wingsoverscotland--2020-08-14--A plague of fools

A plague of fools

Sometimes people are so stupid it ’ s legitimately scary .
For example , all the Unionist politicians in Scotland who appear to genuinely think voters won ’ t notice that the recent exams catastrophe affected England ( run by the Tories ) and Wales ( run by Labour ) even worse than it did Scotland , and so they keep screaming for John Swinney ’ s head while having nothing to say about the even worse messes bursting all over their own parties ’ respective jurisdictions .
It genuinely boggles our mind that a anyone , let alone a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their finger on the public pulse , could possibly imagine they ’ d ever get away with such utterly brainless naked hypocrisy , apparently believing that voters have memories less than 24 hours long and enjoy having their intelligence insulted .
But it ’ s not just politicians .
The above headline appeared on a little-read pro-SNP website this week , and the absurd random jumble of capitalised and uncapitalised words is the least of its worries .
Firstly , unless you DO have a 24-hour memory span 53-47 is NOT the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hell , it ’ s not even the biggest lead of summer 2020 .
The two previous polls , in June and July , put Yes ahead by a higher margin ( 54-46 ) , and the biggest EVER lead is still the 59-41 one recorded in a survey just over four years ago .
And there was also another 54-46 the same month , so this week ’ s YouGov figures are actually the FIFTH-biggest lead ever .
But it got worse .
Because SNP NEC member and female-penis advocate Doug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same website that once published this : to make his own audacious attempt at usurping the World Hubris Record .
It ’ s worth spending a moment or two unpicking that drivel .
Firstly , we might note how touched we are by such faith in David Cameron ’ s infallibility .
The idea that the former PM might simply have made a misjudgement appears quite inconceivable to Mr Daniel ’ s analysis .
But Cameron thought – as he also mistakenly did with the Brexit referendum – that holding a vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter to bed and kill off the SNP ’ s ability to weaponise the ( valid ) grievance of being denied a democratic vote .
Since the SNP had just smashed an electoral system expressly designed to prevent any party – and especially them – from getting a majority , Cameron had grounds for belief that continuing the refusals of the previous four years was only making them stronger .
And since he had no way of knowing what they might do if that support kept growing – particularly with a gambler like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote when Yes was barely at 30 % probably seemed the least risky strategy .
But that concern doesn ’ t apply with Nicola Sturgeon at the helm of the party .
Boris Johnson already knows what she ’ ll do if her demands are refused – nothing .
Theresa May turned her down flat in 2017 and she did nothing .
Johnson himself did the same in 2019 and she did nothing .
She did nothing for three years after the Brexit vote in 2016 , now she ’ s doing nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ ll do nothing until not just the pandemic but its economic aftermath is over , which is years away .
Then we get more baseless fantasy : Well , no , it just isn ’ t .
Circumstances change .
Something that was sensible in 2011 isn ’ t necessarily sensible in 2020 when the whole world ’ s been turned upside down in the intervening period .
The UK was still in the EU in 2011 .
Oil was still selling for a few quid .
Australia , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t on fire .
Donald Trump wasn ’ t the President of the USA and the whole planet wasn ’ t wearing facemasks .
Every single person in Scotland ISN ’ T going to vote for the SNP – at best they ’ re going to get a bit more than half – but it would make very little meaningful difference to Boris Johnson if they did .
He will only ever grant a referendum if the consequences of not doing so are worse for him than the consequences of doing so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to imagine a scenario where that could ever be the case .
Because what could those negative consequences be ?
We know that Nicola Sturgeon will never declare UDI .
We know that she ’ ll never hold a “ wildcat ” referendum ( partly because she ’ d never try and partly because it ’ d fail if she did , since there ’ s no way to bypass Unionist-controlled councils ) .
We know that she ’ ll never endorse mass civil disobedience , because it ’ d be domestically toxic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know she ’ ll never go to court to establish Holyrood ’ s legal right to hold a vote , because if she was going to do that she ’ d have done it four years ago instead of wasting all the time on a futile , dishonest attempt to deny England and Wales democracy .
And nobody else is coming to help .
We know from the experience of Catalonia that the UN won ’ t step in , and the EU certainly won ’ t because we ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Earth can Sturgeon – or indeed Scotland as a whole – threaten Johnson with ?
A six-seat reduction in his majority ?
Uproar in the famously pro-indy media ?
An Ian Blackford speech in the House Of Commons that simply never ends ?
Yet still the empty wishful thinking pours forth : Weirdly , having earlier attacked indy supporters who take Johnson at his word , Daniel now does exactly the same with his predecessor in Downing St. May said “ now is not the time ” because she didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were slaves with no recourse to democracy .
We all knew she meant “ never ” .
Tories “ fight for the union ” because it ’ s their job , because it gives them something to say to gee up their own supporters and because their lives would be marginally easier if support went back down below 50 % .
They sacked Carlaw because he was such an idiot it was embarrassing and there ’ s a Holyrood election coming up that they ’ d rather not be humiliated in any more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no rocket science here .
Let ’ s test that .
We ’ re happy to bet Doug Daniel £1,000 that Boris Johnson will not grant a Section 30 while Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of the SNP , unless legally compelled to do so by a court .
We ’ ll put our money where our mouth is when it comes to our track record of analysis and prediction .
Let ’ s see if Doug will .
Because until someone in the SNP or their loyal and obedient cheerleader squad can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threaten the UK government with , we ’ re going to keep pointing out the reality that independence is going nowhere .

Sometimes people are so stupid it’s legitimately scary. For example, all the Unionist politicians in Scotland who appear to genuinely think voters won’t notice that the recent exams catastrophe affected England (run by the Tories) and Wales (run by Labour) even worse than it did Scotland, and so they keep screaming for John Swinney’s head while having nothing to say about the even worse messes bursting all over their own parties’ respective jurisdictions.
(Esler misses the fact that the “deletions” were all actually retweets of a single tweet on the Scottish Conservatives which was deleted, but the point is the same.)
It genuinely boggles our mind that anyone, let alone a professional politician whose job it is to have their finger on the public pulse, could possibly imagine they’d ever get away with such utterly brainless naked hypocrisy, apparently believing that voters have memories less than 24 hours long and enjoy having their intelligence insulted.
(Incidentally, we can’t see any good answer to the exams problem. Either you have one year of massively artificially inflated grades, with all the tricky ramifications that presents further down the line, or you have a year of grotesque injustices to thousands of blameless individual students that are logistically impossible to remedy. The former is probably the lesser of the two evils, which poses the question of why the Scottish Government was too monumentally dim to see it coming and why it wasted a week defending the latter option before inevitably caving in and doing the sensible thing it was always going to have to do and should have just done in the first place.)
But it’s not just politicians.
The above headline appeared on a little-read pro-SNP website this week, and the absurd random jumble of capitalised and uncapitalised words is the least of its worries.
Firstly, unless you DO have a 24-hour memory span 53-47 is NOT the “biggest ever lead” for independence. Hell, it’s not even the biggest lead of summer 2020. The two previous polls, in June and July, put Yes ahead by a higher margin (54-46), and the biggest EVER lead is still the 59-41 one recorded in a survey just over four years ago.
And there was also another 54-46 the same month, so this week’s YouGov figures are actually the FIFTH-biggest lead ever.
(The National, reliably, nevertheless reacted to support going from 54% to 53% with the same “support for independence soars” phrasing that it uses for any two figures regardless of their actual sizes.)
But it got worse. Because SNP NEC member and female-penis advocate Doug Daniel popped up in the comments of the same website that once published this:
to make his own audacious attempt at usurping the World Hubris Record.
It’s worth spending a moment or two unpicking that drivel.
“There’s nothing in the UK’s uncodified constitution that compels them to give us a section 30 order, but that’s no different to the situation last time. Folk say they only granted the s30 order in 2012 because they were sure they were going to win, but that’s far too simplistic. It explains the timing, but not the act itself. You don’t fight battles you don’t need to fight, even if you’re sure you’ll win.”
Firstly, we might note how touched we are by such faith in David Cameron’s infallibility. The idea that the former PM might simply have made a misjudgement appears quite inconceivable to Mr Daniel’s analysis. But Cameron thought – as he also mistakenly did with the Brexit referendum – that holding a vote and winning it convincingly would put the matter to bed and kill off the SNP’s ability to weaponise the (valid) grievance of being denied a democratic vote.
Since the SNP had just smashed an electoral system expressly designed to prevent any party – and especially them – from getting a majority, Cameron had grounds for belief that continuing the refusals of the previous four years was only making them stronger. And since he had no way of knowing what they might do if that support kept growing – particularly with a gambler like Alex Salmond in charge – allowing a vote when Yes was barely at 30% probably seemed the least risky strategy.
But that concern doesn’t apply with Nicola Sturgeon at the helm of the party. Boris Johnson already knows what she’ll do if her demands are refused – nothing. Theresa May turned her down flat in 2017 and she did nothing. Johnson himself did the same in 2019 and she did nothing.
She did nothing for three years after the Brexit vote in 2016, now she’s doing nothing because of COVID-19, and she says she’ll do nothing until not just the pandemic but its economic aftermath is over, which is years away.
Then we get more baseless fantasy:
“Clearly, they felt they had to nip independence in the bud. That’s inconsistent with apparently being able to say “no” forever, which would mean every single person in Scotland could vote SNP and they’d just keep sticking two fingers up at us with impunity.”
Well, no, it just isn’t. Circumstances change. Something that was sensible in 2011 isn’t necessarily sensible in 2020 when the whole world’s been turned upside down in the intervening period. The UK was still in the EU in 2011. Oil was still selling for a few quid. Australia, and more alarmingly Siberia and Alaska, weren’t on fire. Donald Trump wasn’t the President of the USA and the whole planet wasn’t wearing facemasks.
Every single person in Scotland ISN’T going to vote for the SNP – at best they’re going to get a bit more than half – but it would make very little meaningful difference to Boris Johnson if they did. He will only ever grant a referendum if the consequences of not doing so are worse for him than the consequences of doing so, and it’s all but impossible to imagine a scenario where that could ever be the case.
Because what could those negative consequences be? We know that Nicola Sturgeon will never declare UDI. We know that she’ll never hold a “wildcat” referendum (partly because she’d never try and partly because it’d fail if she did, since there’s no way to bypass Unionist-controlled councils). We know that she’ll never endorse mass civil disobedience, because it’d be domestically toxic and have little practical force. And we know she’ll never go to court to establish Holyrood’s legal right to hold a vote, because if she was going to do that she’d have done it four years ago instead of wasting all the time on a futile, dishonest attempt to deny England and Wales democracy.
And nobody else is coming to help. We know from the experience of Catalonia that the UN won’t step in, and the EU certainly won’t because we’re not a member any more. So what on Earth can Sturgeon – or indeed Scotland as a whole – threaten Johnson with? A six-seat reduction in his majority? Uproar in the famously pro-indy media? An Ian Blackford speech in the House Of Commons that simply never ends?
Yet still the empty wishful thinking pours forth:
“Even Theresa May’s ‘now is not the time’ mantra conceded it was a matter of when, not if. The official lines from Tory HQ today say there’ll be no referendum, but their behaviour says otherwise. Why do they need to ‘fight for the union’ if they’re 100% in charge of whether another referendum happens or not? Why the panicky replacement of Jackson Carlaw? None of it makes sense if they can truly resist the political pressure forever.”
Weirdly, having earlier attacked indy supporters who take Johnson at his word, Daniel now does exactly the same with his predecessor in Downing St.
May said “now is not the time” because she didn’t want to openly announce that the Scots were slaves with no recourse to democracy. We all knew she meant “never”. Tories “fight for the union” because it’s their job, because it gives them something to say to gee up their own supporters and because their lives would be marginally easier if support went back down below 50%. They sacked Carlaw because he was such an idiot it was embarrassing and there’s a Holyrood election coming up that they’d rather not be humiliated in any more than they can help. There is no rocket science here.
“The thought of another SNP majority – bigger than in 2011 even – has got them in meltdown a year before the election. They couldn’t make the situation more obvious unless they started wearing t-shirts saying ‘SNP majority = IndyRef2’.”
Let’s test that. We’re happy to bet Doug Daniel £1,000 that Boris Johnson will not grant a Section 30 while Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of the SNP, unless legally compelled to do so by a court. We’ll put our money where our mouth is when it comes to our track record of analysis and prediction. Let’s see if Doug will.
Because until someone in the SNP or their loyal and obedient cheerleader squad can tell us what we actually have to threaten the UK government with, we’re going to keep pointing out the reality that independence is going nowhere.


Kartoon Klown Korner

Our regular weekend comedian Chris Cairns is off on a golf holiday this weekend ( in fairness he ’ s only had four so far this year and it ’ s already August ) , but this is a sicker joke than anything he ’ s ever come up with .
We haven ’ t covered Martin Keating ’ s court case because we have some unanswered concerns about its transparency and communication , but it ’ s doing just fine without us , having passed £100,000 of its £155,000 funding target earlier today .
It ’ s bad enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do this and pay for it when the Scottish Government – who SHOULD have been doing it three years ago – sits with its thumb up its hole staring out of the window , but having their representatives actively attack and try to sabotage it is disgusting to a degree we can barely find words for .
We ’ ve had our fair share of doubts about stuff of late , but if Scottish independence achieved nothing more than putting a useless wage-stealing tosser like Pete Wishart out of a cushy Westminster job-for-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that alone .

Our regular weekend comedian Chris Cairns is off on a golf holiday this weekend (in fairness he’s only had four so far this year and it’s already August), but this is a sicker joke than anything he’s ever come up with.
We haven’t covered Martin Keating’s court case because we have some unanswered concerns about its transparency and communication, but it’s doing just fine without us, having passed £100,000 of its £155,000 funding target earlier today.
It’s bad enough that some random activist is having to do this and pay for it when the Scottish Government – who SHOULD have been doing it three years ago – sits with its thumb up its hole staring out of the window, but having their representatives actively attack and try to sabotage it is disgusting to a degree we can barely find words for.
We’ve had our fair share of doubts about stuff of late, but if Scottish independence achieved nothing more than putting a useless wage-stealing tosser like Pete Wishart out of a cushy Westminster job-for-life, it’d be worth doing for that alone.


Clearing the smoke

There ’ s been a lot of talk in the last couple of weeks about the SNP NEC , the rather secretive body that controls the operation of the party ( and therefore also in effect the Scottish Government ) .
Extraordinarily , even if you ’ re a party member there ’ s no way to access a full list of the 42-member committee – something which for pretty obvious reasons of basic political transparency and accountability ought to be recorded prominently on the SNP website , let alone available to rank-and-file members .
So we got our investigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe to be a full and accurate list of the current SNP NEC .
If we ’ ve made any errors , please let us know and we ’ ll correct them .
The names highlighted in red are those who have so far announced their intentions to stand as candidates in next year ’ s Holyrood election , after the NEC voted to effectively block Westminster MPs from seeking nomination .
We suspect several more will follow .
SNP members : this is what you ’ re not supposed to know about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( House of Commons parliamentary group ) Alison Thewliss MP ( House of Commons parliamentary group ) Cllr Lynne Anderson ( Central Scotland Regional Association ) Cllr Cameron McManus ( Central Scotland Regional Association ) Cllr Christina Cannon ( Glasgow Regional Association ) Alex Kerr ( Glasgow Regional Association ) Munro Ross ( Highlands and Islands Regional Association ) Laura Mitchell ( Highlands and Islands Regional Association ) Roz Currie ( Lothian Regional Association ) Andrew Diack ( Lothian Regional Association ) Rhuaraidh Fleming ( Mid Scotland and Fife Regional Association ) Mireille @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association ) Christian Allard ( North East Scotland Regional Association ) Dorothy Jessiman ( North East Scotland Regional Association ) Cllr Heather Anderson ( South Scotland Regional Association ) Cllr Rob Davidson ( South Scotland Regional Association ) Emma Hendrie ( West Scotland Regional Association ) Robert Innes ( West Scotland Regional Association ) *Ruth Maguire MSP ( Scottish Parliament parliamentary group ) Chris Law MP ( House of Commons parliamentary group ) Baillie Norman MacLeod ( Association of Nationalist Councillors ) Greg McCarra ( SNP Trade Union group ) Jamie Szymkowiak ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Young Scots for Independence ) **Kaukab Stewart ( BAME Network ) Abdul Majid ( Scots Asians for Independence ) Julia Stachurska ( SNP Students ) Josh Mennie ( Out for Independence ) * not NEC member at time of recent controversial meeting ** we ’ re not 100 % sure about this one .
In the course of researching this post , incidentally , we also spoke to an NEC source who gave us some background information that we thought party members and other readers might be interested in .
We pass it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the back of Joanna Cherry ’ s triumph against Boris Johnson in court , she had to be vetted again to stand as a candidate in the 2019 UK election .
A formality you would assume… but no , despite being recommended for approval by the committee responsible for that , it came to the NEC to be ratified and she was individually put to a vote to determine whether she should be approved as an SNP candidate or not .
Joanna – who had a constituency event – asked to dial into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied as the party of government didn ’ t have the capability to allow that .
This was the most famous MP in the whole UK at that point , fresh from defeating the UK government , and it was going to a vote on whether she was suitable to be an SNP candidate at the election .
Worse still , a majority of the NEC – a very tight majority – voted against her being accepted as a candidate .
Smiles were visible , some even couldn ’ t contain themselves from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a variety of reasons , managed to block the most capable MP in Scotland from standing in the election .
There was just one problem though – just like the recent debacle over James Dornan and the blocking of Cherry from standing in next year ’ s Holyrood election , those smiling didn ’ t know the constitution .
If you want to overturn the recommendation that someone be an approved candidate , you need not a simple majority but a 2/3 majority of the entire NEC , whether they were in attendance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joanna herself ) .
Thankfully someone that DID know the party constitution was at the meeting to point that out – much to the jaw-dropping pale-faced sadness of those that had gleefully voted to rid the SNP of one of its most talented operators .
For those that try to suggest that the recent Edinburgh Central stitch up had nothing to do blocking Joanna Cherry , I thought the above was worth knowing.
” [ EDIT 4.20pm : removed an image of a well-known quote which is usually attributed to Voltaire , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but who we hadn ’ t noticed was a rather unsavoury character .
We ’ re not the first to trip over it . ]

There’s been a lot of talk in the last couple of weeks about the SNP NEC, the rather secretive body that controls the operation of the party (and therefore also in effect the Scottish Government).
Extraordinarily, even if you’re a party member there’s no way to access a full list of the 42-member committee – something which for pretty obvious reasons of basic political transparency and accountability ought to be recorded prominently on the SNP website, let alone available to rank-and-file members.
(Ordinary party members aren’t even permitted to see the minutes of NEC meetings, which are restricted to NEC members.)
So we got our investigating hats on.
Below is what we believe to be a full and accurate list of the current SNP NEC. If we’ve made any errors, please let us know and we’ll correct them.
The names highlighted in red are those who have so far announced their intentions to stand as candidates in next year’s Holyrood election, after the NEC voted to effectively block Westminster MPs from seeking nomination. We suspect several more will follow.
SNP members: this is what you’re not supposed to know about your own party.
OFFICE HOLDERS
President: Ian Hudghton
Leader: Nicola Sturgeon MSP
Depute Leader: Keith Brown MSP
National Treasurer: Colin Beattie MSP
National Secretary: Dr Angus MacLeod
Business Convener: Kirsten Oswald MP
Organisation Convener: Stacy Bradley
Local Government Convener: Cllr Ellen Forson
Women’s Convener: Cllr Rhiannon Spear
Equalities Convener: Fiona Robertson
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Convener: Cllr Graham Campbell
Disabled Members’ Convener: Morag Fulton
Member Support Convener: Douglas Daniel
Policy Development Convener: Alyn Smith MP
OTHER MEMBERS
Tommy Sheppard MP (House of Commons parliamentary group)
Alison Thewliss MP (House of Commons parliamentary group)
Cllr Lynne Anderson (Central Scotland Regional Association)
Cllr Cameron McManus (Central Scotland Regional Association)
Cllr Christina Cannon (Glasgow Regional Association)
Alex Kerr (Glasgow Regional Association)
Munro Ross (Highlands and Islands Regional Association)
Laura Mitchell (Highlands and Islands Regional Association)
Roz Currie (Lothian Regional Association)
Andrew Diack (Lothian Regional Association)
Rhuaraidh Fleming (Mid Scotland and Fife Regional Association)
Mireille Pouget (Mid Scotland and Fife Regional Association)
Christian Allard (North East Scotland Regional Association)
Dorothy Jessiman (North East Scotland Regional Association)
Cllr Heather Anderson (South Scotland Regional Association)
Cllr Rob Davidson (South Scotland Regional Association)
Emma Hendrie (West Scotland Regional Association)
Robert Innes (West Scotland Regional Association)
*Ruth Maguire MSP (Scottish Parliament parliamentary group)
Chris Law MP (House of Commons parliamentary group)
Baillie Norman MacLeod (Association of Nationalist Councillors)
Greg McCarra (SNP Trade Union group)
Jamie Szymkowiak (Disabled Members group)
Cailyn McMahon (Young Scots for Independence)
Kaukab Stewart (BAME Network)
Abdul Majid (Scots Asians for Independence)
Julia Stachurska (SNP Students)
Josh Mennie (Out for Independence)
* not NEC member at time of recent controversial meeting
In the course of researching this post, incidentally, we also spoke to an NEC source who gave us some background information that we thought party members and other readers might be interested in. We pass it on here without comment.
“Off the back of Joanna Cherry’s triumph against Boris Johnson in court, she had to be vetted again to stand as a candidate in the 2019 UK election. A formality you would assume… but no, despite being recommended for approval by the committee responsible for that, it came to the NEC to be ratified and she was individually put to a vote to determine whether she should be approved as an SNP candidate or not. Joanna – who had a constituency event – asked to dial into the meeting only to have her request denied as the party of government didn’t have the capability to allow that. This was the most famous MP in the whole UK at that point, fresh from defeating the UK government, and it was going to a vote on whether she was suitable to be an SNP candidate at the election. Worse still, a majority of the NEC – a very tight majority – voted against her being accepted as a candidate. Smiles were visible, some even couldn’t contain themselves from fist bumping that they had, for a variety of reasons, managed to block the most capable MP in Scotland from standing in the election. There was just one problem though – just like the recent debacle over James Dornan and the blocking of Cherry from standing in next year’s Holyrood election, those smiling didn’t know the constitution. If you want to overturn the recommendation that someone be an approved candidate, you need not a simple majority but a 2/3 majority of the entire NEC, whether they were in attendance or not (at that time including Joanna herself). Thankfully someone that DID know the party constitution was at the meeting to point that out – much to the jaw-dropping pale-faced sadness of those that had gleefully voted to rid the SNP of one of its most talented operators. For those that try to suggest that the recent Edinburgh Central stitch up had nothing to do blocking Joanna Cherry, I thought the above was worth knowing.”
[EDIT 4.20pm: removed an image of a well-known quote which is usually attributed to Voltaire, but which we correctly attributed to someone else, but who we hadn’t noticed was a rather unsavoury character. We’re not the first to trip over it.]


Co-ordinating the mob

If you didn ’ t already know that the BBC were going to run a character-assassination hatchet job on Alex Salmond tonight ( and another one tomorrow ) , you could surmise it easily enough from the state of the Scottish media in the last few days .
We ’ ve almost lost count of the attack pieces on the former First Minister in the run-up to the show , from specially-commissioned opinion polls to conveniently-timed releases of allegations of unspecified “ bullying ” during his leadership and highly selective leaks from the documentary itself .
But it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the depths of the journalistic sewer with a barrel and then scrapes the very bottom of it for the grubbiest , oiliest sludge it can find .
Because the paper chooses today to drag up the case of “ disgraced ” former MSP Mark McDonald again and his supposed sexual harassment of an SNP staffer , to whom it gives a 1200-word interview in an attack it explicitly links to the Salmond case , even though Salmond was completely acquitted on all charges .
It ’ s not clear why the staffer would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women who a jury decided were lying about an innocent man , and thereby making it harder for genuine victims of sexual assault and rape to secure convictions in future .
Nor is it clear why she considers them to be “ brave ” , since all of them are still – like her – protected by anonymity and have continued to smear Salmond with impunity since the verdict .
It ’ s perhaps worth reminding ourselves at this point that the image below is literally the ENTIRETY of the “ sexual harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjected Woman Z to , for which he had his entire career and reputation destroyed .
According to the Record story , that innocuous joke about an autocorrect error left her “ crying myself to sleep ” because it made her feel “ sexualised and worthless ” – an implied slur that might raise an eyebrow from anyone who ’ s ever seen her Twitter feed , which comprises dozens and dozens and dozens of selfies of Woman Z pouting at the camera with Botoxed lips through an inch of make-up in outfits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little unsubtle .
But none of that matters so long as it can be in some way thrown into the desperate battle against Alex Salmond , a private citizen with absolutely no political role and yet who still terrifies the Unionist media almost as much as he plainly terrifies the current leadership of his former party .
The Holyrood inquiry into the attempted unlawful framing of Salmond by the Scottish Government and civil service formally gets under way today , with both entities having done everything in their power to frustrate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of newspaper stories nor the broadcasting of the documentaries – both produced and fronted by people known to be deeply and profoundly antagonistic towards Salmond – are , of course , coincidences of timing .
Because at her moment of greatest need the entire Scottish establishment is circling the wagons to protect Nicola Sturgeon , who they may not like but who they now quite unmistakeably regard as the Union ’ s best hope for survival .
Readers should prepare for tonight ’ s show-trial with that thought very much in their minds @

If you didn’t already know that the BBC were going to run a character-assassination hatchet job on Alex Salmond tonight (and another one tomorrow), you could surmise it easily enough from the state of the Scottish media in the last few days.
We’ve almost lost count of the attack pieces on the former First Minister in the run-up to the show, from specially-commissioned opinion polls to conveniently-timed releases of allegations of unspecified “bullying” during his leadership and highly selective leaks from the documentary itself.
But it’s today’s Daily Record that dredges the depths of the journalistic sewer with a barrel and then scrapes the very bottom of it for the grubbiest, oiliest sludge it can find.
Because the paper chooses today to drag up the case of “disgraced” former MSP Mark McDonald again and his supposed sexual harassment of an SNP staffer, to whom it gives a 1200-word interview in an attack it explicitly links to the Salmond case, even though Salmond was completely acquitted on all charges.
It’s not clear why the staffer would feel the need to voice support for women who a jury decided were lying about an innocent man, and thereby making it harder for genuine victims of sexual assault and rape to secure convictions in future. Nor is it clear why she considers them to be “brave”, since all of them are still – like her – protected by anonymity and have continued to smear Salmond with impunity since the verdict.
(Although the staffer, who worked for James Dornan MSP and who we’ll call Woman Z, is in reality about as anonymous as the movie star in this quiz question from a classic episode of Family Guy. Literally everyone in Scottish politics knows who she is.)
It’s perhaps worth reminding ourselves at this point that the image below is literally the ENTIRETY of the “sexual harassment” that McDonald was adjudged to have subjected Woman Z to, for which he had his entire career and reputation destroyed.
According to the Record story, that innocuous joke about an autocorrect error left her “crying myself to sleep” because it made her feel “sexualised and worthless” – an implied slur that might raise an eyebrow from anyone who’s ever seen her Twitter feed, which comprises dozens and dozens and dozens of selfies of Woman Z pouting at the camera with Botoxed lips through an inch of make-up in outfits and poses that Kim Kardashian would consider a little unsubtle.
(McDonald’s text made literally no reference whatsoever to her, or her appearance, or her sexuality or anything else. He made a joke about his phone’s spellchecker.)
But none of that matters so long as it can be in some way thrown into the desperate battle against Alex Salmond, a private citizen with absolutely no political role and yet who still terrifies the Unionist media almost as much as he plainly terrifies the current leadership of his former party.
The Holyrood inquiry into the attempted unlawful framing of Salmond by the Scottish Government and civil service formally gets under way today, with both entities having done everything in their power to frustrate and undermine it.
And neither the slew of newspaper stories nor the broadcasting of the documentaries – both produced and fronted by people known to be deeply and profoundly antagonistic towards Salmond – are, of course, coincidences of timing.
Because at her moment of greatest need the entire Scottish establishment is circling the wagons to protect Nicola Sturgeon, who they may not like but who they now quite unmistakeably regard as the Union’s best hope for survival. Readers should prepare for tonight’s show-trial with that thought very much in their minds.


The endless trial

The last words spoken in Kirsty Wark ’ s documentary “ The Trial Of Alex Salmond ” , which just aired on BBC Scotland , are spoken by an unnamed actress letting rip with the full BAFTA range of quivering emotions as she reads out the words of a completely anonymous woman ( we don ’ t even get to know her trial pseudonym letter ) who last year falsely accused Alex Salmond of sexually assaulting her .
Now , since the court found that neither of those things actually happened , the logical answer in that person ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution for perjury ” .
But readers will be astonished to learn that that isn ’ t where the show went .
Because it ’ s important to remember that the jury of eight women and five men found that all of Alex Salmond ’ s accusers were lying .
All of the accusers said , clearly and specifically , that Salmond had sexually assaulted them , but the jury concluded that he didn ’ t sexually assault a single one of them .
In other words , the jury decided that every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t telling the truth .
Some specifics can be debated but there ’ s no wiggle room on that .
They decided that the things the accusers claimed didn ’ t happen .
Had they happened they would indisputably have been crimes ( otherwise they couldn ’ t have been charges ) , but the jury ’ s view on hearing all the evidence the Crown could assemble – in a vast nationwide trawl encompassing hundreds of police interviews of people who ’ d made no complaints whatsoever – was that they hadn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t hand down verdicts of “ Probably guilty , but we can ’ t be 100 % certain so we ’ re letting him off ” .
Nor did they hand down verdicts of “ Not technically guilty of a crime as such , but definitely a creepy pervert who should be shunned by society ” .
Because they were at no point asked to , and at no point did , make any judgement or comment on Salmond ’ s character .
What they were asked to do was determine his guilt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were unequivocal .
He walked from court an innocent man , unambiguously acquitted on every single charge , and has maintained a dignified silence since .
The prosecutor accepted the verdict and has instigated no appeal .
The matter is concluded .
The only things that should “ say to us as a society ” are that ( 1 ) anyone accused of a crime should have a fair trial and be regarded as innocent if found to be so by the court rather than being subjected to endless smears and innuendo that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that ( 2 ) victims of actual sexual assault shouldn ’ t be dissuaded from seeking justice just because some rare false claims were found to be false – the lies of Salmond ’ s accusers should not be held against genuine victims .
But you ’ d never know that if you ’ d just woken up from a coma and watched Wark ’ s show .
Had you somehow missed the whole story until tonight , you ’ d come away with the impression that Salmond was definitely guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had taken place and that Salmond – a man found completely innocent of any crime – had nevertheless somehow had his reputation ruined beyond all repair .
This impression was spoon-fed to viewers in an astonishing sequence two-thirds of the way into the show in which Wark , BBC News Scotland editor Sarah Smith and – imagine our surprise seeing you here !
– freelance Rapefinder General Dani Garavelli casually chat about the case in a cafe opposite the court .
The main reason for that , of course , is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of the evidence of an orchestrated campaign to be presented in court , but nobody in the show bothers to mention the fact .
Garavelli , we should remember , hates Salmond so much and is so certain of his guilt that not only did she publish a massive hatchet job after the trial , she insisted that he shouldn ’ t even be allowed to raise money to defend himself in the initial inquiry , on the grounds that him having a defence was “ intimidatory ” to his accusers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ case airs tomorrow on Radio 4 .
We ’ re sure it ’ ll be impeccably fair and balanced , and that this time it might even speak to some of the female defence witnesses as well as the prosecution ones .
Even Garavelli , however , was more restrained than Sarah Smith .
Alarmingly , as already noted above this is simply an absolute tissue of falsehood .
Of the 14 original charges there was precisely ONE agreed instance where both parties had been drinking and a fully-clothed “ cuddle ” occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apology accepted by the woman concerned , who continued to work for Salmond despite being given the opportunity to move to another job at the same level , and said in her evidence that nothing problematic had ever happened again .
Every other allegation was strenously denied and was found by the jury to be false .
NO other “ sexual contact ” , whether consensual or otherwise , was found to have occurred with anyone in respect of any of the charges , even though Smith all but states flat-out that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose eyes ?
It ’ s very hard to infer any meaning from Smith ’ s comments other than that Salmond was so persuasive/intimidating that he bullied women into sexual contact .
( It presumably can ’ t mean he ’ s persuaded the jury , because he ’ s now “ really diminished ” and would lack such presence and power . )
Almost as appalling is a sequence which somehow made it into the final edit of the programme in which BBC “ The Nine ” chief news correspondent James Cook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have heard in the court toilets .
( And which a source very close to Salmond tells us is entirely fictional . )
The entire show is very liberally sprinkled with similar and equally baseless innuendo .
Labour adviser , pundit and occasional comedian Ayesha Hazarika announces that she was “ incensed ” when she appeared on a 2017 show about ( UK ) Parliamentary sexual harassment alongside Salmond and deemed him to have constituted an “ alpha ” male making excuses for the “ abuse of power ” by men , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harassment in politics was symptomatic of a wider sexism in society as a whole ( something that one might reasonably expect Hazarika to agree wholeheartedly with ) “ but that doesn ’ t make it right , incidentally , it ’ s wrong ” .
Hazarika was among a whole parade of professional feminists like National columnist Kirsty Strickland and Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland , who said : But the relevance of that is unclear , since we already know that consent was only an issue in one of the 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight-up alleged assaults where the defence wasn ’ t that they were consensual but that they didn ’ t happen at all .
Brindley also claims that only 10 % of rape cases ever get to court , and that “ for it to get to court there must be at least some supporting evidence under the laws of corroboration in Scotland ” .
The implication of this is that the accusers – all of whom were corroborating each other ’ s claims under the disturbing “ Moorov doctrine ” , because there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosecution – can ’ t have been lying .
Again , what it all adds up to is “ He did do it , they just couldn ’ t prove it ” .
Another interviewee in the programme , Kirstein Rummery , had already taken a similar position , according to a blog by insomnia-curing commentator Gerry Hassan ( though we should note that we can ’ t find an original source for this quote ) .
And while the documentary is forced to provide a sliver of factual balance , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt at every turn .
For example , 14 minutes in , a series of major inconsistencies in the evidence of Woman H – the centre of the most serious charge – are dismissed by Wark as attempts to “ discredit ” the witness ( rather than , say , establish the truth ) .
A clip from Woman H ’ s evidence is inserted into the middle of the segment in which she makes excuses for having given four significantly different versions of the story to police because she was traumatised , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such understandable confusion could be the reason for an overly fussy jury disbelieving her story , rather than it simply not being true .
Similarly , later on we get Katrine Bussey , the political editor of PA Scotland , discussing the outcome of the original Scottish Government inquiry , which was found by a court to have been unlawful , flawed , and tainted by bias against Salmond and was thrown out with Salmond awarded £500,000 in costs .
Bussey , for some reason , says this finding vindicated Salmond only “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s inexplicable and entirely inappropriate .
The court ruled unequivocally in his favour and the Scottish Government withdrew and paid up rather than contest it .
Bussey imposes a fog of doubt on that finding that has no merit and no basis in reality .
Strickland , meanwhile , audaciously tries to present Nicola Sturgeon – who at the time of broadcast still officially had absolutely nothing to do with any of it – as the person most wronged and hurt by the whole affair .
Ah , it was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fabricated a string of false accusations against an innocent man , the patriarchy that constructed a whole new set of government rules by which he could be accused , the patriarchy that put a female judge in charge of the trial who forbade the identification of the prosecution witnesses and denied the defence the use of much of its key evidence , the patriarchy that forced seven women to give evidence for the defence and the patriarchy that persuaded a mostly-female jury to acquit on all charges .
Damn patriarchy .
Surprising as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece of sledgehammer propaganda , there are a few moments of ( relative ) subtlety in the show too , like the sly implied linking of Salmond with Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein , the careful editing of the ( very short ) contributions from people supportive of Salmond – which mostly focus on negative comments about him , like Jim Sillars saying unspecified aspects of his conduct were “ deplorable ” – and the ludicrously comical pantomime-villain voice used for the words of Salmond ’ s chief counsel Gordon Jackson QC .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , eight minutes in , Wark reads out , in her own voice , her own interpretation of events , intertwined with an actress reading out the accuser ’ s evidence from the courtroom .
The two accounts – the actual evidence given in court and Wark ’ s paraphrasing of what was claimed – are blurred together until the viewer isn ’ t sure what ’ s fact and what ’ s fantasy .
The jury , as we ’ ll recall , concluded it was all fantasy , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion is rather different .
What the words actually were were lies .
The jury , as we know , simply disbelieved her account , and a female witness who was friends with Woman H and knew her well told the court that Woman H wasn ’ t even in Bute House that night – a point Wark skims over dismissively in three seconds and never refers to again .
Those three seconds are all we hear from the seven female defence witnesses who gave evidence in the trial .
A number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the claim that civil service rules were altered to prevent Salmond being alone at night with women ) are given prominent coverage , with contradictory evidence from defence witnesses treated contemptuously and given a fraction of the airtime .
By way of example , compare the length of one accusation ( which we ’ ve highlighted here in red ) with the length of the rebuttal ( in green ) : Is it ?
Why would it be the case if the claims were false ?
Again , the jury found Salmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and several female witnesses testified that they in fact HAD been alone with Salmond on numerous occasions after the supposed incident , so the balance of probability seems to be that they WERE false .
So why do they get such disproportionate weight ?
The documentary takes the same approach to balance throughout – heavy on the ( disproven ) allegations and the accounts of the accusers , light on the defence case and the innocent verdict , heavy on smearing Salmond ’ s character despite that verdict and with only the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is widely suspected , particularly by SNP voters .
But there ’ s one more thing .
46 minutes into the show , we ’ re told that Alex Salmond ’ s former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein “ met Nicola Sturgeon and one of the [ accusers ] on the 29th of March 2018 ” to discuss the case .
This , as alert readers will be aware , is a piece of information which leads very easily to the identification of the said accuser , but which the Crown Office and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any action against despite prosecuting Craig Murray for measurably lesser offences of alleged identification of witnesses .
The identity of the third person who was at the 29 March meeting between Aberdein and Sturgeon can be established easily and unmistakeably ( as there were only three people present ) using only the information broadcast in the show .
But ridiculously , despite repeated requests to COPFS to clarify whether we can simply quote any of the media which have published the info , we still can ’ t tell you who it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though it ’ s absurdly easy and obvious , and Craig Murray faces up to two years in prison for doing less .
It ’ s about as big a mystery as this : But Kirsty Wark belongs to the Scottish media establishment , and we already know that the Scottish media establishment has complete immunity from the law that applies to everyone else , a position from which it feels free to piously shriek for the hanging of the lumpen proletariat .
And while tonight ’ s documentary ( nicely set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stories in the press in recent days , as well as selective reporting of the programme itself ) was every bit of the laughably one-sided stitch-up job we were expecting , that ’ s perhaps still the most truly shocking thing about it .

The last words spoken in Kirsty Wark’s documentary “The Trial Of Alex Salmond”, which just aired on BBC Scotland, are spoken by an unnamed actress letting rip with the full BAFTA range of quivering emotions as she reads out the words of a completely anonymous woman (we don’t even get to know her trial pseudonym letter) who last year falsely accused Alex Salmond of sexually assaulting her.
“What you’re saying is a man can try to kiss a woman, or he can say completely inappropriate things to her, when he’s 30 years older than her and he’s the First Minister of Scotland. I’m worried about what this says more widely to other women, or just to us as a society. I mean, where does this leave us?”
Now, since the court found that neither of those things actually happened, the logical answer in that person’s case ought surely to be “facing prosecution for perjury”. But readers will be astonished to learn that that isn’t where the show went.
Because it’s important to remember that the jury of eight women and five men found that all of Alex Salmond’s accusers were lying. All of the accusers said, clearly and specifically, that Salmond had sexually assaulted them, but the jury concluded that he didn’t sexually assault a single one of them.
In other words, the jury decided that every single one of the accusers wasn’t telling the truth. Some specifics can be debated but there’s no wiggle room on that. They decided that the things the accusers claimed didn’t happen.
Had they happened they would indisputably have been crimes (otherwise they couldn’t have been charges), but the jury’s view on hearing all the evidence the Crown could assemble – in a vast nationwide trawl encompassing hundreds of police interviews of people who’d made no complaints whatsoever – was that they hadn’t happened.
They didn’t hand down verdicts of “Probably guilty, but we can’t be 100% certain so we’re letting him off”. Nor did they hand down verdicts of “Not technically guilty of a crime as such, but definitely a creepy pervert who should be shunned by society”. Because they were at no point asked to, and at no point did, make any judgement or comment on Salmond’s character.
What they were asked to do was determine his guilt or innocence, and on that they were unequivocal. He walked from court an innocent man, unambiguously acquitted on every single charge, and has maintained a dignified silence since. The prosecutor accepted the verdict and has instigated no appeal. The matter is concluded.
The only things that should “say to us as a society” are that (1) anyone accused of a crime should have a fair trial and be regarded as innocent if found to be so by the court rather than being subjected to endless smears and innuendo that they’re actually guilty forever afterwards, and that (2) victims of actual sexual assault shouldn’t be dissuaded from seeking justice just because some rare false claims were found to be false – the lies of Salmond’s accusers should not be held against genuine victims.
But you’d never know that if you’d just woken up from a coma and watched Wark’s show. Had you somehow missed the whole story until tonight, you’d come away with the impression that Salmond was definitely guilty and that a grotesque miscarriage of justice had taken place and that Salmond – a man found completely innocent of any crime – had nevertheless somehow had his reputation ruined beyond all repair.
(Adding insult to the injury of being all but bankrupted by his defence costs.)
This impression was spoon-fed to viewers in an astonishing sequence two-thirds of the way into the show in which Wark, BBC News Scotland editor Sarah Smith and – imagine our surprise seeing you here! – freelance Rapefinder General Dani Garavelli casually chat about the case in a cafe opposite the court.
(Much of the documentary, including this segment, was filmed during the trial rather than afterwards, and in our view it smacks very much of a programme originally made to accompany a guilty verdict that’s been hastily chopped up and repurposed.)
GARAVELLI: I’m staggered by the defence and how it’s changed and the tone’s changed. It was all going to be about the orchestration of a campaign, and about consent, and now it just seems to be ‘Oh well he was inappropriate but was it criminal?’ and that’s a huge shift, isn’t it, from start to finish?
The main reason for that, of course, is that the trial judge Lady Dorrian refused to allow any of the evidence of an orchestrated campaign to be presented in court, but nobody in the show bothers to mention the fact.
Garavelli, we should remember, hates Salmond so much and is so certain of his guilt that not only did she publish a massive hatchet job after the trial, she insisted that he shouldn’t even be allowed to raise money to defend himself in the initial inquiry, on the grounds that him having a defence was “intimidatory” to his accusers.
(She oddly contrasted it with the perceived inability of the accusers to raise money, ignoring the fact that they didn’t need any money – the Scottish Government, and in the criminal case the Crown, was picking up all the prosecution costs.)
Garavelli’s own documentary on the case airs tomorrow on Radio 4. We’re sure it’ll be impeccably fair and balanced, and that this time it might even speak to some of the female defence witnesses as well as the prosecution ones.
Wait, no we’re not.
Even Garavelli, however, was more restrained than Sarah Smith.
SMITH:The BEST-case scenario, all the things he even agrees to, is that he was drinking, often heavily, late at night in Bute House, with women who are half his age, alone in the room with them, and either consensually or not, having some kind of sexual contact.
Alarmingly, as already noted above this is simply an absolute tissue of falsehood. Of the 14 original charges there was precisely ONE agreed instance where both parties had been drinking and a fully-clothed “cuddle” occurred, which was apologised for and the apology accepted by the woman concerned, who continued to work for Salmond despite being given the opportunity to move to another job at the same level, and said in her evidence that nothing problematic had ever happened again.
Every other allegation was strenously denied and was found by the jury to be false. NO other “sexual contact”, whether consensual or otherwise, was found to have occurred with anyone in respect of any of the charges, even though Smith all but states flat-out that it happened in every case.
SMITH: Look at Alex Salmond now, in the dock, a really diminished figure, and if you think back, though, he was such a TOWERING presence, and he’s VERY persuasive.
Diminished in whose eyes? It’s very hard to infer any meaning from Smith’s comments other than that Salmond was so persuasive/intimidating that he bullied women into sexual contact. (It presumably can’t mean he’s persuaded the jury, because he’s now “really diminished” and would lack such presence and power.)
Almost as appalling is a sequence which somehow made it into the final edit of the programme in which BBC “The Nine” chief news correspondent James Cook repeats unsubstantiated tittle-tattle that someone claims to have heard in the court toilets. (And which a source very close to Salmond tells us is entirely fictional.)
WARK: What’s going on? COOK: He’s in there shouting at his lawyers, according to the court reporter inside. WARK: Any idea what’s been said? COOK: Dunno, I didn’t hear him, but someone went to the loo and said they could hear him just shouting at his lawyers. WARK: Well, you know what, I think he looks a lot more disgruntled today than yesterday. He’s not a happy man.
The entire show is very liberally sprinkled with similar and equally baseless innuendo. Labour adviser, pundit and occasional comedian Ayesha Hazarika announces that she was “incensed” when she appeared on a 2017 show about (UK) Parliamentary sexual harassment alongside Salmond and deemed him to have constituted an “alpha” male making excuses for the “abuse of power” by men, even though what he actually said was that harassment in politics was symptomatic of a wider sexism in society as a whole (something that one might reasonably expect Hazarika to agree wholeheartedly with) “but that doesn’t make it right, incidentally, it’s wrong”.
Hazarika was among a whole parade of professional feminists like National columnist Kirsty Strickland and Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland, who said:
“It seems to be that where consent is an issue, that that is where juries are most reluctant to convict. It’s very difficult to convince juries beyond reasonable doubt.”
But the relevance of that is unclear, since we already know that consent was only an issue in one of the 14 cases. The other 13 were all straight-up alleged assaults where the defence wasn’t that they were consensual but that they didn’t happen at all.
Brindley also claims that only 10% of rape cases ever get to court, and that “for it to get to court there must be at least some supporting evidence under the laws of corroboration in Scotland”.
The implication of this is that the accusers – all of whom were corroborating each other’s claims under the disturbing “Moorov doctrine”, because there was literally NO material evidence presented by the prosecution – can’t have been lying. Again, what it all adds up to is “He did do it, they just couldn’t prove it”.
Another interviewee in the programme, Kirstein Rummery, had already taken a similar position, according to a blog by insomnia-curing commentator Gerry Hassan (though we should note that we can’t find an original source for this quote).
(What she means there, incidentally, is 98% of allegations. And her other statistics also appear to be questionable – as far as we can ascertain there are no figures produced for rape alone, only “rape and attempted rape”, for which the conviction rate is 47%, not 39%, while the rate for sexual assaults is 56%.)
And while the documentary is forced to provide a sliver of factual balance, it does so in weasel-worded terms that cast doubt at every turn. For example, 14 minutes in, a series of major inconsistencies in the evidence of Woman H – the centre of the most serious charge – are dismissed by Wark as attempts to “discredit” the witness (rather than, say, establish the truth).
A clip from Woman H’s evidence is inserted into the middle of the segment in which she makes excuses for having given four significantly different versions of the story to police because she was traumatised, and Wark innocently posits the notion that such understandable confusion could be the reason for an overly fussy jury disbelieving her story, rather than it simply not being true.
Similarly, later on we get Katrine Bussey, the political editor of PA Scotland, discussing the outcome of the original Scottish Government inquiry, which was found by a court to have been unlawful, flawed, and tainted by bias against Salmond and was thrown out with Salmond awarded £500,000 in costs.
Bussey, for some reason, says this finding vindicated Salmond only “in his eyes”, a qualifier that’s inexplicable and entirely inappropriate. The court ruled unequivocally in his favour and the Scottish Government withdrew and paid up rather than contest it. Bussey imposes a fog of doubt on that finding that has no merit and no basis in reality.
Strickland, meanwhile, audaciously tries to present Nicola Sturgeon – who at the time of broadcast still officially had absolutely nothing to do with any of it – as the person most wronged and hurt by the whole affair.
“It would be a cruel irony if the only casualty of this whole sorry tale was the First Minister, was a woman. But would anybody be surprised by that?”
Ah, it was the patriarchy all along! The patriarchy that fabricated a string of false accusations against an innocent man, the patriarchy that constructed a whole new set of government rules by which he could be accused, the patriarchy that put a female judge in charge of the trial who forbade the identification of the prosecution witnesses and denied the defence the use of much of its key evidence, the patriarchy that forced seven women to give evidence for the defence and the patriarchy that persuaded a mostly-female jury to acquit on all charges. Damn patriarchy.
Surprising as it may seem for such a crude piece of sledgehammer propaganda, there are a few moments of (relative) subtlety in the show too, like the sly implied linking of Salmond with Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein, the careful editing of the (very short) contributions from people supportive of Salmond – which mostly focus on negative comments about him, like Jim Sillars saying unspecified aspects of his conduct were “deplorable” – and the ludicrously comical pantomime-villain voice used for the words of Salmond’s chief counsel Gordon Jackson QC.
There’s also the way that, eight minutes in, Wark reads out, in her own voice, her own interpretation of events, intertwined with an actress reading out the accuser’s evidence from the courtroom.
WARK: He said to her, you know, “I’ll be a great lover”, he wanted her to stay over, and what she thought she could do was if she agreed that she would stay over she thought she could get out of the room, get into another room – she claims she went into the room – and he came after her.
The two accounts – the actual evidence given in court and Wark’s paraphrasing of what was claimed – are blurred together until the viewer isn’t sure what’s fact and what’s fantasy. The jury, as we’ll recall, concluded it was all fantasy, but it’s clear that Wark’s own opinion is rather different.
WARK: And perhaps because the complainer was behind a screen, you don’t have as it were the benefit of seeing the face. But actually what that means is you can concentrate on the words. And the words were so devastating.
What the words actually were were lies. The jury, as we know, simply disbelieved her account, and a female witness who was friends with Woman H and knew her well told the court that Woman H wasn’t even in Bute House that night – a point Wark skims over dismissively in three seconds and never refers to again.
Those three seconds are all we hear from the seven female defence witnesses who gave evidence in the trial. A number of allegations made by prosecution witnesses (such as the claim that civil service rules were altered to prevent Salmond being alone at night with women) are given prominent coverage, with contradictory evidence from defence witnesses treated contemptuously and given a fraction of the airtime.
By way of example, compare the length of one accusation (which we’ve highlighted here in red) with the length of the rebuttal (in green):
PHILIP SIM: Hello, this is the Alex Salmond trial, a special podcast from BBC Scotland. Woman G, she said Alex Salmond told her to come back to Bute House, she said he was pouring shots of Limoncello and he put his arm around her and tried to kiss her. She says she felt intimidated and trapped. Gordon Jackson for the defence put it that these incidents were thought of as nothing at the time, and to that Woman G said that it was serious enough at the time that they actually changed the rules so that women weren’t allowed to work with Alex Salmond on their own. WARK: Woman G’s astonishing claim that female staff should not be left alone with the former First Minister at night was backed up by a further three civil servants. Alex Salmond and another defence witness denied that such a rule had existed. No matter the verdict in this case, this is going to be a wake-up call for workplace relationships in general.
Is it? Why would it be the case if the claims were false? Again, the jury found Salmond innocent of any assault on Woman G, and several female witnesses testified that they in fact HAD been alone with Salmond on numerous occasions after the supposed incident, so the balance of probability seems to be that they WERE false. So why do they get such disproportionate weight?
(The First Minister herself has denied any knowledge of such a policy.)
The documentary takes the same approach to balance throughout – heavy on the (disproven) allegations and the accounts of the accusers, light on the defence case and the innocent verdict, heavy on smearing Salmond’s character despite that verdict and with only the briefest of passing acknowledgements that a conspiracy is widely suspected, particularly by SNP voters.
(The only time the possibility of illegal collusion is really mentioned, Wark immediately puts the counterpoint – something that she never does with the accusations against Salmond – saying “The other way of looking at that is post- the #MeToo trigger, women getting together to help each other come forward to tell their stories has got nothing wrong with it.” We’ll see what the inquiry thinks of that.)
But there’s one more thing. 46 minutes into the show, we’re told that Alex Salmond’s former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein “met Nicola Sturgeon and one of the [accusers] on the 29th of March 2018” to discuss the case.
This, as alert readers will be aware, is a piece of information which leads very easily to the identification of the said accuser, but which the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has refused to take any action against despite prosecuting Craig Murray for measurably lesser offences of alleged identification of witnesses.
The identity of the third person who was at the 29 March meeting between Aberdein and Sturgeon can be established easily and unmistakeably (as there were only three people present) using only the information broadcast in the show.
But ridiculously, despite repeated requests to COPFS to clarify whether we can simply quote any of the media which have published the info, we still can’t tell you who it is or even how to Google it, even though it’s absurdly easy and obvious, and Craig Murray faces up to two years in prison for doing less. It’s about as big a mystery as this:
But Kirsty Wark belongs to the Scottish media establishment, and we already know that the Scottish media establishment has complete immunity from the law that applies to everyone else, a position from which it feels free to piously shriek for the hanging of the lumpen proletariat.
And while tonight’s documentary (nicely set up by a quite-coincidentally-timed string of Salmond-bashing stories in the press in recent days, as well as selective reporting of the programme itself) was every bit of the laughably one-sided stitch-up job we were expecting, that’s perhaps still the most truly shocking thing about it.


wingsoverscotland--2020-08-18--Out comes the filth

Out comes the filth

Last night ’ s BBC Scotland documentary on the Alex Salmond trial was so shockingly biased that even the Herald , the Telegraph and Gerry Hassan couldn ’ t quite bring themselves to defend it .
Anita Singh ’ s two-star review in the Telegraph said : While another female reviewer not known for being terribly fond of Mr Salmond , Alison Rowat for the Herald , observed : But not everyone kept their grip on reality .
Most of the SNP ’ s Twitler Youth division were unusually quiet for the whole evening , but a couple stuck their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ astonishingly , wasn ’ t sarcasm and generated an absolutely crushing ratio : And the vice-convener of the toxic “ Out For Indy ” group , who are currently the subject of attempts to remove them from the SNP NEC , went with a fairly standard innuendo pretending that the accusers were “ survivors ” .
A line also taken up by Brenna Jessie of Rape Crisis Scotland , who would very much prefer that you didn ’ t know who her girlfriend was , and who made a clear implication that Salmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations .
But McFarlane and Jessie were amateurs compared to the true scum .
Rummery , the Professor of Sociology , Social Policy & Criminology at – shock !
– Stirling University , who ’ d been interviewed at length in the documentary , just flat-out defamed Salmond as guilty in an extraordinary late-night rant , despite the seemingly pertinent fact that he ’ d in fact been acquitted of any sort of wrongdoing .
She hid behind a figleaf of saying he was technically “ not guilty of a crime ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the women were lying .
But if what they ’ d said had been found to be true then Salmond would have been guilty and convicted , so there ’ s no possible way to interpret that other than “ He did it but he got away with it ” .
She was backed – of course – by freelance lunatic David Leask .
But in the specific context of the Salmond case , the above is arrant and dishonest drivel .
It is quite plainly the case that a not guilty verdict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it also does not exclude the possibility .
Let ’ s lighten the mood by imagining a mildly comic scenario involving two men .
Man A is standing minding his own business at a bus stop when suddenly Man B , a stranger , slaps him hard in the side of the head for no apparent reason .
Man A , who is identifiably Jewish and has been the subject of anti-Semitic violence previously , quite reasonably imagines this to be another racially-motivated attack .
But in fact Man B has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fly into Man A ’ s ear and was attempting to swat it away ( being stung in the ear canal is extremely painful , this site can attest ) , but the hornet dodged the blow at the last second and flew off before anyone else could see it .
Let ’ s imagine this situation somehow ended in court .
Man A and Man B would both agree on the material events – it was not disputed that both were present and that Man B struck Man A .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motivation for the strike .
The jury , with no empirical evidence either way before it , would have to decide whose interpretation was correct , but whoever they believed neither of the men would have been lying – both were truthfully reporting an agreed event as they experienced it .
But this is NOT what happened in the Alex Salmond case .
In the most serious charge , Woman H alleged that she ’ d been sexually assaulted by Salmond in Bute House .
Salmond ’ s case – supported by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that not only had he NOT assaulted her , but that she hadn ’ t even been in the building that night .
Those events are completely irreconcilable .
Woman H can not have been both in Bute House and not in it at the same time .
There ’ s no possible way that the two people can have simply had different interpretations of the same event .
It absolutely MUST be the case , therefore , that one of them is lying .
If Woman H was there , Salmond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , Woman H was lying .
There is no way they can both have been telling the truth .
And the jury decided which one it was .
So Leask , Rummery and the others are deliberately and categorically misrepresenting reality .
SOMETIMES – not always , but sometimes – a not guilty verdict DEFINITELY means that someone is lying .
It can not be otherwise .
And it WAS the case here , because only one of the 14 charges involved ( slightly ) disputed interpretations of an agreed event .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ defence case was that the alleged event simply didn ’ t happen at all , and in every case the jury agreed .
So it can not be other than that the accusers were lying .
Kirstein Rummery , if she has more intellect than a dog ’ s anus , will be praying today that Alex Salmond has seen enough of the inside of courtrooms for a while , or has been left in such a financially parlous state by proving his innocence that he can ’ t afford a defamation case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site knows only too well is somewhat disinclined to punish defamation against independence supporters even when everyone agrees that that defamation took place .
But even if those things are indeed the case , it doesn ’ t alter the fact that Rummery is a disgusting human being smearing an innocent man , and a disgrace to her position and her employer .
( David Leask we already knew that about . )
We can only hope that she , like the rest of the liars in the Salmond case and all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces the lawful consequences of their actions one day and that justice is finally done .

Last night’s BBC Scotland documentary on the Alex Salmond trial was so shockingly biased that even the Herald, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Gerry Hassan couldn’t quite bring themselves to defend it. Anita Singh’s two-star review in the Telegraph said:
While another female reviewer not known for being terribly fond of Mr Salmond, Alison Rowat for the Herald, observed:
But not everyone kept their grip on reality.
Most of the SNP’s obnoxious Twitler Youth division were unusually quiet for the whole evening, but a couple stuck their head above the parapet. This, astonishingly, wasn’t sarcasm and generated an absolutely crushing ratio:
And the vice-convener of the toxic “Out For Indy” group, who are currently the subject of attempts to remove them from the SNP NEC, went with a fairly standard innuendo pretending that the accusers were “survivors”:
…a line also taken by Brenna Jessie of Rape Crisis Scotland, who would very much prefer that you didn’t know who her girlfriend was, and who made a clear implication that Salmond WAS guilty because NOBODY ever makes false allegations.
(The reality is that false claims make up a very small percentage, but even that 2-4% amounts to thousands and thousands of false claims worldwide every year.)
But McFarlane and Jessie were amateurs compared to the true scum.
Rummery, the Professor of Sociology, Social Policy & Criminology at – shock! – Stirling University, who’d been interviewed at length in the documentary, just flat-out defamed Salmond as guilty in an extraordinary late-night rant, despite the seemingly pertinent fact that he’d in fact been acquitted of any sort of wrongdoing.
She hid it behind a tiny figleaf of saying he was technically “not guilty of a crime” but simultaneously and repeatedly insisted that none of the women were lying. But if what they’d said had been found to be true then Salmond would have been guilty and convicted, so there’s no possible way to interpret that other than “He did it but he got away with it”.
(Just to be sure, she’d also asserted that the women had all endured “being groped”, something that the jury found not to have happened.)
(FUN TRIVIA FACT: Rummery contested Stirling for the transactivist Women’s Equality Party at the 2017 general election. She gathered 337 votes – more than twice the 148 majority that homophobic Tory MP Stephen Kerr won the seat from the SNP’s Steven Paterson by. Had Paterson won he wouldn’t have failed vetting in 2019 and would still be the MP now, rather than Alyn Smith parachuting in to take it uncontested.)
She was backed – of course – by freelance lunatic David Leask.
But in the specific context of the Salmond case, the above is arrant and dishonest drivel (or, y’know, “standard Leask”). It’s quite correct that a not guilty verdict does not NECESSARILY mean anyone is lying. But it also does not exclude the possibility. The facts of the matter can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Let’s lighten the mood by imagining a mildly comic scenario involving two men. Man A is standing minding his own business at a bus stop when suddenly Man B, a stranger, slaps him hard in the side of the head for no apparent reason.
Man A, who is identifiably Jewish and has been the subject of anti-Semitic violence previously, quite reasonably imagines this to be another racially-motivated attack. But in fact Man B has just seen an Asian Murder Hornet about to fly into Man A’s ear and was attempting to swat it away to save him from a nasty attack (being stung in the ear canal is extremely painful, this site can attest), but the hornet dodged the blow at the last second and flew off before anyone else could see it.
Let’s imagine this situation somehow ended in court. Man A and Man B would both agree on the material events – it was not disputed that both were present and that Man B struck Man A. What they would disagree on would be the motivation for the strike.
The jury, with no empirical evidence either way before it, would have to decide whose interpretation was correct, but whoever they believed neither of the men would have been lying – both were truthfully reporting an agreed event as they experienced it.
But this is NOT what happened in the Alex Salmond case. In the most serious charge, Woman H alleged that she’d been sexually assaulted by Salmond in Bute House. Salmond’s case – supported by a witness who knew Woman H well – was that not only had he NOT assaulted her, but that she hadn’t even been in the building that night.
Those events are completely irreconcilable. Woman H cannot have been both in Bute House and not in it at the same time. There’s no possible way that the two people can have simply had different interpretations of the same event.
It absolutely MUST be the case, therefore, that one of them is lying. If Woman H was there, Salmond was lying. If she wasn’t, Woman H was lying. There is no way they can both have been telling the truth. And the jury – who unlike most media commentators heard ALL the evidence – decided which one of them it was.
So Leask, Rummery and the others are deliberately and categorically misrepresenting reality. SOMETIMES – not always, but sometimes – a not guilty verdict DEFINITELY means that someone is lying. It cannot be otherwise.
And it WAS the case here, because only one of the 14 charges involved (slightly) disputed interpretations of an agreed event. In all of the others, the defence case was that the alleged event simply didn’t happen at all, and in every case the jury agreed. So it cannot be other than that the accusers were lying.
Kirstein Rummery, if she has more intellect than a dog’s anus, will be praying today that Alex Salmond has seen enough of the inside of courtrooms for a while, or has been left in such a financially parlous state by proving his innocence that he’s not able to afford a defamation case in a Scottish court system that this site knows only too well is somewhat disinclined to punish defamation against independence campaigners even when everyone agrees that that defamation took place.
But even if those things are indeed the case, it doesn’t alter the fact that Rummery is a disgusting human being smearing an innocent man, and a disgrace to her position and her employer. (David Leask we already knew that about.)
We can only hope that she, like the rest of the liars in the Salmond case and all of the others who drove the conspiracy, faces the lawful consequences of their actions one day and that justice is finally done.


A faint echo

So that you don ’ t have to , we endured tonight ’ s Dani Garavelli programme on Radio 4 as well as last night ’ s Kirsty Wark one , and to be honest there ’ s very little to report .
It ’ s a statement of the blindingly obvious – the SNP is currently split between young Nicola Sturgeon loyalists for whom independence is only one aspect of creating a pure and woke new Scotland , and older Alex Salmond-supporting traditionalists for whom independence itself is the only true goal and whatever happens afterwards is in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Garavelli and her media pals taking the chance to air some of their own unconnected grievances like pouting toddlers .
So we get Garavelli bleating at length about how lots of nasty people on the internet have called her out for her indisputable , provable contempt-of-court identification of one of the accusers of Alex Salmond , and yet another demented rant from poor old David “ reds under the bed ” Leask about the evils of this site , and so on and so forth .
You can listen to it by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we wouldn ’ t bother .

So that you don’t have to, we endured tonight’s Dani Garavelli programme on Radio 4 as well as last night’s Kirsty Wark one, and to be honest there’s very little to report.
It’s a statement of the blindingly obvious – the SNP is currently split between young Nicola Sturgeon loyalists for whom independence is only one aspect of creating a pure and woke new Scotland, and older Alex Salmond-supporting traditionalists for whom independence itself is the only true goal and whatever happens afterwards is in the hands of democracy and fate – interspersed with Garavelli and her media pals taking the chance to air some of their own unconnected grievances like pouting toddlers.
So we get Garavelli bleating at length about how lots of nasty people on the internet have called her out for her indisputable, provable contempt-of-court identification of one of the accusers of Alex Salmond, and yet another demented rant from poor old David “reds under the bed” Leask about the evils of this site, and so on and so forth.
You can listen to it by clicking the pic above, but frankly we wouldn’t bother.


The unseeing eyes

In a development which has caught us somewhat by surprise , we ’ ve just had a reply from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS ) which was both timely ( in more than one sense of the word ) and actually contained a straight answer .
Join us in our astonishment below .
If you ’ re in a hurry we ’ ve highlighted the key part .
Click pic to enlarge .
This is a quite extraordinary revelation .
What it reveals is that while COPFS instructed Police Scotland to go round to several random @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them that they might face criminal prosecution for possibly tweeting something questionable in respect of the anonymity order on the Salmond accusers to a few hundred Twitter followers , they didn ’ t even issue a gentle informal note of caution to a whole bunch of newspapers – with tens of thousands of readers each – who had published information which enables the immediate and easy identification of one of the protected women .
This makes a complete and unequivocal lie of COPFS ’ previous assertions that they ’ d carefully considered each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deciding not to pursue action against the Garavelli Nine .
It tells us that they simply dismissed the cases against the newspapers out of hand , not even speaking to any of the journalists in question , despite absolute prima facie evidence that they all gave away the identity of one of the key figures in the trial .
It ’ s an absolutely shocking admission , and if we ever manage to find out who COPFS is answerable to , we ’ ll be taking it up with them with all possible @ @

In a development which has caught us somewhat by surprise, we’ve just had a reply from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) which was both timely (in more than one sense of the word) and actually contained a straight answer.
Join us in our astonishment below.
If you’re in a hurry we’ve highlighted the key part. Click pic to enlarge.
[EDIT 21 August: some readers queried if COPFS might be deceitfully using the words “letters” and “individuals” to conceal other forms of communication, or having spoken to the newspapers rather than the article authors. We checked and got the reply “I can clarify that COPFS has no record of any communication with the individuals or publications.”]
This is a quite extraordinary revelation. What it reveals is that while COPFS instructed Police Scotland to go round to several random Twitter user’s houses to threaten them that they might face criminal prosecution for possibly tweeting something questionable in respect of the anonymity order on the Salmond accusers to a few hundred Twitter followers, they didn’t even issue a gentle informal note of caution to a whole bunch of newspapers – with tens of thousands of readers each – who had published information which enables the immediate and easy identification of one of the protected women.
(Instead, apparently the occasional tweet saying “Hey, don’t commit contempt of court, anyone!” was supposed to adequately serve that purpose. The COPFS Twitter account has fewer than 9,000 followers.)
This makes a complete and unequivocal lie of COPFS’ previous assertions that they’d carefully considered each possible contempt case on its merits before deciding not to pursue action against the Garavelli Nine. It tells us that they simply dismissed the cases against the newspapers out of hand, not even speaking to any of the journalists in question, despite absolute prima facie evidence that they all gave away the identity of one of the key figures in the trial.
(As did Kirsty Wark on BBC1 on Monday night, so we supposed we should call them the Garavelli Ten now.)
It’s an absolutely shocking admission, and if we ever manage to find out who COPFS is answerable to, we’ll be taking it up with them with all possible urgency.


The Vanished

An alert viewer noticed this evening that after being broadcast twice in two days , “ The Trial Of Alex Salmond ” has tonight disappeared from BBC iPlayer .
We have no information as to why , although we do know it committed contempt of court by providing so-called “ jigsaw identification ” of one of the complainers in the case .
If that ’ s the reason for the show being pulled , it ’ s going to be VERY interesting in terms of our ongoing enquiries with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about why a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salmond haven ’ t been acted against for publishing exactly the same information , while pro-Salmond blogger Craig Murray faces a trial and a potential two years in prison for doing less .
We ’ ll keep you posted with anything we find out .
On the mobile iPlayer , incidentally , it doesn ’ t show up at all .
It was definitely available to watch before , as this Google cache shows : And in fact , EVERY SINGLE programme featuring Salmond is now gone .
Another alert reader has notified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet about the show from her Twitter feed , although we did find one from last week remaining .

An alert viewer noticed this evening that after being broadcast twice in two days, “The Trial Of Alex Salmond” has tonight disappeared from BBC iPlayer.
We have no information as to why, although we do know it committed contempt of court by providing so-called “jigsaw identification” of one of the complainers in the case. If that’s the reason for the show being pulled, it’s going to be VERY interesting in terms of our ongoing enquiries with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about why a number of Scottish newspapers and websites critical of Salmond haven’t been acted against for publishing exactly the same information, while pro-Salmond blogger Craig Murray faces a trial and a potential two years in prison for doing less.
We’ll keep you posted with anything we find out.
On the mobile iPlayer, incidentally, it doesn’t show up at all.
It was definitely available to watch before, as this Google cache shows:
And in fact, EVERY SINGLE programme featuring Salmond is now gone.
Another alert reader has notified us that Kirsty Wark has deleted every tweet about the show from her Twitter feed, although we did find one from last week remaining.
The plot thickens.