Following a statement by Sue Ruddick to the media. The “plot” continues…and flops again.

Statement by Anne Harvey Principal Assistant to the Chief Whip, SNP Westminster Group
I am the Principal Assistant to the Chief Whip with the Scottish National Party, based at Westminster. I am by background a solicitor admitted in Scotland, and remain on the roll of members of the Law Society of Scotland. I have been actively involved with the SNP since February 1974.
I am saddened to read today’s media statement by Susan Ruddick, Chief Operating Officer of the SNP. As a result, I am now making this statement. I feel compelled to do so to set the record straight.
Ms Ruddick’s statement suggested an act of physical aggression by Mr Salmond. I know that to be wrong since I was the only witness to this supposed event.
She is referring to an incident in the Glenrothes by-election in which we campaigned together. We were ‘door-knocking’ and leafletting in a block of flats during a media event. Alex walked past Sue in the stairwell of a close. He brushed past her on the stairwell as he was heading to leave the close. I saw and heard nothing which caused me any alarm or concern. I was only yards away.
This is the incident she is referring to, but I can categorically confirm that there was no physical aggression on the part of Mr Salmond. Any contact at all between him and her that day was absolutely inadvertent and in no way deliberate or aggressive. To put this into context, before lockdown, I would see similar contact between MPs as they make their way to the voting lobby during the division bell.
I know this because the police questioned me extensively about it and, furthermore, I am aware no further action was taken against Mr Salmond. That is because it simply did not happen as described by Sue Ruddick.
This complaint was only made to the police after Mr Salmond pursued the Scottish Government in his judicial review, ten years later.
I should also say that I was at the time close friends with Sue. I was staying at her house. I was in the car with her to and from the event and I know that, for other unrelated reasons which I won’t disclose, she was upset that day before and after the event.
More generally, there have been discussion again today about whether there was a conspiracy against Mr Salmond. I have believed for some time that there was what I described in writing on 28August 2018 as a ‘witch-hunt’ against him after receiving what I considered to be an improper request from SNP HQ seeking to damage Mr Salmond.
I have offered to provide a detailed affidavit along with the contents of this statement to Mr Salmond’s lawyers.
Anne Harvey 8 February 2021

60 thoughts on “Following a statement by Sue Ruddick to the media. The “plot” continues…and flops again.

    1. Basically it’s a laughably clumsy attempt to cover up her shenanigans with Peter Murrell. What looks to anybody with a grain of sense like the two of them conspiring to fit up Salmond was really her “reaching out” to Murrell after having suffered “aggression” from Salmond…

      That’s the most ludicrous aspect of the whole affair. As if any woman who had suffered any genuine assault would take one look at that pig-faced freak and do anything other than run a mile. Everything about Murrell’s appearance and demeanour screams “GALLOPING WRONG’UN!”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “As if any woman who had suffered any genuine assault would take one look at that pig-faced freak and do anything other than run a mile. Everything about Murrell’s appearance and demeanour screams “GALLOPING WRONG’UN!””

        That’ll be some of that Malcontent politeness and reason right there. And Iain “liked” it [sigh].


      1. Why would he need one? He already took a vast sum off his supporters to fight a legal case where his costs were eventually reimbursed by the tax payer. Why would he now need to tap his supporters again to fund a campaign against the women who felt he wronged them? Given the money he is almost certain to accrue from his lucrative book deal, as his supporters buy it in droves, another trawl of their hard earned cash to add to the hoard he has already banked is going to make him a very wealthy man. But then, a court case against women who felt sexually assaulted (proven correct or not) is not a good look. And given a recent poll that showed Salmond’s popularity in Scotland to be almost as bad as Boris Johnson’s, that is a look he could probably do without (


  1. Good people, now more than ever , need to tell the truth. For the sake of the party and for Scotland. May I thank Anne Harvey for her fearless honesty and courage.

    Liked by 12 people

  2. We’ll awa’ tae the hills, tae the lea tae the rocks
    E’er I own a usurper, I’ll couch wi’ the fox!
    So tremble false Whigs, in the midst o’ your glee,
    For ye’ve naw seen the last o’ my bonnets and me!

    You never know……..

