A person of ill-will, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon puts up a video begging people to 'come back' to the SNP as she admits people are leaving in 'droves', at the same time, former UK Ambassador Craig Murray faces two years in jail as he reveals under oath that there was a conspiracy against Alex Salmond, he names senior SNP members as being involved, is SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon seriously going to sit there and let an innocent man be convicted and sent to prison for exposing the alleged wrongdoing of others, is Sturgeon completely without morals?

Dear All

Over the last weeks, numerous evidence has been placed into the public domain regarding the Alex Salmond affair, each day, the new revelations are like part of a massive jigsaw of what many people call corruption. The more you read, the less likely you are inclined to believe the protestations of Nicola Sturgeon and her claims of innocence, I am not saying she is guilty, I am saying I don't believe her. Nicola Sturgeon has repeated the used the narrative, 'I am supposed to be plotting against Alex Salmond, and plotting with Alex Salmond'. The idea behind using this narrative is to place in your mind how absurd that proposition is, its weighted to make you believe in her case. But you may have considered another proposition over the Salmond/ Sturgeon meetings, have you considered that the meetings may allegedly have been used by Sturgeon to gleam information which was then passed onto the alleged conspirators to be used against Salmond?

As people know, I campaigned for Nicola Sturgeon in the 2011 Holyrood election, I had of course met her many many times prior to that election. After she won, I was invited to the victory party celebration at the campaign rooms because I am put in a decent number of campaign days for her victory. This is me, with Sturgeon in the picture above getting my photo taken at the event by Austin Sheridan. One thing I try not to do is dislike a person on sight, but every time I was around Nicola Sturgeon, I could never shake the feeling that there was something wrong about her. In order to campaign for her, I fought against my sixth sense, I couldn't point to a single instance which triggered this, but it was like an alarm bell going off in my head. What that alarm bell told me, was she was a bad person, and a bad person who was also dangerous. It was like looking at someone who could suddenly switch and release so much pent up hate, to me it looked like it was sitting there just waiting to explode. Her false friendless, her media training, her make over couldn't always cover up the real Nicola Sturgeon. People post tweets, media etc on her sometimes with the comment, 'the mask slips'. Sturgeon is a woman drowning in evil and hate, and keen to harm others in my opinion because she is intolerant. What also flagged up for me early on was the group of people she had around her who were nasty and vicious, what type of person hangs around people like that unless they too were damaged? The term some use publicly that I have seen is that she is allegedly narcissist psychopath. When you look at the traits of a narcissist psychopath, they include:

Grandiose sense of self-importance.

Lives in a fantasy world that supports their delusions of grandeur.

Needs constant praise and admiration.

Sense of entitlement.

Exploits others without guilt or shame.

Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others.

If I was on a jury judging Nicola Sturgeon's handling of the Alex Salmond scandal, not only would I find her guilty, but I would get the rest of jury to find her guilty as well. When you sit and read the continuous flow of evidence, you would possibly come to a strong conclusion that there was a conspiracy against Alex Salmond to destroy him. You also would also possibly think that there was a further conspiracy to put him in prison when Plan A at Scottish Government level blew up in their faces. In previous blogs, I said that Alex Salmond shoulders part of the blame for what happened within the SNP, and in allowing a festering cancer to grow up around him, he seeded his own destruction. How many articles did I write on the 4 groups which control the Nationalist party? I have literally lost count. Four groups that make up the SNP are, lgbt, muslim, sein fein lite and the rich. It now transpires that Alex Salmond has now come round to the George Laird view that I was right. He failed to recognised what people like Sturgeon, Murrell, Lloyd and McCann were all about, he was the leader, and as leader he failed his duty of care to the party and to its members. Alex Salmond never stamped out lying, bullying, deceit, hatred, evil and the abandonment of public standards. Despite all of his failures, and you could write a book on that, he didn't deserve to be treated illegally. Alex Salmond had rights, and those rights should have been respected, not because he is Alex Salmond but because his rights were enshrined by law. His entitlement to fairness is absolute. It is a pillar of how our society operates, and must operate if it is to be free and democratic, how you treat others is a measure of integrity when you are in power. Our Government, our Courts and our Crown Prosecution Service must be beyond reproach, standards upheld yes, but the purity of the institutions is essential and paramount. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done!       

Craig Murray, a supporter of Alex Salmond was on trial yesterday, he was charged with contempt of Court. I wished him good luck on twitter, because he shouldn't be on trial. If found guilty, the injustice of that would be a national disgrace, the Crown Office should desert the case. The Government of Scotland is compromised, that is a fact, the Crown Office is compromised, a documented fact. Do we now see our Courts' integrity shattered by another attempted jailing of an innocent man? If you can't recognise that Craig Murray is innocent, you must have had a very lax upbringing. Ages ago, I found this clip of Roland Freisler and Nazi Sham Trials, Freisler was a star judge of the Nazi era. He never made it to the Nuremberg trials, I believe he would have made the 'main event' alongside Herman Goering. Freisler missed getting hanged when he was killed during an allied bombing raid in February 1945. A masonry column crushed him to death while he was still in the courtroom. A foreign correspondent reported, "Apparently nobody regretted his death." The point I want to make is about the suppression of truth, and the State being used to witch hunt enemies of the ruling class. Our Government, our Courts and our Crown Office cannot be used like this, because they're ours, held in trust not by the Government but by every citizen of Scotland.

I would like to highlight some of the lengthy submission by Craig Murray for his trial that he submitted as evidence, and pick out parts that caught my eye. The full version, he has placed on his website, and you should read all of it. Once you do, you will never look at Nicola Sturgeon the same way ever again, it's like the Kevin Spacey scandal, once you heard the accusations, you know there is no way back from them. Nicola Sturgeon's position as First Minister and SNP Leader is untenable. I can't do all of his submission on this post due to limits on the word count, but I want to give you a sample of how he alleges conspiracy against Alex Salmond. 

Popcorn ready, feet up?

Point 12,  Craig Murray alleges that Alex Salmond told him that "Nicola Sturgeon had been behind the process designed to generate false accusations against him. He said as well as Mackinnon and Evans, Liz Lloyd was responsible for the actual orchestration." Craig Murray will make several references in his submission regarding Liz Lloyd, Sturgeon's Chief of Staff. In fact he also alleges in point 9, over the leaking of a anti Salmond sex story:

"To my surprise, I discovered with a high degree of certainty that the leaker was Liz Lloyd". Lloyd, he alleges had a personal history with the journalist concerned, which is provable by photographic evidence. And we are not talking bumped into each other in the street , we are talking about a trip aboard.

The next three points by Craig Murray come in order and you can see why:

"24. In June 2019 (I do know the precise date, time and venue but to give it might aid identification of my source with deleterious consequences for them) I met with a person well known in the Independence movement who informed me that they had been present at a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon and key members of her inner circle, including ministers, which had gamed the possible outcome of the Salmond affair. My source was trusted as a Sturgeon loyalist.

25. The view of the meeting was that if Alex Salmond could be convicted on just a single count, he would be destroyed politically forever, which was explicitly the objective. He would be on the register of sex offenders and branded a rapist in the public mind, even if the actual offence convicted was knee touching. I was also told that the Law Officers were confident of a conviction for something, which is why the multiplicity of charges. They apparently advised that, faced with a whole raft of charges, juries tended to compromise in the jury room to reach agreement and convict on a lower charge.

26. What struck me, both at the time and still, was that it was impossible to understand the account as given without it involving of necessity corrupt collusion between Nicola Sturgeon’s ministers and aides and the Crown Office over the handling of the Salmond case and the charges being brought."

So, if that person exists, they can recount the event, but more importantly, they can recall all the names of the people in the room. If that person was to testify in open court how would Nicola Sturgeon's claim of no 'conspiracy' stack up? And although out of numbered sequence, it is worth looking at point 15, and the comment that " all the accusations emanated from the same small coterie, there was not a single accusation from an outside or independent source". It reminds me of the SNP modus operandi of setting up phoney wee groups in order to claim wide spread support, when the actual support came from a smaller group. Given the SNP operate in this mode, did the same idea happen here? If you have police interviewing 400 people, on a fishing expedition, and 'catch' is only people close to Sturgeon, it rather makes you wonder, does it not?  

"15. He said those interviewed by the police had included all the personal protection officers he had as First Minister. They had all said they had seen him do nothing wrong, and they were watching him very closely, as was their job. At least one of these policemen, now retired, had been given a rundown of the evidence by the policeman sent to interview him. The retired officer challenged the interviewer as to how he could be involved in such a corrupt stitch up. He stated that the fact it was a stitch-up was evidenced by the fact all the accusations emanated from the same small coterie, there was not a single accusation from an outside or independent source."

"17. It had been impossible to follow the judicial review case without concluding that a very unfair process had been undertaken against Alex Salmond, and that it was impossible this could have happened without the knowledge and approval of Nicola Sturgeon. That was a shocking realisation to an Independence supporter like myself. But what Alex Salmond was now telling me went further, which was that Nicola Sturgeon was involved in the orchestration of fake complaints against him. This was fairly astonishing on first hearing."

I am going to skip down to point "39. In November 2019, I was told by a senior contact within the SNP whom I have known for many years (not the same source from June) that a deal had been struck between Peter Murrell, redacted and redacted whereby redacted would make an allegation of attempted rape against Alex Salmond, and Murrell would redacted return to front line politics redacted. The cold-bloodedness of this infuriated me. By around this time I had learnt the identities of, I believe, all of the complainers, not from a single source but by asking around my contacts. It was not difficult." It's interesting to read this, and then look at the appearance of Peter Murrell who gave evidence at the Alex Salmond Inquiry, It was pure Sergeant Schultz, "I see nothing! I hear nothing!" Looking at both accounts, by Murray and Murrell, and given the claim of yet another third party is said to exist in Murray's sworn testimony, where would you place your bet on who is telling the truth? If these alleged witnesses were to swear an oath in Court, how would Sturgeon's husband fare in the minds of the public?

"40. I realised that something extraordinary and morally disgusting was happening. If the public knew the identities of those being put up to make allegations, and just how close to Nicola Sturgeon they were, they would immediately understand what was happening. But the convention protecting the identities of those making allegations of sexual assault, made such allegations the perfect vehicle for a positive campaign to frame on false charges, while the perpetrators of this conspiracy to pervert the course of justice had the protection of the courts against exposure."

This point 40 is something, I have wondered about constantly, if the public knew about how close to Nicola Sturgeon and the accusers were, the MSM press have been exceptional vague to the point on non comment. You could argue they did so to not fall foul of the Court. But I would contend their omission was to give an impression of random women across a vast Scottish Government and Party network being abuse. Given that 'Operation Trawl' failed, that narrative couldn't come into play, so the MSM choose to keep silent. In the light of the Salmond verdict, their role must be questioned, and of course the Kirsty Wark documentary was just an out and out hatchet job. It was like watching vultures biding their time to get their 'feed' of the Salmond corpse, there was Kirsty sitting around the table with others like they were waiting for a meal to be delivered. But Alex Salmond wasn't found guilty, like a Phoenix, he rose from the ashes.

Finally, I hope I have given you a fair taste of Craig Murray's article, should he be set free, without a doubt, he should also get full costs and an apology, without hesitation. On the day, Craig Murray is on trial for his freedom, Nicola Sturgeon in an apparent empty office, which I presume is in Govanhill, she made a video about injustice. I watched it, and I invite you to watch it too, in a way it is a remarkably sad video, not because of the content, but because she knows now that her false persona has been destroyed forever. Nicola Sturgeon knows Craig Murray's testimony is the end of her career. Sturgeon in the video talks about people leaving the party in 'droves', and says "come back", it's embarrassing because she calls them 'friends', but I doubt she knows the meaning of the word. She talks about her message is "unplanned, unscripted and I haven't consulted with armies of advisors". How do you weigh that up against point 24, is Sturgeon trying to construct a narrative, 'it's just little old me by myself'? Especially woeful when someone has delivered sworn testimony of not just alleging conspiracy, but of her and her senior staff at the heart of it. Craig Murray gave his testimony under the 'Sword of Damocles', his liberty is at stake, he could be put in prison for two years. Speaking further on justice denied, at the Alex Salmond inquiry, the SNP have attempted to block the work of the committee on a staggering 55 separate occasions according to Wings over Scotland. When it comes to crime, the police look for 'means, motive and opportunity', are you up for playing 'detective' in the Alex Salmond scandal?

Yours sincerely

George Laird                                                                                                                        The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University