The illiterate solicitor
Before becoming a politician Nicola Sturgeon had a brief and somewhat unsuccessful career in the world of law. Which means she has no excuse whatsoever for this:
Because in law, yes it does. That’s EXACTLY what it means.
People are not put on trial in the High Court of Scotland for putting pineapple on their pizza. They’re not put on trial for wearing odd socks, or for shouting out the answers on The Chase, or for whistling popular songs without due care and attention on their way to work.
The reason they’re not put on trial for those things is that they’re not crimes, and you only get put on trial for things that are crimes.
If you’re charged with murder, the jury isn’t asked to determine whether murder is a crime. They’re asked to decide whether the defendant did what they’re accused of by the prosecution. If they decide it did happen, they find the defendant guilty and the judge passes a suitable sentence. If they decide it didn’t, the defendant walks free.
That’s all there is to a trial. The matter of whether the alleged events are criminal does not arise, because it’s already been decided by the police (who don’t arrest people for non-crimes) and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (who don’t prosecute people for non-crimes) that they ARE crimes.
Most of the things Alex Salmond was charged with were insanely trivial by any rational assessment, but they were still crimes or he couldn’t have been put on trial for them. If the jury decided he did them, they would have found him guilty, trivial or not. That’s their one and only job in a trial. Every other part – investigating, arresting, charging, prosecuting, sentencing – is up to someone else.
So when they acquitted him on every single charge, they were only making one finding – that beyond a reasonable doubt, the things he was accused of did not happen.
And no matter how much anyone tries to contort what a Not Guilty verdict does and doesn’t mean into smears and innuendo and “no smoke without fire” and all the rest of it, what they definitely, absolutely, categorically, unequivocally did NOT find is that “what they experienced wasn’t criminal”. Because that would have required the jury to find that they experienced anything at all, and the jury did not do that.
Not Guilty verdicts do not always mean that anyone has lied. But in a case like this one, where there is NO common ground between the accounts of the accusers and the accused, they must and they do. The jury did not believe ANY of the accusers, because if the things any of the accusers said had been true Salmond would have committed a crime and they’d have had no choice but to find him guilty on at least one or more of the charges.
But they heard all the evidence, every last word of it – which Nicola Sturgeon did NOT – and decided that the accusers were lying, that they had NOT experienced what they’d claimed to have. No other possible conclusion – especially in the context of the deeply suspect Moorov Doctrine upon which the prosecution case relied, and which depends entirely on the accusers being believed – can be drawn from the verdicts.
Not Guilty means not guilty (as does Not Proven). There is no verdict in law of “Guilty, but we don’t think it’s really serious enough to be a crime so we’re acquitting him”. “Guinnocent” and “innocuilty” are not things. There is no “Not guilty BUT”. We’ll say it again, because it’s important: it was the simple, unequivocal finding of the jury and of the court that the alleged crimes did not take place.
You know that, readers. We know it. The jury knew it. The judge knew it. The defence and the prosecution (which did not appeal the verdicts) knew it. Everyone in Scotland except Nicola Sturgeon and her vast malicious army of obedient government-funded mouthpieces like Rape Crisis Scotland knows it – and in reality, of course, they know it too, they’re just lying about it. The only mystery around the verdicts is why none of the accusers have yet been prosecuted for perjury.
For Sturgeon to have penned such a shameful, disgraceful, blatant, deliberate flat-out falsehood, for money, years later in cold blood, safe in the knowledge that she can defame a dead man, removes forever any doubt that she’s acted or spoken with any sincerity or integrity about the entire affair. She’s a liar, like everyone who conspired with her to jail an innocent man. It is our dearest wish to live to see her answer for it.
“It is our dearest wish to live to see her answer for it”. You’re not alone in that wish, Rev.
This. THIS ^^needs to be said, shared, then understood completely. She lied, and they lied. Alex can’t have his day in court, but by God I hope someone holds feet to the fire for those who made false accusations. Worse than her whose name I shall not utter, is the PF who took these pathetic lies into a Scottish Court. Such a weak case, a blatant waste of time and money.
I drove home via the Aberdeen WPR, thinking how that is possibly the last major infrastructure project completed in Scotland, Alex’s work, no one since has seen fit to built or commission anything worthy of note. Bleeping hell I’M STILL raging at it all. ????
While traditional defamation law might not apply, there are some possible legal routes:
a. Relatives suing for emotional distress
Family members might try to bring a claim like intentional infliction of emotional distress if the false statements are particularly outrageous.
This can be difficult to win and varies by jurisdiction.
Given the publicity the book would get, I don’t see how it could be viewed as anything other than outrageous and intentional. Family members would simply have been unable to avoid it.
Emotional distress would be highly difficult to prove, and would cost ££££.
An excellent post Rev, One thing has always puzzled me, since Alex was acquitted on all the charges – so that, as you correctly point out, the incidents which led to his arrest and charging have clearly been proved to not have happened: how is it, insteead of being charged with making false claims, wasting Police time, possible perjury etc, the so-called alphabet women were granted lifetime anonymity?
I reckon nothing would bring the whole conspiracy house of cards crashing down faster than if one or two of the alphabet women found themselves charged with criminal behaviour.
Or, finding a bit of concience, stepped out of the shadows and fussed up. Some of them were, after all, let down by the Scottish government.
Sturgeon worked as a solicitor in community law centres, only handling social welfare, housing, and family law issues.
Absolutely unqualified to understand criminal law… Then again she probably fully understands it but holds the Scottish public is such low disdain she thinks that if she says these things that she will be believed and the damage will be done.
Anyways it appears her book is in the bargain basement shelves already!!
Training to become a lawyer will HAVE HAD TO encompass, right from the get go, the function of the court (civil or criminal), and the difference between civil court actions and criminal court actions… thereafter, the student would go on to concentrate on a direction to specialise in.
So no lawyer in the civil side of things would have any difficulty in understanding how the courts work and how each part functions.
Precisely. The criminal law is a large part of any student lawyer’s education.
She knew (and knows) fine what she is doing.
A conspiracy was concocted between senior SNP, Scotgov, the Crown Office and the police to remove the biggest threat to her position (in her case) and to the the Union (in their and possibly her case too). That threat was Alex Salmond, and he had to be neutralised.
She has to maintain this position, because to do otherwise will open Pandora’s Box for her – and her co-conspirators.
There are other box-opening methods in play at the moment, and I pray God they will succeed.
So do I pray that they will succeed.
It’s one of my most unwavering hopes for the future.
“I obviously know some of the women involved”
Now wait a damned minute, didn’t she say in her evidence that she DIDN’T know ANY of the women involved?
No, she claimed not to know ALL of them.
Many thanks, must’ve gotten my lines crossed.
Big wheels keep on turning. What goes around comes around.
How Sturgeon can do this to Alex Salmonds family shows exactly how low she will sink. We thought we had seen the worst of her but it looks like she has plenty more to give. Alex Salmond will live on in history as a Scottish hero, she will not. Her bitter jealousy knows no limits in what she will do to try and claim some of the limelight for herself. I hope she and everyone else involved are called to account. My thoughts are with Moira.
Agreed. I’m been thinking about Moira a lot recently. I think Kenny McAskill put it best when he described Sturgeon as without honour. She really is a despicable character
Well said Lulu Bells.
NS is a cruel liar beyond belief. I really feel for Moira, and want there to be a court case so that the truth will out. Good for Joanna Cherry, who was also maltreated by the sturgeonites and their accomplices ie Swinney, Robertson, Keith Brown, to name but a few. It’s only when at last they are held to account and the air is cleared of all this festering wound, that Scotland can move on.
How did that idiot ever get a law degree??
For anyone labouring under the misapprehension that conspiracy against an individual, involving serious criminal allegations is too fanciful to be credible, let me describe my experience in this regard. About 10 years ago, I was arrested and incarcerated entirely because a small group of people chose to fabricate a fiction. Had the allegations been true, it is almost certain that my career would have been ruined and l would have been unable to get employed in my profession as a teacher. When the matter finally got to the courtroom, the
Sheriff quickly established that the witness statements were utterly unreliable and the case was dismissed, even before my solicitor had the opportunity to question the witnesses. So, the consequences for the liars who formed the conspiracy were nil. They just walked away, having caused more than a year of distress and trauma for my family.
I would have thought natural justice could do better than that….
The Guardian 24 Feb 2021
link to theguardian.com
Salmond may have questions to answer about past conduct, says Sturgeon
During her media briefing, Sturgeon referred to Salmond’s trial in March 2020 where he was acquitted of 14 charges of sexual assault, including one attempted rape, involving 10 women. Some of the complainants were SNP officials, others worked for the Scottish government.
The motives of those women were now being “maligned [and] have been accused of being liars and conspiracists”, she said.
“The behaviour complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, but that doesn’t mean the behaviour complained of didn’t happen and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that.”
Salmond, who alleges in his submissions there has been “a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort” by his former colleagues to destroy him, has been approached for a response.
Salmond pleaded not guilty and was acquitted of all 14 charges, but during his two-week trial acknowledged some incidents had taken place, including stroking the face of one junior official as she slept in a car next to him. He said he was trying to gently wake her up.
He told the jury he had kissed and caressed another former official in Bute House, the first minister’s official residence in Edinburgh, but denied her allegation in court that he attempted to rape her some months later.
He also admitted to having a “sleepy cuddle” with a female civil servant in his bedroom at Bute House, after drinking spirits. She had accused him of sexually assaulting her, including pulling up her dress. He told the jury that was not true but admitted later apologising to her in person.
He denied outright that he had fondled the knee of an SNP politician in a car and also denied he had touched another woman’s buttocks and breasts.
“I have never attempted to have non-consensual sexual relations with anyone in my entire life,” Salmond said. Some assault allegations were “deliberate fabrications for political purposes”, he told the jury. “Some are exaggerations that are taken out of proportion.”
——————————————————-
Even in 2021 she was making her false allegations against him in public.
I have posted “The behaviour complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, but that doesn’t mean the behaviour complained of didn’t happen and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that.” a number of times on here before.
So if Chris ‘Kumbaya For Indy’ McEleny had fake sexual assault charges levelled against him, and they were later proven to be fake, he’d be all forgiving sunshine and smiles and understanding, would he? Would his friends and family, especially the females, be fine with it all?
Think we all know the answer to that one.
The despicable legal attack on Salmond was a very female, underhanded one. Let women get away with this swill with impunity, and you set up any man in politics, or indeed this country, with the chance of being cynically set up in the same manner. This has to be contested. It’s too important not to. For the sake of the victims of REAL sexual assault, too, whose real experiences it also trivialises and demeans.
It’s a tactic used by the intelligence services.
They’re not very intelligent cause they’re currently deploying the same shit across European countries to remove political opponents & void elections where popular candidates might win & upset their apple cart (or have won & it’s been cancelled) If they don’t or won’t toe the line & be controlled as puppets they’ll bring out the lawfare, a sex scandal or blackmail them as named in the Epstein files. Probably the reason Trump won’t disclose it cause it’s political currency & a bought & paid for media attack dogs willing to spark up the propaganda press on their behalf.
The last thing this crap needs is for it being hidden & the falsely accused to just slink off & shut up. It needs dragged out into the spotlight like Trump did with USAID.
Well said, Stu.
My understanding, which may not be entirely accurate, is that Moira and family are now pursuing this case (a civil suit?), the delay having been due to Moira waiting on Alex’ estate to pass into her hands . . . and the case is being bankrolled by 4 individuals who are/were close friends of Alex and the family.
I’m sure someone will be along shortly to clarify. I could very well have picked this up wrongly.
“For Sturgeon to have penned such a shameful, disgraceful, blatant, deliberate flat-out falsehood, for money, years later in cold blood, safe in the knowledge that she can defame a dead man, removes forever any doubt that she’s acted or spoken with any sincerity or integrity about the entire affair.”
———————————————
As my earlier post proves – she made the accusations a long time before (in 2021) her book or Salmond’s death.
A lie is a lie no matter the timing..
Should have served time for contempt of court while her handlers and alphabetty mule/ handmaidens should have gone down for perjury..
Mind you, who was the Lord Advocate at the time?
Anyone?
Hmmmm..
Meant to add: and for perverting the course of justice..
She said something similar at the time – she should have been charged with contempt of court right then. Also, one of her professors was surprised she got a law degree. Finally, she was investigated by the law society twice, within a short space of time, and moved on by 2 law firms. She was/is stupid, lazy and not interested in her clients/ the public / anyone but herself.
Well Karen, I can only refer you to my younger days, around about 1970. At that time, I had a friend who was studying to become a solicitor. He was doing well except for one thing., he couldn’t get his head around Latin. That was his weak point. He had failed the Latin exam twice and was desperate to get that qualification, which was a requirement to become a lawyer.
In those days, before Sturgeon’s time, these exams seem to have been badly policed . I don’t know what I.D. Was required, but he managed to persuade a friend who had already passed the exam to take his place on the day of the test.
The friend passed and my friend became a solicitor. I’m not suggesting that Nicola Sturgeon used such tactics to qualify as a lawyer. I’m simply pointing out that every system has its weaknesses.
“I don’t know what I.D. was required…” Sounds like self-ID.
Also, I believe a few of the women were persuaded to give evidence in order to “support other women: – the Moorov Principle. They should not be named nor accused of perjury, but some of the others should, especially the one who wasn’t there!
link to scottishdailyexpress.co.uk
Moira Salmond told suing the SNP Government will damage independence movement
Alex Salmond’s widow has reportedly ordered lawyers to restart his court case against the Scottish Government after his reputation was ruined by sexual misconduct allegations.
Moira Salmond has been urged by one of her late husband Alex’s closest allies to drop plans to sue the Scottish Government – as it would damage the independence movement. She was reportedly angered by comments made by Nicola Sturgeon in her Frankly book about her former mentor.
She is now preparing to restart the legal action Mr Salmond initially lodged last year as he accused Ms Sturgeon and the SNP Executive of “malfeasance” and ruining his reputation by plotting a conspiracy against him. He faced sexual misconduct allegations in court, with information about a government probe being leaked to the Daily Record.
But Chris McEleny, who was one of Mr Salmond’s closest allies, believes the case should be dropped so that the movement to break up the UK can heal. He thinks that it will have a negative impact on how many votes the Alba Party will win at the 2026 Holyrood Election.
And he also insisted that the former First Minister would not have pursued the case if he was still alive as he was using it to scare the SNP Government. He had already defeated it in court once, with a judge ruling that the government’s probe into him was “tainted with apparent bias” and officials admitting it had been unlawful.
———————————————————–
I can’t believe that Salmond would not have pursued the case.
Scottish Daily Express – enough said.
He was already perusing it before he died.
Neither can I.
And I think Chris is wrong about the movement healing if the case is DROPPED.
As Del Boy would say ‘Au contraire, Rodney.’
Aye, this type of attitude & insensitive comment would harm ALba more than it would the independence movement.
If he actually did say that cause the Express isn’t exactly known to be a reliable source. It’s a unionist rag written for the knuckle draggers.
I don’t have confidence in Mr McE’s history to be influenced by either his position or judgement.
Same, Alastair.
And I agree with what Geri said.
I despise the senior officials in our Justiciary for overseeing and ignoring this egregious destruction of what was once a world renowned and respected legal system, that they have sat idly by while corrupt liars deviants and perverts have ripped asunder any semblance of integrity or honesty that the system was feted for
It begs the question just how powerful was the deviant who had no fear that her actions would be exposed, who was protecting her and ensuring that she would remain in position to undermine any move toward independence
Absolutely TH, have stated it years ago too.
There is just no way Miss H could send out a Whatsapp message to a group saying something along the lines of “I know a way we can proceed with this endeavour and remain anonymous”, unless they had run it by or been informed of such a route by some people in extremely high positions within the legal and prosecution systems.
Proper separation of powers in Scotland may have stopped such a shitshow in its tracks.
But that it took English Conservative MP David Davis to step up and use his parliamentary privilege to try to raise awareness of what was / is going on also speaks volumes of the numerous Scottish MPs who failed to do what Davis did whilst they held the same privileged position and protection of freedom of speech of a level above the common citizen.
David Davis’s speech is online here:
youtu.be/DmUBy74A7Tw?si=TTNo10-E2dUKMSgR
Aye, Fearghas. And there’s also various articles on here too.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
link to wingsoverscotland.com
No separation of powers in Scotland. The Chief Scottish Legal bod sits in the Scottish Cabinet. No opportunity for MSP’s to speak freely in Holyrood. Etc Etc.
No prizes for guessing why things were set up like this- Devolved Scotland is a basket case.
Absolutely.
One good thing about Brain Surgeon Sturgeon is that, in her self-aggrandising book publication, she’s given her pleas and plans away before the case kicks in. The prosecution now know what she thinks and how to pull it apart, how to work against it.
By saying quite clearly illegal, illogical, immoral, unethical, vengeful, caustic, deluded, mendacious things of the type several bloggers have been easily pulling apart and disproving, she’s given the prosecution ammo to use against her. Not like she can deny the contents of her own autobio, is it? All for a last desperate self-justifying sejourne in the attention-grabbing hot media sun.
And now the sun is setting.
She’ll have a lot of time to think about it all in the wee small chilly London hours over the coming revelatory years.
She really is pigshit thick, isn’t she? It’s only with this publication, and her victim-mentality whining recently, that we’ve really gotten a good long look at the peanut-stuffed shite clogging up her skull. No lawyers, no intermediaries, just retro-falsified diaries and a tornado of restorative justice coming her sick and twisted and evil way. Couldn’t happen to a better bitter Machiavellian misandrist.
The truth needs to be told.
That’s it, that’s my comment.
And those who aided, in any way, hiding the truth – Need jailed. For a very long time.
On a completely different subject – Scotland has, I believe, never jailed a lord advocate. I wonder if it’s beyond the realms of possibility that Scotland will quickly jail two lord advocates ?
On another completely different subject, Sir Keir says we have freedom of speech – Sir Keir is an infamous liar.
Hopefully, soon we can all cross the Rubicon.
The issue that you are raising is only highlighted through the Alex Salmond case. Issues such rape, sexual assaults, and many kinds of fraud place juries in very difficult, sometimes impossible positions.
A jury does not only have to decide if an accused is guilty, not guilty or innocent but, more worryingly, if a crime has even been committed. When Fred Bloggs appears accused of a bank robbery there is no issue about if a bank robbery ever occurred. Simply, he was guilty or is he being “fitted up” by the polis.
Forget the nonsense that is spoken and written about the effectiveness of DNA evidence, with sex crimes all that proves is if sex occurred. The key issue of contention will almost always be if consent was given or, even more worryingly, did the accused have reasonable grounds to believe that consent was given. The accused and the accuser rarely have any witnesses over the issue of consent and it would be wrong to assume any prior “closeness” amounts to consent. Also the frequent presence further complicates matters.
Two competing narratives can exist without any objective method of assessing their accuracy or reliability. This means the jury has two tasks: assessing if a crime occurred and was the accused guilty or innocent. This is why the character of the accuser and the accused occupy such a central role. Judgements of this type are built into these kinds of trials. An outcome solely based on belief without objective evidence is a dangerous way to proceed.
With respect to Alex Salmond, character assassination was the goal that was being sought and the desperate desire to create an atmosphere of guilty even after being established as innocent was so visible for a long time in the established narrative.
You write, “If you’re charged with murder, the jury isn’t asked to determine whether murder is a crime. They’re asked to decide whether the defendant did what they’re accused of by the prosecution. If they decide it happened, they find the defendant guilty and the judge passes sentence. If they decide it didn’t, the defendant walks free.”
This is correct. But we need to be concerned about turning juries into investigators whose task requires them to decide if, or when a crime has ever occurred. That complicates their purpose giving them a task for which they may be entirely unsuited.
In this case, though, witness testimony proved that not only did no crimes take place, but the events being described were invented – they never happened. (e.g the individual referred to as ‘H’ was proven to not have been in the building on the night of their invented accusations). Jail the lot of them for perjury.
“With respect to Alex Salmond, character assassination was the goal”
=======
Specifically, to lodge the two terms “Salmond” and “rape” in the same tabloid headline.
Superb Stu.
She’s a narcissist & has NPD. You could sit them down & go through every single minute detail, present them with hard evidence & even have a team of witnesses & you will not change their mind. They’ll still believe their own confabulated version of events & stick to it.
They also set out to ruin anyone who has crossed them & they’ll drag it on & on & on forever – even when they’re no longer around.
The family should take out an injunction or something that forbids her from ever talking about him & this case cause she won’t stop until the law makes her stop defaming him in public. It’s evil what she’s doing & she seems to get away with it.
I agree with socratesmacsporran – why are they allowed to remain anonymous after the case is closed & why has no one been charged with perjury & obvious bias when even the Judge could see what a farce this was in the first trial?
It reeks of the security services.
I ask myself what does she have that makes the national and the SNP membership worship her? When she’s a failure in law and in politics too. Its not her looks, nor is it her height, so what is it?
Every single thing that comes out of her mouth is a dig at Salmond or the Indy movement and yet she’s worshiped with love and devotion. Let’s be honest she hasn’t done anything to deserve this admiration from anyone in Scotland.
Has anyone notice she talks about Independence with a smirk on her face, when we all know she’s the one who destroyed it.
At least Salmond was alive when he was cleared, and it must eat away at her like a cancer, that’s who she is.
Trust me nothing remains buried for ever. She’ll live with the fear every single day of the knock at the door. Now she’s not leader of the SNP who else is having to deal with their conscience, because guilt can weigh heavy on a person and sooner or later someone will want to tell all, Peter Murrell might just just be that person.
All we have to do is sit back and wait, she believes she’s been protected by the MSM, British state and most importantly by her friends in the SNP. She’s a foolish woman because she done her job for the British state for the moment, she stopped Indyref2 and for the British state she has no more value to them and let’s be honest the English do love to sacrifice Scots more importantly one’s who have no monetary value.
If Alex’s down fall wasn’t at the behest of the British state why or why would the MSM and the UKG want to save her, she had nothing to offer other than block Scotland departure from the Union.
“I ask myself what does she have that makes the national and the SNP membership worship her? When she’s a failure in law and in politics too. Its not her looks, nor is it her height, so what is it?”
Paid goons, the security services & a heavy dose of propaganda. Sturgeons only fans are in her head & the National is trying to flog it that she’s beloved.
Independence must never happen & if they assassinate/defame/overthrow the shepherd then the sheep will disperse. Their weapon of choice always seems to centre around a sex scandal or five. Ironic really given Epstein Island.
It’s amazing all the agencies they employ these days scattered amongst government aids & NGOs sowing malcontent & poisoning parliaments everywhere around the globe & to monitor & crush any dissent.
Scotland should take a leaf out of Orbans/ Georgia Dreams book & pass a law in parliament that unveils the ‘foreign agents & their donors’ for the voting public to see.
100%Yes says:
19 August, 2025 at 6:53 pm
“I ask myself what does she have that makes the national and the SNP membership worship her? When she’s a failure in law and in politics too. Its not her looks, nor is it her height, so what is it?”
==========
Give the devil het due. She is a performative politician of the very highest calibre: in the same league as Blair, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Trump.
Unlike any of them, she has no significant accomplishment as a legacy
No separation of powers in Scotland. The Chief Scottish Legal bod sits in the Scottish Cabinet. No opportunity for MSP’s to speak freely in Holyrood. Etc Etc.
No prizes for guessing why things were set up like this- Devolved Scotland is a basket case.
Yes Alex Salmond was found not guilty by a jury who heard All of the facts in court. The best of it is is he was found not guilty by a mainly female jury.
Somebody is telling great big porkie pies still and we know that it’s not Alex.
“The Moorov doctrine allows the prosecution to introduce evidence of prior similar acts to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour, making it more probable that the accused committed the current offense .”
So amazingly from the initial 2, a further 12 surface
Non of who had pre the SG investigation raised complaints .
The police interviewed 386 people of interest for evidence but it garnered no other evidence of illegal conduct.
“It is our dearest wish to live to see her answer for it”.
That woman has so much to answer for e.g, destruction of Yes movement, queering the SNP and ruining Scotland’s public institutions and services etc, never mind the appalling Salmond case, that I, frankly(!), hope to live to see her answer for bloody any of them! Preferably all!
“The only mystery around the verdicts is why none of the accusers have yet been prosecuted for perjury.”
Exactly. Right after Alex was found innocent, those women were appearing in the media, claiming he was guilty. Anonymity should be lifted once it has been proved that the accusers lied.
One of those women had even written an article praising him to the high heavens when he resigned, which was only a few months after the event that she claimed happened.
How many women do you know who would eulogise someone they say attempted to rape them?
Is there anything we can do to force them to answer for their perjury?
I don’t remember any of the women appearing in the media after he had been found not guilty.
They all ‘signed’ a letter to the National
@ Oneliner
You mean this one:
“Be brave, be loud, be heard.
Signed, Woman A, Woman B, Woman C, Woman D, Woman F, Woman, G, Woman H, Woman J, Woman K”
?
I seem to remember one being on telly. Identity remaining anonymous speaking in a darkened room.
“Be brave, be loud, be heard.”
& HIDE?!!!! LOL!
WTF – what’s big & brave about signing an anonymous letter FFS?
‘Be brave’ – that’s the one.
There may or may not be other appearance(s) by one or none or more than one more recently or some time ago – you know how jigsaws are.
Not being brave, I can’t recall.
‘Be brave’ – that’s the one
My previous attempt at a reply didn’t get past moderation
@ Geri says:19 August, 2025 at 9:37 pm
“what’s big & brave about signing an anonymous letter FFS?”
Don’t leave us dangling – answer the question yourself.
@ agent x says: 19 August, 2025 at 9:14 pm
“Signed, Woman A, Woman B, Woman C, Woman D, Woman F, Woman, G, Woman H, Woman J, Woman K”
Knowing what we do now, how many of them are real women? And how would we tell?
Does anybody know if the following defence has been used in trials for inappropriate behaviour in Scotland?
“Honest Your Honour, there was something a bit off about her, so I just had to check it was all attached, and that she wasn’t packing ‘junk’”.
What jury of normal men could convict after that explanation by the defendant?
…. ‘and some have greatness (state protection) thrust upon them’
Workplace harassment and criminality though, they’re different things. It’s possible for behaviour to meet the threshold for workplace harassment, but not the bar for criminality.
Sorry Stu, this is objectively untrue.
There are plenty of trials where the facts are essentially agreed between the prosecution and the defence and the matter to be decided is whether those facts constitute the commission of a criminal offence. Trials on question of fact are proportionately more common, but trials hearing questions of law are by no means rare.
Not to burst your soapy bubble or anything, “Aidan”, but this was a trial of facts and the jury rightfully decided that the events being described did not happen.
If there was an agreement over the facts, why have there been no civil cases concerning these alleged ‘facts’?
Probably because the perjurers, incredibly, have been given lifelong anonymity.
And…?
What’s your point caller?
Nice one rev and as you say perjury is a crime so why has there been no prosecutions.
Because it’s not in the public interest, a.k.a those of the British State.
National Security will prevent Police Scotland and the COPFS from going anywhere near those who clearly lied in court under oath, and as Craig Murray, Alex Salmond, Willie Macrae and others have all discovered to their financial, reputational, mental & physical health, and indeed mortal cost, the British State does not play nice if you’re perceived as being a clear and present danger to the continuance of the status quo.
Yes, ‘whenever colonialism is imperiled’ we do not have long to wait before ‘it reveals its fangs’, confirming that colonialism ‘is force’ (Fanon) and sits at the ‘root of fascism’ (Cesaire).
Tbf prosecuting for perjury is pretty rare. If you think about the thousands of trials where it seems fairly clear someone could be lying after a verdict it would be impossible to bring them all to court for purely practical reasons. Actually proving perjury would then have its own trial and arguments with no guarantee of success (how do you prove a lie rather than mistaken memory for example?). The weight of it on the justice system would be untenable.
Cause the judge in the first trial was absolutely scathing in his summing up. He knew it was “unfair, flawed & tainted by apparent bias”
He should’ve had them done for wasting the courts time at the very least.
Same with the 2nd trial. It was farcical. Who knew tugging someone’s curls (a regular office joke by various accounts) was a criminal offence & it was proven that the more serious crime – the woman wasn’t even in the building (confirmed by various witnesses & a diary I’m sure) when she alleged it happened. Pretty open & shut case right in front of a judge shed have sworn an oath in front of beforehand.
“prosecuting for perjury is pretty rare”
Indeed so, except perhaps where it is deemed to be in the ‘public interest’, and where we might even find “the longest-running perjury case in Scottish legal history”:
link to bbc.com
Another tragic tale along auld Scotlands long story..
I was going to say “if only Laurentia and Avalonia hadn’t crashed together in distant prehistory” then maybe none of this would have happened but then again project “make the world England” touched every continent..
A bit like a wasp crawling over the cakes at a fancy garden party (that we were invited along in the main to do the cleaning and provide security)..
The only exception would be if she’s alleging “Jury Nullification”.
I believe the later attempts to introduce jury less trials was lead by spiteful vindictive people angered by the acquittal of Alex Salmond on these fictional charges.
Most people who are not legally qualified will have a rough idea why and when anonymity is needed.
Will the thomas hamilton lookalike be given a chance to tell all by some publisher after the end of any possible legal proceedings.
You said something along the same lines a few years ago, in a piece called “Judges, juries and horseshit”, and banned commenters who tried, courteously and rationally, to explain why you were wrong. Since then I’ve never trusted anything you say, though it’s often amusing to read. So I don’t know how I’ll go with trying to explain it again.
You say “they were still crimes or he couldn’t have been put on trial for them”. Wrong. The prosecutors thought they were crimes.
The judge gives the definition of the crime in question (including, where the facts alleged raise some difficult or unusual angle, making a legal decision as to how to instruct the jury).
The jury decides exactly what happened, and then decides whether that is a sexual assault, or whatever, according to the definition explained to them by the judge.
And of course it is always a possibility (if usually a remote one) that the jury (or some of them) have given a “perverse verdict”; perhaps less unlikely in this case than usual, because of the obvious witchhunt by the police against Salmond.
I think I mentioned some of this in my article at link to jeremydaw.github.io
Can I maybe suggest Rev Stu that it might be timely to do a piece on Sturgeon’s ignonimous past and how she was found guilty by the Law Society of malpractice in the case of a vulnerable woman.
The story of the end of her career as a lawyer is not widely known. Indeed it is fair I think to say that her end as a solicitor was kept pretty quiet.
Malpractice however and conduct unbecoming of a solicitor is not a admiral characteristic and I think the public at this time would welcome a commentary on Sturgeon’s hitherto widely unknow behaviour.
Moreover, there should be questions as to why with her history she was accepted as suitable for selection as a candidate to stand and secure election as an MSP.
Willie,
I believe was poor dealings with one client that had to be corrected by another solicitor and client fees waived. She was investigated for malpractice by LS but was not sanctioned.
Note career path of the then investigating lawyer and who signed it off.