    Liked by 8 people

  3. These two paragraphs I think point to a confirmation of a lie by Ruddick
    ” I know this because the police questioned me extensively about it and, furthermore, I am aware no further action was taken against Mr Salmond. That is because it simply did not happen as described by Sue Ruddick”.

    and the source of the “witch-hunt” together with documentation

    “More generally, there have been discussion again today about whether there was a conspiracy against Mr Salmond. I have believed for some time that there was what I described in writing on 28August 2018 as a ‘witch-hunt’ against him after receiving what I considered to be an improper request from SNP HQ seeking to damage Mr Salmond”.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. What a “witness” to an improper incident “thinks” happened is not relevant. It is how the person on the receiving end “feels” about it that counts.

      NHS Scotland requires all staff to complete an on-line module on dignity at work and one of the first things it drums into you is that different people can have a radically different perception of an incident/interaction than other witnesses. But what counts is the “victims” perception. All this witness is effectively doing is confirming incidents took place that the “victim” was uncomfortable with. That she, personally, was okay with it is irrelevant.

      In my younger days, we had a boss in one of the labs I worked in who “brushed past” the female staff members a, literally, remarkable number of times. But it was a time when women simply had to put up with it (even just smile about it) or find themselves in an awkward situation (to say the least). I also remember watching a documentary on the history of women in the police force and the horrific indignities they had to suffer if they wanted a career. One incident should have seen male officers jailed but, instead, saw their female colleague publicly “laugh” about it while “dying” a little inside. It’s something those on a witch hunt in Salmond’s name should be mindful of when they call the “victims” liars and demand their persecution. It would effectively set women’s rights back decades.

      Having said all that, the information in this article is not new. I remember reading all this about two years or so ago. Why is it being rehashed now? Are the Malcontents running out of “new” material and being reduced to recycling old stuff in an effort to keep the momentum going?


      1. No Iain, it was not “exposed as pure fiction by Ms Harvey”. Ms Harvey confirmed the incidents occurred. She just felt, in her opinion, there was nothing in them.


      2. Pony has moved on from being a troll to his eventual and predictable destination of being a smearer.

        Pony the troll and the Salmond smearer..

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Please thank her on my behalf for her courage in coming forward & refusing to be intimidated by the people at the top. It couldn’t have been easy for her, especially as they had been friends. So I appreciate and value all the more her decision to speak up. Thank you Anne.

      Liked by 5 people

  4. Yes, I noticed in other coverage Ruddick was trying to continue to smear Alex and blame everyone for invading her privacy and saying they were ‘endangering’ the anon (lying alphabet group, as per Court verdict). She also omits to say that her complaint to the Police resulted in no action (says a lot about her integrity).
    So many people are determined to continue to try to attack and smear Alex and have a vested interest in not allowing certain evidence to see the light of day.

    Like Iain, the SNP are the only option of any chance at Independence, at the moment. Some of us have put a lot of effort into getting Independence through highs and lows, many times very low lows. We cant allow it totaken from our grasp now, or some of us wont see our Nation free in our live times.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Independence has nothing to do with the SNP as far as I can make out. The Green Party also want Independence. It’s an individuals choice to vote for Independence, we don’t have to involve a party as such.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I was always brought up to tell the truth even if the truth hurts.
    If Sue is reading this,(and I presume that she will do) please do the correct thing,thanks.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Thanks to Ann Harvey for being honest about this. Thanks Iain for publishing it. I am disgusted by those at the top of the party who continue to try to smear an innocent man. History will not look kindly upon them. I’m now considering whether to cancel my membership, or stay in so that I can vote out the liars and backstabbers. I’m not sure I’ll be able to vote for my current MSP John Swinney, given his role in obstructing the toothless inquiry. My thought are with Alex and Moira who could do without all of this.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. Sadly, I have friends who are SNP members who just refuse to acknowledge any of this continual persecution of Salmond and say they are not interested. “We are high in the polls and Nicola has high personal ratings from the people of Scotland and that is what counts” is what they say.

    Liked by 4 people

      1. I have no idea Kenny. I have been astonished by the reaction.

        When Wings first went with his accusations I believed at the time it was too early – not enough evidence. I thought he should have waited until after the trial, when surely there would be enough evidence to convince more people. I was wrong. Here we are now in 2021 and a mountain of evidence and so many people just don’t want to know. I guess psychologists and sociologists will have all manner of explanations but to me it is unfathomable.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. Armchair psychology ,,,

        The folk that have invested so much effort in ignoring everything and stuck with the fluffy bunny fairy land version – the group-think cultist mania version – are going to be hard pressed to shift their opinion at all now, unfortunately. Once you are that deeply invested, it’s not an easy thing to about-turn. Admit that all their righteous arguments, so fervently applied, meant naught? ‘High in the polls’ is about the only certainty they have left – and, sadly, they refuse to realise that that will be gone once everything comes into public focus. I’m not implying your friends are quite that extreme Cubby, I’m just saying that the further down the road someone is – the chances are you will have to accept that they’ll never accept it was any of her fault, ever, whatever happens.

        Belief. Faith.

        All leaders have their ardent followers that ignore the ‘bad bits’ of their careers. Which is fine if it’s just politics – not fine while its stopping us getting independence!

        No solution, except to keep pointing out facts and inconsistencies in different ways, and see if a different angle takes root. I wouldn’t be optimistic though.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. The Tom Gordon article in the Herald is awash with SNP members doing the Simpson Mad Crowd Dance ( pitchforks and flaming torches aplenty)

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Well that may not be so bad provided there could be another outlet for us to vote for independence, even an alliance of parties as long as they could field candidates in the election (and I have no idea if this is possible, there may be a registration time for all I know, though the Greens are already established and might host? …but they can be sniffy about other parties….) Provided the SNP does not have a massive overall majority, and a very strong alternative independence presence exists, it may not turn out so badly. Some of the alternatives could curb the wretched centralism and ensure that true equality is established for us all after the election and insist on practical work towards achieving our own identity. And it is true what they say, Nicola Sturgeon has established herself as a politician of skill in international political circles as well. Even Alex Salmond doesn’t know what exactly brought these coals of fire down on his head, but the SNP has shot itself in the foot and, corrupt as it seems to be, has no opposition of credibility in Scotland. So if we could just get a strong alternative going (and AUOB is very organised and might take it on, who knows) we might yet pull it all out of the fire because whatever support the SNP has they can hardly work against other independence groups with power in parliament. We could then show sufficient intent for independence that the trade deals that Boris Johnson is plotting might be less of a threat. Ok time to wake up now….

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Quite obviously Anne Harvey places personal integrity ahead of blind loyalty to a political party, namely the SNP, which in its current state is fast becoming a liability in the prosecution of Scotland’s quest for Independence, and for this she must without question be held in high esteem.

    The fact that she is aware of malfeasance within the ranks of SNP operating structures and is prepared to provide sworn affidavits to that effect leaves particularly, the elected MPs and MSPs exposed by their continuing blind adherence to the narrative as presented by Nicola Sturgeon.

    This situation must not be seen as Salmond versus Sturgeon and the offices of the State but as INTEGRITY VERSUS CRIMINALITY and to that end introspection on a grand scale must commence amongst those whose silence is becoming tantamount to condoning the latter.

    Liked by 13 people

  9. In other news, Pete Wishart’s been tweeting about (and devoting more passion to than independence) Live Music most all of the day, his previous, non-music tweet was around 2.00pm today when he jocularly referred to ‘magpies’ being involved with “..the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the whole Scottish establishment”.. Wishart then punctuated that tweet with; “Someone get our top conspiracy theorist on the case…..”
    I’ll be eager to see what snarky comment Wishart has when he learns that Sue Ruddick has just been called out as a liar by Anne Harvey?
    Honestly, that guy’s energy goes into stirring-up hatred for a blogger who just happens to be printing nothing but the truth. Think about that. What does Wishart’s campaign against the truth say about him?

    Liked by 7 people

  10. Ruddick has not said a word about the messages that Murrell sent to her. She was the one he was asking to get folks to pressurise the police re Salmond. So did she? Not a word from her but in the day her boss is up before the Inquiry she very conveniently comes out with her statement that smears Salmond but ignores whether she did anything as requested by Murrell.

    Were these people always corrupt or have they just got in deeper and deeper and got worse and worse? You have to wonder why no written submission or attendance by Ruddick has ever been requested by the Inquiry. It’s not as if she is some junior member of Staff – she is Chief Operating Officer of the SNP.

    Liked by 7 people

  11. I like others would like to thank Anne Harvey for her honesty and integrity in putting the record straight , her statement and affidavit dispels the pernicious lies of an entity who is determined to SMEAR an innocent man irrespective of the cost
    Again I thank you Anne

    Liked by 7 people

  12. Anne Harvey’s correspondence is crystal clear.

    As her correspondence reveals she knows what has been going on. Knows the conspirators and has been prepared to come forward and say so, indeed is prepared to swear so under affidavit.

    As a 46 year member of the SNP and solicitor assistant to the chief whip in Westminster thank you for this brave testimony.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Willie, not having a go at you but a small point of detail – if she is 46 years old it contradicts the above statement that says she has been involved in the SNP since February 1974 – one or the other must be wrong!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “46 year member of the SNP” means she’s been a member for 46 years (ie since 1974), not that she’s 46 years old!


      2. SF – spot on – I got that one wrong. I knew there was an answer and thanks for providing it SF😃


  13. When I first saw this I thought, well, there is another noble person about to get the boot – but that might not be quite so easy,,, once I thought about it, Ann is STAFF and is protected by employment law – and I’m pretty sure clever enough to know she hasn’t breached her contract (or has a pretty good argument in har favour – one of which could be that another staff member, Ruddick, happily aired dirty laundry in public, so there’s no reason she shouldn’t).

    There are so few people in the SNP speaking out though, and the few that are, to any extent, are just left swinging in the breeze by colleagues. It really is sad to see – that this has to take place publicly, and the number of people letting it happen.

    Ann Harvey wasn’t allowed to finish giving her evidence in the criminal trial – unsurprisingly, as the defence were told they weren’t allowed to use ‘conspiracy’ as a defence – but the timing of this is interesting to me. There was someone, probably from the SNP (allusion to her ‘personal mobile’), fishing to get dirt on Salmond on the 31st of October 2017 – the same day the Scottish Government started inventing their retrospective unlawful procedure – well before anything was even being rumoured about Salmond. This was in planning long before we think – and it was planned (not well, hence all the expensive barely-patching up cover ups) and is a conspiracy. Here’s Ann Harvey’s court appearance as told by Craig Murray:

    “The final witness of the day was Ms Ann Harvey, who worked in the SNP whips’ office at Westminster from 2006-9 and 2011 to present. She had been present at the Glasgow East by-election. In response to a question from Gordon Jackson, she replied that she had witnessed nothing inappropriate there when Alex Salmond visited.

    Gordon Jackson asked whether she had more recently been asked anything relevant? Ms Harvey replied that on 31 October 2017 she had received a series of 16 text messages to her private number asking for information and whether she could disclose anything about the past. Gordon Jackson asked what the messages said specifically and who they were from.

    At this point, Alex Prentice rose for the prosecution and objected to this line of questioning. The jury was dismissed and a legal argument was held on the admissibility of this information. I am not allowed to report the legal discussion. In the end the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible and Ms Harvey was dismissed.”

    Who were those text messages from? Probably Ruddick?

    One thing about all these mad scrambling announcements and legal embargoes, always done in response to some revelation or other, is that it smacks of a rear-guard action.

    Why didn’t Nicola Sturgeon quietly step aside? The same reason, I realise now, that no one involved can even admit to the slightest faux-pas – hence why the civil servants testimony is so ridiculous and makes them look stupid – or the whole thing falls apart. Nicola Sturgeon has thrown a lot of (our) money at keeping this tight, and if she tried to slither away, the rest of government would be exposed.

    Well, I’m going keep trying to help poke holes in their armour – if everyone keeps at it, from lots of different angles, we could expose enough for the whole thing to tumble apart, without treading anywhere near their (the other lot backing the conspiracy) stupid D-notices and court orders.

    On the principles of democracy. No one that whimsically throws those in the bin, even if they were going to deliver independence, would ever be able to usher in a new era of *actual* independence.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Good post Contrary. It is like a House of Cards. If one goes they are all worried they all go.

      I have always thought that the reason some of the alphabet women joined in the criminal trial with their ridiculous complaints was that they knew that the anonymity would give them great cover in the Inquiry that they knew would come along in the future in to the Scotgov actions. And it has worked – all these redactions, documents and submissions not being allowed to be taken in to account and people not being called or threads of investigation suddenly illogically stopping for fear of exposing an alphabet women. They know that if their right to legal anonymity goes the whole thing blows up.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Yep Cubby – there is enough evidence to show that many of the alphabet women had to be ‘encouraged’ and given assurances.

        I’m not sure they even realise how it looks, keeping on making statements implying Alex Salmond’s guilt after he’s been aquitted – if they truly believed they’d been wronged by the justice system, they would have appealed, or gone to the newspapers (with no anonymity to hide behind).

        Carrying on persecuting a man under a cloak of anonymity just proves that they are ‘in it’ as deep as the rest, and have perpetrated this assault on common decency (at least). I usually stay away from any mention of the accusers and try to assume at all times that any complainers have the potential to be a real victim (when analysing past events) – but the fact of the matter is, their continuing behaviour is that of persecutors, not victims. And, we can’t even know if it’s all, or just a few, of them. I’m sure any that are less committed have been suitably silenced.

        They have to remain as committed to the cover up, as much as the rest. Any chink, any one tiny admission by any of them, that it wasn’t the right thing to do, will lead to a collapse.

        The anonymity order is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for getting to the truth of matters, true, but I also wonder if it has been somewhat over-used? I’m thinking the points you’ve made about redactions previously too, might be more important than I thought.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Remember Ms H’s WhatsApp message: “I have a plan where we can remain anonymous yet still have great effect”.
        (Writing from memory of Craig Murray’s reporting, I may not have the last 2 words right, but that’s the gist)

        I am sure that the whole conspiracy depended on anonymity because if the identities of the complainants were known it would become obvious that Sturgeon was behind it. Craig wrote that although he was constrained by the judge’s gagging order so he couldn’t name names, he could say that ALL of them were from Nicola’s inner circle of close confidants. If I am correct about the identity of the woman-who-cannot-be-named then Nicola’s claim to be hands-off is not believable at all.

        Liked by 2 people

  14. When Rape Crisis Scotland issue a statement purporting to be speaking for ALL the alphabet women. How do we know that is the case every time Brindley goes on the smear warpath. Perhaps it’s only 2 or 3 or 4 of them and the others are too scared to speak out. Perhaps some of them just want it to go away but the more senior ones want to keep the smears going.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Gosh. Are Rape Crisis Scotland part of the conspiracy too? Is everyone that doesn’t tow the Malcontent line part of the conspiracy? This is bigger than the Kennedy assassination, the Moon landings and 9/11 combined.


  15. Rape Crisis Scotland funded by the Scotgov.

    Why are they/she (Brindley) acting as a spoke person. There was no rape. There was not even a false charge of rape. Surprised they don’t get Wolfy to act as their spokesperson. An individual lawyer to act as a spokesperson would be a normal arrangement for each person if they were not part of a group.

    Are the alphabet women in a club or something – ” false charges are us”

    Pony you are just a troll. People like you have nothing to argue just your pathetic trolling.


    1. Cubby,

      I’ve noticed this habit of the likes of your pal here going back at the end of old threads, or as here: scattering naysaying comments throughout old comments threads, to make it look as though that was ‘the final word’ and no one had or could argued against it.

      On the surface it just looks cowardly – that they know their ‘arguments’ hold no water and can’t be defended (why comment at all when its so obviously at odds with the general sentiment of the blog,,, we ask ourselves).

      But it is malicious, not just pathetic; people don’t comment on old threads to engage, rarely are the comments picked up or looked at; its to disrupt a thread after the fact. We need to remember that in commenting we are publishing – just opinion and views, and discussion points – but to have someone come in sneakily after the fact doesn’t allow us the right-to-reply.

      I like to give even obvious trolls like Me Bungo the benefit of the doubt, and very occasionally use it for testing counter-arguments, but the constant ad hominem attacks by this one is just tiring. It adds no value to any comment thread when someone doesn’t want to – refuses to – see other points of view. Commenting when no one is here to even counter their mince, is malicious to my mind. I like to check back on old threads on occasion, and the things one can sometimes see, can give a bit of insight on actual motivation.

      Me Bungo should start engaging people as though they are human beings, the slating of Ann Harvey above is well out of order – all Alex Salmond’s witnesses have had to declare openly who they are, not hide behind a veil of secrecy, and should be given respect for that.


      1. It does not help your case if you misrepresent what I wrote. The complaint I was responding to were your late posts which you submit on the days following the date of publication. The complaint was that you were using this to appear to have the last word and that others could not respond. It is that .I intend to regulate.


      2. PS In what way are they “unable to respond”? I assume they can view the threads and comment, as I do, and get alerts that some one has replied to their post. I don’t see the problem.

        (Apologies for the “grow up” comment)


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: