided, *after* all of the evidence presented on sites such as this, so few have found the courage to speak out.

      I want no part of such a Party! And I address this message to every single on of those fearty backsliders:

      YES! You just try to look after your cushy jobs and your gold-plated pensions.

      I *MOST SINCERELY HOPE* that the craven *lot-of-you* are cast out into the wilderness, *IF* the May Election *ever* happens, (for no doubt your Leader has still a trick or two up her sleeve.)

      Cuddle up to your opinion polls, but let me tell you this: There are people who have *never* been polled and many of them are people who will *NEVER AGAIN* cast a vote in favour of the SNP. I actually know dozens upon dozens of them, and we are still spreading our message today.

      Every single silent SNP MP or Holyrood SNP MSP has declared their position by their total silence.

      The whole damned lot of you deserve to be cast out onto the scrapheap.
      (And it is an extreme pity that if/when you do get the boot, you will still pick up such a golden pension/handshake.)

      The Holyrood Parliament is ruled by a totally corrupt government. Absolutely rotten from top to bottom.

      Things must change, SO, let us vote for change in May:
      *IF* our glorious Leader decides to permit a vote? (Note the date and time I post this comment and then come back and tell me that I got it wrong?)


    84. Ian Brotherhood says:

      …and that’s Wolffe out of the hot seat now…

    85. wee monkey says:

      Quote from video

      “Found not guilty but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen”

    86. El Mariachi says:

      The Lord Advocate was not only extremely evasive but absolutely shitting himself there.

    87. Stuart says:

      The lying Judge Advocate ( I’ve toned that down) has not had recent sufficient training time to get his lies correct right now.

    88. Cath says:

      Never heard anyone sounding so nervous, and I’ve conducted job interviews! Ended with Tom Arthur basically giving a lying statement, as far as I’m aware, that the LA has always sat in the cabinet. Giving the LA the out to agree without actually lying.

    89. Captain Yossarian says:

      @wee monkey – ‘Here she says that Salmond may have been acquitted, but he did it anyway….’ Staggering. All of Scotland lives through this nightmare until it ends. She’s the verge of psychosis. By the way, the poor Lord Advocate is shitting a brick just now.

    90. robertknight says:

      Well, that was 7 minutes I won’t get back…

      Jackie Bailie pointedly noting that Wolffe avoided answering most of her questions.

      Apparently he (Wolffe) wasn’t involved in latest round of redactions, but received a note of the decision of the Law Officers (Who?) for information… So a big boy in a silly wig did it and ran away?

      I’ve caught eels using hook and line which were less slippery.

    91. Stuart says:

      Shame on all the compliant and STILL silent elected Snp Mp’s and Msp’s merely following orders.
      There are more spineless creatures in Holyrood and Westminster than all the combined waters surrounding Scotland.

    92. zebedee says:

      Agreed, LA sounded incredibly nervous. I have been in that place before when I had to present to people and really had no idea what I should say.

      It all seems to come down to observing a/the High Court order on anonymity. Presumably this is Lady Dorrian’s order? But why then, as Baillie asked, did the Crown not raise any objections to her varying the order?

      There must have been some legal proceedings that got Aberdein’s evidence blocked. Is there also an interdict on sharing that those proceedings even took place? Presumably Aberdein’s evidence is also blocked due to anonymity constraint, but that was put in place before Lady Dorrian varied / clarified the order. Still, it looks like Crown Office could be basing their insistence on any mention of Aberdein on the earlier version of the order.

      Lots of conjecture there. Would be good if we could find out why Aberdein’s evidence got blocked. Also would be good if a brave soul would ask Lady Dorrian to allow the naming of one of those women from the trial if an argument could be made that her anonymity is obstructing the process of law.

    93. Ian Spruce says:

      Cath @ 4.06 says

      Ended with Tom Arthur basically giving a lying statement,

      Correct. Alex Salmond govt created the gap between Govt & COPFS and it was only when Sturgeon came to power that closed the gap and why Wolfe is now sat on govt benches?

    94. wee monkey says:

      Her actual words

      “Found not guilty but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen”

      After all this, hoisted by her own petard live on TV ..redact that bitch!

    95. Geoff Anderson says:

      I just watched the Crown Office defence of their action at Holyrood. Urgent question from Jackie Baillie.

      It was all done to defend the women as directed by the High Court!

      This is Justice?. You can organise an attack that risked putting a man in jail for live and the issue is silenced forever.

    96. CM says:

      Where can we see a replay of the Lord Advocate questioning? ta.

    97. Bob Mack says:


      Aberdein evidence blocked because of who was in the room!!!

    98. Marie Clark says:

      Did anybody else believe James Wolfe, naw me neither. He’ll need to go and change his trousers now I think.

      Sturgeon has dropped herself in it now by that statement. Does Alex know yet I wonder.

    99. Cath says:

      the poor Lord Advocate is shitting a brick just now.

      You’d think a key attribute for being Lord Advocate would be able to brazen and bluster your way through questions without being so obviously shitting a brick though, wouldn’t you? Just can’t get the staff these days…

    100. wee monkey says:

      So how much (£££) is Sturgeon actually worth ? Does he sue her personally or sue the office/scot gov.

    101. Jim Jones says:

      CM @ 4:15

      It was hopeless. Not worth watching.
      Lofted right over the bar.

    102. Cath says:

      Also would be good if a brave soul would ask Lady Dorrian to allow the naming of one of those women from the trial if an argument could be made that her anonymity is obstructing the process of law.

      Yes, quite.

    103. Robert graham says:

      I hope our esteemed First Minister realises she is inviting Boris and Westmonster to make full use of their recently established alternative administration offices right in the centre of Edinburgh this establishment can quickly absorb any and all of the functions of Holyrood without the annoyance of any pesky Jocks interfering .

      Very similar to they did with Stormont when the locals were getting into a bit of a mess , it will be pushed as a act of compassion to protect all the Scottish people an act of total benevolence aye you can always rely on good friends in a crisis eh .all friends together just like the good old days

      You and the SNP have royally fkd up this whole episode this balls up ,a spectacularly brainless act of stupidity and the longer and dirtier it gets the tighter Westminsters grip will get , thanks a bunch you couldn’t have done better if you had tried , oh ok you are doing your best well that’s a relief then .

    104. kapelmeister says:

      He’ll need a drink or two to restore the nerves. The Lord Advocaat.

    105. Wee Chid says:

      wee monkey says:
      24 February, 2021 at 4:04 pm
      Quote from video

      “Found not guilty but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen”

      Doesn’t that constitute slander? And, what does it say about her respect of the justice system and about her opinion of the jurors in the case?

    106. Mac says:

      Interesting seeing your post went into moderation at 3.34. Interesting because it contained the two words that I have suspected of throwing a few of my posts into moderation but I am not sure why they would.

      Comments I make that include the name of a certain labour female politician that rhymes with ‘Yackee Vaylee’ seem to go to moderation. So much so I stopped mentioning her name.

    107. SilverDarling says:

      I wonder if the aim all along was to bring NS down so that a certain ex-MP, barring the small matter of election, could take over. It seems more and more that this is at the heart of it all.

      The ‘I have a plan …’ has shackled every part of this affair and NS is now tainted. I am not saying she is blameless, far from it as she surely is the architect of her own downfall. If the aim from elsewhere was to clear a path for the said candidate, surely that is being done?

      Isn’t it the job of SpAds to make themselves indispensable even if that advice leads ultimately to the demise of their boss? If you wanted to bring someone down, it seems easy to do if you know where the paper trail will lead. It won’t be your head on the line.

    108. Captain Yossarian says:

      ‘Robin McAlpine, director of the Common Weal think tank and a prominent campaigner for Scottish independence, said the SNP is ‘utterly corrupt and has been for years’ in a blog post on Thursday.’

      No wonder James Wolffe was nervous. If Robin McAlpine knows the SNP are now utterly corrupt then surely James Wolffe knows it too.

      Robin McAlpine made his stemement about 6-7 weeks ago in which he said that the SNP is now rotten. You don’t vote for a rotten party and expect it to improve as a result of your vote. You don’t vote for independence with a rotten government in charge, just as you don’t build a new house on top of shite.

    109. Mac says:

      SturGin on the rocks for me.

    110. mr thms says:

      The Lord Advocate has a stammer

    111. JB says:

      @Bob Mack says: 24 February, 2021 at 4:17 pm

      “Aberdein evidence blocked because of who was in the room!!!”

      Except with respect to Salmonds MC submission, any other people in the room are not named. From para 17:

      […] the meeting […] attended by Mr Aberdein and the First Minister and another individual […]

    112. holymacmoses says:

      Does anyone know why Nicola Sturgeon gets to go last

    113. tartanfever says:

      Seriously need to think ahead for the coming election.

      Are the ISP locked into only standing list candidates ?

      Theres going to be an awful lot of spoiled constituency votes that could be up for grabs.

      Sturgeons intention now is to bring down the entire SNP. She would clearly rather lose an election than lose face.

      Time for some SNP party types to think about jumping ship.

    114. Cath says:

      If you wanted to bring someone down, it seems easy to do if you know where the paper trail will lead

      If you wanted to bring two people down, being a trusted person at meetings where they were both there discussing sensitive issues and how to best manage them (especially if you’re all old pals and the allegations under discussion are old and a bit ‘Oh not that crap again’) could also be very useful, I’d imagine.

    115. Steve Davison says:

      Judge Advocate speaking with the confidence of a 13 year old asking out his first crush .The man is lying the facts that the redactions have nothing to do with witness anonymity is for all to see as everything is in the public domain .Parallel investigations by the police into the actions of both the first minster and the judge advocate is now required

    116. Bob Mack says:


      I can’t help any more for obvious reasons,but there is plenty on the internet about who was present at that meeting in 29th March. Hence no Aberdein evidence.

      There were named individuals

    117. SilverDarling says:


      Yes, killing two birds with one stone where the stone thrower cannot be named by anyone else.

    118. tartanfever says:


      ‘Does anyone know why Nicola Sturgeon gets to go last’

      – Yeah, she’s the boss, the head honcho, in charge of everything, the Don, God – pick whichever is appropriate.

      She controls it all.

    119. Skip_NC says:

      Thanks for that, Mac. I am not sure why mentioning the MSP for Dumbarton should trigger moderation. Ah well, no big deal in this case.

    120. Bob Mack says:



    121. Cenchos says:

      Sturgeon: “Found not guilty but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen”

      To put her words another way, the behaviour the complainants complained of was not criminal.

      And isn’t that just the whole wokey thing laid out bare;

      the squealing to the authorities claiming laws have been broken when none have;

      the trying to change laws, even science, to turn those who disagree with their narcissistic perversions of truth into criminals;

      the bullies who play the weeping victims?

    122. Frazerio says:

      Stu, if you’re looking for something to do amidst this quiet period, any chance of a post listing Sturgeons lies. Might be hard to keep up of course, she’s going at some rate now, but would be good to list them. The latest being “Found not guilty but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen”. Apart from the fact that in court, in front of a judge and jury, one of them wasnt even there according to her friend who was. In another, several witnesses said what happened didnt (the Stirling castle photo op) etc etc. The judge and jury said they didnt happen. Thats what not guilty means.

      It wasnt a case of ‘he said, she said’. It was a case of ‘he and all these male and female witnesses with verifiable evidence said’ against ‘she with no verifiable evidence, indeed obviously made up and false evidence, said’!!!!!!!

      How investigated and proven innocent does one man have to be???

