Concept de la prison et de l’arrestation d’un délinquant ou d’un criminel, avec un prisonnier qui assis dans sa cellule qui se tient la tête dans les mains.

it can only be a matter of time if you were listening to the diatribe against Scotland’s most popular blog delivered to the most recent meeting of the NEC. So the Party Leader’s zoom address was preceded with dire warnings of unpleasant measures that would be taken in the event of anybody daring to leak anything from the meeting and in the short question session that followed her aggressive and intimidating manner was evident to all. Share a post from the dastardly Wings site and measures would be taken to discipline you. Your days would be numbered as she winked at a burly security guard who was twirling his baton behind her. This lady was not for turning…now where have I heard that before? OK there was no burly security guard but the rest is true.

This has resulted in members being thrown back to their childhood and reading books by torchlight under the covers. Being a bit older now they can get their partner to act as lookout as added security against an unexpected midnight raid by the thought police.One way or another they will bravely make contact with the blogosphere.

How has it come to this? Well it’s what happens when you get too clever by half, power goes to your head and your supporters are completely out of control, have their phasers set to malky, and have become a indisciplined group of shady self ID assassins skilled in the art of contrived accusations and smear who have exercised mind control over the Crown Office and embroiled them in their plot. Who are the ringleaders? Lesley Evans is certainly the front runner, she is most likely the front to the whole operation but I think it is certain there was also a Mrs Big looking on furtively from behind the curtain, I have watched the First Minister this last week stage opportunity after opportunity to smear Alex Salmond, including even interrupting politically neutral COVID briefings. An innocent man I would remind you, cleared of all charges by a jury mainly comprised of women who did not believe the “evidence” that was presented by those making the allegations.

For long enough I tried to keep the thought of Nicola’s involvement in the plot out my mind. But bit my bit that hope faded, initially when I learned the identity of those making the accusations. I knew some of them, not well but I knew they were supporters of the First Minister. I also knew several could be classed as friends of each other. That significantly increased the possibility of a conspiracy as it is a lot easier to organise and plot if a number of those involved are already well known to each other.

It has been a long and winding path to get to this stage in the story and we should remember this is only Part One of the debacle. This is only an Inquiry investigating the failure of Nicola’s Scottish Government in defending a judicial action for many months after their external legal advisors warned them they were likely to lose. A mistake which cost them in excess of £500,000 to cover Alex Salmond’s legal costs plus a figure, not dissimilar for their own costs. Of course it was not those responsible who had to pay the costs, but us the taxpayer.

It was again the same for the ill fated Criminal trial where those making the failed and discredited allegations got all their costs paid for by the state while the innocent “accused” had to pay all his own costs and suffer long months of his reputation being shredded because of malicious leaking as he did not qualify for the anonymity afforded to his accusers. It is a measure of the madness of today that the failed accusers are described by the Chair of the Inquiry as the “poor women” while the party found completely innocent is subject to continued cowardly smearing from those happy to throw more mud from behind their privileged anonymous identities all designed to suggest the “jury got it wrong”. They didn’t, perhaps the most telling proof of this was there was never any suggestion of any appeal. The reason? The flimsy and contrived allegations were destroyed in court by a series of female defence witnesses who destroyed the credibility of the allegations and did so bravely without any recourse to anonymity. There is no need for that when you are telling the truth.

That Scotland’s First Minister so easily joins in the continued smearing is a regular act that discredits our entire justice system is also very sad. It should not be happening and perhaps reveals a malicious streak in her that she keeps under wraps most of the time. She does not handle defeat well. It is this that convinces me she was personally involved in the plot. If she was a innocent bystander she would have no need to be so bitter about it. It is a dead giveaway.

So where does it go now? As I write this Parliament is using its powers to force the Crown Office to release the messages and other evidence that Alex Salmond states proves a conspiracy. That should be that then? Well it should but will it? It has been a constant story of block, refuse, redact so far. I believe that will be over when I see the evidence in Alex’s hands and in the public domain. I still do not believe that will happen. I fully expect another last minute obstruction to arise. Nothing about the Scottish Government’s defence to the charge has been as it seems so far. I will be very surprised if this isn’t another ruse, with another legal ruling ruling out the evidence at the last minute.

Anyway let’s hope Alex Salmond attends the Inquiry and is given a fair hearing. That is all he needs. He has maintained a dignified silence throughout, even in the face of the First Minister’s provocative and repetitive smearing. He will hopefully now be able, for the first time, to set out his evidence. Don’t miss it. Let truth and justice prevail!

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

BEAT THE CENSORS (read what they prefer you didn’t)

Due to steps being taken by certain pro SNP WEBSITES that claim to be pro Indy but are just SNP FRONTS, to close down and block my articles I strongly recommend readers take out a free subscription to this website These are available on the Home and Blog pages link on the top right of this article. This will ensure that I will send you a link every time a new article is published. THIS WILL SECURE YOUR ACCESS TO ARTICLES THE THOUGHT POLICE WOULD PREFER YOU DID NOT SEE. 


I thank those readers who retweet and share my articles allowing them to reach a wider audience. You are winning and defeating the censor’s. I will post the figures at the end of the month.


  1. Anyone who thinks that they can tell me what I can and cannot read is a fascist. Anyone who tells me what I can and cannot retweet is a fascist. Anyone who tells me what I can and cannot read and retweet, and then also claims to be a progressive, is a charlatan.

    Liked by 13 people

  2. The MSM is most certainly now picking up on this.

    Even the most agnostic cannot disregard what has been going on. As you say Iain it has been a catalogue of block, redact and refuse. But the foul truth is emerging and it is foul.

    The reputation of the Scottish Government and the functions of state have been traduced utterly and it is not difficult to see how just and fair governance, and a rule of law, can descend into an absolutely rotten Burgh. Exposing what has been done to Alex Salmond, how it was done, who was involved has to be at the very heart of how we move forward.

    Today will be interesting but there remains much to be done. We need to strip out and replace the guilty. We need to put into place the safeguards that will prevent this systemic abuse from ever happening again. And for all those elected representatives who sat quietly by whilst being aware of the cancer that surrounded us, they need to be voted out and replaced with parliamentarians with honesty and true focus for the country and people they are paid to support.

    And there are good politicians, honest and sure, and they need to come forward so that we can restore Scotland, heal it, make it what it should be, a fair just and prosperous independent nation in Europe. We can be that, and we will be that.

    Our time is now. The wind of change is with us.We just need to do it.

    Liked by 11 people

  3. Spot on, Leslie Evans is the mastermind but at who’s behest? Right at the very beginning it was claimed there was no procedure for a Civil Servant to report a non Civil Servant for sexual harassment, or maybe just harassment. Being involved in getting complaints to come forward against Alex, she then set about devising a ‘policy’ to fit her intentions. At that point, the complainers should have been advised to use the same rights as everyone else, inform the police. No need for a policy.
    The worrying point, this appears to have been discussed with Nicola and the Party. They should have said that it was a police matter and stepped back. Someone in the Party, possibly more than one, thought this was an opportunity to ‘bury’ Alex and endorsed the strategy. It was more than just formulating a Civil Service policy!
    Interestingly, it appears the National Secretary is too busy with complaints to deal with anything else in the Party. Thinking aloud, would that be a deliberate ploy by the entryists to sneak through more trash as well as target their ‘opponents’?

    Liked by 9 people

  4. The committee say they intend to seek court direction on what they can and cannot publish, and consequently, hear and deliberate on. It seems to me that that should happen before AS or NS give oral evidence. AS’s redacted statement only removes one name and witness from the inquiry: Geoff Aberdein. GA’s evidence, if reports are true, confirms NS’s clear and unequivocal knowledge of at least one complaint in late March, several days before she claims to have learnt of the allegations at her home on the 2nd of April following.

    It seems highly unlikely that GA is one of the alphabet “women” so naming him and allowing his evidence to be considered threatens no-one except NS and goes to the heart of NS’s stated narrative to date.

    The planned but not yet executed court action to acquire documentation so far witheld from the committee and to clarify the status of GA’s evidence may serve to give witnesses pause for thought but the delays take us closer and closer to the May 6th election.

    Going down in flames does no one any favours and is very destructive to the independence movement and Scotland’s standing in the world at a time when this latter effect is essential to our intentions.

    It is to be hoped that those involved in this story, which has been revised many times as witnesses “corrected” evidence already given when it was found to be wanting, come clean now, if they have had anything to hide, rather than battle on to the bitter and extremely damaging end.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Geoff Aberdein’s evidence is much more powerful than that. His meeting with NS in the parliament building was pre-arranged 2 weeks before by Liz Lloyd, the FM’s Chief of Staff, with allegations of sexual harassment as the agenda.

      So NS lied to parliament when she told it that GA was in parliament on another matter and popped in to say ‘hello’. And it is inconceivable that LL arranged the meeting to discuss the allegations without NS knowing of the allegations. So that puts her knowledge of the allegations back even further.

      No wonder they want the committee to be ignorant of GA’s evidence.

      Liked by 7 people

  5. The Alphabet women had the right to anonymity until the accused was acquitted. They clearly committed perjury, and it certainly does look like they were involved in conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. They have used their anonymity as a cloak to continue their conspiracy, along with Sturgeon, to discredit Alex Salmond. Their anonymity should be removed by the court, and they should be tried.

    Could Alex Salmond sue them? Could he sue the First Minister for her defamation of character on TV? If he can I think he should. Could he get a judicial review of the Inquiry and the suppression of evidence by the Scottish Government, the SNP leaders, the Lord Advocate, and the Crown Office? I think such a review is necessary.

    I hope Jim Sillars’ complaint will have the desired effect and the First Minister will resign or if she doesn’t, Parliament will vote NO CONFIDENCE in her.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Actually, no, Steelwires, as far as the case, and any ancillary evidence around the case itself, is concerned, the women have complete anonymity. It does not run out after the case has been to trial. Have they used their anonymity to have other gos at Mr Salmond? Oh, yes. However, Lady Dorrian’s clarification of her anonymity order should have made it clear to anyone that the women do not have anonymity across the board from the day they were born till the day they die, and in all and any circumstances.

      That is the point. If they were concerned in government business well before the case, or in a different context, they cannot by covered by the anonymity order. That is bog standard, and I’m not at all suprised that Lady Dorrian was annoyed at having to spell it out in words of one syllable, when lawyers should have known that fact – and, indeed The Spactator’s lawyers were aware, as were Mr Salmond’s, but not, apparently the SNPG’s and Holyrood’s – either that, or their advice was ignored.

      What I found really interesting, from a point of view of natural justice, was the question of the naming of one of the complainants in the FM’s office when she had her meeting with Mr Aberdein, on Mr Salmond’s behalf. Jackie Baillie raised it at FM’s Questions, too. The woman, in question had no right to anonymity at that stage. Anonymity os conferred by judicial or quasi judicial proceedings or where releasing the identity of someone could lead to dire consequences for them in other ways.

      If you are being accused by someone of having done something, it would be highly prejudicial to fairness and natural justice to be deprived of the name pf that person and the allegation. Otherwise, how would you ever know what you are being accused of, and by whom, and, in those circumstances, your ability to set up a defence of said allegations would be severely restricted and limited. Stalinist? I’ll say.

      The women cannot be prosecuted unless they can be proved to have lied, and the evidence would require to be watertight. No trial ever decides on whether a witness has lied, exaggerated or anything else, although the defence will, of course, try to show that. The jury is asked to decide on the evidence and only the evidence offered. The jury in Mr Salmond’s trial found the evidence did not pass the hurdle of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; nowhere were they asked to decide whether this or that witness had lied, and it is counterproductive to claim so, unless, as I said, there is incontestable evidence that she did.

      It might appear as if a witness has lied, but no trial declares that anyone has lied, just that either the evidence failed the hurdle or that it passed the hurdle. It will be up to the police to decide whether any of the women should face investigation and prosecution, or, indeed, whether there is sufficient evidence to so proceed. No extraneous evidence was offered, to my knowledge, by either side (sign-in book, security CCT footage, etc.) that one of the women had been at Bute House on a particular night or that she wasn’t. It all depended on other witness evidence which said that she wasn’t. Opening that up might lead to yet another can of worms. The trial is over. I doubt that the women – or anyone else – will try again to attack Mr Salmond on the allegations already refuted in court without doing serious damage to themselves as a consequence. That is already happening in the court of public opinion, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

      Anyone who is not happy with the verdict (and if they have a locus standi – an interest/right to bring an action) can bring a civil action to try the case again on the balance of probabilities. In this case, that would be madness on stilts. If the evidence in the criminal case was weak and contradictory, it will end up being even more so in a civil case.

      Liked by 4 people

    1. I suspect that it was at risk anyway, because we know the Tories aren’t keen on devolution. Unfortunately, the actions of the SNP hierarchy may have given them the excuse they needed to shut it down completely.
      If that happens, we need to collectively fight it because the actions of a small number of corrupt individuals shouldn’t mean an end to Holyrood.

      Liked by 4 people

  6. How much does she wish she had never let/made this happen I wonder? What started out as a method of discrediting someone who was possibly going into a position with the media where he could hold her to account and infringe on her happy wee devolved world has turned into a monster that’s going to swallow her up much more completely than Alex Salmond making her do her job properly.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. Let us assume every blog has errors. Let us accept political bias. However all the blogs have a general theme which is quite opposite to that of the MSM mantra.

    Now apply common sense and look at the voting and polling evidence in Scotland. Does factual recorded public political opinion align with the MSM or the various blogs?

    If I read a book on the history of Ireland then the author can influence my opinion. If I read several books then I can be more confident in my assessment of history.

    The current MSM are not a selection of sources. They are the product of a limited circle of powerful and wealthy people producing propaganda. The press releases and tweets to their favoured “face” are designed to steer the News.

    We all need to widen our sources. The bloggers have done an outstanding job in broadening the political awareness of Scots.

    The terms “journalist”, “trusted source” etc are a cover story to put you back on the tramlines of Pathè News broadcasts.

    Liked by 10 people

  8. I think it goes without saying that Alex won’t get a fair hearing, of course the opposition and the media may want to bring down Sturgeon but you only have to listen to them talk to see that they also want to keep the dirt on Alex.
    It’s the Salmond scandal, the Salmond inquiry, Salmond saga.
    they continue to give the impression that Alex is fighting the Scottish government for no other reason than he didn’t wan’t these complaints made public, as if he has something to hide.

    We have a FM who is basically calling a Geoff Aberdein a liar, a man who made his statement under oath in a court of law and who also claims that in her opinion that a jury who all listened to the full evidence and found the accusers to have not told the truth got the judgement wrong.
    I also don’t believe Alex will be able to get all his evidence out, the remit is too tight for that to happen.
    God knows where we go if by some chance Sturgeon manages to survive this and I wouldn’t be too surprised if she does.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Agree Helen. I am not optimistic that Alex will get a fair and impartial hearing today BUT I do think he’ll give them a good run for their money.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I thought it was a very impressive performance by Salmond. How many other people after everything he has had to deal with over the last 3 years of persecution could be as good as that. A true statesman who still has it.

      Clearly, the SNP members had been given scripts to read out to attack Salmond. Watt was particularly useless. Allan in the other Committee meetings I have seen him looks disinterested but today he was super engaged. Sturgeon had handed out the orders.

      Fabiaini I thought was fair.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I thought Alex Salmond was absolutely brilliant. His answers were detailed, clear and backed by evidence. He has not lost any of his statesmanship skills. I also felt that his true personality shone through. The hurt he had felt at the betrayal of former friends and colleagues was clearly written on his face. It really upset me to watch that.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. question: IF (and I know its a big “if”) the copfs decide there is a case for prosecuting one / some / all of the complainants in Mr Salmonds prosecution – for perjury, conspiracy to pervert and etc…. then – would they be prosecuted as |A, B, C etc…. or would a prosecution for such crime be impossible because of the anonymity order? Asking from a non-lawyerly perspective…

    Liked by 2 people

  11. NS has to go. She can resign within a week or two and still retain some level of dignity and respect. If she has any genuine belief in independence she will go, if not, senior members of the government must walk away from their posts and must openly call for her resignation. If they don’t the party will suffer further membership loss. More importantly our nation will suffer.

    The independence movement can’t afford to have NS as FM any longer. Independence is far more important than any one person’s political legacy. For too long the SNP leadership has ignored the fight for Scotland’s independence. Enough is enough.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. She won’t resign, if anything she’ll double-down – she is doubling-down.

        We had a great ‘victory’ today (yesterday now) but tomorrow will be another day and already we’ve had the, frankly, disrespecting and disgraceful images of SNP MPs, MSPs and councillors – a nasty gang of people – posting images of themselves with the corrupt First Minister in a show of misguided defiance against a jury’s verdict – just think about that and consider for a minute if these people are remotely suitable for public office. I’ve had to block Mhairi Hunter, Kenny McLean, Drew Hendry MP* although not Pete Wishart, yet, as I have a special dressing-down set aside for that one when the moment is right.
        *What was that ‘show’ with the mace all about if he can’t identify crooks leading his party? Honestly? That poor guy hasn’t a bloody clue where he belongs.

        My personal opinion is that this May’s election, if it goes ahead, will change little. A [slim] majority for the SNP and all will appear stable. Except it will be far from stable. May’s a write-off – too late for anything major to happen, even Sturgeon’s resignation will matter little. It’s after May, and as the year progresses and folk see zero plebiscite, that the shine will come off the SNP. I think then we’ll see the emergence of new ideas and new leaders. I think the SNP will linger-on but so many citizens will have become thoroughly disillusioned, disgusted, that opportunity will knock for *genuine* parties of independence to challenge the badly tainted SNP. Word of mouth is as powerful a medium as you’ll find – and I can assure you I’ll be informing many family, friends and neighbours of who’s ‘right’ for Scotland and who’s not to be trusted.

        Only Salmond, or Cherry, could make me change my mind about things as I trust them.

        Salmond was sublime today, btw, what a phenomenon he is, a truly great man.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Kenny,

        Those tweeting images of them in selfies with NS is ,,, what’s it called? Passive agressive? Yes, passive-aggressive I think. The timing makes them a nasty, snide, personal – somewhat childish – attack on what they’ve decided is ‘the other side’.

        Trolling. Those supposed SNP-representatives are trolling Alex Salmond, and trolling us.

        I agree what everyone is saying about Alex Salmond’s presentation – 6 long hours! – at the committee. Unparalleled, truly. Half the time the committee appeared to be asking for advice rather than asking for evidence.

        Although I’m rolling my eyes at Alex’s – and Joanna Cherry’s and Kenny McKaskill’s – insistence that our institutions are working fine and COPFS has lots of integrity, as do the gov’t law officers – I understand the reasons, it’s to tell everyone Scotland isn’t a lost cause, we don’t need direct rule from Westminster. Alex made plenty of appeals directly to unionists too. Why he’d still care so much about Scotland and its gov’t after all this ,,, well, I suppose he put a lot of effort into establishing what we have, he doesn’t want to see it destroyed.

        There are political manoeuvres in the background – no idea what they are – and I’m reassessing what I thought about Salmond’s frontline political career being over (he will always be a powerful force in politics I think, but reputational damage would suggest it risky his heading any political party – political attacks could get personal, a bit like what his friend NS us doing to him just now). His performance and presentation at the committee shows us he still has the respect of both unionist & independence sides – or that he stands head & shoulders above any of the current MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.

        If Alex Salmond can come out of the shitstorm he’s been through over the past few years with his integrity intact – and still pitch his messages with exactly the right level of calmness and candour – and still put so much fear – and respect – into the MSPs – I think he could come back to the frontline without compromising any political party he might choose.

        Anyway, we’ll see.

        Liked by 3 people

  12. Alex Salmond kept his ace card up until the invitation to make a closing remark and then tabled it face up – ” If you wish the evidence that is being denied to you, use your power as a committee and demand the documents from my legal counsel, they will oblige”.

    Decline Alex Salmond’s offer – committee credibility gone. Issue the request to his solicitors,SNP MSP career in jeopardy!

    Liked by 5 people

  13. Just finished listening to Alex Salmond giving his evidence to the Enquiry.

    Totally on top of his brief, he shone as an absolute statesman a head and shoulders above of the SNP pygmies asking hostile questions.

    And fair play to Jackie Baillie. Her unionist policies aside she came across very well today in her questioning. Ditto to a lesser extent Murdo Fraser. But aside, after four hours on stand today, I don’t think there can be anyone who would not give Alex Salmond the utmost admiration for his performance.

    And when our independence comes, which I believe will be soon, I for one would love to see Alex Salmond as the first titular President of our new Scotland.

    But for the immediate meantime we need to clean out the pigsty so that May can be Scotland’s election.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. Absolutely staggered by the I’m with Nicola crowd. It doesn’t seem to matter to them what sort of wrongdoing has been happening. I’m now more sickened by the reaction of independence supporters, particularly SNP members, than the wrongdoing of Sturgeon and her gang.

    Sturgeon has created a split in the independence movement. What sort of leadership is that.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I wonder that, and wonder at the Sturgeon-supporters turning against apparent fellow independence supporters creating the split, then blame everyone else but themselves for causing the split. ‘Diametrically opposite’ of what they say they’re doing. I see now I’m an article behind here though,,, I’d better catch up!

      Liked by 4 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: