The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Woman Who Doesn’t Exist

Posted on January 21, 2021 by

There’s a woman in Scotland whose name you’re not allowed to say.

You pay her wages and she theoretically works for you. But you can’t say her name.

She’s not a secret person. You’ve heard her name before. It’s been on the TV and the radio and in the papers, hundreds if not thousands of times. But if you say it now, in any context, the authorities will threaten to put you in prison.

We can’t tell you the names of the people they’ve already threatened to put in prison for saying her name – although there are many of them, including people who are supposed to represent you and people who are supposed to speak for you. We can’t even tell you the reason we can’t tell you.

You don’t have to say anything particular about her. You don’t have to suggest that she did anything wrong. You only have to say her name and you’ll be threatened, in the most chilling way, with prosecution and imprisonment.

If any of you say her name in the comments below this article, we’ll have to remove it the moment we see it, but both you and we will be threatened with imprisonment. So please don’t say her name or anything that might suggest her name or even speculate about it. Don’t say ANYONE’s name. Don’t say anything at all that might suggest who anyone was, no matter who they are. It’s not safe.

The image above is NOT a blacked-out picture of her. It’s the first generic image that came up when we Googled “mystery woman”. We say that because if anyone thought they’d worked out who she was from the image and they said her name – well, see above. The image isn’t a clue. It’s nothing to do with anything. Don’t say a name.

In George Orwell’s popular fictional novel “1984”, saying the name of “unpersons” – indeed, the mere act of acknowledging their existence in any way – would get you arrested, imprisoned and tortured by the state.

That, horrifyingly, is where Scotland stands today.

Print Friendly

    216 to “The Woman Who Doesn’t Exist”

    1. Captain Yossarian says:

      The legal profession in Scotland has let us all down.

    2. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Just about to tweet link to this – suggest everyone does likewise via whatever platforms they use.

      Time to start fighting back.

    3. Captain Yossarian says:

      Aye….I remember when Joe Beltrami was around. He used to stand on the steps outside his office speaking to the press about the great failures of our public bodies.

      Joe represented and stood up for the public. Not everyone liked him, but it had to be done.

      Joe would never have been selected as a ‘legal partner’ of the Scottish Government, would he.

    4. And Spouse says:

      I’m reminded of the three stooges. “Who’s on first base”.
      Whatever happened to the truth will set you free?

    5. Black Joan says:

      And (not) speaking of unpersons, official SNP history is trying to make Alex Salmond one of those, having disappeared him from party versions of history.

      There was also an attempt to disappear him into prison.

      The disappearing from history might have been an embarrassed reaction to a guilty verdict.

      AS was found not guilty, but they tried to disappear him from history anyway.

    6. Socrates MacSporran says:

      And Spouse

      I hate to be pedantic, but, the “Who’s on First” sketch was Abbot and Costello, not the Three Stooges.

    7. 1971Thistle says:

      @Socrates MacSporran

      “I hate to be pedantic”.

      As a pedant, I don’t believe you; pendants wallow in their pedantry

    8. Stoops says:

      Disturbing times we live in.

    9. Cath says:

      The crazy thing is so many people know already. How long can it possibly stay secret? You can’t ask an entire country full of people to unlearn and never again think or speak of something they know.

    10. John Alexander Ferguson says:

      I think that was Abbot and Costello. “whos on first “etc.

    11. Scozzie says:

      Can we say AS was stitched up – are we allowed to say that?

      Seems like corruption, lies, cover-up, white-wash, suppression, concealment, misconduct is the order of the day – but truth nah…our institutions don’t seem to do that so much in Scotland!!!!

      Not really a great start to sowing the seeds of regaining independence. I think it will take the good people of Scotland to take a stand against this corruption – NOT IN OUR NAME should be shouted from the rooftops.

    12. Frank Waring says:

      Is there anyone whose name I would know, and who I would be likely to trust, who will speak up and agree that this article is true?

    13. David Lyon says:

      Let’s all say her name at once.

      They can’t arrest us all… and if they do, we can keep each other company in prison.

    14. Willie says:

      Her name will emerge. About that there can be no doubt. Too many know already and all will know soon.

      King Canute sat down by the sea and along came a wave and away went he. The old saw. As true today as it was all those years ago.

      So let’s all just wait and see. And then………we’ll see.

    15. James Horace says:

      Stu, is the blocking of the Aberdein evidence enough to collapse the Salmond Inquiry?

      You were always extremely confident that Nicola Sturgeon would have ti resign in the next month or two, but does this now end your hopes?

      Is Nicola Sturgeon 100% safe again?

    16. Davie Oga says:

      If we are good little Scottish type persons and we talk about football, and how great it will be when the pubs reopen, or how it’s chilly out today, will Aunty Nicky love us again and stop trying to put us in prison?

    17. Bob Mack says:

      And yet this same un named person is probably using that advantage to continue spreading malevolence.

      Welcome to your new Scotland. We hope you will be impressed .

    18. Paul Brown says:

      I think I might be the only person in the northern hemisphere who still doesn’t know who is being spoken about.

      Don’t tell me – obvs.

    19. Desimond says:

      Scotlands new national Anthem to be ‘Nothing Ever Happens’ by Del Amitri

      “The needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like before”

      Its pitiful that its come to this.

    20. Livionian says:

      How about we get this level of anonymity for the accused in trials of sexual misconduct

    21. Jason Smoothpiece says:

      We have the cheek to criticise China, Russia and other countries who have oppressive regimes.

      We need to look closer to home.

      Wait till the media and the unions hear about this…………….no on second thoughts cancel that.

    22. Cath says:

      Too many know already and all will know soon.

      I suspect if the pubs were open, it would be becoming common knowledge this week. You can’t stop names being whispered in pubs unless you have a state apparatus of neighbourhood spies everywhere.

    23. Captain Yossarian says:

      I wonder, what are our chances of re-entering the European Union now?

    24. Livionian says:

      Also, I wonder if MSPs have parliamentary privilege to say the name of someone with a court injunction against revealing their identity, like the ‘Ryan Giggs’ incident? Not that anybody in Hollyrood would have the balls.

    25. Eileen Carson says:

      Posted on FB twice [once with comment] Please don’t kill me with hammers “I WANT TRUTH, SCOTTISH JUSTICE TO BE SEEN AS FAIR AND THE INNOCENT TO BE ABLE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE! PEOPLE WHO HIDE BEHIND ANONIMITY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!
      #HarassmentInquiry #AlexSalmond #scottishgovernment”

    26. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Stu, is the blocking of the Aberdein evidence enough to collapse the Salmond Inquiry?

      You were always extremely confident that Nicola Sturgeon would have ti resign in the next month or two, but does this now end your hopes?

      Is Nicola Sturgeon 100% safe again?”

      No, no and no.

    27. Socrates MacSporran says:

      1971Thistle

      You’ve got me, bang to rights gov – I’ll get my coat.

    28. Starry Towers says:

      I so want to do a Scottish government version of Mrs ***** guessing the name of Father **** ******** right now. I’ve censored the housekeeper and Father’s names, just in case.

    29. shug says:

      Still poor Nicola will have to work with these people and wonder which of them is going to blow the gaff first. Which of them will get the best offer from a paper, westmonster

      The conspiracy will come out cause the security services and hence the government have all the evidence and they will use it to stop independence and Nicola says she will carry forward independence.

      I am more astonished that she has not worked that out

    30. robertknight says:

      I take it, Rev, that one such “threat” in the form of an email or letter landed this morning, giving you the proverbial ‘shot across the bows’?

      We’ll be donning face masks to protect ourselves from the stench seeping from Edinburgh’s Colonial Establishment, never mind to protect ourselves from COVID.

    31. blackhack says:

      I’m obviously missing out on the big “Secret” as I don’t have a clue who “Mystery Woman” is, but I’m sure that someone somewhere will tell me……
      There’s no secrets on the internet.

    32. Stuart MacKay says:

      Captain Yossarian

      I wonder what would be the reaction if someone from Brussels announced that “due to the levels of corruption and politically motivated trials, Scotland would be very unlikely to be readmitted to the European Union”

      I seriously doubt they would want another Romania or Hungary?

    33. Kevin Cargill says:

      Stu, do you agree with me that there seems to be a concerted effort going on to tarnish the ability of the Scottish courts to avoid being corrupted by malign governments. And that if that is the case our only recourse to get to the truth of the matter will be by recourse to the UK Supreme Court at which point the Tories and Yoons will scream out that if we’re too incompetent to control our courts then we’re too incompetent to govern an independent country?

    34. And spouse says:

      Socrates MacSporran
      I bow to your superior memory!

    35. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Kevin Cargill – The Scottish Courts were not provided the requisite information to ensure a fair trial for AS and so, I see it, the Scottish Courts are already corrupted.

    36. Ian McLean says:

      Wot? Is there just one? Can we mention the other one?

    37. Ronnie says:

      “The legal profession in Scotland has let us all down.”

      in many ways this is helpful, for our post indy legal system reforms

    38. Agamemnon says:

      What if I do not actually know her name ( I don’t) and mention it by pure coincidence?

    39. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Ronnie – what in God’s name are you talking about? We have universities here teaching law and we have one of the oldest and most respected legal systems in the world.

      That has all been lost thanks to a wee hairy fae Dreghorn and her fat husband. Are you OK with that? Do you want that to continue?

    40. Why the assumption that this is a “woman” and not a gender fluid individual currently self-identifying as a non-binary womxn?

      I’m offended. Where can I find a support group?

    41. Colin Cadden says:

      I’m not sure I understand. If I’ve heard/read this persons name then that means someone else said or wrote it. And I imagine that by dint of her position, her name might be mentioned again in some context or another.

    42. Cath says:

      What if I do not actually know her name ( I don’t) and mention it by pure coincidence?

      We’ll come and visit you. We may bring cake.

    43. Peter A Bell says:

      I am not Spartacus!

    44. paul says:


      Ian Brotherhood says:
      21 January, 2021 at 11:39 am

      Just about to tweet link to this – suggest everyone does likewise via whatever platforms they use.

      Time to start fighting back.

      To paraphrase mark hirst

      Time to take control of the bus,rather than be the roadkill to nowhere.

    45. holymacmoses says:

      However badly the Legal profession is performing in scotland at the moment, do not be tempted to to play any part in destroying it – it may be the last resort against Westminster and may have been set up to be that over 400 years ago.

    46. Margie Davidson says:

      Aberdein has testified UNDER OATH that the meeting was arranged and his evidence cannot be heard? Aberdein is probably the only neutral witness there is and his evidence is suppressed.
      Is there anyone who believes Nicola Sturgeon is telling the truth now?

    47. Bob Mack says:

      Marx Brothers. A night at the opera. The contract scene.

      Describes it all beautifully.

    48. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Is there anyone who believes Nicola Sturgeon is telling the truth now?”

      Terrifyingly, yes.

    49. John Park says:

      https://sptnkne.ws/FcjU

      Is the current Leader of Scotland implicated in a plot to defame and slander her predecessor? Solicitor Advocate Gordon Dangerfield joins Tommy Sheridan to examine the Scottish Government’s unlawful handling of harassment allegations against the former First Minister Alex Salmond. While the nation waits with bated breath for Nicola Sturgeon to provide evidence for the high profile inquiry, Dangerfield believes there is more than enough evidence and contradictory testimony to implicate Sturgeon in the conspiracy against Salmond. What is this smoking gun and how does it tie into testimony provided by key witness Leslie Evans?

    50. I'veNeverSeenBraveheart says:

      Curiously, if you do a Twitter search for the suspected name, it returns “no results”. This is a recent development, nevermind hundreds of other users with the same full name.

    51. Footsoldier says:

      Am I allowed to say my own name?

    52. Lorna Campbell says:

      I said it after the last article, but I will say it again. In what other circumstances are you not allowed to name anyone (by their actual name), are you not allowed to offer any evidence, are you not allowed to say anything at all without being accused of hate speech and being mobbed on Twitter?

      It is perfectly lawful, in a court case, particularly in an alleged sex offences case, or a violence one, where retribution might take place, to keep the names of witnesses under wraps. To try and undermine that rule is to undermine your case. Those who do name witnesses who are under protection, will be subject to prosecution under contempt of court.

      What is different about this case is that Mr Salmond, the accused who was found not guilty on all counts continued to be harassed and sly digs were made on a daily basis about his alleged and subsequently not proven offences. That was and remains an utter disgrace and the people who continue to do so are undermining the criminal justice system itself just as much as those who undermine it by naming protected witnesses.

      If those protected witnesses continue to harass and make sly innuendo, then there is an argument that they lose their own anonymity. Those witnesses should take heed and refuse to co-operate with the MSM, or anyone else, in carrying on this apparent vendetta. It is over.

      As for the SNPG administration, it is going to fall? Of that, there is no doubt. The only questions that remain, are: when? and in what circumstances? Is it still possible to make an exit that will be remembered for something other than alleged corruption? Possibly. But there is a time element involved.

    53. Scotspine says:

      There was some dude on Twitter, who lives in the EU, who offered to tweet as a proxy. Just saying.

    54. Athanasius says:

      Never did like that Minnie Mouse.

    55. Jim Lynch says:

      Sad to see Wings these days.

    56. holymacmoses says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      21 January, 2021 at 12:45 pm
      “Is there anyone who believes Nicola Sturgeon is telling the truth now?”

      Terrifyingly, yes.

      Even more terrifying is the fact that there are lots of people who know she is lying and believe that she must have some ‘moral’ justification for so doing.

    57. Skip_NC says:

      Greetings from Raleigh, North Carolina which, last time I checked, is in the United States of America. Are we allowed to try and guess occupations to which the person who must not be named is associated with?

    58. Skip_NC says:

      I’ll go first. Anything to do with banking?

      Second guess – insurance?

    59. Graf Midgehunter says:

      Does this mean the woman lives in a total vacuum where e.g. nobody can call the tel.centre at Holyrood and ask for XXX to tell her that the car has been fixed and is ready to be picked up?

      I just don’t see that happening here in Germany, France, Denmark etc., this is the perfect police state of Scotland.

      AS, Fabiani, Sturgeon, committees, Aberdein, whitewash, it’s an utterly corrupt banana Kingdom and you’re still not rioting in the streets…!!

      Don’t tell me WM would send in the troops… if you’re not even willing to stand up and fight for your rights then you’ll get NO respect from anyone, EU or likewise.

      The best (German) word for the Scot population that accepts this is

      WASCHLAPPEN

      To help you along: https://www.dict.cc/?s=Waschlappen

    60. Johnny Martin says:

      O/T (sorry!) but there seems to be another Panelbase poll in the wind (scheduled to finish 26 January).

      A lot of the usual questions but someone (Labour?) also wants to find out whether folk would prefer a straight Yes/No ref or a three-option one with the third being ‘devolution of all financial powers’.

      Can we expect a Broontervention just shortly?

    61. AndyH says:

      Jockistan?

      Mair like North Jokea.

      The masses ain’t even registering any of this.

      It’s an Idiocracy.

    62. Polly says:

      Well played Stuart.

    63. Mist001 says:

      Is it Isa fae ‘Still Game’?

    64. Bob Mack says:

      The world is not the way we want it to be. We must accept that. That does not mean we can’t change it.

      We have work to do.

      Thank Stu for remaining true to yourself when its much easier to follow the pack. No false praise intended when I tell you that you have in many ways become our conscience.

      Do what’s right rather than what’s popular.

      Time will reveal all. I can tell you this though. People in certain relevant circles are asking questions. Whispers rather than shouts_____for now.

    65. seoras macaiodh says:

      If you are told the person’s name through the medium of a private email are you subject to the same threat or potential prosecution ?

      Non lawyer – just wondering.

    66. Flower of Scotland says:

      If I Google the person’s name will I be arrested?

    67. Sylvia says:

      When I saw the headline “the-woman-who-doesn’t-exist”- I thought it was about me! As I just posted this –

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/song-for-linda-fabiani/#comment-2600508 – according to official records, I don’t exist

    68. blackhack says:

      @mist001 @ 1.08
      Nah, Isa canny keep a secret…:) 🙂

    69. A2 says:

      “I hate to be pedantic”.

      Hardly pedantic tho, there’s three Stooges and only two Abbot and Costellos, hardly a minor detail. 🙂

    70. Polly says:

      @ Kevin Cargill

      ‘Stu, do you agree with me that there seems to be a concerted effort going on to tarnish the ability of the Scottish courts to avoid being corrupted by malign governments.’

      I do, for this reason and others. And on the whole they are not corrupt as recent judgments prove.

      @ holymacmoses

      ‘However badly the Legal profession is performing in scotland at the moment, do not be tempted to to play any part in destroying it – it may be the last resort against Westminster and may have been set up to be that over 400 years ago.’

      Very well said.

    71. Beaker says:

      @Flower of Scotland says:
      21 January, 2021 at 1:12 pm
      “If I Google the person’s name will I be arrested?”

      Look out of the window…

      That was meant as a joke, but suddenly things don’t seem funny any more.

    72. Cath says:

      Is there a reason for concentrating on the Singular? Surely there are a number of women who have to remain anonymous.

      I started trying to answer that and realised it’s not possible in any way I’m convinced is legal.

    73. David Holden says:

      @ Rev. Stuart Campbell .Sorry about that it was supposed to be in jest and I did not realise how draconian the whole thing had become.

    74. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If you are told the person’s name through the medium of a private email are you subject to the same threat or potential prosecution ?”

      Probably not. But I’m also not a lawyer so don’t take my word for that.

    75. Another_Ian_Blackford_Speech says:

      Pretty soon Aberdein will be declared unnameable. Then his wife. Then his neighbours and schoolfriends. Then Aberdeen may be renamed Sturgeongrad for good measure.

    76. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Curiously, if you do a Twitter search for the suspected name, it returns “no results”. This is a recent development, nevermind hundreds of other users with the same full name.”

      Hmm, I get plenty.

    77. Another_Ian_Blackford_Speech says:

      seoras macaiodh says:

      “If you are told the person’s name through the medium of a private email are you subject to the same threat or potential prosecution”

      – just send it in a text! The crown office believes in the absolute privacy of text messages now. Or maybe you have to be the CEO of the SNP to get away with that.

    78. Desimond says:

      Could Aberdein publish his own submissions?

      Does a Parish council Inquiry have the power to stop an individual airing their own contribution?

      I know that may be very naive but I dont see the Inquiry having the powers of a High Court, pretty sure in the High Court key witnesses dont get to contribute the equivalent of “Let me phone in in my pyjamas and give shrugs instead of answers after thousands of pounds spent coaching me”

    79. PhilM says:

      If there is a growing realisation that the SNP has been corrupted at the highest levels, would it be an idea to try a Martin Bell strategy to have one anti-corruption candidate stand against the person responsible to see if they can be unseated by the people?

    80. Clwyd Griffiths says:

      “Is there anyone who believes Nicola Sturgeon is telling the truth now?”

      I do. Nicola is most trusted, admired and respected politician around as poll after poll shows. I for one will look forward when she tells her side of the events and hopefully clear up this saga. So we can all unite and win indy for a better Scotland.

    81. And when Humza gets his way and makes thoughtcrime punishable

      if his thought police decide you are thinking about this person you will get jail time,

      of course thoughtcrime won`t be abused by out judiciary no siree our incorruptible judiciary no siree ` abused` how could you think such a thing.

    82. panda paws says:

      “But if you say it now, in any context, the authorities will threaten to put you in prison.”

      How can that even be possible? In any context? If the pharmacist needs to let her know the prescription is ready.

      “Prescription for Nameless”.

      If you were in a meeting with her and you used their name because you’d no idea that she was the person whose name you couldn’t say or even that such an edict even existed for anyone?

      How can such a ridiculous ban be enforced? What fresh hell have we entered…

    83. PeterV says:

      I remember Alan Rough speaking on the Euan and Roughie show telling us that Rangers Football Club would be put into administration,,, about two years before it happened.

      Everyone thought Roughie was crazy, saying a club the size of Rangers could never go down.

      A very good analogy of what is happening with Sturgeon and her administration, her supporters also think she is too big to go down.

    84. Breeks says:

      If I was in Alex Salmond’s shoes, just for badness, I’d just invent my own Alphabet code for all witnesses, accusers, lawyers, taxi drivers, dates, addresses etc… EVERYBODY, even their pets, would have a codename.

      Give the Conspirators and Committee a taste of their medicine…

      “on the morning of Zebra Trumpet, Witness Juliet was overheard to say “X and Z” to Conspirator Delta, in total confidence, but was overheard by driver HubbaLubbaTarzan, who was disgusted by what he heard, immediately threw his Ixat into reverse, and went straight to Location Finisterre Storm Force 4, and handed a transcript of his evidence to Constable Captain America…

      Aye, but keep the story absolutely true, spill the beans and tell the absolute truth in every lurid detail, but just withold the code sheet which allows any of the the codenames to be deciphered.

      Prosecute me for that, Captain Morgan’s Rum Advocat! Telling everything and nothing at the same time, with not one single clue given to confirm or identify anybody which would stand up in Court.

      “But Mr Salmond, we can’t make any sense of this. We don’t know who is who.”…

      Aye well there you go, you started it. And if you even attempt to decipher my code, you’ll be open to criminal charges of Contempt for trying to identify the witnesses.

    85. Captain Yossarian says:

      To all of the Holly-Willies who think Scottish Law is still revered…..it isn’t.

      Either get rid of the present ruling elite and preserve what’s left of Scottish Law, or accept that Scottish Law is now a working organ of Holyrood and Victoria Quay.

      You can’t have it both ways.

    86. frogesque says:

      Just suppose a child under the age of criminal responsibility were to some how post a name on social media. Or even write a shhool project.

      What then, does it become public knowledge, are parent(s) /guardian/teacher or the media platform liable?

      This just so bloody ridiculous now and I really ealy don’t give runny shite in a Daily Mail about who Madame A, B, C, through H to X, Y, z is

    87. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I do. Nicola is most trusted, admired and respected politician around as poll after poll shows. I for one will look forward when she tells her side of the events and hopefully clear up this saga. So we can all unite and win indy for a better Scotland.”

      Then you’re an absolute fucking idiot.

    88. rob says:

      Mist001 says:
      21 January, 2021 at 1:08 pm

      Is it Isa fae ‘Still Game’?

      No chance, Isa can’t keep her gob shut. the whole world would know if it was her.

    89. Daisy Walker says:

      Stu,

      Hypothetically speaking would the motive for writing an article such as the one above, be prompted upon receiving some form of legally threatening official notification?

      Hypothetically speaking of course.

    90. ALANM says:

      Living in England as I do I’m wondering if this might offer me (and Rev. Stu of course) any degree of protection in the event that we accidentally said something which the authorities in Scotland found objectionable?

    91. Daisy Walker says:

      Should a child under the age of criminality post a name on social media, pertinent questions would be asked about their parents allowing them to use it. I think Facebook specifies use for 14 and over.

    92. Steve ashton says:

      If (s)he decided your article was an attack on her…. And came on here to defend herself…. Would (s)he be prosecuted for having her own name?

    93. Polly says:

      @ Clwyd Griffiths

      ‘I do. Nicola is most trusted, admired and respected politician around as poll after poll shows.’

      Yes, her appearance of honesty and forthrightness is truly excellent. I believed in her too. But I started to doubt and keep coming back to her allowing the horrendous and absolutely unjustified abuse of Joan McAlpine who was simply doing her job on a Holyrood committee. She allowed other members within her party to behave that way, without censuring them, without calling it out, without offering public support to her MSP. That was the leader of a country allowing that to happen to a citizen without one word of condemnation, it was a boss allowing an employee to continue facing that in her work environment, it was a ‘lifelong feminist’ seeing a woman the target of that and she said and did NOTHING.

      Tell me how can you square that circle? A leader of a party and a country who supported women, who refused to partake in mudslinging of the others, who ‘went high’, who and rest – how do you explain her behaviour in that if she is as good as you still believe?

    94. Would this person be prosecuted for divulging her own name,

      is this person prevented by our corrupt judiciary from admitting who she is in public.

    95. Polly says:

      @ Captain Yossarian

      ‘To all of the Holly-Willies who think Scottish Law is still revered…..it isn’t.’

      Yes, Captain, I think we’ve noted your desire to smash up Scottish institutions.

    96. I'veNeverSeenBraveheart says:

      ” Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      21 January, 2021 at 1:28 pm

      “Curiously, if you do a Twitter search for the suspected name, it returns “no results”. This is a recent development, nevermind hundreds of other users with the same full name.”

      Hmm, I get plenty.”

      Sorry – I meant if you click on Latest results with the full name in quotes you get no results. It hasn’t always been so.

    97. Mac says:

      Is there not a super sneaky way around this. Like using words that rhyme with ‘other’ words say… or we jumble up the letters into an anagram… or we create a long sentence where the first letter of every word spells out another word. (Just to clarify before my back door gets booted in at 6am, this is just a wee joke, )

      I too must be one of the few people on here who does not know who this person is. I have a few suspects of course.

    98. Astonished says:

      Once everyone knows how long do you think she get in jail ?

    99. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Craig Murrays latest.

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/let-nobody-ever-state-again-there-is-no-evidence-of-the-conspiracy-against-alex-salmond/

      Is Lord Wolfe ensuring yet another malicious prosecution?

      ENDEMIC INSTITUTIONAL ESTABLISHMENT CORRUPTION.

    100. Effijy says:

      Skip in N Carolina.

      Although you are in a remote destination you can always bank on us
      to stand up for independence while you are away.

      Stay safe!

    101. mike cassidy says:

      You can’t even tell us the reason

      Why you can’t tell us the names of the people

      Who have been threatened with prison

      Can you tell us the reason why you can’t tell us the reason?

    102. Robert Louis says:

      Voldemort (he who shall not be named). Do I win?

      Seriousl;y, WTF is this about? Are we really living in a totalitarian country, where freedom of speech has been removed??

      What is going on?? Is this the work of the corrupt, dysfunctional Scottish government? THIS is EXACTLY why Humza’s draconian ‘hate’ speech’ bill must be fought tooth and nail.

      Is this a so-called super-injunction – if such things still exist? Oh, hang on, if it is a super injunction, you are not allowed to say so either, hence the name.

      Cover up, cover up, cover up. Nicola Sturgeon and her husband should not be allowed to resign from the SNP, they should be booted out. They are clearly NOT working in Scotland’s interests – which is after all, the remit of First Minister.

    103. wee monkey says:

      I don’t know who it is either.

      But I’m sure there is a ” list” somewhere…..maybe ask slippers or big daddy. They have lists.

    104. orri says:

      Completely unrelated of course but if a, possibly now ex, friend of an alleged victim of a crime can say with certainty that their story doesn’t hold up would that be because they know where that person was? If they do then does that mean there might be others who also know where they were and from that would that be proof of perjury and an attempt to pervert the course of justice?

    105. holymacmoses says:

      Does Scotland exist in the eyes of the English establishment and general population:-)

    106. TruthForDummies says:

      Have MPs or MSPs been threatened with court or prison ?

    107. MaggieC says:

      Re Harassment and Complaints Committee ,

      Just published on the written evidence page today ,

      Written submission from Police Scotland received on 20th January ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/20210120PoliceScotlandtoConvener(1).pdf

      Reminder of letter sent to Police Scotland by the Convener ,

      The Convener wrote to the Chief Constable on 23 December 2020 regarding any involvement from Police Scotland in the development of the procedure and in the handling of complaints:

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/20201223ConvenertoPoliceScotland(2).pdf

    108. frogesque says:

      @Daisy Walker: 2.08

      Yeah Criminal Age of Responsibility in Scotland is 12, need to be 13 for your own FB a/c.

      Thought it was younger.

    109. Breeks says:

      Sorry, it’s yesterdays… my mistake.

    110. Jack Murphy says:

      I found this Podcast with Solicitor Advocate Gordon Dangerfield speaking to Tommy Sheridan,and published today.

      The Link to Podcast is on Mr Dangerfield’s Blog:

      https://gordondangerfield.com/

      It clarifies some points in this convoluted saga.
      Apologies if this has been put on to Wings earlier.

      Approximately 24 minutes in length:

    111. Graham King says:

      I’m wondering about inquiry chair (‘Linda Fabiani, SNP MSP’), and the Lord Advocate of Scotland (‘The Rt Hon. James Wolffe, QC’).

      Are these their real and only names – their true identities?
      Have the two ever been seen together – at the same place and time?

      Can their apparently-different genders be regarded nowadays as sufficiently firm evidence that they are not in fact one and the same person?

    112. Robert Louis says:

      Could one of our parliamentarians (of ANY party) please highlight this story, using parliamentary privilege?

      Aside from this, and in relation to the Scottish government’s attempts at cover up of corruption, their is a good summary of how the enquiry is being deliberately stymied by the Scottish Government, in the Belfast Telegraph. It also, importantly summarises just how many government documents have been withheld from Mr. Salmond’s defence team, for both the judicial review and the scurrilous criminal case (for which he was found innocent).

      https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/salmond-i-was-disadvantaged-in-court-by-reprehensible-withholding-of-evidence-39992229.html

      This is simply outrageous. Is nobody within the SNP going to speak up, are you all just a bunch of political lapdugs????

      This needs sorted ASAP. Make no mistake, come the election, the unionist press will tear the Scottish government to shreds over this. Just watch that poll lead vanish into thin air – just like it did with ‘scottishy’ Labour. It is no good. Sturgeon must go.

      The more I see, the more I think we will not just need a new regional indy party (ISP), but a new constituency party too. Unless this is sorted, the SNP are finished.

    113. Sharny Dubs says:

      What about spoonerisms? So for example I would be Darny Shubs.

      Thats Darny to my friends.

      Spoonerisms don’t exactly follow rules more of a touchy feely phonetic kind of thing, or are you all sticklers for convention?

    114. ScottieDog says:

      @Robert Louis
      Funny I was thinking of writing to all my list MSPs (constituency one is a waste of time). Never thought I’d be saying that.
      Oh how times change.

    115. macnakamura says:

      Socrates MacSporran says:
      21 January, 2021 at 11:50 am

      I hate to be pedantic, but, the “Who’s on First” sketch was Abbot and REDACTED, not the Three Stooges.

    116. Damn, I’m sufficiently out of the loop not to know what this is about or who it is!!

      Been recovering from getting stents placed into my coronary arteries. Thankfully got them just before Lanarkshire stopped elective surgery. And for past few months, been worried sick about my poor arterial health and the 90% blockage in one of the arteries. I thought my breathlessness was long covid but it was angina! So my mind has been elsewhere!

      Anyway, back on topic: surely parliamentary privilege allows an MSP or MP to say what they like with impunity?

      Come on someone in some parliament somewhere – spill the beans!!

    117. Cath says:

      come the election, the unionist press will tear the Scottish government to shreds over this.

      Well, either they will, or they won’t and will remain totally silence. Neither is good for the independence movement.

    118. Tannadice Boy says:

      @MaggieC 2:27pm
      I cannot upload your links. Coming back as Not Archived. Can you summarise what the Police Scotland submission said? Thanks.

    119. Robert Louis says:

      Breeks at 228pm,

      Sorry I didn’t see your posting from the Belfast Telegraph. Even though it is from yesterday, I think it really encapsulates the utter nonsense going on.

      The Scottish Government really are caught in a right tangled web of deceit. All of their own making.

      If only they had put so much energy into independence, instead of trying to imprison an innocent man (seemingly out of spite), who also happens to be one of Scotland’s greatest living politicians and leaders.

    120. frogesque says:

      It will make fun going through a telephone directory seeing all the names redacted and comparing it with an older version.

    121. Iain Lawson says:

      It strikes me that given the huge number of people who do know that sooner or later one of them will sadly be diagnosed with a terminal illness and will be feel obliged to leave Scotland a message before they depart their mortal coil.

    122. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

      The names will most likely be plastered on a bill board somewhere across this nation sometime soon. In the dead of night someone will spill the beans. Nothing stays secret forever- even secrets.

    123. Cringe says:

      I see Swinney did the Covid briefing today…

    124. iain mhor says:

      I’m assuming that is ‘saying a name’ in a very particular and narrow context – otherwise it’s just very silly.

      What that very particular and narrow context is and which ‘persons’ have been exclusively ordered not to engage in matters of that context, on pain of…pain, is moot.

      However, if the conundrum bears any realation to recent ‘jigsaw’ identification’ cases; then it is mildy amusing to consider that that hinged on identification by piecing together published information. The amusing part is whether it also covers piecing together identification from what is unpublished – information which does not exist.

      I’d eat popcorn to hear a prosecution explain that one (unless it was my prosecution) guilty because of nothing. That’s even better than than the ‘guilty if you speak knowingly and guilty if you knowingly stay silent’ levelled at AS.

      Its risibly easier to identify someone who suddenly stops being mentioned by all and sundry. There is a concept of being hidden in plain sight – utter extirpation is not that, it is the exact opposite – it merely draws attention to what was there, what should be there.

      That too is a concept and one found in IT forensics;
      The parts of your data storage which are effectively ‘blank’ because they have been ‘wiped’ with an obscuring algorithm, is the place forensics are going to look first with a ‘thanks very much for narrowing that down for us, ta’. Might as well just have a flashing neon arrow pointing to it.

      A similar concept exists in fraudulent or criminal ‘record theft and deletion etc. Don’t delete the specific record, delete many around it also – no pattern. Otherwise it’s painfully obvious which is missing and just a short step to finding the motive for and the suspects behind it.

      A far better approach to this ‘oreservingbanonymity conundrum’ is if the ‘missive’ was ‘do not mention these many persons – naturally, the whole concept is farcical.

      One may not be able to see the woods for the trees, but one can most certainly see the hole where the trees once stood.
      Sometimes I wonder if that isn’t the point all along.

    125. Ron Maclean says:

      From The House of Commons Code of Conduct and the Criminal Law:

      ‘Privilege does not provide a haven from the general criminal law.

      4. It is not for the Committee or the Commissioner to decide whether criminal conduct has occurred: it is for the prosecuting authorities to make that case, and for the court to decide. As the Committee on Standards and Privileges has remarked, “the separation of courts and Parliament is a fundamental constitutional principle”. The Committee will not attempt to usurp the functions of the prosecuting authorities. Parliaments and Governments in other jurisdictions have been criticised for encouraging political prosecutions. It is easy to be complacent and claim such things could never happen in the United Kingdom. One of the reasons such things do not happen in the United Kingdom is that the House and its Committees are scrupulous about respecting the boundary between their role and that of the prosecuting authorities.’

    126. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Polly 2.17 – Scottish institutions have been around for hundreds of years. I’ve not ‘smashed them up’ and I have no wish to see others do that.

      I am a member of one of these institutions. 6-years of Sturgeon, Swinney and Murrell have smashed them up and you’ve stood back and watched.

      It’s too late for the Scottish legal profession and the damage has been done.

    127. Robert Louis says:

      Can I ask a simple question, that many folk are asking online. Just who within the Scottish government, aside from NS herself, decide unilaterally that evidence can be withheld from the enquiry? I mean, how is it done? Surely their are protocols and rules in place to prevnet this kind of corrupt cover-up?? What is the process?

    128. kapelmeister says:

      The unfunniest farce Scotland has ever seen.

    129. Lothianlad says:

      Hiding in plain sight. I despise sturgeon more than words can say.
      She is utterly compromised and controlled by the british state.

      It’s no real secret who the mystery woman is. It’s just a scandal that the establishment is protecting her and the other liars the way they are.

      A message for the liars though,.. you cant hide behind legislation forever, your identity is not that secret!

    130. Polly says:

      @ Captain Yossarian

      ‘It’s too late for the Scottish legal profession and the damage has been done.’

      Rubbish. If they were as corrupt as you are trying to imply then Salmond and Mark Hirst would be in gaol already and no doubt many others. The fact it is only Scottish independence supporters who are targeted means it is unionist forces behind this whole thing. Yes, SNP stupid idiots or cunning vixens were the driving force, but the concerted effort put into arranging this in this way has had and will keep having plenty of help from unionists in all areas.

      ‘I am a member of one of these institutions. 6-years of Sturgeon, Swinney and Murrell have smashed them up and you’ve stood back and watched.’

      Which institution would that be? What experience do you have and what have YOU done to stop it? As a member of one of those institutions you have much more responsibility for anything that’s transpired than private citizens do. So what have you been up to?

    131. Slop says:

      @TanadiceBoy

      Try this one.

      From the document:

      5. Details of the advice or input provided by Police Scotland to the Scottish Government on the development of the procedure.
      Police Scotland provided advice at the meeting on 6 th December 2017, advising that where criminality was suspected, individuals should be directed to support and advocacy services, to enable them to make informed decisions about whether or not to report matters to the police.

      Remind me who made the decision to go to the police …

    132. James Horace says:

      I am 99% certain that the image you use is a silhouette of Neil Oliver.

      What does the King Of All Yoons have to do with the great Salmond stitch up?

    133. Mac says:

      Putting the identity of the person to the side I am trying think why it is just this one woman and what could possibly be the legal justification for threatening everyone so severely for even mentioning the name in any context.

      I think all of the suspects that I can think of are discussed regularly here and mentioned all the time in the comments. So I am really curious now to know who this person is and what role she has played in all of this. Is she some kind of ‘central character’ to merit such heavy handed ‘protection’? What could possible justify all of this.

      To be threatened with prison for saying the name in any context… hmmm I wonder why.

      It is all very curious this.

    134. Graf Midgehunter says:

      “… surely parliamentary privilege allows an MSP or MP to say what they like with impunity?”
      —————-

      It’s not so much a question of p.p. but more of the search for the missing spine that is willing to use it.

    135. Gregor says:

      Some interesting developments from WHO re. Covid-19 testing banana:

      https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05

      Some additional information (suppressed by mainstream media):

      https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

    136. robertknight says:

      Graf

      Drew Hendry was last to use the “spine”.

      It should be at the back of the broom cupboard in Ian Blackford’s office.

    137. Colin Alexander says:

      The SNP politicians feel safe. They will only turn on Sturgeon if they think Sturgeon will cost them a cushy political career. e.g. The Tory MPs turned against Thatcher because of her vote losing obsession with the Poll Tax (in England).

      The SNP aren’t worried by threats of pro-indy List MSPs. Only a few, such as Joan McAlpine will be worried about people not voting SNP on the List. And the woke leadership of the SNP would be glad if she was not re-elected.

    138. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Can’t understand why Fabiani doesn’t just call it a day, say they’ve been thwarted and disrespected by Scotgov, no point continuing. She’s retiring, she really doesn’t need this grief and it’s certainly not what she wants as a legacy.

      ‘We, the committee, were being forced to facilitate a whitewash’ – that would be, essentially, the conclusion of her report. So it wouldn’t have been a total waste of time – at least it would give parliament something else substantial to underpin the inevitable VONC.

    139. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Living in England as I do I’m wondering if this might offer me (and Rev. Stu of course) any degree of protection in the event that we accidentally said something which the authorities in Scotland found objectionable?”

      It would not.

    140. robertknight says:

      Polly @3:08

      “Rubbish. If they were as corrupt as you are trying to imply then Salmond and Mark Hirst would be in gaol already and no doubt many others”

      They are corrupt. They just aren’t competent.

    141. Republicofscotland says:

      What a Stasi ran country Scotland has become, the further we go down the rabbit hole in Scotland the more Orwellian it becomes, I’ll never look at Scotland again and think (well as long as Sturgeon and her corrupt regime is in charge) what a great wee fair country it is.

      We badly need Sturgeon and her clique gone as well as the Lord Advocate and a clear out of the COPFS.

      As for the woman, one of the complainers in the Alex Salmond fit up gave evidence against Salmond under oath yet eye witnesses testified that she wasn’t even in the building at the time of the alleged offence. That particular woman should be in the dock herself, but fo the life of me I cannot understand why she isn’t. I can only surmise that its sheer corruption that’s keeping her out of prison, whilst Craig Murray faces going to prison very soon for committing no crime whatsoever.

      We can’t know the woman, we can’t see Mr Aberdien’s statements, we can’t know the other women’s identities in the Alex Salmond fit up but the media can continue to smear Alex Salmond via innuendos. Craig Murray can’t produce evidence for his trial to fully defend, Mr Murray isn’t even afford the basics such as a jury.

    142. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I’m assuming that is ‘saying a name’ in a very particular and narrow context – otherwise it’s just very silly.”

      You assume wrongly.

    143. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Polly – I’m not a lawyer, but I am a professional. A member of a completely unrelated institution.

      Alex Salmond was found not guilty by a jury, not by any lawyer. If I am correct, the Court requested information to be provided to it which would have assisted Alex Salmond’s case, but it wasn’t provided. The case went ahead anyway. Fortunately for Alex, the jury found in his favor.

      Who ended free legal aid in Scotland?…….Nicola Sturgeon.

      The vainglorious John Swinney is in charge of all lawyers in Scotland. He decides who gets the work and who goes hungry. Hence, we get to where we are now very, very quickly and easily.

      If Unionists were to go after any politician in Scotland, do you think it would be Alex Salmond?

      I think this has been a confection all of the Murrells and Swinney. I don’t think many would argue with that.

    144. Andrew F says:

      Can I just say…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..?

      Totalitarians are not good, ever.

    145. Graf Midgehunter says:

      “Drew Hendry was last to use the “spine”.

      It should be at the back of the broom cupboard in Ian Blackford’s office.”
      ————————–

      It’s been padlocked and Ian Blowjob wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway.

    146. ScottieDog says:

      “ surely parliamentary privilege allows an MSP or MP to say what they like with impunity?”
      Think a lot comes down to groupthink, where deviations are repeatedly rationalised by ‘decent’ people and they just become the norm.

      Space shuttle programme was littered with this sort of thinking – ‘normalisation of deviation’. Challenger crew were doomed 2 years before they took off.

      This is why this case is so important. Just carrying on and saying ‘just this once’ is not an option because it never is ‘just this once’. If there are no consequences this time, it will be repeated.

    147. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If they were as corrupt as you are trying to imply then Salmond and Mark Hirst would be in gaol already and no doubt many others. The fact it is only Scottish independence supporters who are targeted means it is unionist forces behind this whole thing.”

      Unionists have nothing to do with this. Alex Salmond was acquitted by a jury and Mark Hirst by a judge. Had it been down to the Scottish Government or the Crown Office they’d both be rotting in a cell.

    148. Republicofscotland says:

      Can’t all the names, and any other evidence be posted on a website out with the UK’s jurisdiction?

      Isn’t that what the author of Spycatcher did to get around this.

    149. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      ““ surely parliamentary privilege allows an MSP or MP to say what they like with impunity?”

      Parliamentary privilege protects you against defamation. That’s why I could only sue Kezia Dugdale for what she said in her Daily Record column, not what she said at FMQs.

      It does not protect you against the law generally. You couldn’t shoot someone dead in the chamber and claim parliamentary privilege.

    150. Mac says:

      I guess it cant always have been like this if it is a name we have likely heard hundreds if not thousands of times already. But if you mention her name now it is off to the gaol for you. And we pay her wages…

      Well this is an interesting riddle.

    151. MaggieC says:

      Tannadice Boy @ 2.40 pm ,

      Here’s the link to the Written Evidence page and you’ll get the link from there and it’s the latest entry on the * Written Evidence Received * section ,

      I don’t know why the link isn’t working as it opens fine for me .

    152. Graf Midgehunter says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Living in England as I do I’m wondering if this might offer me (and Rev. Stu of course) any degree of protection in the event that we accidentally said something which the authorities in Scotland found objectionable?”

      It would not.
      ————————
      REV

      A citizen of another country in the EU, not under the juridiction of the (third country status) UK?

    153. avocado devil says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      21 January, 2021 at 3:20 pm
      “I’m assuming that is ‘saying a name’ in a very particular and narrow context – otherwise it’s just very silly.”

      You assume wrongly.

      does this imply that if a large number of people were to ask you to say the names of other people, from within an entirely innocent and unrelated context, then you would have to decline, (so as to avoid jigsaw id), in which case you are now not allowed to refer to anyone at all?

    154. Republicofscotland says:

      Speaking of posting contentious material, Craig Murray has a post up.

      Craig says.

      “I am strongly advised to shut up and say nothing just before my trial. I will however point out three things:”

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/let-nobody-ever-state-again-there-is-no-evidence-of-the-conspiracy-against-alex-salmond/#respond

    155. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Slop 3:08pm
      Thanks. An informed decision? We will report to the Police anyway. I used to say everytime Corporate HR said, ‘We are here to help’. I put my tin hat on.

    156. Tannadice Boy says:

      @MaggieC 3:33pm
      Thanks I have the details now.

    157. zebedee says:

      Do so-called super-injunctions – injunctions whose very existence may not be disclosed – occur in Scotland? (An ‘injunction’ in England is an ‘interdict’ in Scotland I believe.)

      I understand there have been cases where these came to light due to an MP mentioning them while protected by parliamentary privilege.

    158. I think El Birdo Mysterioso is Joan Burnie, the 80s manhater Daily Record columinst, and I claim my ten quid.

    159. extremebuilder says:

      Rev Stu, I commend your courage, tenacity and commitment. Would that real journalists take up this scandal and bring it to the fore.

      I came to your site following links from RoS and others from Craig Murray`s blog and now can`t stop visiting… The horrors of both Scottish and WM judicial and Parlimentary corruption is staggering to view.

      Messrs Assange, Murray, Salmond et al are coming to a head at the same time. Is this coincidental?

      I`m an ex-pat Geordie living in France, come independance any chance of moving the border back to the old wall…

      Count me in for a crowdfunder.

    160. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “A citizen of another country in the EU, not under the juridiction of the (third country status) UK?”

      My understanding is that anyone resident outside the UK can say whatever they want (but NOT in the comments on my website, just to be clear, because I’m responsible for that, not them) and are not subject to any Scottish or English court order. But I am not a lawyer.

    161. Alibi says:

      I had a quick google to see if there was any info on this on websites based outside Scotland. Couldn’t find anything, which surprised me. If someone outside Scotland posted a name, or all the names, say on Facebook for example, how would the authorities be able to stop anyone in Scotland from seeing the names?

      The question that needs answering however is WHY there is deemed to be a need for such obsessive secrecy. It’s ridiculous.

    162. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “does this imply that if a large number of people were to ask you to say the names of other people, from within an entirely innocent and unrelated context, then you would have to decline, (so as to avoid jigsaw id), in which case you are now not allowed to refer to anyone at all?”

      It’s really very hard to answer that.

    163. Annie says:

      Is a super injunction in place, is this person particularly wealthy or are the taxpayers picking up the bill again?

    164. Polly says:

      @ robertknight

      Yes Robert in some cases they are, but it wasn’t incompetence that allowed either Salmond or Hirst to walk free and be completely exonerated. That was our Scottish courts, juries, judges doing well in what they do. So to say it’s all corrupt is definitely wrong.

      @ Captain Yossarian

      ‘If Unionists were to go after any politician in Scotland, do you think it would be Alex Salmond?
      I think this has been a confection all of the Murrells and Swinney. I don’t think many would argue with that.’

      I don’t argue with that. What I’ve said is unionist forces, individually, collectively make use of it to attack independence on all sides. This attack on Salmond from SNP allowed them to do that. Or are you naïve enough to believe they wouldn’t? Salmond was Sturgeons target, but in doing that it means she’s now in unionist sights, so taking out two birds with one stone.

      Legal aid has been cut to the bone everywhere. We have a fixed budget and yes there are many problems. It isn’t perfect and there undoubtedly is corruption, I agree about the potential contempt of court for not handing over documents. However to claim, as you did, the whole Scottish legal profession is corrupt is rubbish. Yes jury and judge exonerated two individuals and that is proof of the Scottish legal system working well. Had it been completely corrupt they’d have found way to find Salmond and Hirst guilty.

    165. David says:

      Worst board game ever – ‘ScotGov Cluedo’.
      You can accuse whoever you like of committing the crime, but no-one will ever admit you are right. Play as long as you like, you can never win.

      Player: “I accuse Ms/Mrs X, in the [REDACTED] room, with the [REDACTED] weapon.”
      Gamesmaster/mistress: “None of your evidence, which may or may not exist, is admissable in this court err game.”
      Player: “Wait what…”

    166. sog says:

      It’s going to be typical of me to ask – ‘I don’t see So & So’s name mentioned lately, I hope they aren’t ill?’

    167. barrie gadgie says:

      so, stu, you’re o.k. with yossarian’s ‘a wee hairy fae Dreghorn’, but you delete my suggestion that misogyny may be a factor?

    168. Lenny Hartley says:

      Rev what if we Crowdfund you a wee holiday to somewhere warm and covid free, if you set up a blog site, you can spill the beans, the whole beans , and nothing but the beans.
      You could leave out the names of the first two complainers But spill the beans on the rest, most folk know thanks to Garivelli the name of at least one of the conspirator but if the only way to get to the bottom this is paying you to get a Tan, im up for it ?

    169. Polly says:

      @ Stuart

      ‘Unionists have nothing to do with this.’

      I’m well aware they’ve nothing to do with the conspiracy, I’m also aware it was a coterie in Scottish government and civil service that started this and Crown Office have shown corruption but my argument was, and remains, unionist elements, whether individuals, organisations, newspapers etc., are piling on to tarnish the whole Scottish legal system as a means of attacking independence.

      The Scottish legal system as a whole is holding up fine so far against those who want to persecute innocent independence supporters. Scottish juries, and judges have done well, and worked exactly as we would wish, therefore the whole legal system is not corrupt. Nor does it need interference to fix it or any help of that sort from out of the border which I fear is the next step in the process.

    170. Vestas says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      21 January, 2021 at 3:51 pm

      “My understanding is that anyone resident outside the UK can say whatever they want and are not subject to any Scottish or English court order. But I am not a lawyer.”

      It would certainly be legal to state the name – and indeed the names of all of the “alphabet women”, along with all the background information – should it be done by a USA citizen posting on a USA-hosted server. First Amendment rights would apply and you’d have to search VERY hard to find a judge who would state otherwise.

      Personally I wouldn’t do it from within the EU unless you’re VERY sure indeed where the data is going and you’re a citizen of that state.

    171. Alf Baird says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell @ 3:21
      “Unionists have nothing to do with this.”

      Didn’t George Osborne describe the police/COPFS and civil servants in Scotland as ‘the arms’ of the state? What ‘state’ could that be?

      I wouldn’t think many of those senior civil servants giving evidence to the Fabiani committee are big fans of independence.

    172. Clwyd Griffiths says:

      I’m sorry Rev but I must clarify my previous point, has there been a conspiracy against Alex Salmond? It’s hard to argue otherwise given the facts of the case. But is Nicola involved, I don’t believe she is. After all he was her mentor and a personal friend, to imagine she would be involved in any smear campaign defies belief. We need the full truth, yes agree on that.

    173. Clwyd Griffiths says:

      @AlfBaird of course they are, the yoonery are terrified of Nicola’s popularity, so they’ll use every thing to try to blacken her name. Just look at who is on the panel, Tory Murdo, Arse Cole Hamilton, Trident Bailie, say no more.

    174. Kate says:

      Paul Brown says:
      21 January, 2021 at 11:56 am
      I think I might be the only person in the northern hemisphere who still doesn’t know who is being spoken about.

      No you are not, I have not a Scooby..

    175. Polly says:

      ‘I wouldn’t think many of those senior civil servants giving evidence to the Fabiani committee are big fans of independence.’

      Exactly Alf. I remember the awards some of them got after ‘helping out’ in 2014 for the other side – I also remember some of their comments of how proud they were to do their part in keeping Scotland within the union. I also remember a senior civil servant (don’t remember his name at the minute) who worked well with Salmond and Westminster’s loud claims that he had ‘gone rogue’. It’s interesting to note they’ve not said anything of that kind about Lesley Evans, despite how close she seems to Sturgeon.

    176. Garavelli Princip says:

      There was a (wo)man who wiznae there;

      I saw him/her standin’ oan the sterr;

      (S)he wisnae there again today;

      I wish to fuck (s)he’d go away!

    177. john mckay says:

      What about the -I am Spartacus- gambit? Chalked on walls everywhere on fridays.

    178. Betsy says:

      “You pay her wages and she theoretically works for you. But you can’t say her name.

      She’s not a secret person. You’ve heard her name before. It’s been on the TV and the radio and in the papers, hundreds if not thousands of times. But if you say it now, in any context, the authorities will threaten to put you in prison.”

      Well I’m sure if we’re paying Ms Mystery Woman she must be highly regarded and very good at what she does. Is there not a risk that the authorities could inadvertently break their own rule by telling a genuine fan who was innocently singing her praises that they mustn’t mention her? Or is such a scenario deemed too unlikely to occur?

    179. Skip_NC says:

      Effijy @ 2:20pm, and I stand ready, from 3,000 miles away, to help the cause of independence in any way I can. With medical bills over here being what they are, the chances of me being able to return to Scotland are remote.

    180. Hugh Jarse says:

      She IS Neil Oliver!

    181. X_Sticks says:

      I see the National has quickly pushed the Sturgeon/Salmond story down the rankings. I don’t think I’ll be renewing my subscription when it comes due.

    182. iain mhor says:

      @Rev. Stuart Campbell 3:20 pm
      “You assume wrongly”

      Interesting. Well, if I assume wrongly, then it is of course very silly. Sinister, but silly.

      If I could make one other assumption (I alluded to) that it is particular persons who have been notified – quite specifically – to not mention, or be associated with, any mention of the matter.

      Patently the general public have had no communication of such restrictions placed upon them – even for inadvertant use.

      How anyone would propose to inform everyone of this new legislation (?) without err informing everyone of the thing which they must not be informed of, is the risible bit – ‘Don’t think of elephants’? *

      Come to think of it I have had two missed calls from an unknown number – I’d best practice not thinking of large Proboscitea.

      *Unless of course, this article (and others elsewhere?) is the vehicle to inform at least a specific subset of the general populace – well, that was unexpected – clever, but unexpected.
      Damn, there goes my ignorance plea – well played.

      So in the end, it amounts to : ‘The general populace (however ignorant of such restrictions) MAY have their collar felt – as and when we see fit – for contravening unpublished legislation, which may (or may not) actually exist – however inadvertantly.

      Other, quite specific people (we have already had a quiet word with) WILL have their collar felt, if we feel they are disseminating any information (or facilitating the disssemination of information) to the general public – if it is construed as information which we don’t want disseminated – whether or not any crime has actually been committed.

      There is a word and entire concept for that.

      Best of luck then – may as well shut down the blog.
      All blogs for that matter, all newspapers, all social media, political opponents and…ahhh, quite.

      Man, that is an old playbook to be sure and we well know where that originates.

    183. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      I assume @Skip_NC you would have 1st Amendment Rights which would allow full unredacted publication of every single syllable of every single document?

      Pretty sure all true patriots would move heaven and earth to repatriate you as reward for services rendered in the delivery of Scottish Independence.

    184. Alan Mackintosh says:

      So hypothetically, if an interdict has been taken out in Scotland, that doesnt apply in England, and similarly, if a super injunction has been taken out in England, then that doesnt apply in Scotland. So would it be correct to assume that both an interdict and an injunction might well have been raised to cover both jurisdictions, hypothetically speaking.

    185. Skip_NC says:

      Jockanese Wind Talker, I am not a lawyer, but I believe I would be covered by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defamation is also quite a high bar here, as well. Voluminous case law tends to afford more protections to a private citizen (which I am) over elected or appointed officials in the exercise of their public duties.

      Some quite abhorrent speech has been afforded First Amendment protection, eg, https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps

      Of course, the First Amendment is of no help if an extradition treaty permits extradition from another state to Scotland based on alleged offences.

    186. Vestas says:

      You can’t be extradited from the USA for anything covered by First Amendment rights. You can of course be extradited TO the USA for things covered by First Amendment rights – like the attempts to extradite Assange.

      Your problem is that you don’t appear to know what’s going on in detail. That means someone would have to tell you – and as part of that process it could be argued that you conspired to break the law in a foreign country. You’d need a lawyer to advise on that but there’s sod all chance of you being extradited provided you have USA citizenship. It would probably cost you money to defend the action though.

    187. Skip_NC says:

      Vestas, yes, I became a US citizen some years ago. Yes, you are right that I don’t have any details that I could share from here. If I did, I’d have consulted a lawyer by now.

    188. T.C. Nu says:

      Regarding this cipher of a woman in specific, and the alphabettys in general.

      Their names are not unique, the internet, being the fun resource it is, must contain web pages and other link data wherein the exploits of talented women who have the unhappy misfortune to have the same names as the alphabetty hexenfrauen (the SNPs own little Shrill Gesellschaft, as it were..) are detailed.

      They cannot realistically expect whatever the currently deployed ‘cipher’ protecting legal instrument (which itself, apparently cannot be disclosed about?) and the original court order issued to protect the names of the hexenfrauen to cover out of context things like, oh, a random page hosted in some godforsaken foreign hellhole (e.g. the US) which, by some freakishly spooky but statistically plausible happenstance, lists such nomenclaturally unfortunate women, i.e. detailling the achievements of A.Harridan from some place, Othersville, USofA and not about The Harridan, blasted heath, nr Forres?

      Wouldn’t it be interesting if such a page opportunistically appeared both authored by someone, and hosted somewhere, outwith the greasy reach of our increasingly corrupt looking legal system, a page championing so many of these other unknown women and not their opaque (plus now cyphered) namesakes?

      A technical query, does all this legal hamstringing over the publication of names cover things like, oh, the output (for a relevant input) of md5 or that of the ‘leet’ security tool that is rot13, or would this too be regarded as ‘jigsaw’?

    189. Vestas says:

      I don’t pretend to know all the details of this matter but I’d worked out enough during 2019/2020 such that I could confidently identify all of the alphabet women with 90% confidence.

      Garavelli/Carrel’s articles actually identified the last of the alphabet women to me. I was 70% sure prior to the articles who she was but afterwards 100% certain.

      I’m aware of some of the other matters in the background but not to the extent that Stu/Craig Murray are. What I’m aware of is bad enough, not sure I want to know more.

      Nobody “told” me. I worked it out initially & things went from there.

      I’d urge people to be VERY VERY careful what you advocate others to do BTL. I’d be SUPER careful (ie – legal advice) were any of you advocating means and (technical) methods to do so.

      Some of you seem to be under the misapprehension that the Scots legal system is in some way more “liberal/softer” than the English system. Nothing could be further from the truth and if you doubt that then you really do need legal advice. NB – I’m not making a political point here, its been that way for (arguably) centuries.

      Watch what you say unless you’re happy to have plod at the door with a warrant.

    190. Iain More says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      21 January, 2021 at 3:21 pm

      ““If they were as corrupt as you are trying to imply then Salmond and Mark Hirst would be in gaol already and no doubt many others. The fact it is only Scottish independence supporters who are targeted means it is unionist forces behind this whole thing.”

      Unionists have nothing to do with this. Alex Salmond was acquitted by a jury and Mark Hirst by a judge. Had it been down to the Scottish Government or the Crown Office they’d both be rotting in a cell.”

      ——————————————————-

      You incorrectly assume that the SG are in fact Scottish Nationalists Stu. They haven’t behaved as such in at least 6 years plus Rev. The Crown Office to my knowledge have never been Scot Nats. That has been and always will be a hotbed of Yoonery.

    191. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Apparently all is good when dealing in asked hypotheticals @ Vestas!

      https://archive.is/kWTXI

      😉

      Thanks for the concern though.

    192. Derek says:

      @Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      21 January, 2021 at 3:23 pm

      It does not protect you against the law generally. You couldn’t shoot someone dead in the chamber and claim parliamentary privilege.

      Absolutely not; to get away with killing someone you need to at least be married to a diplomat…

    193. Samuel Coleman says:

      Can we not just get a group of souls that need a roof over their head, a bed and three square meals a day for a few months to say the name. At least give some benefit to someone whilst playing the bastards at their own game.

    194. Boaby says:

      I would not be surprised if some bad person/persons spraypaint her name on bridge flyovers.lol.

    195. Alan Mackintosh says:

      Stu, so we are not allowed to say her name. Any restrictions on her husbands name?

    196. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Stu, so we are not allowed to say her name. Any restrictions on her husbands name?”

      I have genuinely no clue whether she’s married or not. But if she is, then yes, naming her husband would clearly identify her and therefore be contempt.

    197. Alan Mackintosh says:

      Stu, ok, just thought I would check. Thanks for replying.

    198. T.C. Nu says:

      Vestas@6:25pm

      ‘..I’d urge people to be VERY VERY careful what you advocate others to do BTL. I’d be SUPER careful (ie – legal advice) were any of you advocating means and (technical) methods to do so.’

      That point was well understood before I posted above. What I’m getting at is that at some point, the information they’re trying hard to suppress *will* get out and they cannot stop it. The way things are going, canaries will have to sing, dead men’s handles will have to activate.

      The trivial way of doing so is well known, publish it somewhere beyond the reach of Scots Law, the example I gave is also a lesser known modification of that technique.

      As to technical means…as an example of how asinine the law is, say someone posted a web page containing a sequence of images of Witches, where the image filenames embedded on the page were of the form ‘cce0ce39c2e807615207a966d3991d3d.jpg’, ‘14272422edd9da9ac9bf87a4c0755ed4.jpg’, etc. etc.

      Would you, or the laws, necessarily spot this as someone ‘outing’ (in)directly the names of the lovely alphabettys? (before anyone gets hot and bothered, it doesn’t, but, illustrates further the point, unless you have the knowing of the how? [clue in previous post], you have to take my word on that), it could be up for years and no-one would know, save it’s creator and anyone they let in on ‘il segreto delle streghe’ and that’s before we get into esoterica like having some ‘fun with steganography’ with the images..secrets hiding within the body of images posted in plain sight..

      Or, how about a mp3 file of ‘Parcel of Rogues’ out there with the names ‘hidden’ in the comment field of the id3 tag?

      ‘Code’ repository on github?

      Innocuously named zipfile on megauploads?

      Innocuously named zipfile shared via DC++, e2dk, etc?

      Innocuously named zipfile shared via a torrent?

      Innocuously named zipfile on an old-school FTP server?

      A hidden webserver on the tor network?

      A ‘blind’ link on a public webserver?

      I could go on…the above are obvious, well-kent ways of mass distributing ‘sensitive’ information in an ‘unobtrusive’ manner, there are others (if you want the nuclear option, that would be posting them on 4chan) , but I think you get the point.

      If someone with access to the information under discussion was so inclined to upload it, they’d already be aware of the means of doing so. I’ve only sketchily outlined the above methods to show how futile any attempt to suppress it’s dissemination in the 21st century ultimately is.

      No matter how hard they try, they can’t police/firewall everything, in the long run the only way they can stop this information getting out to us via the Internet is for them to shut down complete Internet access across Scotland, not firewall it, but shut down *all* networks in Scotland.

      Of course, the harder they do try suppress this, the more the ‘Streisland Effect’ kicks in..it might be of general interest for you to know that the Salmond affair is now being discussed (well, laughed at, mostly) on some of the more right-wing ‘English’ forums & blogs…I read widely, ‘know thy enemy’ and all that jazz, it would not surprise me in the least (considering the calibre of the journalists that haunt these places) for information to leak there.

      This whole business stinks, the Law and it’s agents, from the top down, are blatantly acting against the interests of the Scottish people in an overtly corrupt manner. It’s obvious they’re acting against the spirit of the Law, but they’re probably sticking closely to the letter of it, or, at least, their ‘considered‘ interpretation of the letter.

      As they’re being so nice about the letter of the law, and once they get their hate crimes bill through, you can bet they’ll really be ever-so-nice about following it to the letter, we shouldn’t be sitting on our arses letting them. As well as campaigning, we should, as a matter of principle, be finding and utilising these ‘technical methods’ to circumvent them which, whilst they may be against the ‘spirit’ of laws as they intend them to apply to us, comply with ‘letter’ of them to the very last full stop.

      Of course, it won’t matter in the long run if we’re legally in the right, what with the fun precedents now being set in the era of Covid kangaroo courts..

      ‘ Watch what you say unless you’re happy to have plod at the door with a warrant.’

      Aye, that would be sae typically 21st Century Scotland…

      Getting threatened with physical violence by the drug-dealing shithead son of a drug-dealing shithead?…phone call, incident number, now remember, phone us right back if you’re getting the shit kicked out of you…

      Say online what I’ve said above?…Get the old ‘Morning knock’ from the AS fitup squad…ach, I’ll just enquire of them the age of their dear grannies…

      But yes, that sounds just about wrongly right for these ‘interesting times’..

    199. Annie 621 says:

      “It never happened.
      Nothing ever happened.
      Even when it was happening
      It wasn’t happening.
      It didn’t matter.”

      I fear for every child Here,
      The present, the future,
      the terror that is Scotland.

    200. Derek says:

      [redacted]’s [redacted], [red][acted], is a former [redacted] to [redacted].

      Anywhere near the [redacted] that we’re after?

    201. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Stuart,

      As a virtual friend, might I recommend you rent a small cottage on an island that I have been lucky enough stay at many times?

      “To escape the daily grind of journalism and to find a clean environment”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnhill,_Jura

      There is an awesome irony that in Scotland of all places, where this iconic polemic of 1984 was written is precisely the country where the fifth-columnist fiat SNP ministers are now bringing us to the place where life will imitate art.

      If I were cynical, the thought would occur that some clever person within the UK security services has a hilariously wicked sense of humour in successfully achieving the objective of fucking up the SNP.

    202. Colin McKean says:


      David Lyon says:
      21 January, 2021 at 11:53 am
      Let’s all say her name at once.

      They can’t arrest us all… and if they do, we can keep each other company in prison.”

      I suggested such a thing a long, long time ago. It was suggested it could be contempt even suggesting this…

    203. Robert says:

      This reminds me of a Spanish film called “Mar Adentro” in which a paralysed man gets 13 friends together to help him commit suicide (assisted suicide being illegal in Spain). Each one takes one action which together lead to his death, but no one of them is culpable.
      So, how about if X people get together and each post a comment or tweet with one letter of the mystery woman’s name? Nobody is actually culpable of saying her name, but everyone will know who she is.
      NB: I do not know who she is.

    204. Stoker says:

      To be honest with you when i first seen the silhouette picture at the top of this thread it wasn’t anyone connected to the ScotGov or SNP (not directly anyway) who sprung to mind. And no it wasn’t Eddie Izzard either! Still not going to say the name though just in case but i thought it was a former Labour in Scotland branch manager and you were having a wee quiz. LOL! Then i read your article. FFS!

    205. Stoker says:

      Kate says on 21 January, 2021 at 4:18 pm @ Paul Brown:
      “I think I might be the only person in the northern hemisphere who still doesn’t know who is being spoken about.”

      “No you are not, I have not a Scooby..”

      I think i do but as far as the alphabet mob are concerned i don’t (well most of them) but that is by design simply because considering the injustice being carried out i really cannot trust myself to stay zipped so i’ve deliberately avoided looking into it at all. Thinking i know one of them is more than enough for me to handle. And it’s not so much the fear of going to jail that stops me but more that i would end up being denied access to my favourite indy blog if i did.

      We are now living in extremely dangerous times where freedom of speech is even more a mythical fantasy than it ever was previously. Add all this onto the fact we have at least one person in the current ScotGov (Hoozat Useless) who thinks the recent decision by Westminster to offer special protective status to government agents re torture & murder etc is a “good thing” and you’ll see a very very dodgy road ahead. Very scary!

    206. Roddy MacRae says:

      In a normal world if a person who gives evidence while under oath s found to have lied, while under oath fhat individual would be in front of a magistrate answering to charges of perjury. There is no conclusion to or justice served in the AS matter until such time as that public trial takes place

    207. Gary says:

      I remember when ‘a certain footballer’ (I’d name him but really can’t remember his name) obtained a super-injunction but the Scottish papers named him due to the injunction not extending to Scotland. Obviously Sky feels that this DOES apply to them.

      As you aren’t naming anyone being threatened then neither shall I, but I can only say that any law that allows a kangaroo court with no jury and only one judge to decide on your innocence/guilt is a travesty. I’m finding out so much about our legal system through this and none of it’s good!

    208. AllyG says:

      Wings may be accused of Jigsaw identification. By saying the person is a woman he’s helped me eliminate half the possibilities.

    209. Stéphane Séchaud says:

      Is this not easily circumvented by leaking the information to the foreign press who are not subject UK laws? What about whistle blower sites like wikileaks? What about attaching the names to a bitcoin transaction so that they are on the blockchain so they can never be censored?

    210. Dan says:

      AllyG says: at 1:44 am

      Wings may be accused of Jigsaw identification. By saying the person is a woman he’s helped me eliminate half the possibilities.

      Hi AllyG, I can’t help but notice you’re still running code which utilises the old definition of “woman”.
      This is Scotland 2021, so probably best to book yourself in for a reprogramming update. 😉

    211. Confused says:

      putting the names on the blockchain? – that’s a good one. But it would not stop scottish judges from persisting in their absurdity

      – bitcoin would be banned in scotland
      – downloading the blockchain would be illegal

      shame bitcoin transactions are not anonymous

    212. Jack says:

      Voldermot



    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