The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

So you don’t have to

Posted on September 07, 2015 by

We’re watching the Alistair Carmichael court hearing today. It’s monumentally boring, and likely to go on for much of today and tomorrow.


If you want to see for yourself it’s being broadcast on STV, BBC and Indy Live. But we really, really don’t advise it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

133 to “So you don’t have to”

  1. Calluna says:

    I needed some white noise to wash over me while I’m sorting out some papers this morning. It’s fulfilling that role at least.
    Deary me.

  2. FiferJP says:

    Yup, he waffled on about the loss of a ship, The Olympic, the Titanic’s sister ship.

  3. Molly says:

    Well I might be boring but found the opening statement by Mr Carmichaels guy quite interesting . He said Mr Carmicheal was asked to assent to leak the memo . By whom m’lud ?

    Who asked the Secretary of State to leak the memo ?

  4. EphemeralDeception says:

    I see court has just adjourned till 11:30 ish

    Note: STV and BBC region locked. Indy live OK.

  5. Alexander MacDonald says:

    After watching the first hour, I’m hesitant to thank you for providing them.

  6. Lesley-Anne says:

    Well what do you know Alistair Carmichael is not turning up to the court in Edinburgh because he has *ahem* urgent business in Westminster. That would the starting of clearing his office out in Westminster and accommodation in London then. 😀

  7. donald anderson says:

    I thought that we had already been telt that the lying to?ad is being granted immunity and therefore “innocent” of all charges

  8. Fiona says:

    I don’t find it boring: but I am funny that way. I like to see how our judicial system works

  9. seanair says:

    Carmichael’s lawyer is a real smartass IMO. Wish he would stop picking his nose. Didn’t know the use of I Pads was allowed. The two judges look baffled at times when he refers them to their “bundle” when he’s got the I Pad. Not confident at this stage that Carmichael will lose.

  10. Itchybiscuit says:

    Carmichael’s lawyer must be paid by the minute – his long ponderous pauses are driving me mad.

    As for the potential consequences of his criminality; disenfranchisement and losing his seat with possible prosecution by the Procurator Fiscal, my heart is bleeding for him. ;o)

  11. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “He said Mr Carmicheal was asked to assent to leak the memo . By whom m’lud?”

    I took that to mean “by the civil servant who was about to do it”, as in “So is it okay for me to leak this to the Telegraph, boss?”

  12. Fiona says:

    I think it very difficult to win this case against Carmichael. But that is a condemnation of how the law stands. It doesn’t alter the fact that one should not be allowed to lie in this way.

  13. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Carmichael’s lawyer must be paid by the minute – his long ponderous pauses are driving me mad.”

    Seemingly this is to allow the judges to take notes, which they’re doing in longhand.

  14. shiregirl says:

    Is Carmichael paying his legal fees himself?

  15. Nana Smith says:

    Good grief it’s a trial watching that right enough. I feel the result was decided before it even began, too much stuff still to sweep under the carpet.

    But really they can’t have the people deciding whether or not their mps have to be honest. I can just hear them all “golly gosh the plebs will be demanding a democracy next”

  16. Quakeawake says:

    I’m not watching because I’ve found that if I stick a ruler in the lawn and pay careful attention I can watch the grass grow and that’s more restful.

    But @Molly 11.25am – very good question! If he’s giving it “a big boy did it and ran away”, who is the big boy?

  17. cearc says:

    Years of hourly billing have gone into developing this man’s speech slowing impediment!

  18. Macduff says:

    That Alistair Carmichael must go being televised!! It’s just a big fat gimmick of pretence probably just to satisfy the public who are gunning for him and as suspected he’s not there he might appear for ten mind tmrw but most probably this big fat liar will get off the hook!! This time but something else will bring him down its the blokes character afterall!! I mean can you imagine if the case had been against Nicola or alex

  19. Anagach says:

    Oh I think Carmichael will escape, even though I contributed to the case against him. The establishment is very hard to hold to account even in small ways.

  20. Bill McDermott says:

    I have never witnessed an Election Court but I have sat in on a Judicial Review and I have to say that your first instincts as to whether the petition will be successful are irrelevant. To my mind it depends on whether you get establishment judges or free thinkers.

    If the former, then the petition will be dismissed out of hand with no comfort to the petitioners. If the latter, then it is evenly balanced.

    But I am not holding my breath.

  21. Anagach says:

    Interesting that call Kaye is off the SNP bad and onto alopecia. topical, one would think that nothing is happening today.

  22. Lesley-Anne says:

    Itchybiscuit says:

    Carmichael’s lawyer must be paid by the minute – his long ponderous pauses are driving me mad.

    I’m guessin the long pauses by Carmichael’s defence councel is down to him waiting for the bench to finish writing in their wee red books Itchy. 😀

  23. Petra says:

    Ooops I see that a new article has been posted re. Carmichael! I’ll post this again on the appropriate thread.

    As expected wee Carmichael has decided to give the Court of Session a body swerve. Is he hoping that Roddy Dunlop QC will manage to get the case (petition) dismissed today (or this week), following legal argument, so that he wont have to appear at the CoS at all?

    We have a panel in the STV studio comprised of Robert Brown Scottish Libdems (and lawyer), Professor James Chalmers Glasgow University (Legal expert) and Lesley Riddoch being interviewed by Bernard Ponsonby. Ponsonby of course has links to the Libdem Party having previously stood for the Lib Dems in the 1988 Govan by-election. Great choice of presenter, eh!

    Robert Brown supports Carmichael wholeheartedly and is adamant that this case is politically motivated by the SNP due to them wanting 57 of 59 seats. He should choose his words more carefully if not he may find himself standing in the Court of Session.

