The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Peter Murrell is not a liar

Posted on December 08, 2020 by

Well, we need to qualify that quite a lot.

In his evidence to a Holyrood inquiry today, having been asked about some troubling WhatsApp messages concerning the case from 2018 which appeared to suggest the possibility of a conspiracy against the former First Minister, Murrell told members of the committee “I’m not on WhatsApp, it’s not a social media platform I use”.

Alert readers will have noticed a very careful use of the present tense there.

Because it certainly seems to be the case that Mr Murrell isn’t using WhatsApp right now. Indeed, he hasn’t been logged on the app for, um, slightly over two weeks.

So some good truthful evidence there. Well done to all concerned. As for the rest of Mr Murrell’s testimony, well, let’s just say we reserve the right to alter the headline upon further analysis and leave it at that.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 08 12 20 15:57

      Peter Murrell is not a liar | speymouth

    103 to “Peter Murrell is not a liar”

    1. N. Holmes says:

      Interesting body language from Murrell – arms firmly crossed (defensive, self-protective, holding back something).

    2. Muscleguy says:

      There is such a thing as lying by omission or being economical with the truth though. I would say he is bang to rights on one or the other. If not both.

    3. Lindy says:

      I noticed that straight away Stu.
      I wondered why he wasn’t pursued on that point.

    4. Sharny Dubs says:

      Brass neck on steroids

    5. Muscleguy says:

      I wonder if Murrell will be going through his contacts list trying figure out where that screengrab came from. Nice sleuthing Rev or perhaps you have good sources?

    6. ScotsRenewables says:

      Let’s be quite clear about this.

      He us a sleekit wee bastard whose acquaintance with the truth is fleeting and ephemeral.

      First time I have really seen him speak in public. Maybe Nicola will have to dinghy him to survive after this.

    7. Vile Cybernat says:

      Perhaps a bit of a silly question but is it confirmed to be his mobile number attached to the account? I only ask because I can save any of my contacts as any name in my phone and that’s what they would show up as on my WhatsApp contact list

    8. Muscleguy says:

      Jackie Baillie could be setting him up there, expecting that non answer. It could come back to haunt him. It damn well should.

    9. newburghgowfer says:

      Its as though they are trying to decimate the vote next year by giving ammunition to the media to hang the SNP prior to the election so that no majority vote happens.
      Next thing he will say is that he only used WhatsApp to test his eyesight whilst going to Barnard Castle!

    10. ScotsRenewables says:

      Wonderful screenshot.

      Keep firing on all cylinders on this issue Stu, it’s stinkier than a rotten thing in the state of Denmark.

    11. ScotsRenewables says:

      newburghgowfer says:
      8 December, 2020 at 2:03 pm
      Its as though they are trying to decimate the vote next year by giving ammunition to the media to hang the SNP prior to the election so that no majority vote happens.
      Next thing he will say is that he only used WhatsApp to test his eyesight whilst going to Barnard Castle!

      This boil needs to be lanced long before the election

    12. Muscleguy says:

      @ScotsRenewables
      The interesting thing is it’s pretty nailed on that he can’t survive without her but can she survive without him in his job? What if the new person is not meek and supportive? What if they are active and demanding? Can Sturgeon handle that?

      She will be off balance at the very least. We may see how much of her persona is her and how much she is being influenced or driven. He may still be there in the background though he will be out of the loop as well.

    13. Sarah says:

      Rev – but did the committee accept that he had never been on it e.g. when he was whatsapping the conspirators about pressurising Police Scotland?

    14. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “but did the committee accept that he had never been on it”

      They didn’t press him on that, disappointingly.

    15. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Perhaps a bit of a silly question but is it confirmed to be his mobile number attached to the account?”

      Yes, of course it is. I didn’t just arrive on a banana boat, you know.

    16. Bob Mack says:

      The thing is Stu, Jackie Bailey did not ask him If he was a member of Whats app now. She asked him very specifically if he was a party to the whats app conversation that took place at that time with the COO.

      If he only recently made it private then he is lying.

    17. Iain More says:

      So what do they have on the committee as he is getting an easy ride by the sounds of it. Whitewash.

    18. Craig P says:

      I take it the file size of the second image is a complete coincidence…?

    19. Bob Mack says:

      We must also remember he admitted SENDINg what’s app messages about pressuring the police and making Alex fight on all fronts.

      That was his tsstimony. He was using it.

    20. Big Jock says:

      The past is a different country for the likes of Murrell.

      However that’s not how the law works Peter. You can’t just shove your crap under the bed. That crap will be exposed tick tock!

    21. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Christ, what a smug, arrogant, ignorant, creepy…person. first time I have ever heard him speak. Hopefully the last.

    22. James Horace says:

      You got him It’s a nice wee fib, thats for sure.

      But its far from a smoking gun.

      Nicola Sturgeon will emerge from this inquiry relatively unscathed, and she will be SNP leader and FM for as long as she chooses.

      Its been great to follow this inquiry right from the start, and there has almost certainly been some major wrongdoing from Murrell/Sturgeon, but she remains 100% safe for the forseeable.

    23. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “We must also remember he admitted SENDINg what’s app messages”

      It transpired those were actually old-fashioned text messages, not WhatsApp ones.

    24. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Nicola Sturgeon will emerge from this inquiry relatively unscathed, and she will be SNP leader and FM for as long as she chooses.”

      If James Hamilton or the inquiry find formally that she lied to Parliament (and it’s all but impossible to see how they can find otherwise), she cannot. The Ministerial Code requires her to resign, and if she doesn’t there’ll be a vote of no confidence which I believe the Greens will back, because you simply can’t have the First Minister lying to the Parliament.

    25. James Horace says:

      Im not sure Stu.

      If Ms Patel remained in place following the breaking of the ministerial code, Nicola Sturgeon (aided by her polls/approval ratings) will be as safe as a carcrash in a volvo.

    26. James Horace says:

      Which is very safe indeed. Have you see the size of those bumpers?

    27. Desimond says:

      re
      If James Hamilton or the inquiry find formally that she lied to Parliament (and it’s all but impossible to see how they can find otherwise)
      t
      A question is – Would they they want to?

      Is annoying and unsettling Nicola enough in the run up to Election.

      To be seen to be “hounding the poor woman” during CoVid could lose votes rather than be a vote winner..how many converts would take their side, especially with good news vaccines rolling ouy across the land…could we instead see a “She appears to have lied, albeit unintentionally ( i know i know!)” and a rap on knuckles and lets all go sup at the gravy train once more?

    28. Ian Brotherhood says:

      ‘I saw people in my living room so I knew something was going on. Then I realised my wife was in the kitchen room with the former First Minister so I went up the stairs to have a shower and by the time I came down they were all away. I made us my signature dish and we chatted about Denise Mina’s early novels for a while. I didn’t say anything about what I’d seen when I popped my head around the living room door and she never asked. It was a normal Saturday night.’

      Not verbatim but that’s the gist of what he said.

      It’s like something from the synopsis of a noir film which, for very good and obvious reasons, was never made.

    29. Johnny Martin says:

      Accept all the views about ‘maybe they don’t want to go in hard on Sturgeon for [x] reason’ but I mean, honestly, the opposition parties (if they ever want to get anywhere) are wasting the chance for serious scalps if they pull their punches as most of their reps on this committee seem to be doing.

      If they are doing so on purpose, because they fear something worse (?) if they play a part in dethroning Sturgeon, it doesn’t say much for their own ambition to play any role in governing Scotland (at whatever level). Do you want to be included, guys, or….?

      If I am, for instance, Jackie Baillie, I go in as hard as I can because it i) makes me look effective, ii) if this is something I care about (i), it makes my seat on the gravy train more secure, iii) gives me even more of a claim on the Labour top job at some point and it might even coincide with an upswing in fortunes if any backlash against the SNP (regarding all this and other policies) is more severe than I imagine.

      Not to do this is political cowardice. Make your case. Do you think Scotland is served well by the things you are currently discussing, Jackie/Murdo/Cole Hamilton? Go after them properly, then. Personally, I don’t see that I’d ever vote for you due to your stance on independence, but there’d be more room for some respect.

      Conversely if, after years of bleating at non-existent ‘bad’ government, you don’t go ‘full throttle’ when there’s something to be got at, then you’ve let yourselves and the general public down.

    30. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Myself (3.05) –

      I mean, what does it say…I feel embarrassed about writing ‘the kitchen room’ in that comment, but he doesn’t look at all embarrassed about coming out with such guff knowing that it’s being watched and will be on the record forever?

      We’re not dealing with ‘normal’ people here.

    31. Johnny Martin says:

      Ian @ 3:13pm:

      Out of interest, what date was it he was talking about there?

    32. Grey Gull says:

      @Ian 3.05
      Or an episode in the Scottish version of Borgen. Supposedly that was one of herself’s favourite programmes. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/21/snp-nicola-sturgeon-borgen-coaltion

    33. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Johnny Martin –

      I’m not sure but I think it was the Dec 2nd one. Too many dates in my heid now so I can’t swear to it.

      Someone will know though, and it’ll all be getting some serious analysis over at Gordon Dangerfield’s blog.

      😉

    34. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Grey Gull –

      She’ll be hoping that the dramatised version of her life will start a new series with her finding Murrell in the shower and realising that the past six years has just been a ghastly nightmare.

    35. Johnny Martin says:

      Cheers Ian, was just curious as to whether the day of the week was even correct!

    36. Hatuey says:

      lol. What a Brilliant little kick in the chops.

      Today we saw more clearly than ever how the Inquiry itself may be tainted with apparent bias. The way the SNP stooges ran down the clock with intentionally soft questions on irrelevant issues was scandalous. What a sham.

      When questioning strayed into areas that the Convener deemed too sensitive or difficult, she intervened several times and seemed to switch off microphones at one point…

      They may win these pesky little corrupt battles but they aren’t winning the war – everybody can see the whole thing stinks to the heavens.

    37. Hatuey says:

      “what date was it he was talking about there?”

      The date of the meeting at the house was April 2nd 2018.

    38. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If Ms Patel remained in place following the breaking of the ministerial code, Nicola Sturgeon (aided by her polls/approval ratings) will be as safe as a carcrash in a volvo.”

      The important difference there is that Boris Johnson could refuse to accept Priti Patel’s resignation if she offered it. Sturgeon can’t credibly refuse to accept her own. Also, the Tories have a majority and could survive any confidence vote as a result of Patel’s refusal to quit. The SNP don’t.

    39. Republicofscotland says:

      So has Murrell sailed through the inquiry unscathed.

    40. James Horace says:

      Stu – If they string this enquiry out for long enough, Sturgeon may well have a majority by the time any decisions need to be made.

    41. Hatuey says:

      One of the best bits of questioning today, which I suspect we will hear more about in future, came from Jackie Baillie who asked Murrell if he would confirm “under oath” that there aren’t any more similar text/whatsapp messages out there (that is, similar to the scandalous ones we all know about).

      It’s understood that there are plenty of text/whatsapp messages lying somewhere just waiting to be released. I think Kenny Macaskill referred to them about 2 or 3 weeks ago in an article. If one or two of those were to show up with Murrell’s name on them… well, talk about popcorn time.

    42. susanXX says:

      I’m truly disgusted with this. Step down NS. Step down Murrell. Step down Shirley Anne Somerville, step down Humza Yousaf. Step down the rest of you. You are criminals, just go away.

    43. Mac says:

      If it was not for the minor efforts of Jackie Ballie it would be a mostly toothless ‘inquiry’. Softball questions which half the time they suggest the answer to them in the question. Accepting of endless waffling and running down the clock. Accepting every answer immediately at face value. (‘Oh right ok, moving on’)

      Really need a proper judicial review as the SNP have complete contempt for this quasi judicial process.

      If this proves anything it is that having a couple filling these two roles at the same time is totally unacceptable and should never have been allowed.

    44. P says:

      I completely forgot about Wings over Scotland on Facebook.
      Recommend a look over there
      Rev seems to comment quite a bit

    45. Mac says:

      Moderation again! It is not writing JB’s name out is it?

    46. Graeme says:

      According to Phillip Sims Twitter, Murdo Frazer says

      “Peter Murrell’s words indicate that Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament, gave false evidence to the committee, and broke the ministerial code”

    47. James Horace says:

      I just cant see this breaking of the ministerial code being enough to end her.

      Outside of twitter and the odd forum, the vast majority of the general public couldnt give a toss about this enquiry. Sadly, her public approval ratings remain sky high. This inquiry has been unable to land even the smallest of flesh wounds so far.

      Even if the breaking of the ministerial code is proven, she is simply too popular for this to be a critical hit.

      In my humble opinion, she will survive, and remain in role until she chooses to leave. I think this means there’s a good few years left in her as FM, sadly.

    48. Donald Raymond says:

      If it suits the interests of unionists for Nicola Sturgeon to stay in post (as some believe it is) then doesn’t that mean she will probably remain as first minister no matter what?

      If Murrell and Sturgeon come out of this scathed, while Alex Salmond remains in exile, it will be a huge injustice. Is there anything we can do about it?

    49. David says:

      Watched the bowler and the bunnet should be shown in all schools

    50. Iain More says:

      Off topic and nothing to see hear even if dirty Tory fingers are all over with White Settler Kipper fingers as well. Red Card Ross was part of the coalition that handed over 16mill in consultant fees in relation to Moray flood prevention schemes.

      It appears that the River Lossie has burst its banks at the back of Elgin Academy today. Why arent there Tory Councillors and White Settler Kipper Independents in jail over the flood prevention scheme? Red Card Ross was part of the coalition that handed over 16mill in consultant fees and then asked then asked Moray Poll Tax Payers to accept millions in cuts. But hey nothing to see here.

      If this was a Fundamentalist Nationalist Council packed with Nats who actually believed in Indy the Police and the BBC/STV and P&J would be all over this like a whore with super-clap.

    51. Willie B says:

      With What’s app, can you not block folk from knowing if you are on or not by going into the setting, it certainly used to be the case that you used to be able to do that, and it would give the same message as at the top of Murrell WhatsApp

    52. Dave Hansell says:

      Can anyone watching this confirm that the premises in which it is taking place has a sufficient number of fire extinguishers available?

    53. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The thing is Stu, Jackie Bailey did not ask him If he was a member of Whats app now. She asked him very specifically if he was a party to the whats app conversation that took place at that time with the COO.

      If he only recently made it private then he is lying.”

      Well, no, technically what he’s doing there is simply not answering the question.

    54. Abalha says:

      Utter load of shit from Murrell he really is a piece of work. Aye who has EVER bloody well researched HIS Canadian pollsters who called 2014 ALL wrong. That we are expected to believe when Nicola tells him ‘I can’t talk about that’ He turns to asking her about what book she is currently reading or asks what she’d ‘like for her T’ Aye mate, get tae.
      Yes I’m angry, I dealt with him in 2014, not pleasant, not pleasant AT ALL.

    55. Bugger le Panda says:

      Clutching at straws but could Peter Murrells’s account have been available to others?

      Yes, I know, who and why, but?

    56. Ian says:

      Thanks to MaggieC at 2.02pm from previous post –

      ‘The party is paying Murrell’s legal bill for his dealings with the Salmond inquiry’

      https://archive.is/Grea4

      Ring fenced independence campaign funds, six figure payments for Alyn Smith’s Brexit legal costs. Other examples of dodgy financial decisions?

      Follow the money may well be the key to exposing any SNP corruption. Those involved in the Alex Salmond case may dodge claims of lying and therefore the consequences of lying by using legal word play terms like ‘did not knowingly lie’, but financial fraud doesn’t suffer from the same slipperyness.

    57. Robert Graham says:

      Lost the link just as Murdo Fraser was ruffling his plumage

      Anyone else have the same problem it was only the Holyrood website every other one was ok

    58. Robert Graham says:

      Oh forgot what I was going to say and that was

      YER TALKING PISH PAL NOW SPILL THE BEANS

      He seems to be able to tell lies quite convincingly maybe a Lie Detector will give us some of the truth who knows otherwise a professional LIAR at work .

    59. Gerry McGhee says:

      Stu,
      I don’t think the distinction you make helps him. if that was his intention he is in trouble. If I say, I do not eat meat. it is not limited to the time in which I speak. it means ‘ever’, not, I am not eating meat now…

    60. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Viewers not familiar with the details may well feel that the committee gave Murrell an easy time but, as Linda Fabiani has repeated each and every week, their remit is very specific and we can’t really appreciate what they’re trying to do unless we stay mindful of the very tight restrictions they’re working under.

      Bear in mind also that the committee members will have seen enough evidence (which we cannot see) for them to construct a pretty accurate picture of what happened. For example, they know the identity of the complainers. That’s quite a ‘big one’ for us *not* to know when we’re trying to follow what’s happening.

      I’m not expressing this very well…

      What I’m trying to get at is that the exchanges between Murrell and the committee members can be viewed almost as a kind of performance. They’re all playing their part knowing that the script has been written and they have no real option but to read their lines. Some do it more effectively than others but the end result is pretty much the same. That goes for the appearance of Nicola Sturgeon, whenever that is. There won’t be any real ‘Scooby-Doo’ moments.

      Some on Twitter appear to be suggesting that Murrell threw NS under the bus today but he didn’t say anything new, did he? Accordingly, NS isn’t going to have to tweak her evidence as and when she appears – she’s already lied about memories and the status of ‘meetings’, as documented here repeatedly.

      Those criticizing the committee should ask themselves what questions *they* would ask someone like Murrell (or NS for that matter) given the tight constraints in place.

      It’s not as easy as it looks. FWIW, I think they’ve done remarkably well considering the contemptible behaviour they’ve had to tolerate from almost every institution involved. Every member of that committee, and anyone else who’s been paying attention, must surely concede that the conspiracy should no longer be described as ‘alleged’ – it was real.

    61. MaggieC says:

      Me @ 4.48 pm

      Also from the written evidence page ,

      The convener has written to Barbara Allison ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/20201204ConvenertoBarbaraAllison.pdf

    62. Terry says:

      Maybe it’s time that Nicola “recuse” herself from Scotland.

    63. MaggieC says:

      Re Harassment and Complaints Committee ,

      The Parliament Tv link is now up for today’s meeting ,

      https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/committee-on-the-scottish-government-handling-of-harassment-complaints-december-8-2020

    64. The Dissident says:

      Ian B @ 5:06

      FWIW, I think you have expressed things very well.

      The other thing I would add is that the committee DON’T have to convince anyone other than themselves of the truth. What I mean by that is that they don’t have to frame questions, summarise answers and persuade a Jury.

      Often questions will simply be to validate (or not) information they are already privvy to which, as you say, we might not be. And what appears to be the obvious follow up question may be entirely academic to the questioner whose knowledge far exceeds mere observers.

      Furthermore, I am certain that the threads here and on Dangerfield are not unknown to at least some of the committee members.

    65. Stuart MacKay says:

      Ian Brotherhood

      So is the real purpose of the inquiry to show the interviewees all reading their lines and to let the electorate decide? As you say, based on their respective performances, it’s safe to drop the “alleged” word whenever conspiracy is mentioned. That way there’s no need to hang them, they’ve already taken care of that themselves.

    66. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Stuart MacKay –

      I wish I knew.

      FWIW I believe that this whole inquiry was itself a stalling device by NS, way back, and she’s still using it as one.

      Perhaps she viewed Fabiani et al as a relatively ‘safe’ bunch who would be happy to go through the motions and could be as easily gulled as the electorate generally.

      If so, she was wrong.

    67. CameronB Brodie says:

      “If Ms Patel remained in place following the breaking of the ministerial code, Nicola Sturgeon (aided by her polls/approval ratings) will be as safe as a carcrash in a volvo.

      Which is very safe indeed.”

      Not if you’re in the other car. Have you see the size of those bumpers? 🙂

      Basing one’s legal judgement on one’s point-of-view, is the sort of cognitive bias the law should avoid if it wants to be universal in outlook and application. Unfortunately, neither of our parliaments can be accused of supporting a cognitive approach towards constitutional law. So here’s a look at “Evidence & decision making in the law: theoretical, computational and empirical approaches”. As you can’t beat a bit of Artificial Intelligence theory, when seeking to rationalise the law and legal practice. 😉

      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-019-09253-0

    68. kapelmeister says:

      He glanced upwards at the ceiling when he averred that he doesn’t use WhatApp. In body language looking upwards is usually associated with someone telling the truth. But Murrell’s upward glance looked very stagey, as if someone told him to do that when he had to make some particularly outrageous lie.

    69. Dan says:

      @ Cam B

      Indeed, things have moved on from a time when Volvos with big bumpers were considered safe.
      3 min vid of big Volvo v wee Modus

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

      Of course a keen eye will also notice both those cars in that test are made by foreign companies, as there weren’t any “Great” British cars left as they had all rusted away to buggery such was the stunningly shite quality of the product.

      Nevermind, no doubt BoJo’s government will hand another of their mates a bung of millions to resurrect the limited edition “Brexit” model Austin Maxi, adorned in butcher’s apron flegs.

    70. Patrick Roden says:

      One of the questions that sprang to mind was if as Mr Murrell claims. his two texts messages about putting pressure on the police to make AS fight on several fronts etc were completely out of character for him and not him being part of a campaign to get Alex,

      Surely the answers to these texts would confirm this?

      If you get a strange text from someone who you have worked with for a number of years, that seemed completely out of character, you’d be texting them to ask if their phone had been hacked!
      You’d then be asking them what was up and pointing out that you’d never heard them speak about Alex Salmond like this!

      Unless we see the responses to these texts, we can only assume that the messages were completely ‘in character’ for the way Mr Murrell had been speaking about making life as difficult as possible for Alex Salmond!

      So you SNP MP’s & SNP’s who we know regularly look into Wings, what’s it to be,
      will you continue to support the Murrells attempt at a whitewash this whole investigation, or will you begin to publicly admit you feel uneasy about it and lend your support to a Judge lead the public enquiry, that does not have the disgracefully narrow remit that this farse of an enquiry has had.

      Tie to grow a pair!

    71. Dan says:

      Soz, OT again but on the subject of cars, another “Brexit” “bonus”…
      A wee tweet thread.
      https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1336333265045635072

    72. twathater says:

      TBH I only managed to see the last few minutes of the inquiry but I thought Baillie was on to something when she asked the greaser how he could text about the Edinburgh situation when it was not widely known about at the time , he then tried to separate the timelines but she persisted that the Edinburgh situation was only resurrected VERY recently but his texts had been longer in the past , she then said that she would have to refer back to her notes and his previous statements. IMO she knows the creep is lying and is just going through the motions

      I like many others am SICKENED and DISGUSTED at the BLATANT LIES and obfuscation by this CABAL of shysters and carpetbaggers , I don’t just want them ejected from the SG I want them jailed for their lies and corruption that is SMEARING SCOTLAND , and for their attempts to jail and destroy an innocent man whilst destroying the DREAMS of a nation
      Anyone who would support and vote for this SCUM and their heinous actions are only giving them carte blanche to carry on doing what they are doing , destroying Scotland

    73. Astonished says:

      First headline I’ve disagreed with for a long while.

    74. Stuart MacKay says:

      O/T So is Boris going to have a “Chamberlain” moment, return from Brussels and declare “trade in our time”?

      The fact that he is travelling to the lair of the Evil EU means he dare not come back with anything that smacks of compromise or having bent the knee, otherwise he’ll be sacrificed on the spot by the Brexiteers.

    75. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @twathater (6.27) –

      Aye, right at the death, Jackie Baillie doing a real Columbo, ehmmm-just-one-last-thing routine, and it pulled the rug right from under him.

      (It was actually the London situation she was referring to, but same difference – he was properly rattled.)

    76. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dan
      I only mentioned it as I was once in a wee car taken out by a volvo. That was a prang that left my seat half it’s original width and re-located inwards by at least a foot, and at relatively low speed (under 40mph, possibly even under 30mph). I was an old Opel Corsa, so not particularly safe by modern standards.

      —-

      As a cognitive approach to the law and legal practice is pretty much essential to social and constitutional justice, here’s a look at “Cognitive Psychology and Optimal Government Design”.

      https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73975053.pdf

    77. James Horace says:

      Sturgeon is 100% safe.

      Whether its a 70’s Volvo with a bumper a foot deep, or a Japanese plug-in hybrid with impressive crumple zones.

      She will sail through this, and will continue to lead for a good few years. Its annoying, but it’s almost certainly going to be the outcome.

      If her approval ratings were poor, it would be a differnt story. For as much as we hate talking about the polls as an excuse, it will be the polls that saves her again.

    78. Derek says:

      “James Horace says:
      8 December, 2020 at 2:39 pm

      If Ms Patel remained in place following the breaking of the ministerial code, Nicola Sturgeon (aided by her polls/approval ratings) will be as safe as a carcrash in a volvo.”

      I’m not so sure; Patel has the option of lying low for a bit and has protection from above (in the shape of Johnson), neither of which is available to Sturgeon.

    79. holymacmoses says:

      Murrell again comes out with the assertion that ‘everyone has the right to go to the police’ – it’s a stock phrase for this lot and for the life of me I do NOT understand the logic.

      Alex Salmond had left the Government and had left the SNP: neither had any authority, legislation, constraint or jurisdiction over him.

      Two women come along and complain about Mr Salmond’s behaviour some years ago. UNLESS they want to make a formal police complaint , the matter has absolutely nothing to do with either the Scottish Government or the SNP. IF the courts found him guilty then they could have banned his membership. As it is, I don’t see how these women could do anything OTHER than go to the police OR face being taken to court by Mr Salmond for defamation of character – or some other similar charge.
      It’s not a question that the women were FREE to go the police – that is the recourse they should have taken from the word go in this situation.

    80. R Soul says:

      Muscleguy at 14:03: Jackie Baillie could be setting him up there

      You have got to be joking. That useless oxygen thief couldn’t even set up a microwave meal by herself.

    81. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Ian Brotherhood at 5:06 pm.

      You typed,
      “Bear in mind also that the committee members will have seen enough evidence (which we cannot see) for them to construct a pretty accurate picture of what happened. For example, they know the identity of the complainers. That’s quite a ‘big one’ for us *not* to know when we’re trying to follow what’s happening.”

      But the thing is that most of us are able to add 2+2 and make 4.
      I have cited the following links numerous times this year. I checked with Rev Stu beforehand and he confirmed it was ok to post – because the info was already in the public domain!

      From this link (Jan 15, 2019):-
      http://archive.is/oTUpT
      “Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff suspected a complaint had been made to the Scottish Government about Alex Salmond the month before he informed his successor about the probe, it has been claimed.

      Geoff Aberdein, who served as Mr Salmond’s chief of staff during his time in office, has revealed he met Ms Sturgeon’s aide Liz Lloyd twice in March last year.
      At the second meeting in late March he said Ms Lloyd confirmed “she suspected the Scottish Government had received an official complaint about Mr Salmond”.”

      Then we have this, from:-
      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/either-nicola-sturgeon-or-geoff-aberdein-is-lying-on-oath-and-proving-which-will-be-easy/comment-page-1/

      “It is impossible that both Nicola Sturgeon and Geoff Aberdein are tellng the truth about their meeting on 29 March 2018, which both now say discussed allegations against Alex Salmond.

      Geoff Aberdein, Alex Salmond’s former Chief of Staff testified under oath in the Salmond trial that he was contacted in mid-March by phone by Nicola Sturgeon’s office to discuss historic allegations against Alex Salmond, and was asked to a meeting with the First Minister on 29 March. Aberdein testified he was so concerned that he arranged a conference call with Kevin Pringle and Duncan Hamilton QC to discuss this.

      By contrast, Sturgeon claims in her evidence to the parliamentary inquiry that the meeting happened by accident, that she had no knowledge it would discuss allegations against Alex Salmond, and subsequently she had entirley forgotten about it; forgetting about it especially when replying repeatedly to parliament, over 18 months, to questioning on when she had first heard of allegations.”

      Then we have the quote from the infamous Garavelli (and the gang of 9 or 10) story…
      http://archive.is/dnNrM#selection-1877.0-1881.266

      “The second woman was Nicola Sturgeon. She too was said to be on the witness list though never called. And yet, she was omni-present. Every time her name was mentioned, political journalists pricked up their ears.

      When Salmond’s former Chief of Staff Geoff Aberdein told the court he and one of the complainers had first met with her on March 29, 2018 – four days earlier than the date she previously gave the Scottish Parliament – several of them almost spontaneously combusted.”

      Can you add? The 29th March 1918 meeting had Geoff Aberdein, “one of the complainers”, Nicola Sturgeon and her chief of staff, Liz Lloyd.

      A busy meeting, what? How big was that office?

    82. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Stu.,

      It’s been a very long day at work, so please forgive my question if the answer is obvious to yourself or any other Wingers…

      If we follow the binary logic that Nicola Sturgeon is exposed to being given her jotters for breaching the Ministerial Code and resigns. Or (more likely) voted out by a no-confidence ballot at Hollyrood…

      &

      John Swinney’s coat, already on a shoogly pet is similarly sacked by no-confidence ballot…

      Who are the contenders to become SNP First Minister?

      A supplementary question and the one I am driving at… WHO in line of succession is relatively untainted by the Sturgeon McWoke Genderwoowoo Brigade to become a DECENT First Minister and SNP leader who places…

      SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE FIRST AND FOREMOST in the rankings of ScottishGovernment business

      (well first behind the safety of all Scots during the Covid pandemic).

      It’s just a struggle to find someone on our benches I would trust.

      Stu., after your earlier thread regarding SNP President Mike Russell-Trump., the current McWokeSNP seems a weak imitation of the blighted American Republican Party that many now call… ReTrumplicans.

      It might be that a TRUE INDY SNP party may need forming.

      Better still is the idea from Denise that she floated the other day…

      An IndyRef LIST party led by Alex Salmond COULD secure 25 MSP seats and hold the balance of majority, pretty much FORCING the McWokeSNP rump to actually name a day for IndyRef2.

      Basically I trust Alex to keep the SNP true to what so many decent ordinary members have signed up to for the past 80 years. Most of whom still remain clueless as to the McWokeist takeover by Nicola’s Army of obnoxious, hormone and royd-raging LGBTQ+XYZs fifth columnists.

      The question of who will become Scotland’s next First Minister, if Denise’s suggestion comes to pass, and Sturgeon/Swinney are out of ministerial office, with say a weak and feckless Humza Youseff overpromoted to be caretaker FM….

      Then Alex Salmond would be in poll position to become DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER at the very least

      Do you see where the political game of chess question I asked is going? 🙂

    83. CameronB Brodie says:

      If the “rule of recognition” is taken as the principle “constitutive rule” of all subsequent law, then a cognitive approach to the law and legal practice is pretty much essential to achieving justice. So that’s why it’s unavailable to those living in Scotland. Though this is possibly unconnected to the apparent wrongdoings of individuals in positions of authority, it certainly doesn’t assist the interests of justice. 🙁

      Here’s a look at “Constitutive Rules, Language, and Ontology”, anyway.

      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-009-9178-6

    84. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @BDTT –

      Aye!

      My point is that we’re not ‘supposed’ to know and we can’t admit that we do. The committee members do know and have to go through this charade of making sure that we can’t work it out from what they say in public even when they know we already have and we know that they know we know.

      It’s farcical.

    85. Fireproofjim says:

      I still think it is outrageous that the accusers, who were shown to be liars and fantasists, are granted anonymity while an innocent Alex Salmond has his reputation trashed by the muck raking media.

    86. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m not sure if folk remember me suggesting “Regulation theory” is under threat from both our governments. Well here’s a look at “Being Human in the Anthropocene – 3.3 Regulative and constitutive rules”. To put it as simply as I can, trans-women are women, only in the same way Britain is one nation. That is, by legally valuing the ideological over the reality of the bio-cultural semiosphere. Which suggests the law is adrift from cognitive linguistics, and that’s when natural rights get abused.

      https://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/anthropocene/3-3-regulative-and-constitutive-rules/

    87. velofello says:

      Fireproofjim: if a colleague touched your hair, whilst in the company of others on an elevator, don’t you think that you should be given indefinite State security of anonymity as you process your complaint, the intent of your complaint being to consign your colleague to prison, even when a jury dismisses your complaint?

      For all their wigs and gowns and uniforms, the judiciary and police can make some really unfair stupid decisions.

      On a more mundane level wrt stupid and unfair decisions – if I were a football coach, training sessions would be to raise the skill level of players aiming the ball at defenders arms in the penalty area, and so to win penalties. As for rugby… reduced to big guys crawling along thr ground and blocking the opposition access to the ball; and lighter built guys behind the big guys kicking the ball up into the sky.

    88. Mike d says:

      I believe sturgeon will come out of this unscathed, because darker forces will not want another independence minded FM in place rocking the boat after may 2021. So every whitehall effort will be made to keep sturgeon in power, feeding the plebs more section 30 sh**e.

    89. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. the legal contention of a need for any nation to seek approval to assert it’s legal identity. I think this is described as “mince”, in the legal vernacular. So here’s a look at “Collective Intentionality, Social Domination, and Reification”. Which may not be immediately relevant to possible malpractice by those in positions of influence over Scotland’s government, but it pretty much defines our potential for justice in Scotland (see Brexit).

      https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/journals/jso/3/2/article-p207.pdf

      “This paper addresses the way that social power and domination can be understood in terms of collective intentionality. I argue that the essence of stable forms of rational power and domination must be understood as the functional influence of material resource control and the power to control the norms and collective-intentional, constitutive rules that guide institutions.

      As a result, the routinization and internalization of these rules by subjects becomes the criterion of success for any system of social power and social domination. I then consider how this relates the phenomenon of reification, which I proceed to show is when consciousness has been shaped by constitutive rules and group collective intentionality that sustain relations of domination and control and accept them
      as basic social facts, as second nature.

      I then go on to show parallels between Searle and Lukács before outlining the distinction between descriptive and critical social ontology.”

    90. Graham says:

      Useful article, Rev.

      Iain More says: ..’would be all over this like a whore with super-clap.’
      [8 December, 2020 at 4:05 pm]
      Gratuitously vile phrasing and imagery there IMO.
      Does it betray a misogynist? IMO, likely yes.

    91. James Horace says:

      I may have missed something way back, or maybe even recently, but what is the relevance of Whatsapp itself?

      When Kenny got handed evidence of the messages from Murrell, it was widely reported that they were Whatsapp messages at the time. The #whatsappmurrell hashtag became quite popular around this time, and Kenny’s article here also mentioned Whatsapp a lot. From memory (correct me if I am wrong) there were also screengrabs of the conversation, direct from Whatsapp.

      Then, it seems to have been corrected that these messages were “text messages” rather than Whatsapp.

      Is this true?

      And if so, what does Whatsapp have to do with anything?

      Please join the dots for me, if I am being thick…

    92. Chris Downie says:

      I still think there’s a chance the FM could survive a VONC, thanks to a few Unionist MSPs who are farsighted enough to see that, with no chance of a Unionist party winning an election in Scotland in May (or even in 2026, barring a miracle), keeping the Sturgeon and Murrell team in place is their best strategic option.

    93. GlenIslay says:

      Ouch. He just threw his wife under a double decker bus to save his own skin. Classy guy.

    94. CameronB Brodie says:

      I appreciate critical legal theory probably isn’t immediately relevant, but I thought this a pertinent topic to shoehorn in a bit of linguistic theory. So here’s a look at “DISCRIMINATION AND DISTRUST: A CRITICAL LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE DISCRIMINATION CONCEPT”. As you can’t get much more discriminatory than Brexit, though genderwoowoo and the Hate Crime bill have the potential to be remarkably destructive to the potential for justice in Scotland.

      https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=jcl

    95. MaggieC says:

      From the Times ,

      “ Nicola Sturgeon’s evidence to Alex Salmond inquiry contradicted by her husband, Peter Murrell “

      https://archive.is/Q5BOW

    96. Mac says:

      I thought it mildly shocking at the time that Murrell claimed he was not in the house during the meeting and then under questioning as to why he thought the meeting was about something big he suddenly said he was in the house during the meeting but only towards the end.

      He needed to introduce that change to his story so that he could claim that it was seeing the people waiting outside the meeting room that made him think something big was happening rather than the blindingly obvious route of his wife just telling him about it.

      They are such easy liars.

    97. McDuff says:

      This committee is a joke. Bailey could have destroyed Murrell as she hates the SNP for destroying Labour in Scotland.
      So why the soft fluffy interview.
      What’s going on?????

    98. MaggieC says:

      Re Harassment and Complaints Committee ,

      The written report from yesterday’s meeting has been published ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=13002&mode=pdf

    99. wee monkey says:

      “Ian Brotherhood says:
      8 December, 2020 at 5:06 pm
      Viewers not familiar with the details may well feel that the committee gave Murrell an easy time but, as Linda Fabiani has repeated each and every week, their remit is very specific and we can’t really appreciate what they’re trying to do unless we stay mindful of the very tight restrictions they’re working under.

      Bear in mind also that the committee members will have seen enough evidence (which we cannot see) for them to construct a pretty accurate picture of what happened. For example, they know the identity of the complainers. That’s quite a ‘big one’ for us *not* to know when we’re trying to follow what’s happening.

      I’m not expressing this very well…

      What I’m trying to get at is that the exchanges between Murrell and the committee members can be viewed almost as a kind of performance. They’re all playing their part knowing that the script has been written and they have no real option but to read their lines. Some do it more effectively than others but the end result is pretty much the same. That goes for the appearance of Nicola Sturgeon, whenever that is. There won’t be any real ‘Scooby-Doo’ moments.

      Some on Twitter appear to be suggesting that Murrell threw NS under the bus today but he didn’t say anything new, did he? Accordingly, NS isn’t going to have to tweak her evidence as and when she appears – she’s already lied about memories and the status of ‘meetings’, as documented here repeatedly.

      Those criticizing the committee should ask themselves what questions *they* would ask someone like Murrell (or NS for that matter) given the tight constraints in place.

      It’s not as easy as it looks. FWIW, I think they’ve done remarkably well considering the contemptible behaviour they’ve had to tolerate from almost every institution involved. Every member of that committee, and anyone else who’s been paying attention, must surely concede that the conspiracy should no longer be described as ‘alleged’ – it was real.”

      Well said.

      It is f*****g tortuous that these individuals treat Scotland, it’s people and it’s law as a f*****g plaything for their own benefit.

    100. Corrado Mella says:

      WhatsApp is not a Social Media platform.

      It’s an end-to-end encrypted communication tool used to exchange private and secretive communications.

      Usage of such platform for Party or Government communications is at least improper, if not seriously suspicious, as it avoids public scrutiny – a moral obligation Parties have and a legally binding constraint for Governments.

      Defining WhatsApp as a Social Media platform to the Inquiry, Murrell has misled its members and should be sanctioned accordingly.

      The stench of deep seated rot is overpowering.

      It this the elite we rely on to steer Scotland through the rocky road to Independence?

      FML.

    101. Nosey says:

      WOW ? lying fucker, Nicola is going to walk away from this unscathed, and continue as leader. Get the Murrell’s to fuck and take the dross with them. Shower of lying,deceiving, greedy, social climbing BASTARDS!!!



    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