“The Deep-Fried Banana Republic”!

Forget Sturgeon’s claim of being “cleared  by the Police” and “not a scrap of evidence against her”.

 The only statement by Police Scotland – as “directed” by the Crown Office –  is below.  I believe that she (and Colin Beattie) will appear at the High Court as Prosecution witnesses.  In my opinion, Murrell is taking the rap for her.  What deal could have been struck?

Hereinafter follows a comment by the Rev Stuart Campbell published on “Wings Over Scotland” on 20 Mar 2025.

But really, what even is there to say?

Two years after she was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning, where we’re reliably informed she simply turned her chair to face the wall and didn’t say a single word for seven hours, the former First Minister will stroll away smirking to a chat-show-and-book-fair retirement as her partner faces charges of embezzling from the party they led like a husband-and-wife Mafia for almost a decade.

Even though there’s public video of Sturgeon angrily warning – some might go so far as to say “threatening” – the SNP NEC not to ask questions about the party’s finances and giving it her personal assurance everything is fine, as Murrell allegedly siphoned off hundreds of thousands of pounds and a “ring-fenced” referendum fund definitely vanished into thin air on her watch, never to be seen again, the Scottish public is expected to swallow that Sturgeon – a self-confessed micromanager who didn’t trust anyone else to do their job – simply knew nothing about any of it and never asked, even when the treasurer and half the finance committee resigned because they hadn’t been allowed sight of the books.

(Something one would have thought it was within her power to remedy instantly.)

Peter Murrell may be guilty or he may not, but this decision is in itself a sorry, crooked state of affairs and no mistake, folks. Sturgeon has been denied the chance to prove her innocence and a cloud will hang over her for the rest of her life, but she lacks the self-awareness or humility to care about that, while the public have been treated like gullible imbeciles, expected to believe the unbelievable without even getting to hear the defence’s story. (Something we at least seem to have in common with the police.)

If we didn’t already know what a farce justice was in Scotland, we might be at least a little bit shocked. As it is, we’re going back out to play with a cat, because when your country is a barefaced laughing stock that North Korea would be embarrassed about, what’s even the point?

Alex Salmond Death: ‘Apparatus of the state’ turned against Alex Salmond, says legal team

I am pleased to reproduce an interview published in Holyrood Magazine on 14 Oct 2024 given by lawyer David McKie. Of all the tributes made to Alex Salmond, this short tribute is the most accurate and heart-felt in my opinion.

‘Apparatus of the state’ turned against Alex Salmond, says legal team

Alex Salmond and lawyer David McKie in January 2019, outside the Court of Session after the Scottish Government was ruled to have acted unlawfully | Alamy

‘Apparatus of the state’ turned against Alex Salmond, says legal team

The legal team that represented Alex Salmond during his criminal trial has said the “apparatus of the state” turned against him. 

David McKie, a senior partner at Levy & McRae, said in his tribute to the late former first minister that the treatment “he endured” would have “broken many people, but not Alex”.

Salmond was acquitted of all charges following a sexual assault trial in 2020. He had previously won a civil case against the Scottish Government after it carried out a botched investigation into allegations against him.

McKie commended Salmond as “the real driving force” behind navigating the three-year period during the judicial review, the trial, and the subsequent parliamentary inquiry, adding that he “very quickly grasped the legal issues” and “fought hard to ensure justice was done”.

He said: “While we helped to navigate Alex through three legal processes (judicial review, a trial and the subsequent parliamentary inquiry), the real driving force in all of those processes was Alex himself. He very quickly grasped the legal issues involved and fought hard to ensure that justice was done.

“Alex’s courage and strength of character over the three-year period, from the Scottish Government launching an unlawful process against him, throughout his criminal trial in which he was cleared on all charges by a jury of his peers, to his unimpeachable evidence in the parliamentary inquiry, was absolutely incredible.

“What he endured – the apparatus of the state turning against him – would have broken many people, but not Alex.”

Last year, Salmond went to the Court of Session seeking “significant damages” and compensation for loss of earnings from Scottish ministers.

Veteran Tory MP David Davis, who was a good friend of Salmond, has also previously used parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons to raise concerns about the process surrounding the investigation into the former first minister.  

McKie added that Salmond “showed no bitterness” towards his accusers or to the “many others who jumped on the bandwagon to condemn him.”  

McKie said: “He remained utterly determined to see justice done but showed no bitterness or anger towards his accusers or to the many others who jumped on the bandwagon to condemn him, even before any evidence had been produced or presented.

“Instead, he simply focussed on the evidence and understood, unlike many commentators at the time, the importance of the due process of law. While some individuals, for whatever reasons, remained critical and sceptical (even after his legal victories, all of which were grounded on the evidence), his friends and his true supporters, as well as those who respect the rule and process of law, recognised and respected his complete vindication.”

Update for Dunfermline Constituents

On Saturday, 7th April 2012, following a Hearing with the Disciplinary Committee, I was expelled from the Scottish National Party (SNP).

The Committee upheld the Complaint from the Party’s National Secretary that I had withheld from the Party information about unproven allegations concerning my former marriages when applying to become an approved Parliamentary Candidate for the 2011 Scottish Elections.  I deny that such was the case and still maintain that I completed the relevant application form in a full and proper manner. 

At no time during the vetting, selection and confirmation processes was I ever asked about my declared previous divorce proceedings and related matters. Read more of this post