    Thank goodness we have Lesley Riddoch on the panel talking sense and showing up Brown for what he is, another totally biased and dishonest man. She’s pointed out for example that one of the complainants voted Green, another Labour and that she’s unsure if the other two individuals voted for anyone at all.

    Dunlop is one of the top QCs in the land and has no doubt consulted with others such as Keen QC. All they have to do is use material factors from former successful legal cases to topple this one or find a loophole in the Law and Carmichael will get off. They’ll want to bring these proceedings to a close ASAP to ensure that ‘others’ wont be called to give evidence, as it may open a can of worms, and of course Carmichael faces serious (criminal) consequences if found guilty.

    If that happens, Carmichael gets off, the people of Orkney and Shetland should protest to the point that he has to resign his post. Let’s face it that wouldn’t be the end of his career as I’m sure one awaits him in the House of Lords.

  24. Lesley-Anne says:

    shiregirl says:

    Is Carmichael paying his legal fees himself?

    He is Shiregirl, sort of. He will pay the legal bill and then claim it all back on expenses! 😀

    Quakeawake says:

    I’m not watching because I’ve found that if I stick a ruler in the lawn and pay careful attention I can watch the grass grow and that’s more restful.

    I’ve heard that about grass Quake. NO not THAT sort of grass … the OTHER sort of grass! 😀

  25. Jimbo says:

    Carmichael’s lawyer arguing that, since Carmichael had not lied about his election opposition SNP candidate personally, he has done no wrong.

    I would submit that Carmichael purposely smeared Nicola Sturgeon with the intended consequence of the smear sticking to her party and her party’s candidates.

  26. Marie clark says:

    Watching paint dry must be more stimulating than this crap.

    I,m no lawyer, but it all seems like semantics and hair splitting to me. Is the other side ever toning to get a chance to speak?

    Some of you seem to have decided tht Carmichael will get off, no surprise there then. If it was up to me, jut listening to this guy makes me think he,s guilty as sin. no the lawyer, the big fat lying yin.

  27. Ian Brotherhood says:

    How come the judges get to wear normal clobber but the lawyers have to wear all that fusty old bollocks? What’s that all about?

    How do you wash one of those wigs anyway? Just lob it in the machine? Perhaps safer to do it in the dishwasher, or take it in with ye when ye’re having a bath. (Wouldn’t it be really REALLY funny if he put it in with a pair of new socks and it came out all tye-‘n-dye?)

    If Carmichael gets off with this I suggest that we go team-handed to whatever island he’s hiding on and chase him around with damp tea-towels. Fwaaaa-toooosh!!

  28. Aos says:

    I was bored shitless for three hours, not being picked for a jury earlier this year. So not not bothering with what will be a ponderous experience involving boring men talking for an eternity. Glad I helped pay you to watch it for me, Rev! 😉

  29. ahundredthidiot says:

    Carmichael is not there so as to keep MSM attention to a minimum in the hope it does get thrown out.

    But keep the faith folks, those driving the action need our support and the fat lady isn’t even in the room yet.

  30. Quakeawake says:

    @Stu 11.38am. That makes sense, but it begs the question, who is it that decides it’s going to be leaked? Which twisted and corrupt personage had that idea?

    Actually that’s the wrong question I’ve just realised, because it would be the same personage who wrote the pack of lies in the first place.

    What a festering pile of sludge.

  31. Lesley-Anne says:

    Speaking in my role as Village Idiot here.

    Is it just me or does some, or a lot, of what Carmichael’s Defence Counsel is saying go towards aiding the prosecution counsel more than defending Carmichael? 😉

  32. gillie says:

    It reminds of lectures I had to endure when every thing spoken had to be written down.

    Surely the Scottish court service doesn’t operate in this arcane way?

  33. Edward says:

    Highly recommended for insomniacs or anyone who is having
    problems sleeping, and its free just record and play back in a loop, guaranteed to have you fast asleep in no time 😉

    My idea so any royalties , see my lawyer 😀

  34. Molly says:

    I’m obviously not a lawyer but since this Roddy guy is being so specific about words, the memo ‘ wasn’t leaked’ whatever way you look at it.

    If Alistair Carmichael agreed to let the memo be published then it wasn’t leaked it was ‘ deliberately placed’ to cause maximum damage to Nicola Sturgeon . Otherwise why bring the memo out at all.

    To someone like me, ordinary joe public, there is a world of difference between someone not thinking and giving out information , leaking info ( for which they can be sacked) and deliberately knowing the implications of your actions and deliberately going ahead and doing it.

    If it was the Civil Service, who asked him to agree to the memo being published , is Mr Carmichael going to take action against them for bringing his reputation into well whatever …

    I think it used to be called right or wrong .

  35. Luigi says:

    Jimbo says:

    7 September, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    Carmichael’s lawyer arguing that, since Carmichael had not lied about his election opposition SNP candidate personally, he has done no wrong.

    I would submit that Carmichael purposely smeared Nicola Sturgeon with the intended consequence of the smear sticking to her party and her party’s candidates.

    I think the people’s case will be based on the fact that Carmichael misled the electorate about his own character. The people never knew he was a liar before they voted. He stood as a good, honest WM candidate in May, but had deliberately lied about his personal involvement in the Memogate story, and then he kept quiet about it, only coming clean until after the election result.

  36. shiregirl says:

    Ian Brotherhood says:
    7 September, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    How do you wash one of those wigs anyway? Just lob it in the machine? Perhaps safer to do it in the dishwasher, or take it in with ye when ye’re having a bath.