Here’s a link to an article on the Justice Diaries site.
link to petercherbi.wordpress.com
I asked Grok to summarise this article:
“She’s a liar”
There are some serious conclusions to be drawn from all of this pathetic, juvenile, tribal in-fighting.
The SNP saw fit to make a known failure and liar its leader, and thus leader of my country, Scotland.
When she decided she had had enough, they made a hapless, useless foreigner my country’s leader in her place. Because they thought it a bit of a lark. He lasted a year before departing to the great relief of every True Scot everywhere.
Although draped in the saltire, and spouting all the right words, the SNP pour contempt and heap disgrace, failure and above all, dishonour on Scotland.
None of this will be forgotten, not in a thousand years. The history books are not going to be kind to them. Nor to the eejits and fantasists who put them in control and sustain them in place to this day.
A country that still remembered what it is to have dignity and honour would have thrown the entire cabal of them on the streets long ago. And if their sorry hides were still intact afterwards, it would be down to the qualities of mercy and forbearance the citizens of a country of dignity and honour would have.
Look I’m not a fan of Humza – he went along with Nicola’s dangerous anti female legislation – but he was born in Glasgow and he is Scottish. He is not “foreign”. Keep your 1930s blood & soil politics to yourself.
That’s “Reform” for you, Marie.
Half wits, bigots and racists.
He redirected quarter of a million quid of public money to a foreign ‘charity’ connected to his family’s interests.
Whether the foreign or the nepotistic element is more important is to be debated.
He also said his family’s future in Scotland is not decided. Again whether this is due to divided loyalties, or touting his availability to international organisations could be argued.
But neither are actions of deep rooted Scots.
@ James says: 20 August, 2025 at 12:22 pm
“That’s “Reform” for you, Marie. Half wits, bigots and racists.”
BBC is reporting at least one SNP-led council is imitating the English lead and looking at taking legal action to get the migrant crims, grifters and spongers out.
Best post a one-handed criticism, James.
A fine eulogy of how the uk establishment can spread its vile, poisonous corruption throughout a nation through deceit, lies and fraud.
You can smirk and taunt all you like, but there will be a day of reckoning.
Independence will happen. All you should be worried about is the ruination of England, which is well under way.
Oh do fuck off, ya racist eejit.
The people of Scotland voted in legitimate, legal & democratic elections & they duly elected the SNP to govern Scotland, REPEATEDLY – whether independence supporters or the best of both worlds cowardly mob “cause I like their policies but I’m still be No” Unionists.
Hark at you on about disgrace & dishonour. Have you seen the shit next door for the last 300 yrs? A variable mix of kiddie fiddlers, thieves, thickos, racketeering, corruption & Satanic pig shaggers as well as their sisters.
Say what you like about Dumbza but at least he lasted longer than a lettuce, wasn’t punch drunk falling over himself serving a particular foreign agent & it’s jennyside or accepting clothing grants, wallpaper & soft furnishings LOL!
Go pound dirt & piss off back to yer motherland. Reform is calling you back home. Just think of all the fun you could have on the beach shouting at boats..I’m sure we’d all chip in for a one way ticket for you…
“the shit next door”
Scotland has more sexual deviants, predators, groomers, paedophiles and rapists per head of population than the rest of the Union put together.
Is there a children’s home untouched?
Christmas came for the filth when Sturgeon took control.
Vote for the Lettuce every time.
Keep it up, “Geri” !
Every foul-mouthed, abusive post you make helps Scotland avoid the living hell indy would bring !
Well done !
@Barbs says: 20 August, 2025 at 10:50 am
“fuck off”
Spare a thought for those unfortunates who go through life with nowt but air between their plastic ears. They’re incompetent to realise they don’t get to control who can post on here – the site owner fulfils that role.
“Scotland voted in legitimate, legal & democratic elections & they duly elected the SNP”
In true chip-shop rammie style, Barbie immediately circles the wagons to protect Sturgeon, Yousaf, the alphabetties, the genderwoo, the whole works. In her world view, Scotland’s excellence at being shite is a source of pride and she will protect that reality against all criticism. She doesn’t want better, or even competent, if it comes from an ideologically unsound source. Her attitude embodies the living Scottish truth of Stewie’s immortal words: “You may be a douchebag, but you’re MY douchebag”.
“Hark at you on about disgrace & dishonour. Have you seen the shit next door”
Typical of the low expectations and knee-high aspirational ambitions of the cult.
“kiddie fiddlers”
Look! A squirrel! Quick, roll him down the hill in a barrel of burning tar. Don’t listen to anything he says or she’ll call you a kiddie fiddler too.
“jennyside”
Look! Another squirrel! Is it just me, or does that one look like it’s been skulking in a tunnel for near 2 years, over-eating and not exercising? How else would a big fat squirrel turn bright yellow?
“piss off”
Spare a thought for those unfortunates who go through life with nowt but air between their plastic ears. They’re incompetent to notice when they’re repeating themself.
“we’d all chip in for a one way ticket”
Naw. Schemies like you winna put their hands in their pockets for anything. Tell you what though, Barbs. I reckon plenty alert readers on here would crowdfund you a return to Moscow so we can find out how your love child scheme with poot pans out. Is your new “works” down below ready for action yet?
Why was Alex Salmond taken to the High Court and saved from this malicious prosecution by a public jury?
Why were Alex Salmond’s false accusers extended extraordinary anonymity and apparent immunity from perjury? People were even sent to jail for “not” naming them.
The circumstances of this skullduggery, if proven of course, outdoes Americas Watergate Scandal in terms of malicious intent.
Even with a lightweight appreciation of Watergate, you can see that the break in and subsequent coverup scandal always stood in fear of investigation, exposure by the State institutions and Legal Justice. At it’s heart was political cheating which blew up into corruption.
Not so Scotland. The takedown of Salmond was a nasty take-down intended to destroy an honourable man; cynical and orchestrated by a “process” which showed no fear whatsoever of the judicial establishment. The investigation, the narrative made public, the trial and extraordinary protection given to false witnesses is the equivalent of Watergate but with the State enforcing the coverup, not the culprits. It was, all of it, rigged and asymmetrical against a lonely individual.
You had Alex Salmond alone versus the collusion and conspiracy of turncoats, fabricated accusations, disgraceful Lord Advocate and CPS, police investigation, Judiciary, and rabidly one sided media. We even know proof of that collusion is suppressed and redacted.
All Alex Salmond had on his side was innocence and a public jury, notably neither being a component part of the “system”.
Thank god that Alex Salmond was acquitted, but we will NEVER see justice while the corrupt rotten system running Scotland is free to mark its own homework and act without honour or integrity.
Sturgeon should be rotting in prison, not flogging her lies on the rancid UK media.But she was of use to the UK Establishment and the Ministry of Truth will look after it’s own.
I despair that Scotland retains faith in Legal Justice in the same way I despair in the commonly held belief that Independence will be furthered by UK “democracy”.
Our nation is dysfunctional, and our Establishment, in it’s daily business, before addressing any question of justice, propriety or candid honesty, there is the ominous spectre of whether the conclusion being deliberated upon will weaken the Union and embolden the Scots.
We see in the USA that nearly every senator and politician is funded to some degree by AIPAC, with AIPAC observing and steering their every activity. The influence is extraordinary and the US Establishment serve’s Israeli interests before even US interests. What conclusion can be reached but that Scotland suffers under similar compromise, and dutifully serves UK interests before Scotlands. In Scotland its been that way for over 300 years.
This is UK gatekeeping, and we Independentists are the livestock being penned in behind that gate.
I always felt independence and freedom were the same thing. But this unchecked corruption and rotten establishment running loose in our nation will blight an Independent Scotland. Scotland will only thrive once we are free of it. It really is about freedom.
`Positive discrimination`
the promotion of diversity over ability.
All aspects of western society are now being run by those promoted through positive discrimination instead of ability.
Indeed, Scot.
And that is why DEI must die.
Many excellent comments and all I wanted to add is how this sorry saga absolutely demands judicial investigation once and for all to conform what really went on. Is there no crowdfunding site to help Moira with her legal team expenses. This case simply must be pursued, given Nicole as relit the fuse
“It is our dearest wish to live to see her answer for it.”
Ditto
==================================================================
Off topic.
I hope that Center Parcs do not get “the right to roam right” removed from their latest Holiday Village scheme. Scottish Borders Council needs to stop being corrupt and this stinks of corruption.
With Alex being acquitted of all charges by a jury,
Surely Nicola Sturgeon now falls into a catagory of her own making. That the authorities can now investigate, as she continues.
She must fall into her own net of “A Hate Crime” , and she went as far as putting it in writing, a thought crime inacted.
She could be charged for those crimes.
No, they stitched up her resignation and arrest to allow cronies to remain in control, and no purges from the top echelons of Scottish justice.
They cannot go for her without be outed for their own part in the conspiracies.
Geri,
Ignore them, cos the Scotland – England treaty of union ended in 1801. Thereafter it became the Anglo- Irish treaty,
England just tagged on Scotland,
I would love to hear the SNP and devolved governance being done now in court for a slew of Hate crimes against Alex Salmond and his family,
It stank then and stinks now. 1) the process was not intended, originally, for politicians, but civil servants; 2) it was extended, retrospectively (almost always a bad move) to include First Ministers, specifically, it would appear, one FM, in particular; 3) the police had to solicit (no pun intended) information about other incidents apart from the original ones in order to use the Moorov Doctrine.
Several of the women would never have even reported any incident if they had not been overawed by the process of the police investigation. Realistically – snowflakes aside – how many women would decide to report anyone for touching hair, putting a hand on a knee, stroking a face, etc.? Women deal with these things every day, and it is only when persistence takes over that they can decide to take further steps. Most of the women never dreamed of reporting anything and the trial was an ordeal for them, too.
I get so sick of men saying that this was a female thing: that all the women deliberately tried to drag a man down out of spite. Yes, some might have – we know it happens, no point in denying it – but it does not go to trial every other day. This is absolute nonsense and happens infrequently. More often, women just put up with low-level bad behaviour and deal with it themselves. We do not run to the police and courts over trivia – trivia that is annoying and wearying, granted, but trivia, nevertheless. In the vast majority of cases brought for sexual assault, the charges are for serious matters.
Having said that, a criminal trial must show that the accused had intent to commit the crime with which he/she has been charged and for which he/she is standing trial. The jury patently did not believe that Mr Salmond intended to carry out the charges alleged at trial, and the evidence, such as it was, did not convince the jury. That is, they did not believe that he had the mens rea (criminal intent) necessary for conviction, no matter what he was alleged to have done or not done.
That is the crucial point: the evidence was not of a sufficient standard to stand up to scrutiny and he was acquitted. Remember, he, himself, said, “I have done nothing criminal”. That should have been an end to the carping, but, of course, it wasn’t because Unionist journalists, among others, thought they had the scoop of the century and would see Mr Salmond fall. That was when the ‘no smoke without fire’ nonsense started.
By the way, a ‘Not Proven’ verdict has the exact same function as a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict. Conviction in any trial relies on the jury or judge believing the evidence meets the required standard of criminality and believing in the criminal intent of the accused. In the Salmond case, the jury believed neither. Thinking that a ‘Not Proven’ verdict leaves a bad smell that the accused should carry around all his life is patently silly. At one time, Scots Law relied on the ‘Proven’ and ‘Not Proven’ verdicts because Scots Law is – or was – eminently sensible and logical. Both ‘Not Guilty’ and ‘Not Proven’ mean that the evidence is tainted or unbelievable or the accused’s mindset does not meet the standard for ‘mens rea’ or criminal intent.
Belief in a conspiracy is more or less unavoidable, but not all the women participated in that conspiracy, and it was the police investigate that unearthed them and their subsequent evidence, such as it was. I wouldn’t blame the police or the fiscal service either because they, too, were caught up in what was, very likely, a political decision to remove a thorn in the side with an accusation of sexual assault and a tendency to commit sexual assault (Moorov), and I don’t believe that the majority of the women were active parties to it.
Remember, too, that the British Civil Service, in Whitehall, advised against the illegal procedure from the beginning, warning that it could blow up in the faces of the Scottish Civil Service. Hunting down former Prime (First) Ministers for misdemeanours is not a sport favoured by the British Establishment. They might have benefited from Mr Salmond’s removal from front-line politics – which he might well have returned to – but this was wholly home-grown in Scotland.
Some weren’t co conspirators. Wasn’t it Lesley Evans who decided upon herself to get the police involved & some of the women were horrified she’d acted without their permission & broke their confidentiality?
There’s various levels of deep state activity as we’re finding out via the Epstein scandal & just how high & widespread the network goes & it’s worldwide. The wealthy & the elite seem to have a whole separate intelligence gathering & muck spreading agency of their own independent of government agencies. So while Whitehall may have publicly said: Naw, don’t do it! Another one thinks Fck it! Go for it. Nae flies on us! As they whisper to NGOs & drop funds into their bank balance..
Whitney Webb is doing a sterling investigative job of uncovering all these hidden networks & their connections to government, Royalty, Hollywood, Elite modeling agencies, Music industry & so on…I think we can safely assume the Law is there too.
Leslie Evans boss was the PM. Not Sturgeon. She’s another who didn’t lose her job or be held to account despite embarrassing the courts & costing the Scottish government £thousands on a botched case.
I agree, Geri, that at least a number of the women were not co conspirators at all but were drawn into the case to ‘corroborate’ through the Moorov Doctrine on some things that were laughably lame when offered as evidence. The police investigation scared them, I think, and they thought they were doing the right thing. I have been told that one potential witness name was given to the police by a third party who had, supposedly, witnessed something that the woman had never had any intention of reporting, as she did not consider it to be a matter for the criminal law. I can imagine that the police and the prosecution must have felt a bit used, too. The thing is, so many actions can be misinterpreted or interpreted differently by different people. In hindsight, perhaps Mr Salmond was going to make a comeback to front-line politics, but even if not, he lost his RT position and was tarnished by the constant sniping and innuendo.
Lorn, you are perhaps forgetting that the main actors in this case included senior UK civil servants, crown and police, all of whom are answerable to somebody in Whitehall.
In addition, there are always the ‘confidential agents pensioned off at high reward’ (Cesaire) beavering away in a colonial society.
And, lets not forget also that “A criminal conduct authorisation may … be granted in relation to a covert human intelligence source” if this is deemed to be “(a)in the interests of national security; or (c)in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
link to legislation.gov.uk
Yes, indeed, Alf. The Mandarins in Whitehall were the bosses of the Scottish Civil Service and still are, but they warned the SCS not to pursue Mr Salmond. Think about it, Alf. This could have set a precedent and opened up a whole can of worms at Westminster – and it might not have been women and adult heterosexual encounters in the balance, but other even less savoury escapades.
They ploughed on regardless. Now, given what has been happening at every level of public service since then, that ploughing on – and on and on in the teeth of common sense, logic and rationality, and any advice to the contrary – appears to be endemic in the SNP leadership cabal and the civil service up here, wouldn’t you say?
I know it is almost de rigueur to blame the Brits for everything, and while I would accept that they benefited obliquely from the whole mess, I really cannot accept that they were the instigators of it. You are entitled to your opinion, though, and I might be wrong, Alf. That is one thing about Alec Salmond: he understood the British Establishment, but he never hated them. We all should learn that lesson.
The most discouraging thing is not the mince contained in the book, no less would be expected.
It’s the soft ride she has had from large sections if not the majority of the media for someone that ought to be a pariah in any decent society. And that large audiences, if not quite the size that might have been, still buy tickets and turn up.
If the media were to find much of her downfall out of bounds due to the legal actions, they should have refused the interviews and PR spin. It is over 4 years since Branchform kicked off and there is still no detail to the public or any of the key players explanation out in public. We had the farce of a leadership contest with the arrests kept until the day after the result, and a UK election and possibly a Scottish election to come without any further development. It is banana republic territory.
And of course, the fact her faction still commands much of the party.
Is it possible she who I will not name is preparing the ground for a Dugdale defence? I.e. she did it! Everyone knows she did it, but she’s too thick, ignorant and stupid to be held to account for it.? I can’t comprehend any other reason for her so consistently mouthing such inane lies and bullsh%t. Just a thought…
Rapists per 100,000 of population.
England 117.3 2022
Scotland 29.4 2023-24
Assuming these numbers are correct, a more accurate statement might be to assign the numbers to those convicted of rape, rather than the number of rapists.
The numbers convicted are low and do not reflect the prevalence of the crime. This is true in every jurisdiction because it is a crime that is notoriously difficult to prove because it is not a spectator sport, normally.
Convicted rapists
Men who rape and commit serious sexual assaults are in the minority. The vast majority of men do not commit rape or sexual assault. Likewise, the vast majority of women do not run to the police or courts and lie about having been raped. Most are telling the truth. Not all, granted. False accusations run at about the same as false allegations for other crimes – about 2-3% of the overall rape statistics. All men are, potentially, rapists, and all women are, potentially, liars about rape, but neither men nor women habitually rape or lie about rape.
In both the UK (and Scotland) and the US, studies done have shown up till recently that having a jury that had more women on it gave a higher chance of a man accused of rape being acquitted. That has been changing for a couple or more of decades now.
“Assuming these numbers are correct” we need to also look at the ethnicity of the perps.
Just as we need to do with all other crimes. All other statistics in fact.
But for fecking obvious reasons, that’s a step that the likes of Sam, his handlers and his army of useful idiots will fight tooth and nail to the last ditch to stop ever happening.
A cool-headed assessment of the links between immigration and crime (very defo including sexual offences) as they apply in Germany:
link to unherd.com
It also touches on the links between immigration and benefits claiming, and the links between immigration and the rise of right-wing political movements.
School meals too. Ours have long been shaped by immigration, but how many ordinary, apolitical people have ever twigged even that?
A great article Stuart, full of passion and fire. Well worth the Ten Bob a year I send you. Many thanks.
There’s something else about all this – apparently some of these women did NOT want to go to the police but were cajoled into it by the cabal. Presumably the whole process of a trial, having to give evidence – and not being believed (which is exactly the implication of the ‘not guilty’ verdicts) must have been ‘traumatising’. Does Sturgeon feel any responsibility for inflicting that on these women?
And Stu is 100% to say the verdicts mean the jury didn’t believe the women. It was never a case that *somebody* sexually assaulted these women, it was specifically that Salmond did. If Salmond didn’t do it, then it’s not like the *real* perpetrator is still out there somewhere, it’s that there was no crime committed at all.
F@ck me, but the prosecution, police and courts must be either incompetent or corrupt to have prosecuted this case in the first place. A corrupt and incompetent clique the lot of em!
I saw Sturgeon in Galashiels a few years ago.