    123. twathater says:

      @ Ian Mac 2.56pm , Ian a very good exposition which I wholeheartedly agree with ,irrespective of whether anyone supports independence or not @ Shaza 2.54pm EVERYONE deserves the right to justice and fair governance , we are ALL Scots and no matter whether unionist or independence we are fighting for the very soul of our nation and we must not allow this perversion and corruption to become acceptable

    124. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Chenchos – Sturgeon: “Found not guilty but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen”…….Sturgeon never had the opportunity to make such a crass and stupid remark to such as Joe Beltrami, did she. James Wolffe is a nervous push-over by comparison.

    125. John H. says:

      Sturgeon said today that “these women deserve to be heard”. Then what was the Salmond trial about? They were heard by a judge and jury, and were found to be liars. It seems that Sturgeon wants to rerun the trial again and again, in the hope of somehow getting a different outcome, or at least planting the idea in people’s minds that Salmond is guilty.

      We are being run by a criminal group, led by a sick and vindictive woman, assuming that she isn’t an actual ‘tractor’. If we don’t sort this out and soon, then Westminster will ride in to the ‘rescue’ like the Seventh cavalry, and we can forget independence, certainly in many of our lifetimes.

      Though if the tories were to win in May, which is possible the way things are going, then there would be no need to shut Holyrood. It would be as good as dead anyway.

    126. JB says:

      @ Bob Mack says: 24 February, 2021 at 4:36 pm

      Yes that would be a reason to redact a minor (but presumably significant) detail from Aberdein’s evidence assuming it was adopted and published by the Committee. It is not in and of itself a reason to exclude all of his evidence.

      It is certainly not a valid reason to exclude this submission, as absent Aberdein’s evidence, this one is safe.

      The wide historical media reporting of that meeting is also safe; it would require additional information (presumably included in Aberdein’s evidence to Hamilton) to make it unsafe.

    127. zebedee says:

      Re “Aberdein evidence blocked because of who was in the room!!!”

      what I should have asked was: how was Aberdein’s evidence blocked, not why was it blocked. That is a mystery, and even the fact that the question never seems to get asked is also a mystery. Legal challenge obviously, but there seem to be no details about it.

      Incidentally, I noticed that Liz Lloyd’s most recent submission to the inquiry makes absolutely no mention of Aberdein or March anydate. Of course she does not need to mention those, because there is nothing for her to respond to. The March 29 meeting has been airbrushed out of the inquiry.

    128. kapelmeister says:

      That insincere laugh from Sturgeon when she said how she’s been waiting months to go before the Fabiani committee. Uuurrrgh!

    129. holymacmoses says:

      “Found not guilty but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen”

      I have a feeling that this sort of remark feeds those who don’t want to think – and there’s a lot of them around. I believe their attitude is
      ‘He got away with it so why is he moaning?’
      Human beings are truly horrible

    130. Bob Mack says:

      These women have been heard by a judge and Jury and by pre arranged media posts by RCS and BBC and everybody and their auntie including Warm and Gravelli.

      Nobody can get them to shut up!!

    131. Republicofscotland says:

      Don’t know if this is old news but, Sky news confirming that Salmond will attend the committee meeting on Friday.

      Does this mean Salmond’s lawyers received a quick reply from the Crown Office?

      As for Sturgeon and her lies, of which there are many, we need Geoff Aberdein’s statement to be clear for the committee, the preposterous situation that currently stands that if its not in the evidence it doesn’t exist, even though its in the public domain, makes Scotland appear to the outside world as some sort of half baked dictatorship, how embarrassing.

    132. Republicofscotland says:

      Question, even if Aberdien’s statement miraculously becomes admissible, won’t it effectively come down to his word against hers.

    133. JB says:

      @ Bob Mack:

      Section 12 & 13 relate to a telephone call on the 9 March, reporting prior meetings – not meeting in the future.

      So the named party in those sections does not necessarily imply anything about as yet un-held (and possibly not planned) future meeting. It is not a valid logical inference to suppose anything about parties present in later meeting from it.

      I am not asking to be supplied with extra information. I am not claiming that your belief/knowledge of parties present in the later meeting is incorrect.

      So the fact that the party was widely reported as present should simply be a ‘so what’ proposition. Absent any additional information, it only impacts upon that parties professional conduct.

    134. DMW42 says:

      Did I just hear James Wolfe stating that the redactions in Alex Salmond’s submission was to protect the identity of an accuser?

      As the evidence was already published in full, which therefore affords a contrast and compare with the redacted version, by saying what he said, surely James Wolfe is now in contempt of court?

    135. Effijy says:

      Where on earth do you end up if 22 police officers try to uncover
      as much information as they can find and generate which is then
      Presented to Judge and Jury who rule that there is no evidence,
      No case to answer, innocent!

      If you can’t accept all that then open all the prison cells and let them out.

      They could be used for the fake U.K. journalists and Tory corrupt contract teams.

      Absolutely pathetic to say it might have happened.

    136. Robert says:

      I’ve got it sussed! Geoff Aberdein is one of the complainants. That’s why his name has to be redacted.

    137. Stephen P says:

      From Wolffe’s answers, which distance himself from the crown office decision to write the threatening letter to the SPCB, it must then be the crown agent whose line manager is a certain Ms. Evans who is behind the contempt threats.

      The Lord Advocate basically said it’s up to parliament to take the risk of publishing. I thought that it was his job to advise government/parliament so he ought to have an opinion.

      It’s call my bluff time between parliament and the crown office.

      Who exactly would be charged with contempt? The members of the committee and the SPCB? or every parliamentarian?

      Time to stand up on a matter of constitutional principle.

    138. David Earl says:

      Do you think Angus Robertson listens to STEPS? I bet his favourite member is H. “Tragedy
      When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on
      It’s tragedy
      When the morning cries and you don’t know why
      It’s hard to bear
      With no-one to love you, you’re goin’ nowhere”

    139. David Coutts says:

      The Murrell’s are doing a great job of bringing back my memories of Dallas.

      Peter must think he is Bobby Ewing,the only difference being that he does not seem to know if he was actually there or not,or upstairs in the shower or getting changed.

      He does not remember if the meeting going on downstairs was about party policy or indeed government business.

      Nicola must think she is JR Ewing – mind you coming back as a man is more in line with the crazy SNP policy currently about to win the election!

      Simply put let’s see Geoff Aberdeen’s evidence and we can all go home and Nicola can leave us in peace and head back to Southwark.

    140. David Coutts says:


    141. Bob Mack says:


      Face palm.

    142. holymacmoses says:

      People should simply remember two statement made by Sturgeon and ask themselves

      ‘Could I ever trust this woman?’

      19th September 2014:

      “Alex Salmond’s achievements as SNP leader and Scotland’s First Minister are second to none.

      “He led the SNP into government and has given our country a renewed self confidence.

      “Through policies such as the council tax freeze, free prescriptions and the scrapping of tuition fees, he has made a real difference for hundreds of thousands of Scots.

      “And yesterday he inspired 1.6 million of our fellow citizens to vote Yes to independence.

      “The personal debt of gratitude I owe Alex is immeasurable. He has been my friend, mentor and colleague for more than 20 years. Quite simply, I would not have been able to do what I have in politics without his constant advice, guidance and support through all these years.”

      Today 24th Feb 2021

      “Found not guilty but that doesn’t mean the behaviour they complained of didn’t happen”


    143. Effijy says:

      The Lord Advocate’s performance rings true of a
      man who knows he is guilty and terrified a conviction
      is on the horizon.

      He has the easiest of jobs in which he and his predecessor
      have been a disaster by not knowing the law and mistakes
      Costing up to an incredible £100 million.

      When proof of his corruption eventually is presented he is finished.
      He can’t work in the legal profession again.

      He’ll be looking for Bar work as soon as the pubs open again.
      Be careful of short measures.

      PS Should we change his abbreviation from LA to La La La La La?

    144. jockmcx says:

      Maybe i misremembered someone saying the verdict of the
      A Salmond trial “must be respected.”

    145. JB says:

      @ Bob Mack

      You seem to be missing my point; so we should probably stop there.

      As I can not make the argument any more cogent without myself risking contempt.

    146. Hamish Anderson says:

      Time for Westminster to enforce direct rule.

    147. laukat says:

      I see the committee are now asking for more evidence from the crown and for the Lord Advocate to appear next week.

      Do you think the comittee will ask the Lord Advocate the question Salmond posed of him? i.e “I believe that the Committee should ask the Lord Advocate directly whether he instructed two unwilling complainants to make police statements”

      An honest answer blows the doors off , a dishonest one that Salmond can evidnce as dishonest ends the Lord Advocates career.

    148. Astonished says:

      “An honest answer blows the doors off , a dishonest one that Salmond can evidnce as dishonest ends the Lord Advocates career.”

      It should result in time in the pokey. Substantial time.

    149. holymacmoses says:

      Hamish Anderson says:
      24 February, 2021 at 5:20 pm
      Time for Westminster to enforce direct rule.

      You seriously think WM is better than Scotland? You’re either mixing it or a naive fool

    150. holymacmoses says:

      Nicola Sturgeon reminds me of ‘The Private Confessions and Memoirs of a Justified Sinner’

    151. Mia says:

      “Sturgeons intention now is to bring down the entire SNP”

      I think Sturgeon’s intention and that of her handlers might go well beyond bringing down the SNP. The intention appears to be bringing into total disrepute the fundamental structures of democracy and rule of law in Scotland so England MPs can effect a take over with less resistance. The idea this was not pre-planned is naive.

      Westminster is already talking about this. So there we go. England MPs talking and getting ready “to sort Scotland out”.

      That Westminster would close Holyrood was predicted by many pro indy supporters years ago. Their warnings of this happening were almost a daily occurrence.

      But those warnings fell in deaf ears because this fraud pretending to lead the party appears to have been working for Westminster all along. First she handed over our sovereignty. Then she handed over our rights. Then she handed over our powers. Now this Westminster tool is handing over the key of our parliament and courts. The woman is a disgrace.

      There must be a prominent place for the biggest villain in Scotland’s hall of shame.

    152. Nally Anders says:

      Dead right JB. There was no reason to redact paragraph 12.
      As you rightly point out the reference was to the phone call where Geoff Aberdein was informed of complaints, and the intention of a meeting being set up, not who (in addition to NS) would be attending.
      On whose instruction was that call made?
      The problem for NS is the mere mention of the dates 8th or 9th March would have been enough to put the question to her.
      Canny have that.

    153. Tenruh says:

      Has any of the alphabettys appealed the decision of the court case ?

    154. Mia says:

      I am struggling to understand what is going on. None of this makes any sense to me.

      I am aware of Scotland’s popular sovereignty. The Lord Advocate sits in the government of Scotland as an unelected member. Yet, we are told the Lord Advocate has been “advising” the parliamentary committee about what to publish and what not. What authority does this man have over our parliament?

      Are we to understand that in Scotland government is above parliament and that is why this man can “advise” what parliament can or cannot publish and what they can or cannot use to question witnesses?

      Lady Dorrian, a judge, ruled that it was possible to publish that information. Are we to understand that the Lord Advocate is now overruling lady Dorian? On what authority? Is that as an unelected member of the government or as a member of COPFS?

      What is the real relationship between COPFS, government, body of law and parliament in Scotland? Who is above who and who stipulated that?

      Is this mess that we are seeing before us a consequence of popular sovereignty, a consequence of the British state forcing its hand via COPFS or does this comes from the bogus and badly thought out Scotland Act?

    155. Wee Chid says:

      David Coutts says:
      24 February, 2021 at 5:06 pm

      Southpark would be better – she could keep Mr Garrison company.

    156. Mia says:

      “Time for Westminster to enforce direct rule”

      Are you having a laugh or a nervous breakdown?

      Hasn’t this stupendous mess been created precisely because Westminster insisted in retaining our powers instead of handing them back in full to Scotland allowing us to put in place the required safeguards to stop this happening and to properly govern ourselves instead of Westminster deliberately leaving back doors open to stick its hand through as its doing now?

      Isn’t this the result of the British state gerrymandering Scotland’s business via the UK civil service, COPFS, MI5 and police?

      Who made our parliament toothless if not the England MPs sitting in Westminster?

      What is an ex-mI5 crown agent doing in our COPFS?

    157. SilverDarling says:

      @Tenruh 5.46 pm

      None that I know of but since most of them were reluctant to even bring a workplace complaint it is not surprising. The burden of proof is less in civil cases but none have even sought that.

    158. Alf Baird says:

      Mia @ 5:53

      “I am struggling to understand what is going on. None of this makes any sense to me.”

      It does appear to be the case that an unelected public official, which is basically all the LA is, can enter the parliament chamber and tell elected members what they can and cannot do. It is more or less saying that the local representative of the British Crown runs Scotland, not MSP’s. Which provides Scotland’s people with a rather colonial-like governor general in the stead of democracy.

      It is nevertheless what Westminster snuck into the Scotland Act when nobody was paying attention, one assumes. And somebody once said our parliament was being ‘re-convened’. Clearly not by a long way, yet. For Holyrood seems not to be a parliament under this authority.

    159. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Rev Stu has explained in the article at the top of this page, WHY 12, 13, 16, 17, 30 were latterly redacted.

      “Because Nicola Sturgeon knows for an absolute 100% certain fact that she WON’T be asked about the allegations in Alex Salmond’s redacted evidence, because the inquiry committee is NOT ALLOWED to discuss any material that it hasn’t published, whether it’s “in the public domain” or not.”

      As the redacted sections refer to the FM being at the 29th March meeting, where the allegations were discussed, then, as a former First Minister suggests,

      “The First Minister told Parliament (see Official Report of 8th,10th & 17th January 2019) that she first learned of the complaints against me when I visited her home on 2nd April 2018. That is untrue and is a breach of the Ministerial Code.”

      If evidence is redacted, as far as the committee is concerned, it doesn’t exist so AS can’t talk about it on Friday and NS can’t be asked about it next week.

    160. iain mhor says:

      The Lord Advocate, who had to make a Statement and abject, ‘unreserved apology’ to Parliament and the victims of an ‘unlawful process’, which was published barely a fortnight ago.

      The Lord Advocate who had assured Parliament, that he had introduced ‘safeguards’ and confirmed his own commitment ‘and the Crown’s commitment, to supporting a process of inquiry into what happened..’ and who expressed his ‘own determination that nothing like it should happen again’

      The Lord Advocate who lectures others on the need for a ‘fair and independent prosecution service’, yet sits in government.

      The Lord Advocate, whose long held the belief that he was immune from ‘common law liability’ was shattered, by the Inner House of the Court of Session, who overturned the ‘previous legal authority’

      That Lord Advocate?
      Why would he be so nervous indeed…

    161. Robert Hughes says:

      Salient questions as ever Mia , n , aye , Hamish Anderson , yr kiddin right ?

      How about we put a slant on the scene from Braveheart where the Scottish Army bare their arses to the English , except this time we let them bugger us , literally fuck us . Would that be sufficient ” enforcement ” from our English superiors ?

    162. PhilM says:

      Watch the LA…he says (to paraphrase) that the Crown Office left it up to the Committee who would be advised by their lawyers what to do…at this level we can safely take that as ‘making them an offer they can’t refuse’…that would be more than enough to get the Committee to err on the side of caution…but the actual effect of that is to hurt Alex Salmond and to help Sturgeon.
      Jackie Baillie had two attempts at getting the LA to answer how ‘the letter’ actually originated and the LA ignored her twice. Twice.
      In attempting to save her own skin, NS is bringing into disrepute the reputation of scores of office-holders in the govt and civil service. We thought or were under the illusion that we were getting someone new and unsullied like Obama and someone powerful and competent Hillary Clinton, but we got Trump and with Trump comes the shitshow spectacle served up daily. Poor us.

    163. Dunno about lying to Holyrood, but lying to the Scottish people is definitely a sacking offence. And now a daily occurrence. Disgusting.

    164. Kiwilassie says:

      SilverDarling says:
      24 February, 2021 at 4:24 pm
      I wonder if the aim all along was to bring NS down so that a certain ex-MP, barring the small matter of election, could take over. It seems more and more that this is at the heart of it all.

      Yes, that would be Angus Robertson. He’s standing in the electorate that J Cherry wanted to stand in & was stopped from doing so.
      The thing is Robertson doesn’t have a clean slate neither. He had an affair whilst married when he was down in WM.
      It would pay to scupper Sturgeons plans to have him elected to take over as FM of Scotland.

    165. IFT86 says:


      I am just surprised that Alex Salmond agreed to go along on Friday given that this redaction is only place to protect Nicola.
      This is a vital piece of his case. Has he really agreed not to mention it?
      Is there simply no time left to fight it?
      I hope he still has enough to wipe the floor with them, but I am surprised he has agreed to this.

    166. Saffron Robe says:

      “Because Nicola Sturgeon knows for an absolute 100% certain fact that she WON’T be asked about the allegations in Alex Salmond’s redacted evidence, because the inquiry committee is NOT ALLOWED to discuss any material that it hasn’t published, whether it’s “in the public domain” or not.”

      A lie is when you say something which you know to be patently untrue. It may not be immediately discernable to the listener but it is to the speaker. Nicola Sturgeon is an expert liar.

    167. Iain More says:

      This is what happens with Coronations. Sturgeon had no challengers when Salmond stepped aside. There was no chance to cross examine her on any number of issues. We might have seen her blink if she was asked if she believed in Scottish Independence.

      Whatever Sturgeon and her cabal are now lying to the Scottish Nation on a daily basis. So much so that i cant stomach voting for the SNP on either vote this May. The path to Scottish Independence isn’t through Sturgeons door.

    168. Derek Morison says:

      I understand the restictions on the Committee publishing certain names but I don’t see how they can possibly conduct an enquiry without those names being used in evidence? In the criminal trial the names of the complainers were used freely in court and their designations as A,B,C only applied by the media in their reporting. It seems obvious it would be impossible for a court/jury to evaluate evidence about who did what to whom and where and when if the identities of the people involved weren’t known. This would likewise apply to any proper consideration by the Committee about whether there was collusion or conspiracy between the complainers. If AS wishes to make a case for communication/collusion between parties X,Y & Z, for example, how can this be established if their names have been redacted from the relevant emails? And how can the possible significance of any such collusion be assessed without knowing the identity of the parties and their role (if any) in the SG or SNP hierarchy? If for the sake of argument NS PPS John Somer had been one of the complainers, then the significance of any communication between him and other complainers is obscured by his being referred to only as ‘Complainer A’? And, again, if AS wishes to bring evidence of communication/collusion between the original 2 complainers and any of the other complainers in the subsequent criminal trial how could such evidence be assessed without using their names? The Alphabet Spaghetti confusion is exacerbated by the fact the complainers’ designations are not consistent between the SG inquiry and the court case. I assume the members of the Committee know the identities of all the parties involved but I can’t understand how they can conduct a meaningful inquiry and ‘join the dots’ in the evidence without ever mentioning their names?

    169. Joseph Rocks says:

      You can physically tell when Sturgeon is lying. Her eyes are blinking ten to the dozen. I voted for independence last time round. But I will definitely not be vote for independence.

      Why? Because we will not be voting for independence, we will bet transferring our sovereignty from the UK to the EU. I have not that long ago voted to leave the EU, why would I want to waste my vote, that will take me back into the EU..

    170. wee monkey says:

      There sure are some attempts to have this “meander off” on some random path..

    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