The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The endless trial

Posted on August 17, 2020 by

The last words spoken in Kirsty Wark’s documentary “The Trial Of Alex Salmond”, which just aired on BBC Scotland, are spoken by an unnamed actress letting rip with the full BAFTA range of quivering emotions as she reads out the words of a completely anonymous woman (we don’t even get to know her trial pseudonym letter) who last year falsely accused Alex Salmond of sexually assaulting her.

“What you’re saying is a man can try to kiss a woman, or he can say completely inappropriate things to her, when he’s 30 years older than her and he’s the First Minister of Scotland.

I’m worried about what this says more widely to other women, or just to us as a society. I mean, where does this leave us?”

Now, since the court found that neither of those things actually happened, the logical answer in that person’s case ought surely to be “facing prosecution for perjury”. But readers will be astonished to learn that that isn’t where the show went.

Because it’s important to remember that the jury of eight women and five men found that all of Alex Salmond’s accusers were lying. All of the accusers said, clearly and specifically, that Salmond had sexually assaulted them, but the jury concluded that he didn’t sexually assault a single one of them.

In other words, the jury decided that every single one of the accusers wasn’t telling the truth. Some specifics can be debated but there’s no wiggle room on that. They decided that the things the accusers claimed didn’t happen.

Had they happened they would indisputably have been crimes (otherwise they couldn’t have been charges), but the jury’s view on hearing all the evidence the Crown could assemble – in a vast nationwide trawl encompassing hundreds of police interviews of people who’d made no complaints whatsoever – was that they hadn’t happened.

They didn’t hand down verdicts of “Probably guilty, but we can’t be 100% certain so we’re letting him off”. Nor did they hand down verdicts of “Not technically guilty of a crime as such, but definitely a creepy pervert who should be shunned by society”. Because they were at no point asked to, and at no point did, make any judgement or comment on Salmond’s character.

What they were asked to do was determine his guilt or innocence, and on that they were unequivocal. He walked from court an innocent man, unambiguously acquitted on every single charge, and has maintained a dignified silence since. The prosecutor accepted the verdict and has instigated no appeal. The matter is concluded.

The only things that should “say to us as a society” are that (1) anyone accused of a crime should have a fair trial and be regarded as innocent if found to be so by the court rather than being subjected to endless smears and innuendo that they’re actually guilty forever afterwards, and that (2) victims of actual sexual assault shouldn’t be dissuaded from seeking justice just because some rare false claims were found to be false – the lies of Salmond’s accusers should not be held against genuine victims.

But you’d never know that if you’d just woken up from a coma and watched Wark’s show. Had you somehow missed the whole story until tonight, you’d come away with the impression that Salmond was definitely guilty and that a grotesque miscarriage of justice had taken place and that Salmond – a man found completely innocent of any crime – had nevertheless somehow had his reputation ruined beyond all repair.

(Adding insult to the injury of being all but bankrupted by his defence costs.)

This impression was spoon-fed to viewers in an astonishing sequence two-thirds of the way into the show in which Wark, BBC News Scotland editor Sarah Smith and – imagine our surprise seeing you here! – freelance Rapefinder General Dani Garavelli casually chat about the case in a cafe opposite the court.

(Much of the documentary, including this segment, was filmed during the trial rather than afterwards, and in our view it smacks very much of a programme originally made to accompany a guilty verdict that’s been hastily chopped up and repurposed.)

GARAVELLI: I’m staggered by the defence and how it’s changed and the tone’s changed. It was all going to be about the orchestration of a campaign, and about consent, and now it just seems to be ‘Oh well he was inappropriate but was it criminal?’ and that’s a huge shift, isn’t it, from start to finish?

The main reason for that, of course, is that the trial judge Lady Dorrian refused to allow any of the evidence of an orchestrated campaign to be presented in court, but nobody in the show bothers to mention the fact.

Garavelli, we should remember, hates Salmond so much and is so certain of his guilt that not only did she publish a massive hatchet job after the trial, she insisted that he shouldn’t even be allowed to raise money to defend himself in the initial inquiry, on the grounds that him having a defence was “intimidatory” to his accusers.

(She oddly contrasted it with the perceived inability of the accusers to raise money, ignoring the fact that they didn’t need any money – the Scottish Government, and in the criminal case the Crown, was picking up all the prosecution costs.)

Garavelli’s own documentary on the case airs tomorrow on Radio 4. We’re sure it’ll be impeccably fair and balanced, and that this time it might even speak to some of the female defence witnesses as well as the prosecution ones.

Wait, no we’re not.

Even Garavelli, however, was more restrained than Sarah Smith.

SMITH:The BEST-case scenario, all the things he even agrees to, is that he was drinking, often heavily, late at night in Bute House, with women who are half his age, alone in the room with them, and either consensually or not, having some kind of sexual contact. 

Alarmingly, as already noted above this is simply an absolute tissue of falsehood. Of the 14 original charges there was precisely ONE agreed instance where both parties had been drinking and a fully-clothed “cuddle” occurred, which was apologised for and the apology accepted by the woman concerned, who continued to work for Salmond despite being given the opportunity to move to another job at the same level, and said in her evidence that nothing problematic had ever happened again.

Every other allegation was strenously denied and was found by the jury to be false. NO other “sexual contact”, whether consensual or otherwise, was found to have occurred with anyone in respect of any of the charges, even though Smith all but states flat-out that it happened in every case.

SMITH: Look at Alex Salmond now, in the dock, a really diminished figure, and if you think back, though, he was such a TOWERING presence, and he’s VERY persuasive.

Diminished in whose eyes? It’s very hard to infer any meaning from Smith’s comments other than that Salmond was so persuasive/intimidating that he bullied women into sexual contact. (It presumably can’t mean he’s persuaded the jury, because he’s now “really diminished” and would lack such presence and power.)

Almost as appalling is a sequence which somehow made it into the final edit of the programme in which BBC “The Nine” chief news correspondent James Cook repeats unsubstantiated tittle-tattle that someone claims to have heard in the court toilets. (And which a source very close to Salmond tells us is entirely fictional.)

WARK: What’s going on?

COOK: He’s in there shouting at his lawyers, according to the court reporter inside.

WARK: Any idea what’s been said?

COOK: Dunno, I didn’t hear him, but someone went to the loo and said they could hear him just shouting at his lawyers. 

WARK: Well, you know what, I think he looks a lot more disgruntled today than yesterday. He’s not a happy man.

The entire show is very liberally sprinkled with similar and equally baseless innuendo. Labour adviser, pundit and occasional comedian Ayesha Hazarika announces that she was “incensed” when she appeared on a 2017 show about (UK) Parliamentary sexual harassment alongside Salmond and deemed him to have constituted an “alpha” male making excuses for the “abuse of power” by men, even though what he actually said was that harassment in politics was symptomatic of a wider sexism in society as a whole (something that one might reasonably expect Hazarika to agree wholeheartedly with) “but that doesn’t make it right, incidentally, it’s wrong”.

Hazarika was among a whole parade of professional feminists like National columnist Kirsty Strickland and Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland, who said:

“It seems to be that where consent is an issue, that that is where juries are most reluctant to convict. It’s very difficult to convince juries beyond reasonable doubt.”

But the relevance of that is unclear, since we already know that consent was only an issue in one of the 14 cases. The other 13 were all straight-up alleged assaults where the defence wasn’t that they were consensual but that they didn’t happen at all.

Brindley also claims that only 10% of rape cases ever get to court, and that “for it to get to court there must be at least some supporting evidence under the laws of corroboration in Scotland”.

The implication of this is that the accusers – all of whom were corroborating each other’s claims under the disturbing “Moorov doctrine”, because there was literally NO material evidence presented by the prosecution – can’t have been lying. Again, what it all adds up to is “He did do it, they just couldn’t prove it”.

Another interviewee in the programme, Kirstein Rummery, had already taken a similar position, according to a blog by insomnia-curing commentator Gerry Hassan (though we should note that we can’t find an original source for this quote).

(What she means there, incidentally, is 98% of allegations. And her other statistics also appear to be questionable – as far as we can ascertain there are no figures produced for rape alone, only “rape and attempted rape”, for which the conviction rate is 47%, not 39%, while the rate for sexual assaults is 56%.)

And while the documentary is forced to provide a sliver of factual balance, it does so in weasel-worded terms that cast doubt at every turn. For example, 14 minutes in, a series of major inconsistencies in the evidence of Woman H – the centre of the most serious charge – are dismissed by Wark as attempts to “discredit” the witness (rather than, say, establish the truth).

A clip from Woman H’s evidence is inserted into the middle of the segment in which she makes excuses for having given four significantly different versions of the story to police because she was traumatised, and Wark innocently posits the notion that such understandable confusion could be the reason for an overly fussy jury disbelieving her story, rather than it simply not being true.

Similarly, later on we get Katrine Bussey, the political editor of PA Scotland, discussing the outcome of the original Scottish Government inquiry, which was found by a court to have been unlawful, flawed, and tainted by bias against Salmond and was thrown out with Salmond awarded £500,000 in costs.

Bussey, for some reason, says this finding vindicated Salmond only “in his eyes”, a qualifier that’s inexplicable and entirely inappropriate. The court ruled unequivocally in his favour and the Scottish Government withdrew and paid up rather than contest it. Bussey imposes a fog of doubt on that finding that has no merit and no basis in reality.

Strickland, meanwhile, audaciously tries to present Nicola Sturgeon – who at the time of broadcast still officially had absolutely nothing to do with any of it – as the person most wronged and hurt by the whole affair.

“It would be a cruel irony if the only casualty of this whole sorry tale was the First Minister, was a woman. But would anybody be surprised by that?”

Ah, it was the patriarchy all along! The patriarchy that fabricated a string of false accusations against an innocent man, the patriarchy that constructed a whole new set of government rules by which he could be accused, the patriarchy that put a female judge in charge of the trial who forbade the identification of the prosecution witnesses and denied the defence the use of much of its key evidence, the patriarchy that forced seven women to give evidence for the defence and the patriarchy that persuaded a mostly-female jury to acquit on all charges. Damn patriarchy.

Surprising as it may seem for such a crude piece of sledgehammer propaganda, there are a few moments of (relative) subtlety in the show too, like the sly implied linking of Salmond with Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein, the careful editing of the (very short) contributions from people supportive of Salmond – which mostly focus on negative comments about him, like Jim Sillars saying unspecified aspects of his conduct were “deplorable” – and the ludicrously comical pantomime-villain voice used for the words of Salmond’s chief counsel Gordon Jackson QC.

There’s also the way that, eight minutes in, Wark reads out, in her own voice, her own interpretation of events, intertwined with an actress reading out the accuser’s evidence from the courtroom.

WARK: He said to her, you know, “I’ll be a great lover”, he wanted her to stay over, and what she thought she could do was if she agreed that she would stay over she thought she could get out of the room, get into another room – she claims she went into the room – and he came after her.

The two accounts – the actual evidence given in court and Wark’s paraphrasing of what was claimed – are blurred together until the viewer isn’t sure what’s fact and what’s fantasy. The jury, as we’ll recall, concluded it was all fantasy, but it’s clear that Wark’s own opinion is rather different.

WARK: And perhaps because the complainer was behind a screen, you don’t have as it were the benefit of seeing the face. But actually what that means is you can concentrate on the words. And the words were so devastating.

What the words actually were were lies. The jury, as we know, simply disbelieved her account, and a female witness who was friends with Woman H and knew her well told the court that Woman H wasn’t even in Bute House that night – a point Wark skims over dismissively in three seconds and never refers to again.

Those three seconds are all we hear from the seven female defence witnesses who gave evidence in the trial. A number of allegations made by prosecution witnesses (such as the claim that civil service rules were altered to prevent Salmond being alone at night with women) are given prominent coverage, with contradictory evidence from defence witnesses treated contemptuously and given a fraction of the airtime.

By way of example, compare the length of one accusation (which we’ve highlighted here in red) with the length of the rebuttal (in green):

PHILIP SIM: Hello, this is the Alex Salmond trial, a special podcast from BBC Scotland. Woman G, she said Alex Salmond told her to come back to Bute House, she said he was pouring shots of Limoncello and he put his arm around her and tried to kiss her. She says she felt intimidated and trapped. Gordon Jackson for the defence put it that these incidents were thought of as nothing at the time, and to that Woman G said that it was serious enough at the time that they actually changed the rules so that women weren’t allowed to work with Alex Salmond on their own.

WARK: Woman G’s astonishing claim that female staff should not be left alone with the former First Minister at night was backed up by a further three civil servants. Alex Salmond and another defence witness denied that such a rule had existed. No matter the verdict in this case, this is going to be a wake-up call for workplace relationships in general.

Is it? Why would it be the case if the claims were false? Again, the jury found Salmond innocent of any assault on Woman G, and several female witnesses testified that they in fact HAD been alone with Salmond on numerous occasions after the supposed incident, so the balance of probability seems to be that they WERE false. So why do they get such disproportionate weight?

(The First Minister herself has denied any knowledge of such a policy.)

The documentary takes the same approach to balance throughout – heavy on the (disproven) allegations and the accounts of the accusers, light on the defence case and the innocent verdict, heavy on smearing Salmond’s character despite that verdict and with only the briefest of passing acknowledgements that a conspiracy is widely suspected, particularly by SNP voters.

(The only time the possibility of illegal collusion is really mentioned, Wark immediately puts the counterpoint – something that she never does with the accusations against Salmond – saying “The other way of looking at that is post- the #MeToo trigger, women getting together to help each other come forward to tell their stories has got nothing wrong with it.” We’ll see what the inquiry thinks of that.)

But there’s one more thing. 46 minutes into the show, we’re told that Alex Salmond’s former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein “met Nicola Sturgeon and one of the [accusers] on the 29th of March 2018” to discuss the case.

This, as alert readers will be aware, is a piece of information which leads very easily to the identification of the said accuser, but which the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has refused to take any action against despite prosecuting Craig Murray for measurably lesser offences of alleged identification of witnesses.

The identity of the third person who was at the 29 March meeting between Aberdein and Sturgeon can be established easily and unmistakeably (as there were only three people present) using only the information broadcast in the show.

But ridiculously, despite repeated requests to COPFS to clarify whether we can simply quote any of the media which have published the info, we still can’t tell you who it is or even how to Google it, even though it’s absurdly easy and obvious, and Craig Murray faces up to two years in prison for doing less. It’s about as big a mystery as this:

But Kirsty Wark belongs to the Scottish media establishment, and we already know that the Scottish media establishment has complete immunity from the law that applies to everyone else, a position from which it feels free to piously shriek for the hanging of the lumpen proletariat.

And while tonight’s documentary (nicely set up by a quite-coincidentally-timed string of Salmond-bashing stories in the press in recent days, as well as selective reporting of the programme itself) was every bit of the laughably one-sided stitch-up job we were expecting , that’s perhaps still the most truly shocking thing about it.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 17 08 20 22:45

      The endless trial – politics-99.com

    247 to “The endless trial”

    1. Jim Arnott says:

      This BBC programme was utterly sickening. Alex Salmon was cleared of criminality. The BBC had a retrial and found him guilty. Hope the BBC are charged with criminality.

    2. Ruglonian says:

      It lived up to its expectations entirely – a fucking disgrace!

    3. Republicofscotland says:

      Well first off die-hard British nationalist Kirsty Wark looks drastic, time certainly hasn’t been good to her.

      Anyway the last hour has seen Wark and the BBC retry Alex Salmond and find him guilty. Not only that they’ve mentioned Salmond in the same breath as Harvey Weinstein, and compared his RT show to some sort of Russian propaganda show, whilst not even blushing at the BBC being a state propaganda channel, they also mentioned the #METOO movement, with Alex in mind.

      The mainly women jury found Alex Salmond innocent, they DIDN’T believe the stories of the anonymous women, and rightly so. As for Sturgeon she looked fidgety when asked by Wark if she was involved in the Salmond set up.

      Kudos to Kenny McAskill and temperamental Jim Sillars for coming out and saying what most of us already know that Salmond was fitted up.

      Come back Alex Scotland needs you more than ever now

    4. Fixitfox says:

      A brilliant forensic analysis by The Rev. I have no intention of watching the Wark/ Smith/ Garavelli hatchet job. BBC Scotland plumbs new depths.

    5. dakk says:

      Fucking chattering classes.

    6. robertknight says:

      Is the BritNat Brainwashing Channel the utter disgrace that we already know it to be?

      Does a bear shit in the woods?

    7. William Habib Steele says:

      My anger has been growing while watching this “documentary” = propaganda. It’s now raging. I hope Alex Salmond sues the BBC for defamation and whatever else he can sue them for. He’s been declared guilty by the BBC, after being acquitted by a judge and jury. Can criminal charges be brought against the BBC?

      Thanks for your analysis, Stuart. I’ll share it on Facebook.

    8. The Gillies says:

      Utterly disgusted by Wark and crew but not surprised.Shame on the BBC but again not surprised. Totally unfair and bordering on untruths. i look forward to the next few days when the inquest really gets to the bottom of this story

    9. winifred mccartney says:

      Hope Alex sues the pants off the BBC, Kirsty Wark, Sarah SMith, Dani Garavelli and the Wark for this outrageous retrial of a man found INNOCENT – but it just did not fit in with their agenda.

    10. Bob Mack says:

      Very poor attempt at a hatchet job. They obviously left out all the evidence which the jury appraised to find Mr Salmond not guilty.

      The jury could have given not proven verdicts on every charge if they had doubts, but the returned verdicts were very clear.

      Journalists trying to retrospectively convict Alex look pretty shabby tonight, more than ever.

    11. Geordie says:

      This is the WoS we need. This.

    12. Paul K says:

      This is a new low for the BBC, and a new low for democracy in Scotland. The programme should never have been aired. What were the BBC lawyers thinking?

    13. Republicofscotland says:

      Craig Murray reckons that by the time the Alex Salmond police team (22 officers, which was still actively looking for dirt on Salmond last month) the civil service, lawyers, the High court case, the half a million pounds payout, and MI5 involvement are taken into account that the Salmond fit up by the Scottish government will cost the Scottish taxpayer North of £10 million pounds.

    14. Liz g says:

      So is the BBC saying the Scottish Courts are too backwards to really understand #metoo…or the judge is incompetent and runs a corrupt court..or is it that the jury is just plain dum.
      And it is interesting to note no mention of the judges summing up was made either!

    15. Ian Brotherhood says:

      I didn’t see it.

      Is the Wark/Sturgeon interview the same one we saw clips from a couple of months ago?

    16. SilverDarling says:

      In years to come I hope those women who took part in that farcical nonsense are thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Not one of them came out of that with any journalistic credibility.

      And to the Alphabet women, as we know at least one of you is obsessed with reading everything about yourself, you just made yourselves even more repulsive.

    17. Paul K says:

      I’m not a massive fan TBH but this is very, very good work from Stu.

    18. A Person says:

      Right so, after a man was acquitted of all charges by a majority female jury, the BBC have run a documentary just repeating the allegations as fact?

      Vile.

    19. Mags says:

      so now that the documentary has led me to figure out who one of the women definitely is does that mean kirsty will be in the doc?

    20. alan_b says:

      Because it’s important to remember that the jury of eight women and five men found that all of Alex Salmond’s accusers were lying

      No. The BBC are bad enough without us having to exaggerate. The jury found the charges not to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They did not accuse the prosecution witnesses of perjury or of anything else.

    21. Col.Blimp IV says:

      As the court found Salmond to be innocent of all charges … Could this program and most of those involved in it’s making be deemed to be – In contempt of court?

      If they were, I would happily contribute to a crowd-funder for their private prosecution.

    22. A C Bruce says:

      What a vile bunch of women.

      Wark’s internal ugliness shows on her mug.

    23. kapelmeister says:

      Kangaroo Kirsty is what she should be known as from now on.

    24. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Alternatively we could just put their names on the list of those to be shot after the revolution.

    25. Merkin Scot says:

      As one-sided as expected. Still, the man or woman on the clapped-out omnibus won’t know that.

    26. DickieT says:

      Well if anyone was not convinced that their is a coven operating then they must be now

    27. Robert Louis says:

      The BBC. Paid liars, each and every one of them. How anybody who works for that bunch of propagandist liars is beyond me. They should hang their heads in shame.

      What was aired tonight was a blatant attempt to smear a man, who IS completely innocent. The female accusers completely failed to convince a mainly female jury or female trial judge of any crime.

      The BBC tonight showed all of Scotland, just why they are regarded around the world as the very best propagandists. And Kirsty Wark, my god what a piece of work.

      But, like I said earlier, I think this will backfire on all of them, and deservedly so.

      Their really are some dark forces at work here in Scotland. We may at some stage have to defend our democracy.

    28. Lothianlad says:

      Utterly sickening g but in no way surprising that the bbc portrayed Alex in this way.they are scared shirtless and are now going for broke to discredit him . That’s because he, an innocent man is a real threat to the union!

      Let’s not forget that it was the bbc that many believe covered up the abuse on it’s own premises and beyonf by Jimmy savile!!

      We will take no lectures in morality from Them!

      On another but similar point, beware the MPs like our beloved Midlothian mp.

      Today he again posts on Twitter the anti violence against women posts, nly this cooincidently happens whenever their is dirt to be thrown at Alex.

      A lazier careerist politician you couldn’t meet. Flying just under the radar, because he is too boring to get noticed, he, lost a 10000 majority to liebour, only to hang around like a bad smell long enough to get reselected and therefore reselected last december.

      Why am I bothering mentioning him ? Because when he arrogantly assumed the voters would choose him again and he lost, rather than reflect humbly on the trust he squandered, he got a job as pete wishart lackey!!

      Ever the careerist, he and his ilk seek to close down the constituency association from letting g any new talent emerge. That would be a threat to his power base.

      I can o ly talk of my constituency, but, it is mirrored across Scotland how the sturgeon careerists have taken control of the party.

      Slimey politicians who joined the SNP to make a fast buck have no problem in slaying the innocent man who out the SNP in power.

      Expose them and shame on them!

    29. bookie from hell says:

      last straw – stopped direct debit bbc licence

    30. Republicofscotland says:

      “Mags says:
      17 August, 2020 at 10:37 pm
      so now that the documentary has led me to figure out who one of the women definitely is does that mean kirsty will be in the doc?”

      No because in the fast becoming kafkaesque Scotland, its only pro Alex Salmond bloggers and supporters, and those that point out the bleedin obvious that are doorstepped by Police Scotland and the COPFS are so far not answerable on why that is. However we’re fast beginning to realise why.

    31. Oneliner says:

      ‘Don’t confuse me with facts – I’ve made my mind up’ (Samuel Goldwyn)

      Bad judgement by Wark – letting her latent anger get in the way of objective reporting.

      Bad look from Wark photographed chatting to prosecuting counsel, Alex Prentice during the trial.

      A production brought to you by Wark Clements & Company Limited, St George’s Studios, 93/97 St George’s Road, Glasgow, G3 6JA

    32. Eddie Munster says:

      Hope Alex takes the BBC to task over this

    33. With these women now spouting the same stuff that were proved to have been lies. Can AS now sue them for defamation?

    34. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      I’m just gonna paste two of my recent comments on the previous page. After all, having being broadcast on BBC2, the info is certainly in the public domain.

      Brian Doonthetoon says:
      17 August, 2020 at 10:02 pm

      Well, there it is.

      In the documentary, Kirsty Wark has just mentioned a meeting in March 2018 – those there were Aberdein, Sturgeon and one of the complainers.

      The pertinent words are

      Aberdein Sturgeon March.

      Try sticking them into Google and from all the hits you get from January 2019, try to work out the name of one of the complainers. And it’s not Lois Lane.

      Is KW now guilty of contempt for providing ‘jigsaw’ information?

      ——————————————
      Brian Doonthetoon says:
      17 August, 2020 at 10:07 pm

      AND…

      There was mention of Tasmina’s evidence discrediting one of the alphabet women. Why not? Didn’t it fit in with the agenda of the programme?

    35. Astonished says:

      I didn’t watch it – blood pressure.

      I must say Wark looks a lot like Empress Livia in I,Claudius (1970s played by derek jacobi)..when she was near death.

      Hatred and bile must hurry the aging process. Or possibly it is just yoons.

      Did Nicola Sturgeon take part ? And is contempt of court still a crime ?

    36. David Llewellyn says:

      The woman at the end was H

    37. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Wark, Smith and Garavelli – Macbeth’s three witches live.

      Nearly 20 years ago, I worked on the same paper as Katrine Bussey of PA, who also featured in the programme.

      Time has not been good to her, and she has morphed into a female journalist as repulsive as her mentor, all those years ago.

    38. defo says:

      Ta for this Stu.

      Liking kangaroo kirsty.
      Skippy?

    39. Bob Mack says:

      Witness H, the one with the emotional actors voice in reality texted other women.

      “I have a plan. It means we can remain anonymous,but there will be repercussions”

      Sound frightened to you?

    40. Stu hutch says:

      Now theres a crowd funder I’d get excited about.

    41. David Llewellyn says:

      WARK: Woman G’s astonishing claim that female staff should not be left alone with the former First Minister at night was backed up by a further three civil servants. Alex Salmond and another defence witness denied that such a rule had existed. No matter the verdict in this case, this is going to be a wake-up call for workplace relationships in general.

      Three witnesses but not one policy document , memo or any other doocument over 400 police interviews and absolutely NOTHING.
      THis is the civil service . You have to fill out a form to blow your nose. NOTHING

    42. William Wallace says:

      Thanks for the blow by blow account and astute analysis Stu. I’ve not got a tv licence so I was unable to watch it. Not that I would have anyway as I strongly suspected it would be the absolute hatchet job that it clearly was.

      I sincerely hope AS pursues every single one of them through the courts. The man has been through enough stress as it is. What part of not guilty do these halfwits not understand.

    43. Sharny Dubs says:

      Outrage causes BBC to be taken to court!

      Result: defacto retrial

    44. aulbea1 says:

      A good number of years ago, whilst building a wall at front of my house in Paisley, I had seperate conversations with Nicola Sturgeon & Phill Gallie( Ayrshire torry). Topics ranged from churchill being a blatant war criminal & part time bricklayer to Scottish Independence. One canvasser was very uncomfortable speaking with me & could not leave quickly enough. Spoiler – it was not Phil Gallie. Draw your own conclusions.

    45. PhilM says:

      Interesting editorial choice that we get to see Kirsty Wark telling us how disgruntled Salmond looked one day…what, did the two fucking cameras filming him break down that day?
      One camera at the doors of the court, the other further down the street waiting for the unguarded moment away from the press huddle. Maybe whenever Kirsty Wark is near everyone looks disgruntled. Every time Alex Salmond was filmed I saw a fairly decent poker face and surprise, surprise even a pronounced Tigger bounce.
      When the elites are this clapped-out, this mediocre… wouldn’t it be great to see a Scotland with a bit of verve, a bit of flair, quick-witted and up for a rammy…I’ve known loads of Scots like that…who are these slow-witted ponderous fuckers in love wi thur ane baws…
      Time for a lie-down…

    46. Alec Lomax says:

      The BBC should have selected the jury. Yeah it was that type of programme. This is what we pay our license fees for ?

    47. James Barr Gardner says:

      Damn the BBC, Damn the Union !

    48. Black Joan says:

      Thank you, Rev. Outstanding work.

    49. Kangaroo says:

      Bastards! It may be Alex that they are going after but the whole of Scotland is being hung out to dry.

      Bastards Bastards I hate the lot of them.

    50. holymacmoses says:

      Your patient analysis is astonishing Wings and if I wore hats they’d be doffed to you daily.I don’t think the programme will be making anyone except Mr and Mrs Salmond sleep easier . I hope Craig Murray finds some more welcome defence in this mocumentary – I suspect that the courts will find it hard to punish him very much now that the BBC have made such a farce of the justice system already. I certainly hope that Mr Salmond stands to make a packet out of this travesty. People who thought they were Woken might well find that they need to wake up pretty soon. Thanks for all the work.

    51. Neil Anderson says:

      The British Labour in Scotland Cliterati are on the warpath and no mistake! haha! What a bitter, bitter shower of twisted creatures they are.

      This is merely further proof of how afraid they are of Alex Salmond and, by extension, all the honest people of Scotland.

    52. Lothianlad says:

      @ brian doonthetoon,

      Brian I did what you suggested and put it into Google.
      KW definitely guilty of jigsaw ID

      we must keep the pressure up on this as Graig Graig Murray is being singled out.

      Well Done Stu! You have them squirming under the weight of the truth!

    53. Heaver says:

      It’s like they’re firing off all their artillery at the start of a battle. Trouble is they’re firing blanks.

      Will be fun to watch when Alex gets in among them.

    54. Joemcg says:

      Thanks Brian. Alex would have more taste than try anything with that horror surely? Boak. The verdict must have had her smarting…

    55. Kenny J says:

      Jeez. That Wark has been sitting in the sun at her Spanish villa for ower long, I’m thinking.
      Huvnae watched any BBC for six years. Still as bitter though.

    56. Oneliner says:

      @ brian doonthetoon

      Yep, I got it too. I wasn’t aware of any names (although I half-guessed one) until now.

    57. Fireproofjim says:

      A great summary of an utterly vile programme hosted by the hate-filled Wark, whom her own boss described as “rude and dismissive” when he apologised for her interview with Alex before the referendum.
      A truly vicious woman.

    58. Graham says:

      “In other words, the jury decided that every single one of the accusers wasn’t telling the truth. Some specifics can be debated but there’s no wiggle room on that. They decided that the things the accusers claimed didn’t happen.”

      This clearly demonstrates you have no understanding of criminal law.
      What the jury determined was that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
      Nothing more.

    59. John Baird says:

      Well I suppose it was called “The Trial of Alex Salmond” so the BBC got that bit right. It was more like The Second Trial of Alex Salmond by Television. I hear there is a backlog in the Scottish court so maybe we should just give up on the old style, conventional justice system and put all major trials on TV. The BBC has at least 4 channels they could devote to this. It would bring new meaning to the term Public Service Broadcasting.
      BBC1 could do murders, BBC2 sex crimes, BBC Scotland crimes of violence and BBC Caesar! could be devoted to traffic offences. A few more internet services could deal with the rest. No need for expensive juries, judges or court rooms. Viewers could phone in or vote via the internet to say if the accused is guilty or innocent. Perhaps making it “pay for view” would help raise revenue for the hard pressed BBC budget, and help pay the salaries of Kirsty Warp and Co.
      There would be no real need for the procurator fiscal staff etc. as the prosecution case could be put forward by a BBC “journalist”. All prosecution witnesses would appear by video link, be guaranteed permanent anonymity, have their faces hidden and voices spoken by actors. Tabloid newspaper headlines could be flashed on the screen. Dramatic music can be added for effect. No need to mention the contribution of several defence witnesses.
      If the BBC decided that the public had arrived at the wrong verdict then they could order a retrial simply by repeating the program and asking the public to vote again – and again until they got what the BBC considered to be the correct result.
      I am sure valuable revenue could be raised by selling this broadcasting franchise internationally. Governments like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria would be willing to pay good money for this concept of justice.

    60. The first response should be for all pro-Indy figures to refuse to take part in any BBC programme until the BBC repudiates this show (re-)trial and removes Wark and Smith, and for those figures to state clearly in public what they are doing and why.

      Beyond that, what is needed is for, say, 1000 people of public standing and principle to state publicly that they will not under any circumstances pay the Propaganda Tax. It would be very difficult for even the colonialist media to ignore the resulting legal actions, trials and – possibly – imprisonments.

      And then let another 1000 (or however many) state that for each prosection they too will make a stand.

      Down here in England’s First Colony (TM), a similar campaign helped force the Thatcher régime to stick to its pre-election promise to provide us with a TV channel in our own language. And you in Scotland had a more recent experience when the protests against the Poll Tax not only stopped that tax but brought down its architect.

      Time for action.

    61. Famous15 says:

      What I now know beyond reasonable doubt is the identity of at least two of the alphabet accusers from information provided by Kirsty Wark.

      Brian I am no Superman either ,nudge nudge wink wink, but Kirsty Wark must face contempt of court charges if someone of my decrepit age could so easily identify them.

    62. Bob Mack says:

      @Gdaham,

      As in “not proven” . That’s a separate verdjct.

    63. Lothianlad says:

      Make no mistake, this has just become the battle for the independence cause!

      The current SNP leadership are riddled with anti independence careerist, nature denying brit secret service controlled politicians, advisors and employees.

      They masquerade as the custodians of Scotlands independence drive and are now faced down by the real independence cause, who thanks to Stu, Craig murray and other brave souls, are exposing the poison that has taken over the SNP.

      The Brit secret service has been hard at work in the SNP for many years and attempting to take down Alex was their biggest plot so far. Although possibly second to their murder of willie MaCrae.

      The masks have come of, it is now clear several in the SNP SG are actively working against independence, hiding in plain sight in the so called party of independence – SNP.

      I’m sickened by the actions of some, but heartened that so many here see this also. Together we must keep the pressure up not let them wreck our independence cause.

      They are active in all constituencies and we must seek to remove them locally so they cant damage the cause from within.

      If it weren’t for this blog, few would know the truth about what’s actually going on.

    64. Graham says:

      @Bob Mack,

      An acquittal must follow when there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”.
      In Scottish criminal cases the “burden of proof” rests with the prosecution who must prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”.
      Whether the chosen verdict is one of not proven or not guilty it is only delivered because the burden of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been met.
      There should only be one acquittal verdict and it should be the “not proven” one, because that best reflects the reality.

    65. Graham says:

      @Lothianlad

      The BBC are attempting to drive a wedge down the middle of the SNP.
      Are we going to let them?
      Wake up.
      They would like nothing better that to damage the SNP the Scottish Government and our Parliament.
      With articles like these it is my considered opinion that WoS is helping them.

    66. holymacmoses says:

      Graham says 11.40:
      This clearly demonstrates you have no understanding of criminal law.
      What the jury determined was that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
      Nothing more

      And equally clearly you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of human nature and thought processes. In cases like this, much hinges on the trustworthiness on the people speaking. That’s a perception which the jury has in their minds when they listen to the evidence. It is absolutely obvious that the jury believed Mr Salmond to be telling the truth at all times – if that is the case – where does it leave the defence witnesses?.

    67. Bob Mack says:

      @Graham,

      On both not proven and not guilty the effect is the the same.

      The accused is free to leave the court due to the prosecution failing to provide sufficient evidencd or indeed any. Pretty straightforward really.

    68. Bob Mack says:

      @Graham

      You are a fantasist. The only people driving the wedge are the SNP themselves. They are alienating their own support.

      Your case is not proven.

    69. holymacmoses says:

      Graham 12.07

      Driving a wedge down the SNP will not hurt the Independence movement as long as at least one , if not two, new parties which support Independence are formed by people that the Scottish folk Trust.
      In fact, played properly, this debacle could put the vote for independence up to 60- 70. There are the demented Unionistas who will never change BUT no-one in their right mind wants to be ruled by Cummings et all

    70. Ian McLean says:

      Stu, you have informed us that Mr Salmond was all but bankrupted by the cost of his defence. Has there been any question of fundraising?

    71. susan says:

      What a twisted piece of vindictive bs that programme must’ve been. Thanks Stu for the surgical analysis.

    72. holymacmoses says:

      Graham
      NOT Proven is a great verdict but frankly, if it were widely used, no one would ever be convicted. The fact is that jurors take the word of this person or that person based on a perception of how they present themselves in court and anyone who thinks there is such a thing as ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ is off their rocker.

    73. Capella says:

      I don’t have a TV licence so didn’t watch it. But your summary was as expected.
      I hope Alex Salmond can sue them. The BBC will have lawyered it but it’s hard to believe that running a kangaroo court after a not guilty verdict is legal. Or is English jurisdiction different?

      What I don’t see is any evidence that somehow Nicola Sturgeon is guilty. If the Kirsty Wark interview was as circulated a couple of months ago then it was a classic piece of framing. Was there anything more substantive?

    74. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “This clearly demonstrates you have no understanding of criminal law.
      What the jury determined was that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

      God I’m tired of clueless arsewits punting this line.

      A not guilty verdict does not NECESSARILY mean anyone was lying. Parties can have different interpretations of agreed events and the court’s interpretation will side with one or the other.

      That is not what happened here.

      There is no middle ground between “X happened” and “X did not happen”. There is no middle ground between “I was in this building on this evening” and “they were not in this building on this evening”.

      One of those two people is lying. There is no possible way both can be telling the truth. You can’t simultaneously be somewhere and not be there. The jury made their decision about who was telling the truth about it and who was lying, and that is now the legal fact of the matter.

    75. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What I don’t see is any evidence that somehow Nicola Sturgeon is guilty.”

      Oh ffs.

    76. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “On both not proven and not guilty the effect is the the same.”

      Both are acquittal verdicts. They are legally identical.

    77. Neil in Glasgow says:

      Long time listener, first time caller.

      Please, please if you didn’t watch please do if only to confirm what you know. I didn’t know what time it was on and turned about 25 past 9 so missed the first bit but I was absolutely raging, particularly about the part stu points where it would apparently be a travesty if NS could be potentially the biggest loser out of all of this. Why? Apparently is had nothing do with her, she said it, no conspiracy, so why the need to deny it? I know it’s hardly scientific but 99.9% of twitter is up in arms, even some yoons calling it for what it was. I think think this might just backfire on the bbc/Kirsty Wark. Feckin hope so anyway!

    78. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “No. The BBC are bad enough without us having to exaggerate. The jury found the charges not to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They did not accuse the prosecution witnesses of perjury or of anything else.”

      That isn’t the jury’s job. That’s a matter for COPFS after the trial.

      And see above. Where the accuser and defendant’s accounts are completely irreconcilable with each other, one of them must be lying. The jury decided which it was.

    79. leither says:

      isnt this illegal, defamation or something?

      has salmond said anything? replied etc?

    80. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      David Clegg ran the story before anybody else could having been sent a load of information from somebody involved.

      You have to as yourself the following.

      Does Clegg have a close personal friend in the SNP hierarchy who holds such a position to know what was happening and may have given advice to the FM?

      Would that same person know the significance of the material they were passing on?

      Two answers tel! you a lot.

    81. Graham says:

      “God I’m tired of clueless arsewits punting this line”

      Am a former Police Constable.
      Understand the system fully.

    82. McHaggis69 says:

      Telling tonight that I have hardly seen a single tweet in support of the programme. Even the staunchly pro-Union Telegraph has give the programme a 2 star rating, essentially ripping it up as a ‘strange’ piece of documentary making mostly focussed on Wark herself.

    83. McHaggis69 says:

      ‘Am a former Police Constable.’

      You know how many of the thickest people I went to school with became police constables?
      Come back when you’ve a qualified QC, judge or senior advisor to COPFS.

      Not suggesting for a minute that all police are thick, but for fucks sake man -‘I’m a former police constable’… get in the sea ya dobber.

    84. Capella says:

      @ Bob Mack – sorry, I can make no sense out of your comment. Can you be more specific? I didn’t see the programme since I don’t have a licence.

    85. Effijy says:

      I must recognise the time the manpower and the cost of very skilfully piecing and wording
      Everything to made Salmond, the man found not guilty by his piers, to be guilty.

      Scottish pensioners trying to live on a pension less than a third of their German counterparts
      Must be so pleased that so much of their hard earned £157.50 has gone to pay the millionaire Wark
      and discrediting the Scottish Jury.

      I would like to add that the Rev’s report above, is a breath of fresh air.
      A rare gulp of oxygen in the stinking cess pit that is the UK media.

      Propaganda Quay is so tainted and rotten to the core it must be demolished as a priority after independence.

      Absolutely disgraceful performance by Westminster TV.
      Insulting to Alex Salmond, the Scottish Jury, the Scottish Court, the defence witness’, democracy, truth, and the basic human rights of this Sovereign nation.

    86. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      No can do. I might be doing a jigsaw id of one of those involved. That is why I was vague.!!

    87. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Am a former Police Constable.
      Understand the system fully.”

      You plainly don’t. I didn’t ask for your CV, deal with the response.

    88. CJ Robertson says:

      For all those commented about the 3 female journalists have a good old natter over lunch, what was Maurice Smith to you? Chopped liver?

    89. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      A couple of broad questions that I would like to ask please?

      1]. Why now? What does the British State Broadcaster and the Unionist high command fear so much that it is doing this, so far out from the May 2021 Holyrood election?

      2]. Stuart, what do you recommend we do?

      This is a good and forensic article. A fine dissection of the dying BBC and the discredited “journalists” Kirsty Wark, Baroness or Porkies and her Unionist hack friend, Sarah Smith, Pantomime Dame of the British Empire’s fifth estate.

      Stuart, you are more than just a blogger; more than a scribe for the minority voice in Scotland.

      You have written up a storm. But we need more than these articles. We need direction.

      I lay odds Alex Salmond is watching. He would be blameless if he said: fuckk this, screw a nation, the majority of whom, in 2014 proved themselves “90 minute patriots”.

      Alex has worked harder than anyone since the legendary greats. He ranks with William Wallace and has secured his place in history. He deserves his retirement.

      The British Empire has done its job well. It has a compliant, careerist, tame office manager in Bute House. Sturgeon is a puppet on a chain. All the work the State did planting sleepers in the SNP has paid Union Dividends.

      Very few politicians have the gravitas to recover any chance of IndyRef2.

      Basically Alex Salmond and/or Johanna Cherry.

      But we need some leadership and right soon please?

      I have reached a point that without any fresh leadership; without a clear out at SNP HQ; without a purge of the McWokeists; without such basics as the SNP NEC publishing their minutes, I am off.

      No votes for anyone.

      A feeling of guilt as people have died so we can vote.

      But what do you do when faced with ALL political candidates being from that same parcel o’ rogues?

      Without any leadership, then the galvanised dynamic groundswell immediately prior and after IndyRef1 in 2014 will dissolve away like yellow piss stained snow off of a dyke.

      Maybe it would be better if Boris does close down Holyrood. At their present rate NO laws are better than the ill-written Wokeist statutes being pumped out now.

    90. Right, the doc is oor. Ah’ve gottae say…n ah’m laughing here…whit ah piece ay pish-yellay rid-top faux-journalism! It annoyed me it the start, yit, is it unfurled its drivelocity tae full fool velocity, ah funt it utterly fascinating.

      Why, ye might ask?

      Well, in whit it said baith aboot the BBC – we aw ken aboot they characters – n, mair specifically, the presenter, the hinging-like-a-hoond’s-jaw skeletal dominatrix Krispy Bark. How utterly, UTTERLY bizarre is that woman? Ah wis watching it, n soon calmed doon eftir ma initial anger, when ah saw how utterly inept a retro hatchet job it wis.

      Lark, clearly a cracked-mirror-mirror-on-the-waw-whae’s-the-unfairest-ay-them-aw type, presentit hersel is the omnipotent forensic, objective examiner ay the eywis-truthful, tearful, fearful, smearful evidence fae the anti-intellectual harpie cabal; she wis the benevolent, listening, nodding, saddened mither tae the liars on trial; she wis oan trial, is a woman, hersel, in her ain mind…n oan n oan.

      This wis an act ay strange pure pathological, obsessive, hateful narcissism, n ah’m no shair the auld sow cow bow-wow even meant or kent it, or kent how she came aff tae…certain amused n bemused observers ay the deceiving proceedings. Christ, whit a hamfistit load ay shitslinger timewaster shite! Wish ah lived in an era when propaganda wis mair effective n impressive, well worth taxpayers’ licence fee money!

      Bit aye, Park. Interesting how she presentit hersel is the judge n jury n thwartit executioner (LOVED her deflatit and defeatit craggy sagging features oan the announcement ay the verdict, quite different fae her liplicking hopes ay Alex getting chucked in the jile fir the rest ay his life) spinterpreting the hail case fir the average Joe n Joanne oan the street.

      Interesting tae see how they filmed her fae the side, is if ye wur getting a voyeuristic glimpse intae an important insider conversation she wis haeing wi somebody aff-camera (probably meant tae be the audience; she wis probably talking tae her producers eftir the day’s proceedings), bit it jist made her look like she wis a mad auld trout waffling deludit, dementit shite tae hersel oan the bus, the kinnay pish-reeking banger ye wid move seats tae avoid, simultaneously feeling sorry fir her, n thanful ye werenae her.

      The fascinating (money) shot tae me wis when, oan the morning ay the verdict, they hud the overheid shot ay her coming ootay the coort, framing it is if she wis coming oot afore Alex, is if she hersel hud been oan trial, oan behalf ay aw women, whae she representit, instead ay the slaver-drooling fool-fucked elite.

      Christ, whit Christ-wi-a-fanny-like narcissism!

      Ah mean, the hail hing wis clearly filmed six month ago, especially is they didnae change the tense ay some ay the gutter-mutter utterances in the hing, n wis jist a desperate attempt tae save some cash wi a load ay cobbled-thegither tripe yaising suhhin awready filmed (exploitation filmmmaker Al Adamson used tae the same hing wi random shite horror film footage he hud lying aboot, so it didnae go tae waste) tae try n slap that Salmond gadgie across the arrogant winning chops cos suhhin is gonnae be coming fae him soon doon the political pipes.

      Ah honestly huv tae laugh. If this skanky rank wanky pish is the best thit the secret service (remember, the same cunts thit came away wi ‘The Germans Are Bayoneting Babies’ tae get the UK intae WWI, n many ither wannabe-manipulative comedy classics) kin dae…this second indy gig, n Alex’s nixt moves…ur gonnae be a fucking scoosh!

      Political foreplay
      Promised fireworks shows
      Oestrogenerated vindictive justice
      Phantom sexual menace allegations
      Insinnuendos, inadequacies,
      Foreign bodies, lies and
      Cries in the vengeful night
      Stroking and stoking #MeThree
      Hatebarked megaphone accusations of
      Inaccurate wannabe sexual impropriety,
      Lobotomised barbs, wet blanket skinstorms,
      Sleepy cuddles, hate team prosecution huddles,
      Feminine emotional guddles, fart and start a
      Fuck-men shitstorm, keep the allegations warm,
      Ariel overhead shots of sleepy old narcissist shits
      Shorn of street justice, tweeting disappointment,
      Bleating in old shite crapumentaries, commentaries
      Nobody cares about anymore, move on
      To new fresh glazed arsehole pastures
      To whore the ageing glasses-nose-pushing
      Unionist parasites narrative, faux-indignant
      Cluck-tutting Smith Garavelli Wark gathered
      Round a trial-consensus-manufacturing table
      Three bemuses, three disgraces, three furies
      That an innocent man was never prosecuted
      After being persecuted in a shit-borne
      Cunt-lies-swarm and tomorrow is
      Another chance for another
      Missed chance at slapping
      Down and dirty a man far
      Better than they could
      Ever think of being
      Forever and never
      All men.

      Raising a beer tae Alex Salmond n tae ineffectual, pathetic, licence-fee-financed ratsoup-eating arsefuck propagandists. SOOK MA DISDAIN YA DECORTICATIT BUGFUCKS!

    91. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “For all those commented about the 3 female journalists have a good old natter over lunch, what was Maurice Smith to you? Chopped liver?”

      I guess nobody knew who he was – I’d never heard of him – and he didn’t say anything very interesting. Although I was startled to be told tonight that he’s the former editor of Newsnet Scotland.

    92. leither says:

      WhoRattledYourCage

      eh?

    93. ‘Garavelli’s own documentary on the case airs tomorrow on Radio 4.’

      What the fuck is ‘Radio 4’? Is it available on the radio, or special extra-terrestrial stations? The fillings in your teeth?

    94. Capella says:

      @ Bob Mack – oh right. I thought the Chief of Staff was pally with someone in the Record, was it David Clegg ? and that is how the original leak to the press happened. But where does that get us, other than the CoS was hostile to Alex Salmond and, perhaps, the SNP.

      Slander and innuendo seems to be the stock in trade of the British Establishment when they want to get rid of an awkward customer.

    95. leither says:

      is there anything alex salmond can do about this? he was found innocent was he not?

    96. My fave bit of the whole shitumentary was when they were talking aboot the Moorov Doctrine, and they showed you a random below-the-waist shot of somebody wearing motorbike boots rubbing their legs together as if syntribating. Bizarre.

    97. Bob Mack says:

      If anybody can actually believe that this mess was happening around Nicola and she knew Birmingham it you must have a mental block of some description.

      I ask myself why they would not want Alex back in Holyrood and more recently why they would not like Joanna Cherry on the benches at Holyrood.

      Leadership is a fragile commodity and must be protected.

      Two potential leadership rivals neutered by the actions of their own party. Interesting

    98. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      That Chief of Staff is a special advisor to only Nicola. She remains in her post!! As does Ms Evans.

    99. ‘Ah, it was the patriarchy all along! The patriarchy that fabricated a string of false accusations against an innocent man, the patriarchy that constructed a whole new set of government rules by which he could be accused, the patriarchy that put a female judge in charge of the trial who forbade the identification of the prosecution witnesses and denied the defence the use of much of its key evidence, the patriarchy that forced seven women to give evidence for the defence and the patriarchy that persuaded a mostly-female jury to acquit on all charges. Damn patriarchy.’

      Thanks fir that, Stu. Seriously. Course, you pointing that oot will mean yer a (sneer, sigh) ‘misogynist,’ bit ye cannae keep a deluded manhating feminist notion doon.

    100. red sunset says:

      Can the members of the jury have any right to complain?

      If a jury member felt that their position had been undermined, do they have any rights to take that forward?

    101. Onybidy else get the feeling the weird, obsessive Wark is disappointit n jealous she nivir got propositioned offay Alex?

      Laughing.

    102. Capella says:

      @ Bob Mack – so if your employee complains about sexual harassment you can just sack them? That’s a novel way of dealing with the problem.

    103. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      No you can’t just sack them. However you can’t store their complaint for future use or allow them to help create new rules for retrospective action either. Neither should they be campaigning with newspapers to besmirch the name of someone before a charge and trial Eh?

      Sounds like misconduct.

    104. ‘leither says:
      18 August, 2020 at 12:51 am
      WhoRattledYourCage

      eh?’

      Read it n hink aboot it, if ye feel like it. Sorry it’s no digestible in 15 seconds, bit sometimes ye hae tae work fir yer comprehension.

    105. Kenny says:

      Excellent, essential work, Campbell.

      If you’re in personal touch with Mr Salmond, please tell him we’re all asking for him; every man and every woman of us, every Scot brought into the world with decency and right as our guide – the people perpetrating these horrible acts against the former FM are the devil. Damn them.

    106. Beaker says:

      I’m going to approach the programme from a different aspect – mental health.

      I can speak from personal experience. I’ve suffered mental health issues, with one very serious event three years ago. I won’t go into specifics, but I have recovered before anyone worries. Feel free to continue to shout back.

      This programme would have been highly stressful to the main people involved; Alex Salmond and the complainants.

      Whatever the rights or wrongs of the trial, it would have put them under immense levels of stress and anxiety. Everyone has limits to what they can take before irrational behaviour takes over, although to them it is rational. Some will disappear into a bottle. Others will just disappear and cause pure bloody panic until they are found safe. Sadly, for a few it will be too late.

      Apart from the fact it was a obvious hatchet job, the programme was irresponsible from a mental health point of view to everyone involved.

      If, as implied, some of the women were mentally impacted by the trial and verdict, then why was it being relived? What about Alex Salmond? Think of what he must have gone through, only for it to be replayed once again.

      Fuck knows how he got through that trial yet managed to retain his dignity outside court.

    107. Liz g says:

      Capella @ 1.09
      As your messages will show,civic Scotland is a very small pool 🙂

    108. Capella says:

      you can’t store their complaint for future use

      That was Ian McCann in response to a woman who specifically said that she didn’t want her complaint actioned.
      http://archive.is/VY0Sa

      allow them to help create new rules for retrospective action

      That was a Holyrood committee set up to deal with complaints who commissioned a new procedure. Nicola Sturgeon signed off that new procedure as she states in parliament. But that is not proof that she did so in order to trap Alex Salmond. It is possible that she did so without ever imagining that it would catch AS in the net.
      http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11871

      campaigning with newspapers to besmirch the name of someone before a charge and trial

      No idea who you are talking about there.

    109. Capella says:

      @ Liz g – it is indeed. And the water is draining out of it rapidly. A few toads are going to be left high and dry very soon IMO. 🙂

    110. Capella says:

      Better get some shuteye – busy day tomorrow at the committee from 11.00 am

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/111052.aspx

    111. Neil MacKenzie says:

      Well, it took me a few minutes to find the identity of Woman G.

    112. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “But that is not proof that she did so in order to trap Alex Salmond. It is possible that she did so without ever imagining that it would catch AS in the net.”

      I’m getting really tired of this Lord Nelson pish. The day Salmond launched the fundraiser for his defence, she tweeted a link to a rape crisis fundraiser. She could be standing in front of his stabbed body holding a knife covered in his blood in an otherwise empty room with only one exit and you’d still be making fucking excuses.

    113. tarisgal says:

      I’m reading elsewhere that the Crown Office wrote to the BBC asking them not to go ahead with the broadcast. I’m assuming BBC got legal people to look it over & decide if they could risk it. But to ignore the warning of the Crown Office?

      Hmmmm… can’t help wondering… what happens next??

    114. Capella says:

      @ Rev Stu – circumstantial evidence is very weak. IIRC the ra*e funding was in response to the Covid 19 lockdown. If you know anything about domestic violence you will know that crime rates will soar under lockdiwn. So announcing extra cash for that is actually a sign of compassion for the social consequences of lockdown.

    115. tarisgal says:

      It gets more & more convoluted:

      Gerry Hassan – @GerryHassan
      ·
      3h
      I have not mentioned this before in public & will mention it in my Wednesday piece. Basically the BBC outsourced the prog & its editorial to Wark Clements. Any inhouse BBC producer would have been asked to recut the prog; happens all time. They wouldn’t dare with Wark.

    116. Golfnut says:

      The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right in international law, its also a legal right in Scots law. A person’s previous actions/convictions cannot be used to diminish the accused right to a presumption of innocence or influence the jury during a trial. The accused is innocent until proved guilty and therefore remains innocent if guilt is not proved. How difficult is that to understand.

    117. Paul K says:

      The Herald have slated it, the Telegraph describes it as the Kirsty Wark show and Twitter is going ballistic. This could be one of the most embarrassing editorial fuck-ups of all time. Well done Kirsty! Top work.

    118. twathater says:

      There is only ONE reason this programme was aired and gabbywelly’s tomorrow and that is because people are pleading for Alex Salmond to climb back on the horse and form a new list party

      The WM establishment are shiteing themselves that he may do so and force the SNP and Scots to face the enemy

      The state pravda have been instructed to air this broadcast at this time to refresh in gullible peoples minds how evil and vile that alex salmond is , what they didn’t realise is that the mockumentary would be as biased and inept and presented by harpies who have just came off stage from a presentation of macbeth

      What is more worrying is the contempt being blatantly shown for the Scottish justice system and court’s decisions , I believe if I were one of the jurists I would be outraged that these churnalists were insinuating that a wrong decision had been arrived at and I would endeavour to demand a legal opinion that what they are attempting to do is wrong and should be investigated as a possible subversion of the law

    119. stuart mctavish says:

      Not seen the show so not aware whether Kirstein Rummery contribution helped paint a better or worse picture but her apparent observation that

      “the Alex Salmond trial didn’t meet the burden of proof required by a criminal court”

      ought to have had Wark (and all Scottish journalists) demanding the “how and why was it brought to court” questions.

      On bright side, if the defamation was even half as shocking as described, the inclusion of opinion from Nicola Sturgeon must liberate her from her advisors’ hitherto questionable advice to keep silent on the matter since it leaves her no option than to condemn the production at the earliest opportunity or provide personal reasons, hitherto secret, why she cannot.

    120. Breeks says:

      Al-Stuart says:
      18 August, 2020 at 12:45 am
      .
      A couple of broad questions that I would like to ask please?

      1]. Why now? What does the British State Broadcaster and the Unionist high command fear so much that it is doing this, so far out from the May 2021 Holyrood election?

      2]. Stuart, what do you recommend we do?

      The “why now” would I think be related to the Inquiry. If the Salmond Inquiry isn’t just a Whitewash, which seems a very real option since the Scottish Government and Civil Service don’t seem to be co-operating, the Conspiracy and the conspirators will be discredited, and it seems inevitable that heads will roll. Thereafter it would be impossible to resurrect these smears against Alex Salmond. It’s desperate stuff, but what else do you expect from the BBC?

      I am perplexed that heads haven’t rolled already, and what seems truly incredible is that Leslie Evans has not yet been suspended or sacked, but is in a position to manage and redact the information given to the Inquiry.

      In my inexpert opinion, the moment the conspiracy was exposed, Bute House and the Government environs should have been treated as a crime scene with numerous people suspended pending investigation, and records and communications seized and examined as potential evidence in the event of the conspirators being charged with unlawful conspiracy and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

      Strikes me it isn’t just in Contempt of Court Actions where “Justice” seems to have a degree of asymmetry in its rigour and enthusiasm. It actually seems these conspirators are being protected to an extraordinary degree.

      As for what to do, all eyes will be on Alex Salmond.

      It seems there is no book coming, and I’m not convinced we’ll see Alex Salmond at the helm of any List Party. Victory for Mr Salmond will not be complete without the recovery and rehabilitation of his much loved SNP party, purged of hingers-on and wokist infiltrators.

      What I think might be very effective, would by Mr Salmond going for the jugular, and spearheading impeachment proceedings, not just to “caw the legs oot” from under these Conspirators, but discredit Nicola Sturgeon’s ‘laughable’ Independence campaign, and instantly move the whole Independence debate into new, fresh, and uncovered territory, and shame the Scottish Government by putting Scotland’s Constitution and popular sovereignty at the heart of business.

      Doing this would allow Alex Salmond considerable latitude to extract whatever authority he needs from a parliamentary institution at Holyrood, but distance himself from the SNP’s strategic ineptitude under Sturgeon and Holyrood’s grovelling subservience to the Scotland Act and Section 30.

      Alex Salmond could use the impeachment of a timid and servile (and somewhat rotten) Scottish Government and a submissive Holyrood Parliament which has done nothing to defend Scotland’s Constitution, to resurrect a much more assertive SNP and vibrant Independence Campaign that is unapologetically loyal and uncompromising with regards to the Constitutional Sovereignty of the people.

      To use my old red and white pigments of sovereignty, what Nicola Sturgeon has done these past 5 years to confirm Holyrood is every bit the inferior legislature subservient to Westminster’s white sovereignty, could be undone in 30 seconds by Alex Salmond reclaiming Holyrood as a Scottish Institution that is only answerable to the red sovereignty of the Scottish people.

      Not only could he allow Westminster MP’s to return, he could actually bring them all home, and reconvene Holyrood as a true Parliament and seat of sovereign government. (Though not actually sovereign).

      Impeachment, even the credible gesture of attempting it, would I think be the ultimate humiliation for Nicola Sturgeon and her coterie of chums, leaving her Government untenable, while Holyrood’s subservience to Westminster would stick in the throat of all right thinking Scottish voters, and leave the Scotland Act exposed and discredited as a failed attempt at colonial usurpation of power.

      We’d then be looking at snap Scottish elections for Scottish Government of red Sovereignty and an end to Westminster’s colonial encroachment into Scotland’s affairs.

    121. Liz g says:

      Other points aside, and there have been some really good comments.From just a Yes voting point of view…

      Half a decade….half a fucking decade,we’ve policed ourselves,we’ve argued, advised and cautioned about not giving the No side of the debate any ammunition.

      The Revs been called out and castigated for speaking up on things that others want left on on the back burner, just in case it damaged the Yes movement in any way.
      To some just not speaking the truth wasn’t lying,it was a tactic for the greater good.

      We examined every move, every statement through a prism of how the British would or could distort it to hurt our efforts to end the Union.

      And through it all the thing, the ONE bloody thing that there really was “No Debate” about was that,

      The BBC was THEE biggest threat to our success.

      Don’t fund them we said !
      Don’t believe them we said !
      Don’t cooperate with them we said !

      What a slap in the face to the Yes movement that these Women apparently very senior in the SNP, not only worked on a BBC documentary,but worked on a BBC hit piece aimed at Scotland.

      Showcasing from the mouths of our own side that our Courts are shit,our jury’s stupid and …and…the most senior people in our government are crushed at the advanced of an adult male ( the very same politicians by the way, who are trying to tell us that wee girls and traumatised women could handle this sort of thing just fine and the law will protect them from predators anyway,but that’s another for topic and another point) at work…

      They gave the British a right good show didn’t they?
      The politicians of Scotland,the ones we claim can be the political class of this country just like any other normal independent country go squeaking like Trump that life’s been unfair to them. And in the process gave our Country’s most dangerous threat to a decent future, a show to be dragged out promoted,repeated and offered as a talking point as often, and whenever they choose.
      They handed the BBC a stick to beat us with….and were too fucking dum to even extract ( as far as I can see ) any advantage for themselves.

      I’ve no doubt they’ll claim “it’s all for the other victims” ….but it’s not though is it?
      Because victims on the Yes side,the people that have actually been empowering these women…have mostly turned their back on the BBC,these women spoke only to a BBC audience and not to their base.
      Where is their interviews with Indy live Full Scottish ect?

      I for one will never again entertain the notion to tailor my campaigning with a view to the reputation of the Yes movement.
      I’d never be able to hand that kind of damage to the British anyway..

    122. Tannadice Boy says:

      Early start for me today but not before I comment on the so called documentary.
      This documentary started with the answer, worked back they way and forgot the original question. A schoolgirl production just missing the violinist playing Canon in D by Pachelbel.
      If I worked at Holyrood I would be wearing a body cam with a live stream update to an encrypted Cloud account 24/7.
      Not only did we lose 500k on a fundamentally flawed complaints process but an attempt was made to deny the liberty of an innocent man.
      Any new Parliament will have growing pains but the Parliment is 21 and should be coming of age. The Parliament is in disrepute and only a thorough inquiry process will restore my confidence…starting today.

    123. Robert Louis says:

      ‘oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive’

      Isn’t that right, Mr and Mrs. Murrell?????

      Alex Salmond throughout ALL of this has shown what a man he is. he has kept his dignity, and since leaving court an innocent man, has said nothing. Despite all the abuse and media smears and lies. He is the better man.

      His day is coming. I relish the thought.

      Tick, tock, Nicola…

    124. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Some mentions on here around gthe “Not Proven” verdict and “proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

      I remember an interview, some time back (two or three years ago at least) in which Scotland’s most-experienced criminal bar advocate, Donald Finlay QC put forward this notion:

      “Maybe we should do away with “Guilty” or “Not Guilty,” and go with “Proven” and “Not Proven.”

      Methinks the Chairman of the Blue Brazil doth speak sense.

    125. Stuart MacKay says:

      That there is not even the slightest hint of the twisted and bitter Kirsty Wark’s program on the “Everything in Scotland is worse” home page of bbc.com speaks volumes.

      Somebody should step in and stop the BBC from self-harming again. Then again, perhaps not.

    126. Stuart MacKay says:

      Socrates MacSporran

      There may be a clear distinction in law but in common parlance “not proven” still says “probably did it but there was not enough evidence to be sure”. There would need to be a lot of confidence in the justice system that bringing a court case against somebody meant that there was a case to answer in some form. We’re clearly not in that position and unlikely ever to be.

    127. Willie says:

      And how much was the odious Kirsten Clements and her husband Alan paid out of the public purse for this programme. And did the BBC pay them through one of their they paid through one of their companies as opposed to employees.

      Maybe the Rev, or indeed other concerned citizens, many of whom struggle to pay the mandatory TV tax or license fee as it is called, would like to know just how much has been paid to company directors like Wark and Clements for their services.

      Given their living in the Uber wealthy leafy suburb of Glasgow’s Cleveden west end TV work must presumably be highly remunerative. So what did they get paid for this programme, how dis they get paid. The BBC publish salaries but do they publish other remuneration.

      With the over 75s now being compelled to pay the odious TV tax I think people have the right to know.

      Kirsten Clements comfortable existence in a large stone built Victorian villa is as far removed as one could imagine from an 80 year old on basic pension living in a council house in Ruchill paying the annual £159 licence fee.

      People have the right to know. Time they did know.

    128. Patrick Roden says:

      “This clearly demonstrates you have no understanding of criminal law.
      What the jury determined was that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
      Nothing more.”

      There was no evidence except witness statements!

      The jury therefore had to make the decision of who was telling the truth, and who was telling lies.

      Many people believe that you can’t secure a guilty verdict if there’s one witness against and one witness for a certain crime (my word against his) but this is crap.

      The who point of cross examination of witnesses is to ascertain if what they are saying is true or not.

      If a judge or jury decide that after listening to a prosecution witness testimony that this person isn’t telling the truth (lying) then they will find the accused ‘Not Gulity’

      The jury in the Alex Salmond case needed to decide that all the women were telling lies in orde for him to be found ‘Not Guilty’ meaning that this trial was heavily stacked against him from the beginning, and yet he was found NOT GUILTY on all charges!

      The alphabet women lied!

    129. deerhill says:

      Murdo was on Radio Shortbread this morning shortly fter 7am.
      Apparently, he is on the investigative committee.

      Only heard the first 5mins. but he sounded lucid and reasonble.

      Am I “tripping”?

    130. Dorothy Devine says:

      I am glad I did not watch this travesty and delighted that Ms Wark made such an impression on those that did.

      Having revisited one of her infamous interviews with Alex Salmond I rather assumed she was incapable of delivering anything vaguely resembling fair an unbiased.

      Like all BBBC Scotland output I avoid it like the plague but I have to ask why the BBBC thought a programme about the trial was justified in any way. Surely someone might have considered it sailing rather close to the legal wind and it may have undesired, expensive repercussions?

      I am looking forward to the repercussions immensely.

    131. ahundredthidiot says:

      I hope the BBC are right about one thing – NS being the biggest loser out of all this.

      The wokists wanted their Weinstein and they didn’t get him.

      Maybe time for their perceived patriarchy to strike back – they should face the consequences of their actions – trying to put an innocent man in jail for a very long time is a heinous act.

      BBC and all the little conspirators are playing draughts while Sir Alex is playing chess.

    132. Karen Allan says:

      Scotland used to have “proven” and “not proven”, top class law. “Not guilty” is an attempt at Anglicisation.

    133. Lulu Bells says:

      Alex Salmond is the victim in all of this. After all he has been through to then have to watch that program. I am sure it helps him knowing he has so much support from us, but how much more can he take!

    134. Contrary says:

      I am just so furious over so many aspects of this, and the trial itself, and the judiciary, I can’t reasonably comment on it at the moment.

      Alex Salmond should not be out of pocket. If he feels up to suing anyone or everyone over this, I will very happily donate to a crowdfunder, as I’m sure many others will. How the COPFS can attach a charge of ‘sexual assault’ to the act of publicly pinging someone’s hair, I don’t know – they make a mockery of the law and all the real victims of sexual assault. We should all be suing them – this is a public interest case, how was it allowed to happen – MADE to happen – in the first place. A civil action against the accusers would be fine in my book.

      I have no idea how they think the public perceive this, but I can’t imagine it’s with any kind of sympathy. I wish, for once, I was in the office so I could overhear the whispered gossip. Male dominated raving unionists that many of my colleagues are, the original news headlines trying to condemn Alex Salmond were not well received – it’s one of this big fears isn’t it, of many men, that they could be falsely accused of rape – just the accusation itself could ruin your life – just on the say so of one malicious gossip – and this case was too high profile and horrifying to many, particularly when the actual accusations came to light. Regardless of politics.

      Alex Salmond obviously has strong evidence of a political conspiracy against him – that was to be his original defence wasn’t it – and I can understand the judge not allowing that defence, because it would lead the court case down lots of different avenues, and that Alex Salmond’s lawyers easily showed the falsehoods in the accusations without that evidence shows just how weak the prosecutions case was – it should never have gone to trial, the judge and prosecution service made a very bad judgement there. I thought by not revealing the evidence immediately Alex might have been giving Nicola Sturgeon time to step down, with some dignity intact, but it doesn’t seem like that will happen.

      I think publishing the documents to try and give a counter-trial-by-media would not necessarily be productive, bring forward a civil case and sue for damages, and expose them all. There would be no danger of it harming ‘the cause of independence’ because we won’t be getting independence until the obstacles are removed, and that means harpies that think nothing of playing victim for political game playing. And that includes the prosecution service that thinks nothing of wasting our money and bringing our legal service into disrepute. You never know, Alex might put the millions he gets in damages into an Indy fighting fund.

    135. Contrary says:

      Dammit, r*pe is a banned word isn’t it?

      Oh well, I was just talking shite as usual.

    136. Robert Graham says:

      Capella thanks for the links to the Inquiry Committee

      All the published information is not available Documents have been removed (ie) letters to and from the FM & Evans the time line and sequence of events in particular .

      Reference is being made to evidence being heard in private , oh really if I am paying for this Inquiry I want to hear everything warts and all what the Duck happend and who did it

      This farce will be interfered with by the English Civil Service the script has already been written and no single person will be held responsible , bloody predicable shite

    137. Mac says:

      Just when you think you cannot despise the BBC any further… they find a way. Kirsty Wark is up there with the likes of that beady eyed rat Nick Robinson. The mainstream media is the problem.

    138. Contrary says:

      Does Scotland need its own currency? – to be truly independent and to be immediately successful, then yes, it does:

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_logo&v=YMLddlxapwQ

      I know it’s a bit o/t but maybe a brief light relief from the horrors of the Wark and the BBC will be good.

      I don’t ever know if RevStu is offended by me posting in economical matters – does he have an economical stance? Does anyone know? Or everyone here irritated by it anyway?

    139. Robert Graham says:

      Maybe for once the Unionist MSPs in Holyrood will be of some use ( no laughing now ) Apparently this Committee have the power to force the redacted documents to be presented ,

      A bit of confusion who exactly are the Scottish Government is it the English government with a tartan sash or is it the SNP government reference keeps being made to The Scottish Government

    140. jockmcx says:

      Is this the stage where they’ve been driven to madness?

      …what are they so scared of?

    141. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Interesting over at WGD – Petra, late of this parish, posted an approving link to this post at the bak of midnight (‘kudos where it’s due’) and the following has been published:

      Tom says:
      August 18, 2020 at 8:57 am
      Wee Ginger, sorry, but I think your piece is nonsense.

      It could only not be nonsense if two conditions prevailed. Firstly, that the SNP is serious about indy, and secondly, that the Tories in Westminster would, in any circumstances, be prepared to concede Scotland’s exclusive right to determine its own future.

      Regarding the SNP, please show me any evidence, any at all, that the SNP is serious about indy. “I’ve campaigned all my life for an independent Scotland” isn’t evidence of serious intent (and is questionable anyway), it’s just the same old, same old.

      I know, for example, how Common Weal thinks an indy Scotland could look, and I might agree with some of their plans, all of them, or none at all, but at least I can see what they are. Where is the equivalent from the SNP? If Westminster granted Scotland an indyref right now, or on the same day as the Holyrood elections next year, or on any other day of their choosing (because it would be a day of their choosing, not ours, however nicely we ask), what would we campaign on?

      The SNP has nothing to say about this, absolutely zilch.

      Being asked to believe in Sturgeon and the SNP is like being asked to believe in God. There may be no evidence at all for whatever God you believe in (or for the SNP’s plans for an indy Scotland), but still, you gotta have faith. But I’m afraid that, without evidence to the contrary, I’m a sceptic. Give me evidence and I’ll rethink things, but until then, I’d prefer that you stopped patronising us with your ‘go on believing’ and have trust in Sturgeon rhetoric.

      Regarding the Tories, here I’ll concede that you have a point, but only up to a point. If the SNP sweeps the board at next May’s Holyrood elections, or comes close to it, the Tory ‘no, not now, not ever’ rhetoric will be unsustainable. But that doesn’t mean they’ll agree that it’s a fair cop, and here’s a Section 30 order. Instead, they’ll nod to the election result with a complicated offer that concedes something, maybe a multiple-option referendum, or a two stage referendum with a final confirmatory one on a rotten deal because that’s all that can be achieved in an unequal negotiation. But there can only be one outcome; whatever we vote on, it’ll be one that works for Westminster, and not Scotland.

      And, frankly, I don’t think the SNP would care. It’s increasingly clear that the limit of their ambition is to be the established party of government in Scotland, in token opposition to the Tories as the established party of government in rUK, with both governments talking up their (small) differences (just like now, really), but in reality shoring one another up, while the political elite on both sides go on earning their fat salaries, pensions, perks, and jobs for the girls and boys in the private sector in their days after politics.

      Disagree? Then please show me, don’t just tell me. And remember, while you look for that elusive evidence, the Tories are already on the demolition job (see Ruth Wishart in Monday’s National), while we turn our bahookies and invite them to stick it right there.

      I won’t participate in a sham vote-for-the-SNP-and-get-indy election next May. Without new leadership at the top of the party, indy is dead, and will deserve to be.

      Right now, we are heading for a ‘where and how did it all go wrong’ reflection a few years from now. But the answer is already staring us in the face and, as an intelligent dug, in your heart I think you know it.

    142. Ottomanboi says:

      Rudyard Kipling from
      The Female of the Species

      WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
      He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
      But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
      For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
      Especially with some help from secret services on the side.

      What a nasty little soviet style republic Scotland is turning into.

    143. Famous15 says:

      Moorov of the Moorov doctrine was the bad guy who was ultimately convicted by the jury hearing evidence from a string of witnesses who all suffered in the same way from his criminality. The events were very similar in time place and actions.

      I now see an irony in the AS trial of, what you might call a reverse Moorov i.e the disparities in the stories pointed to innocence. Much as the prosecution laboured and boringly tried to set up a Moorov sequence the evidence of his own well briefed alphabet witnesses failed him.

      Finally if you attended a dinner with a world renowned film star ,you would think you would remember the main course.

    144. Josef Ó Luain says:

      I hope we never have to witness anything like this ever again. Leaving the security services and their long-standing colonisation of the BBC aside, Scottish governance thus civil society lies, this morning, exposed as having been utterly corrupted from the inside. Ours, by default, is neither a safe nor a remotely mature polity.

    145. jockmcx says:

      Thats what i keep asking myself these days,it makes no sense
      to me whatever that scottish people would support staying
      part of this uk.

      Can’t believe they ‘lurve’ the uk…so… what is it then?
      what are they thinking?…what are they doing?…or what
      have they ‘been’ doing?

      Anyway the uk is over…get on board………or get lost!

    146. Tom says:

      .. and they couldn’t even credit Kenny MacAskill properly, with no reference to his election as an MP last year, just to his previous role as Cabinet Secretary for Justice until sacked by Sturgeon in her first reshuffle.

    147. It`s like Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner,

      there`s all these elaborate and expensive plans which ends up with Cayote at the bottom of the canyon and Road Runner disappearing into the gloriose sunsett,

      beeb beeb Mr Salmond (lang may yer lum reek).

      `I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.`

      Franklin D. Roosevelt

    148. stuart mctavish says:

      Shame her producer and publisher did not insist on digging deeper into precisely how the daily record journalists uncovered details of the government investigation* since the 2-7 year prison sentence** (ie in respect of charges of fraud by false representation***, and fraud by abuse of position****, that ought reasonably to accompany a conspiracy to reframe and publish evidence fully cross examined in a court of law) might be easier to defend if consolation could be drawn from having added a new dimension to the current inquiry.

      *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdM-pLwjazw&t=20m20s
      **https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/sentences/fraud/
      ***https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
      ****https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/4

    149. Ottomanboi says:

      The auncient and sovereign League of Scots Viragos.
      Motto. Wha daur flirt wi me!
      No wonder Scotland has demographic issues.

    150. Breeks says:

      Ian Brotherhood says:
      18 August, 2020 at 9:04 am
      Interesting over at WGD – Petra, late of this parish, posted an approving link to this post at the bak of midnight (‘kudos where it’s due’) and the following has been published:

      It’s a terrific comment, but I don’t see Petra’s approval of it Ian.

      By the way, does anybody know if the Scottish Inquisition will be televised? It begins today, and I think Leslie Evans is first for the thumb screws.

    151. Oneliner says:

      Ms Evans.

      Your ineptitude cost the Scottish taxpayer over £500,000 – can you explain why you are still in post?

    152. Derek Spence says:

      Would it be classed as contempt of court for the public to tweet the many many articles which identify one of the accusers, provided no context is given (ie. No reference to the Garavelli article or BBC documentary or the trial itself)?
      It is so easy to make a jigsaw identification from both that I am astounded no contempt charges have yet been brought against Garavelli and the BBC.
      I will not be taking such action but when it is so easy for anyone to discover and reveal their identity, based on information volunteered by “journalists”, it is hard to believe they get away with it.

    153. Luigi says:

      This carefully coordinated attack on the big man reveals just hw afraid the British establishment are of another Salmond comeback.

      A Salmond & Cherry led list party, that’s my dream ticket.

      Can you imagine how many list votes those two would hoover up? However, I don’t think it will happen in 2021, maybe next time round. I think those two big hitters will hold fire and see how it all plays out first – if the SNP win a majority as expected, and then continue to do nowt, then all bets are off. The current alternative indy list parties set up will go nowhere without a couple of big names – just not enough weight and gravitas among the current members to pull the requred numbers.

      The SNP have done fanatstically well to get us to where we are, but I do sense a kind of rabbit in the headlights moment – there will be a time to throw caution to the wind and just go for it – this time is fast approaching. NS will have to be brave and force the issue. The SNP will be found out, one way or the other very soon. I’ll give em the benefit of the doubt for now, but like many others, my patience is not eternal.

      Maybe all the SNP need is a rocket up the ass, and Salmond & Cherry are certainly the two that could make this happen.

    154. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Breeks –

      Apologies, clumsy wording on my part – I meant that Petra posted a link to this post ‘the endless trial’ (at approx 12.20).

      😉

    155. Andrew Gordon says:

      Having watched Ms Warks appalling program made a complaint to the police ( I know what you are all thinking, what a naive fool !) Have had a response and been told someone will be in touch , can’t wait !

    156. Lewis Moonie says:

      I’ve known Alex as a political opponent and friend since 1987. That he has a forceful personality, that some might think of as bullying, but I consider a natural consequence of the positions he has held, there can be little doubt.
      He’s also decent, generous, warm hearted and trustworthy. Regarding the last point, he has known for years that I supported independence, but never to my knowledge told anyone else. (I had intended to go public before the referendum but as it turned out my body was too busy trying to die from chronic heart problems. (Obvs it failed, thank f…)
      But a sexual predator?
      The thought has never crossed my mind.
      And in conversations with fellow politicians, I’ve never found anyone who disagreed with me, male or female.
      The only question left in my mind is why Lady Dorrian refused to allow the defence to produce evidence of conspiracy at his trial.
      The truth will out eventually, and there will be a full reckoning of what happened.

    157. Big Jock says:

      I find it remarkable that there are still some prominent bloggers who think Sturgeon will lead us to independence.

      The suggestion being that somehow another mandate in 2021 will be honored by belligerent Boris. They also suggest that voting for another party on the list vote is splitting the vote. What vote?

      The SNP got 4 seats for 42% of the list vote. Even if they lost all 4 and the other party only managed 6. I fail to see how that splits the vote.

      The Sturgeon defenders need to give themselves a good shake. Come out of your hypnotic trance. Look at the evidence. She has failed to deliver indy ref 2 three times now!

      I simply don’t trust a word she says about independence now. What about the power grab in December this year. It’s exactly 4 months till D Day! Why are the SNP not doing anything legislatively to prevent it.

      The continuity bill was trashed and left dangling . Left in Limbo by the courts , but capitulated by the SG.

      They just keep rolling over.

    158. Big Jock says:

      Lewis -When Salmond stood on that platform in 2014 after the defeat. He had tears in his eyes and said”The dream will never die”.

      It felt like the death of a nation. You could see how much it meant to him. It was like the emotions of the whole yes movement rolled into one person. Salmond is one of the most genuine politicians you will ever see. He really believes in Scotland. It’s in his heart and soul.

      I lapsed into depression for many months after that referendum. Why? Because I felt stateless. Like an illegal alien in an occupied country. I felt like my country had been stolen from me by occupiers.

      The most anger I felt was no voters in my company singing Flower of Scotland at Hampden. I thought “How dare you , what is wrong with you people”. I still feel like that. I just can’t get into their heads . I am glad I am not like them.

      Salmond towers above Sturgeon. He is the genuine article.

    159. Big Jock says:

      Oh and one more thing.

      Loyalty!! A word that Sturgeon doesn’t know the meaning of.

      She is the most disloyal person in politics. There is a list –

      Michelle Thomson
      Alex Salmond
      Jo Cherry
      Angus McNeil
      Stuart Hosie

      All former comrades chucked to the wolves. Who would trust such a woman!

    160. Ian Brotherhood says:

      It’s probably been posted already but where can we watch the inquiry live?

    161. Anybody got any views on the enquiry into the Salmond case? Think it will achieve anything, or just be a whitewash?

    162. jfngw says:

      @ian brotherhood

      Capella posted one at 1:54am, I would link back but suspect I would get it wrong.

    163. Effijy says:

      I assure everyone that I have every respect for women have very capable and
      Remarkable females in my family.

      I totally disagree with women only lists for candidates.
      We can’t demand equality for all except men in politics.

      Of these female accusers at the Salmond trial, it seems that they all
      Play important roles in our government and in our prospects for independence
      and yet not one of them has the capability of marking the card of any man potentially
      Taking liberties?

      I can’t believe they couldn’t strike out verbally or physically if they thought they were in danger.
      I can’t believe they would stay late and alone with someone they thought might have a go at them.
      I can’t believe that after someone groped at you in a bedroom and when free you head to the adjacent bathroom to cry on the floor. You get the hell out of there!

      I was sure I heard that the building has locks on the bedroom doors, a security guard and CCTV Cameras. Strange that none of these measures were employed?

      It seems to me that several members of the SNP have broken the law, lied in court, showed themselves to have little resolve or self respect.

      Are these the qualities of people capable of delivering independence?

      I think not!

    164. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @jfngw –

      Cheers aplenty (and Capella too!)

      😉

    165. Ottomanboi says:

      Using sex to destroy is so anglo-saxon. Must be the residual Protestant thing. Other cultures use it for more productive purposes. It is very telling that woke ideas on sex and sexuality aka ‘gender’ and identitarianism began in that fevered anglophone cultural milieu.
      Wonder what the tactile, cosmopolitan Boris thinks?
      “Hands orff”, said her majesty with a mischievous twinkle.

    166. winifred mccartney says:

      Someone else said this was not even a retrial – we did not hear from the defence – this was a trial by media with all the reporters and BBC culpable and disgusting.

      The BBC can say it was commissioned from Wark and Husbands company but it is clear that it was a stitch up from beginning to end by Wark, Smith, Garavelli and the aggrieved malicious women who wanted Salmonds’ head. The bitterness of these three women round a dining table was palpable. This programme was made with a guilty verdict in mind and then slightly rehashed when the Innocent verdict was given. We should remember the links between Wark and former labour FM and Sarah Smith and labour and the bitterness and hatred is even more apparent. For them democracy is great when it is their preferred party in power.

      It is no accident that this programme and Garavelli’s programme are aired just before the govt enquiry. They are just stabbing at what they hoped would be a dead body.

      The war over indy has never stopped and will only get dirtier. We have to bear this in mind and see this coven for what it is along with the govt mouthpiece BBC which has allowed and promoted and orchestrated this with the newspapers and TV because they are afraid, very afraid that Indy is coming and Salmond will be honoured as he should be for his place in Scottish history.

    167. dramfineday says:

      Thank you Stuart for doing what I could never bring myself to do – watching that documentary. Thank you also for the insightful analysis.

      Question now, what’s Alex’s next move?

    168. Allium says:

      Big Jock @ 10.07

      Agree, NS has an extraordinary capacity for merciless ruthlessness, I can think of few politicians as brutal, yet almost everyone turns a blind eye to it. As she also does when the offender is one of her personal friends – some special people are privileged, and may do as they like. The rest can expect no loyalty. In some ways she rules by fear, which explains the cringing toadies that surround her, and the lack of people willing to stand up to her when she gets it wrong.

    169. johnj says:

      Whatever history records on the reputation of Alex Salmond I think the reputation of The BBC, Kirsty Wark, Danni Garavelli and Sarah Smith is also damaged. That quartet is becoming the story.

    170. Margaret Wilson says:

      Stu, thank you so much for your forensic dissection of this programme. The first thing I thought of whilst I was reading was I wish Alex had managed to get on the Board of the Scotsman and employed you as it’s political journalist. You deserve to be read more widely and are definitely an asset to the independence movement. I didn’t watch this programme as I don’t have a tv licence. Thank goodness I didn’t but am glad you took the time to watch and report back.

    171. ‘Allium says:
      18 August, 2020 at 10:48 am
      Big Jock @ 10.07

      Agree, NS has an extraordinary capacity for merciless ruthlessness, I can think of few politicians as brutal, yet almost everyone turns a blind eye to it.’

      Have to agree. That woman radiates perpetually-irritated, narrow-eyed calculating coldness and, having seen what happened with her former mentor…those looks don’t lie.

    172. ‘johnj says:
      18 August, 2020 at 10:48 am
      Whatever history records on the reputation of Alex Salmond I think the reputation of The BBC, Kirsty Wark, Danni Garavelli and Sarah Smith is also damaged. That quartet is becoming the story.’

      That televisual car crash last night was not aboot Alex Salmond. It was aboot Kirsty Wark. It felt like a weird personal revenge attack.

    173. shug says:

      In the eyes of many balanced scots the BBC died last night

    174. Oneliner says:

      @Ottomanboi

      Thank you for sharing your spectrum with us.

    175. Capella says:

      Committee about to start – watch it here:

      https://www.scottishparliament.tv/channel/committee-room-1

    176. Capella says:

      Ian Brotherhood – snap! 🙂

    177. Ron Maclean says:

      The prosecution of Alec Salmond failed but the persecution continues. That programme wasn’t made just to fill the 9pm slot on BBC2 and to provide salacious gossip for friendly tabloids. This is an establishment uniting to protect their comfortable lifestyles. Alec Salmond was divisive, a threat and interrupted their reveries. He might do it again. He must be punished as a warning to dissidents.

      What’s worrying is the lack of response from our leaders and representatives. Apart from Stuart Campbell, who’s asking the questions. Why is no-one supporting him? I’ve come to expect silence and inaction but this is carrying it too far.

      Is this a taste of the independent Scotland we can expect under the SNP? No wonder they don’t mention independence.

    178. Big Jock says:

      Look into Nicola’s eyes when she was asked if she was looking forward to the Salmond enquiry.

      She said “Yes because I will get to put my point across” Those eyes!You can tell when someone is feeling very guilty. Something just didn’t look right.

      How could you Nicola? We are loyal to Salmond and that’s something you will never understand!

    179. Ian Brotherhood says:

      There we go – Lesley Evans appears and before she opens her mouth it goes off-air. WTF?

    180. Christ, Leslie Evans jist tried tae make a ‘solemn oath’ in the enquiry, which is oan Scottish Parliament TV right noo. She couldnae even repeat whit she wis meant tae say! Very, VERY telling.

    181. ‘Ian Brotherhood says:
      18 August, 2020 at 11:11 am
      There we go – Lesley Evans appears and before she opens her mouth it goes off-air. WTF?’

      Ah’m watching it right noo. Evans is talking shite. Odd, that.

    182. Allium says:

      The Daily Mail TV reviewer has roasted the programme, but even more surprisingly perhaps, the commenters btl are doing the same. Even people who don’t like Salmond aren’t swallowing the narrative.

    183. Ian Brotherhood says:

      It’s back now.

      Was that just to allow a ‘delay’ to build up so that Linda Fabiani can push a big red button if required?

    184. Leslie Evans stuttered and stumbled over the truth oath she was asked to repeat. It was one of the most transparent, guilty-conscience things I have ever seen.

    185. John H. says:

      Crude propaganda indeed, I think that Kirsty Wark’s reputation has been damaged far more than Alex Salmond’s in this disgraceful piece of lying muck raking.

      Incidentally, where does this leave men in general? If these so called feminists get their way, a simple accusation of impropriety by a woman against a man would be enough to get him taken to court, then found guilty, just because he’s a man.

    186. Black Joan says:

      Has she never affirmed or sworn to tell the truth before? What a start. Does stumbling over it to that extent invalidate it?

    187. Athanasius says:

      This whole affair gels oddly with the apparently unrelated question of whether a list only party would be an asset or a drawback for the independence movement. I have, in the past, opined that only a centre-right party would have a positive impact because the entire small c conservative demographic in Scotland is unrepresented and their votes are there for the picking.

      The problem is the entire nationalist movement is leftist in its orientation, and sooner or later, the left ALWAYS eats itself. What we’re witnessing here is the long established, age old pattern of the left attempting to imprison anyone they see as their opponents. This is what socialists do. It’s desperately important to understand that iconic figures of the past like Keir Hardie and Nye Bevan were not actually socialists in any doctrinaire, European sense. They were merely desirous of justice and fair play. Actual Marxist-inspired ideological socialists later grafted themselves onto the movement they created, which is why the Labour Party ultimately collapsed in Scotland, and will eventually do so in England. Nationalism in general and the SNP in particular benefitted mightily from that collapse, but don’t flatter yourselves that it was entirely due to the rise of Scottish self-consciousness. There was an element of “right place, right time”.

      Unfortunately, the movement in general is allowing itself to be subsumed by the left, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the woke entryists who infest the SNP. Right now, the party — and more generally, the movement — is in a window of opportunity, but that window won’t stay open forever. People didn’t drop Labour to watch nationalists pick up where the red brigades left off. People simply won’t put up with this crap indefinitely. They’re looking at the Salmond case and thinking that if the same group of vanguardists who ran Labour for decades have just moved across to nationalism, if they’re displaying the same disgusting sense of entitlement which allows them to use the legal system to imprison people who don’t see things their way, then why should anyone vote for them?

    188. Socrates MacSporran says:

      If there is one positive thing to have come out of this whole sordid stitch-up, it is surely the realisation that our criminal justice system is unfair.

      Surely the time has now come for anonymity to be guaranteed to both accused and accuser in cases of sexual misconduct. Then, if the accused is found Guilty, his or her identity can be revealed, but, if not convicted, then their anonymity is preserved.

      It is ridiculous that Alex Salmond, having been cleared of all charges, can still be vilified by the media, while the women, whose version of things was not believed, are still guaranteed anonymity.

      Had Alex Salmond simply been: The Accused, and not named, the msm, who are now still trying to destroy him, would not dare have identified him – not even by the so-called “jigsaw” process; otherwise their Editors’ sorry arses would have been dragged into court.

    189. brian mcardle says:

      BBC used Wark`s husbands firm two rivers to make the prog,BBC insider told me years ago she was a hated figure at Scottish HQ,her exploding at Salmond on a news night interview got her punted to London BBC,she and hubby are friends with Lord McConnell ,stitch up first class

    190. Always worth revisiting this older case, to remind us of the truth-stumbling Ms. Evans’ ‘work ethics’:

      http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/fake-news-how-public-lies-begin/

    191. Tommy Sheridan says:

      Excellent analysis of a thoroughly disreputable show which shamed the profession of journalism. The subjective and anti-Salmond commentary and selective use of trial material was the very essence of hatchet job reporting. The unionist bile was ever present. Disgraceful production.

    192. Craig Murray says:

      Half an hour in and nobody on the committee has asked a pertinent question yet. Soft soap all round.

    193. Andrew Gordon says:

      Only 35 mins into Ms Evan’s “evidence” and I have dignitas on speed dial !

    194. It’s pure waffle. The shyness and timidity of some of the questioners is…odd. Pure soft-sell, SNP-cares propagandist drivel.

    195. James F. McIntosh says:

      Well maybe the reason ms Evans was not sacked was she and Nicola needed each other to get rid of any evidence that might come out at inquest.?

    196. SilverDarling says:

      It’s a wonder Ms Evans doesn’t spontaneously combust.

      Remember when the Scottish MSM used to promote each other’s articles with ‘great read’ and ‘I thoroughly recommend this pish’? Now they cut out the middleman (us) and just speak to each other. Last night Wark and her cronies, tonight it’s everyone round to Dani G’s.

      https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1295358348989280256

    197. Ian Brotherhood says:

      How long does she have to be there?

    198. Effijy says:

      I used your link Ian,

      It only took a few minutes for me to smell a rat in these proceedings.

      Evans claims that she is not answering as a Civil Servant and on behalf
      Of Ministers. I’m hearing that as it Wisnae me and somebody made me?

      Next she reported how well she has supported the enquiry providing documents
      And delivering on time.
      I’ve picked up that many required documents have not been provided and they were not delivered on time?

      Glancing over her actions were completely illegal against Salmond, she says she had full legal consultation and she was sorry for any errors of judgement?

      You break the law along side legal experts to ruin a mans career and credibility and you expect sorry
      Makes it all better? Unbelievable.

      It has also registered that her ultimate boss is a London based Sir Toryalot.
      I’m sure he would have been offering much advise on the Salmond case.

      As far as I can make out, after many declarations of transparency, documents will be withdrawn, redacted or discussed in private.

      Under no circumstances is this transparent or open.

      I can stomach no more after only minutes.
      This is shaping up to be another very expensive farce with the ultimate purpose of protecting corruption, careerists and criminals.

      I need a new party, government and country in my life !

    199. Clydebuilt says:

      Wings Over Scotland 17th Aug “Co-ordinating the Mob”

      “Because at her moment of greatest need the entire Scottish establishment is circling the wagons to protect Nicola Sturgeon, who they may not like but who they now quite unmistakeably regard as the Union’s best hope for survival. Readers should prepare for tonight’s show-trial with that thought very much in their minds.”

      Watched Warks effort, read The Rev’s piece ” The Endless Trial”
      good summing up by him.
      I did’nt notice the establishment setting out to protect Sturgeon, infact the exact opposite. At the end we heard Kirsty hoping, praying that there would be serious implications for the Scottish Government which immediatelly followed Jim Sillars prophesising that the SNP would explode (or was it implode)
      Throught the propagandamentary the case was being made that Salmond was in the dock because of a split between Sturgeon and Salmond. Ending with predictions that serious damage would now acccrue to the Scot. Gov. obviously by wounding Sturgeon, possibly leading to her removal.
      This was their best shot at finishing of Salmond politically, next target is Sturgeon and the SNP. then it’s job done. Subs in the Clyde for ever, Oil west of Shetland, and Whisky Galore, oh aye and loads of cannon fodder!

    200. SOG says:

      @ effijy – I started reading your contribution and gave up. It was probably worth continuing but the line breaks made it too difficult to continue. Old eyes, y’know.

      Can you sort out the problem please?

    201. Effijy says:

      Sorry about the format of my posts.

      I send everything from my i-phone and it appears fine
      As I press send.?

      Any advice welcome!

    202. schrodingers cat says:

      I’m watching this enquiry

      http://www.scottishparliament.tv/

      i wont be holding my breath for any revelation about anything

    203. defo says:

      We need an inquiry into who in our ‘independent ‘ legal system made the decision to get Salmond post civil case, on what grounds, and why such significant resources were allocated.

      Wolffe was appointed by Betty Windsor, on FMs recommendation, which Holyrood ratified.
      When the head of the snake is captured, the whole is too.

      Not unlike impartial Aunties DG getting placed by whoever’s in power at Westmidden.

      No surprise then where loyalties lye.

      Ab

    204. Grey gull says:

      Watching the inquiry and never thought I’d be agreeing with Murdo Fraser asking Lesley Evans if she knew about the claim that women were told not to work with Akex Salmond late at night.

    205. Beaker says:

      @WhoRattledYourCage says:
      18 August, 2020 at 11:15 am
      “Leslie Evans stuttered and stumbled over the truth oath she was asked to repeat. It was one of the most transparent, guilty-conscience things I have ever seen.”

      To be fair to her, appearing in front of a parliamentary committee can be a most unpleasant experience if you are in the firing line. I know a couple of people who have faced Westminster committees. Normally very confident and successful individuals suddenly find themselves very much alone.

      I’m not defending her, just pointing out it’s a little unfair to blow someone out of the water before they get a chance to present their case.

    206. meg merrilees says:

      Two comments

      I don’t have a TV so I missed the gripping fiasco last night.

      However, tellingly, the Daily Mail this morning has asked why is the BBC showing this programme about Salmond and yet not done a programme about Saville???

      Interesting angle coming from them.
      Secondly:

      The usual mode on the BBC is that without registering or buying a licence I cannot watch live TV on demand yet this morning I can watch Ms. Evans nae bother. Why the sudden change?
      An actress playing the part could not look more stereotypical – neat hair, demure black clothes, string of pearls ( actually two strings just to emphasise how important she is) and big glasses to draw attention to her eyes… and by God she looks terrified!!!

      For the record, my sister, who is a fairly good weathervane for wider Scotland’s ‘females of a certain age’ attitude to politics didn’t even know the programme was on but was disgusted at the thought when I told her what she had missed.

      She certainly knew that he had been found innocent of all charges in court and that was enough for her.

      Here’s hoping this whole shebang will seriously backfire on the perpetrators but Poor Scotland!

      And we still have the extra helping to come tonight on the radio to try and get all those people who no longer have a licence – oh and to spread their lies in the rUK.

      I think a lot of people ‘down south’ have always had time for Salmond a s a politician who is not ‘afeart’ and let’s not forget he has won the Politician of the Year award on a number of occasions.

      “The Dream will never die”

    207. Ian Brotherhood says:

      ‘I would need to go away and check that…’

      FFS, these people have had months to prepare and they know what they’re going to be asked about. Fabiani should be skelping her arse as a warning to others – do your fuckin homework before appearing or be held in contempt.

    208. Phydaux says:

      I had no intention of watching this blatantly biased bullshit. Thank you Stuart for your incisive and truthful analysis, highlighting the vicious attribute to the bias. Kirsty Wark et al could never hope to compete intellectually with Alex and never will.

