23 February 2021
Our Reference: DMK/LL/STE039-0003
Clerks, Convener (and Committee Members)
Dear Clerks, Convener (and Committee Members),
Alex Salmond
Given the urgency and importance of this matter, we are copying this to the committee.
Pacific House 70 Wellington Street Glasgow G2 6UA
T: 0141 307 2311 F: 0141 307 6857
DX GW 149 Glasgow http://www.lemac.co.uk
dmckie@lemac.co.uk Direct Dial: 0141 307 2323
Thank you for your emails, first of all indicating proposed redactions and secondly confirming what the redactions were.
This comes as a significant surprise and concern, given that clear agreement was reached on publication of our client’s submissions which are now widely reported and in the public domain.
Our client is alarmed at the interference of Crown Office in a Parliamentary Inquiry, particularly given Lady Dorrian’s judgment last week in which she clarified her previous Order and which indicated that the publication of submissions were largely matters for the Committee. Our client’s submissions took full account of that judgment.
Our client’s final submission makes clear his concerns on the role of the Crown office in this matter already. Today’s intervention only serves to reinforce those concerns.
Neither we nor our client have any knowledge of what representations were made by Crown Office and on what basis they were made. We have not been contacted by the Crown, nor has our client on this matter.
Our client’s submission was carefully reviewed by us and by counsel before submission.
There is no legal basis for the redactions that we are aware of which you now propose having gone through that extremely careful exercise.
This is our client’s submission and he is entitled to have it published. If any aspect of it is removed, it compromises his oral evidence. We have asked on numerous occasions for assurances on these issues from the committee. After publication of his submissions yesterday we concluded not unreasonably that the issue was resolved, partly to our client’s satisfaction and certainly to allow him to fulfil his oath.
Your email potentially – and fundamentally – changes that. We therefore require to see URGENTLY the legal basis for the proposed redactions in order that we can properly advise our client and make further representations. These could have a material bearing on whether he is able to attend tomorrow.
As matters stand, we have advised him that the apparent intervention from the crown suggests that there has to be a material risk to him in speaking to his submission. He cannot be placed in legal jeopardy.
Levy & McRae is a trading name of Levy & McRae Solicitors LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership, registered in Scotland with Registered No SO305445. It is authorised and regulated by the Law Society of Scotland. A list of the members and their professional qualifications is open to inspection at the registered office, Pacific House, 70 Wellington Street, Glasgow, G2 6UA. We use the word partner of Levy & McRae Solicitors LLP to refer to a member of Levy & McRae Solicitors or an employee or a consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications.
http://www.legal.netlink.net ASSOCIATED OFFICES WORLDWIDE

Accordingly, please send to us now the legal basis for the redactions. On the face of it, our preliminary view is that the committee may well require to obtain further legal advice on the issue.
Please respond in writing and as soon as possible. In order that we can properly advise our client, we require to see the legal basis for these material changes by return.
Yours sincerely,
David McKie Levy & McRae


  1. The Crown Office (and presumably those around NS) obviously do not want Alex Salmond to give his evidence.

    This is what Estonia was like before it got independence. How on earth this lot can be trusted to take Scotland to independence is beyond me!

    Liked by 6 people

  2. What right does the Crown Office have to do this.

    And what does a society do when it’s Crown Office goes rogue, when it’s police goes rogue. By what means does a society remove criminality at the heart of the police and the prosecution services.

    This is anarchy. Total and utter anarchy. Where do we go from here?

    Liked by 9 people

  3. Poor Alex, and poor us, getting all steadied up and really beginning to think that truth and context are going to be made clear, but no. Let the election and the quest for independence rot like a fruit-farmer’s harvest in these troubled times, just as long as as many obstacles are put in the way of justice as possible. How despicable is this to persistently delay opportunity for the two main targets in this political destruction campaign to be heard until parliament is stopped for the election, so that we, the people who pay the wages out of our frequently meagre earnings, have to remain in ignorance of facts that may affect our electoral decisions. I hope whoever worked out this latest slithering knot is in turn prosecuted.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. These people obviously do not think much of our intelligence. The more they try to gag Alex Salmond, the more people will believe his version of events. They’ve obviously never heard of the phrase, ‘the game’s a bogie!”

    Liked by 5 people

  5. And in response to Neil Findlay’s Point of Order we get: “We cannot comment any further on the redactions as the Crown Office has advised that its correspondence on this matter must be kept confidential.”

    Really can’t see any evidence being aired before the Committee tomorrow. May as well watch the cricket…

    Liked by 2 people

  6. A few weeks ago I came to the conclusion that those who stand to lose from the truth being revealed wished to present Alex Salmond with the following 3 choices regarding the Committee inquiry into the SGHHC:

    1. Don’t tell the whole truth and risk perjury
    2. Tell the whole truth and risk contempt of court
    3. Don’t attend

    It would appear that they have now opted for number 3.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. “I have a plan so that we can remain anonymous but see strong repercussions”

    The full force of that quotation is now clear. The redactions must be imposed or they would identify the complainants, although in a different context. The COPFS cannot explain the redactions because they would confirm the identities of the complainants. A Catch 22 situation that has been obvious since Lady Dorrian issued the amended court order. The COPFS have waited until the last moment to spring this ploy.

    They definitely don’t want Alex Salmond to testify.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Why don’t you just remain anonymous Alex Prentice and implement a plan with strong repercussions.

    Don’t you think that a good idea. A secret army, a secret force, a secret cadre, operating under a cloak of anonymity. That it a secret counter force.It could make things and people disappear. And the more anonymous itvis the better.

    A secret war in fact between secret armies. Right here under our noses. And in England too. Why shouldn’t they enjoy the fun.

    Ah, I jest, but it’s a grim jest because that sadly is how it can all roll out when anarchy of state become reality. And then ask your self why Police Scotland has an ex Royal Ulster Constabulary and military intelligence officers on its executive management team, or why the Crown Agent was, and probably still is, an Mi5 operative.

    Good think they know everything about everyone and us little of them.

    But hey, which one’s are Spartacus?


  9. So, the National is going to restrict comments to subscribers only due to too many comments posted by “trolls”, i.e. those who question and criticise Sturgeon.

    The National has sold its soul to the cult of Sturgeon, pretty pathetic.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As a subscriber who regularly comments, I’m fed up with trolls. Only ever noticed them derailing threads trying to focus on independence.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I also hate the trolling, but the problem could be addressed by better, more stringent moderating.


  10. Some people think we are on the verge of independence.

    No we are not we are slowly going down the drain of unaccountable authoritarianism.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Innocent people do not try to suppress evidence!
    Innocent people do not do “pre-emotive strike” TV shows prior to a committee meeting!
    Innocent people do not get Rape Crisis Scotland involved in letter writing.
    Innocent people don’t get the staff to send out cut and paste tweets.

    The World is watching….unfortunately!!!

    Liked by 6 people

  12. Wolff, the Lord Advocate, went to Balliol, school for spooks. The Brit Deep State has its fingerprints all over this. How many in HQ have been seduced by them ?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. There is a deeper problem here, now brought into sharp relief by the apparent powers of the Crown to refuse to bow the knee to the Scottish Parliament, which nobody seems to have clocked.

    It’s devolution.

    As a devolved assembly, established by Westminster, the Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign body (unlike Westminster).

    It is still subject to the Crown. Therefore the Crown, in the shape of the Lord Advocate, finds itself with the apparent ability to resist the Parliament. Nobody seems to have considered that such an anomaly might exist under devolution.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The Lord Advocate should never have been made a member of the Scottish Government of a non-sovereign Parliament in the devolution settlement.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: