We need answers

Events happen so frequently these days many of them could be the subject of an article all on their own.

Unionist attempts to get the May election postponed, the Covid Crisis, the latest revelations in the Holyrood Inquiry into the plot against Alex Salmond or first sight of Alex Salmond’s legal submission to the second inquiry into whether the First Minister broke the Ministerial Code are all worthy issues. So choices have to be made.

I also think there is a serious need for a grouping in the SNP to have a realistic look at themselves. That is the group I often describe as the MY Party, Right or Wrong Brigade ( MPROW) who spend their lives verbally attacking anyone who suggests the SNP are less than perfect. To be part of this Group these days involves abandoning any sense of justice or honesty, the ability to change your narrative in mid sentence and be willing to keep you head in the sand, in a loyal manner, a lot of the time. A complete absence of any sense that you are condoning and supporting the same corrupt and destructive positions so common at Westminster and permitting them to become established policy at Holyrood is lost on them. So they are my choice for my article today.

Take what has happened since Alex Salmond’s submission to the James Hamilton Inquiry was published on the public record. Let’s deal with some of the barbs thrown at Alex by the MPROW brigade.

Alex has betrayed the Party by attacking Nicola

Alex had been ordered by the Inquiry to lay out his submission of events. He had no choice in the matter. He did not set up the Inquiry. He had no say in its timing. He was the victim not the author of the plot.

But the timing is awful

Alex Salmond had no say in the timing that was in Holyrood and the Scottish Government’s hands. It has not been helped by the SG’s rearguard actions trying to slowdown and obstruct the release of documentation. Many believed this whole issue should have been dealt with immediately after the jury threw out the malicious allegations involved in the evil plot. The matter would have been finished by now, Nicola’s and Peter’s involvement might never have been exposed. There would have no need for Nicola to become embroiled in the cover up, or the many months of questioning. The MPROW brigade might like to reflect on the fact it was them who were desperate to stop this happening at the time, despite warnings that they were falling into the timing trap of the SNP’s opponents that has now become apparent. I have lost count of the warning articles I wrote at the time about delaying dealing with exposing those responsible quickly and long before any election.

It’s fake news, unionist papers are making it all up, it’s a distraction

There was a plot, a very evil plot. It came from a combination of senior civil servants and senior members of the SNP. They got caught because they plotted against the wrong man. They perhaps never expected that so many people would rally round, dig into their pockets to crowdfund his defence, be prepared to publicly defend him, taking to Facebook and Twitter, facing heaps of abuse and denigration for doing so but little by little getting the message out there that there was more going on with this prosecution than met the eye. The jury verdict was a turning point more eyes were opened. The hardest period was behind us and confidence that the plot had existed soared and more and more people demanded justice. The division with the MPROW brigade widened. This is no distraction this is a demand for justice and an insistence that the corrupt and evil practices of Westminster win no foothold in Holyrood. Before or after Independence!

Important rules that MPROW insist on

The charges were valid. All fourteen of them, some absolutely so trivial and contrived it beggared belief. Some that were proven never to have happened in the course of the trial. Some that were proven to have been impossible to have occurred. They insist the jury got in wrong when every single allegation was either withdrawn or failed to achieve a guilty verdict. Fourteen times that happened. Yet the MPROW insist no plotting was involved. The alphabet women are the innocent victims and entirely justified in continuing to attack Alex Salmond in press releases and repeating their smears even after he had been cleared of all charges. Using a Government funded agency to promote these anonymous press releases suggests they are not the sharpest tools in the box.

How the MPROW story has changed in recent times.

Only a few weeks ago they were still in complete denial any plot had existed. As the evidence mounted and their argument became completely unsustainable it has morphed into an acceptance that a plot “may” have happened but it is far too late to do anything about it now. Alex Salmond is a traitor for demanding justice. This of course conveniently forgets everything they have been saying for a long time and their complete opposition to dealing with this earlier at the end of the criminal trial.

So in the interests of fairness here are some questions I would like answers to

Who maliciously leaked the story about the charges to the Daily Record and how do they explain Mr Salmond’s allegation and evidence that it came from the First Minister’s office where both the FM and her Special Advisors had access to the document that was subsequently leaked?

Why despite being told in the October that the Government case to the Judicial Review had no prospect of success and that they should withdraw did they persist with the case only withdrawing the following January after both sets of their legal advisors relayed that they could no longer be involved and would resign if the SG continued to insist in continuing this grossly flawed and hugely biased case? That cost the taxpayer £500,000 to cover Alex’s costs and a undisclosed amount of at least the same again for their own costs. That was the cost of a determination to embarrass Alex publicly for months even though they knew the case was doomed to failure all along.

Did Leslie Evans famous text “we have lost the battle but we will win the war” indicate that she had knowledge and was already involved with the alphabet women and was engaged in creating the plot alongside them out of spite following her own attempts to get Alex Salmond having failed?

Why have the Scottish Government been so desperate to curtail the terms of reference for both inquiries? If there was no plot inside Government then surely the most thorough and wide inquiry would only reinforce that. Instead the SG have been intent in putting a straight jacket round the areas of investigation and blocking who can be called as witnesses while also blocking the free release of very relevant documentation. This is not the actions of those with nothing to hide!

How do they explain Peter Murrell knowing about allegations made against Alex Salmond in London to the Met long before this was made public knowledge unless he was in touch with those who made the allegations.?

Is it acceptable that the Crown Office have renewed threats if Alex Salmond reveals the truth about what happened? Is this the “Justice” system Scotland deserves?

I have another new question as well. Why did Angus Robertson not reveal much earlier that the “incident involving a woman at Edinburgh Airport” which various newspapers frequently alluded to alongside the charges Alex faced, referred to a verbal quip he made jokingly after a woman had problems getting through security because of the heels on her shoes? It seems strange to me that when Angus knew this incident was so trivial yet was being used extensively by the unionist media in a vague manner to suggest Alex had “form”, other than the charges he faced. Why didn’t he make public exactly what had happened and just how trivial and irrelevant it was? What possible reason could he have had for not killing that slur stone dead? He was advised by Sky News exactly what had happened. What was his motivation to keep quiet for years and let the slur be repeated time after time?

My final comment on this is my observation that the First Minister’s response to Alex Salmond was not to even attempt to refute any of his submission but to try and continue to smear the man whose trial is over. I suspect Ms Sturgeon’s trial is just beginning. Things are going to get specific very soon.

That will do for now. Now I will explain what will happen next. The MPROW brigade will now recommence calling me names, throwing smears and insults, but completely ignoring any answers to any points I have made or answering any of the questions I have posed for them.

This is of necessity, they have no ammunition to fire back, they cannot create a credible alternative narrative to the events that are known to have occurred. Their “leaders” keep their heads down and leave it to the careerist recruits to respond. They are trying to build their careers, build a reputation as belonging to the ultra loyal brigade. Blind to events and with no knowledge of what went before, they are the expendable army who will be despondent and exposed when the truth comes out. The “leaders” at that point will claim they had no involvement and will hope to continue as before. It is so “Labour”.

I have seen it all before. Just not in the SNP.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

Please share and retweet my articles and help widen the reach of my blog.

If you appreciated this article please take out a free subscription to this site. These are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. You will be most welcome.

62 thoughts on “WE NEED ANSWERS

  1. Couldn’t agree more, I am shocked that so many of what I thought were good decent INDY people in the Party, have stayed quiet, kept their head down. Whereas if they had just been as honest as the members believed them to be, this could ALL have been put a stop to with the first fiasco of stitch up, the one Scot Gov eventually had to CONCEDE..Costing the tax payer around £1million, In their quest to destroy the reputation of a man MURREL felt was a threat…

    (You can choose which MURREL that was or was it BOTH MURRELS) nothing surprises me anymore..

    At least we KNOW the liars & losers actually DID concede.. A word being used about Alex Salmond now, in a quest to get their lying rotten accusations out there once more to blacken his character again & again..And the nasty way that Swinney only ever used Alex’s Name in conjunction with the Tories. Alex & the Tories..

    When the wrong (cause I regret I am not seeing any of the RIGHT) get caught out they stoop to the levels of RATS in SEWERS..

    We saw it with LABOUR & now we are witnessing it even more so within a party we held in such high esteem..

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Kurikat – I too have been astonished at so many independence supporters not wanting to know the truth. The evidence is all there in the Committee papers – but people either do not want to or do not have the mental capacity to read the documents.

      We are now seeing who supports the illegal persecution of Salmond, who is speaking out against it and the less courageous who are just keeping quiet. Swinney made his position crystal clear at the weekend when he smeared Salmond on the BBC.