    I’m thinking Baptiste dry shampoo (cherry scented is nice) and the hoover with the nozzle attachment:-D

    Thanks Lesley-Anne. Can’t help but feel if he resigned before all of this, the food banks would be full to brimming now. Sigh……

  37. Heather McLean says:

    So glad you’re doing this so we don’t have to! You’re a real martyr to the cause and we are all so grateful!! No doubt you’ll post a summary of all the relevant more exciting bits later today?

    Hoping and praying that he has the decency to resign and that justice is finally served!

  38. Lesley-Anne says:

    Jimbo says:

    Carmichael’s lawyer arguing that, since Carmichael had not lied about his election opposition SNP candidate personally, he has done no wrong.

    I would argue 😉 with you there Jimbo. By his very action of his crude attempt to smear the First Minister, Leader of the S.N.P., then he is de facto (I think this is the correct term here 😉 ) he is also lying about the local Orkney and Shetland S.N.P. candidate.

  39. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Has it just been the same dude talking all day? Has anyone else had a shot?

  40. gillie says:

    Makes Cash In The Attic look like an action thriller. When do the adverts come on?

  41. Nana Smith says:

    Spare a thought for Ronnie and the rest of the supporters. They have gone beyond the call of duty and I hope someone has the foresight to have gas and air ready for when they emerge.

    Surely need some kind of reviving or imbibing!

  42. Dr Jim says:

    In support of his argument referencing another similar case he quoted “He could not be seen to be supporting the Queens enemies”

  43. asklair says:

    In my opinion this court case is fantastic, it shows how the system is f!c* up. Carmichael has no credibility left and this court case is just producing more “John Bull Shit Compost”.

  44. Quakeawake says:

    “I’ve heard that about grass Quake. NO not THAT sort of grass … the OTHER sort of grass! :D”

    Medicinal purposes only, mind 😉

  45. TJenny says:

    Lesley-Anne – I’ve been watching it too and have to agree that his arguments don’t seem to be in support of the carbuncle. But hey, what do we know? 🙂

  46. gillie says:

    Is Roddy Dunlop giving Lady Paton the eye? Her ladyship is look a bit hot under the collar.

  47. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Getting rid of Carmichael will take a major effort.

    He is a Privy Councillor, he is a lawyer, he was in the PF service – he is therefore in with the Establishment bricks; he will be protected as far as he possibly can be.

    I had to laugh when I read his Wikipedia entry, which tells of his sucessful efforts, in 2009, to have a book telling of the author’s travails when re-locating from Manchester to Orkney.

    Typically Establishment – don’t do as I do, do as I tell you.

  48. Dr Jim says:

    @ Lesley Anne

    You’re absolutely right, except he’s also using the same argument as mitigation by saying they got away with it so why shouldn’t Carmichael

    It’s a poor argument for truth but valid, it forces a judge to change precedents which judges don’t like doing

    Like all aspects of life pushes it further away so someone else has to make the decision nobody wants to make

    We call it “Pass the Buck” or another sentence which could rhyme with that

  49. Robert Peffers says:

    I would suggest that win, draw or lose, Carmichael’s jaikit is aw’ready skiteng aff the gie shooglie caddle it wis hinhin oan a’ready.

    (Owersettin intil the Inglis), “Charmichael’s jacket is already sliding off the rather insecure nail it was suspended upon”.

    My feelings are that the Court of Session verdict is irrelevant. It will be the electorate in his present seat who decide his ultimate fate.

    In fact if the Court of Session were to find him not guilty, or to dismiss the case on a technicality, then not only will Carmichael’s honesty be reduced in the eyes of the people of Scotland but so also will the Scottish justice system by found guilty and hostile in the eyes of the Scottish public.

  50. Carmichael has already been found guilty by the public no matter what the court decides and in keeping with his character rather than attend court he runs away speaks volumes about him

  51. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Sod this, I’m taking the non-cats for a walk…

  52. orri says:

    Part of this might hinge on the special position that a SPAD has under the ministerial code and the fact that as he was at the time still a member of government Carmicheal was still bound by it. In effect the action of a Spad are an extension of the minister employing them. So regardless of who did the final part of the leak it’s him to blame.

    Another point is that it’s fairly easy for the public to work out that if you hire an assassin to kill someone you are guilty of a crime regardless of pulling the trigger. In fact it’s all about using technicalities to get him off.

    In addition we’re not so stupid as to ignore the fact that the intent was to discredit the SNP and thus it’s membership and electoral candidates. Be interesting to see if any of the leaflets used in the Orkney/Shetland campaign alluded to that. Certainly seems a common enough ploy in a campaign to claim you can’t trust the party. Next we’ll be told killing someone with a grenade doesn’t count because they weren’t individually targeted.

  53. Sinky says:

    John Beattie couldn’t get rid of Robina Qureshi, executive director of Positive Action in Housing, quick enough when she praised Nicola Sturgeon and attacked Cameron over his stance on refugees.

  54. Petra says:

    @ Jimbo says at 12:02 pm ”Carmichael’s lawyer arguing that, since Carmichael had not lied about his election opposition SNP candidate personally, he has done no wrong. I would submit that Carmichael purposely smeared Nicola Sturgeon with the intended consequence of the smear sticking to her party and her party’s candidates.”

    Exactly Jimbo. This memo which was leaked 7 weeks after the meeting (time for it to be discussed amongst a number of individuals such as Mundell and Cameron) between Nicola Sturgeon and the French Ambassador was done, to my mind, to totally undermine Nicola Sturgeon …. her ‘snowballing’ popularity across the UK … , the contents of the memo published the day after the Leaders Debate, with a main aim of influencing the outcome of the UK Election. It reinforced what some already felt about her (sneaky manipulative liar), left others unsure but more than anything would have had an impact on the English Electorate.

    Of course this is my view and it’s highly unlikely that we’ll ever get clarification of the real motives behind this act that is unless the case goes ahead, they call people like Roddin, he slips up and mentions that others were involved and they are called in turn.

  55. Luigi says:

    Folks, I’m wondering if, after the expected establishment stitch up; face having been saved, Carmichael then graciously steps down (and at some later date graciously accepts a peerage). It seems to me that the establishment has just too much to lose here, especially if witnesses are called, but the public backlash could be ferocious (not to mention the final extinction of the LibDems in Scotland). Carmichael going would certainly take much of the heat out of the situation. A new LibDem candidate would have a good chance of holding Orkney & Shetland in a by-election. They need a way out. If Carmichael “wins” and tries to tough it out until 2020 however, things could get really bad. A face-saving “win”, therefore, followed by a gracious step down and peerage would seem to be the best way of returning to a sort of “near-normality” before the Holyrood elections next year. You never know – might happen.

  56. Itchybiscuit says:

    @Rev, @Lesley:

    Thanks for the heads-up guys. I wasn’t actually watching it – my back is to the box and I’m getting on with other stuff while ‘lugging in’.

    All the hot air is elevating the mean summer temps in Scotland… 😉

  57. scotspine says:

    So, the defence line is essentially that its not a legal matter, its a matter for Parliament (Westminster no doubt) and that the courts shouldn’t be bothered with the trivialities of disgruntled constituents / voters who are poring over a lying politicians every utterance.

    The Lawyer is a condescending, twisting prick, Carmichael is a lying, twisting prick and the establishment are arse covering pricks.

  58. call me dave says:


    Very droll Q. You caught the mood, I’m working today & tomorrow so missing all the drama. Ruler in the grass! 🙂

    That’s lawn’order for you.

    Oh well back to the finer points of R = ? L /a …….FGS! 🙁

    Help me Rhonda.

  59. gillie says:

    Parliament was dissolved on the 30th March, the leaked memo was published on 4th April and Carmichael denied all knowledge on 5th April. The events surrounding Frenchgate took place when Carmichael was no longer a member of parliament.

  60. Proud Cybernat says:

    So, to summarise–it’s perfectly okay for our elected Westminster MPs to lie to their electorate so long as they do so with their political hat on. And they call that democracy? Effing farcical.

  61. Socrates MacSporran says:

    I only watched the final ten minutes or so of Mr Dunlop’s subsmission, leading up to the lunch break.

    He seemed to be suggesting this was not a matter for the courts, but for Parliament. However, at the time of his alleged lie, Carmichael was not a Member of Parliament, the 2010-2015 Parliament having been dissolved prior to the General Election.

  62. Luigi says:

    Robert Peffers says:

    7 September, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    In fact if the Court of Session were to find him not guilty, or to dismiss the case on a technicality, then not only will Carmichael’s honesty be reduced in the eyes of the people of Scotland but so also will the Scottish justice system by found guilty and hostile in the eyes of the Scottish public.

    The Scottish justice system is already there, Robert. So many people lost their faith after the Lockerbie fiasco. There was no real case, but the yanks desperately wanted a prosecution, and so those cowards at Camp Zeist duly obliged, shaming us all.

  63. heedtracker says:

    If there’s one legal constant, it’s lawyers never find lawyers guilty. But the electorate will have choice eventually.

    Closing ranks time at Pacific Quay

    They say he misled the electorate over a memo which claimed SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron to be re-elected prime minister.

  64. gordoz says:

    Non – event warning ! : This will not even embarrass the establishment.

    As stated by Ponsonby last week on STV prior to the hearing.
    The smart money says – “Carmichael will be found to have no case to answer”.
    This will sadly turn out to be a pointless waste of money as many have already said.

    That’s why we have heard nothing from the great puddin’ thus far and will not until he is vindicated in the courts.
    After that 2wks coverage in press and on TV media .. just watch

    Sickening but not unsurprising if you you look at the history of such cases.

  65. Lesley-Anne says:

    TJenny says:

    Lesley-Anne – I’ve been watching it too and have to agree that his arguments don’t seem to be in support of the carbuncle. But hey, what do we know? 🙂

    From what I’ve heard he does seem to be on the verge of saying “look here your Lordships, I know he has been a very naughty boy, as does everyone else, but hey it’s just Alistair. We all know what he is like so can’t we all just agree that he was a rather silly little boy, give him a slap on the wrist,tell him not to do it again and just send him to bed without any supper?”

    Dr Jim says:

    @ Lesley Anne

    You’re absolutely right, except he’s also using the same argument as mitigation by saying they got away with it so why shouldn’t Carmichael

    Interesting point there Doc. I wonder if my Defence Counsel will be able to use the same approach when I’m up in court on murder charges? ( My case of attempted murder against David “I’m a coward” Cameron begins next week. 😀 )

  66. handclapping says:

    Just as a technicality Mr Dunlop is on shaky ground when he avers ‘this was not a matter for the courts, but for Parliament’. He is not arguing a case in the common courts of Scotland but in an election court established by Westminster Statute to hear matters pertaining to elections, in this case to Westminster.

  67. Marie Clark says:

    Well that’s three hours of life we’ll no get back again.

    It’s nae bliddy wunner that the courts are aye tied up and hae a backlog o cases. In the name o the wee man, whit feckin century are they in. The 19th by the looks as sounds of it. Surely to goodness it’s not beyond the wit of man to bring the courts into the twenty first century and move things along.

    I’ve listened to Roddy Dunlop a’ morning, and we’ve been round and round the houses in a miriade of different ways. What it appear to boil down to is that it was a political lie, not a personal lie, so that’s a’ right and it disnae count.

    Why did it take him all morning to make that point. Worse than that, he’s no din yit. He’s comin back efter dinnertime tae bump his gums again fur aboot 10 meenits or so Ponsonby reckons. I think I might leave it to the rest of you to carry oan.

    If this is the justice system goad help us a’.

  68. Proud Cybernat says:

    Effing farce! Because what we now have is a situation whereby our inglorious MSM must now, when asking our politicins a question, determine whether they are answering the question with a political or personal hat. I mean, imagine the scenario:

    Reporter: Mr Carmichael, as a politician–did you know anything about Frenchgate?

    AC: I knew nothing about it until I saw it on the news.


    Reporter: Mr Carmichal, as a private citizen–did you know anything about Frenchgate?

    AC: I knew nothing about it until I saw it on the news.

    He would, if the law is to be understood, get off with the first question but not the second. Utter farce.

  69. Proud Cybernat says:

    @Scorates MacSporran

    You’re right–Carmichael was no longer an MP, WM having been dssolved. He was, however, still a cabinet Minister (SoSfS) which is still a political position.

  70. Jack Murphy says:

    Socrates MacSporran said at 1:08 pm:-
    “However, at the time of his alleged lie, Carmichael was not a Member of Parliament, the 2010-2015 Parliament having been dissolved prior to the General Election.”
    Correct,but he was Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Scotland, and a Member of the Cabinet in the government,up to,and until a new government was formed following the General Election.

  71. Lesley-Anne says:

    @Scotspine, @ Gillie, @Socrates MacSporran.

    I think you folks have hit the nail squarely on the head there. As Westminster had been dissolved at the time of Carmicael’s shenanigans then his Defence Counsel’s argument about whether this is a political case or private case is blown out the water in my humble view. This is quite clearly a PRIVATE matter due to Carmichael being a private citizen at the time of the smear and subsequent lying to the media.

    We only have around another 10 minutes of Defence Counsel argument after they return from lunch and then it is the turn of the Prosecution counsel. I wonder if they will have picked up on the significance, in my view, of the timing of leak and subsequent lies to the media. 😉

  72. bookie from hell says:

    If case is Lost,at least I know roddy will spend my cash on the best ipad you can buy

  73. arthur thomson says:

    I contributed to this case because I believe that Carmichael’s actions were deliberately calculated to impugn the SNP and thereby all its candidates – one of whom was his political opponent in Orkney and Shetland.

    Whether or not the case holds up in Court, the fact of it has exposed Liberal Democrats for what they are – hypocrites. Anyone who wants to be part of that is welcome to it. It has also exposed the media and its ‘journalists’ – yet again – as the servants of the establishment.

    Honest people will observe the outcome and be more informed as to the degree of effectiveness of the judiciary and the law in calling politicians to account.

  74. Nana Smith says:

    Well to my mind if he gets away with it then surely the Chilcot enquiry need not be published [as if]

    After all Tony Blair and pals all lied so that’s ok then.

    If he does get off then the message will be its fine for mps to mislead allowing Cameron and Osborne to lie and lie their heads of.

    More wars likely and watch for national conscription coming soon.

  75. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Aw FFS!!!

    Him again?!


  76. maureen hollinsworth says:

    Jeezz, no wonder this country is going to the dogs! If you see the contribution Mr Dunlop QC makes to productivity in Court, this could last for years! More fees for him as it takes him 5 mins to say a sentence. Glad I didn’t attend Court on such a sunny day! I would rather watch the paint dry on my walls.

  77. peekay says:

    Molly says:
    I’m obviously not a lawyer

    Nope, the rules are that as soon as someone has an internet connection this automatically makes him/her an expert in all things legal, medical and political.

  78. Bob Sinclair says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but is thar the esteemed Ronnie Anderson lurking in the background?

  79. HenBroon says:

    I cannot bring myself to watch the unionist establishment trying one of their own grand masters, and then finding some obscure reason to let the sneering lying bastard walk free. Not only that but they will do a Mone/ Darling and rub Scotlands nose in their stinky shit once more by giving the bloated toad an ermine cloak. It all just gives me the dry boak. And is making me very very angry.

    On a similar note has any one seen the article in The Record on line which says? “Scotland is the assault capital of the world according to UN stats on violent crime.” Yet I cannot find anything about this in the rest of the unionist MSM. You would have thought BBC Scotland would have been on this like a dog on a bone. The fact that the rest of the MSM have not run with it suggests to me that the Record are once more using Jacky Bailey techniques to get this story to read as it does.

    Will you investigate this Stu and see if it has legs or not?

  80. Bob Sinclair says:

    I’m expecting a full report from Ronnie Anderson as the WoS correspondent present in court. A wee twirl of the hairy string would go down a treat as well.

  81. cearc says:

    Bob Sinclair,

    ‘Tis indeed.

    Good on y’Ronnie.

  82. shiregirl says:

    …how many ring binders have they got?!

    Appendices, bundles, rules…

    And the time taken to say a sentence…seriously? Why are they taking half an hour to say what could be said simply in a sentence?

    where is the fast forward button? 🙂

  83. TJenny says:

    Wahay – now that it’s the good guy’s turn to speak, we’re getting a good view of Wing’s own Ronnie Anderson. 🙂

  84. Michael McCabe says:

    @ Ian Brotherhood 12:06 pm Rumour has it that Michele Mone Was given a pass to the house of lords Because she volunteered to Lick all the lords wigs clean.

  85. Tinto Chiel says:

    The vibes aren’t good, are they? A lot of inconsequential time-wasting and word-spinning. It got so boring I began to redd my chest of drawers, discovering an excellent obituary of the historian GWS Barrow.

    Listen to this bit:”In the months preceding the referendum of 1979, I remember three utterances by members of the Scots upper middle class,” recalled Barrow. ” A distinguished scientist solemnly assured me that ‘we are a very poor country and always have been’. The head of a well-known girls’ school declared that ‘ we have never been good at governing ourselves and managing our own affairs’. An eminent philosopher of advanced age asked me:”What is going to happen to my pension?” These statements, judged Barrow, were the quintessential voice of the Scots bourgeoisie.”

    Depressing, eh? Then I glanced at the bottom of the page to see the author: one David Torrance. Can this be Tory Tank-Top Boy, he of the moussed comb-over and slayer of the Dragon Salmond?

    DT says of Prof Barrow “an unlikely supporter of independence given his Yorkshire roots.”

    Well, fan my brow!

  86. shiregirl says:

    …which one is Ronnie?

  87. Ian Brotherhood says:

    If Oor Ronnie could provide subtitles it would be slightly less impenetrable but a lot more entertaining.

    Go on Big Man! Fart or something!

  88. orri says:


    106 False statements as to candidates.

    (1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

    (a)before or during an election,

    (b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,

    makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true.
    (2)A candidate shall not be liable nor shall his election be avoided for any illegal practice under subsection (1) above committed by his agent other than his election agent unless—

    (a)it can be shown that the candidate or his election agent has authorised or consented to the committing of the illegal practice by the other agent or has paid for the circulation of the false statement constituting the illegal practice; or

    (b)an election court find and report that the election of the candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements.

    So the idea that Carmichael had to personally do the “leaking” is bullshit. It’s also up to the court to decide rather than the defence.

  89. One_Scot says:

    I like many others helped fund the case against Alistair Carmichael, and I would have liked to have seen the back of him a long time ago.

    But by putting his own selfish interest before his party, and by digging his heels in for his own personal gain, he is actually doing more harm to the Lid Dems and the unionist cause than he could possible imagine.

    His days may be years, but they are certainly numbered. Each and every additional day he stays put, he is a constant reminder that Scotland needs to be free from the corrupt unionist State that protects and rewards the likes of him.

  90. Grouse Beater says:

    Carmichael: What is your fee?
    His QC: I…..Am…..Paid…..By…..The…..Hour.

  91. Jimbo says:

    @ HenBroon

    “On a similar note has any one seen the article in The Record on line which says? “Scotland is the assault capital of the world according to UN stats on violent crime.” Yet I cannot find anything about this in the rest of the unionist MSM.”

    It seems like the Record’s data is 10 years out of date and, at that time, the UN study was flawed, Hen.

    Back in 2005 he UN’s study was based on telephone interviews and used data that was already five years out of date even then.

    We can always bank on the Record to diminish Scots and Scotland in the eyes of the world.

  92. T222Deracha says:

    Just a thought, probably way off beam but are any of the Civil Servants involved in Carmichael’s carmudgeon the same ones who were rewarded for “saving the Union”.?

    They even stated that it was the first time Civil Servants had been politicised, that the practice had never happened before.

    Electoral Comission should be told how much the Westminster cabal spent using these Civil Servants, since they were not part of the official “NO” campaign. Purdah my arse!!

  93. Proud Cybernat says:

    Good arguments being put forward by the Petioner’s QC. Not as clear cut as some in the media have been making out. This could go either way in my (amateur) view.

  94. Quakeawake says:

    No idea what’s going on there. Justice for all, no doubt.

    That chap at the end said something about a song sheet for tomorrow, though, so maybe things are looking up.

    They could give us a rendition of the old Stawbs hit Part of the Union.

    Oh you don’t get me I’m part of the union
    You don’t get me I’m part of the union
    You don’t get me I’m part of the union
    Till the day I die, till the day I die.

  95. cearc says:

    Excellent stream from Independence Live throughout, Well done guys.

    They definitely deserve a few pennies in the coffers for this effort.

  96. Colin McKerron says:

    We all know that there is the real world and then there is the court room!
    As First Minister of Scotland, in that very influential and privileged position representing the Crown, Carmichael, amongst others, abused his position.
    Most members of society never get up to the murky and Machiavellian shenanigans which are ‘Politics.’
    So it will be of little consequence, should the slick treaded Dunlop manage to slither out of the Petition, I’m sure that in the minds of most ORDINARY people, he’ll find it impossible to get him, ‘off the hook.’
    Dunlop is putting forward the puerile argument that it was political and not personal conduct and therefore the letter of the law does not apply and the Petition must be thrown out.
    The case may be boring and the decision for the ‘Crown’ already made, but I can’t wait for the fall out!

  97. Lesley-Anne says:

    Especially for you Quakeawake. 😉

  98. Flower of Scotland says:

    Well done Ronnie! Got a good view of you when Mitchell QC was entertaining us!

    How biased can STV get? Are they trying to catch up with the Beeb?

  99. Thepnr says:

    OK it may be boring but the fact that it is even taking place at all is significant.

    Tells the bastards, NO we haven’t gone away!

  100. Muscleguy says:


    I was in a jury few years ago trying a case of metal theft and the prosecuting brief was almost, but not quite as ponderous as Dunlop QC. There was very little if any abstruse legal argument but we spent several days being impressed upon as to the workings and importance of dry-risers in multi story buildings.

    I’m a scientist and well used from conferences, symposia, floor meetings etc. to having to concentrate on boring technical stuff except this was lowest common denominator hammer again and again.

    As to this case in question I can see Dunlop QC’s arguments being evaporated quite nicely. He’s tied himself in unsustainable knots with this ‘self speaking’ stuff. An electoral system where a politician can utter all manner of tosh provided it is about themselves is not one I want to live under.

  101. ronnie anderson says:

    Rest assured People Lady Paton & Lord Mathews are nobodys mugs, they asked very pointed questions of Mr Dunlop, they seen all the bullshit from 1883/88/1948/49/68 ect ect ect.

    Carmicheal must have his reshearchers working overtime in the HoC with all the points made from Hansard.

    Mr Mitchell made a good start & more recent Electorial cases, & to the point.

  102. yesindyref2 says:

    Well, it seems Carmichael’s QC is arguing, as expected, that the Act doesn’a apply to Carmichael because (waffle waffle waffle). The counter QC will argue that it does as the Act doesn’t specify another candidate it just says candidate.

    The Defence QC is also saying it would set a precedent, personally I think that will make no difference to the judges, if it sets a precedent, then that’s what the Law is all about – Acts, interpretation, judgements, precedents. That all together makes up the Law.

    The judges will then ponder over whether it’s the wording that’s important, or whether it’s the reason and intention behind the Act, and judge that part of it accordingly. We knew this was going to happen, it was part of the action defence lodgement.

    Basically as far as the actual facts behind it all, there seems to be no defence possible, so it’s just whether the Act applies or not.

    If it applies, Carmichael’s a goner, if it doesn’t, he’s home free to do it again. And again. As is any other politician.

    Good grief, my posting is as boring as the case must be.

  103. Fiona says:

    Is the afternoon session available to watch anywhere? I had to go out…

  104. yesindyref2 says:

    Dunlop also seems to have been arguing if I read this right somewhere, that a 3 year ban from standing as a candidate and voting in any election is unfair and a reason not to apply the Act. Eh? Is that like someone up for a crime, his/her defence arguing that the maximum penalty of 10 years is unfair so he/she should be found innocent?

    From that and other points I have the feeling Dunlop is filling the air with mist, if he had confidence in his main thrust, that the Act doesn’t apply to Carmichael, surely he would have stuck to the point?

  105. ronnie anderson says:

    Liten hear Mr fashion reporter (Ian Brotherhood) Lady Paton hud her court jaikit oan, she didna hiv her batwoman cape oan.

    The notes of the case are to be made public.

    Had a good chat to Struan Robertson ( angus
    ‘s faither)nice auld gent.

    National reporter (Greg) went for a coffee & to get his phone charged guess who got that done for him, yupt ah Winger.

    Filled him in on Wings involvment.

  106. Stoker says:

    6.30pm BBC Misreporting Scotland headlines:

    First up – Aberdeen raised Jihadi killed.

    Secondly – Tonights football match against Germany.

    Nice to know the BBC still have their priorities right, eh!
    Not a mention of the corrupt Carbuncle. And they wonder why we want independence. Still, better together and all that, eh!

    The BBC, providing a sub-standard service with zero credibility.

  107. WHS says:

    You know the whole case is a farce, and that you’re going to lose, and that Carmichael is not going to lose his seat, and that the petitioners are going to have massive costs awarded against them. Getting your kick in first, you put up a sour and bitter post calling the petition “monumentally boring”.

    If it’s so terribly boring, why did you tedious Cybernats (for it is they) push towards it, hire lawyers for it and set the petition in motion in the first place?

  108. David McDowell says:

    A quick summary.

    Carmichael’s defence:

    1. A falsehood spoken about oneself isn’t caught by the law, citing various precedents.
    2. Carmichael’s falsehood did not relate to his personal character, therefore it isn’t caught by the law.
    3. Carmichael’s falsehood wasn’t intended to affect his return as an election candidate.

    Petitioners’ argument:

    1. A falsehood spoken about oneself is caught by the law, citing one precedent, before the court adjourned for the day.

    So it’s not lost yet, but if the judges uphold one or more of the defence’s three points it’s all over for the petitioners.

  109. Grouse Beater says:

    Not quite on topic, but also about being squeaky clean:

  110. Kevin Evans says:

    Didn’t he write a written apology to Nicola stating clearly his own guilt?

  111. orri says:

    Re my earlier post,

    The first few paragraphs definitely seem to be laying the case that the entire SNP are not to be trusted. As such it might be construed that if The Telegraph were seen as an agent under the first part of the law was an attack on every single SNP candidate. In addition they omitted any caveats in the start of that article. As such they may be considered to have broken electoral law. Especially given they later contest the very part of the memo that shows they had no reason to believe what was being alleged.

    Also note that it specifically says any candidate so in this case it doesn’t have to be the particular candidate Carmichael was standing against.

    The question of consent is fairly trivial given he’s already admitted he authorised the disclosure of the memo to the press.

  112. Paula Rose says:

    Just read through comments – thank-you, ronnie anderson xxx

  113. Nana Smith says:

    @Grouse Beater. Brilliant article.

    What a trio Murdoch, Cameron and Brooks. All the scum together in one bath tub. 16million to keep her gob shut.

    I wonder if Mr Hanna will be offered a sweetener, or maybe he should hire a minder.

  114. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Nana aw naw,ah canny stand they people that chase people fur their autographs lol. Am wearin ah heidscarf the morra.

  115. manandboy says:

    If Carmichael was innocent, the evidence of his conduct did not support it. Likewise, Mr Mundell.
    In the court of public opinion, both these men have made statements which have persuaded the ‘jury’, i.e. the public, to find them guilty. The Court of Session in Edinburgh may or may not find itself able to agree with public opinion in this case; though ultimately, the verdict in the CoS is of little consequence, simply because the people don’t need it. The sentence they pass will merely be applied as and when the public have the opportunity to do so.
    In addition, as others have noted, the people will also pass judgement on the Court itself. The consequences of that may well be of far greater significance should the people decide that the Scottish Courts are but a servant of a corrupt Unionist Establishment at Westminster. They will only do that of course, if Carmichael walks. But if he does, it could well be the straw that finally breaks the Unionist donkey’s back.

  116. handclapping says:

    Its not a Scottish court, it is a Westminster court convened by Statute

  117. Nana Smith says:

    Ronnie you can run but you can’t hide!

    Well done for attending the proceedings xx

  118. yesindyref2 says:

    Ah, LPW is covering it in an article. Good.

  119. yesindyref2 says:

    The proceedings aren’t about Carmichael’s guilt or innocence, they’re about whether the Act is relevant to his actions or not. If it’s a political lie it isn’t, if it’s personal it might be. And other points of law and interpretation.

  120. Rock says:

    The Scottish justice system is rotten to the core and the vast majority of lawyers, especially judges, are the lowest of the low.

    They are all freemasons whose only job is to protect each other.

    This farce is no different from the Chilcot farce. Vast amounts of funds pour into the legal sewer this way.

    Carmichael has already been cleared in secret.

    And yet there are still idiots pretending that Scots are “sovereign”.

    Scotland is still a colony of England after more than 300 years and there has never been a procedure for removing a King or Queen.

    We can’t even remove a lying, defaming MP.

    “Sovereign” my foot.

  121. David McDowell says:

    The thing I find baffling is why in the 21st century we still have people in courts struggling to leaf through thick folders of legal papers searching for information.

    Surely they could be provided with a touchscreen so QCs could just put up in front of judges the exact text they want them to see, and likewise the judges could highlight the specific bits they want to query?

    Or even have the information sent to a big screen on the wall, where everyone can read it and see clearly what he is going on about.

    It might just speed things up a little as well, but obviously that might not be popular with the bean counters charging fees by the hour.

  122. Grouse Beater says:

    Nana Smith: Brilliant article.

    Honoured, Nana. (I’m nursing a cold as only a man can, that is, feeling sorry for myself, and slow on replying!) Actually, I find it very depressing that the powerful can reinstate their henchmen as if nothing has changed. Same feeling I got watching Cameron stride from Number 10 to the microphones, balls high, on the 19th to tell us it was all about English rights, not Scottish.

    Anyhow, thanks for the heads up on that article. Very interesting. One for the files.

    And in case others want to read the essay:

  123. Grouse Beater says:

    Kevin: Didn’t he write a written apology to Nicola stating clearly his own guilt?

    He did.

    The man has a scrap yard of arrogance to use up. Watch him facing a Scottish committee and telling them he’s given them enough of his time.

  124. smithie says:

    Grouse Beater @10.29pm
    Spot on sir i watched that.
    How dare us Scottish plebs question our masters from south britain.Cnuts

  125. Elmac says:

    A lie is a lie is a lie. We are not talking about a minor fib but a blatant act of dishonesty on a grand scale designed to secure a personal and political advantage by perverting the course of an election, not only in Orkney & Shetland, but also in Scotland as a whole.

    We have every right to expect a minimum standard of probity of those elected to represent us. Carmichael has fallen far short and has demonstrated he is clearly unfit to hold public office now, or in the future.

    If the court cannot cut through the nonsense of his defence and remove this affront to democracy from parliament I can only conclude that they are corrupt. I agree with an earlier post that one of the first tasks on achieving independence must be to clean up the Scottish legal system. I do not propose replacing unionist lackeys with SNP ones, but to appoint impartial and capable members of the judiciary who will make decisions based on evidence rather than the instructions of their masters.

  126. smithie says:

    Elmac @1105pm.
    Elmac i agree with you but i have no trust in Scotlands legal system. I find myself in agreement a lot of times in what Rock has to say on here. Much has to be done on how we change /get away from what is the “norm”.

    Roll on independence and we the people can start telling our elected members as to what WE want.
    By the way here’s one guy that is trying to enlighting us on “our” justice system.

  127. yesindyref2 says:

    @Elmac and others.
    It’s not the job of judges to make pass or change Acts of Parliament, that’s Parliament whether Westminster or Holyrood. It’s the job of judges to judge whether a law (act) is applicable, and whether it has been broken or abrogated.

    If there was no law against murder for instance then unless there was some other law that could bs used, there is no way a properly constituted judiciary system could allow prosecution for murder, or find anyone guilty as charged.

  128. Nana Smith says:

    @Grouse Beater

    I prescribe a Whisky toddy for your cold.

    As to the depressing state of the union I can only prescribe independence. Hopefully more folk are coming to that realisation.

    Sleep well zzzzzzzz

  129. Ruby says:

    Headline in The Times

    ‘Leak MP faces losing his seat on TV’

    I don’t subscribe to The Times so I couldn’t read the whole article but I thought the headline was interesting.

  130. marydoll says:

    Can anyone tell me how we will find out the result of the Carmichael enquiry. I presume since its been ignored by MSM it won’t be there

  131. Nana Smith says:


    I’m sure if he wins it will be all over the news. If he loses no doubt there’s a seat in the hol being warmed up for his arse.

    Actually either way there’ll be a seat waiting for him, his reward for protecting his Westminster masters.

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