The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Rotting from the head

Posted on January 23, 2021 by

Print Friendly

    92 to “Rotting from the head”

    1. Brian Doonthetoon says:


    2. Dave M says:

      OOFT! Good one.

    3. ClanDonald says:

      The sturgeon has gone off.

    4. cynicalHighlander says:

      Rotten sturgeon

    5. Tannadice Boy says:

      Very high standard of cartoons and phenomenal output from Stu. The blog to be on.

    6. Iain More says:


    7. Bob Costello says:

      A distinct case of Salmonella

    8. MaggieC says:

      Excellent once again Chris , 10 out of 10 for this one .

    9. The Isolator says:


    10. Steve Davison says:

      The smell from the salmond wagon has now been redacted anyone caught mentioning the smel or sniffing the air will face prosecution from police scotland

    11. Marie Clark says:

      Wow Chris, you didn’t miss and hit the wall with this one. That has to be a keeper.

    12. Robert Louis says:

      REV STU,

      An important question regarding the holyrood enquiry. We know pretty much what was done, but could it be a case of, initially the attempt was just to ‘dig up dirt’ to stop Salmond making a return (which is pretty evil in itself), but then the UK civil service spotted a means to ‘get salmond’ permanently, so to speak.

      I find it difficult to believe that the original intention of scotgov/SNP was to put an innocent man in jail, but is it possible that WAS the intention from the Britnat/MI5 UK civil service side.

      The upshot would be, that whilst the behaviour of the scotgov leadership was reprehensible, the REAL bad actors in this are the ‘UK’ civil service, who spotted a chance to permanently destroy Salmond, and also undermine and control the scotgov. That is, they could, by association, pin it on somebody like NS, but by her doing what they ask (no indyref), they wouldn’t??

      I mean that is how orgs like MI5 typically act. Carrot and stick – do this you’ll be ok, diobey/don’t help MI5, and this bad thing will happen?? That’s why we have so many dodgy ‘honorary professor’ posts and so-called ‘lords’ in Scotland, isn’t it?

      Or am I wrong? Apologies for it being so comvoluted.

      I think it would be good to get some perpective/thoughts on this.

      Anyway, great cartoon as ever Mr. Cairns. Both houses stink right now. A right good clear out is required.

    13. StuartM says:

      @Robert Louis

      Leslie Evans doesn’t take a trip to the loo without Nicola’s say-so, so the chance that she’d independently decide to organise a plot to politically assassinate Salmond is inconceivable. Forget about MI5 hiding under the bed, this plot has Sturgeon’s fingerprints all over it.

    14. Steve Davison says:

      Robert louis are you saying that
      Scotgov/snp are at ghe beck and call of the civil service who are in turn all Mi5 operafives Or are you saying that scotgov/snp are been blackmailed by the secret service who a pretending to be the civil service .Then again you could be saying that the scotgov/snp where outwitted by thoose martini sipping civil servants in tuxedos who happen to work for Mi5
      Is there any possibilty that scotgov/snp/SN are a bunch of lying self serving lost the plot tossers

    15. The Isolator says:


      “Forget about MI5 hiding under the bed, this plot has Sturgeon’s fingerprints all over it.”

      You need to dig a bit deeper.

    16. A Person says:

      This is fantastic sharp humour; made me chuckle on this depressing, cold lockdown morning. Thank you!

    17. StuartM says:

      In Mark Hirst’s latest interview on the Scottish Prism podcast

      Mark remarks that the fishing companies’ protest in London was all a bit of a damp squib and the interviewer Roddy agrees and suggests that we should take a few lessons from the French. “Had they been French fishermen, they’d have dumped tonnes of rotting fish in front of No 10 and the House of Commons and blocked the M25 in both directions!!!” (Wish I’d thought of that.) It would take something of that magnitude to get the English population to sit up and take notice.

      Mark also remarks that Sturgeon’s real character in private is not the one she projects to the public (he said the same in the Tommy Sheridan interview on Sputnik). He didn’t give specifics presumably from fear of a defamation suit, but the implication is that she’s not a pretty sight in person. The first commenter Kate mentions that c2010 she met a former Sturgeon staffer who described NS as devious and untrustworthy, and had a blog describing his experience with her. Anybody remember that blog and maybe a link to an archived copy?

    18. StuartM says:


      Hold up, you forgot your tinfoil hat.

    19. Contrary says:

      Appropriate cartoon, both sides of the nasty stinking edifices we are living with – and will have to for the foreseeable future with the SNP as they are right now. Did you see that the SNP plan on introducing ‘green freeports’? Yet another tweak to Westminster neoliberal economy-destroying shit to make it look better – an absolute pile of pish. The SNP plan on landing us with freeports: expect money laundering, unfair non-competition, low wages, and a shed load of smuggling (hmmm, is that bad,,,).

      @ Robert Louis

      It appears that the original paranoid manoeuvre by Nicola Sturgeon to de-fang a perceived political opponent snowballed out of control, and ended up with the backing of all sorts of corrupt sections – who have their own (unionist) interests in the matter. It is to live in denial to think that Nicola Sturgeon didn’t start, and cause, the entire affair – the unionists would never have gone after Alex Salmond on their own (as they haven’t done for many a year), and civil servants and the Crown Office cannot take action of this kind without either instruction or backing from government : that is, Nicola Sturgeon. None of the coordination or covering up could have happened without all these institutions being party to it.

      The podcast by barrheadboy interviewing Mark Hirst is very instructive into the ‘why’ of the matter and Gordon Dangerfield’s podcast with Tommy Sheridan is very instructive into the ‘how’ of the matter. If these are listened to with an open mind – ignoring any pre-conceived notions you may have – there is no question on who is responsible for the current level of corruption, one that is allowing our criminal prosecutors to persecute any dissenting voices.

      We all sometimes can make a mistake or two in life, rarely do they have have such profound and long-lasting consequences on an entire nation.

      The only good point is that it’s highlighted embedded weaknesses in our institutions, and makes it clear what needs to be fixed. We won’t get a chance to fix anything, of course, if we stay on this same path – it looks like Holyrood is heading for being a glorified council soon enough (which begs the question of of why MSPs are so silent on all of this – can’t they see the future? Don’t they understand where all this leads? Certainly not to their power and glory! Or even to keeping their jobs once the positions are redundant).

    20. Astonished says:

      “The Isolator says:
      23 January, 2021 at 8:14 am

      “Forget about MI5 hiding under the bed, this plot has Sturgeon’s fingerprints all over it.”

      You need to dig a bit deeper.”

      No he doesn’t. The simple answer is – It was sturgeon all along.

      Her unbelievable insecurity explains the fawning wokeratti (as long as you go along with them) and her idiotic loyalty to derek mackay and rhiannon spears and her plotting to destroy Alex Salmond.

      Nothing explains her abject failure to move indy forward by so much as a millimetre.

      Great Cartoon Chris .

    21. Lindy says:

      Brilliant Chris.

    22. Effijy says:

      Great work Chris.

      SNP are on their death bed now with their latest rotten carrot on
      the end of an extending pole.

      Our aspirations for Independence will never die.

      We need leadership and ideas as to the new flag we can rally behind.
      The Empire of iniquity has been beaten many times and now we must
      Commit time, money and effort to reclaim Scotland as our own.

      No point now in looking at anything SNP.
      It’s got to be about us, about Independence about the future.

    23. Effijy says:

      Update on Peoples Action on Section 30

      Dear Backers,
      By now (interesting timing) you will have seen the story in the National about the SNP’s 11 point plan, with the subheading “SNP will hold legal indyref and dare Westminster to challenge it in court.”
      The first thing I will say to that is that you cannot hold a “legal” indyref if you have not first ascertained if it is legal. We know this because the word legal is followed by the words “dare Westminster to challenge it in court”. If you are expecting a legal challenge then it means that automatically that the SNP do not know one way or the other if it would be legal.
      The irony is that we made this exact argument over the past two days and the counsel for the lord advocate stated that there was nothing on the table to indicate that the Scottish Ministers would not be seeking to hold a referendum without knowing if it was or wasn’t competent. That has clearly now been found to be false, because you cannot, on one hand, purport to hold a legal referendum and also then advance the fact that it will be challenged by the UK Government. Because if you are expecting a challenge, then there is an open question about the lawfulness of that act. That’s just basic common sense.
      It’s like saying that a washing machine will not need to be repaired for at least 25 years and then trying to sell a 5-year guarantee. The very fact that you are trying to sell an extended guarantee for the appliance shows that the appliance could break down in the next 5 years.
      Also, the word legal is the incorrect term to use here. Legal and Illegal are terms used to describe something which is specifically allowed or prohibited in law – in black and white as it were. The proper terms to use in this case are Lawful or Unlawful because the written law is uncertain on the subject. We know it is uncertain because it is literally the point of the Peoples Action on Section 30. If the question over the legality of something comes down to mibye aye, mibye naw, then you are talking about lawful and unlawful, not legal and illegal. And the First Minister knows the distinction because she studied law.
      I have to raise doubts about this article for a number of reasons. The first being that it looks as if the SNP leadership have excluded their own members from the decision-making process entirely – So much for the national assembly, they promised to give all of their members an opportunity to help chart the course. It seems clear that the leadership have unilaterally decided on that course, excluding the membership.
      However, it is the plan that the SNP leadership have decided upon which gives me the greatest concern. It is the one thing we’ve been warning about since the case started a year ago.
      The SNP are saying that they intend to put a draft bill forward in March. They will then campaign on a promise to put that bill to the chamber of Holyrood if they are elected.
      This, in of itself, makes absolutely zero sense politically and zero sense legislatively. The SNP could have easily passed the bill through Holyrood before the election with a clause in that act which specified the conditions under which it could be activated i.e. a majority vote of Holyrood. They would have then been able to campaign on a clear mandate of activating that bill after the 2021 elections. But the most important thing about putting the bill through fully and making it an act is that it would have protected the right of the Scottish People because it having been fully legislated for, it would have had protection from possible interference at Westminster with respect to reserved laws which could be passed.
      But no, the SNP have decided only to put forward a draft bill to Holyrood, just before they break off for the election campaign. This will leave the bill on public display, and within minutes of it being made public, the UK Governments legal teams will set to work finding ways to undermine the bill through laws passed at Westminster.
      Now let’s say for argument that the UK Government doesn’t undermine the bill the minute it is published and wait until the SNP put the bill to the floor after the 2021 elections to challenge the bill for competency before the court. This would immediately prevent the bill from gaining royal assent until the court decision on whether the bill was lawful or not. The problem is that while the court battle is going on, there is nothing to stop the Tories at Westminster passing legislation, or modifying existing legislation to take provisions of the indyref bill out of the competence of Holyrood.
      How do we know this? Well! This is exactly what the tories did to the SNP with the continuity bill. While the Scottish Government was fighting the UK Government in court, Westminster modified an act of parliament to make certain provisions of the continuity bill out of the hands of Holyrood, the court was then forced to rule against the continuity bill because of the law changes at Westminster gaining royal assent.
      Make no mistake, the SNP are playing an extremely dangerous game here. They have exposed us to at least three avenues of legislative attack from the Tories at Westminster and this could very well end up costing us independence.

      So what now for the Peoples Action on Section 30?
      In simple terms, we continue to the end. And the reason we continue to the end is that hopefully, it will offset the monumental stupidity being displayed by the Scottish Government. If we can prove beyond a doubt that the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for a second referendum without the consent of Westminster, then when the SNP put their bill forward, Westminster will have nothing to challenge. That’s because establishing that it is competent for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for indyref2 means that by default it establishes their bill would also be competent.
      In other words, this case has never mattered more.
      So much for a stress-free weekend!

    24. Lenny Hartley says:

      Have a look at Ian Lawsons Latest blog post, worth a read.
      the fact that 99% of Pro Indy Bloggers that I read, (WGD, WOS, Murray, dangerfield,lawson,barhead boy ) all are in agreement that Sturgeon is behind this mess. I am 100% certain that There are M15 agents at a high level in the SNP. They have had influence but Sturgeon the control freak is the one who instigated it.
      I wonder if the reason the Msm and particularly the BBC have not been going after certain SNP people who have been found to be lying to the enquiry Is because they are protecting assets.

    25. winifred mccartney says:

      Two birds with one stone – fantastic Chris.

    26. Captain Yossarian says:

      I have wondered why it is that the press and BBC have stayed out of this for so long. Do the Tom Arthurs really think that they are safe and that this will all pass?

      Could it be that if the press got involved now, then Alex Salmond would be quickly vindicated and would take-on something of a cult status in Scotland?

      He would be considered a hero amongst Scots; a modern day hero who would lead the resurgence of SNP support and renew enthusiasm for Holyrood and independence. Political momentum is everything and he would have plenty of that.

      Could it be better to let Holyrood investigate and publish the results themselves? Then it can be made to look as if Holyrood is beyond saving and has to close for a while. Alex will emerge with some credit but the political landscape will have changed so much that he will never be able to capitalize on it.

      I was wondering what has made the Fabiani Inquiry get their arse in gear all of a sudden. Maybe it is this.

      I was watching ‘All the President’s Men’ the other night and so I am fascinated by the similarities. I’m sure there are a few ‘deepthroats’, SG deepthroats speaking to Sky News for example.

    27. Alan Mackintosh says:

      Captain, yes, I was musing about the Sky deepthroats. In the written version of the Sky video report posted by Stu a day or two back, it mentioned that Sky had spoken to 4 people who had corroborated the facts of the unpublished submission and the unnamed Nicla close colleague. It seems to me that the only way that you would get that many people to have seen it would be members of the Inquiry committee.

    28. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Alan Mackintosh – The one thing I noticed about the committee was that no-one on it is a fan of Alex Salmond.

    29. Stoker says:

      Thanks, Chris, good one!

      This is Sturgeon’s route map to further self-employment. Caveat after caveat! Will hold elections in May2021 but a referendum cannot take place until “after the pandemic” according to the SNP’s grand plans. Meanwhile ever other country on earth gets on with life, holding referendums *&* elections etc. What a con!

    30. ScotsRenewables says:

      Captain Yossarian says:
      23 January, 2021 at 9:31 am

      Could it be that if the press got involved now, then Alex Salmond would be quickly vindicated and would take-on something of a cult status in Scotland?

      Sadly, very sadly, not a hope in hell. I have spoken to two couples who are friends and hard core indy supporters, and to both my sons and their partners, also strong independistas.

      All of them were of the opinion that Alex was a gropey old perve who should just go away. They could not understand why he was ‘jeapordising independence’ and they all had 100% support for Nicola.

      I think I have made headway with no. 2 son, leaving him very depressed. The others I just had to give up on.

      History will vindicate Alex, but the current crop of Nicola cultists will never forgive him.

      I don’t know what the answer is. I hope Nicola manages to bow out gracefully as the victim of a Unionist plot, as a public lynching will not help us. If Alex would front up the ISP it would then give a focus for those unable to hold their noses, while leaving SNP 1 & 2 for the angry cultists.

      Probably all fantasy though. I fear reality will be a lot messier.

    31. Craig Murray says:

      Why does everybody think it had to be Sturgeon OR MI5? Other conjunctions are available.

    32. Captain Yossarian says:

      The Daily Telegraph’s Dan Sanderson has just published a story on the request by the Fabiani Inquiry for the release all all legal papers.

      This goes directly to the COPFS and the only person who can prohibit the release is James Wolffe who can do it on the grounds of failure to comply with the public interest.

      The press are therefore all waiting on its release and are unlikely to just go away if it is not released.

      Interestingly, Dan’s take on the party most at risk is not Nicola Sturgeon, but Peter Murrell.

      If you lie under oath then you are in serious trouble; doesn’t matter where in the world you are.

      Peter Murrell has already given evidence under oath and Nicola Sturgeon hasn’t….yet.

      In reply to ScotsRenewables I would say that what came out at the trial about Alex Salmond’s behaviour is small potatoes at the moment. It’s nothing in comparison to this. One week has already changed the public perception and next week will do the same.

      Watergate started with a few paragraphs in the Washington Post and grew within a few months into something which re-shaped American political history.

    33. kapelmeister says:

      Sturgeon’s skating like mad now as she hears the ice breaking behind her.

    34. Beaker says:

      Great cartoon. Two for the price of one. Unlike government economics which are the other way around.

    35. Lenny Hartley says:

      ScotsRenewables @10:03 Spot on, thats the feedback I get, it took me a while to get my head around this, same with others whom I have opened up their eyes by referring them to this and other websites but it takes a while, the denial is strong.
      On another point Insee Angus McNeil questioning the latest diversion tactic from the SNP.

    36. 100%Yes says:

      Whats even more fishier is the Idea that after 5yrs of Stop Brexit well be keeping our place in the EU and the only route to Independence is the Gold Standard, we are now being told the Gold Standard doesn’t matter and there has always been a legal route to Independence. Please god can you help because 5yrs of Nicola Sturgeon and her government I have no idea what to believe I’ve been lied to that many times.

    37. 100%Yes @ 10:23 am

      Whats even more fishier is the Idea that after 5yrs of Stop Brexit well be keeping our place in the EU and the only route to Independence is the Gold Standard, we are now being told the Gold Standard doesn’t matter and there has always been a legal route to Independence.

      Good point. This new route should’ve been activated the very instant the UK left the EU. I’d be interested to hear why it wasn’t. Any paid-up members of the Saint Nicola Party care to enlighten us?

    38. Scozzie says:

      If it was a MI5 plot they’d have taken AS out when he was most dangerous – when he was leading the independence referendum. This plot is much closer to home. If MI5 had any intelligence on AS it would have been used against him many years ago at some point over his 30 year career. This was a stitch up pure and simple by people who wanted to keep him out of Scottish politics or have any kind of influence in the independence movement. Who gains most out of that scenario? Or who would keep their position of power over the independence movement in that scenario? Doesn’t take a genius to join the dots…..

    39. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Scozzie – For what it’s worth, that’s what I think too. Mind-you, you have to ask yourself why the Fabiani Inquiry was set-up, destined to drive into a cul de sac; why has that not happened? Why, all of a sudden, has it sprung into life? This is why I think there is some other involvement just now.

    40. Muscleguy says:

      Excellent detailed toon. The detail devoted to the buildings makes the stark messages on the trucks stand out all the more. Chapeau Chris.

    41. Mia says:

      ” Forget about MI5 hiding under the bed, this plot has Sturgeon’s fingerprints all over it”

      I have no doubt that it has Sturgeon’s fingerprints all over it, but what I am not sure I am ready to discard the hand of the British state on some parts of this so quickly. It does not have to be a question of either one or the other. They may be colluding on this. If something has become clear in the last 5 years is that Sturgeon is not the pro independence Scottish Nationalist that she fooled us into believing she was. That something was already at play during the GE2017 to stop Mr Salmond getting the seat, I am convinced. And that Sturgeon has been colluding with the British state in more things that we would have wished she was, I have a suspicion too – their last attempt at fooling us and deceiving us in the National with the indyref nonsense, helps with that.

      With the amount of actors involved in this, particularly so many UK civil servants, the police, the COPFS, the press, the SNP executive, the joke that the committee for the inquiry has become by not put their foot down and demanding all the information from the beginning and when Evans was reporting to her boss down in London so often, if this thing has been allowed to go this far it is quite possibly because there is a clear collusion of interests at play.

      For instance, the UK cabinet office were sent a draft of the complaints procedure on 16th November 2017. So they knew exactly what was going on here. By 17th November they replied with the well known email where they claim the procedure felt “uncomfortable”, but they were due to review the document and report back. As far as I know, that report from UK cabinet office after reviewing the procedure never made it to the evidence submitted to the inquiry. Why not? Was it because it was given by phone?

      And now we have staunch unionist elements of the MSM suddenly interested in what has been ongoing here for already 3 years now and they never bothered to pay attention to before? This stinks at damage limitation to me. It is quite clear that the exceptional work of the Rev, Gordon Dangerfield, Craig Murray and others is potentially removing enough of the lid from this sewer to potentially reveal far more skeletons than those controlling the MSM would have wished for.
      It is my view that these unionist outlets are entering the picture now with their sleeves rolled out, full hands on and ready to pack Sturgeon in the dustbin of history only to regain control of the narrative and, more importantly, to exercise control on what comes out. The participation of these outlets, in my view, should not be seen as “helping us”, but rather helping to keep hidden what they do not want us to see.

      The key of the whole thing is in the dates:

      I was only the 31s October 2017 when the formal meeting took place to undertake a revision of the complaints procedure – no mention at this meeting of former ministers.

      Letter sent by Evans to civil servants on the 2nd November 2017 inviting them to come forward says nothing about former ministers (Phase1FN9/YY015).

      Letter sent on the 3rd November by Jeremy Heywood say nothing about former ministers (Phase1FN9/YY006).

      The first mention of former ministers being included in the procedure appears, if you really believe it was not included a posteriori, on the 2nd November 2017 and that is in a timeline (CPhase1FN10/XX047) which was updated on the 6th December 2017.

      Let’s bear in mind that this whole thing started as a review of an existent complaints procedure for civil servants and somehow morphed into a brand new complaints procedure for former ministers and ministers.

      Civil servants can be harassed by other civil servants, though. Ministers do not have the exclusive. Yet, these new complaints procedures were directed exclusively to Ministers and extended to former ministers. That is quite telling.

      Current ministers can be disciplined under the ministerial code, but this cannot be used for former ministers. There are enough pieces of evidence in their submissions to see that they knew this very well and that the former minister could reject point blank the accusations so they were left with nothing was a distinct possibility. Yet, confronted with this obvious obstacle that should have stopped any attempt to move forward, they instead tried to find ways around it, like coming up with the nonsense to inform the leader of the party so the party could discipline the minister. In other words, blurring yet again the boundaries of what government matters are and what party matters are.

      This is not how you do things. If you initiate a brand new procedure, the first thing you do is to evaluate the feasibility, practicality AND LEGALITY of it. This is not what happened here, they were adamant to have this procedure what come may and bits were added to it to patch it up as they were going along. It was clear they had no intention for it to be a robust procedure, rather a one of. But also what transpires from it is that they were never concerned at any point that the whole thing could explode legally on their hands. One of the thoughts that has been crossing my mind often is that the reason why they refuse to release the legal advice is because they never sought in the first place, they sought it too far down the line or they did not give their laywers the whole picture.

      There was absolutely no precedent for such procedure, not in the UK government, not in any other government and not even among the civil servants, neither in the UK cabinet nor in Holyrood. This is a brand new procedure and as such should have been in the hands of legal from day one. So one has to wonder what exactly motivated this new procedure and who was the first person that asked for it and that was determined to see it to the end without the bother of potential legal obstacles.

      Well, the only solid proof we have for this in the evidence does not appear until 22nd May, in the letter sent by Sturgeon to Evans. That is days after the advice from UK government cabinet sent their advice, advice that as far as I know we were not allowed to see.

      Evans sends her letter to civil servants on the 2nd November, that day the idea of the former ministers to be included in the procedure appears in the timeline and by 5 November there is already a person coming forward with a complaint from allegedly 3 years before. Actually, it was probably even before that, because according to the timeline, she was meeting with NR and JM on the 5 November, so she probably got in touch with somebody in the government well before that.

      Let’s remember that by 5th November there wasn’t even a draft of the procedure. That was generated on the 6th November.

      Allegedly, this complainant helped to redact this procedure. But at this point one has to ask, if Mr Salmond was not even present, how the hell did NR, JM and even LE know that this woman was actually telling the truth if there was no one there to corroborate it?

      Are we to understand that anybody with a grudge against a former minister could simply give them a call, walk in and help re-write a policy to ensure the minister they have a grudge against is stitched up and have their career finished and this is the vision of Evans for a “robust” complaints procedure?

      Nothing of this stands to scrutiny and the only way this makes any sense in my head is that they knew about this potential complaint BEFORE the whole process started and this was part of a plan.

      So, when was the first time Nicola Sturgeon, NR, JM, Evans or any other senior civil servant in the Scottish government knew this complaint his complaint was going to come forward? When and how did they corroborate the complaint was legit in order to invite this person in and help them to redact the policy?

      As it has been mentioned above, these civil servants would not be so stupid as to initiate a procedure of this magnitude without the green light from the FM and as they are UK civil servants, the idea they were doing this without their bosses in London knowing is naive.

      The questions remain:

      When was the first time it was known in the UK government circles, MI5 and Scottish government circles that Alex Salmond was going to start a programme in RT?

      What is it exactly what started the re-born interest of SKY News in a totally innocuous airport “issue” that had taken place EIGHT years before and that was something stupid? Who alerted them of that, at that precise time?

      And of course:

      The letter sent by Sturgeon on the 30th October to the presiding officer suggests that the review of the complaints procedure took off due to some events related to some allegations of sexual harassment in the Uk government, whose timing appears to be most convenient to trigger this process, one has to add.

      Judging by when the letter of Mr Heywood was received, the review of the procedure actually started in Holyrood sooner than it did down south, which is where the problem was actually identified. This is remarkable.

      I do not buy that it was the excuse of Westminster’s complaints what prompted Sturgeon to initiate the procedure, so what really motivated Sturgeon to write this letter to the presiding officer and initiate the procedure?

      Did she already know/suspected by the time she wrote this letter that a complain against Mr Salmond was awaiting on the side-lines to be used as the basis for that complaints procedure?

      Was this complaint indirectly related in any way or form to the SKY news sudden interest in an 8 year old joke in an airport?

      Was this the first attempt at using the strategy followed during the criminal case against Mr Salmond: more than one charge, all weak and unable to stand on their own, but reinforced when presented all together?

    42. ScotsRenewables says:

      Lenny Hartley says:
      23 January, 2021 at 10:22 am
      ScotsRenewables @10:03 Spot on, thats the feedback I get, it took me a while to get my head around this, same with others whom I have opened up their eyes by referring them to this and other websites but it takes a while, the denial is strong.

      One of my friends even seems to have convinced herself that Alex came on to her when we were at a book signing in 2015. I was standing beside her, it’s pure fantasy. How can this happen?

      Maybe we are all doomed, I am beginning to think so.

    43. Bob Mack says:

      Nicola would have no reason to frame Alex? Really.

      She earns quite a bit as FM. Her husband earns quite a lot as Chief Exec thiugh its a sdcret apparently. How would you feel if Alex was making a return to politics which could very well threaten that?

      They could possibly top quarter of a million a year between them. Is that a good incentive? Never mind perks and freebies and trips and expenses.

      Secondly power is a heady brew. I have seen people do a lot of obnoxious things to stay at the top.

    44. Tom says:

      Could someone with a brain for such things give us access to that Dan Sanderson article mentioned earlier, apparently in the Telegraph this morning?

    45. TruthForDummies says:

      The new plan is hastily cobbled together mince.
      No doubt because the Fabiani Inquiry has involved a23 and so they needed a distraction and because Angus mcNeil’s plan was gaining traction.

      The earliest indyref date is now 23/24 and if the uk government win the legal challenge no indyref.

      My family & friends are split hate NS, love NS, worried she might be are wrong ‘in. No one hates Alex

      We are a few months of losing any chance of independence. I’m preparing myself for it. And like Stu. If Nicola leads the snp into the May election. I am giving up.

      When I see the NS fan posts I worry we really are too stupid

    46. Colin Alexander says:

      It would be naive to assume the UK State’s operatives only observe and collect information and do not attempt to influence circumstances to maintain the Crown’s control of their Scotland colony.

      Some believe the corruption and abuse of power that has engulfed the Scotland colony is because of personal rivalry only. They could be right. But, the likes of Margo MacDonald warned the UK state is an active player WITHIN the SNP and has been for many years. Clearly, she was right when she raised her concerns that Indyref1 would face interference from the UK state’s undue influence, so I think her judgment was sound.

      If I were Director General of MI5 and wanted MI5 assets in the SNP my number one choice would be in the roles which have been filled by Peter Murrell (Salmond’s constituency office manager and CEO of the SNP). I would also want at least one asset, preferably more, as an SNP elected politician. The jackpot would be the Leader of the SNP being a pro-British asset.

      In Murrell’s roles, he’s not exposed to the risk that elected politicians face, such as Angus Robertson. Mr Robertson previously worked for the BBC, then was an SNP MP who sat on the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee. He lost his seat in 2017 but clearly remained a favourite of Sturgeon and Peter Murrell, with the SNP NEC changing the rules to dissuade Ms Cherry from contesting Mr Robertson as the MSP candidate for Edinburgh Central in the 2021 Holyrood election.

      The UK security services look to the longer term, they will have covered the scenario where the Murrells are no longer in power, so there are other UK state assets in place to maintain influence within the SNP and impede Scottish independence. Alex Salmond presented a real danger to those plans. Salmond was a threat to the UK maintaining control of their “jewel in the crown” Scotland colony.

      To be clear, I’m not asserting any of the above work to maintain the UK state. But, if I were the DG of MI5 these are the positions / people I would want as pro-UK assets.

    47. Scozzie says:

      Captain yossarian @ 10.42am
      The inquiry has not sprung into life it’s been backed into a corner in a face saving position. It should have demanded missing documents from COPFS months ago. The lord advocate has already indicated it won’t release them on the grounds it not being in the public interest WTF!!!! I imagine the inquiry will meekly reel their heads back in after his formal reply. It’s a farce!!!!!! The only way this cover will be blown is if the media get right on to it or our MPS / MSPs blow the lid off it. I’m not convinced either are going to push for truth or justice. And so it comes down to the likes of Stu, Craig Murray and Gordon Dangerfield to shine some UV light on this corruption.

    48. Neil Wilkinson says:

      Dan Sandersons piece in the Telegraph

    49. Oneliner says:

      Would that the Scottish Diaspora could get the weight of the USA behind it as the Irish one has.

      But, then again, we’ve got Trident so we’d probably get shafted.

    50. Davie Oga says:

      The manure for the masses published in The National yesterday is obviously a diversion. Even if we were to take it at face value (Scotgov must be hoping long term Covid effects include a 30% reduction in IQ and cognitive ability) this course of action would be a breech of the Minesterial Code. It is the duty of Minister’s to ascertain legality before the Government makes significant decisions involving legal considerations.

      2.30 Paragraph 1.2 of this Code acknowledges the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law. It is part of the role of the Law Officers (the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland) to ensure that the Government acts lawfully at all times.

      2.32 “…. There is, however, a general principle that the Law Officers must be consulted in good time before the Government is committed to significant decisions involving legal considerations”

    51. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Scozzie – I agree with everything you say. It has suddenly sprung into life because it had to. Pressure….but from where? The media interest will only grow from here. Kieran Andrews from The Times is an old-school investigative journalist.

    52. Willie says:

      Something decidedly fishy about this rather good cartoon. Certainly made me smile at its wry irony.

    53. Meg merrilees says:

      Robert louis @ 7.52

      Perfidious Albion is very clever and far reaching.

      Never underestimate them – the prize is too great!

      Did someone say that Lesley Evans husband is ex MI5 chief – isn’t that an interesting coincidence?

      Maybe Sturgeon and Evans are being played by the Union.

      WM: Start off a simple plan to prevent exFM from returning, Sex scandal, that old chestnut – tick that box on the list. CHECK

      Then, think up a bribe – what could that be?… let Brexit happen and we will give you a section 30 once we have sold off the oil licences, sorted out the fish quotas etc.. we’ll pretend to give you advice that you should not proceed with this action ( so we’re not suspected) What could possibly go wrong?

      Meanwhile, involve the wife of ex MI5 chief, current head of Civil Service in Scotland – gives us a bit more control of espionage.
      Bluff current FM into agreeing that she doesn’t have anything to do with the process so she apparently stays ‘squeaky clean’ to win promised referendum and then have a bit of fun bringing the whole house of cards down – two birds with one stone and no Indy ref 2 for the forseeable!
      Wife retires with large pension and extra back hander/ title/ other similar reward.

      Except they have underestimated one player in this chess game – AS , holder of Politician of the Year on several occasions and probably a master player – playing the game of his life just now and the winner takes Scotland.

    54. Daisy Walker says:

      That cartoon is fantastic….Ooft.

      Re the NS/far from fab inquiry.

      By making legal application to the courts now, at the eleventh hour, so to speak, they can say they tried.

      When the lord advocate declines to provide the documents under ‘public interest’ excuse, they will ring their hands and be indignant, and then declare insufficient evidence, etc, etc.

      Re the MSM digging further and exposing things, to a great extent their hands have been tied by what smells like ‘superinjunction type’ actions, re not naming anyone, in any way, for any reason. Critical mass of disclosed evidence, which would make them all start publishing (as happened with mp expenses scandal) has not yet happened.

      Mia, loving your posts about the intricate goings on re the stitch up.

      For those with experience in the work place of correct grievance/harassment procedures, at every stage re AS, it is a complete and dangerous farce.

      But for those without that background experience, maybe not so much so, I wonder if someone here could lay out, in simple terms, what good procedures look like, and then highlight all the ways the AS debauchle diverged from that fairness. (I cannot at present due to computer issues).

      One area which might not have been considered by the AS team, but about 10 years ago, RSPB were taken to court by a landowner, for carrying out clandestine investigations on his land. They have no statutory right to do so(in Scotland). If they suspected criminality, they should have involved the Police, and the Police done the enquiry, following all the legal protocols for same. It was appealed at high court and RSPB lost. So there is a stated case, and legal precedent has been established.

      So, for an employer, to carry out an investigation on someone who is not one of their employees, is a clear infringement of the persons right to a private life, and a huge overstep of their powers. Since Police Scotland informed them of as much, I would suggest that the liability for same, lies with all of the individuals who were privy to that Police Scotland statement, and continued the process anyway, since they cannot argue ‘ignorance, or good faith’.

      I would also hope AS’s legal team is looking carefully at the order in which Police Scotland received the complaints. If, for example, the first 2 did not amount to criminality, and could/should have been dealt with by means of employment policy, then they should not have continued enquiry at that point. To do so, would have been a fishing exercise, and again a breach of AS’s right to a private life.

      With regarded the speculation re the motive for all the badness and corruption, does it matter, I doubt we will ever know.

    55. Daisy Walker says:

      If the not so Fab Inquiry is going to demonstrate something resembling a spine, they need to very, very public ally ask for lord advocate Wolfe to be removed from the process in any way.

      After the Rangers debauchle, it is simply blatant corruption that he is still in post, and not at the very least debarred, by now.

      To put it into context, a corrupt police office, making a malicious arrest and report to the PF, and being found guilty of same, would be sack3d and jailed.

      But the ultimate power for the prosecution lies with the PF. For the head of the PF, to admit to malicious prosecution, and not be suspend3d and subject to a criminal enquiry beggars belief. That might possibly be the lever we should be making more of.

      It might also serve to divide and conquer, if his fingerprints are on the Scot Gov legal advice, and he was known to be professionally discredited, then he might prove to be the fall guy for st Nicola, that lets her wriggle off to sunny climes, with some face left.

      At the very least we should be thinking along these lines.

    56. Wee Chid says:

      ScotsRenewables says:
      23 January, 2021 at 10:47 am

      JFC – are they sending out subliminal messages on popular TV crap or something? Or do some women just think that every man who is being friendly is coming onto them? At some point men and women are going to stop talking to each other altogether.

      I attended a book signing and Alex was friendly, approachable and a gentleman. I’d brought a copy of his book and said that my OH would love to have been there but wasn’t fit enough to travel. He immediately took another copy of the book out of the pile, asked for my partner’s name and signed a copy for him. He also gave me his card and said that if my OH had any problems with his disability claim or there was anything else he could do, to contact him. The place was packed and queued out of the door – to imagine that someone in that position would “come onto you” in a packed room is just crazy.

    57. Bob Mack says:

      @Meg Merrilees,

      That’s the wrong Lesley Evans. She is not married to ex mi5

    58. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Daisy Walker – The press are naming folk just now, Daisy. Have a look at Dan Sanderson’s article in the Daily Telegraph. The way that looks to me is that there are a number of journalists just waiting for the requisite amount of information to be released, one way or another.

    59. DaveL says:

      The name of a victim writ large, empty trucks that would only be pushing out diesel fumes and no mention of an actual rotten sturgeon. A strange kind of smelly fish themed cartoon.

      Artistic license I suppose but I think it stinks.

    60. Meg merrilees says:

      OK Bob Mack @ 12.2

      thanks, I stand corrected, even though that blows my theory ‘oot the windae’….

      might be the plot for a good novel though!


    61. Nally Anders says:

      Great article from Iain Lawson.
      Pertinent regarding the timing of the MSM interest. Basically sitting on it until the ‘revelations’ do most harm.
      Big thanks to Stu. You’ve been on fire this week.

    62. ScotsRenewables says:

      Wee Chid,

      The madness is very much among us.

      I have spent a lot of time refuting accusations that Nicola is a cult leader, but I am hard pushed to do so now. Normally sane people are as pouting utter nonsense.

    63. Dorothy Devine says:

      OT Apparently Brillo has declared war against Ms Sturgeon –
      whatever that may mean.

      Someone should remind him that he is merely a mistrusted churnalist.

    64. katherine hamilton says:

      Hi Rev
      Carrell has a story in the Guardian last night that “Scottish Parliament orders prosecutors to release Salmond leak evidence”.
      Is something finally happening to make COPFS toe the line?

      Probably not.The last paragraph is a doozy.
      “The Crown Office said it would respond to the request “in early course” but that it had already told the committee there were potential legal restraints on releasing the material. Crown counsel “must consider whether producing the documents sought would be contrary to the public interest”.

      So there we have it, even Parliament can’t make Wolfe do anything.

    65. Hugh Jarse says:

      The painters will be back at Bute hoose for a cover up coat where your early work used to hang Mr Cairns.

      If Stu carries on, and keeps you in work, you’ll be able to do a ‘Rakes progress’ anthology. Kerching!

      I hear you’re not super keen on suggestions, but hopefully the final act is easy. Blinky eyes keeking out from the hatch of a cell door.

    66. Mac says:

      Craig Murray says:
      23 January, 2021 at 10:10 am
      Why does everybody think it had to be Sturgeon OR MI5? Other conjunctions are available.


      It would be fascinating if you could expand on the other conjunctions that are available Craig.

      I don’t expect you to call it but I would just like to know the range of possibilities you consider the most likely.

      The thing about Nicola is she had several golden opportunities to stop all of this. She could have accepted the legal advice not to make it retrospective. She could have used the outcome of the judicial review to have Evans replaced and halt escalation to the police. At every step she has done the opposite, she has thrown more money into the pot and escalated it all.

      This is what NS busied herself with while the golden of opportunities of BREXIT were squandered.

      I’d love to hear why you think she has down all this and for what.

    67. Josef Ó Luain says:

      My speculation, being as valid as anyone elses: It may simply transpire that the manny Murell was nobbled by a, let’s say, interested grouping whom he’d made intimately knowledgeable of his long and bumpy history with Salmond and that the said loon couldn’t resist the promised possibility of recompense, along with whatever else was offered him. That his wife, for her own ends, may have run-with-it, may be prove to be the real tragedy, of course.

    68. robertknight says:

      Craig Murray @ 10:10

      When you look at the Bio’s of many of those who have risen up through the ranks of the SNP, when you see the numbers who have spent time studying in the USA, visiting the USA through political exchanges or similar, when you think of the USA/UK “special relationship”, when you think of the strategic importance of Faslane and the NATO alliance and the lack of equivalent alternative facilities anywhere east of Kings Bay in Georgia, when you think that it would be embarrassing if the UK Govt. were found to be directly meddling in internal SNP affairs, when you think of how convenient it would be if someone else with a vested interest meddled on their behalf, in what other direction does your nose then point?

    69. Mia says:

      “If it was a MI5 plot they’d have taken AS out when he was most dangerous – when he was leading the independence referendum”

      That he was actually a threat during the independence referendum only became obvious to the British State a week or two before indyref, when the yes vote suddenly shot to over 50%. There was not time to do that convincingly hence the rushed vow con-act and the purring of the monarch.

      In my opinion Mr Salmond became seriously dangerous for the British state when the SNP sent 56 SNP MPs to Westminster and there was a EU referendum with a predicted pro-brexit vote in England behind the corner. That is why he had to be removed from Westminster during the GE2017.

      Then he became even more dangerous when there was a prospect of him returning to Holyrood in 2017, after the EU vote, after A50 had been triggered against the will of Scotland, with a mandate for indyref on the table, when there was already a majority of SNP MPs in Westminster and when he was in the process to secure for himself a broadcasting platform in RT with full editorial control that Westminster could not bring to heel.

      For the record, I do not believe Sturgeon ever intended to deliver independence or indyref. Salmond returning to Holyrood was a threat to her in my view because he would be in a perfect position to expose her con-act in front of the other SNP MSPs and voters. At that time, if he had entered Holyrood, there was plenty of time to turn things around and for indyref or independence to be delivered before brexit. She could not have him stealing her thunder and removing the rug from under her.

      So if the British state was going to act, it would have been precisely in November 2017 to stop him re-entering Holyrood, re-gaining control of the SNP from Sturgeon making indyref a possibility and stopping his platform in RT, which I am sure they tried.

      You can argue that the criminal court case conveniently stopped Mr Salmond returning to Westminster in 2019 too. But even before that, you can argue if some of these complaints might have not designed to cajole him into resigning from the SNP.

      That with the tory minority government in Wesmintser in 2017 there was going to be an election soon, was obvious.

      You have to seriously wonder here if there was not a collusion of interests between the British state and Sturgeon’s gov to force him out. The strategy used by those united forces may have been a two-prone attack:

      1. to make him stand down as an SNP member so he could have no influence on the party members, party policies, or SNP MPs and MSPs, and more importantly, he could not be re-elected as an SNP member for any parliament. The “re-birthing” of the airport nonsense, complainer 1 talking to SNP officials and Sgov about her “case”, the urgency for this complaints procedure against former ministers to establish a disciplinary procedure route through their own political party and of course the “leak” to the newspaper supports this. Let’s remember that at some point in 2020 Sturgeon said with regards to Salmond contacting her for a meeting in April 2018: “the impression I had at this time was that Mr Salmond was in a state of considerable distress, and that he may be considering resigning his party membership” (this was published by the National on 7 October 2020)

      So this tells us that at that point, the possibility of Mr Salmond resigning his membership was one that had already been considered (hoped for?) by Sturgeon.

      2. To “occupy him enough” with something to stop him standing for election (any election and that includes the GE2019). Hello, criminal court case.

      You could argue that the same has already been attempted with Ms Cherry. There were attempts to block her by the NEC from standing for election in 2019, she has more recently been blocked from Holyrood and she was subjected to smears, including false accusations of bullying, and life threats. You can also argue that they are desperately attempting to frustrate her beyond she is able to cope in order for her to stand down from the SNP. In other words, all the pro-indy heavy weights are being deliberately removed (or still attempted to be removed) from key places of the SNP to stop them controlling the party machine, to stop them influencing policy making and to stop them weaponizing all those seats in Holyrood and Westminster in the fight for independence. What we are seeing is an exaggerated attempt deploy of forces to stop independence by removing control of the SNP party machine from the real pro-independence members and handing it to reverse gradualists, puppets.

      Sorry, but I do not believe this is just the brain child of Sturgeon. She may be the project manager executing and delivering it, but she is not the brains behind it.

      Sturgeon, her gang of borrowed UK civil servants and the “rent-a” complainers are not the only ones behind this plot. They are only the minions. This plot requires an strategic and tactical mind. Sturgeon has demonstrated for 5 years she completely lacks that. Judging by the botched procedure, the frantic redaction of documents it seems they completely lacked the foresight of putting safeguards for themselves in place. Astonishingly, it seems she had never even bothered taken proper measure of the calibre of Salmond as a tactician, astute and resourceful man he is, or, shockingly, the legal risks the complaints procedure itself had.

      My wild guess is she thought all that would have been covered by the architects of the plan, perhaps thinking they would consider her indispensable to keep the con-act of the S30 going. But maybe the architects of the plan had other ideas in mind and saw her as a disposable asset.

      To put this plan in place you need unrestricted access to an awful lot of things. Let’s remember that UK civil servants are not working for independence. They are the eyes of the state. Any attempt by a a real leader of the independence movement in Scotland with a mandate for indyref, majority of seats in Westminster and commanding a majority of pro indy seats in Holyrood to help themselves to those things would trigger an immediate red alert in the British state gatekeepers.

      Are we expected to believe that Sturgeon made a complete mockery of the Scottish government, the police, the COFPS, Parliament, the SNP, the taxpayers’ funds, the civil service and MI5 did not even bother batting an eyelid if it was done without their knowledge?

      The risk now is that with every move they have been failing to stop Mr Salmond, they have been making him more and more dangerous in their eyes, so they are not going to stop.

      Now not only he has been cleared up of all charges presenting himself as an wronged innocent man in the eyes of the public, he has also exposed Sturgeon’s gov as a corrupt sewer and the parliamentary inquiry as a complete joke.

      The actions of the COPFS stopping the evidence coming through, Swinney frantically over redacting evidence, the tantrums of Fabiani etc, are making him look like a victim in the eyes of the public and Holyrood as a toothless branch. MI5 knows that Mr Salmond is far more dangerous today than he ever was on September 2014.

      Why do we think the MSM, the alphabet women, even Sturgeon has been pumping sht about him for the last few years? Why would the British state devote so much time of its most senior civil servants in Scotland and allow so much taxpayers’ funds to be wasted on stitching the man?

      Do we seriously believe that the lord advocate will be so stupid to hold exclusively over his shoulders responsibility for individuals who might have perjured themselves in a criminal court or that might have conspired to pervert the course of justice to be granted full anonymity so they can continue smearing Salmond from the shadows and they can continue obstructing the inquiry ? Even worse, if what Mr Salmond’s lawyers say that 46 documents were kept from both the judicial review and the criminal case by the government, we are talking about contempt of court. And what do those whatsapp messages hide?. Do we seriously believe the Lord Advocate would have all this solely on his shoulders unless it was not the lesser of two evils?
      What are the odds that he might be playing ball because they got something even worse on him (maybe that football thingy that emerged was his warning shot to tow the line or else)?

      I am convinced there is a more powerful hand behind all this. Now, what are the odds that those damning whatsapp messages requested by the committee for one reason or another will never make it to the inquiry?

      What could be the sudden interest and rush of the big wigs of the unionist press to enter the scene precisely now, a few months before the Holyrood election, after Salmond has exposed the inquiry as a charade and when Sturgeon is already terminally wounded?

      Because they want to terminate Salmond politically? Because they have been tasked with re-directing the narrative against Mr Salmond and take our eyes from what may have been controlling Sturgeon?

      I don’t think they give a sht about damaging Sturgeon. She has acted as the British state obedient puppet from day one and politically speaking, she is terminally wounded

      With support for independence over 50%, anger against brexit, the “deal” (even the fishermen are angry now) and the power grab, with frustrations at boiling point because of Sturgeon’s forced delay of indyref, with disgust at what the inquiry is revealing regarding the political conspiracy against Mr Salmond, it is Mr Salmond the one they really fear.

    70. Scozzie says:

      Josef o lauin @ 12.34pm
      If you’re in any doubt about how this originated please listen to the tommy Sheridan podcast with Gordon Dangerfield. For those who’ve been closely following this conspiracy it’s not got any relevations but if anyone wants to learn the context it’s certainly with a listen. It will help people see the wider picture and the main actors.

    71. Captain Yossarian says:

      I have no time for lawyers but, oddly enough, one of my friends is a lawyer.

      He speaks about the ‘Holyrood Long Grass’ an example of which is the Fabiani Inquiry.

      Kick a problem into the Holyrood Long Grass and it will disappear for ever.

      8 weeks too late, the Fabiani Inquiry are demanding the legal advice, full unredacted transcripts, from the Crown Office and the final arbiter of that decision will be the Lord Advocate.

      He calls it the ‘Holyrood Long Grass’. I would call it the ‘Holyrood Doom Loop’. It amounts to the same thing…..nothing is going to happen.

      The Fabiani Inquiry will say: ‘We tried….we did everything we could’.

      At the end of the day, they are all pals at Holyrood and they really don’t want to rat on each other.

      I feel certain that it will come down to a big UK newspaper to run a story and then the rest will quickly follow.

      They have started already.

    72. Scozzie says:

      Excuse my wine fingers with typos!!!!!

    73. Liz says:

      Sad but true. Thanks Chris

    74. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Mia – The present Lord Advocate carried the weight of the incorrect prosecution of Duff and Phelps (the Administrators of Rangers FC) on his own shoulders, so why not this too?

      If he elects not to publish the full legal advice, WhatsApp messages etc this week, then we evidently have a problem with this chap.

    75. Samuel says:

      I think we are due a major speech from Sturgeon.

      She has talked of nothing but covidfor a year now

    76. Bob Mack says:

      @Craig Murray,

      Whilst we must acknowledge there were numerous players in this, we ultimately end up with only a few names who had the power influence and control to make it possible

      Sturgeon ,Evans ,Woolfe. Murrell. They are the only ones who could have produced and directed this drama.

      Each had personal issues with Alex and that would drive their actions. Singularly and collectively.

    77. robertknight says:

      Bob Mack

      You forgot to add ‘she who must not be named’.

    78. Mia says:

      “The present Lord Advocate carried the weight of the incorrect prosecution of Duff and Phelps (the Administrators of Rangers FC) on his own shoulders, so why not this too?”

      Because this is much, much bigger.

      I wonder if the resurfacing of the case you mention and the threat that it may pose to his reputation and career might have been used as leverage. But, who knows? That might have been just a warning shot indicating there is more dirt in the pipeline ready to come out if he did not toe the line.

    79. Hatuey says:

      Well, not to detract from the cartoon or the important things you are all discussing here, the big news today was actually supplied by the Today program on bbc radio 4. I’ve included a link below and advise to fast forward to around 9.30 am on the timeline where you will find a piece that’s interesting for several reasons.

      It’s interesting how the MSM news system works. This time last year stories about a flu in Wuhan were just starting to make it on to the agenda. That’s what we are seeing here with the Inquiry story. Stories often creep into the news agenda, starting as peripheral issues but gathering importance and momentum as time passes. Those who set the agenda are making educated guesses as to what stories to cover and how important they are likely to become down the line.

      From memory the Today program gets around 8 to 10 million listeners; for the first time today I’d guess a large majority of them were introduced to the idea that Sturgeon conspired to destroy Salmond for the first time. Someone at the highest editorial levels of the BBC has decided, then, that this story has legs. And that represents a huge turning point. In my estimation, it basically means it’s curtains for Sturgeon. It’s over.

      Another interesting allusion in the piece was a response from “the Scottish Government” to the letter sent by Fabiani and the committee demanding that the Crown office release more information. The spokes-person said the Government would consider it and pointed out that they’d already granted unprecedented access to info… blah, blah, blah. Were we expecting a response from the Crown?

      It’s clear, also, from the framing, that the BBC and MSM generally are going to play both sides and cause as much damage as possible with this (to the SNP and argument for independence). For me that’s a price worth paying but it’s still infuriating. This was never necessary.

      One last thing, mentioned in the piece and elsewhere. This is fuck all like Watergate. Most of us can’t even remember what Watergate was about. Yes, it was the cover-up that took down Nixon but I’m guessing in years to come people will remember the core issue here rather than cover-up.

      I still can’t believe how fucking bizarre this story is and for the avoidance of doubt I’m not referring to the attempted cover-up. Actually, the cover-up is the one and only part that makes sense.

    80. Mac says:

      There were several points where just by following normal established procedures and rules the persecution of Salmond could and should have been halted. At every one of these points Team Nicola did something very unusual to make sure it was not halted.

      The first obstacle was that it was Nicola herself who was effectively the Deciding Officer. So just before it started they changed the procedures so Evans was passed that role and Nicola was ‘ring fenced’ from what they were about to do. Nicola gets to wash her hands of what is just about to happen and feign surprise that she only found out about it all on April 2nd or whenever. Full steam ahead.

      The second point it should have halted was the legal advice against retrospective allegations. So again they had to do something unusual and deviate from the advice. The whole process was deeply legally flawed from the start but hey-ho on we go.

      They then conducted an astonishingly biased and unfair ‘investigation’ and found AS ‘guilty’ by kangaroo court.

      When Salmond takes them to court to finally get a fair hearing they leak the allegations to inflict the most reputational damage they can by leaking it to the Daily Record of all newspapers…

      They then collapse their own case before their own lawyers quit due to it being so biased unfair and illegal and to hide their malfeasance.

      After getting their arses handed to them at the judicial review instead of sackings and lessons learned it is medals and promotion all round for all the worst players involved.

      They then up the stakes massively by breaking yet another point that it should all been halted, by going against their own rules and reporting it to the crown office directly, expressly against their own rules (no problem just change them) and police scotland’s explicit advice and most importantly of all the clearly expressed wishes of all the women involved. Gotta get that Salmond at all costs.

      Alex is acquitted by a female judge and mostly female jury on all charges despite having crucial documents to his defense withheld by guess who… the SNPG.

      They then stonewall and block every attempt for the inquiry to uncover the truth while taking journalists and bloggers to court using the same Police Scotland goon squad assembled to stitch-up Alex Salmond.

      They also block all the damning evidence of the conspiracy to do all of the above and send an innocent man to jail.

      Hmmm anyone seeing a pattern here.

      How are these folk not going to jail.

    81. Terry says:

      Totally agree – they do fear Mr Salmond. However they fear him not just for his talents, but because he actually believes in and pursues independence.

      All the British state needs to show come the holyrood election is that the snp vote is badly damaged or collapses. And how to do that? Reveal this stinking sorry mess just at the right moment hoping that it will nobble theSNP vote. Then they can proclaim support for indy has dropped by equating the snp with indy.

      Spookily enough only one person could save the snp these losses – the aggrieved party – Alex could come out and say (quite rightly) that the party is the membership who are overwhelmingly decent and DO want independence.

      And as for Nicola? Well not only does it seem she has engaged in a moral and illegal plot against her one time friend and mentor, she has also been stupid enough to join forces with the British state. Tut tut Nicola don’t you know the first rule of politics? Never trust a Tory. They have money and power and can bring you down just when they want to. And they will.

    82. Saffron Robe says:

      I like it Chris. One of your best. First class!

    83. Mia says:

      “Reveal this stinking sorry mess just at the right moment hoping that it will nobble theSNP vote”

      To be honest I think it is a bit late for that strategy to work at its optimum, hence the sudden urgency by staunch unionists like Andrew Neil to come into the picture. An awful lot of crap showing Sturgeon for the corrupt individual she is, the COPFs as a tool of the state and the SNP for the toothless concoction it has become, is in the public domain already and causing outrage as we speak.

      The MSM vultures are coming to the feast now to regain control of the narrative and to regulate the flow of damaging dirt coming into the public domain. They will be trying to put back the lid on the inconvenient, compromising bits they don’t want the public to see and to restrict the flow of dirt so it remains as a long time drip instead of a short lived waterfall that people may have forgotten by May.

      I am convinced their main mission remains to finish off the job on Mr Salmond that the airport nonsense, the continuous anti-Russian propaganda, the botched complaints procedure, the alphabet women, the civil servants, the lord advocate and COPFS, the criminal court case, organs funded by Sturgeon’s government like Rape Crisis Scotland, the smear from parliamentarians like Blackman and others and the inquiry itself have until now spectacularly failed to deliver.

      The biggest fear of the powers that be, now that the SNP is already being seen as a lost cause by many yes voters who are already looking elsewhere as a vehicle to deliver independence, walking past the SNP or becoming disenfranchised, is for Mr Salmond to emerge at the front of an alternative pro-indy party, hoovering all those votes and removing the rug from under their now toothless, puppet SNP.

      I have the feeling that whoever orchestrated this manoeuvre, and I have no doubt the aim was always to derail independence at Westminster’s weakest point in UK’s history, was executing an almost perfect plan until they totally underestimated the sheer flow of information leaking into the public domain.

      I am convinced the dirt Stu, Craig Murray, Gordon Dangerfield, Grouse Beater and many others have been uncovering with their day to day hard work was meant, under the dark forces plan, to be released instead by the unionist MSM and broadcaster vultures, in little sips, just a few weeks before the election to kill the SNP politically.

      In other words, I think the pro-indy bloggers like Stu have outsmarted the wnkrs and stolen their best weapon.
      Long it may continue!

    84. twathater says:

      Chris you say SO MUCH with so little words EXCELLENT

    85. Colin Alexander says:

      Mac @10.10am

      “Sturgeon OR MI5”

      “And” is a conjunction. (Other conjunctions are also available).

    86. boris says:

      I doubt this would ever be allowed but it would greatly add to the injustices against Alex Salmond if, at some future date, it was revealed that one or more of the unidentified complainant’s actively participated in the drafting and or amendment of the ill-judged procedure.

    87. Tartanpigsy says:

      One thing I’ve been thinking about a lot is this.
      Did Alex never see this darker side to his protege in all the time he was training her up to take over?
      I’d have thought there would have signs

    88. Sarah says:

      @ Tartanpigsy: I think when you are a straightforward, decent, honest, principled person, you can’t help but assume the people on your own team are the same. It is easy for a bad person to dupe good people.

    89. lumilumi says:

      Great cartoon, Chris!

      There’s something rotten in the country of Brexit UK, there’s something rotten in the country of Scotland.

      You, Chris, have once again captured it all. A picture tells a thousand words.

    90. wull says:

      There are some wonderful btl posts here, well deserving of such a very fine cartoon. Thank you Mia, Daisy Walker and others. Thank you also to Chris Cairns and Stuart Campbell for for continually opening our eyes, in such incisive ways.

    91. ElGordo says:

      Tartanpigsy says: 23 January, 2021 at 5:48 pm

      “One thing I’ve been thinking about a lot is this.
      Did Alex never see this darker side to his protege in all the time he was training her up to take over?
      I’d have thought there would have signs”

      Nicola was originally introduced to Alex by her sister Anna at an SNP fundraising event, oddly her sister never introduced her by name initially, only as anna kin. Warning signs should have been there.

    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