      To me it is not a matter of being loyal to Salmond it is a matter of basic decency, justice and speaking out against corruption in public office.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. We canna have some rules for some, and other rules for others. Getting awa fae this kind o corruption is the reason for independence, otherwise we’re just as bad as labour and the tories

        Liked by 2 people

  2. This comment is on behalf of all MPROW (excellent acronym!) and other deniers:

    Iain Lawson is a unionist/westminster/tory/labour/insert other plant.

    There you go, that’s saved you wasting your time with writing your own comments.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. I have just read Alex Salmond’s submission to the inquiry.

    I am appalled, not surprised though as I have seen this lot at work many times and know exactly how sleekit they can be.

    The unlawful process used against AS has been used against their own staff for years and I do not know why it was not picked up as unlawful before this by the TU’s.

    To my mind the crux here is that they used that process against someone over whom they had no power whatsoever, he was no longer FM, no longer part of the SG, they had no method or power whatsoever to ‘diciplne’ him. So what were they trying to do?

    Lesley Evans and her HR team need to be cleared out, they are twisted & corrupt. The problem is they have got away with this behaviour for years and think they are untouchable. No one is responsible, they are safe because they are a collective (bit like the Borg except not as interesting) and no single person is every responsible, its all down to an agreed process you see, not a person.

    But this time they picked on the wrong man.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. I do wonder why they thought they could ‘get’ Alex Salmond,,, Westminster politicians & civil servants would never get involved in condemning him (and I note they have not), you would never want to go down that path. He’s a shrewd politician.

      You made me laugh with your Borg reference 😀

      I’m interested in your statement that the unlawful process has been used within civil service for years – is the ‘fairness at work’ policy used to penalise staff, and did this come about at the start of Leslie Evans tenure, or is it just embedded? The whole thing is kinda grubby. I noticed the unions were very squirmy and nervous when being interviewed by the Harrassment Committee.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Until I read Alex Salmond’s submission within these documents:

        Click to access 20210112SGHHCPublicPapers.pdf

        In particular, the part where he states:

        ‘The procedure adopted by the Scottish Government could have been declared unlawful on many grounds. One of these was that it uses a process by which the person complained about does not even get to present his or her own case, but that it is left to the Investigating Officer to make an “impartial” collection of facts for the decision maker to pronounce upon.’

        I was not aware of the detail of why the SG procedure used against him was unlawful.

        The process he describes here is the process that is used against all SG staff in the FAW process. I do not know if this is a Civil Service wide process but it certainly is the one used by the SG for all FAW investigations (unless resolved informally) since 2010.

        Click to access FOI-18-1702841%2B%2BAnnex%2BA%2B%2BFairness%2Bat%2BWork%2BPolicy%2Band%2BProcedures.pdf

        Liked by 4 people

      2. Leslie Evans was central to the Ayrshire PPI scandal as exposed in ‘The only Game in Town II’. That scandal would have been happening in other parts of Scotland, possibly all regions, so her power was immense.
        If MI5 weren’t involved in this plot to keep Scotland poor, they must be jealous they weren’t.
        Her air of untouchability makes my blood boil.

        Liked by 5 people

      3. Lulu Bells – sorry I minterpreted your comment about the internal complaints procedure, I thought you were making comment about their FaW procedure too – but that’s wholly separate.

        You need to read (trawl through) all the submissions by Levy & McRae to get a an idea of the extent to which the new procedure, and it’s application, is illegal and unfair – there are so many aspects of it that are, definitely not just ‘para 10 could be misinterpreted’!

        I should probably go through them and set out a list to try and clarify them all – but it was wholly designed to disadvantage the complained-of person, to the extent of not even being told what the complaints were…

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Well said, Iain, and clearly set out – not easy with so many things happening just now!

    Haha, I came on thinking I’d ask you questions I’d like your opinion on in case you were having difficulty choosing what to write on!

    I notice the BBC radio news is focusing on delaying the May election – a vote-losing proposal if I ever heard one – which I think is a reaction to growing calls to make it a plebiscite election (noting that they definitely don’t mention that). I’d be interested in your opinion on pushing to get pro-independence parties to push for the plebiscite – what would the political pitfalls/benefits be?

    Do you have an opinion on the two MSP MPs submitting affidavits on the s.30 case? Why only 2, and why no MSPs I ask myself…

    On this blog article – I’m finding the cognitive dissonance of the reactions to Alex Salmond making reasonable submissions to the inquiries (and note, these are not the whole final submissions) quite disturbing, and the continued reference to the complaints themselves exactly what is NOT in the remit of either inquiry – the FM response was so wrong-footed it’s remarkable she ever got into politics.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Here is a World Exclusive. I have an excellent guest post from Angus Brendan McNeil MP dealing with all the issues you raise being scheduled to be published on this site, tomorrow. You will not be disappointed it is first class!

      Liked by 9 people

    2. She is using the Blair defence of the Iraq invasion, ‘he was a bad man so it is good we got rid of him’.
      No main stream journalist ever points out that the WMD were invented precisely because removing a ‘bad man’ is illegal.
      In Salmond’s case he is innocent so Sturgeon is on quicksand. Slurring him is her only strategy and it looks very, very weak, playround level weak. Unfortunately there are a lot of gullible people out there. Most people don’t even understand that the revelations this week are an investigation into NS (not the Salmond stitch up enquiry).

      Liked by 5 people

  5. Excellent article Ian and one where anyone with any decency in them would relate to.
    I relish the day when the architects of stitch up of Alex Salmond are exposed but in many ways it’s those you refer to in this article that are the ones really turning my stomach these days.
    We know the truth will out soon and hopefully each and every one receives the outcome they deserve but the MPROW brigade in my opinion also need purging, else how will we ever get trust back in the party if that’s even possible now.
    I know I could never vote for a candidate that was prepared to smear or remain silent when others smeared a man that not one of them are fit to even say his name.

    Scott must have been a wise enough man to know that his words which were relevant in the day would be words that would remain relevant through time. like you say we’ve seen this before in other parties and it is a bitter pill we have to swallow when we can no longer say our party is better than this.


    Liked by 8 people

  6. Another question would be: when are you going to restore him to his rightful place in SNP history after being so quick to airbrush any mention of his name out?

    Or: why did you go ahead with this fiasco when even London advised you not to?

    There’s no other conclusion other than this was THE most evil act ever committed in the Scottish political sphere.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. Is there any way we can start a MPROW list that anyone could add (in their humble opinion) their candidates for the list? I have a few in mind.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. YES Iain, the MPROWers have started! Just yesterday a Truth Denier, Reg Tait, called me “a Tory Troll” because I had the Cheek to comment on the Murrells Innocence!
    For the Current FM to say that Her Husband, Peter, the CEO of the SNP, did Not know anything about the meetings in Her house where Alex Salmond was talked about was ludicrous!
    DRoss & His Army of Evil Tories are rubbing their hands with joy, and They Will have their day!
    Because of CV19 I am calling for the Postponement of the May ‘19 SGE, but now I am demanding the Postponement for a New FM to be found Before the Current FM is Impeached & destroys the lead in the Polls that My Party, The SNP still currently has in the Polls!
    So Murrells for the sake of the Party that you say you love Go, & Go Now!


  9. There seem to be so many people wishing to shoot the messenger. Perhaps if they read the message with an open mind they might think differently.
    At times I’m now made to wonder whether or not I want to live in an independent Scotland where so many are willing to turn a blind eye to corruption “for the cause”. In what way would that make us any better off than being under WM rule? It’s like saying “At least we are getting screwed by our own” – a wee bit racist, in my opinion.
    I’m so glad that there are commentators like you and others who continue to keep us informed, despite the pelters from folk who ought to know better.
    Many thanks and keep up the good work.

    Liked by 7 people

  10. That there was a vile vicious sordid attempt to jail an innocent man is without doubt and it is now without doubt who the perpetrators were.

    That the SG then delayed and defied every attempt to provide documents requested by parliament is also without doubt. And now the Government’s very own First Minister, who everyone now knows was up to her neck in the conspiracy, is about to established as having broken the ministerial code and lied to parliament.

    And so can there be any doubt as to why the honest decent members of the SNP and beyond want rid of a hierarchy that lies, cheats, and misuses its powers in the vilest of ways. This is not the type of government that people want and there should be no one who who should support such behaviours on the basis that it is as a means to an end.

    But that is exactly what the MPROW as Mr Lawson describes them are doing. Like extra judicial murder they are prepared to accept that as a means to an end.

    But they will not succeed because they will not be allowed to succeed. Decent civil society will not allow this to happen because decent civil society has no wish to live in a cess pit society where anything goes. The MPROW and their ilk will not prevail.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Iain as usual thank you for your objectivity. You may consider that you have heard this before but I have no axe to grind over this woeful matter I am merely a proponent of the truth. I try to conduct myself in a polite and structured manner. Many of those “careerists ” whom are attacking you do so with their heads buried in concrete (not sand that is too soft) they are doing so for their own ends and of course they will ultimately fail. Whatever comes out in the wash the consequences must NOT interfere with the biggest prize of all and that is Indy. This whole scenario just plays into the hands of the MSM who will take every opportunity to slay the Independence Movement. That must not be allowed to happen.

      Liked by 6 people

  11. Excellent piece that covers all bases. I could greet when I think of the party I once knew. Nowadays, it seems to be filled with torn-faced wokists and ‘keep the heid’ types. You are right that Alex Salmond had no choice about the Hamilton inquiry, but the higher echelons of the SNPG always had a choice. What we have seen has been a pattern of activity that is grounded in pointless intransigence. It doesn’t seem to matter how stupid or damaging or without any kind of merit an action will be, it must be taken at all cost. Seeing the bigger picture is not part of the equation and blinkers must be applied at all times. I despair.

    Liked by 7 people

  12. Another excellent article Iain.

    There are courageous people like you. There are others who know the truth but have chosen to side with those who have perpetrated this evil and malicious persecution of Salmond. These people will have to live with their choice. They may try and soothe their consience by telling themselves they thought it was the best thing to do for the cause. It isn’t. Then there are others who are just ignorant of the truth and make absolutely no effort to determine the truth and are happy to believe in a falsehood.

    There are also the large number of people who carried out the persecution and those actively engaged in trying to cover it up. People like Robertson should never be forgotten or forgiven. If Sturgeon departs and someone like Robertson takes over it will have achieved nothing and rewarded a plotter. If Swinney takes over then he has been clearly involved in the cover up and should not be rewarded for doing so.

    As a point of info – Evans was actively involved in meetings with the two complainers during the investigation stage. The decision maker (Evans) who like the investigating officer ((MacKinnon) is supposed to be objective, not take part in meetings with the complainers. There was not ” apparent bias” as the judged ruled but complete bias and a plot with one objective – get Salmond.

    Evans is back before the Committee tomorrow (Tuesday) for the 5th time – some people are totally lacking in personal integrity – if she had any she would have resigned some time ago. Unless of course she is just following orders.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Everything you say makes sense. My response puts Scotland’s chance of independence first. I am certain that the whole rotten thing was concocted to entrap the two leaders who frightened unionists most. The whole process- uniquely designed for their key- only- target – was rotten from the start. I want to know who started it. I want to know all the communications between Leslie Evans and her line managers in London. They knew Nicola would follow the law and her obligations to civil servants stationed by London in Edinburgh. They just did not understand Alex’s rare type of courage- though goodness knows the stress will have done immense harm. They managed to entrap both. There were certainly seems to have been some bitter and twisted, easily manipulated individuals involved – and the gross behaviour of Kirsty Wark, Sarah Smith and co- later – will live on. The point is- history should have Alex and Nicola together to celebrate independence….but Scotland must come first- whatever happens next. They both know that….. and I trust them both. Scotland must come first.


    1. Mullwharcarcom – please try and read the FACTS not just wish for what you and I and most other independence supporters would dearly wish was the case.

      Sturgeon could have stopped the judicial review in its tracks because she knew it was unlawful and unfair and that the Scotgov would lose the case. In fact as Salmond says in his recent submission it is the duty of an FM to do so. She didn’t and it was obvious then to Salmond that she was involved in the plot. If Sturgeon put the SNP/independence first she would have stopped the judicial review.

      Your comments about Sturgeon just having to follow the law are just plain wrong.

      The truth can be hard to accept. I am sure it was very hard for Salmond to accept as well.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Wasn’t it also the case that Wm advised against changing rules that allowed the Scot Govt to retrospectively hound members for alleged past misdemeanours?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Wee Chid – at an Inquiry hearing it was stated that Westminster advised not to proceed with creating a procedure to include Former ministers. It was also stated that no other country in the world has such a procedure for FORMER MINISTERS.

        Even now 3 years on a procedure declared unlawful Evans still holds fast to the need for such a procedure.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Mark Hirst was recently acquitted – no case to answer was the judgement. A bit like the case against Salmond.

    The two complainers against Mark Hirst were two of the complainers against Alex Salmond.

    Yes that is what Gordon Dangerfield tells us in his most recent blog. Two of the same people who were involved in the Salmond case, who legally cannot be named, are free to go around raising more false accusations and smearing Salmond. All the same police and COPFS personnel involved ? – probably.

    This is not the kind of Scotgov I expected when voting for the SNP.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Cubby.On Police Scotland, with regards to officers telling Mr Hirst that they were on the Salmond squad. I’m sure Craig Murray put a comment up once saying that 22 Police Scotland officers searched for dirt on Salmond for 4 years, at an incredible cost to the Scottish taxpayer, and found nothing in the process.

      Police Scotland is a tool to be wielded in normal circumstances against crime and criminals, however we’re witnessing this taxpayer funded institution, the oldest in the world, being used as private investigating force to shut people up, and stop them from revealing the truth.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. On Craig Murrays blog, the police spoke to 400 people in the wider community, that Alex had contact with.
        I believe the names were given out by the Scottish government/civil service. They found no one who had anything negative to say. Hence the complainers were all from a tight circle surrounding Nicola & her cabal.
        If I’m wrong in this, please someone correct it.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Thanks, Iain.
    Looking forward to Angus Brendan interview.

    Nice to see so many good people rooting for a good man, and to be actively pursuing those who would jail the innocent. Those innocents are all of us, as Mark Hirst has recently been relating. Incredible to see them take the moral high ground in attacks on Trump – they’re in league with the Trumps of the world.

    Yes, let’s all continue to pile on the pressure on those who seek to tarnish the good name of Scotland, every single one of them – and the more fronts they’re having to firefight on the better.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Excellent article Iain, pointing out that Salmond has no choice on the timing on the inquiry, the questions you pose as well, are very pertinent, answer though are few and far between for now anyway.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. You are doing a fine job here , I don’t know if you have looked at COPFS and its workings a little as another line of enquiry?
    A little bit of Googling has told me that there are three top positions in the above ,

    Lord Advocate , James Woolfe , appointed by NS 2016
    Solicitor General for Scotland Alison Di Rollo , appointed by NS 2016
    Crown Agent David Harvie , appointed 2016

    All of the people above have a large say in who gets charged and who goes to trial , given the way their anti Indy prosecutions have gone so far , I think that they might stand a little bit more scrutiny..

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Alison Di Rollo is an interesting character, what little info there is about her on the Internet. Worked as head of COPFS new sex crimes unit prior to being appointed by NS in 2016, very keen on doing away with corroboration, and other interesting snippets. As deputy to the Lord Advocate, she’d be next in line to make legal decisions for the Scottish gov’t if, say, the Lord Advocate recused himself.

      Liked by 2 people

  18. As, again, I watch any chance of independence disappear over the horizon ….

    (1) I can’t answer that and neither can anyone else because only the person who leaked it knows. You are assuming, predictably, it was at Sturgeon’s instruction as that paints the blackest picture of her. It may not even have been from her office. That is Salmond’s implication/allegation. That’s the nature of leaks, they’re anonymous.

    (2) I would surmise an ill advised desire not to admit to the flawed policy led to the extension of the Judicial Review case. As I have often said, the law is a crapshoot and perhaps (just my guess) they hoped they would get lucky. It was a mistake. As to Salmond’s “embarrassment”, the legal case was still extant so it would have made no difference to the existence of the allegations with or without the Judicial review.

    (3) “Did Leslie Evans famous text “we have lost the battle but we will win the war” indicate that she had knowledge and was already involved with the alphabet women and was engaged in creating the plot alongside them out of spite following her own attempts to get Alex Salmond having failed?” – No. That is just your own wishful thinking. It was simply a text from a feminist campaigning against sexual harassment to a fellow “soldier” in that “war”. Any other interpretation is malicious.

    (4) “Why have the Scottish Government been so desperate to curtail the terms of reference for both inquiries?” – The emotive use of the word “desperate” illustrates (unnecessarily) your own bias in this.There are many reasons why any inquiry should have specific remits and boundaries. If there weren’t, inquiries could go on forever, covering completely irrelevant ground for no good reason. It is in everyone’s interests that is questioned and kept to a minimum. You appear to scent blood and want as much carnage as possible. That is the usual reason for cries for “mission creep”.

    (5) I have seen no definitive evidence Murrell knew of any allegations in London. Only that he assumed there would be. You are making an assumption yourself here.

    (6) “Is it acceptable that the Crown Office have renewed threats if Alex Salmond reveals the truth about what happened?” – Have they? And, again, the emotive use of the word “truth” highlights your own bias. “His version of events” might be a better description just now. Is Salmond alone in this limitation, or is it standard practice in these circumstances? Unless you provide the context, the question can’t be answered.

    (7) As to your Angus Robertson nonsense, it is just a scurrilous attempt to blacken his name. The guy did nothing wrong but you are smearing him anyway (hypocrisy?). Its wasn’t his job to do Salmond’s firefighting for him, no matter what he said the MSM would still have run with it and who says it wasn’t already known to the investigation. You are just lashing out at anyone you consider an enemy of Salmond in the hope the mud sticks.

    (8) What “smears” has Sturgeon thrown Salmond’s way? Are they any worse than the smears you’ve thrown at people in your article or are peppered throughout this thread? I would very much doubt she has thrown any smears at anyone concerning this …. unless you can provide evidence.

    Any talk of conspiracy or plotters just makes Malcontents sound nuts. There needs to be motive for a conspiracy and no one has been able to provide me with a credible one of those. My “narrative” is simply an unfortunate coming together of feminism, the Me Too phenomenon and a desire to be seen to treat allegations of inappropriate behaviour seriously no matter who the subject was. All I see is f*ck-up and the ill advised f*ck-up in trying to remedy the initial f*ck-up. Whether or not the f*ck-up is enough to see off Sturgeon, and thus destroy any chance of independence any time soon (if ever), is yet to be decided. My feeling is it isn’t.


    1. Well some congrats for having a go. I will leave it to others to determine how well you did as you think I am biased which of course I am. I don’t for a minute think your interpretation is anything more than a damage limitation exercise in a awful mess of Nicola and some close associates own making. You are right I can’t be sure Nicola was the driving force behind the plot but I am absolutely sure she has been heavily involved in the misjudged attempts to it cover up at the very least. We can both hope that is the extent of her guilt in the matter but I am not overconfident that will prove to be the case.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Iain, I would give pony zero out of ten but then as Pony says we are all biased.

        I don’t think you have blackened Robertsons name or indeed Sturgeon’s or any of them involved in the unlawful persecution of Salmond for over three years now. They have all done this to themselves by their own decisions and actions taken. Personally, I think you have gone very easily on them but as Pony says I am biased because I favour honesty and justice.

        As regards independence I do not think it will ever be jeopardised by rooting out unlawful and disgraceful corruption in government. I tend to think and hope most people in Scotland would favour that. We cannot say we want to be better than corrupt Westminster whilst condoning/covering up SNP/Scotgov corrupt activities.

        I could give Pony the benefit of the doubt and say he just hasn’t read enough of the Committee papers or he doesn’t know enough of what has been going on but I won’t since I don’t believe that is the case.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. Me Bungo Pony
      It’s obvious you haven’t been following what’s going on in depth. Regarding the leak, I have whittled it down to three people close to the Murrells. Given that I’m a Scot & have been away for 50 years I can see what’s been happening clearly, only because I have no dog in this race & my mind is open without emotion, to any fact I find,
      I have spent years doing research on your politics since Sept 2014. I was naive back in 2014 on your politics. When the no vote came through 18th Sept 2014 I thought that was what the people of Scotland wanted.
      On the 19th Sep, the very next day, I saw I may have been wrong.
      I hadn’t been on the sites prior to your Ref 1 so was coming in at ground level. With a clean slate of thought, of what your politics in Scotland was.

      I would say now I’m well & truly up to speed, I would even go as far to say, I know more about Scottish politics than some folk down the high st.
      Keep coming into this site & even venture into WOS. Another good site is Gordon Dangerfield. These are a few of the sites, that will give you the truth & nothing but the truth, of what’s going on within politics in Scotland.

      All these sites are for Scottish Independence. A country with a government that works for the people & without the corruption everybody is trying to get away from in WM.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. I truly appreciated your article, laying down what questions need to be answered. Any chance of that happening? I joined the Independence movement only after BJ had been voted in as leader of the Conservatives, but now I’m wondering if the Scottish Parliament, in its own way, isn’t just as full of individuals intent on personal advancement as those in WM. I reckon the only way a second referendum could be successful is with Alex Salmond at the helm. Or Joanne Cherry. Sadly Nicola’s group has lost all credibility and I doubt if it would survive the scrutiny a referendum would draw. Am I right? I am quite happy to be corrected if explanations for my misconceptions are given. I most sincerely want to understand. No more lies or cover ups.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. The Sheriff in Mark Hirsts trial ” I do not accept it would cause a reasonable person fear and alarm”.

    Well I think most of us had worked out by now that these people (alphabet sisters) are far from reasonable people.

    The two who complained about Mark Hirst seem to have created the circumstances that they can continue to raise false accusations at absolutely no cost to themselves.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Rather than change the law, Iain, would it not be better to require COPFS to operate professionally? The evidence which caused the sheriff to rule that there was no case to answer was the same evidence on which COPFS based its prosecution. As there was no case, the appropriate course of action would surely have been to investigate the issue of vexatious complaints.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Yes that could work but it might be worth considering a flat rate cost for any situation where the judge considered the case frivolous. Needn’t be huge, just sufficient to make people think.


      3. Now you are advocating changing the law over this. That would make cases of sexual harassment even less likely to go to court and set the small gains women’s rights groups have made back decades. Just because a case was lost does not mean all future cases should be crippled to make an example of the women involved in that one. You’d be giving the green light to predators everywhere.

        Given your dislike of the GRA, I would think the last thing you want is to endanger women far more than the GRA theoretically ever could.

        You are getting too greedy in your thirst for revenge on Salmond’s behalf. What little moral high ground you may have been able to clamber on to could be swept away if you keep up this seeming antipathy towards women who believe they have been the subject of sexual abuse. The venom being spouted about the people you term the “alphabet women” is disturbing and leads me to believe (belatedly) the protection they are being given is necessary.


  21. Great article, laying it out in simple terms. It appears there is a campaign to use all the letters of the alphabet to throw muck hoping some sticks, somewhere. However, they are not concerned whether it sticks, just fire it out as nobody knows who we are.
    It is absolutely ridiculous the amount of time/resources that Police SCOTLAND have wasted backing this pursuit of the innocent and to cover the backs of those who instigated this whole process.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Absolutely appalling stuff below the line on WGD and Mr Kavanagh is allowing it all to be posted. Lost all respect for that site and Mr Kavanagh. Basically, Salmond is guilty they say and everything is all his fault. As bad as the most rabid Britnat site. Clearly, the facts are causing mental breakdowns in some people.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Thanks for your post Iain it IMO is a fair and honest assessment of the evidence currently being produced , I look forward to your Angus Brendan post also , IMO the committee decision should be followed by a judge led inquiry that has the ability to FORCE the SG and the uncivil service to face proper questioning without the ability to remember or misremember and retract or correct their evidence

    I would also INSIST that anyone who has the intention of leaving their position to thwart or hinder the outcome of a judge led inquiry must have their pension rights suspended or paused until the outcome of that inquiry is known , the ONLY exception to that ruling would be if someone was willing to be a whistleblower and could provide sufficient provable information such as documentation or transcripts which would shorten the inquiry and enable criminal charges to be leveled , the weakest participant is usually the one with the least finances therefore the one who has MOST to lose . NO ONE should be able to gain financially from this clusterfcuk , and the thought that these people could leave with massive payouts and pensions after costing the Scottish taxpayer millions for this travesty of justice is unthinkable

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Please don’t use the term ‘alphabet women’. It was clearly coined to be an insult, just like terf. It is regularly used as an insult. It adds nothing to this blog report.


  25. Are you saying that you have no faith in our government then Ian.
    That we have no honestly or integrity. Things have been said, and done that can’t be taken back. It’s true. Alex
    Salmond was and still is a great man of our and his time. Moreover, was fitted up like a kipper by the head of the civil service. She is the sole person that is to blame for this. Moreover the crown prosecution service is also to blame as well, for allowing this travesty to continue to court. Lies have been told upon both sides. Unfortunately this unfortunately is politics. Everyone in politics seem to be trying to get one over upon each other, which achieves nothing but bitter infighting. Detracting us from what we should all be concentrating on.
    Which is the Independence movement. This is what I’m struggling to be saying.
    Ian I have to have faith that our government, can and will deliver upon their promises. As our current system of government isn’t working out for any of us. Devolution is broken. Manly because we don’t have full control of our whole functions of a government, we rightly deserve.
    Handicapped by the corrupted powers of the westminster parliament. That have done nothing for our country apart from taking it apart piece by piece. To suit themselves. To keep us in a poorer society than that of theirs. Whilst we pay through the nose for what is rightfully ours, or started of as ours.
    I apologise if I’ve caused you any offence.


    1. You haven’t but I regret to say you are wrong. Of course Leslie Evans and Westminster are involved but so are several very senior members of the SNP. A question rarely asked was why the retrospective section went back to 2007 when the SNP came to power. Why not 1999 when the Parliament was created? Seems a strange decision, as if they were only interested in snaring one person, does it not?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Iain
        You have a point there. I didn’t know there was a start date for past ministers. That in itself causes suspicion that it was a fit up.
        Who ever devised this didn’t think things through did they? So many holes.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: