The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Translation service

Posted on February 23, 2021 by

Utterly Insane Demented Crazy World version:

And in English:

It really is all but impossible to overstate the completely deranged lunacy of what’s happening in Scotland right now. These are legal documents which have been both lawyered to within an inch of their lives by MULTIPLE sets of lawyers AND already read by hundreds of thousands of people, yet the absurdly compromised and corrupt Crown Office is making an absolute fool of itself by trying to retrospectively suppress them in a move that couldn’t look more idiotically totalitarian if the Lord Advocate was to show up and give a press statement about it with a little toothbrush moustache.

We hope that the inquiry committee’s website can cope with the flood of thousands of people who’ll be downloading them this morning before they get pulled, and preparing to compare them with any redacted versions that might subsequently appear.

[EDIT: we’ve just noticed that by a remarkable coincidence the front page has been down for most of today. Given the levels of competence displayed by the Scottish Government in this conspiracy so far, we cannot rule out the idea that some idiot thinks that’ll disable all the pages below it too.]

(We might also note in passing that it’s curious that the Scottish Parliament gets a nice little “if you wouldn’t mind” letter while this site and The Spectator get threatened with jail. Unless of course we’re to expect prosecutions of the entire Scottish Parliament Corporate Body and/or the Scottish Government, of which the Lord Advocate himself is a member and shares collective responsibility. Fweep gloop splibble doink.)

Scotland under Nicola Sturgeon’s rule has become a deep-fried banana fritter republic. We’re almost more embarrassed than we are angry.


[EDIT 11.52am: the following statement has been issued.

With jaw-dropping incompetence, the submission has NOT in fact been removed at all. Only the link to it has. The document itself is still on the site and can be read by anyone with the direct link.

The advance notice given of the possible removal has now ensured that anyone who downloaded it last night or this morning can compare it with the redacted version when it appears and immediately discern who the redaction seeks to protect, and thereby who might be one (or indeed more, who can tell?) of the complainers in the case, even though the document itself contains no clues whatsoever to that fact.

What an absolute clown show.]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

307 to “Translation service”

  1. ScotsRenewables says:

    Can someone explain what difference it will make if it is removed, bearing in mind there are tens of thousands of copies of it in circulation now?

  2. Desimond says:

    Do they stop digging when we come out at Australia?

  3. Name (required) says:

    deep-fried banana fritter republic

    deep fried devolved, representative, constitutional monarchy if you please

  4. Neil Anderson says:

    “…AND already read by hundreds of thousands of people,” and saved in hundreds of thousands of electronic devices. For a rainy day.

  5. Achnababan says:

    Scots Renewables…. means Salmond wont testify I guess…

    A lastthrow of the dice from a desperate Sturgeon….

  6. Sharon says:

    The CROWN OFFICE!! This lot are turning us into Toytown.

  7. David Caledonia says:

    N U T T E R S

  8. Captain Yossarian says:

    ‘We cannot have someone leading this country through this pandemic linked to this scandal.

    If Sturgeon still holds the position of the FM this time this week it is an outrage. For decency sake she should resign now as, let us not forget, she defended her husband loudly in Holyrood stating he had nothing to do with the inquiry when Ruth Davidson challenged her on his part in the proceedings.

    Scotland will be a far better place without the corrupt Murrells.’

    It’s all the Crown Office can do. They’ve got away with Mallicious Prosecutions and all the rest of it due to protection afforded them by Sturgeon and Wolffe. Now, Alex Salmond is prowling about and that worries all of them.

    My reading of Salmond’s statement left me with the impression that our legal establishment, which has protected us and we have trusted for a few hundred years, is now politically corrupted.

    You can only get real justice in Scotland now if you are a millionaire.

    I would jail a few lawyers now.

  9. kapelmeister says:

    The Clown Office.

  10. Alexander Wallace says:

    This is probably an attempt to stop Alex Salmond giving evidence tomorrow.

  11. TNS2019 says:

    The rule of law has collapsed.
    Our legislature is both incapable of and unwilling to hold the executive to account.
    Our judiciary is controlled by the executive.
    Malicious prosecutions are rife and is the innocent who are most at risk whilst the guilty hold positions of pwer.
    Our regulators are hopelessly corrupt and compromised by ramapant cronyism.
    Our press manacled to government by funding ties.
    Scotland is not in danger of becoming a ‘failed state’.
    It is already there.

  12. Ottomanboi says:

    Scotland’s government aka the Banana Bunch.
    England’s on the other hand.
    Bunch of unaccountable Dickheads…rampant…..

  13. Mac says:

    Yep still working. That is them downloaded.

    I am guessing it would be pretty easy to put them in a zip file and upload them to a sharing site if you were so inclined.

  14. kapelmeister says:

    Chaplain’s Great Dictator set there has banners with a double x symbol. Is that Both Votes Sturgeon’s SNP?

  15. Alice Timmons says:

    Time for AS and everyone else to say “prosecute and be damned”.

  16. LaingB French says:

    its pure fanny man

  17. Milady says:

    Interesting to note the ‘St Nicola’ peeps on Twitter are getting really agitated now. Lots of well kent Tweeters are now blocking anyone who comes back to them with even a smidgeon of an inconvenient truth. Nicola herself is sounding shriller with every appearance. If Scottish politics were a game of Kerplunk we’re not far off the marbles being all over the floor.

  18. Los says:

    Haven’t they heard of the Streisand Effect?

  19. AwakeNotWoke says:

    Embarrassing. Pathetically embarrassing. In times past, the people would be on their way with pitchforks in hand.
    There is no point in Salmond trying to speak if they are determined to control what he can say.
    The Hate Crime Bill is about to suppress our thinking & debates even further.
    I hope & pray that enough of the people are seeing this for what it is, and are unwilling to accept it.
    Scotland is a banana republic. Fuck sake.

  20. Dream Brut says:

    You say ‘before they get pulled’ Stu … is it a certainty that they will??

  21. Christian Schmidt says:

    “Can someone explain what difference it will make if it is removed, bearing in mind there are tens of thousands of copies of it in circulation now?”

    If I get this right, the idea is that Alex Salmond couldn’t then refer to it in his evidence sessions (or any of the content), the committee couldn’t refer to it in its report, the committee report may end up a wash, which would provide Nicola Sturgeon with a fig leaf.

    I doubt that would actually work, but I think that’s the idea…

  22. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Captain Yossarian

    Sturgeon will NEVER resign – she will go down with her ship and take the SNP with her if she has to.

  23. Eileen Carson says:

    “Linked to scandal…”? She’s up to her bottom lip in it now, one more revelation and it’ll be over her head!!

  24. Republicofscotland says:

    It appears to be one last desperate attempt by Sturgeon’s partners in crime the Crown office to block Salmond’s submissions.

  25. Effijy says:

    Breaking News-

    Scot Gov is halting the vaccination program in order to
    Distribute Brown Paper Bags the should be fitted over
    every citizen’s head until such times as the corrupt politicians,
    Civil servants, Lord Advocate, COPFS, and the Police can get
    away with a sea of corrupt and illegal practices.

    There will be an official on hand for when Alex Salmond speaks who
    will strike a gong if Alex uses the words Yes, No, Innocent or Stitch up.

    At that point he has to leave after 2 Bikini clad girls show him what he could have won.

    This is a complete and utter farce. A disgrace to democracy and justice.
    I demand every word of every document is made available and every corrupt official and
    liar are brought down by the full might of the law as we once knew it.

  26. Wee Chid says:

    Has it gone already? Can’t find it through a search.

  27. Georges says:

    It’s almost as though the current Nicola Sturgeon led administration are deliberately doing their best to undermine people’s confidence in the Scottish Government and our justice system.

    Are they trolling the electorate? Are they doing this to undermine people’s belief in independence? Look, we’re incompetent (some might say corrupt) so imagine how much worse it would be if Scotland were independent and we, or people like us, were in charge?

  28. dramfineday says:

    Dear oh, dear oh, dear. Embarrassed, yes and that’s putting it mildly. It’s amazing what you’ll do when sanity starts to slip from your grasp and panic sets in.

    Time for the resignations to start.

    To quote Terry Thomas “I can tell you that they are an absolute shower. A positive shower”.

  29. Kat says:

    There just aren’t enough facepalm gifs in the world to cover this embarrassment of the Scottish people for their government.

  30. Claire says:

    This is at the request of the 11th appeal from Rape Crisis Scotland !

    The wheels on the bus are about to come off !

  31. Mia says:

    Oh come on. This is really beyond the joke. The Crown Office has already shown a massive conflict of interest up to now. They are not presented under a flattering light in that submission nor they have presented themselves as honest in the way the evidence has been suppressed.

    Frankly, how it can possibly be now credible for these people to demand those documents to be removed from the public’s view when it is clearly an attempt to cover their own arses (and those of the crown agents and particularly Sturgeon) and saving themselves more embarrassment? In what universe that is not seen as an spectacular example of abuse of power?

    Are the Scottish judges going to witness this and simply look the other way while a gang of crooks completely destroy the reputation of every single democratic and justice structure in Scotland?

    Are the members of that Fabiani’s Farce going to stand by this and allow that liar STurgeon to waltz in after this? If any of those committee members has any dignity and any sense of justice they would stand down and release an statement indicating that it is impossible for the committee to do its work for as long as the Crown Office is denying them the tools to do so.

    Was this the embarrassing trick under Sturgeon’ sleeve? To stop the submission so her lies can stick?

    Sturgeon is an embarrassment. The worse, most dishonest and corrupt politician in the entire world.

  32. Betsy says:

    I’m presuming that they want the documents unpublished so that the committee can’t ask questions on them.

  33. Louise says:

    Stu seriously I’ve got a heart condition if your going to make me laugh so hard it makes my ticker a bit overly ticky ticky could you put a warning up …I also spilled my tea you owe me a Costa mate ???

  34. John Martini says:

    Best wee corrupt banana republic in the world. Surprised they don’t all have six toes.

    Is there scottish equivalent of the habsburg jaw.

  35. Breeks says:

    Quite extraordinary rearguard action to suppress evidence which Sturgeon brazenly asserts doesn’t exist.

  36. Teetering says:

    As at 10:20am, Scottish Parliament homepage is down.

  37. AnneDon says:

    The separate Scottish legal system survived the Act of Union. Can it survive this Lord Advocate?

  38. James Riddle says:

    Thanks for the warning! As a result, I have rapidly downloaded the recent Craig Murray piece and the relevant material on Wings – so that even if you are forced to take it down, I have it.

  39. David Gray says:

    Has a date been set for our book-burning? Will the biggest one be in Edinburgh or Glasgow?

  40. Patrick Roden says:

    ScotsRenewables says:

    Can someone explain what difference it will make if it is removed, bearing in mind there are tens of thousands of copies of it in circulation now?

    Because Alex has named names, so they have a clear choice, defend themselves by raising legal action against his claims in which case it would be fought in court and all documentation would need to be released.

    or, say nothing and have people wonder why they are not raising legal actions against Alex.

    Alex has cornered them, so they are desperately searching for a way out, and they have chosen to try the route of removing his statement from the record so that they do not have to answer it.

    They are looking very stupid and completely incompetent right now, but looking very stupid and incompetent is a whole lot better than having to react to Alex’s statement.

  41. Captain Yossarian says:

    This is the morning after the night before….. and this is the best they can come-up with?

    Old-Alex is staring at them…..all of them. I must admit that my favorite for inhumane treatment would be John Swinney, but I notice that Alex really let him off the hook.

    Swinney’s always hiding in dark corners, using other people to threaten folk. Swinney says: ‘make this go-away’ and they do (usually).

  42. turnbuldrier says:

    I take it that, although the world + dog has read/seen this, if they remove it then AS can’t, legally, reference any of his own submission or he would be in contempt…

    Is this right?

  43. Karmanaut says:

    So, what are the chances Alex Salmond’s actual appearance before the committee will be plagued by “techinical difficulties”?

  44. Margaret Lindsay says:

    Breaks at 10.18. Exactly! I’m enraged and embarrassed in equal measure.
    Rev Stu, can this shrill harridan (Sturgeon) be impeached?

  45. Fairliered says:

    If Alex Salmond is reading this blog, or if anyone is speak to him, please urge him not to cancel next Wednesday.

  46. AndyH says:


  47. June Maxwell says:

    I bet Netflix executives are salivating at the prospect of a ‘must watch’ series emanating from this whole debacle. What they have done to Scotland and its prospects is ? ?.

  48. laukat says:

    This doesn’t look at all like they have something to hide. You have to wonder at what point they are going to stop digging a hole?

    The crown office request sounds like its part of yesterdays campaign to supress the salmond evidence alongside Rape Crisis Scotland and the ‘concerned parliament workers’.

    You would hope the parliamentary enquiry would ask the crown office to explain their reasons for this request and ultimately tell them to go and try to get an injunction if they believe it shouldn’t be read. However the abscence of the Crown Office pursuing an injunction shows they know they don’t have a legal leg to stand on.

  49. Captain Yossarian says:

    ‘The important point to grasp here is that if the Crown Office succeeds in un-publishing Salmond’s submission then the Inquiry cannot consider it when it comes to finalising its conclusions. Devious.’ – ANDREW NEIL

  50. June Maxwell says:

    I bet Netflix executives are salivating at the prospect of a ‘must watch’ series emanating from this whole debacle. What they have done to Scotland and its prospects is heartbreaking.

  51. Fairliered says:

    A book for Sturgeon – The Nightmare Will Never Die.

  52. Alf Baird says:

    Crown is the ‘legal embodiment of the British state’ in Scotland.

    i.e. nae verra Scottis at aa.

    Juist in case onybody disnae ken.

    Thon’s a maiter o pouer, an wha haes mair pouer – oor Holyrood Pairlament or Crown?

    Thon’s a maiter o wha rules ower Scotlan. Thaim or us.

  53. Cenchos says:

    I assume it’s the ‘Final written submission from Alex Salmond’ pdf we’re talking about here.

    The ‘resign’ letter of 17th Feb.

  54. Big Jock says:

    The same effect as Sturgeons ill timed media frenzy last night. It’s just a panic measure , that conflicts with any sense of logic.

    Sturgeon wanted to have a rant before Salmond released his evidence last night. It didn’t stop it being released. Now them trying to remove the statements , when everyone has a copy already, is evidence of government complete meltdown. The empire is crumbling like Pompeii in the eye of an unstoppable force of nature.

    Put simply, it’s the death throws of an empire.

  55. Socrates MacSporran says:

    I had a lengthy professional relationship with The Scotsman group, and made many friends among their staff.

    I sort of feel sorry for those few who are left, at this time. The paper’s high heid yins hate the idea of an Independent Scotland. They hate the SNP. They also, as unionists, recognise that Wee Eck – a one-time Hootsmon columnist, is probably the biggest danger to the unionist status quo.

    So, there they are, in effect unable to take sides in this current stooshie.

    They know Sturgeon, the Scottish Government and such government agencies as COPFS are a bunch of chancers. They know Wee Eck has right on his side – but, their hands are tied.

    I could almost, feel sorry for them.

  56. James Riddle says:

    Captain Yossarian

    I think we can infer from this that John Swinney is one of the alphabet sisters.

  57. wee monkey says:

    OK. Time for Westminster to take over.

  58. Big Jock says:

    That reminds me….my popcorn is getting low!

  59. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Has it gone already? Can’t find it through a search.”

    Be a lot less terrible at searching. Or just use the DIRECT LINKS WE POSTED LAST NIGHT.

  60. Captain Yossarian says:

    @Big Jock – Exactly. Those inside Holyrood and St Andrews House will be queueing for the lavvy-pans this morning.

  61. kapelmeister says:

    This move is probably to do with the Crown Office trying to protect itself than trying to protect Sturgeon.

  62. paul says:

    Desimond says:
    23 February, 2021 at 9:56 am

    Do they stop digging when we come out at Australia?

    Covid restrictions would not allow them to emerge from that hole.

  63. John Martini says:

    Would it be illegal to post on billboards?

  64. AdamH says:

    kapelmeister says:
    23 February, 2021 at 10:35 am
    This move is probably to do with the Crown Office trying to protect itself than trying to protect Sturgeon.

    They are tied together tighter than Siamese twins.
    SG protects COPFS (JW) and COPFS (tries to) protect SG (NS).
    They sink or swim together.

    Scot Parl has to take a grip here. If they fold over this then
    they are just a playgroup.

  65. John Main says:


    The link works for me and I have read the article online.

    The claims made by AS are cogent, articulate and explosive.

    I believe AS.

    It used to be the case that we aspired to be the best wee country in the world.

    Under NS’s SNP, we can now only hope to be the best wee third-world country in the world.

  66. Breeks says:

    Seems one way or another, Scotland will have it’s own Bastille Day.

    The question is whether it’s an angry mob breaking Alex Salmond (or Craig Murray) out, or locking Nicola Sturgeon in.

    We could maybe go full on Alexandre Dumas, and actually organise a prisoner exchange, write the sequal to The Man in Iron Mask, and call it “The Woman in the Brass Neck”.

    Would using the word ‘woman’ in the title be a problem for anybody? Good! Bold and in capitals it is then. 😉

  67. Big Jock says:

    This is just the Scottish Watergate now.

  68. kapelmeister says:


    Guess you’re right. With Watergate the crooks were brought down en masse.

  69. Deryck De McBoomer says:

    Strange that the Fabiani Committee does not get a mention on the ScotsParly TV Business Page for Tomorrow.

  70. Mia says:

    I am raging.

    If the COPFS is controlled by the Scottish government, may I ask exactly what authority has a government structure over the parliament of Scotland and its committees? Shouldn’t the parliament and its committees be ABOVE any government structure? if not, why not?

    I fail to see the legitimacy behind giving a government structure that is under scrutiny for corruption the power to actually decide what evidence can be published and can be used to scrutinise them. It is akin at allowing a murderer to have the ultimate power to determine what evidence the prosecution, the jury and the judge can bring against them in the criminal case. This situation is completely ridiculous.

    Can I ask specifically what documents exactly are the COPFS crooks wanting out of the enquiry this time?

    I did a search looking from Ms Harvey’s affidavit and I could not find it. Is that the smoking gun they want “unpublished”, just like they suppressed the other smoking gun that is Aberdein’s submission?

    On that note, why exactly have the paragraphs in that affidavit been redacted? What was the excuse this time? I think at this point the public has the right to know what information the Lord Advocate and his cronies are deliberately suppressing from us and why.

    This is not about identifying complainers anymore. If somebody from the SNP HQ or somebody from the SGov was wasting out taxpayers’ money with a fishing expedition politically motivated, then we have the right to know who that person is, on behalf of who they were acting and why. This is about deliberately denying us the opportunity to hold this corrupt government and the fingers of the British state in our government, parliament, SNP, police and COPFS to account.

    I think we should demand a whole detailed bill for the costs that are going to be foisted on the taxpayers for this entire Fabiani’s farce and then pass that bill to COPFS, which are the ones who have rendered it useless and pointless.

    And following questions, may I ask what right have an unelected quango like Rape Crisis Scotland, to decide what an official parliamentary inquiry publishes or not? Since when an unelected private quango has power over our own fckng Parliament?

  71. wee monkey says:

    “Alf Baird says:
    23 February, 2021 at 10:30 am
    Crown is the ‘legal embodiment of the British state’ in Scotland.

    i.e. nae verra Scottis at aa.

    Juist in case onybody disnae ken.

    Thon’s a maiter o pouer, an wha haes mair pouer – oor Holyrood Pairlament or Crown?

    Thon’s a maiter o wha rules ower Scotlan. Thaim or us.”

    Alf. The crown office is headed by a political appointee of the first minister. IE a gov minister who reports to the fm.

    Salmond’s first move was to cut that link making the legal system separate from government

    The first thing Sturgeon did was put the link (and thus control) back.

  72. Stuart Manson says:

    There must be thousands of people who downloaded copies last night, is the next step from the crown office to demand all copies be deleted? Aye, good luck with that!

  73. paul says:

    David Gray says:
    23 February, 2021 at 10:22 am

    Has a date been set for our book-burning? Will the biggest one be in Edinburgh or Glasgow?

    Not sure about the date, but try the murrell company’s accountants for the location.

  74. Beaker says:

    If this is what to expect in an independent Scotland, forget it.

    Reset and restart.

  75. Checks notes says:

    Teetering says:
    23 February, 2021 at 10:20 am
    As at 10:20am, Scottish Parliament homepage is down.

    The direct link to the evidence page still works and showing Alex’s submissions as at 10.39

    Looks like they’re trying to stop folk finding it, most folk would go in via the home page.

  76. Christopher Quinn says:

    Hutcheon, in The Record today, trying to downplay NS and the SG’s role in all this as being nothing more sinister than amateurish and/or incompetent and that AS is blowing it all out of proportion. Even if this was the case, I don’t know anyone that would want an amateurish and/or incompetent group of evil clowns running their country.

  77. Republicofscotland says:


    That’s an interesting link to the Scotsman, in which Salmond claims to know the leaker of the info to Clegg at the Daily Record, and when the right moment arises he’ll give their name to the police.

    Police Scotland have pulled dozens of folk in and questioned them on who leaked the Murrell tweets, yet as of yet no action has been taken to find out who leaked the info to Clegg.

    It stinks to high heaven.

  78. Mia says:

    “The crown office is headed by a political appointee of the first minister”

    Sure. And what the hell is a crown agent, “ex MI5” doing inside the COPFS?

    Isn’t this crown agent the one that sent the complaints to the police?

  79. kapelmeister says:

    Nicola’s Women Hold Up Half The Sky heading swiftly for the bargain bins at WH Smiths. Although, since she’s now destined to be a notorious figure in Scottish history, if you get a copy and can get the Dreghorn Deity to autograph it then it’ll be worth a bit someday. A family heirloom for your great great grandkids.

  80. paul says:

    Captain Yossarian says:
    23 February, 2021 at 10:29 am

    ‘The important point to grasp here is that if the Crown Office succeeds in un-publishing Salmond’s submission then the Inquiry cannot consider it when it comes to finalising its conclusions. Devious.’ – ANDREW NEIL

    “It was all a dream,dorothy”

  81. Linda McFarlane says:

    Click on Stu’s direct links – PDF opens – then download to your PC – simples.

  82. robertknight says:

    Anyone with a Twitter or Facebook account should copy the Rev’s links to Salmond’s submissions, which he posted yesterday, and get them online now!

  83. Mia says:

    “Police Scotland have pulled dozens of folk in and questioned them on who leaked the Murrell tweets”

    Yes, and many questions arise from that:

    who instructed the police to investigate the leak of those tweets and authorised the expenses for that?

    Was that the same crown agent who sent to the police the complaints of the first two women or was somebody else? Who?

    who failed to report to the police the leak to the newspaper so an investigation was not initiated, or who stopped the police conducting that investigation?

    Who instructed the massive police investigation against Mr Salmond and authorised the expenditure? The crown agent?

  84. Alan Mackintosh says:

    From having read Alex’s final submission and the appendixes, the one that really stands out is Anne Harvey’s affadavit. The reason it stands out is the amount of black and shaded redactions in it. That must be an explosive statement. At least she has honour and integrity.

    Have you any idea what is in the affadavit Stu?

  85. Shetto Al says:

    Joanna Cherry might not want to be First Minister but she would make an outstanding Lord Advocate to clean up the corruption in the Crown Office when all this is over.

  86. Cenchos says:

    Or mibbees they’re trying ensure the website is down ‘through a surfeit of requests’ or somesuch. Overworked hamsters, SSPCA complaint, etc .

  87. Astonished says:

    “Borgen ” mair like “brigadoon”.

    Police Scotland if you are forced to act then the force will not recover the support of the public for a very, very long time. And the senior officers who are failing to act I hope will be appearing in court.

    An investigation is long overdue.

  88. DMT says:

    Salmond named people & made allegations at them. Their choice is either defend themselves via suing for defamation; or do nothing & have people wonder why they didn’t. Crown Office has decided to unpublish the evidence so they don’t need to answer Salmond at all. Banana republic.

    At least the SPCB (scottish parliament corporate body) has shown a little backbone and replied by requesting clarification as to Crown Office concern (instead of instantly rolling over)

  89. Slop says:

    Some small grounds for hope. COPFS raised its concerns with the parliament’s corporate body not with the committee. Assuming Wightman recuses and COPFS has no cogent reasons for unpublishing, the corporate body could stand its grounds.

  90. mr thms says:

    Captain Yossarian @ 10:29 am
    ‘Devious.’ – ANDREW NEIL

    As in ‘check’ or ‘checkmate’ devious?

  91. LindyLoo2020 says:

    It is beyond ridiculous now. The National pointed out that as well as Alex’s final statement being published last night Liz Lloyd’s statement was also published last night. Is this subject to the same pull order.

  92. Bob Mack says:

    John 8/32 “The truth shall set you free”

    Terms and conditions apply. Those living north of Carlisle may be exempt.

  93. Alibi says:

    I want independence for Scotland. If the FM is involved in this stitch up, she will need to resign, no question. That does not mean we can’t achieve independence; it’s just a pothole in the road and there have been many potholes in the past.

    Inconvenient timing with an election coming up. I remain open-minded about what’s going on here until such time as we’ve hear from all the parties concerned, but I trust Stuart’s journalism as he has generally been on the nail before now, so the situation looks worrying to put it mildly. I do think there are a lot of people commenting on here who, shall we say, are not wanting independence and I would ask the question “who stands to benefit most from a big row right now?”. It is hard to imagine that NS would be so stupid as to get involved in something like this. Maybe this is an opportunity to cleanse the party of the Wokerati along with anyone who is complicit in trying to stitch up Alex. my gut feeling in all of this is that the forces of darkness, the uK establishment, will be involved in some shape or form, but leaving few traces that it’s anything to do with them. We are in a war of independence and the UK will always fight dirty. I await further developments with interest and some trepidation.

  94. DMW42 says:

    Mia @10:46

    I note in AS’ submission (just before his Summary) that:

    ‘Crown Agent David Harvie’s line manager at that time was Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary’.

  95. Cath says:

    What’s the betting all the communication lines into and out of Strichen will mysteriously be down tomorrow morning?

  96. Frank Gillougley says:

    Isn’t the placing of human shields in front of susceptible targets what despots the world over do?

  97. Tom Hunt says:

    From the Guardian this morning (23/2/21): ‘The parliament’s corporate body went into emergency session early on Tuesday morning to consider the Crown Office’s letter. A Holyrood spokesperson confirmed its lawyers had already written back asking the Crown Office for clarification about its concerns.’

  98. Famous15 says:

    Jermy Vine Show thinks it is a trial which was crowdfunded by Salmond and will end the Independence movement. Clueless.

    Sarah Masson SNP candidate in ED West tweets a cut and paste affirmation that Alex Cole-Hamilton is debatably less woke than she is Should I vote for her or vote Loony?

  99. Willie says:

    Here is a scene from the Goodfellas where a couple of political opponents are dealt with. Gruesome maybe but is it any different from what was attempted on Alex Salmond. Well of course it isn’t.

    This I’m afraid is the Scotland we now live in under First Minister Surgeon and her coterie of control.

    And for the MSPs and MPs sitting silent, taking their wedge, keeping Omertà, they need to watch this extract because they could be on the list.

  100. Ottomanboi says:

    More on the guy who may be up for Saving the Union.
    Can you feel the ground tremble?

  101. Alf Baird says:

    Shetto Al @ 10:54

    “Joanna Cherry might not want to be First Minister but she would make an outstanding Lord Advocate to clean up the corruption in the Crown Office when all this is over.”

    Independence is not about mimicking the coloniser or their institutions and roles.

    The rot is far wider than Crown Office; a colonial meritocracy is embedded throughout institutional Scotland, as one might expect. The Estonians offered suggestions in this regard.

  102. Unwokey Bloke says:

    This explains Sturgeons bring it on nonsense in front of the camera last night she knew this was coming.

    After this last minute attempt by the Crown Office to stop Salmond from appearing before the inquiry, any SNP voter that still believes there hasn’t been a blatant attempt to get Salmond by Sturgeons inner circle needs their head examined.

  103. Beaker says:

    @Alibi says:
    23 February, 2021 at 11:05 am
    “I want independence for Scotland. If the FM is involved in this stitch up, she will need to resign, no question. That does not mean we can’t achieve independence; it’s just a pothole in the road and there have been many potholes in the past.”

    More like a sinkhole. It’s trending on Twitter along with Charles Kennedy.

  104. Olive Perrins says:

    Rev, has there been a formally updated scope post the November letter from James Hamilton?

    “My inclination is to think that in the case of matters which form part of, or are closely related to, the subject matter of the remit it could be open to me to consider whether any provisions of the Ministerial Code other than those mentioned expressly in the remit had been broken. However, that situation is distinct from broadening the factual scope of the inquiry”

    Is this saying the scope remains the same but evidence can be considered and reported albeit not necessarily form part of the judgement?

  105. Skip_NC says:

    Famous 15, in a roundabout sort of way (can’t believe I’m about to type this) Alex Cole-Hamilton may be your bridge to independence. Well, more like a pontoon really.

  106. Nally Anders says:

    Sky news already over the story. Mathew’s smugly noted that P.Murrell is specifically mentioned as a conspirator.
    Expect more of the same.
    It’s all out there whether or not COPFS get their way.

  107. James Carroll says:

    The degradation of Scotland’s institutions by the current leaderships are an absolute embarrassment to each and every one of us. The continual obstruction of justice surely must be questioned legally. We need to stop this!

  108. Big Jock says:

    It’s amazing how this saying never ages. It happens to every empire.

    “Absolute power corrupts, absolutely”

    It’s as inevitable as rain in Scotland.

  109. Willie says:

    Or what about the scene from the Godfather 2 where the two police officers hold the young Michael Corleone so that the Irish American bent cop can break his jaw..

    Any similarities with Police Scotland and their pursuance of selected political targets.

    Bent cops, bent politicians, and the paid off district attorney – yep that’s a reasonable picture of present Scotland.

  110. David Earl says:

    FFS! I think I’ll move to North Korea. It appears to be more democratic. I never thought I’d say it but I detest Sturgeon more that Thatcher. Am I right to think that? I always hated Thatcher and the Tories but at least you knew where they stood. Sturgeon is the snake in the Jungle Book hypnotising everyone into thinking she’s the very best

  111. Mr Bruce Hosie says:

    I think most of us agree there is far more to this whole mess than meets the eye, I think most of us suspect that most of those involved, including the First Minister, have been a bit economical with the facts. Most of us at the very least would expect Wolffe and Evans to resign due to their level of sheer incompetence but the issue will be can Alex Salmond prove beyond doubt what he believes to be true. Now I have more faith in what he says than I do Nicola Sturgeon at this point but can it be proven given all that has been hidden from the public, I am not so sure. This whole affair, on top of bad policy, Covid, the state of the SNP and overall governance, let alone the lack of movement on independence has made me decide not to vote SNP in May and only vote ISP or AFI on the list. I have no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon has to go for the sake of the country and how we move forward, whatever the result of the enquires she is now tainted and who really trusts her anymore either way. Ultimately I don’t think we will ever get to the truth of all of this but it sure as hell stinks and erodes faith in Holyrood and our institutions, that is down to Sturgeon and those around her.

  112. Big Jock says:

    Fantasy question. If Salmond was reinstated as SNP leader , after cleaning the corruption. Could the SNP still win in May?

  113. deerhill says:

    Have the Murrells booked the helicopter to airlift them off the Bute House roof? It would be a suitable precaution.

    Mark Knofler’s “Postcard from Paraguay” springs to mind.

  114. laukat says:

    I suspect at some point over the next few weeks someone from within the Sturgeon camp will break. Usually there is someone who is politically ambitous who will see that this is their opportunity to get rid of Sturgeon and got for the top job.

    My money is on Swinney. I think he still thinks he could be SNP leader. He clearly holds a grudge against Salmond for ending his first tenure and perhaps also Sturgeon for giving him the education post when she knew it was poisioned chalice.

    I suspect he will arrange for information to get into the press or direct Hamilton to widen his scope if Salmond’s oral evidence creates enough demand.

  115. Ian Mac says:

    Sturgeon and her minions put King Canute to shame. To justify her claim that there is no evidence of the framing of AS, she is deleting the evidence as quickly as it comes in. The waves are lapping round her feet and rising fast. But apparently the tide can be commanded to turn by executive decree.

  116. Captain Yossarian says:

    @laukat – Swinney is a dead man walking. There’s just as much scandal on Swinney as there is on Sturgeon.

  117. robertknight says:

    Getting the COPFS/Lord Advocate/Crown Agent to admit any sort of wrongdoing in this scandal will be like getting a child to admit to scoffing the last slice of chocolate cake left in the fridge.

    They’ll swear blind that it was nothing to do with them.

    Not realising that everyone but themselves can see the chocolate icing and crumbs around their mouth…

  118. kapelmeister says:

    Meanwhile, south of the border down Brexito way, Bojo has appointed a new chief for his union unit. A posh Tory boy councillor from Hampstead who’s obsessed about flytipping.

    With what’s happening both in Scotland and down there it feels like we’re in a zany dystopian novel.

  119. Ian Mac says:

    Just imagine: we wanted independence from the corrupt cronyism of Westminster and its entirely unrepresentative, elected dictatorship. So instead we get corrupt cronyism, and an elected dictatorship of our own who rule by decree, intimidation and perversion of the system. Just fancy that!

  120. Cenchos says:

    Miss Sturgeon is past her prime and her crème-de-la-crème was always last week’s milk.

  121. Kiwilassie says:

    It seems the Scotsman only printed what they wanted to to make Alex out to be the bad guy.
    This at the end of their spiel says it all.

    “People who supported him loyally for years and worked tirelessly to get him elected don’t deserve these smears. And women who made complaints about his behaviour – who barely merit a mention in his conspiracy dossier – most certainly deserve better.”

    Of-course the women who complained didn’t get a mention. He’s forbidden, as is everyone in the Scotland, England & Wales from naming these women.

    Alex, Not the Scottish government, is the person who in court said, these women’s names should be protected.

    There was another statement here that omitted what Alex actually said.
    Alex said he didn’t think it was a conspiracy, before saying.

    “I leave to others the question of what is, or is not, a conspiracy, but am very clear in my position that the evidence supports a deliberate,

    That is really poor journalism By Conor Matchett

  122. faolie says:

    11:34 Scottish Parliament home page still blank. What is going on?

    Note: I’m a web developer. These problems don’t last longer than 2 minutes, ergo, what is going on?

  123. Willie says:

    So why have the SNP MSPs and MPs allowed Don Sturgeon to take the control that she has.

    The tentacles of corruption as is now finally being revealed run very very deep and the mafia, once established, are the very devil to exorcise.

    Good people must stand forward and push to clean the pigsty that our country has become. We need to clean up our police force, our prosecutor service and the compromised administrators. If we don’t do, then really we might as well all have guns, just like the Wild West we have become.

    Suspend the rule of law, bend justice, condone criminality and you just have anarchy. But maybe that’s all we deserve.

  124. Ottomanboi says:

    Assuming the guy trailed in The National gets the job, this is the measure of the importance of Scotland in BoJoland and the competence required for the rôle.
    Dog poo and bin collection issues qualify for expertise in matters Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish.
    Scotland and the Union is safe in tory hands….
    Stand up comedy on stilts!

  125. Seriously? says:

    Scotsman SG representative statement that there is insufficient content on the complainers in the submission:
    “And women who made complaints about his behaviour – who barely merit a mention in his conspiracy dossier”


    Record Crown Office claim “The Crown Office has urged the Scottish Parliament to remove a document from its website over fears it could breach a court order from the Alex Salmond trial.”

    If it is the anonymity order the Crown Office refer to, it is difficult to see how a potential breach could be supported by “barely a mention”.

  126. If you find voting SNP distasteful in their present state ,the only other pro Indy game in town is the ISP party,

    (the Green Party is just phychotic mad)

    if you want to help ISP get a foot in the door at least, here is their crowdfunder,

  127. ebreah says:

    laukat@11:29 am, my money is on the Lord Advocate. Politicians are thick skinned and have a habit of reinventing themselves. Lawyers have only one reputation and it will follow/haunt them to the day they die.

  128. Alf Baird says:

    wee monkey @ 10:42

    Difficult not to view the LA as akin to the British state/Crown representative in the Scottish cabinet and parliament, keeping an eye on things, and acting to limit its ambitions, e.g. to stop a non-S.30 referendum as per the LA’s opposition to Keatings.

    We can likewise see this same Crown/LA role here in trying to restrict the proper functioning of a Holyrood Committee and hence influence and interfere in the workings of the Scottish Parliament.

    In other words the Crown/LA is effectively the British state acting within the Scottish parliament and Scottish Government.

    This is no doubt partly why Alex Salmond and also as I recall Kenny MacAskill did not appreciate the company of the LA in cabinet. That NS brought him back in reflects her Indy-Lite pro-UK strategy since 2014.

  129. Ottomanboi says:

    The use by date on the packet of Sturgeon’s Independence is long past.
    Rebranding issues urgently present with the marketing of the product.

  130. Dave Llewellyn says:

    The plot thickens. Yesterday’s statement is still up and the have removed the ministerial code one.

  131. paul says:

    The real cost to the Scottish people runs into many millions of pounds and yet no-one in this entire process has uttered the simple words which are necessary on occasions to renew and refresh democratic institutions – “I Resign”.

    The Committee now has the opportunity to address that position.

    that is an excellent sign off.

    My money is on Swinney. I think he still thinks he could be SNP leader.

    If he does, he has obviously forgotten his last stint.

    Lowered electoral success, lowered party membership.

    Past performance is no guide etc,etc.

  132. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    The inquiry website has removed the link to the Ministerial Code submission. The actual document is still there.

  133. Willie says:

    One thing is crystal clear. Come May, no votes SNP, absolutely none.

    Let us go back to basics. The SNP is utterly compromised and needs to be replaced. It can be replaced and very quickly too.

    But concomitant with that it is now clear that dark forces within the mechanisms of state need replaced. The Lord Advocate, the Crown Agent, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland and many of his executive team many of whom were never serving policemen, and senior civil servants like London appointed Leslie Evans.

    This is the anarchy of bad government, and the bad and corrupt mechanisms of state. It needs to be removed.

  134. Alf Baird says:

    Scot Finlayson @ 11:40

    “If you find voting SNP distasteful in their present state ,the only other pro Indy game in town is the ISP party”

    This is a wee bit mischievous, Scot. There are in fact now 4 pro-indy parties even discounting the SNP and Greens, so 6 in total.

    And of these 6, the only party so far proposing a plebiscite election on independence is Solidarity.

  135. Teetering says:

    From the National:

    BREAKING: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Board have agreed to remove Alex Salmond’s submission to the ministerial code inquiry from Holyrood’s website. Will be republished later today “in a redacted form”.

  136. JB says:

    For what it is worth, the above mentioned direct link to the Harassment Committee page also allows one to access the two submissions from Liz Lloyd which were mentioned in the Scotsman article.

  137. robertknight says:

    Willie @ 11:38

    “Suspend the rule of law, bend justice, condone criminality” and those responsible deserve to feel the full force of the anarchy which will follow.

    We could start by boycotting HR21 – protest outside polling stations. Spoil your ballots…


    I’m sick fed up of these bastards taking us for mugs!

  138. Alison says:

    Like thousands of us didn’t copy, paste & save the whole thing when it was published yesterday because we knew this is exactly what they would do.

    The whole situation is so ridiculously absurd that if it didn’t hinge on something so monumentally important it would be funny.

  139. Meg merrilees says:

    Those shredders at Holyrood must be in panic mode the now, if there is anything left to shred – keep your eyes peeled for some bonfire smoke as they might try burning anything now.

    Is Alex staying at a safe house tonight?

  140. Rikali says:

    Ian Mac

    Sturgeon and her minions put King Canute to shame.


    As a member of the King Knut appreciation society, I must object.

    Tired of obsequious courtiers Knut (Canute) took them to the sea shore to demonstrate that royal power was very secondary to the laws of nature.

    That would make him pretty much directly opposite to Sturgeon, to whom the laws of nature are a “hate crime”.


  141. Stephen P says:

    Isn’t the Hamilton report due this week?

    His report is not going to be credible if the Salmond submission is ignored.

  142. ayrgirl says:

    Financial Times on-line have direct link to Alex Salmons testimony. How can the Crown Office suppress that !

  143. GeeDuggy says:

    The current actions of Sturgeon and co remind me of a saying about power – not the one about power corrupting but one from John Steinbeck

    “Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.”

    And someone is very, very frightened about losing power.

  144. TheMadMurph says:

    Desimond says:
    23 February, 2021 at 9:56 am
    Do they stop digging when we come out at Australia?

    Technically they’d come out swimming with the fishes. I think you’d need to start digging in Spain to get anywhere near Australia.

    Interesting wee website.

  145. Willie says:

    And the cowed political prostitutes composing for the most part so many of the elected members of the SNP.

    They will be consigned to being no more than a footnote in history. Every society since time began has had its prostitution class and the latest are no different as they sit quietly taking the money from their pimps.

  146. TheMadMurph says:

    Tell a lie, Spain is from Auckland. My recall isn’t what it used to be. Then again, there’s a lot of that going about!

  147. Achnababan says:

    Press Conference for Alex Salmond last option…?

  148. Cath says:

    The whole situation is so ridiculously absurd that if it didn’t hinge on something so monumentally important it would be funny.

    Absurd and grossly unjust. Mostly to Alex, but also to all of us. Not only is the truth being hidden from us. But by allowing documents to be published and read by many, only then to be taken down and/or redacted, it puts all of us in the position where we could potentially find ourselves arrested for contempt of court for saying something we have no idea was later redacted. We are already in the crazy situation where many people know names and details we are not supposed to know and have to keep silent about. This kind of thing makes it exponentially harder to keep track of what we can and can’t say.

    It’s not sustainable to have facts that are well known by many but hidden and illegal to talk about. It might work when it’s kept within the obviously tight and incestuous political and media circles we have in Scotland. Once it’s gone wider, nope.

  149. Runner 118 says:

    Parliament are now going to redact the offending passage. The entire world will now compare the two versions and highlight exactly what the Crown Office and SNP don’t want us to see. You couldn’t make this up.

  150. Tenruh says:


    I think A.S. was appearing in the Parliament building. Been given a 4hr slot

  151. Republicofscotland says:


    Thanks for the link, it would appear that the Stasi, I meant Crown office wasn’t happy with the bit where Salmond said Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code.

    Even though its widely seen and distributed online by now the Crown office want to redact Salmond’s submissions until there’s only the words and and the visible.

    The corruptions in the S&G and the COPFS is staggering.

  152. Rikali says:

    BREAKING: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Board have agreed to remove Alex Salmond’s submission to the ministerial code inquiry from Holyrood’s website. Will be republished later today “in a redacted form”.


    It seems Scottish democracy only exists “in a redacted form”.

    The peoples of Hong Kong, Myanmar and Belarus are putting their lives on the line fighting authoritarian corrupt governments.

  153. Breeks says:

    The thing that haunts me about Sturgeon and Wolffe, is that ‘this’ was the Scottish Team allegedly standing up for Scotland’s Constitutional Rights throughout Brexit and all the shenanigans about the roll of the Supreme Court, including the retrospective changes in Law which Westminster used to curtail the powers of Holyrood.

    I have 0% confidence that Scotland’s rights were well served. I mean, I can’t exclude the possibility they maybe were, but I want a forensic constitutional audit before I will believe it. Currently, I believe the Scottish Sovereign Constitution was sold down the river by these corrupt bastards.

  154. Betsy says:

    This is quite, quite mad

    The part of Salmond’s evidence that has been pulled is the part where he sets out (among other things) his claims that Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code. Clearly, it’s been widely circulated since last night

  155. Hatuey says:

    “ A last throw of the dice from a desperate Sturgeon….”

    You think?

  156. Meg merrilees says:

    You can still download and read any submissions from the Scottish Parliament website, including Alex’s most recent submission.

    I tried reading Ms Lloyds letter but I just kept hearing a wee voice in my head saying “ wisna me, it wisna me, ” and I was reminded of Alasdair Carmichael’s lying reply. Did he not deny contacting the newspapers about Nicola Sturgeon’s comments when in fact he had instructed a junior member of his staff to carry out the task.

    Ms Lloyd uses specific formal verbs e.g. – ‘not provided with’ specific information but does that preclude gossip or other means of being ‘briefed’?
    After all, a certain President ‘did not have sexual relations with that woman’


  157. PQ says:

    “I leave to others the question of what is, or is not, a conspiracy, but am very clear in my position that the evidence supports a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort amongst a range of individuals within the Scottish Government and the SNP to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned.

    “That includes, for the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (chief executive), Ian McCann (compliance officer) and Sue Ruddick (chief operating officer) of the SNP together with Liz Lloyd, the First Minister’s chief of staff.

  158. Skip_NC says:

    So does the breaking news mean that this cannot be published in other than redacted form within the UK?

    Asking for a friend.

  159. susanXX says:

    Does this mean AS cannot refer to it in his evidence? x

  160. Craig P says:

    I have the image of Lord Wolffe in clown costume trying to whack moles with a foam mallet

  161. Gordon Keane says:

    The BBC Scotland webpage very helpfully gave us a Link to the full 29 pages!
    But I see now they have removed it from that original report.

  162. Vestas says:

    Its getting very close to the stage where the only option is for someone outside the UK to publish all the details.

    Names. Allegations. Evidence. Everything which is on record.

    Then everyone can make their own minds up as to what did/didn’t happen.

    The only question is will someone do that before or after May.

  163. Old Fogey says:

    So an agency of the Executive can bully the Legislature into removing evidence (already submitted) to one of its Committees. This is a dark day for those of us who (somewhat naively it would seem) actually believed in the checks and balances of our democratic form of government.

  164. Cath says:

    The thing that haunts me about Sturgeon and Wolffe, is that ‘this’ was the Scottish Team allegedly standing up for Scotland’s Constitutional Rights throughout Brexit

    I think it’s fair to say they absolutely weren’t. The last five years of Sturgeon’s government has been about getting Scotland over the Brexit finish line while destroying any strong pro-independence voices along with the SNP. Job done on all those scores.

  165. The Oui Coupar says:

    deerhill @ 11.29
    Re the Bute House helicopter
    Would the pilot be looking for a Fanny Pad ?
    Just need a suitable toilet with long sea outfall to drop them off

  166. Rikali says:


    I just resigned my membership of the SNP.

    I gave three reasons. In summary they related to: treatment of Alex Salmon; inaction on independence since 2014; s 30 permission of Westminster PM.

    This is the reply i just received. 🙂

    “ Dear xxxxxx

    Thank you for letting us know that you wish to leave the SNP.

    We’re sorry to see you go. In meantime, please accept my thanks for your contribution to the party.

    Peter Murrell

    Chief Executive

    Scottish National Party
    Gordon Lamb House
    3 Jackson’s Entry
    EH8 8PJ

    0131 525 8925

  167. MaggieC says:

    The submission by Alex Salmond on phase 4 – Ministerial Code has now gone from the written evidence page .

    Link to Written evidence page ,

    Is this the stitch-up so that when it’s republished in a redacted form Alex Salmond won’t be able to refer to it when and if he gives his evidence ?

  168. Rikali says:

    Oops Salmond not salmon

  169. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

    Has anyone looked at WGD ? I cannot bare to look. Still they’ll be both votes SNP mantra.

    “Don’t panic Capt Mannering , don’t panic.”

  170. Ross says:

    If the evidence doesn’t rely on the people mentioned being complainers why draw attention to it in this nudge wink manner?

    That’s a question for both sides by the way.

  171. The friendly Sassenach says:

    Greetings from London….. You need to ask yourselves WHY the crown office acted. Did someone ask them to?

  172. MaggieC says:

    Sky news now re Alex Salmond

  173. Betsy says:


    Today WGD has instructed anyone thinking of not voting SNP over this to wait for instructions from Alex Salmond on how to vote in May before deciding. I’m not making this up.

  174. Frank anderson says:

    Alex, provide evidence of your suggestions of a conspiracy, because I know there is none?
    Alex provides evidence, then it is removed. Not to be seen or perhaps referred to.

    We can rely on ‘legal opinion’ to try to block any attempt to use it ( after having read it and knowing that it is accurate). Remember, We have collective responsibility.

  175. Cenchos says:

    The Middle Class People’s Repulsive of Sturgeland.

  176. John H. says:

    AYRSHIRE ROB 12.17am.

    When I looked last night, an intruder had mentioned AS. One of the regulars answered with who’s AS? It’s not worth checking anymore. They’re a lost cause.

  177. katherine hamilton says:

    Maybe time to remind ourselves of this.
    “Second Coming W.B. Yeats

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.”

    I really don’t know where we go from here. “The best” we seem to have at the moment is the committee membership and by extension, Parliament itself. The Hamilton report may well be knobbled, so no finding of misleading Parliament for Ms. Sturgeon. Following the last 2 days’ revelations, can any of us doubt it?
    Anent a vote of no confidence by the Parliament, the government will have a fair wind to the election.

    If so, beware the second verse.

    “Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving it’s slow thighs, while all about it
    Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
    The darkness drops again; but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, it’s hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

    If all this corruption remains unchallenged and undefeated, then we really are in the pits. Over to you, Holyrood. You’re het.

  178. Wee Chid says:

    Betsy says:
    23 February, 2021 at 12:20 pm

    I think there will be many more not voting for them over other issues. Even if Alex did say to vote for them I wouldn’t because of their GRA and Hate Crime Bill policies. I’m not voting to restrict my own rights – especially for a party which has no intention of delivering independence.

  179. Captain Yossarian says:

    ‘The UK Parliament must immediately suspend Holyrood pending the trial of high crimes and misdemeanours allegedly committed by its executive and its Law Officers.’ – GEORGE GALLOWAY

  180. Kiwilassie says:

    So glad after 50 years away from Scotland I still have no problem in understanding Alf Baird speaking Doric.
    Shows you can’t take the lass out of Scotland. LOL

    Stuart. A big thankyou for all your hard work. You, like Alex are of a caliber that Scots aspire to. You two are very much alike. You stand up against adversity for what you believe in.
    I respect you both for that wholeheartedly.

    I used to visit Independence sites. Of late I no longer frequent them as the people there have stopped researching for truth & are just following what the SNP dish out. So sad that people are so easily led.
    It pains me that those who wish for Independence still believe the SNP will give it to them.
    Why are some Scots so stupid? It’s as if they can’t think out of the square.
    Looking forward to the demise of Nicola & her cabal in the next week or two. I can’t believe I was taken in by her. I actually at one time thought she was a smart cookie. How wrong was I!

  181. Ian Mac says:

    So they’re circling the wagons around Sturgeon and will deny she broke the ministerial code. The way to do that is to censor anybody who points out that is exactly what she did. The thought police have their work cut out this week, are they on overtime? Must be a bumper wages week, working for the overlord.

  182. christine says:

    They must still be on that war footing, having lost the battle on the fields of the Judicial Review. Preemptive strikes everywhere now in their last ditch attempts to try to consolidate the power and control they thought they had to keep covering their collective arses.

    In keeping with the analogy of storming the Bastille, courtesy of Breeks, they have been erecting their own scaffolds whereby their most loyal adherents become their executioners, just as Robespierre’s followers trundled him over their heads to the guillotine.

    We’re with you all the way Alex, always. Bonne Chance!

  183. Ross says:

    The fact media are able to cast aspersions on the verdict is, to me, disgraceful and should form part of another enquiry.

  184. shug says:

    Sarah Smith on the BBC saying this committee is looking at a process for considering the complaints of women who have not had their complaints considered – implication poor women not being listened to. No mention of their case was put before a court and thrown out!!
    Why is it the default position is the women were telling the truth and are not being listened to when a jury listened and decided they were lying.
    This whole thing is such a mess, why is the BBC protecting Nicola by parroting this line.

  185. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Captain Yossarian

    Maybe a bit early for that, and the UK Government will almost certainly not take such action on the say-so of George Galloway, however, I am absolutely certain, sometime this year, Westminster will find a reason to do just that.

    Once they have shut Holyrood, you can bet the farm on them bringing in legislation which will make Independence impossible to achieve without an armed uprising.

    They will cling to us, like drowning men to a lifebelt, and when we find every road short of revolution closed to us – we can thank Sturgeon and her clique.

  186. Mike Fenwick says:

    One day, historians will attempt to explain Scotland 2014 – 2021 – let’s wish them luck!

  187. Robert graham says:

    Oh well I guess I can cancel my Netflix and Amazon prime subscription this long running saga beats them all in the Fiction category , yep beats them all .

    I was going to say you couldn’t make it up but this SNP are doing exactly that and right in front of us the MSM are uncommonly quite, must be more interesting stuff keeping them occupied eh .

    A short discussion about the Alex Salmond case because that’s what it’s being referred to now anyway on Jeremy Vines show this morning I noticed the complainers have morphed into the Victims aye ok , the women involved have now become the Survivors strange change of language there eh . Both indicating a serious miscarriage of justice if and only if you dismiss everything surrounding the case as in the Jury was not convinced as to the case brought against Alex Salmond , there was no appeal lodged by the eh ” Victims ” or indeed the ” Survivors ” .

    The one person who the state feared above all in the whole of Britain and who was under constant surveillance managed to commit the most disgusting crimes against innocent individuals over a protracted period while in office and who was investigated by a team of police its said this was the biggest and most wide-ranging enquiry ever mounted by a lot of these officers, and still no conviction and the ” Victims and Survivors ” are still not convinced and through their Proxies are daily smearing a Innocent man , Justice my Arse .

    I suppose it’s easy to over analyse what’s going on , but I believe you are walking into a bloody big Ambush Nicola dear , I think you and your surrounding co conspirators are gambling on Poll numbers this is being hyped by a unusually quiet MSM , I hope you are really sure these numbers convert into votes or your really up shit creek like the rest of us , time will tell but the warnings are there if you care to look and dismiss the favourable press you are enjoying just now .

  188. Wee Chid says:

    AYRSHIRE ROB says:
    23 February, 2021 at 12:17 pm
    Has anyone looked at WGD ? I cannot bare to look. Still they’ll be both votes SNP mantra.

    “Don’t panic Capt Mannering , don’t panic.”

    Just looked after what Betsy said. Felt compelled to comment but couldn’t bear to read other comments. Don;t think I’ll bother going back to look at any responses. It’s all very naive and childlike.

  189. Old Fogey says:

    How many more attacks does Alex Salmond have to face before his friends step up to the plate and support him? Kenny MacAskill, Angus Brendan MacNeill, Joanna Cherry and others should resign the SNP whip at Westminster and align themselves with him.

  190. Frank Gillougley says:

    I do wonder what the factors are in Alex Salmond and his lawyers discussing whether he will continue to take part in this corrupt charade or not. And it is a charade.

  191. Dorothy Devine says:

    WeeGingerDug Paul is himself a great thinker and writer but while he has been in recovery from his stroke there have been a small group writing ad nauseam and jumping on anyone who deviates from the ‘ marvellous Nicola’ line.

    Do not bother to go there to ask them to ponder why this mess is stinking to high heaven, or whether they have any doubts, or questions- it really isn’t worth the bother.

    That wee group appears to believe that it alone knows the TRUTH and should not be challenged.

  192. Phil A says:

    Looks like the site is still available from the full link so it’s just the redirect from the base url that’s been broken.

  193. Desimond says:

    I feel like an idiot as I cant actually work out why The Crown Office would be so so interested in Alex Salmond alleging Nicola Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code.. is that really within their Scope?

    Stinks to high heaven and every favour getting called in and every promise being made. I thought it was bad when the Police started playing politics for budget and power gain but its got nothing on this latest band of rogues

  194. DMT says:

    Apparently the Crown Office wants Salmond’s claims detailing how Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code redacted.

    Of course that’s the bit they want redacted. I struggle to see how this relates to dangers of jigsaw identification.

    Banana republic territory now folks. I laugh, but its to stop myself getting a stomach ulcer due to rage.

  195. Ian Mac says:


    Because it’s a resigning matter. The Queen must be saved.

  196. Grendel says:

    Cue Alex Salmonds withdrawal. What a farce!

  197. Meg merrilees says:

    Maggie C @12.16

    Alex Salmond final submission now re-available in redacted format on the Scottish Parliament website

  198. robertknight says:

    Shug @12:31

    ” the BBC protecting Nicola ”

    Tells you all you need to know about Sturgeon’s SNP…

    A clear and present danger to Scotland.

    They are utterly compromised and serve as Westminster’s puppet regime.

  199. DMW42 says:

    Redacted paras 12, 13, 16, 17, 29, 30 all references to meetings of 29 March and 2 April have been removed

  200. Harry mcaye says:

    Sarah Smith said a few minutes ago on BBC News that there were two accusers “women who were left without their complaints being thoroughly investigated”. Is that in any way accurate?

  201. ahundredthidiot says:

    Surely NS has been milked dry as an asset.

    They can cut her loose now.

    Next!!…….Angus, get yer arse in here – we’ve Scottish Independence to stop.

  202. Ian Spruce says:


    Am I right in thinking that this relates solely to the Harassment Committee and Hamilton will have the unredacted version for his deliberations?

  203. Republicofscotland says:

    Robert Knight

    I agree, when you look back at Sturgeon’s track record on pushing for Scottish independence you see that it is all smoke and mirrors, she didn’t even bother to attend indy marches, nor refute serious BritNat claims that Scotland wasn’t capable of being an independent nation again.

    Her career and ego comes before anything.

  204. Meg merrilees says:

    Please ignore my comment at 12.46 – seems the submission I was looking at is not the final submission of 17th February but a different document – dated 23rd February. Confused. Apologies.

  205. The friendly Sassenach says:

    Like I suggested….. Suppose someone asked the Crown Office to that?

  206. Molesworth says:

    I feel sorry for Charles Kennedy. Sinister echoes.

  207. Kiwilassie says:

    LindyLoo2020 says:
    23 February, 2021 at 11:01 am
    It is beyond ridiculous now. The National pointed out that as well as Alex’s final statement being published last night Liz Lloyd’s statement was also published last night. Is this subject to the same pull order.

    Do you have a link to LL statement?

  208. Republicofscotland says:

    The Crown office is actively working against the interests of the people of Scotland, and is now actively working to protect the SNP/Scottish government from being found out, and the truth being revealed.

    I half expect mass arrests now from Police Scotland on trumped up charges, in an attempt to try and put some sort of lid on this, just like the Rangers FC administrators had done to them.

    Christ what has become of Scotland.

  209. John H. says:

    Socrates MacSporran 12.31pm.

    If they close Holyrood then we revert to a majority of independence MP’s at Westminster automatically brings us independence. As it always should have been.

  210. MaggieC says:

    Re Harassment and Complaints Committee ,

    The redacted version of Alex Salmond’s submission on the Ministerial Code is now back on the Written Evidence Page ,

    Written evidence page if the above link is broken ,

    This is total corruption involving Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Government ,the Scottish Parliament and the Snp .


  211. Meg merrilees says:


    If memory serves me correctly, I heard somewhere last week that when (if) Nicola appears before the committee they cannot ask her about the two meetings of march and early April but can question everything else.

    Maybe Alex will do his press conference yet.
    Did you notice NS said last night on her TV star appearance,

    ‘I hope Alex Salmond does appear before the committee…’

    so they obviously had their disruptive plan ready to go, starting with her frantic TV rant last night and legal shennanigans today thereby giving his lawyers less than 24 hours to override their barriers.

  212. cirsium says:

    @TNS2019, 10.04
    Our judiciary is controlled by the executive.

    It is not the judiciary which is controlled, it is the prosecution service. The problem is that the prosecution service through the Lord Advocate is part of government.

    It is clear from Alex Salmond’s submission that the redactions are not linked to the identity of the complainers but to the role of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office in the malicious activity.

  213. kapelmeister says:

    Galloway’s calling for Westminster to suspend Holyrood.

  214. Craig P says:

    Harry mcaye says:
    23 February, 2021 at 12:50 pm
    Sarah Smith said a few minutes ago on BBC News that there were two accusers “women who were left without their complaints being thoroughly investigated”. Is that in any way accurate?

    I suspect that relates to the woman whose claims were completely refuted by Anne Harvey’s evidence, and the ‘infamous Edinburgh airport incident’ where a woman in stilettos set off the security scanner and Salmond quipped “killer heels”.

    Not even COPFS thought those dead parrots would fly.

  215. P Bethune says:

    The redacted version I believe is now up. From what I gather comparing to the Spectator article the redactions are to points (Committee points in brackets):

    14 (12)
    15 (13)
    18 (16)
    19 (17)
    32 (30)

    Note Point 26 in the Spectator article is unredacted on the Committee website (Point 24 in their document)

  216. Captain Yossarian says:

    @Socrates McSporran – ‘If Scotland was Texas, the Justice Department in Washington DC would have sent in the Feds by now. For continual and egregious breaching of first amendment rights.’ – That’s by Andrew Neil of The Spectator. Is that any better sir? Am I getting warmer….I must be….surely.

    It’s thanks to him that we’re got the wee hairy at-all. If we were waiting on the BBC and the Scottish press, we would still be talking shite by the bucket-full.

  217. Bob Mack says:

    They should put a sign up at Glasgow Airport.

    Welcome to Scotland. Bring a lawyer!!

  218. Anna says:

    How deep is this ocean? A dark side that even Sturgeon has been oblivious, or preferred to turn a blind eye to? She, in her mind, took a ‘ safe’ perch, getting on with other business, leaving others to sort out the muck. While dark forces got on with aiming at killing two birds with one stone? The crown office concerned that Salmond’s submission is too near truth? Media not happy making it widely public? Why else pull it at eleventh hour?

    Sarah Smith’s Salmond’s submission contains ‘explosive accusations”

    Similar to explosive accusations against Salmond, maybe? But no mention. The whole thing reeks!

  219. MaggieC says:

    Kiwilassie @ 12.59 pm ,

    The written evidence page still has both of Liz Lloyd ‘s written evidence statements on it ,

    Link to written evidence page ,

  220. kapelmeister says:

    2014 – Nicola Sturgeon Sells Out The Hydro.

    2021 – Nicola Sturgeon Sells Out Scotland.

  221. Anonymoose says:

    It’s complete bollocks from the Scottish Parliament that their website is having “technical issues”, the only page that cannot be accessed is ‘Phase 4 – Scottish ministerial Code’, it has been disabled by the webmaster, documents are still available at the same URI they were last night.

    This is a cover up, played out in plain sight in order to suppress the truth and protect those who are at serious moral and criminal fault.

    I saved copies of the documents when they were published, as I am sure many others did, because the operation of this entire inquiry has been cack-handed since the beginning.

  222. Captain Yossarian says:

    @Socrates McSporran – ‘Salmond accuses Sturgeon’s husband of conspiring to jail him — and the SNP seriously think they are fit for office?!’ – ADAM TOMKINS MSP

  223. Republicofscotland says:

    Lifelong Alex Salmond hater, Sarah Smith on the BBC news saying that Alex Salmond might now not appear in front of the committee if his submissions are further redacted, which it looks like the Crown office has done.

  224. Ottomanboi says:

    Models are opinions embedded in mathematics.
    Helps to have a sugar daddies to supply the opinion, aka the science.

  225. Career Politician says:

    Yes – shambolic, disgraceful, absolutely terrible, blah blah blah blah.

    But what’s anyone, apart from grass-roots members who are cancelling their SNP Memberships, actually doing about any of this?

    Where are the counter-prosecutions?

    Where are the elected SNP MSPs, MPs, Councillors who are actually leaving the party?

    The response to these constant outrages is spineless at best.

  226. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    I suppose it makes it easier to smash-and-grab a country, filling your boots while you can, then trashing it behind you as you run off laughing, if you don’t have any children, and thus no stake in the country’s future. Pure scorched earth policy nihilism.

  227. robertknight says:

    Just did a compare & contrast with the ‘before’ and ‘after’ versions.

    Don’t these frikking idiots realise…

    The cat’s out the bag and the bag’s been tossed over the side!

  228. James says:

    The whole thing stinks worse than an old mans nappy.

  229. Los says:

    It’s common sense that if first they publically publish a document and then a redacted version of the same document then a comparison between the two published versions will show what they have subsequently retracted.

  230. Jack Murphy says:

    5 minutes ago.

    The BBC in Scotland on-line:
    “Scotland’s prosecution service has raised “grave concerns” over the Scottish Parliament’s decision to publish documents from Alex Salmond.

    The papers name people Mr Salmond alleges were part of a “malicious” attempt to remove him from public life.

    MSPs on the parliament’s corporate body met on Tuesday to discuss a letter that was sent by the Crown Office.

    The parliament later said it would remove a document and republish it in another form….”

  231. Elmac says:

    Does anyone have a link to the statement by AS before it was further redacted today? I am about to update a number of friends and family on the today’s further corrupt shenanigans and would like to give them the text that was removed.

  232. Captain Yossarian says:

    ‘Here’s Salmond’s evidence. He can be asked questions on what has been published. The Scottish Parliament authorities may have removed a link but the actual evidence (pdf link) remains published on the website.’ FRASER NELSON, THE SPECTATOR.

    It does seem to me that nothing has changed. Scotgov and Wolffe are flustered and doing all they can to frustrate the process, but they haven’t actually changed anything.

  233. Stuart MacKay says:

    Over in the Dug house the latest post “What would Alex do?” right now has 44 comments. I skimmed through then and it looks like only 1 has tacit support for Sturgeon and even that is stretching it a bit. From the reaction of at least one regular, the penny has finally dropped.

    Sturgeon is toast. I’ll be surprised if she’s still here on Friday.

  234. Captain Yossarian says:

    @Elmac – try Andrew Neil’s Twitter.

  235. Frozone says:

    How can a judge led inquiry be made to happen? Apologies if this has been answered before. No genuinely democratic country can allow this level of corruption, surely?

  236. Anonymoose says:

    MaggieC says:
    23 February, 2021 at 1:01 pm

    Re Harassment and Complaints Committee

    Cheers for the links.

    Para’s 12, 13, 16 , 17, 30 have been redacted.

    These paragraphs directly implicate the First Minister and her Chief of Staff, Liz Lloyd through Geoff Aberdein who’s corroborating evidence has been removed/suppressed from the inquiry.

    If you want to know which paragraphs have been removed, someone has uploaded a copy of the entire initial submission, pre-further redations here –

    This is a cover-up of epic proportions, the Scottish Government are going to extreme lengths in the public eye to protect themselves.

  237. Socrates MacSporran says:

    John H and Captain Yossarian

    Our cause is just – however, under the terms of the Scotland Act, Westminster can say: “We make the rules and you have to play to our rules.”

    Yes, a majority of pro-Independence Scottish MPs at Westminster should be grounds for Independence – but, it’s the English Establishment we are taking-on here.

    They make the rules and they will not hesitate to change them to suit their own ends, which are still to hold-on desperately to Scotland and its riches.

    And when you see how the Scottish Legal Establishment – Unionist to its core, has been acting, we are facing a daunting uphill battle.

    Then, there is the long-established Scottish ability to snatch defeat from th jaws of victory. Between own goals, proud Scots but, and England’s fifth column within Civil Service Scotland, I am no longer confident of seeing Independence in my lifetime.

  238. Breeks says:

    Wee Chid says:
    23 February, 2021 at 12:32 pm

    Don;t think I’ll bother going back to look at any responses. It’s all very naive and childlike.

    Funny enough I thought the reverse. Last time I visited, (which I confess was a while ago now), it reminded me of an old folks home. Some folks nostalgic for the good old days, some folks fair proud o’ their great, great grand-weans, and some folks beginning to struggle a wee bit, quite clearly succumbing to dementia. But none of them really on top of their game any more. You don’t wish any harm to come to any of them, but you just nod instead of argue, just to keep the peace. They’re not really listening to anything in-depth anyway.

    Paradoxically, or maybe it isn’t a paradox at all, the other notion which came in to my head was from the All Quiet of the Western Front movie from 1930, when Paul(?) went back home on leave, and had to listen to his father and his father’s friends spouting theories on how to win the war, but without really having much idea or understanding what the front was actually like.

  239. boris says:

    In recent years policy-makers in the Scottish Government have made claim that sex discrimination is the primary source of unfairness in the labour market and encouraged by an ever increasing range of lobbyist groups it has forced radical feminist agendas on Scottish society; eg the equal opportunities act, family friendly employment, sex discrimination and transgender recognition.

  240. mountain shadow says:

    Anyone know what time Alex is due to appear tomorrow and whether it is on TV?

  241. zebedee says:

    Someone needs to go to court to get the redacted paras reinstated. (Did I really just write that?)

  242. Hamish Kirk says:

    They call it “redacting” To me it is CENSORING

  243. Pixywine says:

    This site got a mention in UK column news yesterday.

  244. Lorna Campbell says:

    Even Armando Ianucci couldn’t write something like this. We don’t even grow the bananas to make it a Banana Republic, and we’re still not a republic either. The dichotomy between reality and fantasy has been breached and closed across the board. It’ll be “off with his/her head” next. Have none of them read Nicolo Machiavelli? I thought it was a staple for all politics students and political philosophers? Nobody bothers with Moral Philosophy and/or Legal Jurisprudence? Nah, we’ll make it up as we go along. Dear Lord, I’m going to develop an Italian accent so that I don’t have to own up to being Scottish. Even the mafia have a honour code.

  245. robertknight says:

    Bob Mack @ 1:09

    “They should put a sign up at Glasgow Airport.”

    Yep… a bloody great big one…

    Welcome to Scotland! Fàilte gu Alba!

    Due to a corrupt judiciary and body politic,
    please return to your point of departure as
    soon as possible

    Do not engage in any activity which may result
    in your being alone with any member of the
    opposite sex/gender/orientation who is not
    a member of your own family/travel group

    If unable to comply, please call 1-800-GET-JAIL
    immediately using the red airport courtesy phone

    We hope you enjoy your (brief) visit

    Please follow signs for “Departures”

    On behalf of the Scottish Government

  246. A Person says:

    The ineptitude is actually what gets me the most about this. Their hysterical over-reaction shows that they are trying to hide something and is causing a major scene. Not even very smart at being dodgy.

  247. Jack Murphy says:

    SIX SWATHES of redactions!

  248. Big Jock says:

    Robert – You forgot: ” Now forget everything you have just read”.

  249. robertknight says:

    “Caesar” ???

    No idea how A l b a becomes “Caesar”.


  250. Grouser says:

    Got it, read it and ready to compare and maybe share. I am the least technical person going yet I managed it. How do these people get from A to B without getting run down by a bus? And they are the Scottish Government.

  251. Republicofscotland says:

    If my 1.19pm link doesn’t work for the Phase 4 further censorship click on this to find another link that does.

  252. Big Jock says:

    Stuart- Personally. If Salmond succeeds in getting rid of the imposter Sturgeon. I will quite happily await his advice on how to vote in May. Because right now I haven’t a clue what’s best for Scotland.

  253. laukat says:

    Are the redactions being made to stop Lloyd from being asked to give evidence to the comittee? i.e. if she is not named as having been at the meetings and organising the meetings she therefore can’t be questioned on if the meetings happened, that she organised them and anything else she might trip herself and Sturgeon up on the way?

    Surely the comittee can still question Sturgeon on the purpose of these meetings?

  254. JB says:

    There is a fig-leaf available for the removal of paragraphs 12 and 13; however it is a weak one, that only offers a colourable argument, not in my view a valid one. I can see no valid reason for the removal of paras 16 & 17, nor paragraph 30.

    None of paragraphs 16, 17 or 30 could allow for any “jigsaw identification”. IMO the removals of 16, 17 and 30 are sufficient to judge this inquiry as a whitewash, and the whole process as a farce.

    IMV the purpose is obviously to prevent Salmond orally comparing and contrasting the the meetings on the 29th March and 2nd April; also to exclude the consideration of the disparity between those two meeting from the committees evidence and hence prevent it from considering a blatant breach of the MC.

    A bit daft really, as one imagines the FM could accept that inaccuracy, and then argue that it was minor. Given the majority currently in the SP, she could probably brazen it out.

  255. wee monkey says:

    “Surely the committee can still question Sturgeon on the purpose of these meetings?”


    I can’t remember


  256. Christopher Quinn says:

    I had the direct link saved in my history; no longer works – luckily ! saved it moments before.

  257. laukat says:

    Looks like Salmond’s appearance at the enquiry is now in doubt. I hope his next course of action is to take COPFS to court to force them to release the information he alludes to and to defend their decision to redact his evidence.

    Mr Salmond – if you need another crowdfunder to assist just say the word?

  258. Caledonia says:

    Think the retractions could be red herrings and the one they wanted might be left hoping no one will notice.

  259. Confused says:

    The nonsensical aspect of all of this is that all browsers have “save link as” or will render PDFs in browser with “download” functions. (- and anyone half interested would have done so, expecting this clown move.)

    – it’s keystone cops, lobotomised and smoking weed -territory.

    I did a real fast skim last night, and the main thing seems to be :

    – AS directly ACCUSES of there being a PLOT against him; he does not say “conspiracy” but then gives a dictionary definition, which exactly fits

    – he then NAMES most of the plotters, except one, who may be an “AlphaBetty”, then says

    – the PROOF of it all is in the MATERIAL WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO SEE

    among all the legal text, the dreary details of bureaucratic wrangling, this is about as clear as it gets, and creates an almost intolerable pressure to expose all the evidence. The wider UK media is getting interested in this, which is good.

    I still think he should go “full whistleblower” from a foreign country.

    When you think of it, having post-trial anonymity was a brilliant move as it so effectively hobbles so many lines of enquiry – and if you don’t want to talk about something, just revert to the anonymity excuse; plausible deniability.

  260. Pixywine says:

    Nicola Sturgeon will be known as the Acme of corrupt governance. I fear the experiment in democracy known as Holyrood is proving a failure. I hold ALL the politicians in Holyrood responsible for the political attack on Alec Salmond ALL the money grubbing seat warmers in Holyrood were quite happy to sit back and watch Mr Salmond being lynched by the highly corrupt and fatally compromised Crown Office.
    As for the Crown Office at this time, can ANY accused persons be assured of a fair trial in a Scottish Court? Will it take “a generation” to clean up Scottish politics? Will any Scottish mainstream journalist ever repent and tell the truth for once in their lives?
    To all SNP shills go fuck your mamas.

  261. The friendly Sassenach says:

    @Socrates MacSporran
    The truth is more subtle.
    Westminster doesn’t want to hang into Scotland ‘for its riches,’ but because its loss would show up England for what it really is, a medium sized country with no right to great pretensions. George Osborne farted out the truth along these lines a while ago.
    That’s why I support Scottish Independence – it is actually in the English peoples interest too, because it will force a more grown up politics (see Brexit et al) down here

  262. Ottomanboi says:

    If you thought Scotland was full of cornflake heads.
    Try this.
    He’s a mega mega rich guy so he must right.
    He also thinks we all oughta have needles stuck in us.

  263. Big Jock says:

    Wee Monkey- She remembered the meeting at her house: ” In all it’s gory detail”….yet she forgot the Geoff Aberdein one. How much is this woman hiding?

    I bet this is just the tip of the iceberg.

  264. McDuff says:

    I find it astounding that the rest of the establishment not involved in this filth remain silent.
    In God’s name what has happened to our country.

  265. Republicofscotland says:

    I see folk discussing online that some of the further hidden info carried out by the Crown office, in the submissions by Salmond relates to Geoff Aberdein’s evidence, the Lord Advocate must’ve informed Sturgeon that it could be very damaging to her, even though the information is already out there in the public domain.

  266. Big Jock says:

    Also , was Liz Lloyd acting for London in trying to de-stabilise the independence movement. She sees Sturgeon as an ally and Salmond as a threat.

  267. Cenchos says:

    Ah haha.

    Trailer for Darren McGarvey’s Class War just before the Nicky Nick Covid Show there on BBC Scotchland iplayer.

  268. Cath says:

    If Alex can’t appear tomorrow, I really hope any decent people left on the committee leave and fold it. To actually see this farce through to the whitewash report at the end would just demonstrate a spineless complicity in what has become a laughing stock.

  269. Jim Bo says:

    Yup, just had a read again of Alex Salmond’s statement. Somehow it makes for even more “enjoyable” reading knowing that it’s directly from the Parliament’s own website. Shame that they’ve switched their comment section off ;-P

  270. Patsy Millar says:

    Looking forward to comparing unredacted and redacted versions.

  271. Geoff Anderson says:

    As someone who stayed in the Party until recently I can understand how the drive for Independence can blind you. You convince yourself that the Party can be taken back. You move onto to the argument that it will be sorted out after Indy.

    It is a journey and it is difficult to admit you have been fooled.

    Today’s events and blatant manipulation to deny evidence will see another batch awaken to what the SNP has become under Sturgeon.

    Her defence that Alex has not produced evidence while she keeps it locked away rings hollow.

  272. Gerard McGhee says:

    We’re going full ‘Spycatcher’!

  273. Skip_NC says:

    Ottomanboi, quoting the Washington Examiner is like quoting the Daily Mail as a reliable source.

  274. panda paws says:

    Alex Salmond’s lawyers have written to the committee. They want to see the legal basis for the redactions and are concerned that he may be in legal jeopardy if he testifies.

  275. Baxter says:

    Sturgeon, do the right thing. Call a press conference and resign.

  276. Anonymoose says:

    I found these links on a Twitter post by [REDACTED]. (I’m not going to post the tweet link incase it jeopordises the authors account, too much brigading going on as it is).

    Alex Salmond’s Ministerial Code written evidence as originally published:

    Alex Salmond’s Ministerial Code written evidence redacted version:

    If you want to compare these pdf files you can use diff-pdf from
    diff-pdf is an open-source command-line program for comparing pdf files, instructions for use on site above.

  277. John A says:

    Over at the WGD having justified doubts about the SNP and that’s being diplomatic is somehow proof of being anti-indy or now a tory. What a mess.

  278. Sylvia says:

    Geoff Anderson
    “You move onto to the argument that it will be sorted out after Indy”

    Same as believing an imperfect partner will change after marriage!

  279. Mia says:

    “Think the retractions could be red herrings and the one they wanted might be left hoping no one will notice”

    The thought crossed my mind too and more than once.

    In my view the key point here is to demonstrate or dismiss beyond doubt the involvement of the FM in a conspiracy to bring down Mr Salmond.

    The way to do that is to prove or disprove beyond reasonable doubt that Nicola Sturgeon knew about the potential existence of complaints before they became official and before the procedure was redacted. In other words, it needs to be established if the procedure was the foundations over which the complaints were received or rather the complaints were the foundation over which an knowingly unlawful, biased and unique complaints procedure was rushed through so those complaints could be used against Mr Salmond.

    We already know from the evidence submitted to the inquiry that the complaints were received before the final draft of the procedure was ready. What we are missing here is the earliest communication between Ms A and Ms B and somebody from the Uk government or the SNP and what prompted those complaints.

    It is undisputed evidence that those complaints arrived before the procedure was in its final draft, never mind signed, so who invited those complaints? How did Ms A and Ms B knew about the intention of the FM and Evans to change the complaints procedure?

    The existing procedure at the time did not invite complaints implicating former ministers, that was a whole brand new procedure that was not available yet at the time Ms A and B contacted the government, so what prompted those individuals to contact the SGov?

    To demonstrate or dismiss the implication of the FM in that conspiracy, somebody has to look deeply into the events that happened at least 5 months, and preferably 9 months, before the 29 March 2018 and 2 April 2018, around the time the procedure was thought and the first “concerns” arrived to the SGov. That means looking at the events that took place a bit after Mr Salmond “lost” his seat. For instance, who leaked to SKY the airport incident and why did they become interested in an innocuous event, easily discredited, that had taken place 8 years before when Mr Salmond was not even in politics anymore?

    From the evidence submitted to the inquiry we know Sturgeon contacted Salmond by messaging on the 5 November 2017, which is coincidentally the date Woman H allegedly passed her complaint to the SNP HQs and was told that they would sit on it hoping not having to deploy it.

    From the emails back and forth between SPADS and civil servants during the drafting of the procedure, we know that for most of November 2017, civil servants and spads were of the view that the FM should be advised of the existence of complaints. This did not change until much later in the process, so it is reasonable to assume here that Sturgeon knew from the beginning about the existence of those complaints.

    So why the focus of attention is not on what the FM knew in October and November 2017 and instead is on a meeting that happened 5 months after that point?

    Breaching the Ministerial code is not criminal and the biggest punishment you can expect is either embarrassment plus a forced resignation or being sacked. But the question here that needs to be asked is : is the implication in the instigation of a political conspiracy by abusing power in any way or form considered criminal?

    On balance, if you were on the boots of someone who has indisputably breached the ministerial code more than once but that might have also taken part in a potentially criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that could land you in prison, what would your rather have your accusers focussing on, your relatively innocuous breaches of the ministerial code, or the criminal conspiracy?

    Food for thought?

  280. Mia says:

    Where it says:

    “between Ms A and Ms B and somebody from the Uk government or the SNP and what prompted those complaints”

    I meant to write

    between Ms A and Ms B and somebody from the Scottish Government or the SNP and what prompted those complaints.

  281. Stuart MacKay says:

    Big Jock,

    “What would Alex do?” is an interesting title and subject for two reasons:

    1) Is Salmond about to get anointed as the new de-facto leader and someone who the former Nicola supporters can rally around? Don’t laugh, investing heavily in a leader is something they do and if they can rally around him I’d say we’d all be in better shape as it avoid the potential resentment of “the malcontents killed Nicola”.

    2) It immediately and likely irreversibly takes power away from Sturgeon and the cabal. Whatever they say is irrelevant. We’ve already seen on the BBC that Sturgeon has lost all authority. She can cling on but it’s already over. All that’s left is her acceptance and resignation.

    And it’s “Alex” and not “Salmond”. That speaks volumes in itself.

  282. Daisy Walker says:

    @ Harry mcaye says:
    23 February, 2021 at 12:50 pm

    Sarah Smith said a few minutes ago on BBC News that there were two accusers “women who were left without their complaints being thoroughly investigated”. Is that in any way accurate?

    No, unless she has managed to uncover 2 new ones.

    Complainers A and B in the civil complaints of harassment – which went no further than the Judicial Review, then went on to become complainers (with different allocated letters) in the criminal procedures – fully investigated by Police and subject to the High Court trial.

    The only outstanding ‘complainer’ as such is Sue Ruddoch – who made an alogation of Alex inappropriately bumping into her on a stairwell, when they were campainging in 2008. Unfortunately for her a witness present – provided Police with a full statement of that, and the fact that there was nothing untoward in it in any way. Which rather put SR’s gas on a peep.

  283. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Sarah Smith said a few minutes ago on BBC News that there were two accusers “women who were left without their complaints being thoroughly investigated”. Is that in any way accurate?

    No, unless she has managed to uncover 2 new ones.

    Complainers A and B in the civil complaints of harassment – which went no further than the Judicial Review, then went on to become complainers (with different allocated letters) in the criminal procedures – fully investigated by Police and subject to the High Court trial.”

    Technically Smith is correct. The original investigation was ruled unlawful and has therefore not actually been resolved yet. Obviously the criminal trial’s finding of innocence would impact its chances of success, but theoretically it’s still live.

  284. pogopat says:

    I’ve missed something…
    Complainers A and B in the in the civil complaint are not women A and B in the criminal investigation? What letters were they?

  285. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Complainers A and B in the in the civil complaint are not women A and B in the criminal investigation?”

    No, they’re not. I’m not allowed to tell you which letters they are in the criminal case.

  286. Daisy Walker says:

    @ Mia…

    18/9/14 Indy Ref 1 Scotland votes 55% – 45% to remain part of the UK.

    19th September 2014 AS announces he is stepping down and Nicola Sturgeon is his successor.

    November 2014 Nicola Sturgeon made leader of SNP and FM of Scotland

    7th May 2015 UK GE – SNP win 56 seats and a mandate ‘to hold a second Indy Ref should Scotland be taken out of the EU against her will’ AS is re-elected to Westminster. The Yes movement is delighted at this, the wily experienced fox, in WM, free to make contacts, while the protégé at Holyrood has an experienced team to get established on the Home Front. Tactically it seemed ideal.

    1st July 2015 Leslie Evans becomes Permanent Secretary Scotland, selected by and reporting directly to Nicola Sturgeon – about 10 – 15 years earlier she was involved in local Edinburgh politics and instrumental in presenting a falsely altered report that led to a community charity that trained video editing skills being deprived funds. Local SNP activists were aware/involved in complaints against her for this reason. SNP vetting does not appear to have worked with regards her being hired.

    September 2015 The Sunday Times prints a story about MP – Michelle Thompson – intimating dodgy property transactions against her – these turn out to be unfounded.
    Michelle is ‘persuaded’ to resign the SNP whip. Nicola Sturgeon the Feminist FM is noticeably silent with regards any form of support for her.

    December 2015 WM votes to illegally bomb Syria. 57 out of 59 Scottish MPs vote against.

    5th May 2016 – Holyrood Election

    23rd June 2016 Brexit Referendum

    17th December 2016: Herald

    “NICOLA Sturgeon’s top aide became involved in a story about
    MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh being chased by the taxman,
    according to a leaked email.

    Liz Lloyd, the Chief of Staff to the First Minister, used
    her government account to email the SNP press office at
    Westminster within hours of the story breaking in two
    tabloid newspapers.”

    16th March 2017 Terrible May officially rejects NS S 30 / IR2 request. ‘Now is not the Time.’

    4th May 2017 – Scottish Local Elections

    8th June 2017 – Terrible May calls a GE and wins.

    AS loses his seat.

    NS takes IndyRef2 off the table. Now is not the time.

    A marked difference in her attitude is seen.

    ‘Not until the Terms of Brexit are Known becomes the mantra.
    13th June 2017 Not sure if this is correct date?- Ref-Scot taken down at £482,000 of £1 million target – no accounts published for same – which is a contravention of Electoral Commission rules, and extremely bad practice. Terms and conditions of the fund raiser were that it was specifically to be Ring Fenced for the next Indy Ref, and not used to fund day to day SNP party expenditure.

    The Brexit deadline time line is I think November 2018 ish.

    Mark MacDonald MSP in Aberdeenshire area, faces allegations Mid 2017 of sexual harassment. Full enquiry revealed he had texted a female co-worker using the word ‘dingied’ and auto correct changed it to ‘fingered’ – in his text he told her of this and made a joke that it was a good thing he’d checked before he sent it. Forced to resign Nov 2017

    July 2017 (source Civil Service World) HM Revenue and Customs confirm the go ahead on a new Civil Service Hub to be built at Waverly St, Edinburgh to staff 11 Civil Servant departments – 3,000 positions. 20 year lease taken out. Artisan the contractor.

    August 2017 Police Scotland drop / close the enquiry into Michelle Thompson MP (she lost her seat in the GE earlier). No charges ever brought against her. It took Police Scotland from Sept 2015 – August 2017 to establish she had not committed any crime!!!

    **** check date/yr 30th August 2017 Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans meets with Civil Servant Unions to attempt to gain support against AS.

    Both Pete Wishart – October 2017 and Tommy Shepherd (Tommy did this in a public talk, as far as I can tell he was the first person to run this up the flagpole, since then he has kept his head down on this subject (his background is old/new labour) start to talk about ‘not until after Brexit and the hard effects are felt, should we go for IndyRef2’. PW is fully supported in this view by John Swinney.

    October 2017 ScotGov begins review of complaints policy. Aamer Anwar makes allegations of ‘ticking time bomb’ ‘catalogue’ of sexual harassment at HR.

    Complainer H makes first disclosure of her allegations of sexual assault at the hands of Alex Salmond to her boyfriend. This is thought to be her current partner and a politician within SNP hierarchy.

    31st October 2017 Scot Cabinet meet to discuss Parliament announcement re new actions on sexual harassment in light of #METOO movement. John Swinney later does a speech in Parliament re same.

    31 October 2017 Daily Record / David Clegg receive a tip off from Scot Gov regarding sexual offences allegedly committed by AS during his time in office. David Clegg is known associate of Liz Lloyd – close member of NS staff. David Clegg openly reports this tip off (and the date of same) in the latter part of 2018 when the Alex Salmond issue goes public following another leak.

    31st October 2017, well before the “concerns” of Woman A and B in the civil case had even been communicated to anybody in Government or Woman H – Ms Anne Harvey’s private phone was inundated with text messages asking for information on Mr Salmond. This suggests the fishing expedition had started in earnest well before Woman A and B from the original case or Woman H. Anne Harvey worked alongside Alex Salmond over many years and became a vital defence witness. She knows of and was friends with at least one of the complainers.

    NOVEMBER 2017

    Around this time (possibly a month or 2 earlier) Angus Robertson drafts and introduces new NEC procedures within the structure of SNP which effectively remove democratic choices about policy and candidate selection away from the members and concentrates it within the SNP HQ. Multiple candidates from GRA supporters installed into places on NEC.

    Rumours abound that AS has the backing to take over the Scotsman newspaper.

    There are also rumours he is not happy at lack of Indy progress being made by NS and is intending to return to front line politics.

    The witch hunt against Mark McDonald – forced to resign – now appears unwise, as it has opened up an MSP vacancy in Aberdeenshire…

    The following staff become instrumental in receiving and dealing with historic complaints of sexual harassment between staff and former First Minister Alex Salmond.

    Barbara Allison – Scot Gov Director of Communications Ministerial Support and Facilities – official job title for this Inquiry is to provide ‘pastoral care’ for the complainer.

    Gillian Russell – Scot Gov Director of Safer Communities as a ‘confidential sounding board’ for complainers

    Nicola Richards (Director of People)

    Judith Mackinnon Deputy Director of People Advice

    Leslie Evans – Permanent Secretary to NS

    John?– Private Secretary

    One other female member of staff – Redacted

    **** Complainers A and B in the initial civil harassment procedure were allocated different Alphabet letters in the Criminal Trial (one of them clearly stated did not want to report) later. For this reason, and in an effort to clarify, for the purpose of this report, they will be referred to as A1 and B1 in the Civil Harassment Procedure.

    NB – it was not always clear if the abbreviation PS meant Private Secretary or Permanent Secretary.

    4th November 2017 MSP Mark McDonald had resigned from his role as children’s minister in the Scottish Government

    5th November 2017 Woman H said during the criminal trial, she communicated the SNP HQ her complaint on the 5th November 2017, that was before woman A1 and B1 issued their formal complaints.

    Woman H issued one the most serious complaints – attempted rape. We do not know exactly (sometime in 2018) when that complaint was reported to the police and would be very interesting to know.

    Specifically, when giving evidence as to why she reported it to the SNP rather than Police, she said she wanted the SNP to know, so they could use it for vetting purposes should AS return to the Political front line.

    The response she got from SNP HQ Ian McCann: “We’ll sit on that and hope we never need to deploy it.”

    It was suggested to the woman by AS defence team at trial that if Mr McDonald had quit, she may have thought there was a “possibility” Mr Salmond would try to re-enter Scottish politics.
    Ms H said: “I don’t think I linked the two events together. I wasn’t aware he (Mr Salmond) wanted to stand for the Scottish Parliament again.”

    The QC asked if it was “coincidence” she’d contacted Mr McCann the day after Mr McDonald resigned and said: “You didn’t want Alex Salmond to pass any future vetting process.”

    The witness said: “It was not a coincidence in terms of the #MeToo movement and the whole issue of women basically being abused by people in positions of power.”

    McCann is – within the SNP – Peter Murrell (NS’s husband) CEO of the SNP officially maintains he was not informed of this information.

    8th November 2017 Barbara Allison – Scot Gov Director of Communications Ministerial Support and Facilities is contacted by complainer Ms B1. Ms B1 discussed events involving AS, at this time with her. Nicola Richards informed.

    9th November 2017 AS gets his own TV Show on RT. While the Yes movement is delighted at an evening up off the media inequality… the official SNP and NS – pursed lips all round.

    Friday 10th November 2017 Permanent Secretary – Leslie Evans appoints Gillian Russell – Scot Gov Director of Safer Communities as a ‘confidential sounding board’ for complainers. Around this time Complainer A1 reports her incident involving AS to GS.

    **** 8th – 10th November 2017 A1 and B1 have officially made their ‘concerns’ known to Scot Gov officials about alleged incidents of sexual harassment towards them by AS.

    Gillian Russell, with the consent of Complainer A1 updated Ms Nicola Richards – Director of People, who then updated Leslie Evans and Deputy Director of People Advice – Judith Mackinnon.

    Ms Russell and Allison are instructed to liaise with A1 and B1 and see if they want to report the incidents to Human Resources. They do. This takes place on 29/11/17.

    17th Nov 2017 – Sky New reported to be actively investigating AS over historic incidents from 2008. This turns out to be the ‘killer heals’ incident at Edinburgh Airport and is so lacking in substance that they never publish it.

    First Documentary ‘The Only Game In Town’ is aired on WOS.

    Nov 2017 – Evans confirmed she raised the issue with Sturgeon after learning about media interest in an incident at Edinburgh Airport in 2008-9. Airport informed Angus Robertson (can’t pin down when).

    8 Drafts of complaints procedures (for dealing with current and previous employees with regards harassment complaints) – all of which have official role for First Minister with the procedures.

    23rd November 2017 Nicola Richards sends an e-mail to Leslie Evans and copies Judith Mackinnon into it, ‘we would need to consult with the individual before disclosing to another party or the Police because of the risk of the matter getting into the press and the individuals being identified.

    We have a duty of care for our staff which means we shouldn’t do something that puts them at risk – so if they don’t want us to share information or got to the police, it would be very difficult to justify (sic) doing so (without putting them at risk of being identified and wider impacts.)

    This was to be changed on 9th January 2018 to, ‘SG as employer will not refer specific cases to police without the knowledge/consent of the employee.’

    24th November 2017 Draft of new procedure sent to Nicola Sturgeon

    29th November 2017

    Complainers A1 and B1 formally report their allegations to Human Resources.

    **** At this time, Proposed Draft Procedures are Not Yet In Place. The Protocol should have been that Leslie Evans was duty bound at this time, to inform the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon about the complaints.

    On this date
    a Civil Servant with a role as ‘sounding board’ for complainers (GR?) exchanged emails with Ms A1.
    The Sounding board wrote to Ms A1,
    ‘as agreed, I sent your narrative on in confidence to Nicky (Richards) and Judith (Mackinnon). I have now been asked by Nicky and Judith if you would be prepared to speak to them following receipt of your narrative.’ And goes on,
    ‘As part of this discussion Nicky would like to share with you the developing policy for handling complaints against former and current ministers. This would give you an opportunity to test whether this would have helped at the time and also to consider next steps.’

    Later that day Ms A1 agreed to do so.

    Also on this day,
    Nicola Richards has a meeting to discuss issues with Leslie Evans.
    Leslie Evans has a separate meeting with Nicola Sturgeon to discuss development of proposed procedure.

    Also on this day,
    Barbara Allison has contact with Ms B1.
    A text from Richards to Mackinnon, ‘redacted the woman who spoke to Barbara – has been in touch to speak. She hasn’t made a statement but IS STILL IN TOUCH WITH THE ONE WHO DID redacted’

    1st Dec 2017 Nicole Richards – Director of People – contacts James Hynd re draft number 9, its, ‘agreed with Permanent Secretary I would test it with some of the key individuals’

    5th Dec 2017
    Judith Mackinnon – Head of Peoples Advice has meeting with Ms A1 and shared draft procedures with her.

    On this date also

    – Deputy Director Within People Directorate Scot Gov e-mails Police Scotland seeking advice for SG re approach to Sexual Harassment procedures following #metoo movement and, SG obligations in response to allegations made by staff or former staff which may constitute criminal offence. Face to face meeting set up for next day.

    Also on this date,
    Nicola Richards introduced what was to become the final draft procedures – a dramatic change from the previous ones. The First Minister’s role in the process is now removed completely!
    The Permanent Secretary is now the ‘ultimate judge of conduct’ for any complaints.

    6th December 2017
    Nicole Richards sends ‘final draft (9) to PS Leslie Evans.

    Also on this date, Deputy Director within People Directorate has face to face meeting with Police to discuss existing reporting procedures.

    Advised complainers should be provided with details of support and advocacy services to allow concerns to be discussed with experienced advocacy worker with knowledge of the criminal justice process and support the individuals to report matters to Police.

    This advice was reiterated on several occasions throughout the ongoing contact between December 2017 and August 2018. A number of hypothetical questions were posed during email and telephone contact around the criminal justice process. Police Scotland advised that, without specific details, no appropriate response could be given and no assessment of risk could be made.

    It was further emphasised that individuals should be directed to the relevant support services as it appeared that the hypothetical questions were predicated upon a specific set of circumstances and the SG response to that set of circumstances, rather than development of a generic procedure. The hypothetical questions suggested more than one victim of potential criminality and as such, it was stressed that, without knowledge of the detail, any risk that a suspect might present, could not be properly assessed or mitigated.

    Police highlighted that SG staff were not trained to undertake such investigations, or to engage with victims. No details of potential victims or perpetrators were provided by SG and, throughout the contact, Police Scotland encouraged SG to refer victims to appropriate support services. Police Scotland was not invited to provide comment in relation to a draft ‘procedure’ or framework for the handling of harassment complaints, nor was any draft or final document shared with Police Scotland.

    On 12th December 2017 Leslie Evans and Nicola Sturgeon have a meeting and discuss hard copy of procedures.

    20th December 2017 LE wrote to NS asking formal agreement to adopt procedure. Approved by NS this date. This draft, unlike the previous 8 excludes the First Minister from any formal role in the process.

    Around about this time period, the new Procedures, which make Employment Laws, Retrospectively Enforceable – were submitted to the Civil Service at Westminster for their opinion. They said No. And to this date have made no steps to introduce them at Westminster.
    Legally speaking, if you stop to think about it, there is no way Retrospective laws can ever be lawfully, or fairly enforced. One day you’re driving down the road obeying the speed limit. The next you’re getting a ticket for it, because they’ve Retrospectively changed the laws and the speed limit. That’s just bonkers. I’m no lawyer, but even I can grasp that simple truth.
    The fundamental structure of this law, this retrospective law, is blatantly unjust. Even before anyone got caught in its trap, Nicola Sturgeon, as First Minister and a qualified Lawyer – should Never have signed off on this procedure. Bad laws target the most vulnerable in society first. They become a stick with which to beat them, not a torch for justice.
    Core to the new complaints’ procedure would also be that
    – accused would not get to see the ‘letter of complaint’ but would have to rely on the ‘Judge’ of the whole procedures – in this case Leslie Evans’ interpretation of same.
    – The complainers would be granted anonymity – from the accused – for complaints of harassment in the workplace! Throughout the whole process.
    – Accused would not be afforded the opportunity to present a defence


    January 2018 Sky News approaches the SNP re allegations of a sexual nature against AS.

    9th January 2018 (Nov 2017 Nicola Richards sends and e-mail to Leslie Evans and copies Judith Mackinnon into it, ‘we would need to consult with the individual before disclosing to another party or the Police because of the risk of the matter getting into the press and the individuals being identified. We have a duty of care for our staff which means we shouldn’t do something that puts them at risk – so if they don’t want us to share information or got to the police, it would be very difficult to justify (sic) doing so (without putting them at risk of being identified and wider impacts.)
    Changed on 9th January 2018 to, ‘SG as employer will not refer specific cases to police without the knowledge/consent of the employee.’

    16th January 2018
    Formal complaint from Ms A lodged.

    Judith Mackinnon official appointed by Leslie Evans in role of Investigating Officer – requirement within procedures, even in final draft state, that the IO should have no prior involvement…****

    23rd January 2018
    Ms B formally registers her complaint.

    31 January 2018 e-mail with Route Map of new Complaints Procedure sent out from ‘redacted Head of Brand of People Directorate to ‘redacted’ list of recipients.’

  287. Daisy Walker says:

    Complainers A and B in the civil procedure were part of the criminal trial – as complainers but were allocated different letters in that.

    It is not clear why the MSM do not cross refer the 2 (other than it leads to more confusion). Legal experts urge caution in clarifying this, not because they can see it leading to jigsaw ID – but because they suspect a trap.

    I’m not going to do so either, but if it helps A and B in the civil procedings (and I don’t know which one’s which) were the complainers in the criminal trial – where one alleged bum touching at Stirling Castle photo shoot – surrouned by witnesses – uncorroborated.

    The other was the – sleepy cuddle, inappropriate, full apology given days after and matter recorded by line manager – person.

  288. Nick Bowes says:

    I`m English and a long time supporter of Farage and i wish Alex Salmond all the best against this tyranny and power grab. Scottish Independence is not my argument but i have always respected Mr Salmond. I think Johnson and Sturgeon are two sides of the same poisoned coin.. I wish you luck and success in your independence movement that would be best served with Alex Salmond.

  289. Alec Lomax says:

    Alex Salmond, toast of the unionists. Who’d have thought that possible?

  290. Anne says:

    Alex Salmond’s original submission is back on the Committee’s website. Is this because of his solicitor’s letter stating he would not appear if the original submission was replaced with a heavily redacted version!

  291. JB says:

    @ Anne says: 23 February, 2021 at 4:26 pm

    “Alex Salmond’s original submission is back on the Committee’s website. Is this because of his solicitor’s letter stating he would not appear if the original submission was replaced with a heavily redacted version!”

    Not when I look. The description of the submission has been changed, such that it no longer mentions that it is redacted, however the link still is to the file:


    on the site, and looking at it, it still omits paras: 12, 13, 16, 17. 30

  292. Nick bowes says:

    The English/British “establishment” are bloodsucking life draining scum. Always has been. Brexit ? That was an illusion.
    If i was a Scot i would crave real independence, away from London and away from Brussels. England has to start again too.

  293. Corrado Mella says:

    If you have a LIDL Plus card, rush to the nearest one and use the coupon for the snacks, plenty of popcorn still on the shelves.
    The implosion will be majestic.
    Cue two muscular nurses bundling a flailing Mrs Murrell-Sturgeon screaming with a full blown impostors’ syndrome driven delusion, tied in a straightjacket, into a padded van.

  294. Steve A says:

    Desperately concerned now about whether to spoil my ballot in May. I don’t suppose there is any chance of screaming Lord such fielding candidates from the monster raving loony party in Holyrood elections? At the moment they appear the least bad option.

  295. Don says:

    @JB 23 February, 2021 at 4:49 pm

    “Not when I look. The description of the submission has been changed, such that it no longer mentions that it is redacted, however the link still is to the file:
    on the site, and looking at it, it still omits paras: 12, 13, 16, 17. 30″

    Which version is the webscached version found by googling your posted PDF link ? I can’t be arsed trying to look, heads like alpabetti spagetti already

  296. Saffron Robe says:

    Exactly what I was thinking Stuart. How can something which is already in the public domain be redacted? The modern equivalent of book burning.

    As you say, comparison with the redacted version will be most interesting!

  297. JB says:

    @Don says: 23 February, 2021 at 6:14 pm

    That webcache is the redacted version, not the original from last night.

    It is still possible to find last nights version, and the original version is one uses the correct approach.

  298. Baa says:

    Folks here who think the crown and Westminster are pulling Sturgeon’s strings to stop your independence push- if you can hold your noses long enough to actually to talk to the Britons, you’ll find more and more of us not stopping you. And that’s all thanks to Sturgeon and her SNP.

    If it weren’t for her constant attempts to drag Wales into her anti-English, pro-EU indyref2 campaigns, we’d be more sad to see you go. As it happens, she and her fellow subversives are utterly ignorant of Wales and her people. So to them: Hwyl fawr ac pob lwc!

    I’m sure many of our brethren and the part anglos over the border are starting to feel similarly thanks to ScotsNatSoc attitudes to them as people. SNS talk about “the UK” like they’re Irish or from a country that actually was colonised by the empire back in the day. As opposed to aiding in, and benefitting from those historic crimes.

  299. Anna says:

    Salmond should never have been charged, the evidence was obviously flimsy as the complainents evidence in court lacked any credibility. . Its bizarre that the police interviewed 400 trying to find others who had been subjected to inappropriate behaviour by Salmond. Nicola Sturgeon, herself, was asked by the media, a few years back, if there had been previous similar complaints from women regarding his behaviour.. she answered “ no”. Why is she now implying, even today, , by her negative comments, that he is guilty? The crown offfice intervention in the last hours and redaction of documents which had been in their hands since January is even more bizarre..

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