The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The man who ruined Scotland

Posted on March 02, 2021 by

We’re just watching today’s session of the Fabiani inquiry, featuring the Lord Advocate, the Crown Agent and the Principal Crown Counsel. There’s been an extremely long preamble from both Fabiani and James Wolffe mainly concerned with the anonymity order passed by Lady Dorrian during (not before) Alex Salmond’s trial, which is the foundation stone of everything crooked that’s happened around the Salmond case.

The order – and for clarity we make no suggestion whatsoever that this was its intent – is the basis for every piece of evidence that’s been suppressed in the inquiry, and for the prosecutions of Mark Hirst, Craig Murray and others, and also for the threats of prosecution issued to this site, The Spectator and to Alex Salmond himself, preventing him giving his evidence in full to the inquiry.

And we couldn’t help wondering how different things would have been, how much less damage would have been done to the integrity and credibility of the entire Scottish political and legal establishment, if it hadn’t been for this guy.

Byline Times court reporter James Doleman – extraordinarily, as he’s a specialist court journalist and as such knows the rules better than most – tweeted the name of one of the accusers very early in the trial to almost 40,000 followers, almost causing it to collapse. It was his doing so that directly led Lady Dorrian to pass the anonymity order – in Scotland, such orders do NOT apply automatically as they do in England.

(Doleman was not prosecuted for actually naming one of the women, although Craig Murray still awaits a verdict, five weeks after his trial, which could see him imprisoned for up to two years for merely allegedly hinting at their identities.)

Without the order, it would have been perfectly lawful for people to discuss the names of the complainers – whose allegations the jury found to be false – after the trial. It would have been possible for people to know, and form an opinion based on, who they were and who they were connected to and what the “plan” they were “mulling” was.

But because it isn’t, Scotland has been turned into a laughing stock – a byword for ham-fisted corruption and malice – the independence movement has been torn in two, and the Scottish Government itself may yet collapse.

So, y’know, thanks for all of that, James. Great job.

Print Friendly

    152 to “The man who ruined Scotland”

    1. dodecostanza says:

      Wasn’t the anonymity always factored in tho?
      As in “I have a plan, means we can be anonymous but with strong repurcussions”

    2. joe bloggs says:

      I was watching in astonishment at the comment by the Lord Advocate in response to Alasdair Allan regarding section 162 of the 2010 Act, and saying what mattered was what the Act said, but that the intention behind the Act was totally irrelevant.

      I beg to differ. The key case Pepper v Hart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(Inspector_of_Taxes)_v_Hart says precisely the opposite. Namely, that in any legal case people challenging the interpetation of a piece of legislation, it is possible to take into account the discussions in parliament that led up to the passing of that legislation.

    3. Breastplate says:

      The spirit of the law is paramount, the actual law is an attempt to encapsulate that spirit of the law in the written word.
      These events are not in keeping with the spirit of the law but merely an attempt for the LA and Scottish Government to shield themselves, it has very little to do with protecting complainers.

    4. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Wasn’t the anonymity always factored in tho?
      As in “I have a plan, means we can be anonymous but with strong repurcussions””

      The person who said that was under a misapprehension. Their identity would not have been protected except for Doleman. It is a CONVENTION that they’re not named during the trial, but not a law, and after the trial there would have been nothing anyone could have done. Read the links.

    5. Adam says:

      Wolfie must be a fan of 90s US medical dramas….’er,er,er,er,er,er’

    6. Yo says:

      Amazing to see this article from a man who literally tweeted the name of one of the women!

      https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/27/former-ambassador-created-substantial-risk-of-prejudicing-trial-of-alex-salmond-court-hears/

    7. James Doleman says:

      “The man who ruined Scotland”
      Quite the accolade.

      As this mistake, which it what it was as the name was used in another context and was tweeted out for 15 seconds.

      Even your own article makes it clear the tweet was made before the order was passed, so how could I have been prosecuted over an order that didn’t exist yet.

      I won’t be commentating further, other than to note you are are clearly not the smartest Mr Campbell.

      #Cheerio

    8. Graham says:

      QC James Wolffe, the Lord Advocate with a proven history of malicious prosecutions, was gifted with an open goal when Doleman tweeted the identity to >40,000 people, during a live criminal trial.

      Yet, Doleman remains unpunished.

      One must wonder what motive Wolffe has, for giving him a free pass, while approving the baseless prosecutions of others who did no such thing?

    9. Intractable Potsherd says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      2 March, 2021 at 10:43 am

      “The person who said that was under a misapprehension. Their identity would not have been protected except for Doleman. It is a CONVENTION that they’re not named during the trial, but not a law, and after the trial there would have been nothing anyone could have done. Read the links.”

      So, someone more familiar with English law than Scottish law…

    10. mountain shadow says:

      The Lord Advocate is a good stutterer men under pressure.

    11. Jason Hoffman says:

      The way the SG has handled the Salmond affair from day 1 should become the standard dictionary definition for “bùrach”.

      I really wonder whether we are able as a nation to government ourselves?

      If we’d have got Indy in 2014, we’d have been six years into the new way of governing. Or as this lot are proving no different from Westminster.

    12. John Martini says:

      And they say leave it to the trained experts. Genius worship is a cognitive biad.

    13. matt says:

      “the complainers – whose allegations the jury found to be false”.
      The jury found Salmond not guilty of the charges. They did not pronounce on the veracity of the complainers.

      Consider any rape case acquittal: would you say the woman has made false allegations?

    14. Grouse Beater says:

      No one has been incompetent in this matter – extrapolating from the Lord Advocate’s testimony, especially not himself.

      Is no one on the committee capable of expressing impatience with the Lord Advocate’s prevarication and multiple attempts to avoid answering questions?

    15. thelastcavetiger says:

      AS has already stated that he and his lawyers asked for, and got, the restriction against identifying any of the alphabet women. The SG lawyers didn’t even turn up for that one.

    16. oneliner says:

      @ Jason Hoffman

      As I understand the proposed new constitution, no political parties based outside Scotland would be permitted to stand for Holyrood (unlike the current situation) – so opposition and probably, party of government would be different.

      @ James Doleman

      Court reporters don’t have to proof read then?

    17. BLMac says:

      matt says “Consider any rape case acquittal: would you say the woman has made false allegations?”

      Yes if it was proven she was not present at the place of the alleged rape.

      That is the case here. Sounds like she committed perjury.

    18. Republicofscotland says:

      So the bozo Doleman gets clean away with naming one of the complainers to 40,000 folk, yet this clown has the cheek to tweet about justice and the courts.

      Doleman, who should be on the dole for his incompetence, who couldn’t lace Craig Murray’s boots has caused chaos.

    19. Effigy says:

      I need to know why Craig Murray landed in court along with
      any other independence supporter who reported while the UK’s
      media can take the same action with impunity?

      No doubt they didn’t like to ask him?

    20. AnneDon says:

      @thelastcavetiger
      Wasn’t AS referring to the original two complainants at the stage of the Judicial Review? The Alphabetties hadn’t come forward at that stage.

    21. Douglas MacMillan says:

      Sorry for being a bit slow here but is it the case that Doleman was asked/leaned on by the Crown Office to send this tweet so that they could impose the order?

    22. Derek M Morison says:

      Certainly the creation of the s.11 Order has placed severe restrictions on the evidence available to the Committee, but in terms of their main remit the major frustration has been what L.Dorrian called the ‘absurd interpretation’ of it by SG/Crown Office?

      Is it legally possible to challenge the order and have it rescinded?

    23. Steve Parkinson says:

      Did Doleman have a job to do in the tweet?

    24. Kiwilassie says:

      does anyone have a link to the committee meeting with the LA?
      Thanks in advance.

    25. Lynn says:

      Can’t understand why H is not getting a police investigation! Surely claiming attempted rape when you were not even there is illegal! This needs to be held to account . To falsify details and potentially remove someone’s liberty is frightening. This person needs removed from public office quickly and fully investigated . This can not go unaddressed!

    26. Menstruator says:

      @matt 10:59

      says “Consider any rape case acquittal: would you say the woman has made false allegations?”

      It depends very much on the facts of each hypothetical case.

      Is the allegation that the woman did not give consent but the man pressed ahead regardless? In which case the jury has to reach a view on whether the man knew that consent was not given, which is a very difficult judgement to reach.

      Or is the allegation that an incident happened but the man completely denies it and can prove his alibi? That’s rather more straightforward.

    27. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Even your own article makes it clear the tweet was made before the order was passed, so how could I have been prosecuted over an order that didn’t exist yet.”

      For prejudicing the trial? You did almost cause it to collapse, did you not? Prejudicing a trial is also a contempt of court offence, isn’t it?

    28. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Did Doleman have a job to do in the tweet?”

      We can’t know, but I can’t pretend the thought hasn’t crossed my mind.

    29. Menstruator says:

      Would like to amend slightly – “ which is a very difficult judgement to reach IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES”

    30. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The jury found Salmond not guilty of the charges. They did not pronounce on the veracity of the complainers.”

      If the jury thought their claims were true they’d have found him guilty. They didn’t. We’ve been over this.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/judges-juries-and-horseshit/

    31. Craig Murray says:

      James Doleman is a good bloke and friend of mine.
      One of the accusers was named during the case in a context other than as an accuser. It was in the context of her “day job” that James tweeted the name – which in the light of Lady Dorrian’s clarifying amendment to her Order would quite possibly not breach the order had it been in force, if he were prosecuted for it.
      Honest mistake. It is true that it precipitated the Court Order.

    32. Kiwilassie says:

      Does anyone have a link to the committee meeting with the LA?
      Thanks in advance

    33. McDuff says:

      Matt
      So according to you there is no such thing as a no guilty verdict.

    34. Anonymoose says:

      The Lord Advocate has contradicted his prior statements a few times already.

      Not only that but he has not said that contempt of court is a crime.

      If anyones position is untennable after today it is the Lord Advocate and John Swinney – for only approaching for legal advice yesterday and not 3 months ago when Parliament voted for the release of the legal advice.

      You honestly couldnt make this up, it is scandalous!

    35. James Doleman says:

      There was never any question of the trial “collapsing.” That would only happen if someone tweeted something the jury didn’t know, the jury all knew the names of the complainers.

      As I said previously, you are not the smartest, are you Mr Campbell

      Anyway have dropped you a line with my email address so we can discuss this further.

      All the best

      James

    36. Sylvia says:

      Kiwilassie -link to the committee meeting with the LA below.

      https://www.scottishparliament.tv/channel/virtual-meeting

    37. Jm says:

      What a contrast.

      Alex Salmond,in total control of his narrative with hardly a pause for thought.

      Wolfe not so much…

    38. Heaver says:

      If it was an honest mistake, just own up to it.

    39. Robert graham says:

      A bit off the subject

      I have just started watching this mornings , eh hard to find a description of the latest episode of this Pantomime , to save time anyone watched it and is there any point in wasting my time ? .

      Does Fabiiani really need to waste time reciting the terms and conditions at every session , ok we get it , anyone watching could probably recite them word for word , she also sticks rigidly to the script whatever happens stick to the script , the script is for guidance dear not the fkn holly Grail .

    40. Kiwilassie says:

      Sylvia says:
      2 March, 2021 at 11:21 am
      Kiwilassie @11:17

      https://www.scottishparliament.tv/channel/virtual-meeting

      Thanks Silvia. I had that link open before posting. It looks like I will have to wait till it’s archived. I’m in the Southern hemisphere so at a disadvantage with the time difference.

    41. Neil in Glasgow says:

      Got to be honest though, fair play to James for sticking his neck out there. Far more than the majority of the scoundrels actually involved in this whole fiasco have done

    42. Glortard says:

      This site is good and it has some decent comments. However I don’t agree with the tone of the article as James Doleman has sometimes been the only reporter at some trials who has provided an update. His reporting and understanding has been excellent. It has been mentioned here and other sites that there was almost a deliberate act for certain people to attach themselves to this case in order for them to gain anonymity .

    43. Robert graham says:

      Oh just noticed fisty Cuffs at 4:00 outside the school gates
      Odds on favourite and in t the blue corner Me Stuart Campbell , yip yip yeah ,and in the red corner oh I can’t remember the fkrs name I think it’s James something anyway boo boo boo
      Latest odds are being updated
      A home win with possibly a knockout is predicted this will be reflected in the current odds

    44. Jm says:

      Wolfe contradicts one of the complainers evidence…

    45. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Honest mistake. It is true that it precipitated the Court Order.”

      My article at no point suggests it was anything but a mistake.

    46. jockmcx says:

      the independence movement has been torn in two!…

      Has it?

    47. Ottomanboi says:

      The surface signs indicate the National party may have a serious ‘mole’ infestation but where is the expert team of mole catchers?
      Scotland must be free and independence is the logical route to freedom. Independence must not play second fiddle to or become the plaything of ambitious and transient politicians.
      Scotland is important to the prestige and integrity of the British state which is manifestly using every device to frustrate and dampen the desire for national freedom.
      Before long those seeking the return of Scotland’s sovereignty will have to decide whether the status quo and its servants are allowed to dictate the course of battle or a strategy which puts Scotland’s interests first and last. In effect that means non cooperation.
      The Brit mentality needs to be kicked out of Scotland’s bed.
      A ’civilized’ divorce is just not possible.

    48. Liz says:

      Craig, whether he’s a friend of yours or not is irrelevant, the man has been posting some very negative stuff re Alex S on twitter.

      I like your stuff and most of your opinions but I disagree with you on GRA reform.
      Nobody knows everything about another person.

    49. Craig Murray says:

      Stu,

      There is nothing inaccurate in your article. But some of the BTL comments are a bit wild. Just pointing out that the accuser was not named in the tweet AS AN ACCUSER, an important distinction, and I would stake my arm there was no ill motive from James.

    50. Cudneycareless says:

      Would you want the Lord Advocate as your legal representative in a court of law?

      For me – NO.

    51. Bob Mack says:

      I have a plan. ,,, we can remain anonymous.

      Yet normally that wouldn’t automatically apply in Scotland unless,_____

    52. Lorna Campbell says:

      thelastcavetiger: yes, indeed, that was a revelation – that it had not been the SNPG lawyers who requested it. Mention of the women or of Nicola Sturgeon directly were the only times that Mr Salmond looked uncomfortable, as if he simply did not want to cast aspersions. He specifically said that, at the time of meeting the FM in her home (after the Geoff Aberdein meeting) that she appeared not to be fully au fait with the procedure. That suggests that it was the Permanent Secretary and her staff who had the detailed knowledge, and handling of it, at that point.

      He also seemed reluctant to say much against the women, and even appeared to hint that they had been let down by the flawed and illegal procedure. I got the distinct impression that he felt the women had been used, but I could be wrong. I also got the impression that he would have defended himself against the more serious allegations had the procedure been above board, so, whatever happened, he would have fought. The SNPG, on the other hand, thought they would have buried him by the procedure alone, had they not made such a mess of it.

      James Doleman says: “… Even your own article makes it clear the tweet was made before the order was passed, so how could I have been prosecuted over an order that didn’t exist yet… ” Wouldn’t such an experienced court reporter have known that the procedure in England was normally to have an anonymity order over the witness(es)in any sexual offences case? Did he know that it is not automatic in Scots Law, but is applied for or did he think it was the same as in English Law, which makes his go at you rather ridiculous?

      A court reporter in Scotland would not normally name a woman, in any event, in a sexual offences case because of the sensitive nature of such a proceeding, and when an order is applied, it is a bog standard process that it cannot apply to everything in her life from the day she is born to the day she dies, and everything in between. That would make a mockery of the order, as Lady Dorrian verified by agreeing to the tweaking at the behest of The Spectator. It would be convention in Scotland not to name a women in a sexual offences case, and it would be a brave court reporter who stuck his/her neck out and did so, even where there was no order in place.

      Matt: “… The jury found Salmond not guilty of the charges. They did not pronounce on the veracity of the complainers… ”

      That is the position. Even if the woman was not in the building on that night, in those circumstances, it could still have been a mistaken timeline/dateline. That is why it is very difficult to prove that someone was deliberately lying. The supposed ‘lies’ would have to have been made maliciously (criminal mens rea) rather than mistakenly, for the police to intervene. It does happen, but not often, and the woman in question is punished with a fine or jail. Mr Salmond did not strike me, in his submission to the inquiry, as wanting to punish the women. I don’t know, but he might have discovered that they, at least one or two of them, had been induced to give evidence against him in the criminal trial, and, perhaps, not all had done so willingly, but under threat of subpoena?

      In the end, both the civil and criminal cases are over, and the inquiry is, or should be, concerned only with the actings of the SNPG. Were they lawful? Were they reasonable? Why the retrospective nature of the procedure? Why a whole new procedure when one existed already? Were the allegations revived before the procedure or was the procedure readied and the allegations then revived (the two most serious ones had been dealt with through mediation and apologies and the women continued to work with Mr Salmond)? Why did the SNPG collapse the civil case when it did? Why not before if it knew, from the legal advice, that the procedure was flawed and illegal? These are the things that need to be clarified.

    53. Robert graham says:

      Just digesting the pearls of wisdom being dispensed on WGD ” the wake up call ”

      Ok Ladies the SNP win every single seat in Holyrood they even get to clean the toilets and sweep the floors and clean the windows run the whole show .ok

      WHATS NEXT .

      EXACTLY WHAT DO THEY HAVE PLANNED ?

      Waiting one or two things to start off

      Waiting can we move it along please Time is not on our side.

    54. Ruby says:

      James Doleman says:
      2 March, 2021 at 11:32 am
      There was never any question of the trial “collapsing.” That would only happen if someone tweeted something the jury didn’t know, the jury all knew the names of the complainers.

      Reply

      Would that be the jury & everyone attending the trial?

      Is there any law that says the jury & everyone attending the trial can’t verbally pass that information onto others?

    55. ITB71B says:

      The Brit mentality needs to be kicked out of Scotland’s bed.

      You don’t feel British, but how do we bring along those that do?

    56. Breastplate says:

      James Doleman has admitted it was a mistake and it was very good of him to come here and admit that, however he was the catalyst for the anonymity order like Stuart Campbell suggests.

      With 20/20 hindsight it may have been better for everyone if Lady Dorian hadn’t issued that anonymity order. Perhaps there is a good reason why it’s only a convention after all.

    57. Jack Murphy says:

      Jackie Baillie MSP is forensic in her questioning.

    58. kapelmeister says:

      Wolffe choosing to appear with shelves of law books on either side behind him, trying thus to create an impression of unimpeachable authority.

    59. Hamerdoon says:

      Those who are normally free from oversight really, really don’t like it up’em.

      I took the report, which I never read……, to the Police but there was never any intention to hand it over………..

      The Police say they refused to look at and accept it.

    60. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I would stake my arm there was no ill motive from James.”

      Again: my article makes no suggestion of ill motive. Commenters’ views are their own, as you know very well.

    61. Cenchos says:

      kapelmeister says:

      ‘Wolffe choosing to appear with shelves of law books on either side behind him, trying thus to create an impression of unimpeachable authority.’

      Looks like Crown Agent Harvie is going for the blank-slate look, then.

    62. ahundredthidiot says:

      Fact remains he tweeted the name and should’ve known better.

      CM is being kind, but it was more of a stupid, than honest, mistake.

      Now look at the mess.

    63. Ruby says:

      When the Lord Advocate was asked when he first found out about the complaints my first thought was that perhaps he read it in the Daily Record.

      I noticed that the Lord Advocate kept looking down to the left at something off screen. In an earlier session he kept looking at this ipad.

      Although there may not be someone physically in the room with him he may be receiving message on his ipad.

      This could have been the case with other witnesses. I’m thinking of Peter Murrel when he was asked if there was someone else in the room with him.

    64. matt says:

      The concern here (my orig. post) is the legal verdict of the jury: not guilty. They did not make a formal finding that the complainants allegations were false, as stated in the Wings post.

      BLMac: “Sounds like she committed perjury.”. Perjury may be inferred but a separate case needed to prove this.

      Menstruator: dealt with reasons for a not guilty verdict.

    65. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “They did not make a formal finding that the complainants allegations were false”

      I heard you the first time, and I am really very weary of this pointless semantic arsery. I provided you with the link where the matter was discussed at length. I have no interest in repeating the conversation. That is a warning.

    66. JB says:

      As I recall, the discussions in Parliament, and hence the intentions behind the Act only matter when the words of the Act lead to ambiguity. If the words of the Act are clear, and only allow one interpretation, then unless that is absurd (as in say internally inconsistent) then the words stand, even if they do not reflect the intention.

      So the fact that 162 says something which Salmond claims it was not intended to cover is besides the point, the rule is what it says. To fix that one has to pass new legislation.

      Or one can try ones luck in going against it, and see what a Jury may accept as an argument for why it should not apply. Taking the English view where the Jury are empowered to judge the law, and so nullification can occur. I know people state that does not apply in Scotland, so does anyone have examples of ‘absurd/perverse’ Scots Jury results?

    67. Craig Murray says:

      Liz

      Yes James and I have very different views on the Salmond case, I think because we have very different views on the #Metoo movement and its effects.

      I don’t choose friends by their agreeing with me. James is a good man just as Stu is a good man. I have disagreements with both on individual subjects, as you have pointed out Liz there are areas where we don’t agree.

      I don’t understand why people want to agree on everything. Life would be very boring 🙂

    68. Bob Mack says:

      @Matt,

      Please tell me your not allowed out on your own.

    69. Bob Mack says:

      @JB,

      It appears Lady Dorian does not agree with you. She felt it was a simple enough matter to know what could be published or not, hence her annoyance.

    70. Liz says:

      Ta for the reply.
      I’m happy for people to disagree which is why I still avidely read your column.

      What I was trying to say, maybe not clearly, is that just cos JD is your pal, it doesn’t mean you know everything about him.

    71. McDuff says:

      Matt
      I’m no lawyer but I don’t think that is the remit of a jury.
      But what I find odd is that one of the accusers wasn’t at the venue of her aledged rape as sworn by a witness so why hasn’t she been at least interviewed by the police for possible perjury.
      Is it now the case women could maluciosly claim a man raped her and the man found not guilty yet nothing happens to the woman who very likely made a false accusation.
      Not only does this affect the genuine women who have suffered an assault but it seems that it leaves innocent men with no protection at all.

    72. Geoff Anderson says:

      Listening to the enquiry just now.

      Why must I accept that the Crown Office is above challenge or reproach ?
      The assertion that their titles or qualifications put their evidence beyond debate worries me.
      They speak as if it is the 18th. Century and that “a gentleman would never do that”.
      I note the enthusiasm with which the loaded soft ball questions of the SNP are grabbed to make prepared statements- my opinion.
      Thank God for Jackie Baillie and the two Tories showing some backbone in their questioning.

    73. Geoff Anderson says:

      Why must I accept that the Crown Office is above challenge or reproach ?
      The assertion that their titles or qualifications put their evidence beyond debate worries me.
      They speak as if it is the 18th. Century and that “a gentleman would never do that”.
      I note the enthusiasm with which the loaded soft ball questions of the SNP are grabbed to make prepared statements- my opinion.
      Thank God for JB and the two Tories showing some backbone in their questioning.

    74. Mac says:

      I am not a fan of Mr Doleman.

      No disrespect to CM but you have to go with your instincts and I don’t trust nor like him.

      Just a look at his choice of headline tells you a story. (Don’t think he did you any favours there either Craig.)

      ((bylinetimes.com/author/jamesdoleman/))

    75. sog says:

      The thought occurs to me that printing the date(s) of the trial when Alphabettys were present might aid jigsaw identification. Someone ‘working in the same building’ might notice an individual not at her desk that day.

    76. Cath says:

      The person who said that was under a misapprehension. Their identity would not have been protected except for Doleman.

      Or maybe that was the plan?

    77. Mia says:

      @Douglas MacMillan
      “is it the case that Doleman was asked/leaned on by the Crown Office to send this tweet so that they could impose the order?”

      The very same thought crossed my mind. I also wonder why on earth Mr Murray’s verdict is taking so long, when the same judge did not wait even a fraction of the time to issue the ruling for the Spectator.

      From where I am standing, that “mistake” by the reporter was simply too convenient for the COPFS, Sturgeon’s government, the conspirators and the inquiry itself. It is what has been delaying this inquiry, presenting our parliament as ridiculous, the COPFS as totally corrupt and has render the inquiry as totally toothless and pointless.

      The immediate consequence of it is that we have had to endure Sturgeon’s corrupt government for far longer than we should have. It is also what has been stopping Mr Salmond to expose all the evidence deliberately leaving the public in the dark in the face of an imminent election.

      The only winners of Lady Dorrian’s ruling in that anonymity have been the culprits themselves. Certainly not the public. Surely Lady Dorrian must have realised at the time of the consequences of her ruling. And if she did not, she has had plenty of time ever since to change it in view of the obstruction to justice and parliamentary scrutiny that has been done in the name of her ruling.

      I cannot help but wonder if there is a huge collusion here among all the parties involved. Without the judge, there would not be anonymity. Without the reporter, there would not be anonymity. Without abuse of power from COPFS and the Lord Advocate, there would have not been misinterpretation of Lady Dorrian’s ruling.

      Without those actors, their ruling and misinterpretation of the ruling there is no way Sturgeon could have remained in power this long. Without Sturgeon remaining in power this long, we would be facing a plebiscite election in May.

      Reading between the lines, it appears to be simply to convenient for those who are desperate to stop a plebiscite and Scotland’s independence.

    78. Willie says:

      Doleman may have been put up to so that by his breach the Lord Advocate was able to move.

      The failure to take any action against Doleman is telling.

    79. Mac says:

      Funny how the hostility and snarky questioning of the witness has totally evaporated again now it is not Alex Salmond giving evidence. This Inquiry has only ever came to life that one day when it was Alex in front of them. Today we were fully back to the usual waffle answers and soft ball questions.

      Normal service has resumed. It is pretty hard to get to the truth of anything when only JB is really asking any pointed questions. So really only about 15 mins of ‘Real Inquiry’ inside the Farce Inquiry in every session.

      Thought it was amusing when Weaselwolf lost his temper with JB after she asked a simple question about who signed the letter. He went on yet another tedious waffle fest about how majestic and important the person JB has described as an ‘official’ really was and when she finally interrupted him to stop the never ending flow of waffle he came unglued “LET ME FINISH!”. He then spoke for another few minutes of mind bending waffle-shite and then never even answered who had signed the bloody letter. Summed up his performance perfectly.

      As for Harvie. Looks a real nasty bit of work. The pair of them came across as weasel lawyers from start to finish.

    80. LaingB French says:

      I listened to Lord Wolfe articulating the procedures from police investigations to handing in evidence to his prosecution office then to go on to say, we will analyze the report and decide on that premise whether to move on with the case to court based on the evidence present at that time.
      Yet there was no evidence! at all from the police nor from the Scottish government.
      So why did he belligerently proceed to court especially when he, like the lawyers, were reluctant to go to court in the first place I assume, based on lack of evidence
      RANGERS FC. NO EVIDENCE
      ALEX SALMOND. NO EVIDENCE
      BUTTERSTONE SCHOOL. NO EVIDENCE
      CRAIG MURRAY . NO EVIDENCE
      Lord Wolfe completely contradicted himself!

    81. Sharon says:

      Craig Murray, I do respect you an’ all but don’t be bringing shades of censorship to Wings please! I want to read all comments, not only `correct` ones.

    82. Effigy says:

      Yes McDuff, that is what I too have been saying.

      A female crackpot could read about a man she decides she doesn’t like
      for no particular reason and say she met him months ago at a venue he
      says he frequents and he tried to have sex with her against her will.

      Enter a team of police officers, councillors, lawyers, a court, judge and jury
      at great cost.

      If the man is a celebrity he gets horrible media coverage, no one will hire him,
      befriend him or date him.

      If proven to be entirely innocent the man never fully recovers his status or mental
      well being but we are now to take out extra measures to ensure the female crackpot never
      has her name revealed and she receives neither fines, costs, imprisonment or defamation of
      Character.

      That just never can be right.

      The R word is horrific and genuine cases must be encouraged and supported in every way
      but there is no equality, justice or recourse in the current standing.

      Unverified but a friend advised of a young English female of extreme proportions
      had submitted her 10th claim of R but none seemed to bare reality.

      Have we endless funds for people like that, do we want to encourage disgruntled ex partners
      to seek revenge in this way, do we accept innocent men must be tarnished by this?

    83. Kiwilassie says:

      Just read Nicolas Statement & for some reason I just don’t believe her.
      Yes we all know she is a lesbian & her long time friend is French & works in the French Embassy. “Nothing wrong with being lesbian.”
      But reading her statement It makes me wonder. Does she like men at all?
      Reading her statement before her appearance tomorrow may help folks listening in.

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/Nicola_Sturgeon.pdf

    84. JB says:

      @ Bob Mack

      I do not disagree with Judge Dorian.

      I am referring to the AS dare/suggestion to the committee to use S23 to order his Lawyers to release his documents. Not just from the JR, but presumably also from the Criminal trial; and hence apparently contrary to S162.

      Dorian was saying that mentioning the complainers in contents where they’re not identified as such was absurd, i.e. some of the stuff censored from AS submission to the committee.

    85. Steve Davison says:

      My article at no point suggests it was anything but a mistake.
      I would argue using the headline the man who ruined Scotland is harsh if you believe the above and as nobody knows better the tone of Reponses a headline like that will generate
      The question is should we not be concentrating on the way that the anonymity order has been misused once the opportunity arose or is there as suggested a case for saying that the tweet was to engineer an anonymity order for which it would be hard to find any evidence. Surely not every action can be a calculated plot .I would argue by the very actions and policy been adopted by the SNP they are well short of been that clever

    86. Mac says:

      I pointed this out before. The ‘I have a plan’ message from H to J was sent before they even became accusers yet they seemed to know at that point that they would be kept anonymous and even that the Lord Advocate / COPFS were going to turbocharge Lady Dorrian’s anonymity order by interpreting it in an ‘absurd manner’.

      It would not have been difficult for them to come up with a trigger to provoke the anonymity order.

      When you look at how the anonymity order has been ruthlessly exploited to cover up the crimes of the plotters then damn right you should be suspicious of the circumstances that led to it. If you aren’t you have not been watching what has been happening this last few years.

    87. Effigy says:

      Watched the end of Little Red Herring and Mr Wolfe.
      The guy could hardly speak in a normal fashion.
      I struggled to stay awake in a sea of errs and uhms.

      Some of the Committee would struggle to score a point in
      a game of Charades.

      I have no confidence in this committee and fear B & Q
      will run out of whitewash.

      The corrupt bodies behind all this should be in prison but
      probably fear a small pay rise for failing in their mission.

    88. Ian McLean says:

      “Even if the woman had not been in the building that night…it could be a mistaken timeline”
      No. She was quite specific as to the day the actor x was there, and the reference to a Scottish women’s football match that weekend. It could not have been any other day. She also refered to exchange of messages the next day which could not have taken place either. The date in question could only have been 13th June 2014.
      Can anyone explain why the name of the aforementioned actor was withheld? Is it common for such evidence to be given anonymously without opportunity to cross examine?
      One doesn’t need to be much of a detective to know who he was.

    89. A2 says:

      @mcDuff”so why hasn’t she been at least interviewed by the police ”

      You don’t know that she hasn’t…

      @mac”No disrespect to CM but you have to go with your instincts and”

      It’s people going with their instincts while simultaneously ignoring the facts that’s got us into this sorry mess.

    90. Daisy Walker says:

      James Doleman says:
      2 March, 2021 at 10:49 am

      “The man who ruined Scotland”
      Quite the accolade.

      As this mistake, which it what it was as the name was used in another context and was tweeted out for 15 seconds.

      Even your own article makes it clear the tweet was made before the order was passed,

      ‘so how could I have been prosecuted over an order that didn’t exist yet?’

      Perhaps if they drafted some new legislation to take effect retrospectively…. oh wait.

    91. Cath says:

      One of the things I’ve been thinking about recently is all that I do remember the “fevered atmosphere” around the time of the #metoo movement, and the rumours about abuse by ex ministers. They were entirely and exclusively focussed on some terrible sex pest of a *Labour* ex minister. At the time, senior female Labour MSPs were tearfully bleating about how they were too terrified to give names. Many of us were saying they should as they’re powerful women and it would help the cause if they spoke out. As an example:

      https://archive.is/e91iy

      I’ve been wondering if Sturgeon wasn’t manipulated into signing off a quickly drafted new policy in the expectation it was to be used predominantly for this person and to help the “poor wee” Labour female MSPs who were, at that time, making so much noise. That entire story and all those rumours disappeared as quickly as they appeared.

      It’s quite easy to see how if, in March/April it became clear that actually they were going to exclusively use it against Alex, meetings may have been held in which old and trusted pals talked about how best to deal with ‘these daft old allegations re-emerging’. That could explain a fair bit of what happened after.

    92. Jm says:

      Wolfe could barely construct a sentence,Harvie too.

      Err…uhh…errr…ehh…ummm..er..

    93. Robert graham says:

      OK ok the plots clear now

      Bore everyone in sight into submission make the whole shit show unbearable tedious and unfathomable unless you follow the ins and outs in detail most folk probably can’t be arsed spending the time attempting to figure out who the culprits are because all the ones involved are desperate to cover their arses .

      Alex made a good point when delivering his submission after all these weeks , and after a mini forest has been pulped in order to provide the paper just so it can be liberally coated with black ink to cover what’s been previously on said paper , and the countless hours of bloody garbage being spoken by people who believe they are smart and they have fooled everyone .

      Yet after all this, not one person ,not one department head ,no not one person has been held to account resigned or sacked , we all know there has been a almighty fk up but it’s nobody’s fault .

      All to keep one man subdued and out of public life , well was it all worth it Nicola ?

    94. Feliks says:

      Wasn’t Alex Prentice QC due to appear today? Does anyone know why h e didn’t?

      As he led the prosecution of AS he may have been able to answer some of the questions Lord Wolffe and the Crown Agent were not able to.

      * He was also the ‘highly competent and vastly experienced’ Crown Counsel in the Whitehouse/Grier case (aka Rangers).

    95. Ruby says:

      If everyone who attended the trial, the jury, the witnesses, journalists & members of the public all know the names of the complainers and there is no law against verbally passing on that information to others of what use is “the anonymity order”?

      Has James Doleman’s tweet only denied the MSM the right to sell information to the public via their publications?

      Sure information is spread quicker via the internet & the MSM but Scotland is not that big and I would guess everyone who is interested already knows the names of all the complainers.

    96. Garavelli Princip says:

      Jm says:
      2 March, 2021 at 1:16 pm
      “Wolfe could barely construct a sentence,Harvie too.

      Err…uhh…errr…ehh…ummm..er..”

      People with nothing to hide are fluent.

      A masterclass in fluency given by Alex Salmond

    97. Anonymoose says:

      Cath says:
      2 March, 2021 at 1:14 pm


      I’ve been wondering if Sturgeon wasn’t manipulated into signing off a quickly drafted new policy in the expectation it was to be used predominantly for this person and to help the “poor wee” Labour female MSPs who were, at that time, making so much noise. That entire story and all those rumours disappeared as quickly as they appeared.

      —-

      If an MP/MSP had been sexually assaulted by anyone including other MP/MSP’s then why would they not go straight to the police?

      If any regular person was sexually assaulted they would report it to the police as soon as they were able to, even incidents that may have happened years prior.

      The thing that does not square at all with any of these claims, nor any of the charges levied against Alex Salmond is that, outside of the Scottish Palrliament not having a policy for former ministers and them making one up at the spur of the moment, why did they not do the same thing regular people would do and go to the police about it even for historical incidents?

      If these claims were of such a serious nature as to be classified as a sexual assault, why did the people claiming they happened not go to the police?

      It cannot be squared at all.

    98. SilverDarling says:

      I’m not sure we know much more than we did.

      Agent Harvie and the AG do not inspire confidence in the system. They seem overly preoccupied with protecting the sanctity of their credentials and status rather than a bigger duty to the Scottish people.

      They come across as tetchy self-important people who indulge in point scoring to avoid incriminating themselves and always with the do you know who I am?

    99. Ruby says:

      I only watched a little of it live.

      I will go back later to watch more when there are subtitles & a fast forward option.

      I stopped before Maureen Watt asked a question. I’m hoping she pressed ‘the cat filter button’ and had to confirm she wasn’t a cat to make her question less tedious.

      Can anyone confirm if she did?

    100. Bob Mack says:

      Sturgeon letter.

      “I agreed to meet with Alex Salmond on 2nd April 2018. I believed that what he was about to tell me may require a public response from the SNP. Indeed I suspected that he may be about to resign from the SNP”

      How did you know that? Reading tealeaves? Clairvoyancy ?

      No. You knew alrsady.

    101. Hatuey says:

      I’m not sure it’s socially coherent to tell some twice that they’re not “the smartest” before sending them your email address with a view to having a chat.

    102. Alf Baird says:

      Ottomanboi @ 11:48 am

      “A ’civilized’ divorce is just not possible.”

      It is never really a ‘divorce’ with decolonisation, which is about casting out an oppressor, and its culture and ‘values’. We are in no marriage, more a cultural prison.

      There is only one indy with this lot, a hard indy. The sooner folk face up to that the better.

      The SNP should have been well along the ‘non-cooperation’ route and cleaned out Scotland’s unionist dominated institutions long ago, after it first took ‘power’. All they did was hand that power back, to most of those now giving evidence to Fabiani and others like them.

    103. Effigy says:

      Ms Watt’s lips did indeed move today
      She asked if it was normal for legal advice given to government is revealed?

      Does she think we are in some kind of normal situation?

      Somehow the legal advice on the Iraqi war came into it.
      Is she ready to blame the Thief of Baghdad for what is going on?

      Seeing these people in action had revealed exactly why we are no nearer
      Independence, they don’t communicate well, make poor attempts to act like
      Lawyers, can’t present probing questions and move at a pace an elderly snail
      with a zimmer could overtake.

      God help us!

    104. Mac says:

      Anyone who prefaces what they are about to say with “There was 90+ years worth of experience in the room and…” is usually about to come out with a pile of utter bullshite.

      Wolffe’s body language was interesting as well. When allowed to waffle there was lots of eye contact and he was fluent. When he got into trickier areas he slowed down to a crawl, stuttered and hummed and hawed a lot and was doing this weird look away down to his left all the time like he could not do eye contact.

      The chances of these guys making a mistake were always going to be slim but they both did not come across as fully open and honest either, both very guarded.

    105. kapelmeister says:

      Wolffe replied to one of Murdo Fraser’s questions by delivering a homily to the effect that the Crown Office should never have its integrity queried, or some such nonsense.

      The committee should have told him to get knotted and that it isn’t his place to dictate to parliament.

    106. Saffron Robe says:

      The Scottish political and legal system should be robust enough not to be susceptible to the actions or misactions of one person.

      That it is so vulnerable shows the level of corruption that has been allowed to set in by an SNP Government refusing to abide by the separation of powers.

      They have disassembled all the checks and balances which should be in place to hold them accountable. A point certainly not lost on Alex Salmond.

    107. Vronsky says:

      What wonderful therapy that post is! Here was me thinking I was the only person on the planet who thought Doleman was a wrong ‘un. Thank you Rev.

    108. Gman1424 says:

      I’m not going to focus on much of the detail of the Lord Advocate’s evidence today except to say that repeated, lengthy and sharp pronouncements of the impeccable quality and irreproachable probity of his service, while in the face of almighty and unlawful cock up’s, is a sign of, at best, flawed judgement and at worst, being utterly clueless without a shred of credibility remaining?

    109. Ruby says:

      Effigy says:
      2 March, 2021 at 1:43 pm
      Ms Watt’s lips did indeed move today

      reply

      What about her whiskers? Did they twitch? 🙂

      I watched the Alex Salmond session live for 6 hours with great interest.

      I will not be watching tomorrow’s session live.
      I will be leaving that up to Stu.

      Poor man. I wonder if it would be OK for him to watch the budget, feed the squirrels, take photos etc and come back refreshed to watch the session on catch-up when he can fast forward and read the transcript.

      I think that would be OK.

    110. McDuff says:

      A2
      And there lies the problem, we will never know. We will never know if this woman did commit perjury and it was covered up. Given the police enthusiasm in persuing Murray and Hirst I believe they are capable of anything.

    111. Cath says:

      Anonymous – I’m not saying those claims from Labour MSPs were real: quite the opposite. I’m saying it may have been a deliberately whipped up “atmosphere” in which Sturgeon was manipulated to create a new policy in the mistaken belief there was/were some ex Labour minister(s) who had made “poor wee women’s” life hell. Poor wee women like Monica Lennon. When in fact it was all designed to stitch up Alex. There is a lot of talk now about that “fevered atmosphere around #metoo” but that’s what it was – it was all about this mysterious Labour monster no one dared talk about. And all those rumours disappeared as quickly as they appeared, in Nov 2017.

    112. “The consequences of every act are included in the act itself”. Orwell

      I didn’t know James Doleman was a BylineTimes contributor. But given the consequences of his tweet – without being held culpable – makes perfect sense. He wouldn’t be the first ‘independent journalist’ at BylineTimes (as I strongly suspect) to actually be working hand-in-glove with the British State.

    113. A Person says:

      Ffs I see Alistair Campbell, bullying hack and war criminal, has been trotted out to defend Sturgeon

    114. Garavelli Princip says:

      Gman1424 says:
      2 March, 2021 at 1:52 pm
      “I’m not going to focus on much of the detail of the Lord Advocate’s evidence today except to say that repeated, lengthy and sharp pronouncements of the impeccable quality and irreproachable probity of his service, while in the face of almighty and unlawful cock up’s, is a sign of, at best, flawed judgement and at worst, being utterly clueless without a shred of credibility remaining?”

      Absolutely correct. Which makes him an odds-on certainty for promotion to the Judiciary – which is what will happen.

      When caught out, our corrupt and disgraceful Establishment will ALWAYS double-down!

    115. McDuff says:

      The National is upping its support for Sturgeon in its articles.
      Really showing what it’s agenda has always been.

    116. Republicofscotland says:

      A Person @ 2.09pm.

      Sturgeon is a what looks like a close friend of Campbell, says it all really.

      https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/EA39/production/_106216995_selfie.jpg

    117. Mac says:

      I was shaking my head in disbelief today at times listening to James Wolffe bumming up himself and the COPFS at every opportunity.

      This the same man who presided over the malicious prosecutions of the two Rangers administrators and Charles Green.

      I read on here I think that it will cost 100 million pounds in damges etc and that the entire annual budget for the COPFS is something like 135 million, meaning they have blown three quarters of their full budget for the year on those malicious prosecutions alone.

      To put that in context, if you were the boss of a public company with a turnover of 135 million pounds per annum and as a result of you making mistakes you cost that company 100 million quid it would otherwise have avoided, then your feet would not touch the ground as you were sacked and thrown out the building. If you cost them 10 million you’d be gone overnight, 1 million even…

      For Wolffe and Co to have overseen this monumental catastrophe and still be in a job and worse yet boasting about how great he is says a lot about the current SNPG attitude to accountability and truth.

      It is also perhaps very revealing as well that COPFS went after the perceived enemies of a certain football club whose fans are also known to very much dislike a certain Alex Salmond. There is more than a whiff of institutional bigotry within COPFS here as well at this point.

    118. Kiwilassie says:

      This harassment committee is such a farce. There’s only a couple of people on that board who are asking relevant questions. The main one being Jackie B. The rest are hopeless.

      This really needs to be a Judge held enquiry, if you want to clear out the muck in the SG. It has to be cleaned out before moving towards Independence.
      You can’t build a society in an Independent country, with all this corruption around you.

      Is there anyway this could go through to a Judge held enquiry?
      I would be prepared to donate a couple of hundred dollars to it.
      I’m sure there are many Scots looking in from overseas who too would donate.

    119. SilverDarling says:

      Alastair Campbell’s wife was trashing AS on Twitter too:

      https://twitter.com/schooltruth/status/1365223781048975360

      There is a distinct Blairite whiff about NS and her cabinet.

    120. Republicofscotland says:

      This sums up Yousaf to a tee.

      “Yes. But next sentence in letter is also important (no doubt will be scrutinised by Committee)

      “…there were good public policy arguments & reasonable grounds for Government to continue to
      defend judicial review” Also a strong rebuttal of some spurious accusations being made”

      https://twitter.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1366701251027697667

    121. Jack Murphy says:

      This morning’s meeting of the Committee is now Archived in Scottish Parliament TV.

      https://tinyurl.com/p295b8e8

    122. Annie 621 says:

      McDuff,
      “It’s easier to fool people
      Than to convince them that
      They have been fooled.”

      I always applied this to ‘others’,
      when in fact it also applies to oneself.
      For a year I was fooled by that paper..and for a few more, SNP.

    123. Cenchos says:

      Cue new 37 level Covid arrangements…

    124. Claire says:

      I am very troubled by LA performance . For those of you that listened in , Alex Salmond Lawyers hold a very different view on a range of issues including LD Order , she herself is on record stating that the Scottish Govt. interpretation of the Order is absurd . I consider AS closing statement relevant .. the Order is being used to Shield the Mighty .

      Other legislation referred to by the LA , you will note he gave evidence of a case relating to an exception referring NOBILE OFFICIUM .. this is available as a Remedy in Law and therefore the use and interpretation of the Scotland Act is subject to challenge in the Court . Here’s the why …The interpretation of statutes is already a part of the judicial function. I suspect Levy & McRae may be considering a petition .

      Overall a very poor and unconvincing attempt to reconcile his wearing of two hats .The recent Rangers FC failed prosecution likely to pay out tens of millions of pound in damages . Issues regarding accountability and transparency key features of this case .

      In relation to the ICO they have provided a statement identifying a prima facie criminal matter however no further investigation by this body as a pool of 23 people identified . The Committee needed to extrapolate more on this ! but failed .. there was an overall feeling that his positiion entitled him to subjected to less intrusive questioning and scrutiny .

      Peter Murell leaking of texts is currently being investigated by Police Scotland also demonstrates significant disparity ! and no satisfactory answer given in my opinion .

      The LA did not state that the further grounds at the JR were not defended as the Govt had in fact conceded the case . The LA failed to mention the true extent of Lord Pentlands decision .. LA gave a misleading answer . The Court incidentally awarded AS the highest amount of damages .

      The questioning by some members of the Committee particularly Ms Watt were very much loaded as was to be expected from her questioning of AS . I struggle to recognise any evidence of HR/ Employment Law knowledge or understanding .

      The Crown Agent appeared agitated . Both are required to provide supplementary information as they encountered difficulty in recall .

      I am sure the Spectator will also issue further comment .

    125. Republicofscotland says:

      Mac. @2.17pm.

      It gets much better, Wolffe’s wife (Sarah) a judge almost got away with overseeing the court case of Rangers administrator David Whitehouse, who was the complainant against her husband the Lord Advocate.

      Is it any wonder the judiciary opposes declaring their interests.

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/19127815.law-blogger-petitions-judges-public-register/

    126. Jack Murphy says:

      Alternatively, this morning’s Committee Meeting may be viewed on The Scottish Parliament YouTube upload:

      https://tinyurl.com/2zxmvc6x

    127. Kiwilassie says:

      Effigy says:
      2 March, 2021 at 1:43 pm
      Ms Watt’s lips did indeed move today
      She asked if it was normal for legal advice given to government is revealed?

      Your post made me laugh. How in hells name do some of these people get elected?

      I’ve yet to see the clip, SNP tells me the site is down for repairs.
      Maybe it’s because I’m in NZ. They don’t want the world to know what’s going on. LOL
      By what’s been said here, of the way the two witnesses spoke, I recon with the ums & ahs every second word. Could it be the lies were sticking in their throats? (laughing)
      Look forward to viewing it tomorrow when it’s archived.

    128. Glen Clova says:

      @Ian McLean 1.13p.m.

      It was the height of the #metoo revelations. If AS had been found guilty, anyone in the movie business associated with him would have suffered career damage.

    129. Cudneycareless says:

      Effigy says: How in hells name do some of these people get elected?

      That will be “my 2 votes are going to the SNP”

    130. Robert graham says:

      A light hearted preview of tomorrow’s show.
      I will not allow any laughter, first minister please humbly and Graciously take the oath although we no you really shouldn’t have to because we trust you implicitly, I said no Laughter and I mean it .
      First question , good morning first minister , stop stop I won’t have the First Minister badgered in this manner and cut out the laughter I have already warned you lot .

      The committee will now go into closed session this has been agreed by me

      The committee resumes well that makes it all perfectly clear , and the findings of the committee are Alex Salmond should stand trial again because the jury fkd it up they got the wrong script and the judge was drunk a mistrial has been committed , arrest mr Salmond

      What do you mean this isn’t a court and I am not a Judge how dare you Inquiry complete Next

    131. Cudneycareless says:

      Sorry that should read
      Kiwilassie says:
      2 March, 2021 at 2:30 pm
      How in hells name do some of these people get elected?

    132. Glen Clova says:

      Other the the civil servant who told the complainants that the LA was insisting that they make a statement to police being hung out to dry, I’m not sure we learned much today. The old trick of declining to answer questions on the basis that they were hypothetical was employed to the point of tedium despite the valiant efforts of the non-SNP members of the panel.

    133. A Person says:

      -Ruby-

      The cat would probably be more use…

      -Republicofscotland, Silver Darling-

      Oh I know, it’s just so wearying to see.

      In all fairness to Nicola Sturgeon, she doesn’t even fucking try to hide it. All these old lefties telling us how the SNP are different and radical is just being wilfully blind.

    134. Tommo says:

      If this complete bag of nails is allowed to run its course as things stand then in my view it will do real harm to the image of Scotland-and raise questions over what may happen if full independence is achieved
      I had not appreciated that anonymity orders were not mandatory in cases where this type of allegation is made in Scotland
      The Act says application should be dealt with as a preliminary
      Seems extraordinary that it wasn’t especially as one witness seemed very keen on the idea
      This may be a wild idea but if no just solution is reached then I wonder if advice should be sought on the prospects for a private prosecution- by then all the evidence should be in-so far as it’s allowed to be

    135. Anonymoose says:

      Cath says:
      2 March, 2021 at 2:07 pm

      Anonymous – I’m not saying those claims from Labour MSPs were real: quite the opposite. I’m saying it may have been a deliberately whipped up “atmosphere” in which Sturgeon was manipulated to create a new policy in the mistaken belief there was/were some ex Labour minister(s) who had made “poor wee women’s” life hell. Poor wee women like Monica Lennon. When in fact it was all designed to stitch up Alex. There is a lot of talk now about that “fevered atmosphere around #metoo” but that’s what it was – it was all about this mysterious Labour monster no one dared talk about. And all those rumours disappeared as quickly as they appeared, in Nov 2017.
      —-

      Yeah I fully understand that, they could have been setting up an atmosphere within Scottish politics of a localised #metoo movement and feeding it with oxygen to exacerbate the issue in order to force the creation of a new policy.

      Even with that thought in mind, surely if existing policy did not offer a solution (Fairness At Work Act did exist then and covered these issues, albeit not in regard to former minsters), then the correct way forward at that time for the Scottish Government to offer help under its duty of care towards staff would be to direct anyone coming forward with claims of a sexual nature to a professional NGO which did deal with these issues for support and could inform any complainers of their options, offer counselling etc, and on the back of that help them regarding taking matters further via reporting to the police if they wished to, which is the same process as any member of the public would usually take.

      To be clear, even though at that time the Scottish Parliament had no policy for former ministers, there were plenty of options outside of government that any complainers could have been and should have been directed towards.

      Instead they sat on the complaints and cooked up an unlawful botched policy, they never even bothered to consult with interested parties such as the civil service unions nor the Scottish Parliament, instead giving the Permanent Secretary full remit to implement whatever she wanted.

      I honestly think the #metoo movement, in Scotland’s political world at least, was too convenient – right place, right time – for the SNP leadership to maximise its effect in removing Alex Salmond from politics as he was a direct threat to them and their pro-devolution agenda, but also in outright controlling the SNP and by extension the indy movement.

      This goes some way to explaining the SNP leaderships’ fishing for complaints to facilitate a witch-hunt against Alex in order to force him out of the party and out of politics.

      The SNP as it stands since Alex Salmond left have filled all the prominent roles with Sturgeonites, have centralised all of the internal levers around the party leadership and business convener, thereby effectively neutering the NEC into an armless body that is democratic in name only and no longer has any kind of control over party policy nor the leadership as its standing orders have been manipulated to give the business convener control over all conference motions and debates.

      It was always about controlling the SNP and having the reigns to the independence movement, because the current SNP leadership are pro-devolution and not pro-independence.

      The problem for them was that it grew arms and legs, and then Alex Salmond rightly took them to court over their unlawful Harrassment policy which they saw that as a real threat to removing Alex and would blow open their conspiratory actions so they gerrymandered the complaints which they had already cooked up from their fishing expedition and the Permanent Secretary then weaponised them through the Crown Office, the rest is history.

      For what it’s worth I don’t think the current SNP leadership ever wanted to settle up and go independent, instead they settled in for more devolution with their comfy salaries and knowing as the largest “indy” party they had the full backing of at least 45%+ of the population and could keep trotting out Section 30 requests ad infinitum.

    136. Saffron Robe says:

      John Swinney insisted there were “good public policy grounds” for continuing the defence action, but did not say there were justifiable legal grounds for doing so.

      In other words, they did what they wanted to do, regardless of the law. The current SNP leadership have a history of ignoring legal advice, at great cost to the public purse it should be added. Hardly good policy to defraud the public through ill-advised legal action is it? Especially when it breaches the ministerial code.

    137. Christian Schmidt says:

      Actually, while I think Doleman’s mistaken tweet offered the Crown Office a convenient hook to hang all their obstruction, I am sure that without the tweet they would have come up with something else.

      Which obviously means that Doleman didn’t ruin Scotland, but was just a small accidental cog in the Salmond stich-up clusterbourach

    138. Willie says:

      Good points Mia.

      The whole thing ties together. All linked. The system is rktten

    139. Derek Morison says:

      Ian McLean says:
      One doesn’t need to be much of a detective to know who he was

      Especially since Mr Doleman named him too!

    140. Ruby says:

      kapelmeister says:
      2 March, 2021 at 12:02 pm
      Wolffe choosing to appear with shelves of law books on either side behind him, trying thus to create an impression of unimpeachable authority.

      +++++
      I suppose there is an excuse for having law books in your office but what caught my eye were the resistance bands hanging behind Andy Wightman.

    141. SilverDarling says:

      @Robert graham
      Also: ‘Soooo grateful for your precious time away from saving Scotland, could you please maybe say a word about THE WOMEN and how bad Alex Salmond is for trying to get Leslie Evans to do what they wanted? ‘

      One of the things that has troubled me and maybe I have missed something. We know that charges of sexual assault are normally dealt with by informal measures so were the initial inappropriate behaviour charges escalated to criminal proceedings in order to get around that? Even though that was not what The Women wanted. Was that when the fishing expedition started?

      So Alex Salmond could not win, no matter what could he? I mean he was trying to get NS to intervene to initiate the correct procedures in a harassment dispute but did she know that the case had become criminal so she let him think one thing, knowing another?

      When exactly did NS know the criminal case had begun?

    142. SilverDarling says:

      Charges of sexual assault are NOT normally dealt with by informal procedure…

    143. Jm says:

      On reflection I have to give Lord Advocate Wolfe and Crown Agent David Harvie credit.I didn’t think my opinion of the Crown Office could get any lower but after their shocking performances today that’s exactly what’s happened.

      Desperate stuff.

    144. Claire says:

      For the attention of Glen Cova … I have read your comments please feel free to revisit mine . We have learned a significant amount today !

    145. Netflix commissioner says:

      Crown agent with others and top policeman/woman discussed wether the complaint file it goes to police ,the top policeman/woman says won’t accept…….and then the crown agent says none of us read it??……………did I hear it correctly

    146. Josef Ó Luain says:

      It was a hard-watch, start to finish. Obstructive-blathering ought to be a criminal offence, along with excessive expressions of mutual-adoration for one’s fellow practitioners and appointees, immaterial of how many thousands of years of highly professional expertise they may collectively possess.

    147. Ruby says:

      Confused says:
      – someone needs to get a transcript of this, its a masterclass in obfuscation parading as revelation

      Reply

      A transcript becomes available after the end of the meeting & so does the video.

      Video archive
      https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meetings

      if you scroll to page 5 you will see the archived recording of Alex Salmond at the top of the page.

      Click on that & on that page click on official report & then select committee (its the top one) & date ie 26th Feb and click pdf symbol you get

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=13158&mode=pdf

      If you click on the + button and select file you get

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=13158&i=119127

      Confused Confused?

      Might be an easier/more straight forward way to do this.

      I have just newly discovered all of this.



    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