      It must have stung them to their core that they weren’t able to consolidate the power they thought they had to destroy Alex. It must have stung them to their core that they weren’t able to broadcast the obituary of Alex they so desperately wanted. Kirsty Wark is an establishment propaganda mouthpiece for the BBC. She and her privileged wealthy class are like apes knuckling down to a forest clearing to groom each other. They throng to all the right drinks parties, dinner parties, art openings etc etc. Although our great primates are a little ahead of them on the evolution scale, IMHO.

      Alex’s accusers and all those who conspired against him seem unable to accept the verdict of not guilty. This seems to haunt them and consume them and which they are powerless to change. They seem to be illogically invested in the idea that women operate under a different set of standards and practices than men.

      Will the Inquiry uncover the truth? I won’t hold my breath. The more lethal the risks, the less visible they will be. An establishment cover up is par for the course.

      Thanks to Stuart and others for sticking your neck out to bring us the truth, a potent force, disturbing the complacent mind. Think on this SNP. People are not quick to reinvest in a relationship where trust has been broken. They generally move on. Nor do they forget. As the late great James Baldwin said: “ History is not the past, it’s the present. We carry our history with us. “

    209. Andrew Gordon says:

      Cant believe I am saying this but Jackie Bailie actually just gave Ms Evan’s her first question that shows her true colours when challenged over the length of time and the reluctance to release information to the committee, Baillie actually making a decent first of making Ms Evan’s quite uncomfortable, let’s have more of this and less of the soft soaping

    210. stuart mctavish says:

      @Grey Gull –
      MF & ACH.
      Possibly the most pertinent question so far (& which will presumably also be asked of the permanent secretaries that preceded Ms Evans) & convener whitewashed it, shocking.

    211. Shinty says:

      Excellent work as always Rev.
      I didn’t watch the programme (switched off all terrestrial TV in 2014)

      Absolutely shameful that AS is still being vilified – If AS needs another crowdfunder I would be more than happy to contribute to ensure every last one of them is prosecuted.

      Anyone know when his book is out – thought it was today 18th – but can’t find anything.

    212. stuart mctavish says:

      The procedure having been “absolutely not” designed to get Alex Salmond, the obvious question might be who else it has managed to get since its inception.. and, following the Salmond trial, do they need to be reinstated?

    213. Sarah says:

      @ Shinty: there is no book. The Rev said that his source [Alex Salmond] says so!

    214. Elmac says:

      A lot of very angry people around today as expected after the BBC rubbed their noses in its mendacity and corruption. If you want a bit of revenge how about venting your anger by dumping the “licence” fee. After all you probably don’t have a licence for you kettle or your wellie boots which is just as preposterous as requiring a licence to watch a TV. Nothing like having lies and propaganda pumped into your homes and being forced to pay for it is there? Hit them where it hurts.

    215. Muscleguy says:

      I don’t hav a TV or a licence so I couldn’t have watched it. I went for a 6 mile run last evening & was in bed dog tired at 22:30 anyway. It would not have helped my physical recovery to get my blood pressure up if I had been able to watch it.

      When it was starting I was stretching my abused muscles & having at them with my massage stick quietening their protests sufficiently to allow sleep. That would have been less painful & uncomfortable than watching that dross.

      That I paid nothing towards it is a consolation. Rev you are excused from this since we need you to watch/read stuff so we don’t have to. Paying for a subscription to the Murdoch press is similar. I can’t even bring myself to offer up my details in return for a handful of free articles each month. My clicks will simply not add to their advertising spiel.

    216. Ottomanboi says:

      The social engineering exercise which is the clinical suppression of the supposedly novel Covid-19 disease involves a process of de-socializing. The natural human tendency to associate with its concomitant physical signs of propinquity such as touching is being discouraged. In effect to socialize, to touch is become anti-social.
      “They fuck you up your mum and dad, they may not mean to, but they do” memorably wrote the English poet Phillip Larkin. Had he been writing about the current situation and the authorities that have brought us to this sorry pass he might have had second thoughts about the “may not mean to”.
      They mean every jot and tittle and they’re just loving the power climaxes.
      In the meantime the ultra rich just keep getting mega richer, nation states weaker and the people progressively stripped of their humanity.
      Interesting times ahead. Few ‘institutions’ are going to survive this tectonic shift.

    217. Polly says:

      Well written. Kirsty Stickland’s defence of Sturgeon sounds more and more along the lines of the person on WhatsApp group reportedly saying ‘salmond is going for her and he will take Nicola down to get her’ so move to marshall forces behind Nicola to shore her up. If Nicola was completely innocent they wouldn’t need to do that.

      @ PhilM

      Your quote about Salmond and his ‘pronounced Tigger bounce’ was very good and I hope he displays it many times in future.

    218. Capella says:

      My recollection of the first session with Leslie Evans:

      The Harassment Policy was developed by request of the Cabinet and request of the head of the civil service in Westminster, Sir Jeremy Hayward.

      The role of Judith MacKinnon no longer exists.

      The policy was rapidly developed, signed off on 20th December but not published till 8th February.

      One of the complainants had seen the draft policy. Two people made complaints in January, before the policy had been published.

      The reason for the delay in publishing was that discussions were still being held with the Trade Unions (or perhaps just the First Division) and the Westminster Civil Service.

      Evans referred to the policy as “the operation” a few times then corrected herself. She strongly denied that it was devised to trap Alex Salmond.

    219. Craig Murray says:

      Capella you missed out the key point. Whitehall – the Cabinet Office – objected to the policy proposal to make it retrospective to include former ministers, and advised against it. That policy came from the First Minister.

    220. Capella says:

      @ Craig Murray -Ii don’t recall Leslie Evans said that to the committee? I know that has been claimed elsewhere. But, unless I missed it, LE only told the committee that Sir Jeremy Hayward had emailed “all the Permanent Secretaries” to advise them to update policy.

    221. gus1940 says:

      After last night’s Wark anti Eck propaganda fest I find it difficult to see it as causing a stampede of over 75s throwing money at The BBC for a Propaganda License.
      Furthermore I reckon that under 75s will be cancelling their Direct Debits by the thousands.
      The thought of hundreds of OAPs being dragged thru the courts and possibly jailed is unlikely to cause a surge in support for the Unionists.

    222. Flower of Scotland says:

      After that programme last night, that I didn’t watch because I do not have a TV license, I come onto Wings. Rev Stu, what a great piece today, and recently you seem to have your mojo back!

      All the old Wingers are back making comments. I actually feel like we’re getting somewhere at last. Folk seem to be seeing the leader of the Scottish Parliament in a different light these days. I hope it continues.

      I presume that all this nonsense will go on until after the May election, if we even have one. Alex Salmond will not be able to stand or start a list party and their job is done for now.

      After December 31st I doubt that the ScotGov will have many powers left.

    223. Ottomanboi says:

      Such stuff as nightmares are made on..
      https://unherd.com/2020/08/no-one-has-the-right-to-have-a-baby/
      Nature is far wiser.

    224. Liz says:

      I didn’t watch as I was travelling but I doubt I could have stood it anyway.

      How dare those witches try to stitch Alex up again.

      They give all women a bad name. Forget about the Patriarchy, this is women at their very worst. I’m glad many in the press who don’t like Alex are criticizing this travesty.

      As was mentioned above, men fear being falsely accused of rape.
      I hope her career is ruined after this.

    225. Liz says:

      Damn I used the r*pe word again

    226. CapnAndy says:

      Beaker @ 01:36.
      “Fuck knows how he got through that trial yet managed to retain his dignity outside court”.

      Very True and it really does say a lot about Alex Salmond.

    227. David R says:

      This and pretty much all of what’s happened in Scottish politics since 2014 has managed to shift a pro-indy, SNP supporter and activist to the point where I’ll not vote for any of them again. As a male with two sons the thought of these misandrist clowns running an independent Scotland isn’t worth it and I’m coming to terms with the fact that Scotland dodged a bullet in 2014. To those that say that “it’ll be different after indy” Who do you think will form whatever parties there are? Do you think this lot will just disappear? At least while it’s just a devolved government there’s always the threat that they’ll go too far and fall foul of UK legislation.

    228. Craig Murray says:

      Capella I have now blogged it on my site. It was easy to miss if you did not already know the material they were talking about.

    229. Mary Smith says:

      Amazing work by Wings Over Scotland and demolishes the feminists who supposedly speak on behalf of women. As for the Dani Garivelli comments on the fundraiser being ‘intimidatory’ well I am a woman and I gave quite a bit of money to the fundraiser. So did my friends and they’re women and they don’t have a lot of money. At no point do any of the female commentators look at the role of women who participate in their own abasement. In my profession it is now commonly expected that women flirt and dress ‘attractively’ and wear full make- up every day. It is not the men who have created this expectation of their female colleagues but women. I’ve heard younger women say things like: he’s quite attractive, I’m going to flirt with him it will help me get promoted. (Most of the men are married and have children but that does NOT put these women off) I’ve also seen women use ‘affairs’ at work to get promoted. The problem then is that men can see this as the new normal and who can blame them? I have certainly had backlash for not behaving in a flirty way and making myself ‘available.’ In my experience this isn’t solely the fault of men. When I was younger no man behaved towards me or spoke to me in a sexual, flirtatious or disrespectful way at work. However I have noted that as I have gotten older this has changed significantly. And this is not simply somehow the fault of men. This is also about younger women who sexualise themselves at work through their clothes and behaviour in order to get ‘noticed.’ They are part of normalising a culture in which professional boundaries are blurred and flirtation and sexuality are supposed to be part of your dynamism and allure in the workplace. It is disingenuous to pretend that this does not exist and some of these ‘sudden feminists’ are probably no such thing. Like the Gloria Stenheims and the elites they represent have very little to do with the majority of women (who they employ as cleaners and nannies) but more about promoting their own particular class or clique.

    230. Dogbiscuit says:

      So BBC still defaming an innocent man.

    231. Dogbiscuit says:

      SNP reminding me more of a dirty organisation in the States called the Democrats. Biden has been accused by several women of sexual harassment but media has nothing to say.Biden likes to frontage little girls and that’s OK .Salmond falsely accused as it transpires yet he is hounded by harpies- stick political correctness up your hole- and brutally defamed by the same media that blows smoke up everyones arse. The same media demanding everyone’s ‘lockdown’.

    232. Dogbiscuit says:

      Reading Agenda 21 which our politicians are signed up to and it seems like a monopolistic power grab.

    233. Dogbiscuit says:

      The person most truly ‘wronged and hurt’ by this whole affaire has got to be Alec Salmond especially being stabbed in the back by his ‘friend’ Nicola Sturgeon. That level of betrayal what a snake the First Minister is.
      Cook and Wark fabricating a story against an innocent man show themselves up for the vile characters they are. Pimping out lies and propaganda.
      If FM can do that to her friend and mentor she’ll certainly betray Scotland.
      Those idiots in the media should remember that when Nicola Sturgeon takes up her post at the UN-which will happen- they’ll be left on their own
      I hope Mr Salmond sues the journalists who’re telling lies about him.

    234. Steve The Pirate says:

      Had a look at the “After The News” program in which Salmond supposedly incensed people with the alpha male stuff, there’s sweet F.A there.

      Judge for yourselves

    235. Shinty says:

      Sarah – thanks for that. (However disappointed I am)

    236. Stephen McKenzie says:

      David R,at3:46 pm

      “I’m coming to terms with the fact that Scotland dodged a bullet in 2014”

      Really David? Your life must be one hell of a roller coaster of emotions, what next for you in 2021, maybe the Lib Dems for fun and excitement..

    237. Wee Chid says:

      ““What you’re saying is a man can try to kiss a woman, or he can say completely inappropriate things to her, when he’s 30 years older than her and he’s the First Minister of Scotland.””

      He can try – just like any man can, first minister or not, and if the woman does not wish these advances she can let him know by telling him so, following up with a guid swift kick in the baws if he doesn’t back off – along with the threat that his wife will be informed of how he got his injury. But I’m just a working class woman – WTF would I know about middle class sensibilities.

    238. Wee Chid says:

      Mary Smith says@
      18 August, 2020 at 5:36 pm

      Well said Mary. Similar to what I wanted to say but I was going to be more brutal so deleted part of my post. I only ever had one boss (who never got any further than veiled suggestive remarks). A look and an “aye, right” was enough to ensure that he knew where I stood – along with the occasional “How’s your wife keeping?”

    239. Wee Chid says:

      Capella says:
      18 August, 2020 at 1:40 am

      “That was a Holyrood committee set up to deal with complaints who commissioned a new procedure. Nicola Sturgeon signed off that new procedure as she states in parliament. But that is not proof that she did so in order to trap Alex Salmond. It is possible that she did so without ever imagining that it would catch AS in the net.”

      Have there been any other complaints?

    240. Oneliner says:

      Can I suggest that Krusty Wark forgets the retrial and concentrates on retiral.

    241. Sweetie says:

      Is there a handy summary anywhere of the individual allegations, the defence response and the verdict? It’s really hard to explain to people that these cases weren’t just differences of interpretation or the accuser’s word against the defendant’s.

    242. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Sweetie at 1:43 pm.

      You asked,
      “Is there a handy summary anywhere of the individual allegations, the defence response and the verdict? It’s really hard to explain to people that these cases weren’t just differences of interpretation or the accuser’s word against the defendant’s.”

      You won’t get all the desired info at the links below but they may help. They’re from 18th March to 20th March this year.

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-long-dark-night-of-the-soul/

      At the link below, you could also read the preceding and following posts and scrolling. The newer ones are at the top but scrolling down to 7th March then working your way back up would be my suggestion.

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/

    243. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      This post is particularly revealing.

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/jaccuse-2/

      A quote from it:-
      In Alex Salmond’s case, after going through all the evidence, his legal team were utterly bemused as to why it was Alex Salmond who was being prosecuted; rather than the members of the WhatsApp group and senders of the other messages, texts and emails being prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
      There could not be a plainer conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Not only were members of this very small political grouping orchestrating complaints in the documented communications, they were encouraging their creation.

    244. IAB says:

      This was a major BBC fail – even the Daily Mail could see that. We need to watch what happens with Craig Murray. Alex – your country needs you.

    245. Maggie says:

      Why did the continuity announcer (Duncan Newmarch)make an announment “if you have been the victim of rape or sexual abuse” at the end of the programme. No one in the preceding programme had been the victim of rape or sexual abuse as determined by the juries verdict.



    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