Just what I thought two years ago

They have taken your personal experiences and they have exploited them for their own self-serving political influences.

The words this morning of one of the women who had accused Alex Salmond, dug up again and relished by Glenn Campbell in a long sequence of such reports in the months after he was found not guilty.

They will not let it lie. Would that they had been so determined to pursue their own criminal offenders in previous years.

Anyhow, when I saw that line, above, I immediately thought she must be talking about the group of civil servants who initially enticed and coached these women into coming forward, exaggerating events and wasting millions, on a criminal case that lawyers and the police knew would not stand up.

The only leading politician with the guts to stand up against the UK war propaganda machine in 2003 and then the cojones to call for a Prime Minister to be tried for war crimes, they were always going to try get Alex Salmond, once they could find something, anything, to blow up into a case against him. That they failed in court will not concern them. The damage is done.

Luckily, going by the polls, the Scottish voter is not taken in.


27 thoughts on “Just what I thought two years ago

  1. The Holyrood enquiry into the Salmondgate affair,as with the Trump impeachment process,has become a political circus.
    The Spectator intervention only confirms this assertion.
    As you say,unlikely to have much impact on the upcoming election,whatever the conclusions.
    The purpose appears to be,not so much bringing clarity to Salmond’s trial but more to smear the SNP and in particular our FM.
    Most Scots can see this for themselves.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. When I heard the woman talking (disguised voice?) my thoughts were this person hadn’t been believed by a jury, who had heard all the evidence.

    How close to the election can the comittee push The F. M’s evidence session?


  3. ‘Coached’ yes, no ‘enticement’ was required, they were all part of a set up against AS and NS in fact it’s clear as day. The Brit state could not do a Willie Macrae on AS, they would have if they’d have thought they could get a way with it though. It’s all going to be dragged out until May 5th.


    1. Arthetty
      There are a few central planks in all this
      1.Under Law the burden of proof is upon the accuser to prove such They Failed to do so
      Normally that means Full Stop , but not in this case
      2.So that begs the Question why
      This was all cleverly set up by Dark forces who knew there indeed they smelled smoke
      And are now blowing frantically upon the dying embers of the small fire that was found
      Further more SG and AS playing a most clever
      Game upon the chess board with regards
      The evidence that the original trial would not allow to be presented
      And it is no accident that Murdo and his fellow Unionists in the investigating committees are not rushing off the blocks after The Spectator case
      Why because I strongly suspect that Lady Dorians ruling which still has to appear in writing has led to the committee seeking the best legal advice possible
      But I remind all that contained with in Law
      And the power of The Crown,that all witnesses in any criminal case MUST be protected at all costs
      Therefore extremely unlikely that Lady Dorian
      Can sanction the breaking of such protection
      With regards annoniminity
      So if so then the Enquiry is well and truly stuck up a cul de sac
      And one can speculate with a high degree of success that if such witness statements ever revealed that a trail so easily followed will lead you undoubtedly take you to the works of the dark forces of the British State
      Both sides are in checkmate and AS and NS
      KNOW this each hoping that the other side makes a wrong move
      You first please otherwise checkmate PAL
      And if ever I was in the shoes of NS or AS upon giving evidence here is how i would handle without breaking oath
      If the committee in response to any my testimony accused me of lying
      I retort Most certainly not
      And they said oh yes you are
      My response I am merely being economical with the truth
      And if you ask the absolutely correct Question then i will give you the absolute truth
      And further more under Scot,s Law
      Which you must adhere to at all times
      So far you have failed to explain and say to me
      That when you present a question pertaining to my Spouse that i do not have to answer
      And if so that is the end of such question and shall having no bearing in any judgements made by you whatsoever


  4. A jury found Alex not guilty. The claims made were not believed! Evidence was not provided.
    The smears before, during and after the trial have been constant. The BBC have been the biggest culprit in these attacks.

    When is “innocent” going to be accepted?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. This was originally a scheme to discredit Salmond–I believe by a UK civil/secret service plot, who had somehow also subverted some SNP praetorian guards surrounding Sturgeon. When that failed it was escalated as a threat to Salmond’s liberty.

    At this point, the question has to be asked–what did Sturgeon know at that precise moment?

    After Salmond’s innocence was upheld by the jury, the focus shifted to –get Sturgeon—not least by the same media howling for a subsidy from a government it despises, lies about, and continually attempts to subvert through their despicable “opinion formers”.
    But this is an unholy mess.
    I hope Sturgeon fights the election, but I also hopes she stands aside at the point of victory.
    This would stop the internal feud and also end the narrative of “once in a generation” nonsense, reset the party and look to the only future that makes sense for Scotland.
    Fight as “Sovereigntists V British nationalists”.


  6. Given methodological nationalism relies heavily on cognitive corruption, I do find it hard to separate the efforts to undermine our leaders, from the considerable efforts being made to redefine the legal identity of natal women in Scotland. Especially as Westminster feels it acceptable to arbitrarily re-define Scotland’s legal identity, so as to accommodate right-wing and populist English nationalism.



  7. Englands westminster plotted to have AS charged
    The case went to court
    AS won
    You wouldnt think he had won because the media continue to speak of him as guilty
    Once Englands westminster failed to bring down AS plan (b) came into effect which is to being down NS

    AS and NS worked this out a long time ago thats why you have never seen either of them criticise the other
    They will both campaign for Scottish Independence
    Once achieved
    We will get the lowdown on what they experienced

    To believe the stories on tv radio and in the newspapers you would have to be willing to believe just about anything
    How much lies do you you need before you start to question everything in the british media
    If you have any sense you dont believe any of it

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Woman were economical with the truth. Leslie Evan persisted when advised the flawed investigation would not stand up in Court. The case did not stand up in Court, Damages for flawed investigation,

    Alex Salmond did nothing criminal. Women witnesses came to his Defence. He was found not guilty. There was no sexual intent. Alex Salmond can not go anywhere without people hugging and kissing him. Taking selfies. Is that sexual assault on him. No. Quite an task master, but a good soul. Politics a stressful business.

    The women did not want it to go to Court. The Police did mot want it to go to Court. Alex Salmond did not want it to go to Court. Nicola asked for a review by the authorities. She stayed out of it as she has to. Ministerial Code of conduct.

    The unionists are trying to muck rake it. Just ignorance. White noise. Just a distraction, Everyone has an opinion or just not interested. The Inquiry is just a waste of time and money. The women’s identity could come out accidentally.

    There are far more important matter in a pandemic and because of Brexit for many people.


    1. Gordon you write: “Leslie Evan (sic) persisted when advised the flawed investigation would not stand up in Court.”

      Sorry, I’m now very confused! I was not aware that Ms Evans is part of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Would it not be the Crown Office (actually one or more of its advocate deputes) that decides on whether or not to bring a case to court?

      My understanding always was that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) receives reports about crimes from the police and other reporting agencies, and then decides what action to take, including whether to prosecute someone. My understanding also was that advocate deputes are the key decision makers in terms of prosecution. Do they not make the decisions in serious cases and advise procurators fiscal on complex or sensitive issues?

      So what is the evidence – referring back to your statement that “Leslie Evan persisted when advised the flawed investigation would not stand up in Court.” – that one or more advocate deputes were overly influenced or even over-ruled by Ms Evans? Or is the contention that she overly influenced or even over-ruled Police Scotland’s investigation who in turn then overly influenced or over-ruled the relevant advocate depute/s in the COPFS?


      1. I think the reference to Leslie Evan’s is about her role in the investigation conducted by Civil Servants into the claims of harassment etc by Mr Salmond. This was the investigation that was subject to a judicial review brought by Mr Salmond and found to be flawed. It did not involve the police but was an investigation carried out using new procedures drawn up by the Civil Service and presumably signed off by the SG and/or Scottish Parliament.


      2. The initial flawed investigation.She recruited, ‘appointed’ the Police woman who then approached the two women who had complained previously in 2013? It had been dealt with under the then complaints procedure, ie Alex Salmond apologised for any offence given. When possibly he and a woman fell asleep together on a bed. ie the claimed rape, They had been drinking wine, The matter had been dealt with. The woman then came forward later to regurgitate the complaint, A few more came forward the whatsup group.

        Leslie Evans was involved in appointing the police woman to reinvestigate. That is why the rules that had been set for investigation were flawed. The cop had previously talked and coached the women to come forward. Under the rules it should have been a neutral (Police) person who had to investigate, ie Lesley Evans took it forward breaking (her rules) She had helped set up the guidelines of procedure, Lesley Evans broke the rules she had instigated. The regurgitated complain which had been dealt with in 2013?

        The Police often over exaggerate complaints to try and get a conviction, ie to justify court proceeding, So a brush on passing someone on a stairwell became ‘a sexual aggressive’ act. Absolute nonsense. People pass others in a stairwell every day. It was a false complaint. Another woman at the scene (a lawyer) acted as a witness. To say there was absolutely no sexual aspect to it. She was believed. Has come forward and everyone knows who she is. She did not require anonymity and gave an open account. .

        All the charges will be like that. If it ever comes out. They were all over exaggerated incidents which would not get a conviction. Some never happened.There were witnesses (women) who confirmed they never happened, it is the interpretation of the facts, Women can exaggerate or lie. Just like everyone else. For whatever reason. Who knows?

        Leslie Evans took all this forward to encourage the women to complain. A flawed investigation breaking the rules of procedure she had introduced, The Police totally exaggerated to try and get a conviction (they do it all the time). Unless people have a witness. Leslie Evans was told it would not stand up in Court (as nonsense) but she still pursued it. Instead of leaving it. Dropping it.

        The incidents are being kept ‘secret’ to protect the complainants To keep the woman’s identity a secret. To encourage women to come forward to make complaint. (Not fraudulent) Complaint, To protect the complainants. If people were aware of the incidents. Ie full disclosure They were either completely exaggerated (by the Police) Or they did not happen according to credible witnesses (women) who came forward,

        The women did not want to go to Court (false complaint). The Police did not want it to go to Court (rubbish) Etc, etc, It would not stand up. A waste of time and money,

        Women made false complaint. Other women witnesses repudiated the complaint. Alex Salmond was innocent. The whole flawed procedure was brought forward by Leslie Evans breaking her own procedural rules. She had instigated, Appointing the (flawed) cop her mate to investigate. She was told it would not stand up in Court but preceded with it,

        The facts might come out. The woman’s names might come out. If the Inquiry do not drop it, Some are just meddling for political capital. Ie to have a go at the SNP,

        A right mess but Alex Salmond is not a sexual predator, in any way. Ie to attack anyone. People fling themselves at him. Hugging and kissing him. Taking selfies. All the time. Is that sexual assault in him? Does that cross the line. No. A tipsy cuddle on a bed is regrettable but not a sexual attack. These staff would have been very familiar with each other but not in a sexual way. Had some of the best jobs in the country.

        If the complaints come out. People will realise how minor events they are or events that never happened according to credible witnesses who were believed. An awful waste of public money but there you go. Leslie Evans persisted but was not believed, she was told it would not stand up in Court but would not listen.

        A flawed investigation. By one of the highest paid civil servants in the land. Swanning about like a FM. There is already an elected one. There is no need for two, The flawed British establishment. Unelected, Making trouble as usual. Not up to the job. Promoted above their capability, Mucking up for all to see.

        The British establishment as flawed as they can be, An awful saga. Roll on Independence. To get them off people’s back. There are much more important things to deal with.

        Alex Salmond was honeypotted for all intents and purposes. If the incidents were relevant he would have been convicted. An appalling injustice which might be righted hopefully but who knows. Nicola did everything she could. Pity she did not step in and told them all to get lost. She could not. Ministerial Code of Conduct. She had to stay out of it. She did ask for a review which was not undertaken properly. Another muck up by the authorities,

        Alex Salmond and Nicola still have great support for all they have done for Scotland. Well may it continue, The band might get back together. Once the Inquiry is finished. Gie’s peace for goodness sake. There are more important things to be going on with, A pandemic and Brexit, An important election. One of the most important ever.


  9. I note that Wings is making a sensible, adult, defense of Chesterton’s Fence. Allowing the self-identification of disability or gender is simply not compatible with EU antidiscrimnation law, nor international human rights law. Though give Westminster is happy to ignore international law and redefine Scotland’s legal identity, the potential for substantive equality has already been considerably diminished in Brexitania.

    The Ideas of Equality and Non-Discrimination: Formal and Substantive Equality

    Click to access The%20Ideas%20of%20Equality%20and%20Non-discrimination,%20Formal%20and%20Substantive%20Equality.pdf


  10. Leslie Evans introduced D’Hondt. Flawed. Devolution. FPTP Scotland would have likely been Independent. 1st preference SNP are wasted to benefit 3rd rate list losers. They can’t be good t rid.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Gordon you write: “Leslie Evans introduced D’Hondt”

      You’re on a roll this evening: you’re over-turning things that I understood to be certain. Help!

      We know that the Scotland Act of 1998 set out the functions and role of the Scottish Parliament. We know that the first election to Holyrood was in 1999. Has the electoral system altered between 1999 and now?

      What was Leslie Evans doing in 1998 and in the lead up to this date as the electoral system for Holyrood was being devised: what was she doing during the first implementation of the electoral system that Holyrood is subject to in 1999?

      According to Holyrood magazine and Wikipedia:

      Leslie Evans joined the Scottish Government in September 2000, having spent the previous 20 years working for local authorities in Scotland (City of Edinburgh Council and Stirling Council) and England (Greenwich London Borough Council and Sheffield City Council). We learn that “rather than having worked her way up through the civil service, she joined AFTER devolution in 2000, when senior civil service posts were first opened up to those from outside the civil service.” (my emphasis)

      So returning to your statement: “”Leslie Evans introduced D’Hondt”. What do you know about her (hidden?) influence on the electoral system devised for Holyrood that we all should know?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Leslie Evans was involved in setting up the Scottish Parliamentary system. She was involved in local Gov as a civil servant? The unionist parties involved in the set up. It was supposed to be representational. To make sure no Party could get an overall majority. Supposed to be for co operation but in fact the system devised was to keep the unionists parties always in control. Ie controlled from London (Westminster). The unionist parties involved gave the Holyrood Parliament as little powers as possible, So they could keep control. (Labour) 1997.

        1980 to 2000 worked for local authorities. Edinburgh, Stirling Council
        Later -Head of local Gov Constitution and Government Governance. Involved in setting up the Holyrood Gov system. D’hondt,

        Thatcher introduced the Barnett Formula to illegal and secretly take Scottish revenues and resources from Scotland, Oil revenues in particular. They took the equivalent of £Billions. Then cut the block Grant as much as possible and denied it,

        Scotland was reduced to poverty. Heavy industry shut down. High unemployment. 15% Interest rates 18%. People lost their houses. Encouraged to buy, they could not afford the repayments.The Tory Scottish Office. Lang, Forsyth etc, Thatcher’s henchmen.They were sworn to secrecy. One Tory Scottish minister resign. The papers/documents were released under the Official Secrets Act after 30 years.


      2. Gordon, you write “Leslie Evans was involved in setting up the Scottish Parliamentary system.” . This is presumably an attempt to counter my ‘scepticism’ of your earlier claim that “Leslie Evans introduced D’Hondt”.

        You then write lots more words to argue the flaws in the ‘Scottish parliamentary system”. There may be ‘flaws’ but all your many additional words fail, IMHO to justify the original claim that “Leslie Evans introduced D’Hondt”. They are shifting the argument to other grounds rather than helping to justify the initial claim.

        As a local government official, the notion that she would have influenced either the political design or the legal drafting of the Scotland Act 1998 is … searching for a polite term! Since when do local government officials design and/or draft acts of the Westminster Parliament on constitutional and electoral matters?

        And even after becoming a Civil Servant in Scotland in 2000 it was 15 years before she got the top job. During the period since our Parliament was re-convened there were several Perm Secs before Evans’ appointment.

        D’Hondt was bult into the ‘system’ well before Leslie Evans became a Civil Servant in Scotland and a very long time before she became the top Civil Servant.

        You add: “Read it somewhere. A while ago.” I think we know that one can read lots of things in many places. As regular visitors to this site know well, it’s probably a good discipline to take nothing that’s written anywhere at face value and to be wary of amplifying the assertions of others without checking multiple sources. Probably that kind of approach will continue the ‘brand’ value of the btl threads here.

        As for me, I am open to be convinced of Ms Evans’ personal powers to (a) direct the Crown Office towards mounting a prosecution; and/or (b) her personal ‘culpability’ for the imposition of the D’Hondt voting system but only IF credible, verifiable evidence is presented to confirm these serious claims beyond reasonable doubt.


    2. Gordon,
      Ms Evan’s was involved in Local Gov during the period that the Scottish Parliament was being set up and as such would have no role in the process. That was the sole responsibility of the Westminster Gov of the time and the London based Civil Servants.


      1. It will be in achives somewhere. The whole procedure. She was involved in the procedure and the choice of governmental system. Along with the politicians. She was involved in the choice. Even bringing it forward. Dewar, Smith and the other participants. Convention. She advised them on the electoral methods, That was her job. Her post. That is what the (senior) civil service do, They give advise to ministers and politicians. The convention consultation.

        Do people have to go to jail for years because they fell asleep cuddling on a bed tipsy. Regrettable. Unwise? but not a criminal offence or conviction. Most of the population would be in jail. Police Scotland might want it that way. To justify their existent and expense. Over compensating. Trying to convict people.

        The Courts are overflowing with it, Unmanageable.. A caution would suffice, of mild misdemeanour, Unless a repeat offence. Over 80% of (young) males in Scotland have a minor conviction. Until it is discharged Affecting job application and future prospects. Quite harsh.


      2. People in Scotland were involved along with Scottish politicians. Mainly. Scottish politicians. A convention including others. Not just politicians. Decided the Scottish parliamentary system Dewar, Smith (Labour/Lib/Tory) etc. Pals of Blair etc. Representative from Scotland were involved. It does not mean they did not want Westminster to have control. They did (unionists parties). SNP Party was much smaller then. Less influence.

        The SNP were less involved. They wanted more control and powers. That was in dispute. The electorate were not consulted. It was imposed upon them. It the electorate had been consulted in a manifesto. It would have been FPTP, on average.. H’hondt was accepted without electoral consultation. Ie of the people.

        Scotland would be Independent now without some of the (unionist) non entities in the Parliament. The electorate can’t get rid. Or are difficult to get rid. Not impossible. A flawed system. Many do not understand. Leads to less democracy. People do not vote. Too complicated. ‘I am not voting. It does not make any difference’. Attitude. Apathy.


  11. Disabled people deserve a free and fair chance. Under the Law. Just like everyone else. 1 in 5. 20% of the population. The disable candidates coming forward are excellent. Excellent campaigners trying to help others.

    In Holyrood there is 1 or more disable representatives. To be more equally representative reflecting the population. There should be 23.
    All MSP’s are representative of disabled people. They have disabled members in their families. Long term sick, deaf people, MS sufferers, autistic members, blind people. Depression/Addiction. Anyone who needs support. It would be good, right and equal to be more representational. To understand people’s problems,

    Holyrood Representational 129 members.
    There are 8 LBGT members 8% of the population. Need 1+ more

    There are two BAME members? 3% of the population. Need 1+ more

    Disable need more 20+

    Women 30% – 50% of the population, Need 20% more. To be equally represented,


  12. Chestertons fence , ah yes but
    Who decides if i understand something ?
    If i say i understand it and you say i dont
    The onus is on you to show that i dont understand it
    Why ? Well because many people understand things but are not able to explain their understanding in a way that is acceptable to all

    Just be because you cannot explain something doesnt mean you dont understand it

    We all know the sun rises each morning but not everyone can explain why


  13. I hope folk don’t take my brevity as indication that I lack understanding. I’m very rusty, and so wary of contributing to the non-cognitive understanding to public policy that is currently undermining Scotland’s capacity to govern itself. There are very good reasons that a gender-critical approach to law and public policy is considered international best practice. Which suggest either incompetence or malicious intent from those who are currently in charge of ‘our’ civil service.

    Those with an interest in learning how to support open democracy, could do a lot worse than at least dipping their toes into this link. Just consider yourselves lucky I’ve not started on tort law, yet. 😉



  14. After all the trouble that has been caused and the public monies wasted. Why do false reporters just be quiet and stop winding people up. People are sick of it. There are more important things going on at present.


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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.