Photo by Sora Shimazaki on


In a corrupt society where the system is geared to protect those at the top and important organisations all cooperate to do so. Organisations like the Government, the Crown Office and the police all working in tandem. So far in Scotland we have been lucky and not faced the full impact of this for the sole reason that the court system is either based on juries or honest judges. Thus far there is no evidence the judges are involved and are anything other than fair and just.

Let me give you a recent example of how it works. As Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans faced questioning at the Parliamentary Inquiry she constantly pushed the fact that she followed legal advice all the way. What she did not say was that a lot of that legal advice was coming from James Wolffe, and the Crown Office, the Lord Advocate who is a Government Minister, who sits on the Scottish Cabinet and reports to Nicola Sturgeon. Others at the Crown Office are also involved, more of that later.

The first problem with this, is an obvious one, every time Leslie Evans was in difficulty she would hide behind the excuse “I was following legal advice. When asked what that was she would then reply “I am not at liberty to say”. This of course is possible as the Scottish Government has refused to furnish the full legal advice and she would not be allowed to “break a confidence”. 

For most of the hearing this was the repetitive tactic but things then got a bit more complicated as the Scottish Government required to hire external legal advice, that is legal counsel independent of Government to represent their defence against the Judicial Review proceedings where Alex Salmond was alleging the procedures and investigation carried out into the initial allegations was totally unfair, flawed and biased against him. 

As the questions moved on to this aspect the standard defence of “I followed legal advice” was now much more difficult to sustain. It was widely known, not just in legal circles, that the two external legal counsel had advised the Government that their defence was not sustainable and that if the Government wished to persist on the existing basis they would have to do so without them. This was a dramatic and principled step by Roddy Dunlop and Christine O’Neill. It was at this point in January 2019 , facing a walkout by their own Independent counsel that the Government finally surrendered. They took a roasting from Lord Pentland who expressed his displeasure with the Government’s conduct of the Judicial Review awarding Alex Salmond £500,000 to cover his costs. This was on the highest, punitive scale possible.A similar or even greater amount was of course squandered by the Scottish Government on the vindictive action, which was more designed to publicly embarrass Alex Salmond than to win a case they had been advised, by their external counsel months before they were likely to lose.

When Leslie Evans was asked about what the external legal advice said about all this she always ignored the word external and a new word was substituted “composite legal advice” meaning that this would keep the internal legal advice still included in her answer. This was more than a little embarrassing as the committee members saw through her game and repeatedly asked her over and over again about the external advice. She persisted always leading with the words “the composite legal advice said”. Eventually, as members insisted they wanted the answer about what the external legal view said she gave up and finally admitted “I cannot tell you that” which highlighted the extended slippery eel tactics to avoid admitting it did not agree with the internal legal advice, and lit that difference up like Christmas lights for all observers. It was of course a nonsense, the Scottish Government, as the client who engaged that external legal advice was always free to divulge its content .”if they wanted to”. They didn’t of course, their view was that keeping as many boxes of dynamite hidden from public view is their best way forward, even if it makes them look guilty as sin, it is still better than providing documentary proof of it.

Amid all the investigations and close scrutiny there is one “player”whose full role remains not fully clear and that “player” is the Crown Office whose role throughout has been difficult. To say the least it has highlighted the very conflicted roles the Lord Advocate finds himself in. Conflicts that will almost certainly lead to very significant changes being introduced to create much clearer division between Government and the Justice and Court System in the future.

It is fair to say 2020 was not a good year for the Crown Office and with 2021 shaping up to pile more pressure on top as well. A series of now openly admitted “malicious prosecutions” has resulted in huge unwarranted costs and damaging settlements which run to many tens of millions of pounds. As someone said to me recently it’s not often anyone can blow a third or more of your department’s entire budget on a series of huge mistakes and still be there”. 

Now it is easy to blame all this on James Wolffe, the Lord Advocate but he has not been alone in creating this series of cataclysmic disasters, the Crown Agent and Chief Executive David Harvie must be in the frame as well. I have to confess to not having come across his name before until my sources introduced his name to me and therefore, at their suggestion I paid him a bit more attention. They suggested I have a look to his early career, a period not extensively covered in his biography published on the Crown Office website. They tell me he was for a time an employee of the security services, he later worked for a time in Paisley (to his credit) before joining the criminal investigation team into the Lockerbie Bombing, attending the entire high security trial in The Netherlands before spending some years in the Foreign Office.All things considered my sources suggest I should pay more attention to the second word in his job title than the first. He is of course the Crown Agent at the Crown Office. Word is he leads an increasingly nervous and disillusioned staff with some reluctant to put their names to correspondence relating to these controversial matters,

I mention all this because there was one item in Leslie Evans evidence that deserves more scrutiny. Throughout her evidence she went to great lengths to insist every action she took was taken in line with all legal advice and entirely compliant with the rules and regulations set out in the Scottish Government procedures. However when under pressure from questioners about why she reported the complaints to the police, despite the complainants having made clear she did not have their approval to do so, she slipped up and revealed she didn’t send them to the police as the procedures and rules stipulated she was required to do, if potential criminal activity was involved. Instead she sent the complaints to the Crown Office direct. She ordered her staff to send them to, wait for it, Crown Agent David Harvie.

This is significant, it is the Crown Office role to examine evidence after a police inquiry, to determine whether to prosecute or not. It is not intended to work in reverse where the Crown Office instruct the police to investigate and according to newspaper reports promise the police “unprecedented resources” for any investigation. This must put the police in a very unusual difficult position and pre judges the issue to an enormous extent. It perhaps explains the huge police efforts and over 700 “face to face interviews” with over 400 people that wasted huge amounts of public money but failed to find a single credible additional allegation beyond those offered up by the civil service and the “ Vietnam” plotters in the SNP. As Alex Salmond’s own Counsel Gordon Jackson noted every single one of them came from within the “political bubble”. Every one of them were of course, dismissed by the jury.

I am no legal expert but I think if the police, after interviewing 400 people, encompassing Alex Salmond’s entire life, had failed to identify another single instance of any sexual impropriety to add to the political bubble allegations I would be wanting to re-examine the original allegations thoroughly before going to court and being badly embarrassed. There were good reasons to have done so, many of the allegations were simply absurd. Others fell due to the courage of the seven woman defence witnesses who turned up in court to tell the truth and systematically destroyed the remnants of the prosecution case. Those seven had no recourse to anonymity just to honesty, truth and moral courage, the weapons of the brave.

Many of the charges would have fallen in normal circumstances long before they reached the court and would never got off the ground had it not been for the Scottish Government unlawful targeting of Alex Salmond. The police had of course previously warned the Civil Service at Holyrood that they were not qualified to carry out these potentially criminal investigations and had warned them their practices were flawed. Their warnings were ignored by the Leslie Evans gang.

It is hugely disappointing that even at these late stages the Government is still playing games with the Inquiry releasing messages the Inquiry never asked for while still refusing to hand over the ones they should ask for. The messages between Peter Murrell, Ian McCann and Sue Riddick. The ones Peter Murrell denied ever existed and which has created the fear that has led to his refusal to attend the Inquiry for further questioning. The messages he denied existed but keep him awake at night with worry about them seeing the light of day.

No matter the outcome of the Inquiries, these procedures require urgent revisiting and if not entirely scrapped, substantial amendment is required. It is a shambles, that has let all Scotland down, our Government, our justice system, our police force and of course most of all, the one innocent Party in all this, Alex Salmond

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.

While you are here why not take out a free subscription for this site which means you will get a message letting you know when new articles are posted. These subscriptions are available on the home and blog pages of this website. You will be very welcome.

Please feel free to share or tweet all articles on this website.

82 thoughts on “YOU WANT JUSTICE DO YOU?

  1. This Iain is a very interesting analysis of what dark arts have been going on within the Scottish Non Justice system … there creative accounting system to obtain the results there masters require to protect there assets and profits, and keep them in power is very concerning for us as Scottish citizens.

    Let’s hope the Scottish judicial process demonstrates the wisdom , vision and powers of the Scottish people!………and demolishes there ivory towers , and show them the inside walls of Saughton Prison for there action against the people of Scotland.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Absolutely! I cheered when I read this. Thank goodness. It offers hope.
      There are real criminals involved. Others have been manipulated for various reason – some may even have admitted it to themselves. But I would like the criminals- the ones who made the plans, the ones who worked to make the plan succeed, the ones who bullied and twisted the arms of others to make it succeed, the ones who told and are still telling bare-faced lies and – most of all- the ones who gave the orders – behind the wall of the Official Secrets Act or whatever it is called now-named and prosecuted.
      I didn’t and still don’t know anything about the “Crown Office” but I am going to now.
      The next questions are surely about David Harvie’s line managers….. and who appoints the Chief Executive of the Crown Office.?
      I have shared it in all the Independence groups I belong to.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. What has me truly concerned is that the heart of the Scottish Government has shown itself to be unfit to carry us through to Independence. It looks as though Joanna Cherry, a staunch supporter of Alex Salmond throughout his ordeal, is herself now caught in the assassin’s sights. The clique have not learned their lesson. I certainly would not vote to put an untrustworthy shower like that to carry a country they obviously don’t care about to freedom. They are only interested in their own little piece of power. Btw, did we ever find out where the ‘ring-fenced’ independence fund landed up?

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I’m voting snp
        Then after Indy
        I will vote for politicians who I can rely on and trust
        I think this could be a sting operation on both Salmond and Sturgeon
        I reckon they had all the key Indy players under close surveillance and knew he was a good target for mudslinging and she would panic and be persuaded to get him prosecuted so she couldn’t be accused of a cover up down the line…she is currently doing a great job to convince the risk averse to go for Indy
        If she is brought down I don’t expect Joanna of the fine wines to be a woman of the people
        She may be a lawyer but she isn’t really as warm and eloquent as Sturgeon… imo Sturgeon is doing a fab job at connecting through the telly…it’s horrible seeing the treachery …but it is an internal conflict …yes it needs sorted but if we don’t return a majority in May
        It will be Labour and the Tories vying for the UKIP Englanders vote all the way….
        No more freedom for us
        Probably no more real devolution !

        Liked by 1 person

      2. An internal conflict? Somehow I don’t think so. It could have ended with an innocent man being jailed for rape… I joined SNP when Boris Johnson became PM and I found I could no longer thole the idea of living in a country run by corrupt, treacherous politicians without trying to do something about it. Looks as though I could have saved myself the bother. I’ve never taken to Nicola Sturgeon, but I have to admire her for the calm steady manner in which she has handled the pandemic, but for a First Minister Joanna Cherry has all the necessary requirements and more. Nicola must think so too, else why is she so afraid of her?

        Liked by 3 people

  2. Surely “malicious prosecutions” are perverting the course of justice. When can we expect to see prosecutions? Or is our justice system above the law?

    Liked by 6 people

  3. Excellent explanation of the Lewis Carroll approach of the antagonists in this malicious affair.
    I wonder how long the committee can escape the conclusion of gross malfeasance.
    The resources flushed down the bog in this affair are mind-bending, but searching for something that doesn’t exist is never easy.
    Considering the current party leadership are presiding over a glorified dating agency, Alex comes across as pretty normal.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Well done Iain!
    I have a sneaky gut feeling, resignations a stepping down is in the offing.
    As all things scurrilous, they might believe , that will be an end to it.
    I hope not, I hope once we are Independent, we can bring all to account and expose this stink.
    Remember Peter Wright, exposed MI6, his book was banned in the “UK”, yet I bought it
    Abroad, still have it.
    Now we are out of the EU, for now! I wonder what the legal implications are for an exposé abroad, Europe etc.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Wow that is very interesting Ian, I have wondered if Alex Salmond would have the right to call for a judge led jury if no justice is served by this government enquiry, just yesterday I started to also wonder if there is more to Joanna Cherry being sacked from the front benches, without doubt she is the biggest thorn in the Tories side and while we know the wokies have been waging a two year campaign to remove her a part of me finds it hard to believe that the party would remove such a popular and intelligent MP so close to an election just to appease a few weirdos, although we also know that Nic wants Robertson to be the one to replace her if she goes, still it begs the question.
    Now if the order came from Westminster and for that to be the case then you’d have to assume that Westminster has something on the leader of the SNP.

    What this should have shown us all in Scotland now is that the SNP is not to be trusted and for myself I see voting for them as the same as voting Tory.
    What a mess.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. And that one innocent person is again going to be treated unfairly, by the committee this time, by being made to attend without being allowed (by COPFS) to speak of what he knows! Alex Salmond, I think, desperately wants to reveal the injustices, but COPFS still threaten him with prosecution if he does. It’s madness.

    Tell me about it Iain – the irritation of hearing ‘I followed legal advice’ throughout everything Leslie Evans says is overwhelming. In my opinion, if they refuse to release legal advice, then it has no bearing on her testimony, it isn’t an excuse – legal advice can come in many forms and is not necessarily to the public’s benefit, say if all you are asking is ‘can I get away with this?’ – because we can’t test to see if what she says is true. And what they say about legal parliamentary privilege; it’s the minister – or in this case a civil servant – that makes the final decision and so they own responsibility for that decision, whatever the legal advice.

    In her 12th Jan testimony, Leslie Evans turned ‘her’ procedure into ‘the government’s procedure’ (as though it somehow miraculously turned up out of the blue, nothing to do with her). In one of her letters to Alex Salmond she wrote ‘MY procedure’, which Jackie Baillie kept on at her about, concluding ‘I think you’ll come to regret that one little sentence’ (I paraphrase). Her excuse there was that she was not ‘aware’ of most of the correspondence with Alex Salmond! (All done in her name). And each of Alex Salmond’s solicitor letters, right from the first one, claimed the unlawfulness of the investigation and procedure, and reserved the right to take it to Judicial Review – none of that was a last minute surprise to any of them.

    One of my questions is: if she was the sole decision-maker, as it’s defined in The Procedure for former ministers, then she surely is no longer acting on behalf of ministers – where does that leave her? She surely shouldn’t be answering questions ‘on behalf of ministers’ – it must be as an employer/manager?

    But that brings me to the investigation ‘phase’ itself – I just can’t see how the procedure, or the investigation, could have been legal – and I think Police Scotland effectively told them that before the procedure was signed off – that they were not equipped to deal with complaints and potential victims of sexual abuse, or to make the judgement on if it was a criminal matter. Any investigation should have immediately been handed to the police. Even in an internal workplace matter, which this wasn’t, the employer has to tread carefully when Harrassment might be spill over into abuse.

    We actually heard from Nicola Richards (Director of People) on the 1st Dec last year that Leslie Evans gave her direct instruction to hand the decision report over to the ‘police’ – the crown office – after she’d ‘tested’ the opinion of the complainers, who were ‘very reluctant’. In the first set of evidence sessions of the committee – mostly to do with the ”judicial review phase’ – neither Leslie Evans nor Nicola Richards knew who it could have been that would have contacted the police or how they would have done it. Ahh, so much ‘inadvertently misremembering’. It’s like getting blood from a stone.

    Nicola Richards had very little involvement in the investigation phase – it was mainly conducted directly between Leslie Evans and Judith Mackinnon – and she was just involved in that last part while Judith was on holiday. (According to testimony) . I also like to note that it was around August 2018 – when the Decision Report was handed over to the Crown Office – that the role of ‘confidential sounding board’ ‘ceased to be promoted’. This role was created hastily in Nov 2017 to give an alternative reporting mechanism (and someone for MsA to complain to), and when questioned on it extensively, Leslie Evans couldn’t even remember the title of the role (that she directly commissioned), let alone it’s current status: she contemplated, at length, about how it might be worthwhile to reintroduce the role,,, but it turns out that role is still being carried out by the very same person: Gillian Russell, a very senior civil servant who would report directly to the Permanent Secretary. If that’s the level of ‘concern’ Leslie Evans has for her staff, then heaven help them. Guess Leslie inadvertently misremembered that one too.

    Very interesting background information on Crown Agent David Harvie, thanks Iain. Lockerbie eh?

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Phew.. Cracking post, Iain.

    The crimes acts laid bare, ultimately exposed, I’m genuinely surprised the whole debacle was endorsed, expedited by the Murrells? Actually sounds like an elaborate trap, perpetrated to damage the entire credibility and budget of the SNP? Whoever is behind the trap (who would benefit most from its success?) has very much pulled the rug from right under the leadership, the Party and the People. It wouldn’t matter one jot if the deed is later exposed as the workings of dark forces, for by then, the leaders, the Party and the entire momentum, the recent gains for independence, is crippled.


    There really ought to be prison time for any individuals found to be lying under oath – no wonder Sturgeon looks sick, haunted.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Excellent blog article again Iain! The association of David Harvie with the debacle that was the Lockerbie Trial should be enough to set the alarm bells ringing.

    It is disturbing to witness the lack of nous and forensic examination displayed by the members of this inquiry and for the most part their perceived acceptance of answers given.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Think the trial was in Camp Zeist, Netherlands, but that apart, another important contribution in exposing the whole sorry affair.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. There is only one word to describe Scotland’s predicament and that is ‘colonialism’. In January George Osborne referred to what he called the ‘arms’ of the British state in Scotland, which comprise crown, police, and civil service. This is the tripartite that really control Scotland on behalf of the British state, as we can see in ongoing events, and also in their leadership.

    In Lesley Riddoch’s fine film on Estonia’s independence there are three key factors required for independence:

    1. National identity, as without that there is no national consciousness
    2. Courage, of the leaders and people, at the moment of declaring independence
    3. Heid bummers, who ran the nation’s social institutions under colonialism have to be replaced

    Liked by 4 people

      1. When we regain our independence, we will have a golden opportunity to start again, to throw out all the corrupt, entitled and self serving institutions and their practices we have absorbed from being part of the UK. Watch Leslie Riddoch’s Estonia, the Baltic Tiger and dare to dream.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. “They suggested I have a look to his early career, a period not extensively covered in his biography published on the Crown Office website. They tell me he was for a time an employee of the security services, he later worked for a time in Paisley (to his credit) before joining the criminal investigation team into the Lockerbie Bombing, attending the entire high security trial in Belgium before spending some years in the Foreign Office.All things considered my sources suggest I should pay more attention to the second word in his job title than the first. ”

    In many ways this is the most important passage in this very important post. I think we might now be getting to the nub of things in the Salmond stitch-up – and the involvement of Agent Harvie.

    His ‘secondment’ to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is deeply significant – it being a major sponsoring department of the British state security. Might it in fact be better to think of his present post as the real ‘secondment’?

    His involvement in Lockerbie and the Camp Zeist Fiasco may be just as telling. There can be little doubt now that the “Scottish Court’ in the Netherlands was no such thing; rather it was the security services stitch-up in the Netherlands – solving a problem for both US and UK Foreign policy in respect of the real perpetrators of the Lockerbie atrocity.

    And we already know that the Security Services were all over that.

    For example – there was the strange role of Andrew Fulton, former Station Chief of MI6 in Washington, and subsequently Chairman of the Scottish Tories.

    Fulton – with no known academic credentials – suddenly pops up as a ‘professor’ of Law at Glasgow University and is sent as an ‘observer’ to Camp Zeist. When is cover was blown, it caused substantial embarrassment to both the University and to the Scottish legal authorities.

    “A Glasgow University law professor is being dropped from an expert panel on the Lockerbie bombing following allegations that he was a high-ranking MI6 officer. Andrew Fulton will be asked today to stand down from his role as deputy director of the university’s Lockerbie trial briefing unit.

    The unit was set up by the university to give foreign and UK journalists “impartial and objective” advice on Scottish legal procedures used in the trial of the two Libyans accused of causing the 1988 explosion on Pan Am flight 103. Professor Fulton joined the unit last year after he retired from a 31-year career in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    Last Friday, the Guardian raised questions about his links with MI6, and over the weekend a series of reports claimed Professor Fulton had been one of Britain’s most powerful MI6 officers, acting as head of station for the intelligence service in Washington.”

    Revelations that Harvie was involved in both the Camp Zeist and Salmond fiascos ought now to provoke some serious questions and begin to provide answers as to the extent and nature of British Security in the present difficulties facing the SNP.

    The Tory Party/Security Services connection is not coincidental either.

    Liked by 8 people

      1. You are very welcome to do so. I think it is THE most important factor in this whole affair that we look at the dirty tricks brigade’s involvement in (anti-) Scottish affairs.

        In fact, many aspects of this whole affair that are otherwise inexplicable, ONLY become so when one factors in the possibility of bad actors in all of this – and where better to place them than the hugely corrupt Crown Office.

        In respect to Alf Baird’s hugely important and insightful contributions to our understanding of Scotland’s colonial status, it is absolutely no surprise that the sponsoring department of spook activity in Scotland is the FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE – FORMERLY FOREIGN AND COLONIAL OFFICE.

        Says it all really

        Liked by 3 people

    1. Boab,

      Would it be crude to mention the SNPs enthusiasm in Westminster recently for ensuring MI5 get lots of funding, and enthusiastically suggesting MI5 should have even further untrammelled powers? So I vaguely remember – when was that?

      I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, and wouldn’t like to suggest there was any connection.

      I thought it was more for easier cover up – MI5 are very good at silencing the media, allegedly, after all – but, perhaps a bit of a murkier purpose was sought? Although, of course, it is all coincidence and unconnected I’m sure.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Sadly, I have no doubts at all that the SNP has been penetrated at the highest level – it would be very strange if it hadn’t been.

        The question is to what extent and at what precise level?

        There is every sign that our present difficulties are the fruits of that penetration.

        But the main instruments remain the organs of the British State that work to maintain our colonial status. I have absolutely no doubt that the Crown Office is a major player – that much is blatantly obvious – right up to clearly political prosecutions.

        The civil service – well it answers to the Cabinet Office – not the first minister.

        Another question is who pushed to create Police Scotland – thereby removing local forces from local political accountability – and effectively making it a (British) State Police Force.

        But there will be little helpers and not so little helpers in the SNP – possibly recruited at university – possibly being blackmailed – the usual sort of thing. Be in no doubt about that.

        Liked by 6 people

      2. I might be getting mixed up with a vote and the SNPs statements following the (long awaited) Russia report, and the appointment of maybe Stewart McDonald (and/or Nicholson?) to the Security Committee. Sorry, my memory is mince, I can’t find specifically what I thought there was. The SNPs about turn regarding the security services and policies towards Russia in the past few years have been noticeable though.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. Bit of cross-posting there Boab! Thanks for your reply, yes about security services infiltration – that’s their job after all, and once you know Scottish independence is a valid target for them, it isn’t really infiltration, and more ‘to be expected’ – but of course, without knowing the extent.

        I’m not sure I ever thought about the Crown Odfice, or COPFS, before – there are obvious implications in the name for where their loyalties lie, but actual active work for the British state? I never would have considered it before now – and that begs the question of why they are being so obvious with this (incompetent? Or don’t care?), because then you do look back at past events and think ‘oh. That’s why,,,’.

        Police Scotland – interesting question, why create the centralised single force (I can see it has good and bad aspects, but it hasn’t been successful, so bad overall). Again I didn’t really see anything untoward in that, mostly, as the fire brigade has successfully become one national unit, as far as I can tell. Mostly, I wondered why they couldn’t get someone not corrupt to be in charge of Police Scotland – but that question is cleared up now.

        One of my favourite shows is the 1989 Channel 4 After Dark talk show ‘Out of Bounds’ with Tony Benn and other interesting characters, casually discussing the official secrets act that was about to come into effect, and all the books they’d read/written exposing ‘secrets’ – except they now keep taking it down off YouTube! I wish they’d STOP IT – it has HISTORICAL value, and I find it relaxing viewing. I think they’ve cut bits out over the past few years too. Anyway – lots of interesting things, and one was the agreement that most of the secrecy was just ‘secrecy for secrecy’s sake’ – covering up for them making an arse of an operation, but instead of saying woops, and explaining it in general terms – they layer on more and more cover ups and secrecy to hide the original fairly bland mistake. The point was made, people know we need security services, and accept we can’t know the detail of what they’re up to – but where is the accountability? Tony Benn was calling for them (Mi5 and MI6 anyway) to be accountable to the police (and so to parliament). No luck there then. They’ve created a monster I suspect, but we’ll never know.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. It might also be worth looking at the origins of policy proposals that would have Scotland retain the pound and not have an independent central bank.

        If Scotland does not have its own currency and relies on the Bank of England as its lender of last resort, then an independent Scotland will be still-born.

        Its economy will still be run by the English treasury and its fiscal policies will be dictated by the Bank of England.

        If you wish to find out the identities of those who seek to hog-tie Scotland and keep us as an English colony, then look no further than those who propose these economic policies. This despite the fact that the SNP supreme governing body, the Party Conference, has voted FOR an independent Scottish currency.

        By their works shall ye know them!

        Liked by 3 people

      5. Oh yes, you are very right there Boab. I already know a fair amount about the economy and our new currency, and when I saw NS ignore the SNPs new resolution on currency – and looked at connections, in particular Andrew Wilson – well, she’s a right-wing neoliberal, and there is no way I’m going to support anyone that supports the failed neoliberal economic model – socialist she is most definitely not! Ugh, did you see who she’s appointed to the board of their investment bank? That’s not going to be used to support local Scottish enterprise!

        Yes, it was the economy/currency issue that really made my mind up about her – though I still hoped she could be turned and pressurised up until last year (on that, and independence).

        You expect a bit of deception, and maybe hypocrisy, from politicians – but NS has taken it to a whole new level, right across the board. Neoliberal = feed the rich elite. Fairness? Nope, equality? Nope. And I wont get started on transparency (see above) – essential for democracy to function, so that the electorate know what they are voting for. She’s as toxic to me as Maggie Thatcher was.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Very interesting and thank you. Those were well pre-Viner days at the Guardian before that paper was brought under Security State control. The Snowden affair was the watershed moment. You would never see such reporting now.


  12. Many thanks for this eye opening post, Iain. I always wondered why the case came to court when there was evidence that the complainants were talking to each other. It looks like another example of malicious prosecution.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. It takes a great deal for entire institutions to become corrupt, and it is usually individuals who become so, who then bend the rues to enable them to carry out their agenda. I think we could learn a great deal from the way in which Hitler rose from obscurity to corrupt every arm of public life, through individuals who were willing to succumb to fear, for the most part, and the temptations of power.

    Power enables a person to control others; it is seductive for this reason alone, never mind the other kudos that come with it. To put it in bare prose: it enables a person to do what they could not otherwise do, and unleashes a dark and narcissistic, sadistic even, side, when it is not checked. Imagine having the ability to bark an order and others jump to carry it out? Eventually, any threat to that controlling power becomes a threat to the person wielding it, and monstrous things are done to preserve it – as in the Stalin era.

    The German legal system and judiciary succumbed through a mixture of both fear and power, although some very brave people, who were almost all eliminated in the camps, tried to resist. Reading about some of the laws and judgments made during that period makes one want to weep. How could people be so stupid, so blind to capture by a small, minority group of fascists? Actually, it is very easy when you make people feel ‘othered’. They are afraid to speak out, to even hint that there is something very wrong. It is also relatively easy to convince people that something is what it is not – cultism works in that way – and then you winnow out those most likely to interfere with the agenda or who might think for themselves. Political opponents are targeted first, then intellectuals, philosophers, journalists, writers, artists of all kinds, priests, etc. are targeted next.

    I am not saying that the coterie around Nicola Sturgeon has done any of this, but you can see how it could happen when you have minority interests taking control of society. The pseudo ‘woke’ element, particularly the trans lobby, fits the bill. Give them power or allow them into positions of power and their agenda takes precedence over everything, and sense and rational thought go out of the window. In and of itself, the pseudo ‘woke’ element in the Scottish government could not capture society, but introduce laws that assist its rise to the top – GRA Reform and the Hate Crime Bills – and there is no stopping them. The latter ensures that their agenda is followed through fear and control of the population, and government becomes utterly corrupted. This lot have captured almost every Western government. Perhaps it is time that we asked why they are so determined to destroy our society from within? I’d suspect that they don’t even know themselves, the indoctrination is so strong in the young, in particular – as Hitler started with the young.

    We are led to believe that it is all about the rights of minorities, and that we should tear down statues of fat old racists from the 18th century, we should no longer allow rigorous discourse and intellectual thought in our universities in case it offends some obscure ‘feeling’ that someone has, we should stop funding ancient relics and buildings because they represent an era of exploitation, that we should teach our children that they can be whatever gender they choose out of hundreds, that we should unplatform and cancel anyone who dares to question the orthodoxy, that we should alienate people from science and biology. We are not there yet, but, if we don’t watch ourselves, we could be heading for a facsimile of a fascist/totalitarian state. Maybe it’s the rest of us who require to be ‘woke’ and shake ourselves out of our torpor. This isn’t just happening in Scotland, but we seem to had the luck to have a government that just pushed us too far in time so that we are beginning to see where we are headed if we don’t take the wheels off soon. For those who think this can wait till after independence, delusion is their lot. These people do not want independence; indeed, their agenda depends on our not having independence. The bigger prize is the destabilizing of society. I don’t think Nicola understands that; she still thinks it’s about equality for minorities; as, indeed, do those minorities themselves.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Just wanted to add – should have said it in my comment – that our Western liberal society, with democracy and free speech is far from being perfect, but the alternatives are a descent into totalitarian conformity. Both the extreme left and the extreme right are equally guilty of allowing excesses that could harm society, and it is often the case that the left is controlled by the (invisible) hand of the right, as, I think, is ‘wokism’ in its present form. We hear people say, leave this stuff till after independence, but it is the ‘woke’ faction that is driving this (we are merely reacting, belatedly) and they do not want independence before these policies have been pushed through, if they want it at all. May is going to be an almighty tug-of-war between them and the rest of us.

      Liked by 3 people

  14. Extremely interesting commentary Mr Lawson which gives a very good summary of the corruption of process within the Crown Office, the First Secretary Leslie Evans, senior civil servants and individuals within the SNP.

    But it is in your detailing of the shadowy figure David Harvie who sits to the side of the Lord Advocate as Crown Agent and Chief Executive. With a background in the UK Security Services, the Foreign and Colonial Office and an observer throughout the Lockerbie proceedings it is not difficult to understand exactly what Mr Harviie’s role is.

    His background and the words ” Agent ” and ” Colonial ” sing out to you what he is about.

    And it is in this link we start to gain a glimpse of how the establishment through the actions of their security services and their colonial agents operate against independence movements and how the misuse and undermine the mechanisms of state.

    More will come into the public domain but no one should be in any doubt about the spook activity and the level and extent of it now being deployed in Scotland.

    A very good article Iain.

    The big picture of what has been going on is starting to emerge.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Good pic Helen. I noticed in the pic further below of Sturgeon Margaret Ferrier in the background. Another who didn’t do what she was told by Sturgeon and is now in trouble.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Very nice, genuine – that should be your Twitter profile pic.
        Personally, I’m working on a Twitter profile pic using one of those Janey Godley type placards, but with Sturgeon substituted for Trump, ‘Crook’ substituting the other term (maybe)…


    1. Aye, who knew that Nicola Sturgeon was so extremely insecure (and vindictive, and back-stabbing, and false) – not us, and not Alex. How much all of us wish we hadn’t had our eyes opened to the full, raw, extent of that insecurity.

      That’s a lovely photo, Helen! (I had to go look when you said you were cuddling him, ooo the scandal!)

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Helen, did you get interviewed by Police Scotland’s “Get Salmond” Task Force and invited to make a complaint? It seems every other woman he ever met was.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. I was part of the audience who had gathered to listen to Alex to speak from a small corner of the conference floor. I had a seat right in front of the microphone he was supposed to use. I witnessed the emotion on his face as he tried to contain his reaction to the delegates resounding chant, “on the stage, on the stage!” I will never forget that. I was also part of the queue that snaked around the part of the conference centre set aside for Alex to sign copies of his book. His aides went up down that queue, pleading with people not to ask for a selfie as he was already over an hour late for his next engagement. They were ignored by the queue and by Alex. He had a word for everyone, a selfie too if they asked for one. This is a long response to your comment Helen, but yes. I agree with you 100%. It was obvious to anyone who was there on that day that Alex’ popularity amongst the rank and file membership was huge. That day may very well have sounded the start of this whole debacle.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Fascinating work Ian and thanks too to Boab for some very interesting additions.

    On what is a tangential but now related subject. I have a law degree and a reasonable understanding of legal matters. One long summer I passed my leisure hours going through all the publicly available documentation on the Megrahi case.

    Many people have a degree of scepticism or unease about the case, without necessarily knowing a huge amount about the detail. I can only say that having been through all of it, I was left with the conclusion that to convict Megranhi on the basis of the evidence that was presented against him would have shamed a retarded baboon. I have never from that day been able to understand how three senior Scottish judges could have arrived at that verdict.

    But judges are fallible human beings like the rest of us, with foibles and maybe even skeletons in their closets. Perhaps the presence of people like Harvie and Fulton was designed to ensure that some people understood very clearly how inconvenient things might become for them were some kind of “wrong decision” to be reached, and to stiffen a few sinews.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. two things have always puzzled me about lockerbie
      firstly how does a pressure switch manage to fly in three aircraft without going off.
      secondly how was it the small bomb was right up against the outer skin beside a bulkhead where it would split the skin and damagedthe bulkhead with a decompression. If it had been packed randomly it could have been anywhere in the container and would have resulted in a pile of shredded cases, a bulging floor and a request for a landing at GLA.
      As a side issue how did the radio cassette get through heathrow baggage handling without being stolen. or possibly it was placed in position.


    2. David, you are to be congratulated for your diligence on the Megrahi case. No-one who has honestly looked at the evidence upon which he was convicted, would have concluded other than how you have.

      No Scottish jury would have convicted him. No Scottish jury was allowed near this case. The Camp Zeist process was utterly at odds with Scottish criminal procedure.

      I have several practicing Scottish lawyers in my immediate family – 2 of them in criminal law. What they have been telling me for many, many years about the Crown Office – and unfortunately about some member of the judicial bench – though crucially not all – would curdle milk – and could not possibly be published here.

      Suffice to say – that recent events have not surprised them in the least – and indeed have allowed them to claim vindication in the light of my initial scepticism. Our legal system is a corrupt mess – about which practitioners make public complaint at their peril.

      We have seen what they are capable of.

      The only thing wrong with your above statement, David, is the word ‘perhaps’ in your last sentence.

      Liked by 4 people

  16. Iain im very disappointed Joanne cherry has been sacked from front a great mp with a 12000 majority also a qc i think we could be pushing independence further . The treatment of Alex Salmond court case was a disgrace who were out to get him ruin his fine reputation


  17. This is True but Unbelievable! The East German Stasi must have trained Evans & Harvie! If Only John Le Carre was still alive, Only He could unravel this Skullduggery!
    I am Now certain that this ‘Stushi’ has been created to Stop Full Independence for Scotland – that would please Evans’s Masters in WasteMonster!
    But because I am Now certain that the ploy is to get the People of Scotland to Shoot both feet off by Voting No in IndyRef2 I Will be ReDoubling My efforts to achieve a Free Alba by 2023!
    But I Will Never vote for the SNP again Until both the Murrells go!

    Liked by 1 person

  18. By way of a corollary:

    In spite of some interesting fresh evidence, the erstwhile Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, did not see fit to open a new inquiry into the death of Willie MacRae.

    Why would that be?


  19. what surprises me is with the limits of the Scottish Legal system and the international reach of the social media that some site somewhere hasn’t listed all the alphabet women, the vietnam group all the whatsapp and sms messages.


  20. Evans during her Committee questioning said that she sent the papers to the Crown Office and not the police because she was following legal advice to not follow their own procedure which says it may be sent to the Police.

    Now as the Scotgov are not releasing the legal advice relating to this we will never know if this is a bare faced lie and who (Wolfe?) gave this advice, if true. In addition we will never know the reasons WHY the legal advice was given to send it to the Crown Office ( if true, of course). Evans would not say why – legal privilege LP.

    So in the one and only case to be processed using this procedure they did not follow the written procedure and they did not follow the Police Scotland advice either. Personally, I think they did not send it to the police because of the letter they had already received from the Police advising them not to proceed with their own investigation and Evans was worried it would be binned by the Police.

    All these LPs ( legal privilege) and redactions have proven to be very handy for trying to keep what happened very secret.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Did she say that now? That it was legal advice that told her to go to the Crown Office – well, well, I missed that little detail. I didn’t miss that she, repeatedly, told us that she followed the Scottish Government Procedure *to the letter*.

      So it was followed to the letter, until legal advice told her to ignore the supposedly legal procedure on that one thing?

      Evans held up better – 3 hours too! – in that last session than in others, I reckon their coaching was worth the money.

      I wonder if, say, she’s found to have acted unlawfully, the lawyers and composite lawyers, might start objecting to her claims of everything she did was based on legal advice? It’s an awkward one – legal advice is confidential, so lawyers can’t just come out and say what it is, so there will need to be a very strong,,, impetus (in the public’s interest and essential evidence to the committee should have been good enough mind you) for any kind of revelation.

      You are right though Cubby – why would legal advice tell her to send her report to the Crown Office?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The point is when the procedure was being drafted they got plenty of legal advice and that legal advice was presumably happy that the procedure said send direct to the police. So what happened that the advice then said (approx 8-9 months later) something different ( assuming it did) – namely send it to the Crown Office. My take on the reason is that Evans report would get ” favourable treatment ” from the Crown Office that it may not have got if sent direct to the Police. Now I know the Police say they did not take a copy of the report from the Crown Office but the very fact that it is coming from the Crown Office adds weight to the pressure to investigate. Investigate they did with a massive amount of manpower – probably more than allocated for the Yorkshire Ripper.

        I have previously raised this point on Gordon Dangerfields blog.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I’m not disputing it, and think your conclusion likely, I was just getting off track and wondering how to get the legal advice,,,

        But it looks like Fabiani is just as curious you about that legal advice, she’s just written to the Lord Advocate asking:

        “Sharing of the Investigating Officer’s Report

        Turning to the Scottish Government’s decision to send the final investigating officer’s report to the COPFS, the Committee would be grateful for any further information / explanation of this decision, including whether you had any involvement and whether you can provide your view on the deliberations that informed this decision. The Committee also seeks any further information / explanation, including from your perspective on the investigating officer’s final report being offered to the Police as evidence.”

        She’s also asking about redactions. (I’ve just posted it over on Gordon Dangerfield’s blog, sorry for the repeat). Not that the Lord Advocate’s answers are very forthcoming – but it puts him in an awkward position I think.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Contrary, I never thought you were disputing it. It wasn’t my intention to give that impression – I was just expanding on my thoughts.

        I have now read Fabiani’s letter of 3/2/2021 to the Lord Advocate and as you say she is questioning whether all the redactions are necessary and also asking about the reasons behind the way Evans report was passed to the Crown Office then the Police. His reply will probably be full of redactions😃😃.


      4. 😀 that would be hilarious (not helpful though)…

        “[redacted] was in charge of overseeing redactions, and used the principles of [redacted] and [redacted] and so I can assure you it was all [redacted] totally above board. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.

        [redacted] Mr Wolffe xx]

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Some friends and I are trying to put together some FOI questions for the Crown Office and the Civil Service. There are journalists too that know how to dig around for answers. The British State is with us all the time, one way or another, supporting the established order and enforcing the Official Secrets Act. Anyone involved in environmental groups is very aware of that. For instance, 30 years ago- and maybe even now- Caithness had lot of people frightened to speak about what they witnessed and knew about Dounreay -and Vulcan. I met some of them. I am glad that at last the spotlight is shifting – I hope more and more- to those who have signed up to the system controlled from London which works to keep Holyrood in check- and prevent independence. I still believe that Nicola was assessed as someone who could be manipulated and bullied along because she had a strong record of depending on and following “the law”. Her key change of heart- from understanding the value of arbitration and the illegality of the process- seems to have happened very quickly after agreeing with Alex’s legal advice. Did she just turn a somersault accidentally? Or who pushed and manipulated her? Who was pushing and manipulating the “complainers”? The tories, I believe, have just put through a bill at Westminster empowering their “agents” to break the law?

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Daniel Defoe (Robinson Crusoe) worked for the Crown as an English spy and agitator/propagandist for the creation of the Union in Edinburgh in the run up to the Treaty of Union in 1707. It would be strange if there were not more employed 318 years later in Edinburgh to keep the Union intact.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. There seems to be some confusion about MI5 and MI6. MI6’s task is intelligence about foreign governments. If David Harvie was seconded to the Foreign Office then he could have been (but not necessarily) working in MI6 because that agency is part of the FO, but quite why they would want a Scottish lawyer escapes me. The diplomatic side of the FO however, does a lot of treaty negotiations which are legal documents and they do employ lawyers to draft treaties. I’d say Harvie was working on that. MI5 are tasked with internal security, so definitely not reporting to the FO. The logical place for them is the Home Office.

    One of the irritating aspects of BTL comments on Indy blogs is people making wild claims about MI5 spies and infiltrators without any proof. You don’t need to assume any MI5 involvement in the Salmond fit-up: the whole thing was cooked up within Nicola’s inner circle for Nicola’s benefit to remove Salmond as the natural focus for opposition within the Party. End of.


    1. “The whole thing was cooked up within Nicola’s inner circle for Nicola’s benefit to remove Salmond as the natural focus for opposition within the Party. ”

      I don’t think anybody is saying anything different.

      If you do not think there is Security Service involvement the SNP and the Scottish Gov, you do not understand the nature of the British State – unless you really DO know more than you are letting on?

      The two statements are NOT mutually incompatible. It would be entirely within the MO of the Security State to exploit such party conflicts for their own ends – and to foment them if needs be!

      And who on Earth do you think the Head of the British Civil Service in Scotland and the Crown Agent in Scotland- a “former ” security service operative (they never retire- you know) work for if not the Crown and the British state?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree that the two are not mutually incompatible.

        Unfortunately, some people think that means that the SNP leadership can be excused if you mention British Secret Service agent involvement. It does not in my opinion.

        The filming of Salmonds lawyer Jackson on the train during the criminal trial for example is very suspicious.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. He worked for MI5 earlier in his career. And of course MI5 – and probably other security services – have people, or assets, on the inside of any public organisation – that’s their job? I didn’t realise that meant actively in charge of organisation too though. You might not be too worried about it Stuartm99 – but this is our trusted prosecution service – no more! Every single crime is prosecuted by them in Scotland, and this puts a cloud of suspicion on each. No one here is safe if they are carrying out political persecutions.

      The point is I think, that Nicola Sturgeon has the support of the security services (however fleeting) – they have their own interests, an opportunity to take out an iconic figure, while not sullying their own hands, an opportunity not to be missed I’d say. Normally, NO independence supporter would have any kind of support from the security services. (I know what you mean about people assuming NS has been ‘turned’ and ‘they’ve got something on her’ though – but they’re just trying to make excuses for her really, to not feel as betrayed as they have been).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The problem is that the prosecution service is not trusted – not by readers of this blog or Wings and apparently not by a large number of the Scottish legal profession either.

        I agree that the COPFS has been conducting political prosecutions against Alex Salmond, Mark Hirst and Craig Murray, but I believe that they’ve been doing it at the behest of Sturgeon not Whitehall. Sturgeon is the one who appointed Hardie and Wolffe, she is the one who benefits from the elimination of Salmond who is more popular with party members than she is, it’s her stooge Evans who started the investigation in the first place.

        If Alex had been scared off by the threat of disclosing the first two allegations the COPFS would never have got involved. But once Alex called their bluff with the Judicial Review they knew they’d lose. Like losing gamblers they then upped the stakes by getting the Police involved, betting that if they could get Alex charged quickly the JR would be suspended and a conviction would render the JR irrelevant. Enter Wolffe and the COPFS.

        If MI5 wanted to destroy Alex Salmond the obvious time to do so was in 2014 during the referendum campaign or perhaps immediately afterwards when they knew how effective he was. Why wait 4 years until 2018 to move against him after he had lost his Westminster seat and was out of politics? The RT show was a bit of an irritant but realistically not many people watch it. But for NS, Alex being out of Westminster raised the risk he might run at a by-election or in 2020 HRE and his popularity with the members made him a real threat to her position.

        In conclusion the timing of the moves against Alex should rule out London’s involvement whereas it does fit with Sturgeon’s motivations. She ordered the rewriting of the Ministerial Code of Conduct to be retrospective re former Ministers, her stooge Evans ordered the investigation into Alex’s supposed misdemeanors, she approved the press release announcing the investigation, the accusations are all coming from her inner circle …… you know all the rest. Sturgeon stood to benefit from smearing Alex and now her government is obstructing the Inquiry. You don’t need to assume she’s an MI5 mole, she did it out of her own personal ambition, lust for power and paranoia.


      2. Stuartm99,

        Your viewpoint doesn’t quite hit the mark – more an issue of nuance, rather than outright disagreement,,, except for:

        On COPFS, I say you are wrong, they are (were) trusted – not fully and absolutely, there have always been enough grumblings to say not all was well – but in general, throughout the population, there has even been pride in ‘having our own legal system’. The severe distrust you see has only really come to light with the Alex Salmond affair, it’s shocking revelations, and only (to any extent, for now) within a small section of the population – the bits you see on the blogs you visit. The lawyers obviously know much more, and have done for a long time, but if you want work in the system, you have to comply with it (and not speak out). In general COPFS is a trusted institution in Scotland, but may not be for long. The opinions you read on blogs with a certain bias is not a snapshot of society at large – they are opinions of people with a strong interest in the subject (and so biased, and perhaps more informed on the subject as well).

        The aim, I believe, was to wreck Alex Salmond’s reputation by making the claims against him public – not to have him retire by just threatening to do so. Alex Salmond threatened them back with making sure it was kept secret (the judicial review), going to the Crown Office was likely not planned for – a knee jerk reaction to the threat of not being able to publicise the scandal. The Crown Office obviously takes advantage of this (one key question at the moment being: why go to them with the allegations, and not the police.)

        Nicola Sturgeon set everything in motion off her own bat – even if she was an MI5 stooge, I doubt very much (in fact, it’s even more unlikely that) she’d get orders to take out Alex Salmond – that’s political suicide behaviour. I think it’s highly unlikely she is working in any way for the security services, though she may have been told how she could ‘lend support’ for favours returned, if she was they’d make sure she didn’t make such a stupid move, to keep her in power.

        I believe each and every group had their own separate motivations for being involved – all we have revealed here is that COPFS motivations are likely those of MI5s, which isn’t so far off from the ‘Crown’ image anyway. They’ll have their fingers in many pies, it would be naive to think otherwise, but were they the driving force behind this shambles? Did they plant the seed? Who knows, and we’ll likely never know, and I don’t think it matters. You just need to look at all the people NS hangs out with, all her advisors, and the type of people she likes surrounding her to realise MI5 associations, in her sphere, is probably the least problematic.

        We should also remember that Alex Salmond has spent most of his political life in Westminster, he has plenty of pals within the establishment – note that there was not a cheep of even considering looking into anything scandalous down there, even with Murrell thinking to try to apply pressure in London. The are lines it would be unseemly for the establishment to cross. Of course London wasn’t involved. And because he stood down as leader and FM in 2014, he had become less of a threat to stability anyway – so I agree, only one person had motivation to ‘get’ him.

        Reading over all Gordon Dangerfield’s blogs (and all his comments), I think, gives the best take on the nuance, the whys and how’s.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. And an additional point – about anonymity and confidentiality. Alex Salmond, or his legal team, when he was first informed in 2018, obviously didn’t know that the entire plan was to make the complaints public.

        They put a huge amount of emphasis on confidentiality, not just Alex’s but respecting the complainers’ confidentiality too. It was Alex Salmond, on the 4th of Oct 2018, that sought the anonymity order at a hearing – a hearing the Scottish Government did not attend – for the complainers. Leslie Evans’ dismissive attitude towards confidentiality for Alex, but also the complainers, is shocking, considering her position and the role she had taken on.

        She was offered lots of ways to confidentially resolve the allegations, but she rejected them all – why would she do that? Because she wanted the allegations and Alex’s name associated with them out there in the public eye.

        Liked by 2 people

    3. “I’d say Harvie was working on that. MI5 are tasked with internal security, so definitely not reporting to the FO. The logical place for them is the Home Office.”

      Craig Murray (who is in a position to know) states quite clearly that Harvie was MI5’s man at the Lockerbie trial:

      We must presume that Fulton was MI6’s man there (having been Station Chief in WashingtonDC). So both wings of the SS represented. Fulton’s flimsy cover was as a ‘Professor’ from Glasgow University ‘observing’ proceedings.

      “but quite why they would want a Scottish lawyer escapes me.”

      Oh dear – an MI5 agent, Scottish Lawyer at a “Scottish Court” in the Netherlands !! What on earth could he be doing there? Duh?

      Fulton was there to take care of the FO interest in fixing this trial – and his MI5 sidekick was there to……???

      I think that the role of these Chuckle Brothers is pretty clear!


      1. “Oh dear – an MI5 agent, Scottish Lawyer at a “Scottish Court” in the Netherlands !! What on earth could he be doing there? Duh?”

        Ever consider that it was the Scots Procurator Fiscal prosecuting the Libyans under Scots law and that he would require a team of LAWYERS (not MI5 agents) in the Netherlands to support him during the case? In Alex’s criminal trial he had a senior and a junior barrister supported by Alex’s solicitors to do the legal legwork. Do you think the PF was going to wing it on his own?

        As much as I respect Craig’s courage in reporting the Assange and Salmond trials and I’m very grateful, I don’t agree with him in all he says. For instance, his proposal that Scotland declare Independence and seize the UK’s nuclear deterrent and dismantle it is just plain bonkers. Westminster really would send in the troops if the Scottish Government were ever crazy enough to try it. Unilateral disarmament is all very well, but if Finland had practised that in 1939 they would have spent the next 60 years under Soviet tyranny. I very much doubt that Craig has first-hand knowledge of Hardie being in MI5, so it probably came from someone who doesn’t know either. I think Craig’s experience of his FO bosses trying to fit him up with a false sexual misdemeanour makes him prone to seeing spies behind everything.


      2. In fact, Craig has a video interview on his blog just now, and says he worked with Harvie while he was still in MI5 all those years ago – I’m not sure how much ‘first hand knowledge’ Craig needs?

        Craig could be pictured next to the guy who had ‘MI5’ tattooed on his forehead, and still people would say he was making it up coz he’s a conspiracy theorist dontchaknow.

        Liked by 2 people

    4. Craig Murray, wh o was a very senior civil servant – diplomat is crystal clear that David Harvie is MI5

      Foreign Office, Commonwealth Office, Colonial Office, diplomatic offices, they’re all full of MI5. Andcwhere bettervto put an MI5 man than in Scotland’s Crown Office.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. FFS!!! Do you even know the difference between MI5 and MI6?

        MI6 is involved in FOREIGN intelligence – trying to find out what foreign governments are doing that may be detrimental to the UK’s interests. MI6 is part of the Foreign Office and its agents usually operate under diplomatic cover in UK embassies abroad. Craig will have met a number of MI6 officers during his diplomatic career and knew about others through the FO grapevine. He probably didn’t meet more than one MI5 officer in his whole career.

        MI5 is about DOMESTIC security – countering foreign espionage and terrorist groups within the UK . It is part of the Home Office not the Foreign Office. The only MI5 officers attached to UK embassies are liaison officers assigned to maintain contact with their counterpart agencies in major allies to facilitate the exchange of information on terrorist groups and common espionage threats. There will be an MI5 liaison officer attached to the FBI in Washington and an FBI officer in London attached to MI5. I’d expect the same happens with Paris and Berlin among others.

        The Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office are one and the same, it’s just that the Commonwealth countries maintain the fiction that they don’t have embassies to each other ‘cos we’re all one big happy family (ha!) , we have High Commissions instead. The Colonial Office no longer exists


  23. I still hold back from the idea that Nicola was the instigator of the illegal retrospective process that targeted Alex. I believe that she has always been anxious to follow the law precisely- to avoid personal comebacks or general attack against her government. She has gained international recognition for Scotland in this way. I can also believe that she has bees in her bonnet – committed to women’s rights, admirable compassion and determination to be inclusive. If you wanted to entrap someone like Nicola- and/or use her to cover your own tracks- you would develop a profile and exploit any weaknesses. Someone designed a process that was to target Alex. When? Where? Who? And who directed Leslie Evans and David Harvie from London? When you are exhausted by Covid and the viciousness of unionists- and the infighting- you might turn to the people who seem to look to you with most gratitude- precisely because you have supported them to the hilt so far- and support them again to an extreme degree- like last Sunday… That’s how I see it anyway.. from the outside…. But I still want to see Mr Harvie and Ms Evans prosecuted very very much.


    1. You are far too trusting Alex has no doubts about who was responsible and she is the current leader of the SNP. The papers that are now not allowed at the Inquiry make that very clear.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I suppose I just can’t accept it . I respect them both too much. I am very deeply angry about what has been done to Alex- and I will not be happy till all those- including those like Sarah Smith and Kirsty Wark – who added to the vicious mess- are made to answer. But I believe the key criminals are employed through Westminster- one way or another. If we can get to the bottom of that- I bet Scotland will leave this rotten stinking union more or less unanimously.


  24. I agree with you you Iain. If Nicola is in the clear, surely she would, as FM, order that the papers be made available? Or does she not have that sort of clout?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Contrary, I believe you and I are in agreement here – I did say that COPFS isn’t trusted by the readers of Indy blogs and segments of Scotland’s legal profession, as told me by a Scots legal eagle of my internet acquaintance. When I asked why the legal profession wasn’t up in arms about COPFS’ and the Police’s behaviour he said that most of them were Blairite lawyers, whatever that means. You also need to remember that most lawyers practice civil law and never get near a criminal case or if they do it’s summary offences like drink driving or drunk & disorderly. It’s specialist advocatess like Gordon Dangerfield that defend the complex cases and thus have most experience of COPFS’ institutional bias, whereas the rest of the profession may be as blissfully unaware as the general public.

    In my case, my family left Scotland when I was a bairn and I haven’t lived in the UK for 50 years. I vaguely knew that the Procurator Fiscal was the Public Prosecutor in Scotland from watching TV police dramas but I’d never heard of the Crown Office. Like most of the public I just assumed that the PF would perform his office fairly and without bias. It was only last year when I discovered Craig Murray and Wings that I found out about the outrageous treatment of Julian Assange and Alex Salmond. Clearly our trust in the legal institutions of Scotland and England was mistaken.

    Regarding whether Hardie worked for MI5 or not early in his career is a red herring, we only have an unsubstantiated claim that was the case. Contrary, I heard from a man in the pub who heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend that you and Boab both work for MI5 when you’re not dealing drugs to schoolchildren or dancing naked round a bonfire at Black Masses with the other devil worshippers who post on that Yoon blog Wings. Oh and Craig Murray worked for the FCO so he must be a spy too, in between sacrificing virgins. And a man knocked at my door yesterday whose business card said he was a real estate AGENT, so clearly he works for MI5 too, it says it right there! 😀(You see how ridiculous this gets once you start seeing conspiracies everywhere and MI5 agents behind every curtain. One conspiracy at a time please.)

    Hardie’s career summary says he worked for the PFS for some years during which he worked on the Lockerbie case. Well I presume that it was the PFS’s role to investigate and prosecute that crime so it’s hardly suspicious that a lawyer employed by COPFS would be working on it. As for being seconded to the FCO, they are responsible for negotiating treaties, which are legal documents. That presumably means they need lawyers, either directly employed or seconded from other departments. Maybe the FCO had an unusually heavy workload of treaty drafting that year. To claim that just because he was working for the FCO means he was a spy is ludicrous. You might as well claim that Craig Murray is a British spy because he too worked for the FCO.

    I don’t place too much weight on the use of the word “Crown”, Scotland is a constitutional monarchy so in this context Crown just means Government. Here in Oz Crown land is land owned by the State Government, not Betty Windsor’s personal property. Similarly if you get charged the case is Crown vs XXX. No involvement by MI5.

    You raise a good point about Alex spending many years at the HoC in London. Given that the English tabloids love to hate the SNP in general and Alex in particular, if there were any skeletons in his closet they would have exposed them with glee. Given that and the fact that the 22 strong police squad couldn’t come up with any allegations outside NS’s inner circle indicates that:
    a) there was nothing to find; and
    b) the Scottish allegations were fraudulent or in the case of Ms K (the “sleepy cuddle”) grossly exaggerated

    I think the first two allegations were probably solicited by NS’s minions to block Alex from running for Holyrood. When Alex declined to go quietly (which indicates in itself that he didn’t have anything to hide) they decided to smear him publicly and turned to the COPFS and the Police, despite the unwillingness of the complainants. It’s one thing to make a false complaint to an internal tribunal when you know your boss is complicit, quite another to perjure yourself in court and risk jail. However NS & LE went ahead anyway and gave them no choice. For the same reason they planned to issue a press release regarding the complaints before the JR began and when Alex applied for an injunction leaked their biased Investigation Report. All the facts implicate Sturgeon as behind the plot. I have no doubt that the Westminster Govt and the MSM couldn’t believe their luck when Sturgeon went for Alex and were more than happy to cheer her on and smear AS. That’s not to say they were behind it from the start.


  26. What Alex Salmond was subjected to at the structural hands of the *British* State, in the guise of the ‘Scottish’ Government, media, police and judiciary – is already the ‘new normal’. His was but a microcosm case in a ‘hostile environment’ *facilitating* false accusations – against an orchestrated global backdrop…

    “One of the great secrets of the day is to know how to take possession of popular prejudices and passions, in such a way as to *introduce* a confusion of principles which makes impossible all understanding between those who speak the same language and have the same interests”. Machiavelli.

    In short; divide, rule and recruit societies by creating conflicting ‘causes’ principally housed in *identity-politics*, in order to fracture societal cohesion & fragment a common cause; humanity.

    ‘The #MeToo [LGBT & Gender Agenda] Truth of Nr5 #RampantSexism’ (2020)

    Liked by 1 person

  27. @stuartm99

    People can listen to Craig Murrays own words here:

    “In Conversation with Mark McNaught”

    beginning around 26 mins 34 seconds

    the crown agent, a mister Harvey happens to be a former employee of MI5.
    He used to work fulltime for MI5 and later he worked for the Foreign Office, while I was in the Foreign Office”

    He was also a lawyer at the Lockerbie trial where he has been described to me by another lawyer in the Lockerbie trial:
    He sat round taking notes of what everybody was saying a great deal but didn’t seem to have anything to contribute.

    So my suspicion is that he was MI5s man at the Lockerbie trial.

    The fact that you have got at the head of the crown office, taking the day to day operational decisions,
    an MI5 man is worrying, but he was appointed by the Scottish Government.
    He was not appointed by the UK Government.


  28. Brilliant analysis Iain. I was particularly taken by this:

    “… more designed to publicly embarrass Alex Salmond than to win a case they had been advised, by their external counsel months before they were likely to lose.”

    The point was to throw spanners in the works and demonise AS. Nothing else. I have often said that with one or two well placed agents and sympathetic insiders, Madge’s departments of dirty tricks had a easy job exploiting the incipient divisions in Scottish society.

    By the way, the Lockerbie trial was not in Belgium but at a barracks in Zeist in The Netherlands, not far from where I used to live.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: