For a number of very good reasons, Craig Murray’s blog has long been essential reading for anyone with an interest in Scotland’s affairs. His passion for independence is matched by his abhorrence of injustice. I suspect these things are not unrelated.
Craig’s coverage and commentary on the Alex Salmond trial has been exemplary. He has done a remarkable job of keeping us informed while (mostly) avoiding falling foul of the restrictions on reporting. He has powerfully conveyed a sense of the turbid intrigue surrounding Salmond’s prosecution without finding himself banged-up for contempt. I applaud him. I may even buy him a pint when circumstances permit.
I write this having just finished my third reading of his recent demolition of Dani Garavelli’s appallingly biased and dishonest account of the same trial that Craig has so admirably kept us abreast of. His methodical dissection of what is nothing short of a vicious propaganda assault on Alex Salmond is reminiscent of Stu Campbell (Wings Over Scotland) at his forensic best. The outrage is palpable. And entirely justified. There is little point in me trying to add anything to what Craig has written about Garavelli’s travesty of reporting and shameless character assassination masquerading as journalism. It takes a lot to outdo the Britsh mainstream media in terms of baseness, sordidness and sheer despicability, but Ms Garavelli has managed it. She should be ashamed!
But she won’t be ashamed. Because she has embraced an ideology which holds that no conduct, however immoral or unethical in any other context, is impermissible when defending or promoting a grotesque perversion of the feminist ideal. Justice in particular ceases to be a concern. Nothing illustrates this better than Garavelli’s article. What most of us would surely hold to be basic justice is turned inside out and upside down as the evidently innocent are counted guilty while the apparently guilty are given a free pass.
I’ll be honest and admit that I find it all but impossible to give an account of this ideology. I quite literally cannot get my head around anything that is so completely partial. So utterly antithetic to the fundamental principles which make society possible. It is alien. By which I mean that it is not contained in or derived from the essential nature of human society. We simply could not live by a ‘code’ which holds justice to be the servant of prejudice. By the same token, it should be that such a pernicious ideology could not take root in society. But there is good reason to suppose that it is exerting a baneful influence at the highest levels of the Scottish Government.
There has been an unmistakably concerted effort to take Alex Salmond out of the political equation. A project which goes far beyond the bounds of even the most Machiavellian of political machinations. At any other time, this would be the kind of thing that ends political careers and brings down governments. But, like so much else, the whole thing is being buried under the major public health crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. We are entitled to question whether this is acceptable.
We are told that it will be time enough to deal with this malignancy at the heart of the SNP administration once things get back to normal. But what kind of normal will there be to get back to if we do not deal with such issues? What long-term damage might be done if we turn a blind eye to possible corruption and misdeeds in our government. Just how much are we prepared to let slide as we focus on the health threat? What are we prepared to sacrifice in the name of tackling this threat? How necessary is it that we disregard political and social threats in the meantime?
Can we – should we – abrogate our responsibility to the future on account of a present, but passing, emergency?
We are told that we will emerge from the pandemic into a world that is significantly, if not massively changed. It is an undeniable fact of life that if the forces of democracy don’t manage the change then other forces will. And we may not like the society that they create.
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.
Peter A Bell 
Contrary to Mr Murray’s advice I read his article first. Then I tried reading the piece under scrutiny, but I have to admit I had to stop reading because I thought I was going to be sick. The establishment must be laughing and rejoicing at this complicity of nominally feminist ideology and trial by media. It is utterly sickening. If these witches have a problem with the verdict then they should lodge an appeal on the basis of new evidence. Full stop. The rest is bullshit. And the hypocrisy of being told to curtail independence campaigning while this blatant political campaign is progressing ….
I do not see Scotland becoming independent during my lifetime. In my darkest moments I stop believing that we are capable of becoming independent.
LikeLiked by 3 people
[Re: “In my darkest moments I stop believing that we are capable of becoming independent.”]
This is not a dark moment. The Salmond trial has provided a lot of illumination.
Yes, we can see obstacles we did not see before, but now we can see what they are, we can deal with them
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hope you are right. But with the infighting and refusal of the SNP hierarchy to brook any criticism, not to mention the filth that calls itself journalism at the Sun, I become despondent.
LikeLike
In general the purpose of all that these “journalistic” pieces reviewing the trial, and speculating on the potential consequences in its aftermath, is to allow the ‘authors’ to repeat the unfounded (by a trial jury) allegations against Alex Salmond. In effect to repeat the accusations and re-tar the reputation of the proven innocent and therefore acquitted defendant, namely Alex Salmond. It is an attempt to keep ‘trying’ the defendant this time in the court of public opinion ad infinitum.
Going down this road you end up with a mob carrying pikes and pitchforks deciding what is justice and then proceeding to carry it out using their implements. This is the route that Ms Garavelli and her ilk wish to travel.
When I first saw this offering, which borders on the defamatory I thought that there really is just too much innuendo, inconsistency, circumstantial, decontextualised and opinionated claptrap to waste time debunking. Fortunately Craig Murray has shown more stamina and expertise than me in his excellent forensic take down of Ms Garavelli’s dishonest article. Anyway, this has all been debated in the trial by the legal experts. And the jury believed what He said, not anything that She (A), She (B), She (C), She (D), She (F), She (G), She (H), She (J) and She (K) said.
Suffice to say that Ms Garavelli is one of The Scotsman’s commentators … and it shows.
Nevertheless these articles have already served their purpose. They have tarnished Salmond whilst Sturgeon is under a cloud. (This is probably justifiable in my view, but not for the reasons that Ms Garavelli et al would give). The vehicle for the Independence (SNP) and the wider Yes movement is damaged by association. Divide and conquer, that British skill so well honed over the centuries, has down the trick for the establishment once again.
However, I do fervently hope, and believe, that Salmond will target the British press when it comes to the inevitable law suit(s).
This process – or processes, given the convoluted nature of the attempted fit-up – will hopefully flush out the rottenness at the top and heart of the SNP/Scottish government administration.
We may yet come out of this whole debacle stronger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While I agree with the verdict on the grounds of very weak evidence, I do think that all-male comments are not helpful either. I do not know Mr Salmond well, but, as I have stated before, he was kind to me in the past in my dealings with him, and I respect him for what he has done for our cause – and I am glad that he did not go down for what was an extremely weak set of accusations.
However, I think that male prejudice is just as deplorable as the female kind, and a rarity check is called for here: 1) jury trials are, by no means, an exemplary system of justice, no matter how old they are. Just as a judge might be a white, upper middle-class Oxbridge type (and I think you would require, in solemn procedure cases, three judges to minimise the likelihood of appeals and so that their findings and reasons for acquittal/conviction are made plain to all) so juries bring all kinds of societal prejudices into the courtroom with them. Studies have all shown this to be the case; 2) studies have also shown that, contrary to myth, juries made up of predominantly women are far likelier to acquit in serious sexual offences than a predominantly male jury; 3) just because a not guilty verdict is reached (or not proven one) does not mean that the alleged victim is lying, but that the evidence has not been strong enough to clear the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ hurdle of proof. All of these things taken together, and I am speaking in general terms here, result in females not being equal under the law, I’m afraid.
As to the conspiracy theory about toppling Salmond, I believe that at least several of the women were, at first reluctant to give evidence against the former FM but were persuaded to do so by someone, after having accepted an apology from him, and that should have been that. I am also willing to believe that there may be unwholesome influences near the top of the SNP hierarchy, that there is vaulting ambition, power politics, etc. What I find extremely hard to accept is that Nicola Sturgeon has driven this agenda of persecution against Mr Salmond. It is not in her character to do so and it would have toppled her, too. She is also far too sharp to be tarred by that particular brush.
I am opposed to the GRA as it stands, and I believe that if it is passed in its present form, later on, the flaws will become apparent. Few seem to understand the depth and width and height of what accepting men, on their own say-so, without any medical intervention whatsoever, could lead to legally for women and children, for the whole of society, so I have no axe to grind for these people who are trying to push that agenda either. What I do fear is that Nicola Sturgeon will bear the full brunt of the ire of independence supporting men and that that will alienate independence supporting women in the process, because, chaps, you will not win any referendum without us, if you are intent on a referendum. Parity under the law for both male and female should be nothing less that the ideal to which our legal system aspires, but all these urban myths about vengeful women and wronged men – and I’m speaking in general terms – will do much harm to that concept. If this is a conspiracy within the SNP, it is not only that. Why would Nicola Sturgeon wish to bring herself down and why would she have any hand in Alex Salmond’s political demise? It is ludicrous when you accept that, but for the Coronavirus pandemic, the calls for her resignation would have been deafening. Yes, she has made mistakes in strategy, but the initial mistake of holding a referendum at all, was both hers and Mr Salmond’s, and Mr Salmond made the cardinal error of underestimating his opponent in Mr Darling, on the currency issue. It was at that point that the referendum was seriously damaged. Do I blame Mr Salmond or Ms Sturgeon? No. I blame those who did this to us – the NO voters; I blame Westminster and Whitehall; but, most of all, I blame the British political system and constitution and our seeming inability to appreciate that we cannot win whilst working within them.
LikeLike