We’ve said for a long time that the SNP, with a 35-point cushion in the polls, would be very happy indeed to shed some voters and come back as a minority government again rather than getting a majority – giving them the perfect excuse for five more years of non-delivery on independence, but knowing that they can still pass all their toxic woke policies that the public hates but can do nothing about unless they’re willing to vote Tory, because the Greens, Lib Dems and Labour will all back the SNP on them.
The Tories, unfortunately, are the only party in my area with a chance of giving the SNP the kick in the arse that it has worked so hard to earn.
It's a horrible thought.
For most of my life, I would never even have considered it for a moment.
However, if that's what it takes...
Whatever else happens, I'll definitely not be voting for the SNP. _________________ My real name is Gerry.
However, if that's what it takes...
Whatever else happens, I'll definitely not be voting for the SNP.
Yeah, I hear you dude - it's amazing that with everything seemingly lined up for #indy that the very "getaway vehicle" hasn't just stalled but has the driver pissing and pouring sugar into the tank!
However ... where you are in Inverness, Highlands & Islands, it's one of the few areas (along with Southern Scotland) where SNP 1&2 is probably useful for keeping out Tories (Con, Lab & Lib Dem combined). In all the rest I'd vote SNP 1 and ISP 2. But each day, with more shite coming out, that's definately getting harder and harder. Talk about rock and a hard place!
There are also some SNP 1s that are so toxic I think someone should seriously look at standing one of the "Good Guys" (Alex Salmond, Duncan Hamilton, Joanna Cherry, Kenny MacAskill, Angus B MacNeill, Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh, Michelle Thomson, Mark Hirst, Craig Murray, Tommy Sheridan, George Kerevan, Denise Findlay ... etc.) against them.
However that and the list vote will have to be very well orcastrated and coordinated with AFI and any others - if the #indy vote is to be maximised.
I can see a lot of people abstaining on the first vote and voting ISP etc. on the second due to being so pissed off with the SNP. Something like 40,000 members have left the SNP in the last 4/5 years and up to as many as 15,000 left this week due to the Joanna Cherry/Alex Salmond stitch ups.
The public might not care as much about standards in public life as the political classes purport to but they know what “taking the piss” looks like. And Nicola Sturgeon, Peter Murrell, Leslie Evans, several special advisers, more than a few MSPs and a gaggle of £100k-plus civil servants now all stand accused of taking the piss. Big time.
Sturgeon’s video in support of transgender rights could also be filed under “taking the piss”. In so doing, she effectively encouraged misogynistic aggression against several of her party’s female members by painting a target on their back over transphobia.
One of them, Joanna Cherry, consistently outshines Sturgeon’s acolytes and the collection of bottom-feeders who somehow made it on to the SNP’s candidates list.
It seems integrity, honesty and ability are rated lower than inarticulate grandstanding, bullying and sanctimony on the SNP’s front bench at Westminster. This would appear to be nothing more than the politics of envy and spite by Scotland’s First Minister.
The SNP’s party managers better organise an independence referendum sooner rather later. There’s a limit to which the Scottish public, including many Yes voters, will permit being thought of as idiots by Nicola Sturgeon and her party within a party.
There was hope that something would be cleared up soon with the possible removal of Mr and Mrs Murrell but every day with each new revelation, that seems less and less likely -
Today the commission refused to publish Alex Salmond's evidence!!
So basically when he appears he won't be able to answer any questions!
Yesterday it emerged that James Hamilton, QC, an independent adviser on the ministerial code, had gathered evidence from a wide range of witnesses and was compiling a separate report on Sturgeon’s behaviour. It is understood that the former director of public prosecutions in Ireland is aiming to publish his report before the end of this month.
One way or another, the current hell of Scottish politics will soon be at an end.
But it’s a huge relief to know that we hopefully only have three more weeks to wait to find out, because either way we’ll finally know where we stand and all the stagnant, miserable uncertainty of the last 18 months will be over. Either Nicola Sturgeon will be victorious (and independence will be dead for a decade), or the truth will be.
The next few paragraphs deal with Salmond’s repeated attempts to have the matter dealt with by arbitration, which would have protected the identities of all parties, but which were rejected out of hand by permanent secretary Leslie Evans without even consulting the two complainers.
Salmond instead sent in a general rebuttal, which was more or less ignored by the Investigating Officer, Judith Mackinnon, who sent her findings to Evans, who a month later – again without consulting the complainers, who she knew didn’t want to take their complaints to the police – gave her report to the Crown Agent, (ie to the Crown Office), who illegally attempted to pass it to the police.
(The Crown Agent is an intriguing figure. Readers may or may not place any particular meaning on the phrase “seconded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office”.)
[The Crown Agent - David Harvie - https://www.copfs.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are/crown-agent-biography]
Pretty much every single stage in the process up to this point, then, had been completely unlawful and improper. The entire basis of the procedure was unlawful. The contacts between the Investigating Officer and the complainers were unlawful. The attempt to pass the Decision Report to the police via the Crown Agent was unlawful.
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.
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.
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.
MI5 Security Services directing the Alex Salmond stitch up!
My article yesterday stirred up a lot of comments, some offering new information. I thought readers might be interested in reading this one today from A Mr Le Carre.
YOU WANT JUSTICE DO YOU?
“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. ”
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 his 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.
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.
We would be wise to recognise that Independence threatens the future of the United Kingdom and as such will involve efforts by the British State to disrupt and damage the SNP and Scottish Government.
That is to be expected. What is not expected is just how easily prominent members of the SNP can find themselves aiding and abetting such disruption motivated by petty political jealousies or insecurity.
The full story of the Holyrood Inquiry remains to be told. What is certain is that the Scottish Government has behaved very badly, is heavily involved in a major damage limitation exercise involving a host of delaying and blocking tactics, which reveal their undoubted guilt, but which they accept as preferable to an open and honest Inquiry that would reveal the whole truth.
Oh how the plot thickens!
Who knows what will be revealed tomorrow and next week?!
Craig Murray (in his real voice) discussing the corruption at the head of the Scottish Government -
"And one thing is very, very plain to me was that there was very improper collusion going on, between the Sturgeon Government, Sturgeon's inner circle, and the Crown Office, and Police Scotland, over the charges against Alex Salmond.
The Crown Agent, a Mr Harvie, happens to be a former employee of MI5. He used to work full time for MI5.
Now the fact you've 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 wasn't appointed by the UK Government."
Truely shockingly bad video! Fintan! - where do you find them?!
... it's not even remotely funny and verging on slanderous - I hope Alex Salmond sues him just to shut his smarmy puss!
Yeah, Derek MacKay is a vomit-inducing creepy sleaze still troughing up his salary, but not for much longer ...
... and Yeah, Nicola Sturgeon tweeting about Jimmy Savile is also vomit-inducing, but there's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more shit about come out on her ... and she too will soon be gone!
However the rest is shite!
You can always tell when someone refers to the SNP as the Scottish "Nationalist" Party instead of its correct name the Scottish "National" Party - it's a total give away, it's done on purpose - Boris Jonhson does it all the time to distract from the fact that he can't answer any of their questions.
Mark McDonald was hysterically thrown under a bus in order to start the whole process of stitching up Salmond.
We’d never understood the quite extraordinary over-reaction of the SNP to the events around MSP Mark McDonald. McDonald was reported to the Standards Committee at Holyrood in 2017 for a case which amounted to his mobile phone autocorrecting the word “dingied” to the word “fingered” and him making a very innocuous joke about it.
We could never figure out why such an absurdly minor “offence” had attracted such brutally draconian sanctions and such a treacherous knifing from his own colleagues, until we read this passage from Tom Gordon’s column and all the dots suddenly turned into a straight line.
The wild extremity of the reaction to McDonald was necessary to ostensibly justify the creation of the new rules, without which no action could have been taken against Alex Salmond. Mark McDonald, whose mobile phone’s spellcheck destroyed his career, was just the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And Alex Salmond's QC Gordon Jackson does NOT think that he is a sex pest. That remark was comes from a dodgy, selectively edited and taken out of context video made secretly on a train.
Here is Craig Murray's rebuttal of a Danni Garavelli's article. She did actually write a jigsaw-puzzle-indentifying-contempt of court article (but her hubby works for the COPFS so no charges there then ) -
Of all the witnesses, Woman H was the one most comprehensively shown to be a nasty and ill-motivated liar. Her comments on the character of Alex Salmond are just that. The jury did not believe Woman H. We will come to her later.
The attempted rape charge was dismissed along with all the others, but the broader sentiment was endorsed. Both Prentice and Jackson, prosecution and defence, quoted Woman H in their closing submissions. “I wish on my life the First Minister had been a better man and I wasn’t here today,” Jackson said. “It’s a good line. Maybe it was rehearsed. But it is true. Because if, in some ways, the former First Minister had been a better man, I wouldn’t be here, you wouldn’t be here. None of us would be here.”
Jackson was using the understood rhetorical device whereby you start off by appearing to concur with your opponents’ point and then you go on to demolish it. This is yet again an example of Garavelli’s extraordinary and quite deliberate distortion by omission in presenting the defence case, and in particular omitting in virtually its entirety the evidence of all the defence witnesses, seven of them female.
This was, in fact, the core of the defence case: that Salmond was a flawed, demanding, irascible leader, whose behaviour could be inappropriate, though never quite so inappropriate as to be criminal. Never that.
This is simply an untruth. The core of the defence case was, plain as a pikestaff, that the allegations were lies concocted in collusion as part of a conspiracy to destroy Alex Salmond politically. The defence was not “he felt her up but that is not illegal”. By failing to present the actual facts of the defence, – in which Garavelli is in lockstep with the entire rest of the state and corporate media – Garavelli is quite deliberately seeking to encompass the goal of Salmond’s political destruction through repeating the allegations, seeing the innocent verdict as merely a bump in that road.
It was an impression reinforced last weekend when footage emerged of the garrulous Jackson discussing his client loudly on the Edinburgh to Glasgow train at a time when the trial was still in progress. He referred to Salmond and the allegations, as “inappropriate, arsehole, stupid, but sexual?” He also risked being in contempt of court by mentioning two of the complainers by name, and said his strategy included trying to “put a smell” on the women.
Many had wondered at the wisdom of choosing Jackson as a defence lawyer for a high profile sexual assault case. He did secure the acquittals, but at what cost? His indiscretion has effectively “put a smell” on Salmond, and he has referred himself to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
Garavelli at least here correctly admits Jackson was saying Salmond’s behaviour was not sexual, unlike the Murdoch media’s false claim he called Alex a sex pest. The taping of Jackson is highly suspicious. That Jackson, a former Labour MP, is not Salmond’s greatest fan is unsurprising. And we do not know his motive in modulating his views to his particular interlocutor on the train. There is no “smoking gun” here, no indication of any wrong act by Salmond, despite the media excitement.
STATEMENT Gordon Jackson, QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates: “I have decided that the proper course of action is to self-refer this matter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and that has been done. It will be for the Commission to consider this matter.
“To be clear, however, I do not regard Alex Salmond as a ‘sex pest’, and any contrary impression is wrong. I also deeply regret the distress and difficulties which have been caused, but given the reference to the SLCC it would not be appropriate to comment further.”
Today a mostly-female jury drawn from the most Unionist city in Scotland and directed by a female judge delivered the only verdict it was credibly possible to reach on the (total absence of) evidence before it: that Alex Salmond was not guilty of any crime.
Alex Salmond is neither a sex pest nor a nonce.
Tomorrow he will present his evidence to his Stitch-Up-Commitee - the shit is already hitting the fan!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum